Search results

Yes, it is GREAT ERROR to assume that Revelation 20 mention of the "first resurrection" has already happened today! That idea is completely OPPOSITE of the meaning of that Scripture. And yes, I HAVE READ IT very carefully, like it is written. But by your "carefully" idea you really mean it has...

You haven't corrected anything I said... so far, because I agree Jesus is... to inherit David's throne. That has NOT happened yet, because David's throne is an EARTHLY THRONE, not a Heavenly one. The myth that Jesus has already inherited David's throne pushes MEN'S DOCTRINE that FALSELY ASSUMES...

You mean what ewq1938 said about the Revelation beast is what I believe too? Yeah, that's right. He and I agree on that, simply because that is what the Revelation Scripture is showing. Would you like to actually converse about those Revelation Scriptures, or do you want to keep showing your...

Then you're happy with door to door salesmen pushing the 'New and Improved' gadgetry. I'm not, I don't trust door to door salesmen.

That is not true at all. NIV completely leaves out Matthew 17:21 NIV completely omits Matthew 18:11 NIV completely omits Matthew 23:14 There's at least 13 more places in the NIV and NLT New Testament versions that completely omit verses that do exist in the 1611 KJV. In other places in the...

Might want to do some research. Wescott and Hort's revised Greek New Testament was based on the Codex Alexandrinus, and used for the Revised Version of 1881, and the American Standard Version of 1901. About the Mark 16:9-20 verses which the 1611 KJV has in it, in the 1978 NIV there is a...

Nah, that's just a call for more laziness, since one can look up any of the terms in the KJV in a simple Lexicon like a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. There's even a dictionary written for the Old English words used in the KJV. Lazy scholarship on the level of the Bible student is not enough...

Hort actually favored Catholic doctrine, but minus some of the most basic Biblical doctrines, like Substitution (i.e., that Christ's death on the cross served as a substitution for sins). In reality, both Wescott and Hort, per their letters to each other, revealed not only were they against the...

What Hort and Wescott proposed with their theory against the Greek Textus Receptus, and instead trying to supplant it with the corrupt Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus Greek texts has everything... to do with modern textual criticism. Wescott and Hort followed...

It's easy to know that Wescott and Hort's theories were false and had no historical foundation. Hort 'theorized' that between 250 - 350 A.D, the original Bible texts were deliberately altered by Church leaders at Antioch in Syria. Hort claimed this was followed by a second revision later on...

Learning by rote is not understanding in The Scriptures, so really can't use that argument either. Apostle Paul who was trained by the best Hebrew scholar of his day, Gamaliel, shows this difference between learning by rote vs. understanding in God's Word. Now any child can understood the parts...

I suggest that anyone who wants to learn how the charlatan scholars Wescott and Hort in the 1880's pushed corrupt manuscripts for a new Greek New Testament translation which modern corrupt Bible versions were based on, like the NIV, that they watch the documentary called Bridge To Babylon...

You want to say The Old Testament and prophets is all... that Timothy was instructed in. Not true, since Apostle Paul was ALREADY a scholar in The Old Testament, but his understanding was corrected directly... by Christ Jesus Himself! And you want to try and claim Paul didn't show Timothy about...

Bogus argument. The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus are NOT the "best manuscripts", but are CORRUPT manuscripts which charlatans against the Protestant Faith like British 19th century scholars Wescott and Hort pushed, and were used for most modern Bible translations. The 1611 KJV is...

What you quoted from Paul about the 'child' point can be misunderstood by new babes here. Some would actually believe that Timothy was born with The Holy Spirit, instead of being given by Paul's laying on of hands.

They already tried it with the New King James Version (NKJV), and they 'secretly' also used different readings from other Greek texts instead of primarily the Textus Receptus, though its scholars and even Nelson publisher's claim... the Textus Receptus was used for the New Testament. This is why...

And... also what Paul showed him, which had to have included the witnesses by Christ's Apostles also, Paul included of course. So we cannot say that Timothy was only instructed in The Old Testament Scriptures.

Be realistic, what Paul said there to Timothy doesn't literally mean Timothy knew The Word of God as a baby. In 2 Timothy 1:5, Paul suggests that Timothy got his Faith from his mother and grandmother's Faith. So he had to have been 'taught' by his mother and grandmother. 2 Tim 1:5 5 When I call...

The Revelation 20:4 verse GOES WITH THE PREVIOUS VERSES. You cannot just skip and pull out a single verse and apply whatever meaning to you want. You MUST keep to the actual Scripture flow and context. And we KNOW the devil is NOT YET locked in his pit prison for that thousand years, but is...

Paul was speaking in the 'future-perfect' sense, with Ephesians 2:4-6. Those in Christ will not be made perfect 'literally' UNTIL Christ's coming to gather His Church. Paul points this out elsewhere... Rom 8:18-25 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be...