Spyder and Jane.
Okay here's the thing .
I don't know of anything or anywhere in strongs or the King James where some Doctrine is protected and therefore the word of God is somehow corrupted.
Where do we start...? For me the divine name is an important factor in God’s word that through corrupted human tradition was lost to the world. By his name, the true God identified himself as a single entity who had no equals in any realm. (Exodus 20:1; Psalm 83:18)
The Jewish Shema, (Deut 6:4, often recited) identified the “one God” of the Jews, but somehow he was transformed into a completely different “god” by the time the RCC had finished modifying him to suit their adopted beliefs. Turning him into an entity with three heads was certainly NOT gleaned from Scripture....and not a god that Jesus or his apostles were even acquainted with. (1 Cor 8:5-6)
How did the Bible translators accomplish this travesty of changing the very nature of God? The question is, how long had this ‘new god’ been in existence when English translations came to be published?
How did the words of John 1:1 come to mean something they never said? The translators omitted a very small word that changed the meaning of “theos” into “God” with a capital “G”.
Read in Greek, John 1:1 does not say what the English translations, influenced by the RCC’s portrayal of God, convey.
The nameless God of the Jews was identified with the definite article “ho” meaning “THE GOD” as there was no word in Greek that described a god with no name, so calling him simply “The God” when he and his son were mentioned together identified “the God” from “a god” or “divine” one. “Theos” in Greek according to Strongs means....
“a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.....
So any divine person, god or goddess, can be called “theos” in Greek.
This word......
- refers to the things of God
- his counsels, interests, things due to him
- whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
- God's representative or viceregent
- of magistrates and judges”
So how the church bypassed all those definitions to arrive at their three headed god is a mystery unless you understand why they did it....and who was behind this false concept.
If God’s name had still been in use, John 1:1 would have read...
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh and the Word was divine.”
See how easily a misrepresentation can become a doctrine?...and a foundational one at that!
You both leave out the leading of the Holy Spirit.
I have never done that....so if you look carefully at scripture, it is the minority who stayed faithful to God while the majority were led away from him by humans influenced by the devil.
“There is nothing new under the sun”, Solomon said.....and he was right...the majority view is never the right one. (Matt 7:13-14).....satan has the majority....but God has the stoic faithful minority who were going to face the same treatment that Jesus and his apostles endured. (John 15:18-21)
Another thing I'd like to comment on is that Chuck Missler did a book or a teaching on the Bible Code. The hidden messages that are in the word of God.
There isn't a single message in misslers Bible Code, not a one that is out of harmony with God's word.
Looking for ‘the hidden codes’ in the Bible would of course be the devil’s playground. If you want to play in that sand box, that is entirely your choice. Who really cares about what men think? I care only about what God thinks, as it is portrayed in his word. I don’t need to look for what might be the product of someone’s vivid imagination. Keeping things simple is the key. The Bible’s message is refreshingly simple.
And strangely enough some of those messages have to do with Doctrine..
Now using spiders and Janes methodology, I see a lot of room for error, because the Jews do exactly what both of you are talking about.
But you cannot see room for error in your own understanding of scripture? Why not?
For example the Virgin birth that was predicted. I think they get that virgin birth from Isaiah ....of course I may be wrong I'm just talking off the top of my head.
but anyway, they say "no no it never said virgin, it says young woman, therefore the King James corrupted it FOR THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE." Well the reason they put virgin in there because that's exactly what it is ,and it does go back to Doctrine.
Deduction often works if there is enough Scripture to back up what is stated. The virgin birth is one of those instances, where Mary and Joseph were clearly not married at the time Jesus was conceived and Joseph’s response to the news initially was to “divorce her secretly” so as to protect her reputation and character, which he knew was beyond reproach.....it was God who told him in a dream that Mary’s child was the product of God’s spirit, not infidelity, so he then was confident to take her as a wife.
Back in those times of arranged marriages, a betrothal was as good as a marriage in terms of commitment. There was no official ceremony but the groom would go to the home of his bride, dressed for the occasion and take her to her new home, often just a room built onto his parents house, or if he was wealthy to a new home altogether. Friends and neighbors would line the route and wish them well in their new marriage.
Wealthy ones could afford a marriage feast....Jesus and his mother were invited to one where he performed his first miracle.
so I see that entire premise of "we can't have any Doctrine in the translation " ,I see that as really a bad thing
I see that the Bible explains itself if we do not have doctrines in the way that colour our view of what the Bible says in its entirety....it is after all, one story with one author, so we need to read the whole book and take notes about these things if we do not have a good source of accurate information.
Seriously though, God has always provided teachers for his people....Jesus did too....we just have to find them....God helps the genuine ones to do that...those humble enough to cop the flack that goes with being a true disciple. (John 6:44; 65)
