The Ones Who Are Left…

[Truth7t7]

And now you are telling LIES against me, for I have never, ever, denied the resurrection!

You simply don't like your FALSE DEAD IN THE GROUND THEORY FROM THE JEWS being messed with! That's why you are now angry at me!

I've already shown from Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:42-50 that Christ's resurrection was to "a quickening spirit", which goes with what Paul taught there about the resurrection being to a "spiritual body".

But you'd rather keep your stupid, ignorant false belief from the orthodox Jews that the "asleep" saints of 1 Thessalonians 4 are still out in the back yard in the ground! Such a silly and primitive doctrine that is NOT written in God's Word.

Luke 23:42-43
42 And he said unto Jesus, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom."
43 And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with Me in paradise."
KJV

No lies whatsoever, as previously stated you deny the future "Bodily" resurrection of the believer

Yes the Christian that died 100 years ago and was buried in the church graveyard is still there

Yes this body will actually be raised at the second coming and be glorified, just as Jesus Christ was raised and glorified

You call this some heresy from the Jewish Orthodox "Wrong"

This is basic foundational Christianity that you deny "The Bodily Resurrection"

 

[Davy]

No lies whatsoever, as previously stated you deny the future "Bodily" resurrection of the believer

AND YOU ARE A LIAR, FOR I HAVE NEVER... DENIED THE RESURRECTION PER GOD'S WRITTEN WORD.

What I deny is YOUR JEWISH FALSE DOCTRINE of a resurrection in the flesh!

Apostle Paul rejected your false JEWISH fleshy, carnal resurrection doctrine too!

1 Cor 15:49-50
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
KJV

 

[Truth7t7]

AND YOU ARE A LIAR, FOR I HAVE NEVER... DENIED THE RESURRECTION PER GOD'S WRITTEN WORD.

What I deny is YOUR JEWISH FALSE DOCTRINE of a resurrection in the flesh!

Apostle Paul rejected your false JEWISH fleshy, carnal resurrection doctrine too!

1 Cor 15:49-50
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
KJV

Yes the Christian that died 100 years ago and was buried in the church graveyard, the body is still there

Yes this body in the graveyard will actually be raised and glorified at the second coming, just as Jesus Christ was raised and glorified in a body that maintained his scars from the cross of Calvary

Luke 24:36-43KJV
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

 

[Truth7t7]

AND YOU ARE A LIAR, FOR I HAVE NEVER... DENIED THE RESURRECTION PER GOD'S WRITTEN WORD.

What I deny is YOUR JEWISH FALSE DOCTRINE of a resurrection in the flesh!

Apostle Paul rejected your false JEWISH fleshy, carnal resurrection doctrine too!

1 Cor 15:49-50
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
KJV

Just As Jesus Christ Was Raised In A Immortal Tangible Body Of Flesh And Bone, The Saved Believers In The Grave Will Experience This Same Glorified Body

Acts 24:14-15KJV
14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

1 Corinthians 15:12-18KJV
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Now…one concedes that a proper theology of God is important. The idea of the Trinity being one Godhead, and therefore allowing Paul to also call Christ “Lord”…applying Joel to him, does not negate the notion that they are separate persons within the Godhead.

The word “godhead” does not actually exist in scripture...it is a made-up English word suggesting the existence of a trinity....squeezing three ‘gods’ into one ‘head’......not really polytheism then, is it?

At Acts 17:29, Paul, (in Athens speaking to the Greek philosophers) showed that it is illogical for humans to imagine that “the Divine Being [to theiʹon, form of theiʹos] is like gold or silver or stone.” Many translators use the term “Godhead,” but others translate it as “the divinity” or “the deity” or “the divine nature” which does not suggest that God is a trinity at all.

So the phrase “to theiʹon” can be understood to refer to a person or to a quality. Obviously, then, the context must guide the translator in his choice of words. So the context of Acts 17:29 clearly shows that the person of God is being described, and so the expression can appropriately be rendered as the “Divine Being”.

But…when we read scripture carefully and thoroughly, while Jesus does indeed point us to the Father, and what he does is to glorify the Father, he in no way rejects or forbids worship of himself as God.

The word “worship” is also a word that is misinterpreted in English translations.
Most Hebrew and Greek words that can denote worship can also be applied to acts other than worship.....the context determines in what way the respective words are to be understood.

The Greek word pro·sky·neʹo corresponds closely to the Hebrew term hish·ta·chawahʹ in expressing the thought of obeisance and, at times, worship. The term pro·sky·neʹo is used in connection with a slave’s doing obeisance to a king (Matthew 18:26) as well as the act Satan stipulated when he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. (Matthew 4:8-9) Had he done obeisance to the Devil, Jesus would thereby have signified submission to Satan and made himself the Devil’s servant. But Jesus refused, saying that we must worship God alone. He quoted Deuteronomy 10:20 or Deuteronomy 6:13, where it clearly identified Yahweh as the recipient of our worship.

Since “ pro·sky·neʹo ” also means “obeisance” we can see instances where “worship” is translated incorrectly, such as in the magi rendering “worship” to the child Jesus. They were doing obeisance as to a king, not worship as to a god.

In Hebrews 1:6 where it uses ”pro·sky·neʹo” to describe what angels did to Jesus....this is not “worship” because it would mean that angels were rendering worship to a man. Jesus was 100% human...a mortal, like Adam. Obeisance is appropriate when rendered to Jesus but he himself said it was to be given to Yahweh alone. Jesus is not Yahweh.

 

[Aunty Jane]

This is because as the second member of the Trinity, he too is God, and thus for us not to worship him would be blasphemy. No…a correct theology of God, and the members of the Trinity, show us that we glorify God by worshiping his Son through the power of the Spirit.

The Greek scriptures use the word “theos” for any “god”....even satan is called “theos” in the Bible. It refers to “a divine mighty one”....any divine being was considered a god.
In Greek it is used of all their gods.....all of whom had names to identify them. But the God of the Hebrews had no name, (the Jews had long since removed it from their speech) so to distinguish him, they used the definite article “ho” (meaning THE) So when Yahweh was spoken about, they simply called him “THE God” as opposed to “a god”. Jesus is never referred to as “ho theos” even though he is call “theos”....he can be ‘a divine mighty one’ without being “THE God”.

So…all in all, by worshiping Christ as the Son, we ARE glorifying the Father, who we acknowledge and thank for sending the Son. We cannot be having ‘another God’ above ‘the Father’, because they are One. One God. But, as I said, proper theology would separate the persons.

No doubt that the Son glorifies the Father, but they are not and never will be equals in a “Godhead”.
Philippians 2:5-11...
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (ESV)

Reading this scripture carefully, some things stand out....
Jesus was in God’s “form”......meaning what? What form does God have? According to John 4:24, “God is a spirit”...so Jesus too was a “spirit” in heaven before being “sent” to the earth to be born as a human.

He became “obedient to the point of death”....obedient to whom? Is one part of God obedient to his equal self? Can God die at the hands of mere humans? Can one part of God have a different will to his other parts? (Matthew 26:39) Can one part of God know things that the other parts don’t? (Matthew 23:36)

On his return to heaven, God “highly exalted” his other self and gave him a name “that is above every name”.....how is that possible when Yahweh is “the Most High” (Psalm 83:18)...meaning that there can be no one higher....so how does one part of God “exalt” an equal part of himself and then give him “a name higher” than what he already had?
In the name of Jesus we “bow”...that is obeisance, not worship. Because everything Jesus did was to glorify his Father and not himself.

So…are you suggesting the doctrine of the Trinity is in error?

The Bible is what is suggesting that the trinity is an error....a grand one in the scheme of things.

 

[Aunty Jane]

So, we see that both God the Father and Christ himself are “in us” by the Spirit dwelling in us.

“God is a spirit”, but he is not “the Holy Spirit”. Yahweh is the Father, Jesus is the son, but the Holy Spirit has no name. Why?
When Father and Son are mentioned together, the Holy Spirit is invariably missing...why?
John 17:1-5...
“When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” (ESV)
Again, what do we see in Jesus’ words? Who gave Jesus his authority? Does God need to give himself authority to give eternal life to Jesus’ disciples? What is required for eternal life?....’Knowing the Father (whom Jesus describes as “the only true God” without including himself) and knowing the Son....but why do we not need to know the Holy Spirit?

Jesus was a glorious spirit being in heaven before coming to the earth, but he was not God. His glory was from God, and he was looking forward to returning to his former position as “the Logos” or God’s spokesman, as he had been since his creation. He has played a role in human affairs from the beginning. He our appointed mediator.....
1 Timothy 2:5...
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.”
If Jesus is the go-between for us with God.....then if Jesus is God, why do we not need a mediator between us and him?
There is no logic attached to this convoluted concept.

The apostles knew who God was...
1 Corinthians 8:5-6...
“For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”
The title “Lord” does not mean “God”.

Basically, in this short chapter, we see that each member of the Trinity has separate roles. We see them given personhood. And we see them linked in divinity. We know that there is but one God, but scripture does seem to, overwhelmingly, when you’re aware of it, point towards 3 persons.

All three are mentioned in the scriptures as each has an important role to play in the outworking of God’s purpose for mankind......but not as a triune Godhead.

This doctrine is a product of the “weeds” because it was never taught by Jesus...not a single mention of it by God or his Christ in all of scripture. Nor did it exist as official “church” doctrine until over 300 years after Jesus died. It is inferred by reading it into passages that do not say anything of the sort. The Greek scriptures do not contain any mention of a trinity by direct reference.
We definitely have mention of “God the Father”....But there is no “God the Son”...or “God the Holy Spirit”. These are invented terms to promote a blasphemous doctrine that needs to be recognised for what it is.
Again....why are professed “Christians” rejected by Jesus at the judgment, as law breakers? (Matthew 7:21-23)
Why are “few” on the road to life? (Matthew 7:13-15) I believe that the trinity is a primary reason.
Blasphemy is a capital offence.

 

[Truth7t7]

The word “godhead” does not actually exist in scripture...it is a made-up English word suggesting the existence of a trinity....squeezing three ‘gods’ into one ‘head’......not really polytheism then, is it?

At Acts 17:29, Paul, (in Athens speaking to the Greek philosophers) showed that it is illogical for humans to imagine that “the Divine Being [to theiʹon, form of theiʹos] is like gold or silver or stone.” Many translators use the term “Godhead,” but others translate it as “the divinity” or “the deity” or “the divine nature” which does not suggest that God is a trinity at all.

.

The 1611 King James Committee, 60 Dedicated Christian Scholars, Qualifications Unfound Today

Acts 17:29KJV
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

• PATRON
  • King James I
• TRANSLATION OVERSEER
  • Richard Bancroft
• COMMITTEE OF TWO
• COMMITTEE OF REVISERS
• FIRST WESTMINSTER COMPANY
• FIRST CAMBRIDGE COMPANY
• FIRST OXFORD COMPANY
• SECOND CAMBRIDGE COMPANY
• SECOND OXFORD COMPANY
• SECOND WESTMINSTER COMPANY
• TRANSLATOR
  • Thomas Sparke
• PRINTER
  • Robert Barker
• CONTRIBUTORS
  • (Illustrators, Geneologies, Maps, Etc.)
  • John Speed (Genealogies, Map)
  • Cornelis Boel (Artist/Engraver)
  • John More (Map)
  • Renold Elstrack (Engraver)
  • Hugh Broughton (Genealogies)

INTRODUCTION
At least sixty men were directly involved in the translation of the King James Bible (hereinafter KJB). Most were Translators, while a few were project overseers, revisers and editors. Some served in several roles. Who were these men? What were their backgrounds? What did they share? In what ways were they different? They were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, school teachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats. All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius.

All of the Translators were university graduates. Oxford and Cambridge claimed nearly equal numbers of Translators as alumni. All of the Translators except one were ordained Church of England priests. While several of the Translators had traveled to the Continent, only one had ventured to the New World. Most of the Translators were married men (38 of 60) with families. Most of the Translators spent a significant portion of their career associated with their colleges and universities as fellows, involved in teaching and administration. As fellows, they were not allowed to marry. As a result many delayed marriage until they had established themselves in church office away from the university. When the translation commenced in 1604-1605, the majority of the Translators, 22, were in their forties, 16 men were in their thirties, 15 in their fifties, 3 in their sixties and 3 in their twenties.

One Translator died in his thirties, six in their forties, nineteen in their fifties, sixteen in their sixties, four in their seventies, three in their eighties and one, over one hundred. Nine of the Translators died before the KJB was published in the 1611.

Most of the Translators were in comfortable economic circumstances during and after their time involved in the translation. The association and friendships they developed during the translation project generally advanced their careers. Some of the Translators went on to high church and academic office. Five went on to serve as bishops and two as archbishops.

They all had a familiarity with the ancient languages of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and often many more. They came on the historical scene at a time when the knowledge of early biblical texts and language was exploding. Such a flowering of interest and expertise was unique. Bible historian, Gordon Campbell, has observed:

The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the KJB Translators. (Bible – The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 Oxford, Gordon Campbell, Oxford University Press 2010.)

For such a diverse group, they worked together in harmony during a generally contentious time. They had disagreements, to be sure, but they labored on, year after year. There were no "tell all books" published after the fact. Miles Smith remarked in his preface to the KJB, the Translators "were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and sought truth rather than their own praise". They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith "craved the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer" as they proceeded in their work.

Though almost all were well known within the religious and academic community of the time, their involvement in the translation went largely unnoticed by the public. Their individual and group effort was not the subject of historical inquiry until many years after the fact. As a result, little information about the process of translation survived. The lives of the Translators and sometimes their very identity became obscured with time. In certain instances, the place of their birth and burial is unknown, and their family circumstance in doubt. Until this anniversary year, few could name even one Translator, let alone sixty. The following brief biographies are written in the hope to shed further light on these men who contributed so much.

 

[Naomi25]

The word “godhead” does not actually exist in scripture...it is a made-up English word suggesting the existence of a trinity....squeezing three ‘gods’ into one ‘head’......not really polytheism then, is it?

At Acts 17:29, Paul, (in Athens speaking to the Greek philosophers) showed that it is illogical for humans to imagine that “the Divine Being [to theiʹon, form of theiʹos] is like gold or silver or stone.” Many translators use the term “Godhead,” but others translate it as “the divinity” or “the deity” or “the divine nature” which does not suggest that God is a trinity at all.

So the phrase “to theiʹon” can be understood to refer to a person or to a quality. Obviously, then, the context must guide the translator in his choice of words. So the context of Acts 17:29 clearly shows that the person of God is being described, and so the expression can appropriately be rendered as the “Divine Being”.


The word “worship” is also a word that is misinterpreted in English translations.
Most Hebrew and Greek words that can denote worship can also be applied to acts other than worship.....the context determines in what way the respective words are to be understood.

The Greek word pro·sky·neʹo corresponds closely to the Hebrew term hish·ta·chawahʹ in expressing the thought of obeisance and, at times, worship. The term pro·sky·neʹo is used in connection with a slave’s doing obeisance to a king (Matthew 18:26) as well as the act Satan stipulated when he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. (Matthew 4:8-9) Had he done obeisance to the Devil, Jesus would thereby have signified submission to Satan and made himself the Devil’s servant. But Jesus refused, saying that we must worship God alone. He quoted Deuteronomy 10:20 or Deuteronomy 6:13, where it clearly identified Yahweh as the recipient of our worship.

Since “ pro·sky·neʹo ” also means “obeisance” we can see instances where “worship” is translated incorrectly, such as in the magi rendering “worship” to the child Jesus. They were doing obeisance as to a king, not worship as to a god.

In Hebrews 1:6 where it uses ”pro·sky·neʹo” to describe what angels did to Jesus....this is not “worship” because it would mean that angels were rendering worship to a man. Jesus was 100% human...a mortal, like Adam. Obeisance is appropriate when rendered to Jesus but he himself said it was to be given to Yahweh alone. Jesus is not Yahweh.

With all due respect, I completely disagree. This is possibly one of the most complex issues and arguments one can get into, and at present, I have neither the time, nor is this the thread, for it. Along with; I suspect that neither the arguments I could possibly present, nor you, would persuade the other…we see what we see in scripture, do we not?
I rather firmly see evidence for the triune nature of God, for the divinity of Christ and his worthiness to be worshipped as such, and our glorifying God in doing just that. You, apparently, rather firmly do not.
I suppose we must each go forward as we see best and trust God’s revelation to us is correct, and if our understanding is mistaken, that he will enlighten us to that as well.

 

[Naomi25]

The Greek scriptures use the word “theos” for any “god”....even satan is called “theos” in the Bible. It refers to “a divine mighty one”....any divine being was considered a god.
In Greek it is used of all their gods.....all of whom had names to identify them. But the God of the Hebrews had no name, (the Jews had long since removed it from their speech) so to distinguish him, they used the definite article “ho” (meaning THE) So when Yahweh was spoken about, they simply called him “THE God” as opposed to “a god”. Jesus is never referred to as “ho theos” even though he is call “theos”....he can be ‘a divine mighty one’ without being “THE God”.

No doubt that the Son glorifies the Father, but they are not and never will be equals in a “Godhead”.
Philippians 2:5-11...
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (ESV)

Reading this scripture carefully, some things stand out....
Jesus was in God’s “form”......meaning what? What form does God have? According to John 4:24, “God is a spirit”...so Jesus too was a “spirit” in heaven before being “sent” to the earth to be born as a human.

He became “obedient to the point of death”....obedient to whom? Is one part of God obedient to his equal self? Can God die at the hands of mere humans? Can one part of God have a different will to his other parts? (Matthew 26:39) Can one part of God know things that the other parts don’t? (Matthew 23:36)

On his return to heaven, God “highly exalted” his other self and gave him a name “that is above every name”.....how is that possible when Yahweh is “the Most High” (Psalm 83:18)...meaning that there can be no one higher....so how does one part of God “exalt” an equal part of himself and then give him “a name higher” than what he already had?
In the name of Jesus we “bow”...that is obeisance, not worship. Because everything Jesus did was to glorify his Father and not himself.


The Bible is what is suggesting that the trinity is an error....a grand one in the scheme of things.

Look…I’m sure you mean well. And this is a very important subject. But I simply don’t have the time to address it as it needs…and it needs, because quite frankly, I find your views heretical. Sorry. I truly feel I would need to spend all day on this post alone, and I cannot even spare ten minutes. So, with respect, perhaps if you need to have a Trinity debate, you might best find it in the ‘debate’ forum? I know many people love to get into it, and will probably do it the service I sadly cannot.

 

[Aunty Jane]

With all due respect, I completely disagree.

With all due respect, I understand...to each his/her own....

 

[Aunty Jane]

All of the Translators were university graduates. Oxford and Cambridge claimed nearly equal numbers of Translators as alumni. All of the Translators except one were ordained Church of England priests.

And IMO there you have the problem....were any of the translators without trinitarian bias to begin with?
As I said, the word "Godhead" does not exist in English....it is an invented word. Scholars today have a greater understanding of the original Bible languages so I am more inclined to go with the more recent scholarship.

TBH, the KJV is my least favorite translation because of the errors it contains....especially in the area of trinitarian bias.
Its archaic English is very confusing and its phraseology is nothing like modern English. Nobody I know speaks like that, so why should the Bible? After all, scripture was not written in English...it was only translated from the original languages. What is the purpose of translation? Isn't it important to understand what it says correctly...? (1 Corinthians 14:8)

I like to use a range of different translations along with Strongs Concordance when checking a translation for accuracy.

 

[Truth7t7]

Scholars today have a greater understanding of the original Bible languages so I am more inclined to go with the more recent scholarship.

TBH, the KJV is my least favorite translation because of the errors it contains....especially in the area of trinitarian bias.
Its archaic English is very confusing and its phraseology is nothing like modern English. Nobody I know speaks like that, so why should the Bible? After all, scripture was not written in English...it was only translated from the original languages. What is the purpose of translation? Isn't it important to understand what it says correctly...? (1 Corinthians 14:8)

I like to use a range of different translations along with Strongs Concordance when checking a translation for accuracy.

Its Apparent You Didnt Read The Qualifications Of The 1611 King James Committee Below

Modern Scholars Couldn't Hold A Candle To The 1611 King James Committee, They Are Beyond Comparison

• • King James I
• TRANSLATION OVERSEER
  • Richard Bancroft
• COMMITTEE OF TWO
• COMMITTEE OF REVISERS
• FIRST WESTMINSTER COMPANY
• FIRST CAMBRIDGE COMPANY
• FIRST OXFORD COMPANY
• SECOND CAMBRIDGE COMPANY
• SECOND OXFORD COMPANY
• SECOND WESTMINSTER COMPANY
• TRANSLATOR
  • Thomas Sparke
• PRINTER
  • Robert Barker
• CONTRIBUTORS
  • (Illustrators, Geneologies, Maps, Etc.)
  • John Speed (Genealogies, Map)
  • Cornelis Boel (Artist/Engraver)
  • John More (Map)
  • Renold Elstrack (Engraver)
  • Hugh Broughton (Genealogies)

INTRODUCTION
At least sixty men were directly involved in the translation of the King James Bible (hereinafter KJB). Most were Translators, while a few were project overseers, revisers and editors. Some served in several roles. Who were these men? What were their backgrounds? What did they share? In what ways were they different? They were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, school teachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats. All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius.

All of the Translators were university graduates. Oxford and Cambridge claimed nearly equal numbers of Translators as alumni. All of the Translators except one were ordained Church of England priests. While several of the Translators had traveled to the Continent, only one had ventured to the New World. Most of the Translators were married men (38 of 60) with families. Most of the Translators spent a significant portion of their career associated with their colleges and universities as fellows, involved in teaching and administration. As fellows, they were not allowed to marry. As a result many delayed marriage until they had established themselves in church office away from the university. When the translation commenced in 1604-1605, the majority of the Translators, 22, were in their forties, 16 men were in their thirties, 15 in their fifties, 3 in their sixties and 3 in their twenties.

One Translator died in his thirties, six in their forties, nineteen in their fifties, sixteen in their sixties, four in their seventies, three in their eighties and one, over one hundred. Nine of the Translators died before the KJB was published in the 1611.

Most of the Translators were in comfortable economic circumstances during and after their time involved in the translation. The association and friendships they developed during the translation project generally advanced their careers. Some of the Translators went on to high church and academic office. Five went on to serve as bishops and two as archbishops.

They all had a familiarity with the ancient languages of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and often many more. They came on the historical scene at a time when the knowledge of early biblical texts and language was exploding. Such a flowering of interest and expertise was unique. Bible historian, Gordon Campbell, has observed:

The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the KJB Translators. (Bible – The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 Oxford, Gordon Campbell, Oxford University Press 2010.)

For such a diverse group, they worked together in harmony during a generally contentious time. They had disagreements, to be sure, but they labored on, year after year. There were no "tell all books" published after the fact. Miles Smith remarked in his preface to the KJB, the Translators "were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and sought truth rather than their own praise". They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith "craved the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer" as they proceeded in their work.

Though almost all were well known within the religious and academic community of the time, their involvement in the translation went largely unnoticed by the public. Their individual and group effort was not the subject of historical inquiry until many years after the fact. As a result, little information about the process of translation survived. The lives of the Translators and sometimes their very identity became obscured with time. In certain instances, the place of their birth and burial is unknown, and their family circumstance in doubt. Until this anniversary year, few could name even one Translator, let alone sixty. The following brief biographies are written in the hope to shed further light on these men who contributed so much.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Its Apparent You Didnt Read The Qualifications Of The 1611 King James Committee Below

Modern Scholars Couldn't Hold A Candle To The 1611 King James Committee, They Are Beyond Comparison

I don't believe that is true.....sorry, but modern scholarship in language studies has improved since the 1600's.....so that does not sway my opinion at all. There are too many errors in the KJV.....but if you love it warts and all...that is your choice.

The book, "The Cambridge History of the Bible" made an interesting comment about the KJV.....“Its text acquired a sanctity properly ascribable only to the unmediated voice of God; to multitudes of English-speaking Christians it has seemed little less than blasphemy to tamper with the words of the King James Version.”
I seriously cannot for the life of me understand why this out-dated and hard to understand version of the Bible is held as if God himself wrote the translation.

Give me a modern translation any day.

 

[Truth7t7]

I don't believe that is true.....sorry, but modern scholarship in language studies has improved since the 1600's.....so that does not sway my opinion at all. There are too many errors in the KJV.....but if you love it warts and all...that is your choice.

The book, "The Cambridge History of the Bible" made an interesting comment about the KJV.....“Its text acquired a sanctity properly ascribable only to the unmediated voice of God; to multitudes of English-speaking Christians it has seemed little less than blasphemy to tamper with the words of the King James Version.”
I seriously cannot for the life of me understand why this out-dated and hard to understand version of the Bible is held as if God himself wrote the translation.

Give me a modern translation any day.

New modern versions, NIV, ESV, NASB, ASV, RSV, Etc are supported by the created Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece)

Yes Adulterer (Kurt Aland) left his wife Ingeborg and Children in divorce, and ran off with his college student (Barbara Nee Ehlers) whom he married being above 22 years her age, and both Kurt and Barbara are your foundations in the (Novum Testamentum Graece) being its creators, with Kurt being the head translator and Barbara on the committee

Dont forget homosexual union supporter and roman catholic Jesuit cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini) also a translator on Kurt's committee of five behind closed doors

Hard to believe you tout modern scholarship, in Adulterers and Homosexual Union supporters, ignorance on parade

1611 King James Committee, Christian Men, Scholars Beyond Comparison

In Love, Jesus Is The Lord

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Philippians 2:5-11...
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (ESV)

not to get in to a debate over the trinity because honestly I’m not even sure what my view is on it. But considering the above “though being in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped..” but instead emptied himself. Oddly he did not consider it “a thing to be grasped” “grasped” there Strong's Greek: 725. ἁρπαγμός (harpagmos) -- the act of seizing or the thing seized
Equality with God not Seized, nor taken by force BUT instead he humbled himself, emptied himself, obedient unto death, becoming a servant. ‘Lowering himself’ “making himself of no reputation’ as in the verse where as the children took part of flesh and blood…He also took part of the same.

once again, to many verses will be quoted but I’m only trying to share where another perspective may come from (right or wrong). The KJV says He thought it not as robbery to be equal with God. How do we know that isn’t saying “he endure the cross for the joy set before him” considering it not robbery but willingly? How do we know that it doesn’t mean, he didn’t consider it robbery to come to “not my will but your Will be done Father”? Considering it not robbery in willingly not my will but your Will be done”. Equal ..what is to be equal with …OR to be equally “yoked” together? Is “yoked together” equality? Equal? In the disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master” Matthew 10:24-25 is “shall be as his master”, equal to? In if God is long- suffering, patient, peace, joy, endurance, faith” is it counted as robbery to be equally yoked with Him, is it to be counted as robbery In crucified in the flesh, Alive unto God “take my yoke upon you, learn of Me for I am lowly and of a humble spirit” that “They might be called the children of God”?

We can argue or debate all day about ‘equality with God’ but what if it means ‘as He is in the world, so are we’ and that it isn’t robbery …as Paul said he had suffered the loss of all things and counted it as dung (not robbery) to win Christ, As not being robbery to be found in Him having not our own righteousness but the the Righteousness which comes from God …to me that sounds like Paul is suggesting it not robbery for the disciple to be as His Master. As for His name ‘take joyfully (happily rejoice) (not counting it as robbery); for as He is, so are His children) taking joyfully the spoiling of your goods” knowing you have a better more enduring substance within. Again we can suggest it as a dirty thing or robbery or stealing something, a thing to be grasped in ‘equality with God’ …but is not ‘to be made partakers with Him’ ‘to partake of His Holiness’ or to be ‘yoked with Him’ as “as He suffered for you, arm yourself with the same mind’ as in Hebrews 2:10-11 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. [11] For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
^which is your reasonable service
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

again how do we know for certain His not considering it robbery to be equal with God ..simply means that the loss was worth the gain in Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Because Ezekiel 33:17 says the children of the people say, The way of the Lord is not equal (like the lame whose legs are not equal) but as for them, their way is not equal.
So do we claim within God there is not equality? When He seems to say our way is not equal?


or Isaiah 46:3-10 “to whom Will you liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?” John 14:8-9 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. [9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Isaiah goes on to speak of to create a god who “when one cry unto him, yet can he not answer, nor save him out of trouble.’ … “for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me” who as the children took part of flesh and blood, He also took part of the same THAT they may take part of His Likeness, not as robbery …for Isaiah 40:25-26, and also Isaiah 40:29-31.

Is it robbery to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, rather than to divide the spoil with the proud. (He didn’t consider) equality with God as a thing to be grasped, seized, or taken by force? But instead emptied himself… Proverbs 16:19 Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

lastly, why I question our definition of equality or ‘equal to’ in regards to a disciple is not above his master but will be as his master…is what is the equality or equal to (not considering it as robbery) bearing the burden of the heat of the day? Matthew 20:12-15 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. (Robbery?) [13] But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? [14] Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. [15] Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

 

[Aunty Jane]

not to get in to a debate over the trinity because honestly I’m not even sure what my view is on it. But considering the above “though being in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped..” but instead emptied himself. Oddly he did not consider it “a thing to be grasped” “grasped” there Strong's Greek: 725. ἁρπαγμός (harpagmos) -- the act of seizing or the thing seized
Equality with God not Seized, nor taken by force BUT instead he humbled himself, emptied himself, obedient unto death, becoming a servant. ‘Lowering himself’ “making himself of no reputation’ as in the verse where as the children took part of flesh and blood…He also took part of the same.

once again, to many verses will be quoted but I’m only trying to share where another perspective may come from (right or wrong). The KJV says He thought it not as robbery to be equal with God. How do we know that isn’t saying “he endure the cross for the joy set before him” considering it not robbery but willingly? How do we know that it doesn’t mean, he didn’t consider it robbery to come to “not my will but your Will be done Father”? Considering it not robbery in willingly not my will but your Will be done”. Equal ..what is to be equal with …OR to be equally “yoked” together? Is “yoked together” equality? Equal? In the disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master” Matthew 10:24-25 is “shall be as his master”, equal to? In if God is long- suffering, patient, peace, joy, endurance, faith” is it counted as robbery to be equally yoked with Him, is it to be counted as robbery In crucified in the flesh, Alive unto God “take my yoke upon you, learn of Me for I am lowly and of a humble spirit” that “They might be called the children of God”?

We can argue or debate all day about ‘equality with God’ but what if it means ‘as He is in the world, so are we’ and that it isn’t robbery …as Paul said he had suffered the loss of all things and counted it as dung (not robbery) to win Christ, As not being robbery to be found in Him having not our own righteousness but the the Righteousness which comes from God …to me that sounds like Paul is suggesting it not robbery for the disciple to be as His Master. As for His name ‘take joyfully (happily rejoice) (not counting it as robbery); for as He is, so are His children) taking joyfully the spoiling of your goods” knowing you have a better more enduring substance within. Again we can suggest it as a dirty thing or robbery or stealing something, a thing to be grasped in ‘equality with God’ …but is not ‘to be made partakers with Him’ ‘to partake of His Holiness’ or to be ‘yoked with Him’ as “as He suffered for you, arm yourself with the same mind’ as in Hebrews 2:10-11 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. [11] For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
^which is your reasonable service
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

again how do we know for certain His not considering it robbery to be equal with God ..simply means that the loss was worth the gain in Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Because Ezekiel 33:17 says the children of the people say, The way of the Lord is not equal (like the lame whose legs are not equal) but as for them, their way is not equal.
So do we claim within God there is not equality? When He seems to say our way is not equal?


or Isaiah 46:3-10 “to whom Will you liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?” John 14:8-9 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. [9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Isaiah goes on to speak of to create a god who “when one cry unto him, yet can he not answer, nor save him out of trouble.’ … “for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me” who as the children took part of flesh and blood, He also took part of the same THAT they may take part of His Likeness, not as robbery …for Isaiah 40:25-26, and also Isaiah 40:29-31.

Is it robbery to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, rather than to divide the spoil with the proud. (He didn’t consider) equality with God as a thing to be grasped, seized, or taken by force? But instead emptied himself… Proverbs 16:19 Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

lastly, why I question our definition of equality or ‘equal to’ in regards to a disciple is not above his master but will be as his master…is what is the equality or equal to (not considering it as robbery) bearing the burden of the heat of the day? Matthew 20:12-15 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. (Robbery?) [13] But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? [14] Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. [15] Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

That is for you to determine for yourself. “Robbery” is stealing. Jesus in the flesh had by means of God’s Holy Spirit, the powers of a god and could have been seen as one, like the Apostles in Lystra. (Acts 14:8-13)

I believe I gave a comprehensive explanation in posts #245-247 for consideration, so it’s up to all to decide for themselves just who “God the Father” is, and who the “Lord Jesus Christ” is. (John 17:3)

If we get it wrong and blasphemy is seen to be supported, then clearly we have no excuse to offer to Jesus when he comes to judge mankind (Matthew 7:21-23)....he is going to separate the “wheat from the weeds”....”the sheep from the goats”....all are on either the “road to life” or “the road to destruction”. Do you notice that there are only ever two categories?......so we are all judged to be in only one or the other....it isn’t multiple choice. We show Jesus by what we accept as truth, where we stand on this very basic foundation of our faith.

May we all choose wisely and prayerfully.

 

[Aunty Jane]

New modern versions, NIV, ESV, NASB, ASV, RSV, Etc are supported by the created Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece)

Yes Adulterer (Kurt Aland) left his wife Ingeborg and Children in divorce, and ran off with his college student (Barbara Nee Ehlers) whom he married being above 22 years her age, and both Kurt and Barbara are your foundations in the (Novum Testamentum Graece) being its creators, with Kurt being the head translator and Barbara on the committee

Dont forget homosexual union supporter and roman catholic Jesuit cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini) also a translator on Kurt's committee of five behind closed doors

Hard to believe you tout modern scholarship, in Adulterers and Homosexual Union supporters, ignorance on parade

1611 King James Committee, Christian Men, Scholars Beyond Comparison

In Love, Jesus Is The Lord

That made me smile .....the Bible canon itself basically came out of the most reprehensible part of the harlot that God described in Revelation 17 & 18.....the one he will soon destroy...so he can use whomever he wishes to accomplish his purpose and to disseminate his word.

It is good to compare translations and use a concordance....you can see clearly where translations use bias. Compare John 1:1 with John 1:18 in the KJV, and look carefully at the wording in Greek. Very clear bias is demonstrated.

The KJV makes me cringe every time I see someone quote it.....who speaks like that? Do you? Would God if he came down and spoke to mankind now, use language that is outdated and misleading? Or would he speak in the common language of the ones he was communicating with?

Do you remember that the disciples gifted by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost were preaching in the languages of the Jews visiting from other land for the festival? (Acts 2:5-13) Why did God do that?

The whole purpose of translation is to present a clear understanding of God’s word.....the KJV fails on every level in this day and age IMO.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

not to get in to a debate over the trinity because honestly I’m not even sure what my view is on it. But considering the above “though being in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped..” but instead emptied himself. Oddly he did not consider it “a thing to be grasped” “grasped” there Strong's Greek: 725. ἁρπαγμός (harpagmos) -- the act of seizing or the thing seized
Equality with God not Seized, nor taken by force BUT instead he humbled himself, emptied himself, obedient unto death, becoming a servant. ‘Lowering himself’ “making himself of no reputation’ as in the verse where as the children took part of flesh and blood…He also took part of the same.

once again, to many verses will be quoted but I’m only trying to share where another perspective may come from (right or wrong). The KJV says He thought it not as robbery to be equal with God. How do we know that isn’t saying “he endure the cross for the joy set before him” considering it not robbery but willingly? How do we know that it doesn’t mean, he didn’t consider it robbery to come to “not my will but your Will be done Father”? Considering it not robbery in willingly not my will but your Will be done”. Equal ..what is to be equal with …OR to be equally “yoked” together? Is “yoked together” equality? Equal? In the disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master” Matthew 10:24-25 is “shall be as his master”, equal to? In if God is long- suffering, patient, peace, joy, endurance, faith” is it counted as robbery to be equally yoked with Him, is it to be counted as robbery In crucified in the flesh, Alive unto God “take my yoke upon you, learn of Me for I am lowly and of a humble spirit” that “They might be called the children of God”?

We can argue or debate all day about ‘equality with God’ but what if it means ‘as He is in the world, so are we’ and that it isn’t robbery …as Paul said he had suffered the loss of all things and counted it as dung (not robbery) to win Christ, As not being robbery to be found in Him having not our own righteousness but the the Righteousness which comes from God …to me that sounds like Paul is suggesting it not robbery for the disciple to be as His Master. As for His name ‘take joyfully (happily rejoice) (not counting it as robbery); for as He is, so are His children) taking joyfully the spoiling of your goods” knowing you have a better more enduring substance within. Again we can suggest it as a dirty thing or robbery or stealing something, a thing to be grasped in ‘equality with God’ …but is not ‘to be made partakers with Him’ ‘to partake of His Holiness’ or to be ‘yoked with Him’ as “as He suffered for you, arm yourself with the same mind’ as in Hebrews 2:10-11 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. [11] For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
^which is your reasonable service
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

again how do we know for certain His not considering it robbery to be equal with God ..simply means that the loss was worth the gain in Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Because Ezekiel 33:17 says the children of the people say, The way of the Lord is not equal (like the lame whose legs are not equal) but as for them, their way is not equal.
So do we claim within God there is not equality? When He seems to say our way is not equal?


or Isaiah 46:3-10 “to whom Will you liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?” John 14:8-9 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. [9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Isaiah goes on to speak of to create a god who “when one cry unto him, yet can he not answer, nor save him out of trouble.’ … “for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me” who as the children took part of flesh and blood, He also took part of the same THAT they may take part of His Likeness, not as robbery …for Isaiah 40:25-26, and also Isaiah 40:29-31.

Is it robbery to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, rather than to divide the spoil with the proud. (He didn’t consider) equality with God as a thing to be grasped, seized, or taken by force? But instead emptied himself… Proverbs 16:19 Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

lastly, why I question our definition of equality or ‘equal to’ in regards to a disciple is not above his master but will be as his master…is what is the equality or equal to (not considering it as robbery) bearing the burden of the heat of the day? Matthew 20:12-15 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. (Robbery?) [13] But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? [14] Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. [15] Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

I’m curious so I can understand where you are coming from. In Hebrews 2:14 Lexicon: Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

what is your perspective of who He is, that since the children partook of flesh and blood, He also took part of the same flesh and blood that through death, He might destroy the power of death?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I believe I gave a comprehensive explanation in posts #245-247 for consideration, so it’s up to all to decide for themselves just who “God the Father” is, and who the “Lord Jesus Christ” is. (John 17:3)

If we get it wrong and blasphemy is seen to be supported, then clearly we have no excuse to offer to Jesus when he comes to judge mankind (Matthew 7:21-23)....he is going to separate the “wheat from the weeds”....”the sheep from the goats”....all are on either the “road to life” or “the road to destruction”. Do you notice that there are only ever two categories?......so we are all judged to be in only one or the other....it isn’t multiple choice. We show Jesus by what we accept as truth, where we stand on this very basic foundation of our faith.

May we all choose wisely and prayerfully.

but what if I truly do not understand your comprehensive explanation. You speak of blasphemy, what if it just doesn’t sink in? Is there such a thing as continued doing a thing unaware it is blasphemy for the lack of knowing Him? Is there such a thing as acting ignorantly in unbelief?

1 Timothy 1:12: I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,


1 Timothy 1:13: even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;


1 Timothy 1:14: and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:15 : It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.