"There can always be more than one lie, but there can never be more than one truth".
Earburner.
"For every truth there are multiple lies." -ewq1938
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"There can always be more than one lie, but there can never be more than one truth".
Earburner.
Absolutely the truth. You have spoken that which the Holy Spirit teaches.2Co_6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
The opposite of this is the Apostasy, where the AC dwells in the temple of God ie. people. This is spiritual not literal.
Absolutely the truth. You have spoken that which the Holy Spirit teaches.
1Cor.2
[13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but [that] which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Now compare that to 2Thes.2
[3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [apostasy of many] first, and [which is] the* man of sin [the natural man] be revealed, the [many] sonof perdition [like Judas Iscariot- being himself one "son of perdition" of many].
*Note: in the TR Greek: "the" is used, and not "that".
"That spirit/mind of antichrist" is singular, but the manifestation of it, IS IN MANY being in apostasy, which is plural.
That's not the subject of this thread. So I will decline to derail this to be about the 70 Weeks. It remains about acknowledging that no prophecy can be truly understood by solely relying on the bias of English translators in English language versions - especially the King James Only viewpoint.Never mind the "KJOnlyism", or the "Nearly Inspired Version", what is your understanding about Dan. 9:24-27, according to "the mind of Christ" and not the Bible translators?
A brief outline will do.
Thanks.
No. You and church-ianity are talking about a certain one person.Paul is talking about a certain person, known also as the AC, who will come and cause the apostasia. He is called a beast in Rev 13 and is clearly a singular individual as he is in every passage he is spoken about. "antichrist shall come" cannot be erased.
And I pointed to Zech. 4:6 and 1 Cor. ch. 2, for Who it is that should be our teacher, and that "our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men".That's not the subject of this thread. So I will decline to derail this to be about the 70 Weeks. It remains about acknowledging that no prophecy can be truly understood by solely relying on the bias of English translators in English language versions - especially the King James Only viewpoint.
John the Baptist and Jesus are the only two that were ever "anointed" by the Holy Spirit at birth. Zech. 4:14.Ok, so now that we all know who believes what about the antichrist and bible versions among the various other items. Did we figure out who the two witnesses are?
What does that even mean? You quote passages that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.And I pointed to Zech. 4:6 and 1 Cor. ch. 2, for Who it is that should be our teacher, and that "our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men".
By the way, in my post #303, I had touched the "strike out" button accidently. I have corrected that error. The words stand, as I originally did write them.Paul is talking about a certain person, known also as the AC, who will come and cause the apostasia. He is called a beast in Rev 13 and is clearly a singular individual as he is in every passage he is spoken about. "antichrist shall come" cannot be erased.
You were the one challenging me on the truth in God's word, concerning the Greek manuscripts, whether that be the Textus Receptus, the Wescott & Hort, or whatever.What does that even mean? You quote passages that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Again: That's not the subject of this thread. So I will decline to derail this to be about the 70 Weeks. It remains about acknowledging that no prophecy can be truly understood by solely relying on the bias of English translators in English language versions - especially the King James Only viewpoint.
So we will continue to get no answer about why the english translation that is the King James Version is the only text that is the singular source for correct answers to prophetic topics of the Bible?You were the one challenging me on the truth in God's word, concerning the Greek manuscripts, whether that be the Textus Receptus, the Wescott & Hort, or whatever.
I was just providing a topic for comparison.
If you were meaning something other than that, then I am sorry if I missed the point you attempted to deliver.
As for the topic of this thread, please see my post #308 of my reply.
So we will continue to get no answer about why the english translation that is the King James Version is the only text that is the singular source for correct answers to prophetic topics of the Bible?
Again: That's not the subject of this thread. So I will decline to derail this to be about the 70 Weeks. It remains about acknowledging that no prophecy can be truly understood by solely relying on the bias of English translators in English language versions - especially the King James Only viewpoint.
As you know, There are many newer English versions of bibles, translated from numerous NT Greek (or similar) texts, of which have nuances that cause a vast array of definitions and meanings that we can choose from.So we will continue to get no answer about why the english translation that is the King James Version is the only text that is the singular source for correct answers to prophetic topics of the Bible?
By the way, in my post #303, I had touched the "strike out" button accidently. I have corrected that error. The words stand, as I originally did write them.
You must have copied it before I saw the "strike out" marking in it.
Sorry about that.
No. You and church-ianity are talking about a certain one person.
The issuance of the "MoB" will be global, and shall cause the "falling away" from faith in Christ, of which shall be the literal "separation of the goats from the sheep". It will be "the hour of temptation that shall try the whole world".
You are not aware, and therefore not knowing what the temptation shall be in that hour.No, the bible speaks of a one person that was to come. You are the church-ianity who prefers to ignore what the bible teaches about the singular AC. Pure church-ianity on your part.
They fall away to a person who will claim to be God. That is the singular AC you deny.
Well, if you need it to be so, according to your faith, then Klaus Schwab, of the WEF, which is of the UN (the image of the beast), is a likely candidate.No, the bible speaks of a one person that was to come. You are the church-ianity who prefers to ignore what the bible teaches about the singular AC. Pure church-ianity on your part.
They fall away to a person who will claim to be God. That is the singular AC you deny.
I'm not sure what you are referring to by this statement. The field of textual criticism is such a vast topic you can't simply dismiss it all away by a single statement. It is much too complex for that.As for the Greek texts, down through time, all of that has been graphically scaled, showing how they have been copied as well as manipulated to the newest version of our day.
"Without apology" and it seems with a completely closed mind to any further investigation. What if your entire view of KJVonlyism is wrong? What if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? But what if the opposite view is also wrong? What if the entire Western Christianity assumption of Greek primacy could be proven incorrect beyond a shadow of a doubt? And what if a truly accurate understanding of prophetic matters can not be properly interpreted and understood without a modified and corrected view of the manuscript history?One English version comes to mind, that has corrupted the Christian thinking of "church-ianity", is the Scofield bible, which is loaded with denominational comments by Scofield.
And what shall I say next, about the others, such as the NIV, the Living Bible, the RSV, the JW-NWT Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, etc., etc.?
...
So therefore, without any apology whatsoever, in 1990 I went back to the wonderful KJV, vowing to God that ONLY He would teach me by His Holy Spirit ONLY, using the KJV ONLY. And that He has done, without one regret.
Well, if you need it to be so, according to your faith