Jim B
Well-Known Member
I perceive that answering your questions will only lead to more petty questions…
So, no answer.
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!
I perceive that answering your questions will only lead to more petty questions…
No. There are things my fellow brothers in Christ I have fellowship with do not agree on, and I do not think they are liberal.
My definition of liberal comes from established sources from how that word is understood among evangelical Christianity and general educational sources. Some liberals (like yourself) do not simply like the label, although other liberals do not seem to mind it.
No. You are person who believes in unproven theories that unbelieving men have come up with. Evolution that we came from apes is a theory and not Observable Science.
If a Satanist called himself a Christian would you fellowship with him and like to hang out with him? So just because somebody calls themselves a Christian does not mean they are one according to the Bible. That is what you don’t understand.
Did you forget our previous conversation on this matter? Try Googling it if you really don’t know.
And therein lies the problem. Christians don’t have to ask each other what certain words mean in the Bible because they agree on what they mean, just as a mechanic does not have to explain what a tire is on a car.
Do you believe God condemned witchcraft in the Bible or was that something was a mistake or error that crept in by men?
Yes, I believe I do but the word “hate” is archaic and it means to love less.
Produce an official definition. I am not going to get too picky just an official definition.
I guess I will say I disagree with all of that Bible only and everything else is a theory from that perspective. It is a long standing disagreement. We live in an age of science.....Most Christians have electricity in their homes....that was a theory at one time. Microwave ovens, satellite TV....from a satellite 20,000 miles in space was a theory at one time. the computer you are typing on all was science theory at one time. It was a Sunday school class that I taught one time...
The Christian Matrix, as I call it has a very strong influence on the mind, which could even be called control, but the mind has its own power to override the Christian Matrix. It is called the survival instinct, and once activated, it will mow over the Christian Matrix like it was a steamroller, because the survival instincts will drive reproduction. But then the Christian Matrix affects a broad range of things, case in point; The Christian Matrix can sustain the belief that according to Christian teachings, science does not know anything, they are all wrong about the world being billions of years old, their wrong about evolution, and there is no such thing as dinosaurs and cavemen. The Christian Matrix can sustain the belief that science is all bunk! Yet the same mind that would teach this rubbish in Sunday school, when faced with a heart attack, will not drop to his knees and pray until it goes away, he will use that little witchy device that can call anyone in the world, and he will use it to call the technology wagon, otherwise called the ambulance. When it arrives he is not going to instruct the driver to take him to the nearest church, he will want to go to the nearest place of science, the hospital. Then when he gets to the hospital, he is not looking for a preacher, he is hoping that a man of medical science is there, and he hopes that the man believes in science, because if he is one of his Sunday school students, and all he does is pull out a Bible and reads scriptures to him for the next couple hours......he is going to die! Reality trumps fantasy, but he will go back to church preaching that science is all bunk! This man is not alone, most Christians know that science is real even though they are taught and tell others that science is bunk! But when there is a fire, they pull out one the newest items of scientific creations, that smart cell phone and they will call the fire department. Christians are taught that science is bunk! But when they start their Ford pickup that has 32 processers in it....they are confident that it will work. And when they turn on their TV, they are confident they will see a signal transmitted by a satellite orbiting at thousands of miles above the Earth. Science works and is in the real world. God is real and exists in the real world. Any religion that denies reality is teaching lies or at least fantasies! This is the Christian Matrix, that conditions the mind to live in reality, but believe in fantasy. Even though they are taught that sex is evil, dirty, nasty, and sinful, they are going to get naked, have sex, and have children anyway. They are going to profess the fantasy to one another and use it as a religion but deep down they know it is not true. As I said in the beginning of the book, very few people research their choices of religions. Usually they assume the religion of their family or their spouse, the person that knocked on their door, or the convenient church that is close by.
Older people juggle this fantasia pretty well, but as it is now our children are not going to buy into this fantasy. There going to say, “If we are going to believe in fantasy, I would just a soon do the Lord of the Rings.” If we want them to know that God is the real thing, we need to teach the real thing! The Trinity is real, the blessing of the Gods are real, but you can’t expect to ever realize those blessings or have a relationship with a real God, if you are living in a fantasy world!
Oh my gosh you are messed up.....How many denominations are on this forum? All but yours are satanic....you are a joke.
I did not. I agreed there was a flood just not worldwide.....Back then their perception of the world was pretty small.
And again you keep dodging the question.....Should I play some music that would be good for tap dancing.
The topic is too long for this forum. Technically using the Bible's definition, because there is no devil witchcraft discussed in the Bible....the witches were welcomed into Christianity.....they called them Gentiles.
Ya you wished that is what the Greek word meant....Ok, you Christians we love you less so we are burning you for torches to light the night and feeding you to the lions......just love less! Remember there is love there as the animals are eating you. Is that something that the Roman soldier said to Christ when they looked up at Him nailed on the cross....Don't feel bad, we just love you less!
Would you believe there is a Greek world for love and Greek word for less. Love + Less there ya go. No part of love in the Greco-Roman concept of hate.
This is a truly excellent and comprehensive post. Bravo!
I have tried discussing various subjects with Bible Highlighter many times but his mind is closed. He cannot or will not listen to logic or reason.
I hope that you have more success trying to explain truth and logic to him than I have had, but I have my doubts.
You said:You basically implied that my position of regarding God’s Word as perfect… it is idolatry.
This is a false accusation. The Word of God is in the manuscripts. Any and all Bibles are men translating the scriptures. The problem with KJV is a lot of it is not in the manuscripts and are the word of man. And your reverence of the KJV is reverence of an inanimate object.
You said:How crazy is this? The KJV is the only way! Oh my! How many thousands were lead to Christ even before the New Testament was written? The first bound Bible did not occur for another 300 years, so how many thousands were saved before that.....and even that does not matter because those Bibles were not given to the public. The Catholic church forbid copying the Bible so bits and pieces were being smuggled around by William Tyndale in the early 1500's but still distribution of the Bible could not occur in numbers until the Guttenberg press was invented in the mid 1400's and it was still illegal according to the Catholics for him to print the Bible.
You said:And there are places today in communist countries that the Bible is illegal and people preach the scriptures and still get saved.
So you could not be more wrong.
You said:I study accurate Bibles and the manuscripts...
Atheists attack the Bible. While you may not be an atheist, your approach to the Bible is closely related. You attack the authenticity of the words in Luke 14:26, Revelation 6:13, etcetera. This is exactly what Textual Criticism does in Modern Scholarship today (Which I will explain in another post).
Anyways, you see that I am making a false accusation from your perspective as if that is how things are in reality (When that’s not the case). Your worldview is false in that you think that the Word of God is only mentioned in the manuscripts and that the manuscripts themselves are not the Word of God. This shows that you either have not read the Bible with any kind of understanding or you simply ignore what it says to fit a belief you want to be true.
For example:
Proverbs 30:5 says:
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.”
Every “word of God” is pure. This cannot be in reference to Jesus if that is what you think the Word of God is every time the Bible mentions this phrase.
We see it again in Luke 4:4.
Luke 4:4 says,
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”
Mark 7:9-13
9 “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
Notice that Jesus talks about how they reject the commandment of God by their tradition and he refers to the Law of Moses in how one is to honor their father and mother. Then Jesus says that the Pharisees had made the Word of God (the written commandment of God in Scripture) of no effect by their tradition. So this is an instance where the Word of God can be referred to as Scripture.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:37,
“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
Paul is saying that we are to regard his writings as the commandments of the Lord. Most of your New Testament comes from the apostle Paul. Jesus said clearly that the commandments of the Lord that were written are in reference to the Word of God. So Paul’s writings are the Word of God.
1 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works. All Scripture is inspired by God and not just parts of it. So if all Scripture is inspired by God, then it’s the very words of God to us. God had written His words through men of God.
Most “KJB Only Advocates” are not saying that God did not use bibles prior to the 1611 King James Bible or the Pure Cambridge KJB Edition (circa. 1900). God can even get a person saved by a Modern Bible. The point and issue here is growth or our Sanctification. A more perfect bible is going to help a person better in their walk with the Lord. In fact, I highly encourage that a Christian should or must read a Modern bible to update the archaic words in the King James Bible. For 1600’s English can be difficult. This is why I am considering in accepting a new term for my position. I am thinking of adopting the term “Prima KJB” which is similar to “Prima Scriptura” (or I may adopt another term) (Note: My belief is similar to Sola Scriptura but I prefer to call it “Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It”). Anyways, the KJB is my primary foundation and that does not mean other bibles cannot be helpful in explaining what the KJB says. Hence, why I am thinking of abandoning the term “KJB Only” (because it is misleading to what I actually believe).
I am not saying that a person cannot preach from a Modern bible in another country and not get saved. There may be a few small KJB Only groups who may believe otherwise, but I don’t believe they make up the majority of the KJB Only camp.
What Modern bibles do you think are accurate?
How do you know they are accurate?
How do you know that the scholars who define the words in English for you from the original languages is not being influenced by their own religious agenda?
1 John 5:7 and Unbelief
By Rev. Taylor.
I recently read a thorough and fair defense of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) which reminded me of how the approach of many Christians in the modern church is absolutely backwards when it comes to Scripture. In today’s world of Modern Textual Criticism, Christians seem to take a backwards approach when seeking to determine if they should accept a textual variant as authentic. The method employed by the author of the linked article demonstrates, in my opinion, how textual data should be viewed, so please read the article prior to this one. In this article, I will comment on the two approaches to textual variation and conclude by explaining why I believe the approach taken by the exemplar author is correct.
Method 1: Modern Textual Criticism
I have spent a great deal of time and word count (222,197 words to be exact) on this blog explaining the methods and theology of the Modern Textual Critics and advocates. I have pointed out, using the words of the textual scholars, that there is no Modern Critical Text, there is no end in sight to the current effort, and adopting the Modern Critical Text means also to reject providential preservation. In all these words, I have yet to describe the approach of the Modern Textual Critic and advocate.
When a defender, advocate, or scholar of the Modern Critical Text approaches a place of textual variation, they do so by first questioning its authenticity. Practically speaking, a variant is to only be questioned if the scholars who produced the NA/UBS platforms have called it into question. That is not to say that others in history haven’t called such texts into question prior to the 20th century, just that these questions are exemplified in the modern critical texts. The reason this is problematic is that there is no consistent application of this skepticism applied to every line of Scripture.
See, the epistemological foundation for the Modern Textual Critic, according to Dan Wallace and his colleagues, is that we don’t have what the authors originally wrote, and even if we did, we wouldn’t know it.
“We do not have now – in any of our critical Greek texts or in any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.”
Dan Wallace. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii.
This kind of foundation cannot conveniently stop at our favorite three passages. It must apply uniformly across the whole text of the New Testament. If 200 years of textual transmission which saw such a great change to the text from the “Alexandrian” text form to the “Byzantine” text form, then the first 200 years of textual transmission, of which we have basically zero extant evidence for, could also be equally or more significant. That is to say, our 200 year gap in the manuscript data in the first 200 years of the church is enough of a gap to call into question every single passage of the New Testament. This is the logical end of the Critical Text position. There isn’t a single line of Scripture that can be said to be 100% authentic to the pen of the apostolic writers, according to the Modern Critical Text advocate. This is further evidenced by the fact that there is not a single textual scholar or apologist that will lay claim to any specific percentage or list of authentic passages.
So when an advocate of the Modern Critical Text challenges a textual variant, they do so selectively and arbitrarily. Once they have identified a passage, verse, or word that they do not believe original, the goal is to then “disprove” that the reading was authentic. The text is on trial, and the Modern Critical Text advocate is the prosecutor. It is not a question of “Is this text authentic?”, it is a question of, “Why is this text inauthentic and how did it get there?” If they were consistent, they would apply this same approach to every line of Holy Scripture, and have no evidential reason to accept one reading or another. The evidential foundation for their approach is based upon manuscripts that are dated 200 years or more after the New Testament was written without any supporting evidence that those texts date back to the Apostles. This is the fatal flaw in Modern Textual Criticism – there is nothing that ties their text back to the original, and there never will be. That is why approach matters.
Method 2: Preservationist
In contrast to the first method, the Preservationist perspective approaches places of textual variation with the assumption that the original has been preserved, and it can be easily discerned. The preservation of Scripture did not stop with Codex Vaticanus, it carried on through the middle ages and into the Reformation when the world could finally print and mass distribute texts. There is a reason the vast majority of extant manuscripts do not look like Vaticanus or the Modern Critical Text. The church, through transmission and by God’s providence, kept the text pure. Therefore, if a text made it to the mass distribution era of the church, it had been passed along by the era that came before it. Since the church was by and large divided into two represented by the East and West, the combination of these texts yielded the original. That is why the advent of the printing press, the fall of Constantinople, and the Protestant Reformation is such a significant time in church history. It was the first time the church had authentic texts that were being used in one place with the ability to combine them and distribute them church-wide.
So then, to the Preservationist, the question is not, “Is this text authentic?”, it is, “Why did the people of God understand this to be authentic in time and space?” Thus, the burden of proof is not placed on a smattering of early manuscripts that have been in favor for the last 200 years. The Preservationist’s chief effort then is to support the text that has been handed down, rather than question its validity at every place disagreeable to the Vatican Codex. The assumption is that God preserved the text, and we have it. It is a matter of defending what is in our hands, rather than reconstructing what is not in our hands. Once you accept the premise that the Bible has fallen into such disarray that it must be reconstructed, there is not a single passage of Scripture that cannot be called into question. Further, there is no way to validate that any conclusion on a given text speaks conclusively about the original text itself. That is why the current effort is focused on the initial text, not the original. What can be proved is limited to hundreds of years after the Apostles, and even then, “proved” is much stronger language than textual scholars are comfortable with.
(Continued in next post):
You basically implied that my position of regarding God’s Word as perfect… it is idolatry.
No implying, I am saying nothing in this world is perfect, least of all the KJV. There is no Bible out there that is perfect, just some more accurate.
Atheists or idolatry, is that our choices? LOL I do not attack scriptures. Do you hate your mother and father? Just asking. And stars do not fall to earth....just their perspective....God is real....good to keep things in the real.
Are you kidding false accusations are your specialty. Twisting what people say is a bad characteristic. Notice that I do not do that. Case in point....Your worldview is false in that you think that the Word of God is only mentioned in the manuscripts and that the manuscripts themselves are not the Word of God....I did not say that. You are so deceptive that you anger people.
This shows that you either have not read the Bible with any kind of understanding or you simply ignore what it says to fit a belief you want to be true. Oh you so funny! I know the Bible backward and forwards....on the other hand you can read the words, but cannot understand them.
"World view" LOL Do you think God has a world view? God so loved the world.....
So what is your point?
I agree so run away from the KJV.
You missed the point, I said, And there are places today in communist countries that the Bible is illegal and people preach the scriptures and still get saved.
My statement had nothing t do with any Bible, it is about people being saved without a Bible.
As I keep saying, no perfect Bible, just some that are more accurate then others....
Not that you are going to like any of them but....for biblical scholars the NASB, NIV, and ESV usually tops the list as most accurate to the manuscripts.
I have already answered this....I do not like repeating myself.
We do not have any original manuscripts. So scholars focus on the older manuscripts that agree with each other. Then as they look at the manuscripts that come forward they start to degrade....simple corrections made to the manuscripts, that is one of the ways you know they are not a true copy...Then you have added scriptures and reworded scriptures.
That is why you go to the source, you reference the scriptures in the manuscripts. The manuscripts do not have a religious agenda.
I already provided you with one before and you obviously didn’t accept it.Produce an official definition. I am not going to get too picky just an official definition.
You said:I guess I will say I disagree with all of that Bible only
You said:and everything else is a theory from that perspective. It is a long standing disagreement. We live in an age of science.....Most Christians have electricity in their homes....that was a theory at one time. Microwave ovens, satellite TV....from a satellite 20,000 miles in space was a theory at one time. the computer you are typing on all was science theory at one time. It was a Sunday school class that I taught one time...
Most Christians do not reject science. We accept Observable Science and not stupid hair brained theories.You said:The Christian Matrix, as I call it has a very strong influence on the mind, which could even be called control, but the mind has its own power to override the Christian Matrix. It is called the survival instinct, and once activated, it will mow over the Christian Matrix like it was a steamroller, because the survival instincts will drive reproduction. But then the Christian Matrix affects a broad range of things, case in point; The Christian Matrix can sustain the belief that according to Christian teachings, science does not know anything, they are all wrong about the world being billions of years old, their wrong about evolution, and there is no such thing as dinosaurs and cavemen.
You said:The Christian Matrix can sustain the belief that science is all bunk! Yet the same mind that would teach this rubbish in Sunday school, when faced with a heart attack, will not drop to his knees and pray until it goes away, he will use that little witchy device that can call anyone in the world, and he will use it to call the technology wagon, otherwise called the ambulance. When it arrives he is not going to instruct the driver to take him to the nearest church, he will want to go to the nearest place of science, the hospital. Then when he gets to the hospital, he is not looking for a preacher, he is hoping that a man of medical science is there, and he hopes that the man believes in science, because if he is one of his Sunday school students, and all he does is pull out a Bible and reads scriptures to him for the next couple hours......he is going to die! Reality trumps fantasy, but he will go back to church preaching that science is all bunk! This man is not alone, most Christians know that science is real even though they are taught and tell others that science is bunk! But when there is a fire, they pull out one the newest items of scientific creations, that smart cell phone and they will call the fire department. Christians are taught that science is bunk! But when they start their Ford pickup that has 32 processers in it....they are confident that it will work. And when they turn on their TV, they are confident they will see a signal transmitted by a satellite orbiting at thousands of miles above the Earth. Science works and is in the real world. God is real and exists in the real world. Any religion that denies reality is teaching lies or at least fantasies! This is the Christian Matrix, that conditions the mind to live in reality, but believe in fantasy. Even though they are taught that sex is evil, dirty, nasty, and sinful, they are going to get naked, have sex, and have children anyway. They are going to profess the fantasy to one another and use it as a religion but deep down they know it is not true. As I said in the beginning of the book, very few people research their choices of religions. Usually they assume the religion of their family or their spouse, the person that knocked on their door, or the convenient church that is close by.
You said:Older people juggle this fantasia pretty well, but as it is now our children are not going to buy into this fantasy. There going to say, “If we are going to believe in fantasy, I would just a soon do the Lord of the Rings.” If we want them to know that God is the real thing, we need to teach the real thing! The Trinity is real, the blessing of the Gods are real, but you can’t expect to ever realize those blessings or have a relationship with a real God, if you are living in a fantasy world!
You said:Oh my gosh you are messed up.....How many denominations are on this forum? All but yours are satanic....you are a joke.
You said:I did not. I agreed there was a flood just not worldwide.....Back then their perception of the world was pretty small.
You said:And again you keep dodging the question.....Should I play some music that would be good for tap dancing.
You said:The topic is too long for this forum. Technically using the Bible's definition, because there is no devil witchcraft discussed in the Bible....the witches were welcomed into Christianity.....they called them Gentiles.
You said:Ya you wished that is what the Greek word meant....Ok, you Christians we love you less so we are burning you for torches to light the night and feeding you to the lions......just love less! Remember there is love there as the animals are eating you. Is that something that the Roman soldiers said to Christ when they looked up at Him nailed on the cross....Don't feel bad, we just love you less!
You said:Would you believe there is a Greek world for love and Greek word for less. Love + Less there ya go. No part of love in the Greco-Roman concept of hate.
Unless you want to argue with the dictionary, it CAN mean “to love less.”You said:If you check all major translations translate this to the English word hate, not love less.
Obscure meaning....maybe....your style of translating scriptures....no surprise.
I already provided you with one before and you obviously didn’t accept it.
Just Google the beliefs of liberals and compare the ones I mentioned, and you will see that liberals hold to those kinds of beliefs.
I did not make up these definitions. They are on the internet for you to find (if you don’t believe me).
I am not going to keep doing your own homework.
If you want to live in a fantasy world, then by all means.
But there are Christian liberals who are happy to accept the label of liberal.
Type in Liberal Christianity into Google, and just start reading.
Of course you reject the Bible alone as your guide for all matters of faith and practice. You have not been born again by water (i.e. the Communicated Word, or Scripture). Jesus says, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). 1 Peter 1:23 says, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (cf. 1 Peter 1:25, and 1 Peter 2:2). For you, the Bible is a dead book that contains the word of God or some words from God (But Textual Criticism may even take that away from you - leaving you in a complete state of unbelief in GOD in someday). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). For you: Faith is whatever you think it should mean.
Irrelevant. Theories that have turned into scientific observable science is not the same as theories that are unproven and don’t make any logical sense. There are no observable evidences of one species forming into another species. There are just some theories in life that are not established and are simply false. Men having evolved from apes in one of them. It’s a lie fed to the secular unbelieving world (of which you still believe).
Most Christians do not reject science. We accept Observable Science and not stupid hair brained theories.
But you need to recognize the difference between Observable Science and Historical Science.
We believe the Earth is young because both the Bible and science says so. There are Young Earth Creationists. Granted, the focus of my ministry is not Young Earth, but it is Jesus Christ. But believing the false lie of secular theories will only lead you to having more of a lack of faith in Holy Scripture.
Oh, and most Christians do believe in dinosaurs.
Only a very small few of them out there don’t.
Some churches may preach against Science, but they would be in the minority in my view and would be cult like.
As for sex:
To be in a right relationship with God, it can only exist within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman according to the Bible.
Yes, I believe you are living in a fantasy world because you reject the Bible as your primary guide for all matters of faith and practice. You are not living by faith in what God says but you are living by faith in what you think. This does not undo Science - mind you. Many Christians believe in Observable Science and not the fantasy of unproven theories like Evolution or the Earth is billions of years old.
Atheist Scientists have dated rocks at being very young when a Christian gave them rocks from dried up volcanic activity. So this just shows you that they are lying.
I already provided you with one before and you obviously didn’t accept it.
Just Google the beliefs of liberals and compare the ones I mentioned, and you will see that liberals hold to those kinds of beliefs.
Of course you reject the Bible alone as your guide for all matters of faith and practice. You have not been born again by water (i.e. the Communicated Word, or Scripture). Jesus says, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). 1 Peter 1:23 says, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (cf. 1 Peter 1:25, and 1 Peter 2:2). For you, the Bible is a dead book that contains the word of God or some words from God (But Textual Criticism may even take that away from you - leaving you in a complete state of unbelief in GOD in someday). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). For you: Faith is whatever you think it should mean.
BTW, the correct translation is "Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ." Romans 10:17, NET
I told you sodomy is homosexuality.
No. Witches were not welcomed into Christianity with them continuing to still be witches. Witches were told to repent and accept the gospel in the New Testament. Meaning, they have to forsake their witchcraft in order to be right with God. If they don’t forsake such evil to begin with, they were never saved (even if they did a prayer to accept the Lord Jesus). If they were never willing to change on their past life of sin involving witchcraft they are still dead in their sins. Witchcraft is demonic.
So your authority is in Textual Criticism or scholars who seek to change the Bible like you do. That does not sound like a reliable and trustworthy source that seeks to honor the text or Holy Scripture.
Bible Highlighter said:I told you sodomy is homosexuality.
Show me the post where you said this. Maybe I missed it.
And hate means hate.
You said:The topic is too long for this forum. Technically using the Bible's definition, because there is no devil witchcraft discussed in the Bible....the witches were welcomed into Christianity.....they called them Gentiles. The depth of your knowledge is clear in how you address these issues. Tell me when the word witch was first coined. Tell me if it could be in the Bible. For the most part a practicing Pagan that performed rituals was a sorcerer(ess) The word witch and witchcraft cannot appear in the manuscripts because the words did not exist then. Sorcery is the accurate Greek word and it is Pagan....not devil worship. The Bible does not call it devil worship. Can you find a scripture that says devil worship. Millions were tortured and died over this false belief.
You said:Hate is hate and the translators agree with me.
I deserve an award for my patience with you, but now it is spent. Do not address me again.
Romans was an epistle.
And epistle is a letter.