subject:"\[TruthTalk\] Fw\:"

bondage yes. hell? It is for freedom that Christ
sets up free. Some people never find it, some don't. It takes time. I could
explain but I fear it'll fall on deaf ears.

Love,

Caroline

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 8:24
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts
on Genesis 1

I wouldn't put it off on God Caroline, we are
responsible for our own actions. I recall an incident in a Church
we used to go to where a friend of mine had a Word of
Knowledge given her about a regular brother who was a Church regular
andin the habit of going to the altar every
time there was an altar call for any reason. She confronted him with
what the Lord had shown her and he
acknowledgedit was true - He went on to say that he knew he could go to
hell but that he liked what he was doing. Just like thepedophile priests in the RCC. Until they learn to hate the
sin as much as God hates it - and then want to be free more than anything else, they will continue in
thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and their
victims. judyt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:09:25 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Regarding my comment on intentional
sin

jt: None that I know of,
under Levitical law they were cut off from the people. We are told
not to allow the sun to go down on our wrath and how does one get drunk or
commit adultery unintentionally? Drunkards and fornicators do not
inherit God's Kingdom. Under both Covenants it would take genuine
repentance which BTW is also a gift and since this is out of our control
(other than our willingness and desire) it should cause humility and godly
fear. judyt

Caroline:
The first 5 chapters of Leviticus speak
about atonement for unintentional sin. When I started reading Leviticus, I
was freaking out because there does not seem to be atonement for
intentional sin and all of us humans have been guilty of sinning
intentionally at least once in our lives. Then there is Leviticus 6. Then
there is the New Covenant. Judy, you're saying that if someone repents,
then they are forgiven and that this is a gift from God.

Now we come to a pivot point. If it is God's
desire that all men are reconciled to Him, then He gifts them with genuine
repentance. And He is almighty so I can't see why He'll fail. But if God
desire that some go to hell and some to heaven..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




Are we all assuming this man was confessing pedophilia? Or was he 
confessing something else like anger or sloth or is that all perversion to you, 
Terry? I know some here believe they don't sin but some here regularly confesses 
to the Lord. Are those who regularly confess sins in their prayer Christian 
perverts?

Love,

Caroline

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:55 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts 
  on Genesis 1
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
  
  
  If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent 
  repentor is lost or hell bound?
Real simple John. When the same sin is a continuous part of your 
life, your trips to the alter are bogus. Who is the sinner 
serving? Christ, or himself? It doesn't take a community to 
figure it out. Try to remember that. Some day there will be a 
test.Terry

  
  
  
  
  
  So we can comment sin, as long as it is not the same sin? 
  I mean, sin is a part of us (if we say that we have no sin,we 
  deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us). Grace only 
  works when we cease sin? 

  



  
  
  
  Find me one Christian pervert in the Bible, John. Just one.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Must be an ERROR

God lost some of his word LOL
What a low opinion you have
How do you know the part you have is not messed up also?Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




Both errors are likely. People could deliberately add words to bolster the text and make it sound better. In fact, Christianshave been known to write whole books and letters and attribute them to Paul or John or some other Apostle. There was a lot of controversy and uncertainty so adding words make things more plain.

Biblical scholars were quite surprised when they found early manuscripts which did not contain lots of stuff like the ending to Mark or the story in John about the woman caught in adultery. Mark can be explained by saying the manuscript lost its ending but how do we explain John :-) We don't. We just put a note and say it's not in the early manuscripts. I like the story and I'm glad it's in my bible - even with that caveat.

If copyists lost words as they copied, the later manuscripts would have less words than the early ones.

Love,

Caroline

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Caroline wrote:
 Those 65,000 words were added and should be 
 removed so that what we have is the purer form. 

Caroline, please think about this. If YOU were copying the Bible for your reading later, what type of mistakewould you most likely make? Would it be more likely that you would omit words or add words? Think about it. Please tell me what your answer is.

Peace be with you.David Miller.
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

There is a Theology for everyone out there.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Who says we are "saved in spite of" our sin? The idea is to let them go; sanctification is part of the salvation scenario.One can not be an acting pedophile and ATST comformed to the image of Christ. jt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:50:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent repentor is lost or hell bound?

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



I wouldn't put it off on God Caroline, we are responsible for our own actions. I recall an incident in a Church
we used to go to where a friend of mine had a Word of Knowledge given her about a regular brother who was a Church regular andin the habit of going to the altar every time there was an altar call for any reason. She confronted him with what the Lord had shown her and he acknowledgedit was true - He went on to say that he knew he could go to hell but that he liked what he was doing. Just like thepedophile priests in the RCC. Until they learn to hate the sin as much as God hates it - and then want to be free more than anything else, they will continue in thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and their victims. judyt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:09:25 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Regarding my comment on intentional sin

jt: None that I know of, under Levitical law they were cut off from the people. We are told not to allow the sun to go down on our wrath and how does one get drunk or commit adultery unintentionally? Drunkards and fornicators do not inherit God's Kingdom. Under both Covenants it would take genuine repentance which BTW is also a gift and since this is out of our control (other than our willingness and desire) it should cause humility and godly fear. judyt 

Caroline:
The first 5 chapters of Leviticus speak about atonement for unintentional sin. When I started reading Leviticus, I was freaking out because there does not seem to be atonement for intentional sin and all of us humans have been guilty of sinning intentionally at least once in our lives. Then there is Leviticus 6. Then there is the New Covenant. Judy, you're saying that if someone repents, then they are forgiven and that this is a gift from God. 

Now we come to a pivot point. If it is God's desire that all men are reconciled to Him, then He gifts them with genuine repentance. And He is almighty so I can't see why He'll fail. But if God desire that some go to hell and some to heaven..

__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  

  
  
  




[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  



  
 Are fat Christians save
  



  
  
  ===
  
  



  
  
  
  

Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

LOL Christian pervert is that like a female boyscout?

I guess the scriptures are correct after all

Prov 28:4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.

Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 





If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent repentor is lost or hell bound?
Real simple John. When the same sin is a continuous part of your life, your trips to the alter are bogus. Who is the sinner serving? Christ, or himself? It doesn't take a community to figure it out. Try to remember that. Some day there will be a test.Terry






So we can comment sin, as long as it is not the same sin? I mean, sin is a part of us (if we say that we have no sin,we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us). Grace only works when we cease sin? 







Find me one Christian pervert in the Bible, John. Just one. 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Theology must be the operative word then - theology
void of truth. jt

On Sun, 15 May 2005 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

There is a Theology for everyone out there.Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Who says we are "saved in spite of" our sin?
The idea is to let them go; sanctification is part of the salvation scenario.One can not be an acting
pedophile and ATST comformed to the image of Christ. jt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:50:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent
repentor is lost or hell bound?

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I wouldn't put it off on God Caroline, we are
responsible for our own actions. I recall an incident in a
Church
we used to go to where a friend of mine had a
Word of Knowledge given her about a regular brother who was a Church
regular andin the habit of going to the
altar every time there was an altar call for any reason. She
confronted him with what the Lord had shown her
and he acknowledgedit was true - He went on to say that he knew he
could go to hell but that he liked what he was doing. Just like
thepedophile priests in the RCC.
Until they learn to hate the sin as much as God hates it - and then want
to be free more than anything else, they will
continue in thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and
their victims. judyt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:09:25 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Regarding my comment on intentional
sin

jt: None that I know
of, under Levitical law they were cut off from the people. We
are told not to allow the sun to go down on our wrath and how does one
get drunk or commit adultery unintentionally? Drunkards and
fornicators do not inherit God's Kingdom. Under both Covenants
it would take genuine repentance which BTW is also a gift and since
this is out of our control (other than our willingness and desire) it
should cause humility and godly fear. judyt

Caroline:
The first 5 chapters of Leviticus speak
about atonement for unintentional sin. When I started reading
Leviticus, I was freaking out because there does not seem to be
atonement for intentional sin and all of us humans have been guilty of
sinning intentionally at least once in our lives. Then there is
Leviticus 6. Then there is the New Covenant. Judy, you're saying that
if someone repents, then they are forgiven and that this is a gift
from God.

Now we come to a pivot point. If it is
God's desire that all men are reconciled to Him, then He gifts them
with genuine repentance. And He is almighty so I can't see why He'll
fail. But if God desire that some go to hell and some to
heaven..

__Do You
Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Are you saying there is no difference between the sacrifice of Christ and that of bulls and goats? If not, what did the death of Christ accomplished that was not accomplished in the sacrifices of bulls and goats?And,I am not responding to the "dog" illustration and the Heb 6 comments because such a response would required a great deal of attention. So, I have this one question, expressed above. 

-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 01:02:48 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Both Hebrews and Peter speak of being enlightened and then returning to sin, Peter likens it to a dog
returning to it's vomit and I believe Hebrews 6:6 speaks of it being impossible to restore someone again
who has experienced certain things and then falls away. The difference between bulls/goats and Christ
has to do more with the Priest than the recipient. jt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:27:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




Doesn't Hebrews teach us that the difference between the sacrifice of bulls/goats and the sacrifice of the Christ is the fact that it is offered -- it was offered --- once and for all time? there is a sense in which we are all saved ("there is therefore now, no condemnation"). One is not saved until one commits a sin. That is clearly not a biblical teaching IMO. Are fat Christians saved?


-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:56:03 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Who says we are "saved in spite of" our sin? The idea is to let them go; sanctification is part of
the salvation scenario.One can not be an acting pedophile and ATST comformed to the image of Christ. jt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:50:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent repentor is lost or hell bound?

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



I wouldn't put it off on God Caroline, we are responsible for our own actions. I recall an incident in a Church
we used to go to where a friend of mine had a Word of Knowledge given her about a regular brother who was a Church regular andin the habit of going to the altar every time there was an altar call for any reason. She confronted him with what the Lord had shown her and he acknowledgedit was true - He went on to say that he knew he could go to hell but that he liked what he was doing. Just like thepedophile priests in the RCC. Until they learn to hate the sin as much as God hates it - and then want to be free more than anything else, they will continue in thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and their victims. judyt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:09:25 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Regarding my comment on intentional sin

jt: None that I know of, under Levitical law they were cut off from the people. We are told not to allow the sun to go down on our wrath and how does one get drunk or commit adultery unintentionally? Drunkards and fornicators do not inherit God's Kingdom. Under both Covenants it would take genuine repentance which BTW is also a gift and since this is out of our control (other than our willingness and desire) it should cause humility and godly fear. judyt 

Caroline:
The first 5 chapters of Leviticus speak about atonement for unintentional sin. When I started reading Leviticus, I was freaking out because there does not seem to be atonement for intentional sin and all of us humans have been guilty of sinning intentionally at least once in our lives. Then there is Leviticus 6. Then there is the New Covenant. Judy, you're saying that if someone repents, then they are forgiven and that this is a gift from God. 

Now we come to a pivot point. If it is God's desire that all men are reconciled to Him, then He gifts them with genuine repentance. And He is almighty so I can't see why He'll fail. But if God desire that some go to hell and some to heaven..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1





No I'm not saying that. There is a 
difference. One lasted for a year and the other is eternal. One covered 
sin
and the other remits it on condition we separate 
ourselves from it. Sin is not remitted when we keep returning
to it - it's not even covered when this is going 
on. judyt

On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:41:09 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Are you saying there is no difference between the sacrifice of Christ and 
  that of bulls and goats? If not, what did the death of Christ 
  accomplished that was not accomplished in the sacrifices of bulls and 
  goats?And,I am not responding to the "dog" illustration and the Heb 6 
  comments because such a response would required a great deal of 
  attention. So, I have this one question, expressed above. 
  
  
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  Both Hebrews and Peter speak of being enlightened and 
  then returning to sin, Peter likens it to a dog
  returning to it's vomit and I believe Hebrews 6:6 
  speaks of it being impossible to restore someone again
  who has experienced certain things and then falls 
  away. The difference between bulls/goats and Christ
  has to do more with the Priest than the 
  recipient. jt
  
  On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:27:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  Doesn't Hebrews teach us that the difference between the sacrifice of 
  bulls/goats and the sacrifice of the Christ is the fact that it is 
  offered -- it was offered --- once and for all 
  time? there is a sense in which we are all saved ("there is 
  therefore now, no condemnation"). One is not saved until one 
  commits a sin. That is clearly not a biblical teaching 
  IMO. Are fat Christians saved?
  




-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:56:03 
    -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Who says we are "saved in spite of" our sin? 
The idea is to let them go; sanctification is part of
the salvation scenario.One can not be an 
acting pedophile and ATST comformed to the image of Christ. 
jt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:50:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent 
  repentor is lost or hell bound?
  
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  I wouldn't put it off on God Caroline, we are 
  responsible for our own actions. I recall an incident in a 
  Church
  we used to go to where a friend of mine had a 
  Word of Knowledge given her about a regular brother who was a Church 
  regular andin the habit of going to the 
  altar every time there was an altar call for any reason. She 
  confronted him with what the Lord had shown her 
  and he acknowledgedit was true - He went on to say that he knew he 
  could go to hell but that he liked what he was doing. Just like 
  thepedophile priests in the RCC. 
  Until they learn to hate the sin as much as God hates it - and then want 
  to be free more than anything else, they will 
  continue in thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and 
  their victims. judyt
  
  On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:09:25 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Regarding my comment on intentional 
sin

  jt: None that I know 
  of, under Levitical law they were cut off from the people. We 
  are told not to allow the sun to go down on our wrath and how does one 
  get drunk or commit adultery unintentionally? Drunkards and 
  fornicators do not inherit God's Kingdom. Under both Covenants 
  it would take genuine repentance which BTW is also a gift and since 
  this is out of our control (other than our willingness and desire) it 
  should cause humility and godly fear. judyt 
  
  Caroline:
  The first 5 chapters of Leviticus speak 
  about atonement for unintentional sin. When I started reading 
  Leviticus, I was freaking out because there does not seem to be 
  atonement for intentional sin and all of us humans have been guilty of 
  sinning intentionally at least once in our lives. Then there is 
  Leviticus 6. Then there is the New Covenant. Judy, you're saying that 
  if someone repents, then they are forgiven and that this is a gift 
  from God. 
  
  Now we come to a pivot point. If it is 
  God's desire that all men are reconciled to Him, then He gifts them 
  with genuine repentance. And He is almighty so I can't see why He'll 
  fail. But if God desire that some go to hell and some to 
  heaven..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


Is gluttony a sin?-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:14:08 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 










[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 




 Are fat Christians save 






===Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Is gluttony a sin?

  
  

=
Yes, it is, but all obese folks are not gluttons.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




As Terry said - all fat ppl are not gluttons but if you 
are concerned or interested here's a Bible Study:

Gluttony  Drunkenness seem to go together like 
siamese twins (as an attitude of the heart) and under the Old
Covenant they they were cause for a rebellious son who 
would not listen to be stoned (Deuteronomy 
21:20)

These two are also mentioned in tandemin Proverbs 
23:20
Isaiah 5:21,22
Luke 21:34,35
Romans 13:13,14
Ephesians 5:18,19


On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:56:15 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Is gluttony a sin?From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]Just 
  as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.
  

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  Are fat Christians save

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. It damages the "temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and the confessing "pervert" lost? Sins of omission will send us to hell, under your gospel. How many minutes can I sit watching TV while not, at the same time, preaching to the lost? I collect 1:18 model cars. I just spent $250 on a 1955 Mercedes with something like 3600 individual parts - going to hell until I repent, take the car back and give the money to the local church or a needy ministry or a needy person? 


-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 11:25:07 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



As Terry said - all fat ppl are not gluttons but if you are concerned or interested here's a Bible Study:

Gluttony  Drunkenness seem to go together like siamese twins (as an attitude of the heart) and under the Old
Covenant they they were cause for a rebellious son who would not listen to be stoned (Deuteronomy 21:20)

These two are also mentioned in tandemin Proverbs 23:20
Isaiah 5:21,22
Luke 21:34,35
Romans 13:13,14
Ephesians 5:18,19


On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:56:15 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Is gluttony a sin?From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
Are fat Christians save

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




Why was I naive enough to think you were asking an 
honest question JD; I should have known I was being
set up and that you had this hidden agenda... Who said 
a "glutton" is saved and a "confessing pervert" lost??
Certainly not me. What both Terry and I said is 
that all fat ppl are not gluttons. Read the scriptures and 
you
will find that gluttony and drunkenness and surfeiting 
are an attitude of the heart. It is walking after the flesh.
If you want to go around judging every fat person - 
then that is another area of sin.

As for my beliefs - you knownothing about 
them. What you think you know stems fromyour bad experiences 
in
the past which you equate with legalism,works 
faith and some such convoluted system; these are your issues JD.
They have nothing at all to do with me. 
jt


On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:08:41 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many 
calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. It 
damages the "temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and the 
confessing "pervert" lost? Sins of omission will send us to 
hell, under your gospel. How many minutes can I sit watching TV 
while not, at the same time, preaching to the lost? I collect 
1:18 model cars. I just spent $250 on a 1955 Mercedes with something 
like 3600 individual parts - going to hell until I repent, 
take the car back and give the money to the local church or a needy ministry or 
a needy person? 

  
  
  
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  As Terry said - all fat ppl are not gluttons but if 
  you are concerned or interested here's a Bible Study:
  
  Gluttony  Drunkenness seem to go together like 
  siamese twins (as an attitude of the heart) and under the Old
  Covenant they they were cause for a rebellious son 
  who would not listen to be stoned (Deuteronomy 
  21:20)
  
  These two are also mentioned in tandemin 
  Proverbs 23:20
  Isaiah 5:21,22
  Luke 21:34,35
  Romans 13:13,14
  Ephesians 5:18,19
  
  
  On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:56:15 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


Is gluttony a sin?From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]Just 
as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote: 
Are fat Christians save

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many
calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. It damages the
"temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and the confessing
"pervert" lost? tc: If a person is a glutton, sin is the pattern
of their life and they are lost, as is the pervert who refuses to deny
self . I do not know why. I just know that he is. I suppose
one reason would be that the Bible says so and the Bible is the word of
God. I would consider that a good enough reason that I would
not question it. Sins of omission will send us to hell, under your
gospel. How many minutes can I sit watching TV while not, at the same
time, preaching to the lost? If you are watching the stuff Lance
watches, not long. I collect 1:18 model cars. I just spent $250
on a 1955 Mercedes with something like 3600 individual parts -
going to hell until I repent, take the car back and give the money to
the local church or a needy ministry or a needy person? 
  Had you seen a needy person on your way to buy that car,
would you have not spent the money on that person. Seems I remember
you doing something similar before.
  
  
  

-Original Message-
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sun, 15 May 2005 11:25:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
  
  
  
  As Terry said - all fat ppl are not
gluttons but if you are concerned or interested here's a Bible Study:
  
  Gluttony  Drunkenness seem to go
together like siamese twins (as an attitude of the heart) and under the
Old
  Covenant they they were cause for a
rebellious son who would not listen to be
stoned (Deuteronomy 21:20)
  
  These two are also mentioned in tandemin
Proverbs 23:20
  Isaiah 5:21,22
  Luke 21:34,35
  Romans 13:13,14
  Ephesians 5:18,19
  
  
  On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:56:15 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
  


Is gluttony a sin?

From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 
Are fat Christians save

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




But it seems that Judy is saying if you have to 
confess the same sin a couple of times, you're not really saved. I was just 
asking for clarification.

Love,

Caroline

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts 
  on Genesis 1
  Caroline Wong wrote: 
  



Are we all assuming this man was confessing pedophilia? Or was he 
confessing something else like anger or sloth or is that all perversion to 
you, Terry? I know some here believe they don't sin but some here regularly 
confesses to the Lord. Are those who regularly confess sins in their prayer 
Christian perverts?

Love,

Caroline="Why 
  do you call me Lord, and do not do as I tell you to do?" That was the 
  question Jesus asked. The implication is that if you are serving 
  yourself instead of serving Him, you are lost. He will not be your 
  Savior under those conditions, no matter what this continual sin 
  is. I do not know how your mind works. Is it a favorite 
  sin that you insist on keeping, or do you have a casual attitude toward all 
  sin, or is it sin that is not deliberate that you fall into before you even 
  know it? These are things you need to address the next time you 
  pray. Just you and Him. I have my own salvation to work 
  out.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




I think you mean some obese folks are not glutton. True some people have 
metabolic disorders that make them put on weight without overeating. But what 
about those who do overeat. Can they still be Christians. Or how about smokers? 
Or an alcoholic who got dry and then got drunk again and then sobered up again. 
Was he still saved when he was drunk? If he stayed drunk is he still 
saved?

Love

Caroline

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:13 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts 
  on Genesis 1
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Is gluttony a 
  sin?=Yes, 
  it is, but all obese folks are not gluttons.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Please read my questions below and give an answer. Your personal judgments about me are no answer to my questions. Additionally, are some gluttons saved and others lost because of "attitude of heart?" Are you saying that it is the condition of the heart rather than mere "sin" that God looks to? 

-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 13:54:01 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Why was I naive enough to think you were asking an honest question JD; I should have known I was being
set up and that you had this hidden agenda... Who said a "glutton" is saved and a "confessing pervert" lost??
Certainly not me. What both Terry and I said is that all fat ppl are not gluttons. Read the scriptures and you
will find that gluttony and drunkenness and surfeiting are an attitude of the heart. It is walking after the flesh.
If you want to go around judging every fat person - then that is another area of sin.

As for my beliefs - you knownothing about them. What you think you know stems fromyour bad experiences in
the past which you equate with legalism,works faith and some such convoluted system; these are your issues JD.
They have nothing at all to do with me. jt


On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:08:41 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. It damages the "temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and the confessing "pervert" lost? Sins of omission will send us to hell, under your gospel. How many minutes can I sit watching TV while not, at the same time, preaching to the lost? I collect 1:18 model cars. I just spent $250 on a 1955 Mercedes with something like 3600 individual parts - going to hell until I repent, take the car back and give the money to the local church or a needy ministry or a needy person? 




From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



As Terry said - all fat ppl are not gluttons but if you are concerned or interested here's a Bible Study:

Gluttony  Drunkenness seem to go together like siamese twins (as an attitude of the heart) and under the Old
Covenant they they were cause for a rebellious son who would not listen to be stoned (Deuteronomy 21:20)

These two are also mentioned in tandemin Proverbs 23:20
Isaiah 5:21,22
Luke 21:34,35
Romans 13:13,14
Ephesians 5:18,19


On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:56:15 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Is gluttony a sin?From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
Are fat Christians save

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Are you dieting again?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Is gluttony a sin?-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:14:08 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 










[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 




 Are fat Christians save 






===Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.












		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1





Caroline Wong wrote:

  
  
  
  
  I think you mean some obese folks are not glutton. True some
people have metabolic disorders that make them put on weight without
overeating. But what about those who do overeat. Can they still be
Christians. Or how about smokers? Or an alcoholic who got dry and then
got drunk again and then sobered up again. Was he still saved when he
was drunk? If he stayed drunk is he still saved?
  
  Love
  
  Caroline

The Bible is pretty clear about who goes to Heaven and who goes to
Hell. Those who deny self and follow Christ are saved. Drunkards and
gluttons are specifically pointed out as lost as are sexual perverts,
gossips, and so on. Smoking is not specifically addressed in the
Bible. It could be like wine or food; a little is good, a lot is bad,
or it could be like taking the Lord's name in vain; never do it even a
little bit. In the OT, unintentional sin was forgivable. Under grace,
even intentional sin over a long period can be forgiven provided it is
forsaken (Go, and sin no more). My advice: If in doubt, don't sin. If
you slip up, repent. If you wallow in sin, get some good fire
insurance, you will need it.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




That's really bad news for so many Americans.

Terry, is it possible that God saves a glutton 
because He is able to and He wants to?

Love,

Caroline

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts 
  on Genesis 1
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  



For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many 
calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. It 
damages the "temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and the 
confessing "pervert" lost? tc: If a person is a glutton, sin 
is the pattern of their life and they are lost, as is the pervert who 
refuses to deny self . I do not know why. I just know that 
he is. I suppose one reason would be that the Bible says 
so and the Bible is the word of God. I would consider that a 
good enough reason that I would not question it. Sins of omission will 
send us to hell, under your gospel. How many minutes can I sit 
watching TV while not, at the same time, preaching to the lost? 
If you are watching the stuff Lance watches, not long. I collect 1:18 
model cars. I just spent $250 on a 1955 Mercedes with something 
like 3600 individual parts - going to hell until I 
repent, take the car back and give the money to the local church or a needy 
ministry or a needy person? 
Had you seen a needy person on your way to buy that car, would 
you have not spent the money on that person. Seems I remember 
you doing something similar before.

-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Sun, 15 May 2005 11:25:07 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts 
on Genesis 1



As Terry said - all fat ppl are not gluttons but if 
you are concerned or interested here's a Bible Study:

Gluttony  Drunkenness seem to go together like 
siamese twins (as an attitude of the heart) and under the Old
Covenant they they were cause for a rebellious son 
who would not listen to be stoned (Deuteronomy 
21:20)

These two are also mentioned in tandemin 
Proverbs 23:20
Isaiah 5:21,22
Luke 21:34,35
Romans 13:13,14
Ephesians 5:18,19


On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:56:15 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  
  Is gluttony a sin?From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]Just 
  as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.
  

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  Are fat Christians save

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1





Caroline Wong wrote:

  
  
  
  That's really bad news for so many Americans.
  
  Terry, is it possible that God saves
a glutton because He is able to and He wants to?
  
  Love,
  
  Caroline


Yes, Caroline. You know that. God saved a murderer named Saul and
changed his name to Paul, but there were many more murderers that He
has sent to Hell. All things are possible with God, but many are not
likely. As for Paul, he repented and was no longer a murderer but a
follower. If God saves a glutton, he will give up his gluttony for
Christ.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




Judy -- why the attack? We are discussing a very important issue. Let's just stick to that and avoid personal judgments about the other. I asked a series of questions.I would like an answer. When you mention an "attitude of heart," are y ou saying that some gluttons are lost and others are "saved,"depending upon their attitude? 
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 13:54:01 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Why was I naive enough to think you were asking an honest question JD; I should have known I was being
set up and that you had this hidden agenda... Who said a "glutton" is saved and a "confessing pervert" lost??
Certainly not me. What both Terry and I said is that all fat ppl are not gluttons. Read the scriptures and you
will find that gluttony and drunkenness and surfeiting are an attitude of the heart. It is walking after the flesh.
If you want to go around judging every fat person - then that is another area of sin.

As for my beliefs - you knownothing about them. What you think you know stems fromyour bad experiences in
the past which you equate with legalism,works faith and some such convoluted system; these are your issues JD.
They have nothing at all to do with me. jt


On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:08:41 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. It damages the "temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and the confessing "pervert" lost? Sins of omission will send us to hell, under your gospel. How many minutes can I sit watching TV while not, at the same time, preaching to the lost? I collect 1:18 model cars. I just spent $250 on a 1955 Mercedes with something like 3600 individual parts - going to hell until I repent, take the car back and give the money to the local church or a needy ministry or a needy person? 




From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



As Terry said - all fat ppl are not gluttons but if you are concerned or interested here's a Bible Study:

Gluttony  Drunkenness seem to go together like siamese twins (as an attitude of the heart) and under the Old
Covenant they they were cause for a rebellious son who would not listen to be stoned (Deuteronomy 21:20)

These two are also mentioned in tandemin Proverbs 23:20
Isaiah 5:21,22
Luke 21:34,35
Romans 13:13,14
Ephesians 5:18,19


On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:56:15 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Is gluttony a sin?From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
Are fat Christians save

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




You are either lost or saved by faith which the gift of 
God. The world runs on fear. Both fear and faith
are equal in the spiritual dimension - the one you feed 
will dominate your life. Choose ye this day who
you will serve. jt

On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:26:23 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  
  
  My weight is not the problem. It's my height. Am I hell 
  bound for spending that $250 on my model car? In a little 
  while, I am going in a take a nap. Should I be in 
  ministry somewhere instead? I could live without the 
  sleep. I got angry with my younger boy, yesterday. 
  Probably still angry when I went to bed last night.Lost or 
  saved? I am an addict. I come to the Lord and 
  want to be what He wants me to be. But it is going to take 
  some time. Lost or saved? 
  
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
  Sun, 15 May 2005 12:42:05 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk 
  Watts on Genesis 1
  

  
  Are you dieting again?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Is gluttony a sin?-Original 
Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:14:08 
-0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
  
  
  




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
  
   
  Are fat Christians save 
  



  
  
  ===Just 
as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.

  
  
  
  



  
  
  

  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




Forgive me JD, I didn't intend it as an attack and yes 
this is an important issue. I guess I don't think along the
same lines as you. I'm not all the time thinking 
saved/lost, saved/lost because by faith I believe the Lord is able
to complete what He has started in me. I don't 
judge all fat ppl as gluttonous, I think we should learn better 
than that from Job's Comforters; God was angry with 
them for judging that situation when they were ignorant 
of the realitybehind the reality they saw and 
this is the way of the world. However it was not Jesus' 
example.
He didn't judge by what His eyes saw or what His ears 
heard; he judged with righteous judgment and he has
left us the same example to follow Like 
Caroline (in this) I believe there are many and varied reasons why
ppl have weight issues from genetics to depression and 
everything in between. Gluttony OTOH is riotous
living - living to eat rather than eating to 
live. Hope you are enjoying your nap JD :) judyt



On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:36:54 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Judy -- why the attack? We are discussing a 
  very important issue. Let's just stick to that and avoid personal 
  judgments about the other. I asked a series of 
  questions.I would like an answer. When you mention an 
  "attitude of heart," are y ou saying that some gluttons are lost and 
  others are "saved,"depending upon their attitude? 
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  Why was I naive enough to think you were asking an 
  honest question JD; I should have known I was being
  set up and that you had this hidden agenda... Who 
  said a "glutton" is saved and a "confessing pervert" lost??
  Certainly not me. What both Terry and I said is 
  that all fat ppl are not gluttons. Read the scriptures and 
  you
  will find that gluttony and drunkenness and 
  surfeiting are an attitude of the heart. It is walking after the 
  flesh.
  If you want to go around judging every fat person - 
  then that is another area of sin.
  
  As for my beliefs - you knownothing about 
  them. What you think you know stems fromyour bad experiences 
  in
  the past which you equate with legalism,works 
  faith and some such convoluted system; these are your issues JD.
  They have nothing at all to do with me. 
  jt
  
  
  On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:08:41 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many 
  calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. It 
  damages the "temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and the 
  confessing "pervert" lost? Sins of omission will send us to 
  hell, under your gospel. How many minutes can I sit watching TV 
  while not, at the same time, preaching to the lost? I 
  collect 1:18 model cars. I just spent $250 on a 1955 Mercedes with 
  something like 3600 individual parts - going to hell 
  until I repent, take the car back and give the money to the local church or a 
  needy ministry or a needy person? 
  



From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



As Terry said - all fat ppl are not gluttons but if 
you are concerned or interested here's a Bible Study:

Gluttony  Drunkenness seem to go together like 
siamese twins (as an attitude of the heart) and under the Old
Covenant they they were cause for a rebellious son 
who would not listen to be stoned (Deuteronomy 
21:20)

These two are also mentioned in tandemin 
Proverbs 23:20
Isaiah 5:21,22
Luke 21:34,35
Romans 13:13,14
Ephesians 5:18,19


On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:56:15 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Is gluttony a sin?From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]Just as with a rich man, 
  all things are possible in Christ.
  

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  Are fat Christians save

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1







They are only observationsJD, I was misguidedly thinking that the immersion had been having an effect :) What does this mean -- and the smiley face. I am missing something. But
let's face it - When we come to Jesus we are all a mess and we remain a work in progress for a long time after that.
The goal of the instruction is love from a PURE heart and unfeigned love of the brethren which does not happen
overnight - and yes the condition of the heart is the deciding factor because a person with a pure heart will also 
have a sanctified mouth in time and we all know what kind of strife the tongue can kindle jt

What you write above, is very much along the lines of my thinking. I shall save this and move on to another topic. Good stuff.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




I basically agree with your thesis Caroline, about the 
love part anyway but I see your _expression_ as a bit lop sided
and definitely Pollyannaish. God never 
haschanged His nature and character. He is the same today as he was when 
Moses wrote Deuteronomy and the blessings for 
obedience and the curses for disobedience still stand. 

Yes Christ became a curse for us so that we don't have 
to walk in it- but we are. Something is very wrong because the 
Church is just as sick as the world. Go to any doctor's waiting room - you 
won't be able to tell the difference andthis ought not to be. Why is 
the Churchwearing the curse? Because we don't understand sin, 
righteousness, or judgment as Per Hosea 4:6 - while we are busy being nice folk 
and respecting ppl Satan is eating us for lunch and because pastors don't want 
to deal with it some are even teaching that thisis a 
blessing.

Maybe your denomination has taught you that we will be 
perfected when the final trump sounds and the Church is raptured off to 
heaven. Well God doesn't need us perfected up there, he has enough perfect 
ones and no sin there. He needs us to do the work of the ministry here. 
Kevin may notbelieve exactly like me but he is busydoing what he 
believes God has called him to do and some of you areall over him like a 
rash in spite of what God says about division and strife (in his eyes 
thisis the same as adultery) Grace and Peace, judyt


On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:49:17 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Jesus. Yeshuah. God saves. He is able to overcome 
  all our faults and sins. He is able to overcome all our wounds and brokenness. 
  He is constantly at work in all our lives. He tells us when we're wrong 
  (judgment) so that we can turn and do right. He blesses us with his 
  forgiveness so that sin can not enslave and kill us. He loves us andis 
  delightedwhen we do good. He loves us and is grieved when we hurt 
  another person or another person hurts us. If He did not love us, He would not 
  be delighted or grieved by us.
  
  Some people believe we're on our own and then, 
  when we die, God gives us the scorecard. I believe God is with us from 
  beginning to end: loving, convicting, forgiving, grieving, loving, enjoying, 
  judging, loving, pursuing, calling, correcting, loving
  
  Love, Caroline
  
From: Judy Taylor 

They are only observationsJD, I was 
misguidedly thinking that the immersion had been having an effect :) 
But let's face it - When we come to Jesus we are 
all a mess and we remain a work in progress for a long time after that. 
The goal of the instruction is love from a PURE 
heart and unfeigned love of the brethren which does not happen overnight - and yes the condition of the heart is the deciding 
factor because a person with a pure heart will also have a sanctified mouth and we all know what kind of strife 
the tongue can kindle jt

On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:36:18 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Please read my questions below and give an answer. Your 
  personal judgments about me are no answer to my 
  questions. Additionally, are some gluttons saved and 
  others lost because of "attitude of heart?" Are you saying that it is the 
  condition of the heart rather than mere "sin" that God looks to? 
  
  
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  Why was I naive enough to think you were asking 
  an honest question JD; I should have known I was being
  set up and that you had this hidden agenda... Who 
  said a "glutton" is saved and a "confessing pervert" lost?? 
  Certainly not me. What both Terry and I 
  said is that all fat ppl are not gluttons. Read the scriptures and 
  you will find that gluttony and drunkenness and 
  surfeiting are an attitude of the heart. It is walking after the 
  flesh. If you want to go around judging 
  every fat person - then that is another area of sin.
  
  As for my beliefs - you knownothing about 
  them. What you think you know stems fromyour bad experiences 
  in the past which you equate with 
  legalism,works faith and some such convoluted system; these are your 
  issues JD. They have nothing at all to do with 
  me. jt
  
  
  On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:08:41 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many 
  calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. 
  It damages the "temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and 
  the confessing "pervert" lost? Sins of omission will 
  send us to hell, under your gospel. How many minutes can I sit 
  watching TV while not, at the same time, preaching to the 
  lost? I collect 1:18 model cars. I just spent $250 
  on a 1955 Mercedes with something like 3600 individual parts 
  - going to hell until I repent, take

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Forgive me JD; I should have resisted but didn't that
time. I know what you have described is good because I've done it myself in the past. BTW if you and others get
the idea that I'm a little frustrated that the Church has dropped the ball in the area of divine health you are
right. At this point I'm totally disillusioned with Drs. and
pharmaceuticals and long for the More Excellent Way but I doubt that there is
anyone in our area I could talk with or anyone who would even know what I am
talking about for that matter. Well meaning ppl but too involved
withbuilding of buildings rather than the building of the body. Will
get off my soapbox now :) BTW How's the nap
going.?

On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:20:05 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

They are only observationsJD, I was misguidedly
thinking that the immersion had been having an effect
:) What does
this mean -- and the smiley face. I am missing
something. But

let's face it - When we come to Jesus we are all a
mess and we remain a work in progress for a long time after
that.
The goal of the instruction is love from a PURE
heart and unfeigned love of the brethren which does not happen
overnight - and yes the condition of the heart is
the deciding factor because a person with a pure heart will also

have a sanctified mouth in time and we all know what kind of
strife the tongue can kindle jt

What you write above, is very much along the lines of my
thinking. I shall save this and move on to another
topic. Good stuff.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

ZZ "BTW How's the nap going.?"zzz aa -- sin free , so far ZZ

As far as forgiving you. No problem. You were responding to the caustic JD. So far, he is remains only a floater. He was having a bit too much fun -- time out !!

-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 17:47:53 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Forgive me JD; I should have resisted but didn't that time. I know what you have described is good because I've done it myself in the past. BTW if you and others get the idea that I'm a little frustrated that the Church has dropped the ball in the area of divine health you are right. At this point I'm totally disillusioned with Drs. and pharmaceuticals and long for the More Excellent Way but I doubt that there is anyone in our area I could talk with or anyone who would even know what I am talking about for that matter. Well meaning ppl but too involved withbuilding of buildings rather than the building of the body. Will get off my soapbox now :) BTW How's the nap going.?

On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:20:05 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

They are only observationsJD, I was misguidedly thinking that the immersion had been having an effect :) What does this mean -- and the smiley face. I am missing something. But

let's face it - When we come to Jesus we are all a mess and we remain a work in progress for a long time after that.
The goal of the instruction is love from a PURE heart and unfeigned love of the brethren which does not happen
overnight - and yes the condition of the heart is the deciding factor because a person with a pure heart will also
have a sanctified mouth in time and we all know what kind of strife the tongue can kindle jt

What you write above, is very much along the lines of my thinking. I shall save this and move on to another topic. Good stuff.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Remember you are talking to the Immersed, Revised Version[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:





Judy -- why the attack? We are discussing a very important issue. Let's just stick to that and avoid personal judgments about the other. I asked a series of questions.I would like an answer. When you mention an "attitude of heart," are y ou saying that some gluttons are lost and others are "saved,"depending upon their attitude? 
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 13:54:01 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Why was I naive enough to think you were asking an honest question JD; I should have known I was being
set up and that you had this hidden agenda... Who said a "glutton" is saved and a "confessing pervert" lost??
Certainly not me. What both Terry and I said is that all fat ppl are not gluttons. Read the scriptures and you
will find that gluttony and drunkenness and surfeiting are an attitude of the heart. It is walking after the flesh.
If you want to go around judging every fat person - then that is another area of sin.

As for my beliefs - you knownothing about them. What you think you know stems fromyour bad experiences in
the past which you equate with legalism,works faith and some such convoluted system; these are your issues JD.
They have nothing at all to do with me. jt


On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:08:41 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. It damages the "temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and the confessing "pervert" lost? Sins of omission will send us to hell, under your gospel. How many minutes can I sit watching TV while not, at the same time, preaching to the lost? I collect 1:18 model cars. I just spent $250 on a 1955 Mercedes with something like 3600 individual parts - going to hell until I repent, take the car back and give the money to the local church or a needy ministry or a needy person? 




From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



As Terry said - all fat ppl are not gluttons but if you are concerned or interested here's a Bible Study:

Gluttony  Drunkenness seem to go together like siamese twins (as an attitude of the heart) and under the Old
Covenant they they were cause for a rebellious son who would not listen to be stoned (Deuteronomy 21:20)

These two are also mentioned in tandemin Proverbs 23:20
Isaiah 5:21,22
Luke 21:34,35
Romans 13:13,14
Ephesians 5:18,19


On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:56:15 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Is gluttony a sin?From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
Are fat Christians save 











__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  My weight is not the problem. It's my height. About two
feet short? Am I hell bound for spending that $250 on my model
car? No. Do you feel guilty?  In a little while, I am
going in a take a nap. Should I be in ministry somewhere instead?
Definetly not.  We don't want you preaching what you espouse. I could
  live without the sleep. I got angry with my younger boy,
yesterday. Probably still angry when I went to bed last night.Lost
or saved? Ask the Lord. He makes those decisions  I am an
addict. I come to the Lord and want to be what He wants me to be.
But it is going to take some time. Lost or saved? How much time?
  
  
  

-Original Message-
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
  
  
  
  Are you dieting again?
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


Is gluttony a sin?

-Original Message-
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:14:08 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  
  
  

  
  
  




[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  



  
 Are fat Christians save
  



  
  
  ===
  
  



  
  
  
  

Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.


  
  
  
  



  
  
  

  
  





  
  
  
  
  





  
  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Out and out bearing of false witness, when there is no witness. That qualifies as LYING.
How can Iever trust a Liar again?
Hurry, call all your "Christian" friends and "Share" with them
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I basically agree with your thesis Caroline, about the love part anyway but I see your _expression_ as a bit lop sided
and definitely Pollyannaish. God never haschanged His nature and character. He is the same today as he was when Moses wrote Deuteronomy and the blessings for obedience and the curses for disobedience still stand. 

Yes Christ became a curse for us so that we don't have to walk in it- but we are. Something is very wrong because the Church is just as sick as the world. Go to any doctor's waiting room - you won't be able to tell the difference andthis ought not to be. Why is the Churchwearing the curse? Because we don't understand sin, righteousness, or judgment as Per Hosea 4:6 - while we are busy being nice folk and respecting ppl Satan is eating us for lunch and because pastors don't want to deal with it some are even teaching that thisis a blessing.

Maybe your denomination has taught you that we will be perfected when the final trump sounds and the Church is raptured off to heaven. Well God doesn't need us perfected up there, he has enough perfect ones and no sin there. He needs us to do the work of the ministry here. Kevin may notbelieve exactly like me but he is busydoing what he believes God has called him to do and some of you areall over him like a rash in spite of what God says about division and strife (in his eyes thisis the same as adultery) Grace and Peace, judyt


On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:49:17 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Jesus. Yeshuah. God saves. He is able to overcome all our faults and sins. He is able to overcome all our wounds and brokenness. He is constantly at work in all our lives. He tells us when we're wrong (judgment) so that we can turn and do right. He blesses us with his forgiveness so that sin can not enslave and kill us. He loves us andis delightedwhen we do good. He loves us and is grieved when we hurt another person or another person hurts us. If He did not love us, He would not be delighted or grieved by us.

Some people believe we're on our own and then, when we die, God gives us the scorecard. I believe God is with us from beginning to end: loving, convicting, forgiving, grieving, loving, enjoying, judging, loving, pursuing, calling, correcting, loving

Love, Caroline

From: Judy Taylor 

They are only observationsJD, I was misguidedly thinking that the immersion had been having an effect :) But let's face it - When we come to Jesus we are all a mess and we remain a work in progress for a long time after that. The goal of the instruction is love from a PURE heart and unfeigned love of the brethren which does not happen overnight - and yes the condition of the heart is the deciding factor because a person with a pure heart will also have a sanctified mouth and we all know what kind of strife the tongue can kindle jt

On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:36:18 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Please read my questions below and give an answer. Your personal judgments about me are no answer to my questions. Additionally, are some gluttons saved and others lost because of "attitude of heart?" Are you saying that it is the condition of the heart rather than mere "sin" that God looks to? 

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Why was I naive enough to think you were asking an honest question JD; I should have known I was being
set up and that you had this hidden agenda... Who said a "glutton" is saved and a "confessing pervert" lost?? Certainly not me. What both Terry and I said is that all fat ppl are not gluttons. Read the scriptures and you will find that gluttony and drunkenness and surfeiting are an attitude of the heart. It is walking after the flesh. If you want to go around judging every fat person - then that is another area of sin.

As for my beliefs - you knownothing about them. What you think you know stems fromyour bad experiences in the past which you equate with legalism,works faith and some such convoluted system; these are your issues JD. They have nothing at all to do with me. jt


On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:08:41 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. It damages the "temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and the confessing "pervert" lost? Sins of omission will send us to hell, under your gospel. How many minutes can I sit watching TV while not, at the same time, preaching to the lost? I collect 1:18 model cars. I just spent $250 on a 1955 Mercedes with something like 3600 individual parts - going to hell until I repent, take the car back and give the money to the local church or a needy ministry or a needy person? 




From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



As Terry said - all fat ppl are not gluttons but

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Nope. You want to answer the questions posed or continue to hope for my failure? 

Jd


-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 17:28:16 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



IMMERSION Fizzled?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 





My weight is not the problem. It's my height. Am I hell bound for spending that $250 on my model car? In a little while, I am going in a take a nap. Should I be in ministry somewhere instead? I could live without the sleep. I got angry with my younger boy, yesterday. Probably still angry when I went to bed last night.Lost or saved? I am an addict. I come to the Lord and want to be what He wants me to be. But it is going to take some time. Lost or saved? 

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:42:05 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Are you dieting again?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



Is gluttony a sin?-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:14:08 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 










[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 




 Are fat Christians save 






===Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.














Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 


Yahoo! Mail MobileTake Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

I do not hope for your failure, never have.
I hope for your salvation.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




Nope. You want to answer the questions posed or continue to hope for my failure? 

Jd


-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 17:28:16 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



IMMERSION Fizzled?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 





My weight is not the problem. It's my height. Am I hell bound for spending that $250 on my model car? In a little while, I am going in a take a nap. Should I be in ministry somewhere instead? I could live without the sleep. I got angry with my younger boy, yesterday. Probably still angry when I went to bed last night.Lost or saved? I am an addict. I come to the Lord and want to be what He wants me to be. But it is going to take some time. Lost or saved? 

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:42:05 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Are you dieting again?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



Is gluttony a sin?-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:14:08 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 










[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 




 Are fat Christians save 






===Just as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.














Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 


Yahoo! Mail MobileTake Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
		Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


Terry in bold and my response in whatever this color is. 






My weight is not the problem. It's my height. About two feet short? Something like that. Am I hell bound for spending that $250 on my model car? No. Do you feel guilty? My guilt was not the question. The sin of omission is. In a little while, I am going in a take a nap. Should I be in ministry somewhere instead? Definetly not. Again, not the point.but I did leave myself open for that one. We don't want you preaching what you espouse. I am confident that God does. I could live without the sleep. I got angry with my younger boy, yesterday. Probably still angry when I went to bed last night.Lost or saved? Ask the Lord. He makes those decisions Actaully, I know the
 answer - but does a works salvationist have an answer? I am an addict. I come to the Lord and want to be what He wants me to be. But it is going to take some time. Lost or saved? How much time? God only allows you a certain amount of time? 

The point of all this, from my perspective, is that God had better judge us according to grace because legally, we are all dead men walking. If event sin doesn't get you, character flaws will, and if that doesn't convict you, then the sin of omission will do you in. None of this means that we don't try, that we are free to live unto ourselves without consequence.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


I don't get it. You have been on this "Caroline is a false witness" kick for some time, now, completely ignoring the fact youhave done the same thing.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 17:41:30 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Out and out bearing of false witness, when there is no witness. That qualifies as LYING.
How can Iever trust a Liar again?
Hurry, call all your "Christian" friends and "Share" with them
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I basically agree with your thesis Caroline, about the love part anyway but I see your _expression_ as a bit lop sided
and definitely Pollyannaish. God never haschanged His nature and character. He is the same today as he was when Moses wrote Deuteronomy and the blessings for obedience and the curses for disobedience still stand. 

Yes Christ became a curse for us so that we don't have to walk in it- but we are. Something is very wrong because the Church is just as sick as the world. Go to any doctor's waiting room - you won't be able to tell the difference andthis ought not to be. Why is the Churchwearing the curse? Because we don't understand sin, righteousness, or judgment as Per Hosea 4:6 - while we are busy being nice folk and respecting ppl Satan is eating us for lunch and because pastors don't want to deal with it some are even teaching that thisis a blessing.

Maybe your denomination has taught you that we will be perfected when the final trump sounds and the Church is raptured off to heaven. Well God doesn't need us perfected up there, he has enough perfect ones and no sin there. He needs us to do the work of the ministry here. Kevin may notbelieve exactly like me but he is busydoing what he believes God has called him to do and some of you areall over him like a rash in spite of what God says about division and strife (in his eyes thisis the same as adultery) Grace and Peace, judyt


On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:49:17 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Jesus. Yeshuah. God saves. He is able to overcome all our faults and sins. He is able to overcome all our wounds and brokenness. He is constantly at work in all our lives. He tells us when we're wrong (judgment) so that we can turn and do right. He blesses us with his forgiveness so that sin can not enslave and kill us. He loves us andis delightedwhen we do good. He loves us and is grieved when we hurt another person or another person hurts us. If He did not love us, He would not be delighted or grieved by us.

Some people believe we're on our own and then, when we die, God gives us the scorecard. I believe God is with us from beginning to end: loving, convicting, forgiving, grieving, loving, enjoying, judging, loving, pursuing, calling, correcting, loving

Love, Caroline

From: Judy Taylor 

They are only observationsJD, I was misguidedly thinking that the immersion had been having an effect :) But let's face it - When we come to Jesus we are all a mess and we remain a work in progress for a long time after that. The goal of the instruction is love from a PURE heart and unfeigned love of the brethren which does not happen overnight - and yes the condition of the heart is the deciding factor because a person with a pure heart will also have a sanctified mouth and we all know what kind of strife the tongue can kindle jt

On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:36:18 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Please read my questions below and give an answer. Your personal judgments about me are no answer to my questions. Additionally, are some gluttons saved and others lost because of "attitude of heart?" Are you saying that it is the condition of the heart rather than mere "sin" that God looks to? 

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Why was I naive enough to think you were asking an honest question JD; I should have known I was being
set up and that you had this hidden agenda... Who said a "glutton" is saved and a "confessing pervert" lost?? Certainly not me. What both Terry and I said is that all fat ppl are not gluttons. Read the scriptures and you will find that gluttony and drunkenness and surfeiting are an attitude of the heart. It is walking after the flesh. If you want to go around judging every fat person - then that is another area of sin.

As for my beliefs - you knownothing about them. What you think you know stems fromyour bad experiences in the past which you equate with legalism,works faith and some such convoluted system; these are your issues JD. They have nothing at all to do with me. jt


On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:08:41 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the most part, we are fat because we consume too many calories. Call it gluttony; call it over-eating. It damages the "temple of God." Why is this person "saved" and the confessing "pervert" lost? Sins of omission will sen

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




So if we feel full of faith and very little fear, 
we're saved. I like that. I can agree with that.

Thanks Judy.

Love,

Caroline

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts 
  on Genesis 1
  
  You are either lost or saved by faith which the gift 
  of God. The world runs on fear. Both fear and faith
  are equal in the spiritual dimension - the one you 
  feed will dominate your life. Choose ye this day who
  you will serve. jt
  
  On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:26:23 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  




My weight is not the problem. It's my height. Am I 
hell bound for spending that $250 on my model car? In a little 
while, I am going in a take a nap. Should I be in 
ministry somewhere instead? I could live without the 
sleep. I got angry with my younger boy, yesterday. 
Probably still angry when I went to bed last night.Lost or 
saved? I am an addict. I come to the Lord and 
want to be what He wants me to be. But it is going to take 
some time. Lost or saved? 

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Sun, 15 May 2005 12:42:05 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk 
Watts on Genesis 1



Are you dieting again?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
  Is gluttony a sin?-Original 
  Message-From: Terry Clifton 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:14:08 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
  

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  





  
  
  
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  



 
Are fat Christians save 

  
  
  


===Just 
  as with a rich man, all things are possible in Christ.
  




  
  
  



  


Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Terry in bold and my response in whatever this color is. 

  
  




My weight is not the problem. It's my height. About two
feet short? Something like that. Am
I hell bound for spending that $250 on my model car? No. Do you
feel guilty? My guilt was not the
question. The sin of omission is. In a little
while, I am going in a take a nap. Should I be in ministry
somewhere instead? Definetly not. Again,
not the point.but I did leave myself open for that one. We
don't want you preaching what you espouse. I am
confident that God does. I could live without
the sleep. I got angry with my younger boy, yesterday. Probably
still angry when I went to bed last night.Lost or saved? Ask
the Lord. He makes those decisions Actaully, I
know the answer - but does a works salvationist have an answer? I
am an addict. I come to the Lord and want to be what He wants me to
be. But it is going to take some time. Lost or saved? How much
time? God only allows you a certain amount of
time? 


The point of all this, from my
perspective, is that God had better judge us according to grace because
legally, we are all dead men walking. If event sin doesn't get you,
character flaws will, and if that doesn't convict you, then the sin of
omission will do you in. None of this means that we don't try, that
we are free to live unto ourselves without consequence. 


  
  
  
  

I can appreciate what you are trying to convey about grace. Without it
our hope of Heaven would instead be despair. As to how much time, yes,
God only gives you so much time. Remember when He called one to follow
Him and the guy said he would follow when his father died? Remember
that he was left behind? Remember when He forgave the woman? Did he
tell her to slowly taper off on her sins, or did He tell her "Go, and
sin no more"? 
When I got saved, I was dipping snuff, drinking four sixpacks a day and
cursing with the best of them. In addition, I was filled with hate for
my enemies, selfish, and full of pride. Some of that ended the day I
got saved and the rest of it ended as I learned that it was not
pleasing to God. If one knows he/she is doing wrong and will not stop,
he or she has not denied self. If self still rules, Christ does not,
and there is a very real question as to whether or not that
person/addict was ever saved.

  
  
  
  

Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1






  Yes Christ became a curse for us so that we don't 
  have to walk in it- but we are. Something is very wrong because 
  the Church is just as sick as the world. Go to any doctor's waiting room 
  - you won't be able to tell the difference andthis ought not to 
  be. Why is the Churchwearing the curse? Because we don't 
  understand sin, righteousness, or judgment as Per Hosea 4:6 - while we are 
  busy being nice folk and respecting ppl Satan is eating us for lunch and 
  because pastors don't want to deal with it some are even teaching that 
  thisis a blessing.
  
  Caroline:
  I agree with you that on key things like divorce or sickness, there 
  doesn't seem to be much difference between Christians and nonChristians. We do 
  not seem to have the victorious life. I think it's because we're don't 
  understand spiritual power and spiritual battle. The things that are powerful 
  in the spiritual realm (prayer, forgiveness, confession, humility, love, 
  generosity etc) are foolishness in the physical realm. You're right when you 
  say Satan is eating people for lunch. I think when people get angry or become 
  proud and arrogant, they open doors in the spiritual realm for all sorts of 
  demons and spiritual junk. That's why I refrain from unnecesarily making 
  people angry or proud. Unless someone is ready to hear, they won't hear. 
  Forcing them to listen will only make them angry. Jesus said not to throw 
  pearls before swine.
  
  Maybe your denomination has taught you that we will 
  be perfected when the final trump sounds and the Church is raptured off to 
  heaven. Well God doesn't need us perfected up there, he has enough 
  perfect ones and no sin there. He needs us to do the work of the ministry 
  here. Kevin may notbelieve exactly like me but he is 
  busydoing what he believes God has called him to do and some of you 
  areall over him like a rash in spite of what God says about division and 
  strife (in his eyes thisis the same as adultery) Grace and Peace, 
  judyt
  
  Caroline
  My denomination (and many others) teach that 
  we'll be changed in the twinkling of an eye at death. And that now we see 
  poorly but after we'll see clearly. I personally believe God judges us 
  whenever we sin so that we can know what not to do. Then He forgives us and 
  teaches us so that not only will we know what to do, we'll be able to do that. 
  Sin has consequences and can enslave us. His forgiveness frees us to obey Him. 
  On most days, I have no problems allowing Kevin to do what he feels is his 
  call. Today, God asked me if I wanted to be a Street Preacher. Would I like to 
  hold up a sign and yell at Kevin and rebuke him.Oh yes! I cried. But on 
  thinking it over, I think the better answer is no. To do so would be to harden 
  Kevin. David might consider what I wrote, sift through my words for anything 
  from God but Kevin will automatically assume everything I'm waving in his face 
  or yelling at him is from the devil and we will end up yelling at each other 
  to the detriment of both our souls. Who knows what doors in the spiritual 
  realm will be opened and what pollution would be released? Like Debbie, who is 
  wiser that me, I may have to bow out of this arena.
  
  Love,
  
  Caroline

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-14 Thread Lance Muir

Have you been in touch with and, heard back from, Ray?

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 13, 2005 23:10
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on
Genesis 1

 Thank you.   I made a deal with the Lord some time back.   I let Him
 know that I would set aside money out of the next job to run a series
 of articles in our town paper.   We  (my current wife and I )  hosted a
 house church year before last.We have decided to begin that
 fellowship again  (we call it the Fairbanks Avenue Fellowship)  -- 
 only this time, from a perichoresis point of view.   I will be talking
 with the editor of the paper about these articles on Tuesday.

 JD

 -Original Message-
 From: Debbie Sawczak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:54:40 -0400
 Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on
 Genesis 1

  Glad to hear about your contract, JD!

  Debbie

  - Original Message -  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:30 PM
   Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on
 Genesis 1

  Where does the information about the 500 witnesses come from? This
  same biblical message argues that faith (conviction with emotion,
  astonishment and appreciation) is both the substance and the evidence
  of what we hold to be true. Verbal pleanary inspiration comes from
 the
  need, felt by many, that there must be a reasoned approached that
 goes
  beyond emotional appeal; REAL evidence that cannot not be denied by
  honest folk; evidence that is in fact PROOF of what it is that we
  believe. This ignores the several examples of Godly Manifestations
  represented in Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. He heard
  the Lord - others (I assume honest men, all) heard thunder.
  There is no other kind of personal experience. Yesterday, I
 signed
  a contract for a job that will take me through the summer, in terms
 of
  income. God gave me that job. Period. I think (read: believe).

  JD

  -Original Message-
  From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: Tue, 10 May 2005 04:42:42 -0400
  Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on
  Genesis 1

  Sorry but, rationalistic evidentialism just doesn't do it for
  me.You would, IMO, get a resounding amen from David.
  - Original Message -
  From: Kevin Deegan
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: May 09, 2005 16:49
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

  NO EVIDENCE?
  There were at least 500 EYEWITNESSES to the ressurected savoir!
  500 eyewitnesses is enough to convict anyone in a court of LAW even
 in
  CanaDAH!

  How do you know Booth shot Lincoln? Irrefutable?
  How do you know any historical figure really existed?

  Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  There is NO EVIDENCE (irrefutable utilizing David Miller's brand of
  logic) that Jesus is real - none, zip, zero, notta. If you (or
 anyone)
  has placed their faith in the evidence then, be prepared for a fall.
  - Original Message -
  From: Terry Clifton
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: May 09, 2005 08:24
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

  Caroline Wong wrote: I consider myself Christian. There are tons
  of definitions of Evangelical. The simplest is a person who belongs
 to
  an Evangelical denomination. I define it as a person who tells
 another
  the good news.

  BTW, was it you who said that if someone proved to you Jesus was
  false, you would stop believing? (I think it was in relation to the
 LDS
  people and Joseph Smith) I was completely stunned by that post and
 not
  sure if I read it right.

  Love,

  Caroline

  If you had absolute proof that Jesus was not the Savior, you would be
  out of your mind to continue to believe. I am a realist. I have
  examined the evidence. Jesus is real!!!
  Terry

  Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

  --
  Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
 may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)
 http://www.InnGlory.org

  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have
 a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-14 Thread David Miller




Caroline wrote:
 Those 65,000 words were 
added and should be 
 removed so that what we have is the purer form. 


Caroline, please think about this. If YOU were copying the Bible for 
your reading later, what type of mistakewould you most likely make? 
Would it be more likely that you would omit words or add words? Think 
about it. Please tell me what your answer is.

Peace be with you.David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-14 Thread Caroline Wong




Both errors are likely. People could deliberately 
add words to bolster the text and make it sound better. In fact, 
Christianshave been known to write whole books and letters and attribute 
them to Paul or John or some other Apostle. There was a lot of controversy and 
uncertainty so adding words make things more plain.

Biblical scholars were quite surprised when they 
found early manuscripts which did not contain lots of stuff like the ending to 
Mark or the story in John about the woman caught in adultery. Mark can be 
explained by saying the manuscript lost its ending but how do we explain John 
:-) We don't. We just put a note and say it's not in the early manuscripts. I 
like the story and I'm glad it's in my bible - even with that 
caveat.

If copyists lost words as they copied, the later 
manuscripts would have less words than the early ones.

Love,

Caroline

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:11 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts 
  on Genesis 1
  
  Caroline wrote:
   Those 65,000 words 
  were added and should be 
   removed so that what we have is the purer form. 
  
  
  Caroline, please think about this. If YOU were copying the Bible 
  for your reading later, what type of mistakewould you most likely 
  make? Would it be more likely that you would omit words or add 
  words? Think about it. Please tell me what your answer is.
  
  Peace be with you.David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-14 Thread Judy Taylor




I wouldn't put it off on God Caroline, we are 
responsible for our own actions. I recall an incident in a Church
we used to go to where a friend of mine had a Word of 
Knowledge given her about a regular brother who was a Church regular andin 
the habit of going to the altar every time there was 
an altar call for any reason. She confronted him with what the Lord had 
shown her and he acknowledgedit was true - He 
went on to say that he knew he could go to hell but that he liked what he was 
doing. Just like thepedophile priests in the 
RCC. Until they learn to hate the sin as much as God hates it - and then 
want to be free more than anything else, they will 
continue in thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and their 
victims. judyt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:09:25 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Regarding my comment on intentional sin
  
jt: None that I know of, 
under Levitical law they were cut off from the people. We are told not 
to allow the sun to go down on our wrath and how does one get drunk or 
commit adultery unintentionally? Drunkards and fornicators do not 
inherit God's Kingdom. Under both Covenants it would take genuine 
repentance which BTW is also a gift and since this is out of our control 
(other than our willingness and desire) it should cause humility and godly 
fear. judyt 

Caroline:
The first 5 chapters of Leviticus speak about 
atonement for unintentional sin. When I started reading Leviticus, I was 
freaking out because there does not seem to be atonement for intentional sin 
and all of us humans have been guilty of sinning intentionally at least once 
in our lives. Then there is Leviticus 6. Then there is the New Covenant. 
Judy, you're saying that if someone repents, then they are forgiven and that 
this is a gift from God. 

Now we come to a pivot point. If it is God's 
desire that all men are reconciled to Him, then He gifts them with genuine 
repentance. And He is almighty so I can't see why He'll fail. But if God 
desire that some go to hell and some to heaven..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent repentor is lost or hell bound?

-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:24:54 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

I wouldn't put it off on God Caroline, we are responsible for our own actions. I recall an incident in a Church
we used to go to where a friend of mine had a Word of Knowledge given her about a regular brother who was a Church regular andin the habit of going to the altar every time there was an altar call for any reason. She confronted him with what the Lord had shown her and he acknowledgedit was true - He went on to say that he knew he could go to hell but that he liked what he was doing. Just like thepedophile priests in the RCC. Until they learn to hate the sin as much as God hates it - and then want to be free more than anything else, they will continue in thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and their victims. judyt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:09:25 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Regarding my comment on intentional sin

jt: None that I know of, under Levitical law they were cut off from the people. We are told not to allow the sun to go down on our wrath and how does one get drunk or commit adultery unintentionally? Drunkards and fornicators do not inherit God's Kingdom. Under both Covenants it would take genuine repentance which BTW is also a gift and since this is out of our control (other than our willingness and desire) it should cause humility and godly fear. judyt

Caroline:
The first 5 chapters of Leviticus speak about atonement for unintentional sin. When I started reading Leviticus, I was freaking out because there does not seem to be atonement for intentional sin and all of us humans have been guilty of sinning intentionally at least once in our lives. Then there is Leviticus 6. Then there is the New Covenant. Judy, you're saying that if someone repents, then they are forgiven and that this is a gift from God.

Now we come to a pivot point. If it is God's desire that all men are reconciled to Him, then He gifts them with genuine repentance. And He is almighty so I can't see why He'll fail. But if God desire that some go to hell and some to heaven..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent repentor is lost or hell bound?

I wouldn't put it off on God Caroline, we are responsible for our own actions. I recall an incident in a Church
we used to go to where a friend of mine had a Word of Knowledge given her about a regular brother who was a Church regular andin the habit of going to the altar every time there was an altar call for any reason. She confronted him with what the Lord had shown her and he acknowledgedit was true - He went on to say that he knew he could go to hell but that he liked what he was doing. Just like thepedophile priests in the RCC. Until they learn to hate the sin as much as God hates it - and then want to be free more than anything else, they will continue in thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and their victims. judyt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:09:25 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Regarding my comment on intentional sin

jt: None that I know of, under Levitical law they were cut off from the people. We are told not to allow the sun to go down on our wrath and how does one get drunk or commit adultery unintentionally? Drunkards and fornicators do not inherit God's Kingdom. Under both Covenants it would take genuine repentance which BTW is also a gift and since this is out of our control (other than our willingness and desire) it should cause humility and godly fear. judyt

Caroline:
The first 5 chapters of Leviticus speak about atonement for unintentional sin. When I started reading Leviticus, I was freaking out because there does not seem to be atonement for intentional sin and all of us humans have been guilty of sinning intentionally at least once in our lives. Then there is Leviticus 6. Then there is the New Covenant. Judy, you're saying that if someone repents, then they are forgiven and that this is a gift from God.

Now we come to a pivot point. If it is God's desire that all men are reconciled to Him, then He gifts them with genuine repentance. And He is almighty so I can't see why He'll fail. But if God desire that some go to hell and some to heaven..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-14 Thread Terry Clifton





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent
repentor is lost or hell bound?
  
  

Real simple John. When the same sin is a continuous part of your life,
your trips to the alter are bogus. Who is the sinner serving? Christ,
or himself? It doesn't take a community to figure it out. Try to
remember that. Some day there will be a test.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Doesn't Hebrews teach us that the difference between the sacrifice of bulls/goats and the sacrifice of the Christ is the fact that it is offered -- it was offered --- once and for all time? there is a sense in which we are all saved ("there is therefore now, no condemnation"). One is not saved until one commits a sin. That is clearly not a biblical teaching IMO. Are fat Christians saved?


-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:56:03 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1



Who says we are "saved in spite of" our sin? The idea is to let them go; sanctification is part of
the salvation scenario.One can not be an acting pedophile and ATST comformed to the image of Christ. jt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:50:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent repentor is lost or hell bound?

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



I wouldn't put it off on God Caroline, we are responsible for our own actions. I recall an incident in a Church
we used to go to where a friend of mine had a Word of Knowledge given her about a regular brother who was a Church regular andin the habit of going to the altar every time there was an altar call for any reason. She confronted him with what the Lord had shown her and he acknowledgedit was true - He went on to say that he knew he could go to hell but that he liked what he was doing. Just like thepedophile priests in the RCC. Until they learn to hate the sin as much as God hates it - and then want to be free more than anything else, they will continue in thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and their victims. judyt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:09:25 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Regarding my comment on intentional sin

jt: None that I know of, under Levitical law they were cut off from the people. We are told not to allow the sun to go down on our wrath and how does one get drunk or commit adultery unintentionally? Drunkards and fornicators do not inherit God's Kingdom. Under both Covenants it would take genuine repentance which BTW is also a gift and since this is out of our control (other than our willingness and desire) it should cause humility and godly fear. judyt 

Caroline:
The first 5 chapters of Leviticus speak about atonement for unintentional sin. When I started reading Leviticus, I was freaking out because there does not seem to be atonement for intentional sin and all of us humans have been guilty of sinning intentionally at least once in our lives. Then there is Leviticus 6. Then there is the New Covenant. Judy, you're saying that if someone repents, then they are forgiven and that this is a gift from God. 

Now we come to a pivot point. If it is God's desire that all men are reconciled to Him, then He gifts them with genuine repentance. And He is almighty so I can't see why He'll fail. But if God desire that some go to hell and some to heaven..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 





If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent repentor is lost or hell bound?
Real simple John. When the same sin is a continuous part of your life, your trips to the alter are bogus. Who is the sinner serving? Christ, or himself? It doesn't take a community to figure it out. Try to remember that. Some day there will be a test.Terry






So we can comment sin, as long as it is not the same sin? I mean, sin is a part of us (if we say that we have no sin,we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us). Grace only works when we cease sin?

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1






[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 





If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent repentor is lost or hell bound?Real simple John. When the same sin is a continuous part of your life, your trips to the alter are bogus. Who is the sinner serving? Christ, or himself? It doesn't take a community to figure it out. Try to remember that. Some day there will be a test.Terry





Also, Ithink it a bit humorous that one can repent too much - and it is not repentance, in this case -- it is confession. John tells us that if we keep on confessing, He is faithful and just to have forgiven. Me thinks too much confessioncan bea good thing. 

I do understand that the confessor might be includingthe act of confession in the sin cycle, but to argue that he is lost [in a final and eternal sense] goes a little over the top. A babe in Christ, the immature Saint, the novice servant, the carnal Christian is both saved and fully capable of making decisions that are not within the will of God. That iswhat salvation by gracethrough faith apart from obedience tolaw is all about . there is therefore not no condemnation.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-14 Thread Terry Clifton





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 
  




If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this
frequent repentor is lost or hell bound?


  
  Real simple John. When the same sin is a continuous part of
your life, your trips to the alter are bogus. Who is the sinner
serving? Christ, or himself? It doesn't take a community to figure it
out. Try to remember that. Some day there will be a test.
Terry
  
  





So we can comment sin, as long as it is not the same sin? I
mean, sin is a part of us (if we say that we have no sin,we deceive
ourselves and the truth is not in us). Grace only works when we cease
sin? 



  
  
  



  
  
  



Find me one Christian pervert in the Bible, John. Just one.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-14 Thread Blainerb473





BLAINE: Judy, I agree with what you are saying, I think I do at 
least. But what do you mean, "leads to 
destruction?"Destruction of what? I thought you believed 
all are eventually redeemed who believe.There appears to be 
something missing in the logic . . .


In a message dated 5/14/2005 7:26:56 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Until they learn to hate the sin as much as God hates it - and 
  then want to be free more than anything else, they 
  will continue in thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and 
  their victims. judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-14 Thread Blainerb473





Blaine: I sent the last post off before I read your latest post and 
answer to the question asked by KNPraise. Are you aware the BoM addresses 
this question much the same as you are addressing it? 
Congrats, Judy, shall I call the 
Elders?:) I have a lesson to 
prepare for a group of teenagers tomorrow., see ya later. 


In a message dated 5/14/2005 7:59:08 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Who says we are "saved in spite of" our sin? 
  The idea is to let them go; sanctification is part of
  the salvation scenario.One can not be an acting 
  pedophile and ATST comformed to the image of Christ. 
  jt

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 14 May 2005 22:55:54 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 





If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent repentor is lost or hell bound?
Real simple John. When the same sin is a continuous part of your life, your trips to the alter are bogus. Who is the sinner serving? Christ, or himself? It doesn't take a community to figure it out. Try to remember that. Some day there will be a test.Terry






So we can comment sin, as long as it is not the same sin? I mean, sin is a part of us (if we say that we have no sin,we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us). Grace only works when we cease sin? 







Find me one Christian pervert in the Bible, John. Just one. 







Aahhh, Samson. Are fat Christians saved?

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1


Works salvation explains the similarities. 
JD


-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 00:09:25 EDTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1




Blaine: I sent the last post off before I read your latest post and answer to the question asked by KNPraise. Are you aware the BoM addresses this question much the same as you are addressing it? Congrats, Judy, shall I call the Elders?:) I have a lesson to prepare for a group of teenagers tomorrow., see ya later. 


In a message dated 5/14/2005 7:59:08 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Who says we are "saved in spite of" our sin? The idea is to let them go; sanctification is part of
the salvation scenario.One can not be an acting pedophile and ATST comformed to the image of Christ. jt

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-14 Thread Judy Taylor




Both Hebrews and Peter speak of being enlightened and 
then returning to sin, Peter likens it to a dog
returning to it's vomit and I believe Hebrews 6:6 
speaks of it being impossible to restore someone again
who has experienced certain things and then falls 
away. The difference between bulls/goats and Christ
has to do more with the Priest than the 
recipient. jt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:27:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  
  Doesn't Hebrews teach us that the difference between the sacrifice of 
  bulls/goats and the sacrifice of the Christ is the fact that it is 
  offered -- it was offered --- once and for all 
  time? there is a sense in which we are all saved ("there is 
  therefore now, no condemnation"). One is not saved until one 
  commits a sin. That is clearly not a biblical teaching 
  IMO. Are fat Christians saved?
  
  
  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:56:03 
  -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
  

  
  Who says we are "saved in spite of" our sin? 
  The idea is to let them go; sanctification is part of
  the salvation scenario.One can not be an acting 
  pedophile and ATST comformed to the image of Christ. jt
  
  On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:50:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


If we are saved in spite of our sins, how is that this frequent 
repentor is lost or hell bound?

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



I wouldn't put it off on God Caroline, we are 
responsible for our own actions. I recall an incident in a 
Church
we used to go to where a friend of mine had a Word 
of Knowledge given her about a regular brother who was a Church regular 
andin the habit of going to the altar every 
time there was an altar call for any reason. She confronted him with 
what the Lord had shown her and he 
acknowledgedit was true - He went on to say that he knew he could go 
to hell but that he liked what he was doing. Just like thepedophile priests in the RCC. Until they learn to hate 
the sin as much as God hates it - and then want to be free more than anything else, they will continue in 
thisbondage that leads to destruction both for them and their 
victims. judyt

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:09:25 -0500 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Regarding my comment on intentional 
  sin
  
jt: None that I know 
of, under Levitical law they were cut off from the people. We are 
told not to allow the sun to go down on our wrath and how does one get 
drunk or commit adultery unintentionally? Drunkards and 
fornicators do not inherit God's Kingdom. Under both Covenants it 
would take genuine repentance which BTW is also a gift and since this is 
out of our control (other than our willingness and desire) it should 
cause humility and godly fear. judyt 

Caroline:
The first 5 chapters of Leviticus speak 
about atonement for unintentional sin. When I started reading Leviticus, 
I was freaking out because there does not seem to be atonement for 
intentional sin and all of us humans have been guilty of sinning 
intentionally at least once in our lives. Then there is Leviticus 6. 
Then there is the New Covenant. Judy, you're saying that if someone 
repents, then they are forgiven and that this is a gift from God. 

Now we come to a pivot point. If it is 
God's desire that all men are reconciled to Him, then He gifts them with 
genuine repentance. And He is almighty so I can't see why He'll fail. 
But if God desire that some go to hell and some to 
  heaven..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-14 Thread Judy Taylor




Cute JD, real cute. I am not talking about or into any 
such thing, it's a figment of your very fertile
imagination which apparently remains the same. 
jt

On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:22:48 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Works salvation explains the similarities. 
  JD
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  
  Blaine: I sent the last post off before I read your latest post and 
  answer to the question asked by KNPraise. Are you aware the BoM 
  addresses this question much the same as you are addressing it? 
  Congrats, Judy, shall I call the 
  Elders?:) I have a lesson to 
  prepare for a group of teenagers tomorrow., see ya later. 
  
  
  In a message dated 5/14/2005 7:59:08 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Who says we are "saved in spite of" our sin? 
The idea is to let them go; sanctification is part of
the salvation scenario.One can not be an 
acting pedophile and ATST comformed to the image of Christ. 
jt

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-13 Thread knpraise


Thank you.   I made a deal with the Lord some time back.   I let Him 
know that I would set aside money out of the next job to run a series 
of articles in our town paper.   We  (my current wife and I )  hosted a 
house church year before last.We have decided to begin that 
fellowship again  (we call it the Fairbanks Avenue Fellowship)  --   
only this time, from a perichoresis point of view.   I will be talking 
with the editor of the paper about these articles on Tuesday.

JD


-Original Message-
From: Debbie Sawczak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:54:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on 
Genesis 1

Glad to hear about your contract, JD!
 
Debbie
 
 
- Original Message -  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:30 PM
 Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on 
Genesis 1




Where does the information about the 500 witnesses come from?   This
same biblical message argues that faith (conviction with emotion,
astonishment and appreciation) is both the substance and the evidence
of what we hold to be true. Verbal pleanary inspiration comes from 
the
need, felt by many, that there must be a reasoned approached that 
goes
beyond emotional appeal; REAL evidence that cannot not be denied by
honest folk;  evidence that is in fact PROOF of what it is that we
believe.   This ignores the several examples of Godly Manifestations
represented in Paul's experience on the road to Damascus.   He heard
the Lord  -   others  (I assume honest men, all)  heard thunder.  
There is no other kind of personal experience.   Yesterday,   I 
signed
a contract for a job that will take me through the summer, in terms 
of
income.   God gave me that job.   Period.   I think (read: believe).
JD


-Original Message-
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tue, 10 May 2005 04:42:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on
Genesis 1
  Sorry but, rationalistic evidentialism just doesn't do it for
me.You would, IMO, get a resounding amen from David.
  - Original Message -
 From: Kevin Deegan
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: May 09, 2005 16:49
 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
 NO EVIDENCE?
 There were at least 500 EYEWITNESSES to the ressurected savoir!
  500 eyewitnesses is enough to convict anyone in a court of LAW even 
in
CanaDAH!
 
 How do you know Booth shot Lincoln? Irrefutable?
 How do you know any historical figure really existed?
Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   There is NO EVIDENCE (irrefutable utilizing David Miller's brand of
logic) that Jesus is real - none, zip, zero, notta. If you (or 
anyone)
has placed their faith in the evidence then, be prepared for a fall.
  - Original Message -
 From: Terry Clifton
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: May 09, 2005 08:24
 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
Caroline Wong wrote:  I consider myself Christian. There are tons
of definitions of Evangelical. The simplest is a person who belongs 
to
an Evangelical denomination. I define it as a person who tells 
another
the good news.
 
  BTW, was it you who said that if someone proved to you Jesus was
false, you would stop believing? (I think it was in relation to the 
LDS
people and Joseph Smith) I was completely stunned by that post and 
not
sure if I read it right.
 
 Love,
 
 Caroline

If you had absolute proof that Jesus was not the Savior, you would be
out of your mind to continue to believe. I am a realist. I have
examined the evidence. Jesus is real!!!
Terry

 Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
may know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have 
a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.



--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-12 Thread Lance Muir

And so the lesson endeth. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Caroline 
  Wong 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: May 11, 2005 22:28
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk 
  Watts on Genesis 1

  Kevin, you are misinformed from erroneus sources. 
  Those quotes ARE NOT real. People just wanted those verses to exist so they 
  saw (and manufactured) evidence that DO NOT exist.
  Please read the following from Wallace: The Comma 
  Johanneum and Cyprian.

  A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 
  John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text 
  and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the 
  form that appears in the KJV (For there are three that bear record in heaven, 
  the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there 
  are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the 
  blood: and these three agree in one.) The question is, Did Cyprian quote a 
  version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This 
  would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he 
  would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma 
  Johanneum. Before we look at Cyprian per se, a little 
  background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in 
  the margins, and all of them quite late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary 
  (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 
  648): 
  (2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, 
  had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian 
  controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a 
  Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215. 
  (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient 
  versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the 
  Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form 
  (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by 
  Jerome ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin...
  The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a 
  part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth 
  century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), 
  attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to 
  his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original 
  passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three 
  witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may 
  have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into 
  the text.
  Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the 
  actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As 
  Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this 
  gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of 
  putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae 
  unitate 6, he says, The Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again 
  it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And 
  these three are one. What is evident is that Cyprians interpretation of 1 
  John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was 
  prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was 
  fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 
  10:30 triggered the oneness motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a 
  natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using 
  the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does 
  not quote of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit as part of the 
  text; this is obviously his interpretation of the Spirit, the water, and the 
  blood. (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is 
  quite clear (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit), and since Cyprian 
  does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof 
  that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording 
  of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that 
  a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he 
  did not changed the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR 
  advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma 
  (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma 
  Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of 
  the significance of Cyprians comment, quoting Kenyons Textual Criticism 
  of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: Cyprian is regarded 
  as one who quotes copiously and textually. The quotation

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-12 Thread Lance Muir




An apparent addendum. Now the lesson 
endeth.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Caroline 
  Wong 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 11, 2005 22:32
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk 
  Watts on Genesis 1
  
  No English translation is perfect. Get over it. 
  And stop turning your KJV into an idol.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:14 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts 
on Genesis 1

CMON how about some clear ERRORS like 
your new Bibles have?
I mean a juicy one like Elkahan killed Goliath!
Ooooh here are some more:

The newe bibles get their God -gods mixed up! 
Blasphemy!
Isaiah 14:12 How 
art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut 
down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
O Lucifer, son of the morning 
in Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew is helel, ben shachar. kokhav or star is 
not found in the verse. The Hebrew kokhve voqer or morning stars does not 
appear in the text. Why then is it changed?NEWE Bibles: How you have fallen from heaven, O 
morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to 
the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Who fell from heaven? 
SATAN!

Jesus Christ is the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16, 2:28 and II 
Peter 1:19. 
The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall "The pentagram is used extensively in black 
magic...it signifies the fall of the Morning 
Star."
Blavatsky's Theosophical Society also equates the morning star and 
Lucifer.
The United Nations, NGO Lucis Trust (which used to be called Lucifer 
now Lucis) "Lucifer as here used means...the morning 
star and has no connection whatsoever with Satan..."
In the newe biblesJesus Christ 
is equated withthis fallen creature, which we know is Satan. The 
newe bibles state it is the "morning star" that fell. Satan never quits 
trying to be like the Most High (Is 14:14 KJV)
Watch the Bible correctors 
stand on their heads, put the left foot in  the left foot out, to try 
and salvalge their beloved perverted text.The newe BLASPHEMOUS Bibles 
equate Satan with Jesus! I wonder who has been tampering with them? The 
father of Lies.

MORE BLASPHEMY
Newe bibles: 
Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the 
capstone
Newe bibles: Jesus becomes the "capstone" in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, 
Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7
Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone. The"newe" bibleschange 
Cornerstone to CAPSTONE. The capstone is the top of the 
pyramid - not the cornerstone in which the foundation is layed. To New 
Agers, the capstone or Mercaba, is the top of the pyramid,the 
source where they channel Nimrod, the all seeing eye - into their third eye. 
(see your dollar) The capstone is the symbol of Nimrod in many cults 
and in FreeMasonry(thier god)... a false god,satan.

Are you praying to a new god?
Deuteronomy 32:17,19 They 
sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new 
gods...And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking 
of his sons, and of his daughters...
Judges 5:8 They chose new gods; then was war in the 
gates. 

The King James Bible has shown itself to be the superior work of godly 
men,giving us the proper translation. Just seeing how the false 
versions highly esteem Satan, would shake meenoughtocause 
me to refuse their perversions, and cast them aside. BUT:

Luke 4:8 Get 
thee behind me, Satan - OMITTED in the 
Newe versions
You trust your "capstone" I'll place my trust on the sure 
foundation  cornerstone Jesus Christ!
KJV Holy Bible: 
"be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they 
be a rebellious house."Caroline Wong 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  Another extended quote from Wallace (b/c I 
  could not be type all this out)
  
  
  This longer reading is found only in eight late 
  manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of 
  these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 
  629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest 
  manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal 
  note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, 
  there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until 
  the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus 
  Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek 
  witness of a

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-12 Thread Lance Muir




Sorry Kevin, but NOW the lesson 
endeth.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Caroline 
  Wong 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 11, 2005 23:07
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk 
  Watts on Genesis 1
  
  Re: 2 Samuel 21:19 
  
  This verse and this line of reasoning appear quite often on KJV-only 
  websites, in KJV-only sermons, and in KJV-only books. This "lie", coupled with 
  the apparently shocking stupidity of modern translators, is how KJV-only 
  supporters try to make people think the modern versions are ridiculous and 
  pathetic. I mean, were the NIV translators really so inept that they didn't 
  know the story of David and Goliath, and also didn't realize what 1 Chronicles 
  20:5 said even though they provided a cross-reference to it?
  It's not that cut-and-dried. It's not complicated to explain, so the line 
  of reasoning used here by KJV-only folk like Rev. Tom Weaver is either 
  uninformed or just plain deceptive. Reread his last sentence: "If the book has 
  a lie in it then it is not God's book." Now look again at how it's worded in 
  the KJV:
  "slew the brother of Goliath"
  Of great importance to this issue is the KJV's use of italics. The words 
  "the brother of" are italicized here in the KJV because they do not appear, 
  nor are implied, in the Hebrew from which this verse is translated. (See 
  the "Italics" article for more information on italics in the KJV.) These words 
  were added to the text of the KJV, most likely because the translators 
  were matching up the account with the 1 Chron 20:5 passage and trying to 
  eliminate a perceived contradiction. However, according to Rev. Tom Weaver's 
  quote, then even the Hebrew from which the KJV was translated contains a lie 
  and therefore cannot be God's word.
  http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/2sam21_19.html
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:39 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts 
on Genesis 1

Who killed Goliath?
Who fell from heaven?

Still waiting for clear errors like these in the KJV.
If you want a Blasphemous book go for itCaroline Wong 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  No English translation is perfect. Get over 
  it. And stop turning your KJV into an idol.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:14 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk 
Watts on Genesis 1

CMON how about some clear ERRORS 
like your new Bibles have?
I mean a juicy one like Elkahan killed Goliath!
Ooooh here are some more:

The newe bibles get their God -gods mixed up! 
Blasphemy!
Isaiah 14:12 
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art 
thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the 
nations!
O Lucifer, son of the 
morning in Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew is helel, ben shachar. kokhav 
or star is not found in the verse. The Hebrew kokhve voqer or morning 
stars does not appear in the text. Why then is it 
changed?NEWE Bibles: How you have fallen 
from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! 
You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the 
nations!
Who fell from heaven? 
SATAN!

Jesus Christ is the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16, 2:28 and II 
Peter 1:19. 
The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall "The pentagram is used extensively in black 
magic...it signifies the fall of the Morning 
Star."
Blavatsky's Theosophical Society also equates the morning star and 
Lucifer.
The United Nations, NGO Lucis Trust (which used to be called 
Lucifer now Lucis) "Lucifer as here used means...the 
morning star and has no connection whatsoever with 
Satan..."
In the newe biblesJesus 
Christ is equated withthis fallen creature, which we know is 
Satan. The newe bibles state it is the "morning star" that fell. 
Satan never quits trying to be like the Most High (Is 14:14 
KJV)
Watch the Bible 
correctors stand on their heads, put the left foot in  the left 
foot out, to try and salvalge their beloved perverted text.The newe 
BLASPHEMOUS Bibles equate Satan with Jesus! I wonder who has been 
tampering with them? The father of Lies.

MORE BLASPHEMY
Newe bibles: 
Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the 
capstone
Newe bibles: Je

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

CW says Therein lies all our disagreements. I made a rational decision 
Obadiah 1;3 The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee
Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Therein lies all our disagreements. You were taught that the KJV is the only trustworthy English translation. I was taught it is inferior and that other translations are better. I made a rational decision based on the evidence I encountered. I used to read KJV and, till this day, recall Psalm 23 best in KJV even though I've memorized it in NIV. I usually memorize NIV but I alsouse NASB, NIV and NRSV. If you want to use only KJV, that's okay. But hopefully, you can acknowledge that people who choose other versions are making logical decisions based on facts and evidence. In all our exchanges, I have not encountered anything that would cause me to change my mind. I suspect you haven't either. I don't consider you a trustworthy guide on this issue. You don't consider me a trustworthy guide. 

Izzy and Judy consider you wise and trustworthy. You can really talk to them. The Mormons and several other TTers (you know who), believe you don't have truth or wisdom. You can't really talk to them. People who believed Jesus, who called him by his Messianic titles, heard what he said. People who thought he was a troublemaker or law breaker or lover of sinners kept hearing him wrong.

But if you like to argue (and rebuke), by all means go ahead.

Love,

Caroline

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

The only IDOLATRY I see here is in the newe bibles lifting upyour "capstone" SatanCaroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


No English translation is perfect. Get over it. And stop turning your KJV into an idol.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

CMON how about some clear ERRORS like your new Bibles have?
I mean a juicy one like Elkahan killed Goliath!
Ooooh here are some more:

The newe bibles get their God -gods mixed up! Blasphemy!
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
O Lucifer, son of the morning in Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew is helel, ben shachar. kokhav or star is not found in the verse. The Hebrew kokhve voqer or morning stars does not appear in the text. Why then is it changed?NEWE Bibles: How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Who fell from heaven? SATAN!

Jesus Christ is the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16, 2:28 and II Peter 1:19. 
The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall "The pentagram is used extensively in black magic...it signifies the fall of the Morning Star."
Blavatsky's Theosophical Society also equates the morning star and Lucifer.
The United Nations, NGO Lucis Trust (which used to be called Lucifer now Lucis) "Lucifer as here used means...the morning star and has no connection whatsoever with Satan..."
In the newe biblesJesus Christ is equated withthis fallen creature, which we know is Satan. The newe bibles state it is the "morning star" that fell. Satan never quits trying to be like the Most High (Is 14:14 KJV)
Watch the Bible correctors stand on their heads, put the left foot in  the left foot out, to try and salvalge their beloved perverted text.The newe BLASPHEMOUS Bibles equate Satan with Jesus! I wonder who has been tampering with them? The father of Lies.

MORE BLASPHEMY
Newe bibles: Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone
Newe bibles: Jesus becomes the "capstone" in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7
Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone. The"newe" bibleschange Cornerstone to CAPSTONE. The capstone is the top of the pyramid - not the cornerstone in which the foundation is layed. To New Agers, the capstone or Mercaba, is the top of the pyramid,the source where they channel Nimrod, the all seeing eye - into their third eye. (see your dollar) The capstone is the symbol of Nimrod in many cults and in FreeMasonry(thier god)... a false god,satan.

Are you praying to a new god?
Deuteronomy 32:17,19 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods...And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters...
Judges 5:8 They chose new gods; then was war in the gates. 

The King James Bible has shown itself to be the superior work of godly men,giving us the proper translation. Just seeing how the false versions highly esteem Satan, would shake meenoughtocause me to refuse their perversions, and cast them aside. BUT:

Luke 4:8 Get thee behind m

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

If the Johanine Commatext (1 Jn 5:7-8) did not exist before Erasmus. Please explain how a good number of Church fathers quoted it all the way back to 300AD. Magic? ESP? Or you are in error?
You did not answer  I still can not fathom how something that was written in 1500 appeared all thru out history???

So we "kno" how that Cyprian did not really write it
But how about all those other fella's and it's being inthe Apostles Creed of the Alb's
Someone inserted it in there too.
The Latin versions got it inserted too.
Who was this mystery fella, messing with the books?
Must a been a extreme right wing KJV conspiracy!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


And so the lesson endeth. 

- Original Message - 
From: Caroline Wong 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: May 11, 2005 22:28
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Kevin, you are misinformed from erroneus sources. Those quotes ARE NOT real. People just wanted those verses to exist so they saw (and manufactured) evidence that DO NOT exist.
Please read the following from Wallace: The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian.


A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.) The question is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum. Before we look at Cyprian per se, a little background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd
 edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648): 
(2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215. 
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin...
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.
Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, The Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one. What is evident is that Cyprians interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the oneness motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same
 kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words. It is i

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

I can cut  paste too
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/isa14_12.htmlLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Wow! Who needs 'the David' when one receives expositions like these from Caroline?

- Original Message - 
From: Caroline Wong 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: May 11, 2005 23:15
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Who fell from heaven: Isaiah 14:12

"The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. 
The use of "Lucifer" appears to have originated from the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate was produced by Jerome (c. 347-420) by translating available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into Latin. It was started in approximately 382 A.D. and was completed in approximately 405 A.D. It was the scriptures used by the Catholic Church for nearly 1000 years. Here's what the Vulgate says (note the lower case):

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes"
It would seem that Jerome understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel, and translated it into "lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light bearer" (from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring."). Because many people thought this passage was referring to Satan, people began to think of the term of "lucifer" as a proper name "Lucifer". However, this is not what "lucifer" meant. "lucifer", at the time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant "morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus. Even though Jerome himself (and others before him) thought the passage was referring to Satan, he did not use the word "lucifer" to mean "Satan" - his view that the passage was referring to Satan was purely an interpretational issue of the entire passage - the term "lucifer" was not used to indicate Satan in any way. This can be shown by of how he used "lucifer" elsewhere in the Vulgate. Although
 "Lucifer" only occurs once in the KJV, "lucifer" occurs three times in the Vulgate: once as shown above, and also in:

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate) "et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer"
2 Peter 1:19 (Latin Vulgate) "et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris"
What is interesting about those two verses where "lucifer" is used, is what the term is referring to. The KJV was not translated from the Vulgate (although verses like Isaiah 14:12 show that it was used and borrowed from), but here's those two verses in the KJV for comparison, to illustrate what the Latin word "lucifer" meant in the Vulgate:

Job 11:17 (KJV) "And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday; thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning."
2 Peter 1:19 (KJV) "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: "
What's quite interesting is the Vulgate's use of the word "lucifer" in 2 Peter 1:19, a passage that is understood as referring to Christ. Also of interst to KJV-onlyism in general is that some KJV-onlies say the Spanish Riena Valera Bible was/is the inerrant word of God in Spanish, yet it too has the same Spanish word for "lucifer" ("lucero") in both Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19. If the NIV has given Christ's title to Satan, has the Spanish RV given Satan's title to Christ?
So, we learn that the name "Lucifer" (as a proper name) in the KJV is not an accurate word translation, but rather a word transliteration (a new word derived from a foreign word). This transliteration is not even from the original Hebrew, but instead from the Latin Vulgate! If "Lucifer" refers to Satan, that means the Bible has changed meaning! Thus, the term "Lucifer" in the KJV is more of a paraphrase and actually less accurate than the terms used in other translations, especially when you consider the change in meaning since the KJV was first published. However, the use of the word "lucifer" is perfectly acceptable if you understand what "lucifer" really means, and realize it is not referring to Satan, but a king of Babylon, and comparing him to the morning star, or Venus. 
But "morning star" is Christ's title
However, many KJV-only supporters still object to the use of

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Why do I get the feeling you are being evasive to hide somethingCaroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

hello?!? reread the post I sent you explaining the whole deal. The answer is RIGHT THERE

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

That was not the question. Why are you avoiding it?
Who is IS 14 speaking of?
Is it LUCIFER or Not?
Simple yes or no will do.
Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Who is the lion? Jesus or Satan? Sheesh. Context poeple, context!

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

So you like the New Age Druids, believe the morning star  this fallen creature are the same?
Is 14 has always been the biography of Satan, and his 5 "I wills"
FF Bruce  the NIV commitee member R L Harris believe IS 14 is not about Satan!
Maybe you agree with the new Age GuruDavid Spangler"Christ is the same force as Lucifer"
Who is IS 14 speaking of?
Is it LUCIFER or Not?

O Lucifer, son of the morning in Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew is helel, ben shachar. kokhav or star is not found anywhere in the verse. The Hebrew kokhve voqer or morning stars does not appear in the text. The word helel only appears here, just as Lucifer appears no where else.
Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Who fell from heaven: Isaiah 14:12

"The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. 
The use of "Lucifer" appears to have originated from the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate was produced by Jerome (c. 347-420) by translating available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into Latin. It was started in approximately 382 A.D. and was completed in approximately 405 A.D. It was the scriptures used by the Catholic Church for nearly 1000 years. Here's what the Vulgate says (note the lower case):

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes"
It would seem that Jerome understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel, and translated it into "lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light bearer" (from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring."). Because many people thought this passage was referring to Satan, people began to think of the term of "lucifer" as a proper name "Lucifer". However, this is not what "lucifer" meant. "lucifer", at the time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant "morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus. Even though Jerome himself (and others before him) thought the passage was referring to Satan, he did not use the word "lucifer" to mean "Satan" - his view that the passage was referring to Satan was purely an interpretational issue of the entire passage - the term "lucifer" was not used to indicate Satan in any way. This can be shown by of how he used "lucifer" elsewhere in the Vulgate. Although
 "Lucifer" only occurs once in the KJV, "lucifer" occurs three times in the Vulgate: once as shown above, and also in:

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate) "et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer"
2 Peter 1:19 (Latin Vulgate) "et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris"
What is interesting about those two verses where "lucifer" is used, is what the term is referring to. The KJV was not translated from the Vulgate (although verses like Isaiah 14:12 show that it was used and borrowed from), but here's those two verses in the KJV for comparison, to illustrate what the Latin word "lucifer" meant in the Vulgate:

Job 11:17 (KJV) "And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday; thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning."
2 Peter 1:19 (KJV) "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: "
What's quite interesting is the Vulgate's use of the word "lucifer" in 2 Peter 1:19, a passage that is understood as referring to Christ. Also of interst to KJV-onlyism in general is that some KJV-onlies say the Spanish Riena Valera Bible was/is the inerrant word of God in Spanish, yet it too has the same Spanish

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Vote for Bush or Repent

SEE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDAINED BY THE IRS, THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT! (see quote from article) ALL sermons should be submitted to the Federal censory review board before delivery.
It is a Moral issue and the pastor cited IMMORAL Republicans as well as Democrats.
Now only the IMMORAL supporters are left, I heard they will change the name to better fit the times "LAODECIAN BAPTIST CHURCH"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44221Critics, however, point out the tax code, which gives the church tax-exempt status, also forbids any opposition to a particular candidate. 
Chandler admits citing Kerry's views on abortion and homosexuality in one sermon, "and I also mentioned two Republicans' names" whose views he says are out of step with the Bible. "But that's not getting out [in media reports]," he said. 
Chandler said, "We have a society of preachers who are afraid to get up in the pulpit and speak the truth. There are people in the congregations, leaders  deacons, teachers, Sunday school teachers  people who pay their tithe and let the pastor know it very loudly, that tell the pastor he cannot say anything political. He can say that it's all right for you to support someone that does not support abortion. But you can't name names." 
"We've been catering to Satan, catering to the enemy, we've not been making the stand that God wants us to make," Chandler said. 







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:15 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Vote for Bush or Repent


The other side(not the news media lynch mob)

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20766

"This never has been about politics," he said. "It's always been about whether the Bible applies to the entire life of a Christian." 



Citing verses from 1 Corinthians 6, which he says require the church to keep its disagreements out of the public eye, Chandler is deeply grieved that the rest of the world is now privy to some of the church's behavior. He says he regrets that not for himself, but for those who look to the church for spiritual leadership and guidance."I believe the application of the Bible needs to be to every single area of our lives," Chandler said, and that would include how church members conduct themselves both within and without the church walls.



Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


There are two sides to every story.

I wonder if he preaches that Democrats are IMMORAL baby killers?

If you do not like his stand join a different churchJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I have to wonder how this item made it's way to Canada .. or does Jonathan seek out these kinds of

aberrations. I've never heard of this man or his Baptist Church up in the Blue Ridge Mountains. All I can

say is that he is wrong and that this is the exception rather than the rule. I've not heard of anything like

this around these parts of Virginia. Voting is a personal and a private matter. jt



On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:10:23 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




- Original Message - 

From: Jonathan Hughes 

To: lance Muir 

Sent: May 11, 2005 08:36

Subject: Vote for Bush or Repent


http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2395269p-8773218c.htmlPastor, 35 more leave churchExpulsion of nine ignited a furor












Chandler resigned 'with gratitude in my heart.' 


By YONAT SHIMRON, Staff WriterThe pastor of a Waynesville Baptist church who tried to force his political views on his members resigned Tuesday night, taking a few dozen members with him. 
The Rev. Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church in the Blue Ridge Mountains, did not apologize for the division he caused and said only that his underlying concern was to save unborn babies from abortion.
"I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly those of you who love me and my family," Chandler said during a meeting at the church, The Associated Press reported.
Remaining church members said they sat in silence for a long time after Chandler and 35 of his loyal followers left the sanctuary -- a silence broken when one of the members stepped forward and began to play hymns on the piano.
Chandler made national headlines after nine of his congregants were expelled from membership after a contentious meeting May 2. Those expelled said they were forced out because they did not follow their pastor's bidding to vote for President Bush in November's elections.
'Repent or resign'
The church had been embroiled in partisan politics since October, when Chandler told his 100-member congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry needed to "repent or resign."
Many older members, lifelong Democrats, resented the way Chandler, a Haywood County native, imposed his political views on the

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-12 Thread knpraise

understood  ---   interpretation   =  same thing

-Original Message-
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:23:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
 The scriptures are to be understood rather than interpreted, 
they need no interpretation... jt

 On Mon, 9 May 2005 08:22:51 -0400 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  Perspectivalism:everyone gives their 'take' on things EVEN on an 
interpretation of the scriptures. Sorry, but there ain't no other way.
 - Original Message -
From: Terry Clifton
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 09, 2005 08:15
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Caroline Wong wrote:  Perhaps they did not believe your version of 
reality. Perhaps the Lord did not give them the faith to believe in the 
first place.

Love,

Caroline
 -
===
I did not give them a version.  I told them what the Bible says to 
everyone.
God is not willing for any to be lost.  Everyone who asks will be given.
Terry

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

2005-05-12 Thread Caroline Wong




When they formed the Nicene Creed, Athanasius, who 
was solidly Trinitarian, had to fight hard for his position. He referred to 
himself as "Ahthanasius contra mundum" - Athanasius against the world. 


Silly man! He could have just quoted 1 John 5:7-8!! 
What? It didn't exist??! Too bad for Athanasius. He should have just MADE IT UP 
as a later scribe did. Would have saved so much trouble and fighting. 


All those quotes you're referring to sound like 
they are referring to 1 John 5:7-8 but they are not. Because the verses never 
existed. Our church fathers were working on Trinitarian theology and therefore 
wrote about Father, Son and Spirit. No one said they were quoting a letter of 
John. Later, some unknown scribe inserted the formulation into a copy he was 
doing because it just fits there so nicely. 

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 7:28 
AM
  Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
  
  If the Johanine Commatext (1 Jn 5:7-8) did not exist before 
  Erasmus. Please explain how a good number of Church fathers quoted it all the 
  way back to 300AD. Magic? ESP? Or you are in error?
  You did not answer  I still can not fathom how something that was 
  written in 1500 appeared all thru out history???
  
  So we "kno" how that Cyprian did not really write it
  But how about all those other fella's and it's being inthe Apostles 
  Creed of the Alb's
  Someone inserted it in there too.
  The Latin versions got it inserted too.
  Who was this mystery fella, messing with the books?
  Must a been a extreme right wing KJV 
  conspiracy!Lance Muir 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

And so the lesson endeth. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Caroline Wong 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: May 11, 2005 22:28
  Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
  
  Kevin, you are misinformed from erroneus 
  sources. Those quotes ARE NOT real. People just wanted those verses to 
  exist so they saw (and manufactured) evidence that DO NOT 
  exist.
  Please read the following from Wallace: The 
  Comma Johanneum and Cyprian.
  
  
  A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 
  John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this 
  text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually 
  quoted the form that appears in the KJV (For there are three that 
  bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these 
  three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, 
  and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.) The question 
  is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula 
  of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian 
  lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known 
  writer to quote the Comma Johanneum. Before we look at Cyprian 
  per se, a little background is needed. The Comma 
  occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite 
  late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after 
  commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648): 
  (2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, 
  who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the 
  Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in 
  Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 
  1215. 
  (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all 
  ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), 
  except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its 
  early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as 
  issued by Jerome ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin...
  The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as 
  a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a 
  fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 
  4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) 
  or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the 
  original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the 
  mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an 
  interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that 
  afterwards found its way into the text.
  Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the 
  actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As 
  Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this 
  gloss. On the othe

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

s produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of
 indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

If the Johanine Commatext (1 Jn 5:7-8) did not exist before Erasmus. Please explain how a good number of Church fathers quoted it all the way back to 300AD. Magic? ESP? Or you are in error?Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

I thought about posting a long post explaining textural variants in the Hebrew texts, the making of the Septuagint, what is considered the most reliable version of the Septuagint today, the Hebrew texts KJV translators used and the differences between them, Jewish criticism of the translations, but then I thought, oh why bother?

I (and many others) are fully convinced that no translation is error free but the modern ones are very good. We've looked into the matter and decided the KJV is inferior. 

I'll throw in a paragraph by Daniel B. Wallace, PhD. for free (because I don't have to type it out :-) Read it or not, I don't care. 

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.[1] He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them.
 Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to back-translate the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood. However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found
 no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challengeviz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his textdid not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was made to order to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century. 

[1] Now a humanist in the sixteenth century is not the same as a humanist today. Erasmus was generally tolerant of other viewpoints, and was particularly interested in the humanities. Although he was a friend of Melanchthon, Luthers right-hand man, Luther did not care for him.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

There is a mountain of evidence that the KJV is not the best English translation 

Like the mythological Septuagint, we are still looking for?

"Mountain of evidence" of which by the way you have provided only three very questionable examples! What was that one about cattle that was a classic, could you resend that?Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi Terry and Izzy;

It boils down to faith. I know a little of philosophy, a little theology, a little church history and I know how trends in thinking and beliefs change over time and in different cultures. Faith is what keeps me going when things are dark and uncertain and I've just learned something that I wished I never knew. Faith assures me this is not the end even when others

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Kevin:Why not hold onto the KJV while living it
concurrently and, let those who read other translations get on with doing the
same. Save some of that energy for the 'street'.

- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: May 11, 2005 08:14
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk
Watts on Genesis 1

CMON how about some clear ERRORS like
your new Bibles have?
I mean a juicy one like Elkahan killed Goliath!
Ooooh here are some more:

The newe bibles get their God -gods mixed up!
Blasphemy!
Isaiah 14:12 How
art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut
down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
O Lucifer, son of the morning in
Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew is helel, ben shachar. kokhav or star is not
found in the verse. The Hebrew kokhve voqer or morning stars does not appear
in the text. Why then is it changed?NEWE
Bibles: How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son
of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid
low the nations!
Who fell from heaven?
SATAN!

Jesus Christ is the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16, 2:28 and II Peter
1:19.
The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall "The pentagram is used extensively in black magic...it
signifies the fall of the Morning Star."
Blavatsky's Theosophical Society also equates the morning star and
Lucifer.
The United Nations, NGO Lucis Trust (which used to be called Lucifer now
Lucis) "Lucifer as here used means...the morning star and
has no connection whatsoever with Satan..."
In the newe biblesJesus Christ is
equated withthis fallen creature, which we know is Satan. The newe
bibles state it is the "morning star" that fell. Satan never quits trying to
be like the Most High (Is 14:14 KJV)
Watch the Bible correctors
stand on their heads, put the left foot in the left foot out, to try and
salvalge their beloved perverted text.The newe BLASPHEMOUS Bibles equate
Satan with Jesus! I wonder who has been tampering with them? The father of
Lies.

MORE BLASPHEMY
Newe bibles: Psalm
118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the
capstone
Newe bibles: Jesus becomes the "capstone" in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10,
Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7
Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone. The"newe" bibleschange
Cornerstone to CAPSTONE. The capstone is the top of the pyramid
- not the cornerstone in which the foundation is layed. To New Agers, the
capstone or Mercaba, is the top of the pyramid,the source where
they channel Nimrod, the all seeing eye - into their third eye. (see your
dollar) The capstone is the symbol of Nimrod in many cults and in
FreeMasonry(thier god)... a false god,satan.

Are you praying to a new god?
Deuteronomy 32:17,19 They
sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new
gods...And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of
his sons, and of his daughters...
Judges 5:8 They chose new gods; then was war in the
gates.

The King James Bible has shown itself to be the superior work of godly
men,giving us the proper translation. Just seeing how the false versions
highly esteem Satan, would shake meenoughtocause me to
refuse their perversions, and cast them aside. BUT:

Luke 4:8 Get thee
behind me, Satan - OMITTED in the Newe
versions
You trust your "capstone" I'll place my trust on the sure
foundation cornerstone Jesus Christ!
KJV Holy Bible:
"be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be
a rebellious house."Caroline Wong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Another extended quote from Wallace (b/c I
could not be type all this out)

This longer reading is found only in eight late
manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these
manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636,
and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221
(10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added
sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence
of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such
reading was apparently composed after Erasmus Greek NT was published in
1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind
(either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version)
until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran
Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more
significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for
it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2

[TruthTalk] Fw: Vote for Bush or Repent

- Original Message - 
From: Jonathan Hughes 

To: lance Muir 
Sent: May 11, 2005 08:36
Subject: Vote for Bush or Repent
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2395269p-8773218c.htmlPastor, 
35 more leave churchExpulsion of nine 
ignited a furor

Chandler resigned 'with 
  gratitude in my heart.' 
By YONAT SHIMRON, Staff WriterThe pastor of a Waynesville Baptist church who tried to force 
his political views on his members resigned Tuesday night, taking a few dozen 
members with him. 
The Rev. Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church in the Blue 
Ridge Mountains, did not apologize for the division he caused and said only that 
his underlying concern was to save unborn babies from abortion.
"I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly those 
of you who love me and my family," Chandler said during a meeting at the church, 
The Associated Press reported.
Remaining church members said they sat in silence for a long time after 
Chandler and 35 of his loyal followers left the sanctuary -- a silence broken 
when one of the members stepped forward and began to play hymns on the 
piano.
Chandler made national headlines after nine of his congregants were expelled 
from membership after a contentious meeting May 2. Those expelled said they were 
forced out because they did not follow their pastor's bidding to vote for 
President Bush in November's elections.
'Repent or resign'
The church had been embroiled in partisan politics since October, when 
Chandler told his 100-member congregation that anyone who planned to vote for 
Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry needed to "repent or resign."
Many older members, lifelong Democrats, resented the way Chandler, a Haywood 
County native, imposed his political views on the church, and tried to steer him 
away from politics. It didn't work.
Still, no one voiced pleasure at Chandler's departure. Many said it was a sad 
day in the history of the 52-year-old church.
"Maybe the church can heal now and we can go on," said Margaret Biddix, one 
of the nine members expelled by Chandler's supporters.
The storm that hit the church -- about 300 miles west of Raleigh divided it 
along generational lines.
Many of the older members are traditionally Democrats, though some have voted 
Republican in recent elections. Many of the newest and youngest members have 
always been Republicans. In this, the church reflected Southern voting habits 
that have dramatically embraced the Republican Party in recent decades.
Now the challenge for the church is to find younger members, said Maxine 
Osborne, 70, a member. "We hope the church will grow now, and I think it will," 
she said.
Following convictions
Chandler, 33, said he intended to continue his studies toward a master's 
degree in divinity at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, 
where he has been a student.
He did not speak to the news media throughout the past week's ordeal, 
releasing only one statement through his lawyer saying no one was expelled from 
the church because of political affiliation.
"He's a young man doing the best he can to stand up to his convictions," said 
Waylan Owens, Southeastern vice president for planning and communications, who 
taught Chandler in one of his classes.
Owens said Chandler wanted his members to apply the morals they say they 
uphold, such as their opposition to abortion, at the voting booth. Roman 
Catholic bishops did something similar last year when they said they would bar 
Kerry, a Catholic, from receiving Communion.
But others said the church battle was another example of the Southern Baptist 
Convention's conservative shift in recent years and its emphasis on a literal 
interpretation of Scripture.
"When you believe in an inerrant Bible, then the next step is to have an 
inerrant interpreter and then an inerrant morality," said Bill Leonard, the dean 
of the divinity school at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem.
Chandler's actions brought rebuke from national groups committed to the 
separation of church and state. They called on the Internal Revenue Service to 
revoke the church's tax-exempt status. Federal law prohibits tax-exempt groups 
from engaging in politics, such as endorsing candidates.
Several church members described Chandler as someone who was uninterested in 
hearing other people's points of view. Most church members said they agreed with 
him that abortion was wrong, and many said they opposed extending gay couples 
the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy. Still, they said, he wouldn't 
listen.
"We couldn't serve God under those conditions," said Selma Morris, 78. 
"Hopefully, this will be a healing period, and we'll go on and do the work God 
wants us to do."
reg-893260-543978.jpgspacer.gif

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Vote for Bush or Repent

2005-05-11 Thread Judy Taylor

I have to wonder how this item made it's way to Canada
.. or does Jonathan seek out these kinds of
aberrations. I've never heard of this man or his
Baptist Church up in the Blue Ridge Mountains. All I can
say is that he is wrong and that this is the exception
rather than the rule. I've not heard of anything like
this around these parts of Virginia. Voting is a
personal and a private matter. jt

On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:10:23 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Hughes

To: lance Muir
Sent: May 11, 2005 08:36
Subject: Vote for Bush or Repent
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2395269p-8773218c.htmlPastor,
35 more leave churchExpulsion of nine
ignited a furor

Chandler resigned
'with gratitude in my heart.'
By YONAT SHIMRON, Staff WriterThe pastor of a Waynesville Baptist church who tried to force
his political views on his members resigned Tuesday night, taking a few dozen
members with him.
The Rev. Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church in the
Blue Ridge Mountains, did not apologize for the division he caused and said
only that his underlying concern was to save unborn babies from abortion.
"I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly
those of you who love me and my family," Chandler said during a meeting at the
church, The Associated Press reported.
Remaining church members said they sat in silence for a long time after
Chandler and 35 of his loyal followers left the sanctuary -- a silence broken
when one of the members stepped forward and began to play hymns on the
piano.
Chandler made national headlines after nine of his congregants were
expelled from membership after a contentious meeting May 2. Those expelled
said they were forced out because they did not follow their pastor's bidding
to vote for President Bush in November's elections.
'Repent or resign'
The church had been embroiled in partisan politics since October, when
Chandler told his 100-member congregation that anyone who planned to vote for
Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry needed to "repent or
resign."
Many older members, lifelong Democrats, resented the way Chandler, a
Haywood County native, imposed his political views on the church, and tried to
steer him away from politics. It didn't work.
Still, no one voiced pleasure at Chandler's departure. Many said it was a
sad day in the history of the 52-year-old church.
"Maybe the church can heal now and we can go on," said Margaret Biddix, one
of the nine members expelled by Chandler's supporters.
The storm that hit the church -- about 300 miles west of Raleigh divided it
along generational lines.
Many of the older members are traditionally Democrats, though some have
voted Republican in recent elections. Many of the newest and youngest members
have always been Republicans. In this, the church reflected Southern voting
habits that have dramatically embraced the Republican Party in recent
decades.
Now the challenge for the church is to find younger members, said Maxine
Osborne, 70, a member. "We hope the church will grow now, and I think it
will," she said.
Following convictions
Chandler, 33, said he intended to continue his studies toward a master's
degree in divinity at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake
Forest, where he has been a student.
He did not speak to the news media throughout the past week's ordeal,
releasing only one statement through his lawyer saying no one was expelled
from the church because of political affiliation.
"He's a young man doing the best he can to stand up to his convictions,"
said Waylan Owens, Southeastern vice president for planning and
communications, who taught Chandler in one of his classes.
Owens said Chandler wanted his members to apply the morals they say they
uphold, such as their opposition to abortion, at the voting booth. Roman
Catholic bishops did something similar last year when they said they would bar
Kerry, a Catholic, from receiving Communion.
But others said the church battle was another example of the Southern
Baptist Convention's conservative shift in recent years and its emphasis on a
literal interpretation of Scripture.
"When you believe in an inerrant Bible, then the next step is to have an
inerrant interpreter and then an inerrant morality," said Bill Leonard, the
dean of the divinity school at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem.
Chandler's actions brought rebuke from national groups committed to the
separation of church and state. They called on the Internal Revenue Service to
revoke the church's tax-exempt status. Federal law prohibits tax-exempt groups

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Do you want a bible that confuses Satan  Jesus?
Or one that does not know who killed Goliath?
"get thee behind me satan"
oops that was edited out who would do such a thing?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Kevin:Why not hold onto the KJV while living it concurrently and, let those who read other translations get on with doing the same. Save some of that energy for the 'street'.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: May 11, 2005 08:14
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

CMON how about some clear ERRORS like your new Bibles have?
I mean a juicy one like Elkahan killed Goliath!
Ooooh here are some more:

The newe bibles get their God -gods mixed up! Blasphemy!
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
O Lucifer, son of the morning in Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew is helel, ben shachar. kokhav or star is not found in the verse. The Hebrew kokhve voqer or morning stars does not appear in the text. Why then is it changed?NEWE Bibles: How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Who fell from heaven? SATAN!

Jesus Christ is the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16, 2:28 and II Peter 1:19. 
The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall "The pentagram is used extensively in black magic...it signifies the fall of the Morning Star."
Blavatsky's Theosophical Society also equates the morning star and Lucifer.
The United Nations, NGO Lucis Trust (which used to be called Lucifer now Lucis) "Lucifer as here used means...the morning star and has no connection whatsoever with Satan..."
In the newe biblesJesus Christ is equated withthis fallen creature, which we know is Satan. The newe bibles state it is the "morning star" that fell. Satan never quits trying to be like the Most High (Is 14:14 KJV)
Watch the Bible correctors stand on their heads, put the left foot in  the left foot out, to try and salvalge their beloved perverted text.The newe BLASPHEMOUS Bibles equate Satan with Jesus! I wonder who has been tampering with them? The father of Lies.

MORE BLASPHEMY
Newe bibles: Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone
Newe bibles: Jesus becomes the "capstone" in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7
Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone. The"newe" bibleschange Cornerstone to CAPSTONE. The capstone is the top of the pyramid - not the cornerstone in which the foundation is layed. To New Agers, the capstone or Mercaba, is the top of the pyramid,the source where they channel Nimrod, the all seeing eye - into their third eye. (see your dollar) The capstone is the symbol of Nimrod in many cults and in FreeMasonry(thier god)... a false god,satan.

Are you praying to a new god?
Deuteronomy 32:17,19 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods...And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters...
Judges 5:8 They chose new gods; then was war in the gates. 

The King James Bible has shown itself to be the superior work of godly men,giving us the proper translation. Just seeing how the false versions highly esteem Satan, would shake meenoughtocause me to refuse their perversions, and cast them aside. BUT:

Luke 4:8 Get thee behind me, Satan - OMITTED in the Newe versions
You trust your "capstone" I'll place my trust on the sure foundation  cornerstone Jesus Christ!
KJV Holy Bible: "be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house."Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Another extended quote from Wallace (b/c I could not be type all this out)


This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the
 Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text w

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth? 
Details in the HolyBible, not the Blasphemers bible..Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Kevin:Why not hold onto the KJV while living it concurrently and, let those who read other translations get on with doing the same. Save some of that energy for the 'street'.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: May 11, 2005 08:14
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

CMON how about some clear ERRORS like your new Bibles have?
I mean a juicy one like Elkahan killed Goliath!
Ooooh here are some more:

The newe bibles get their God -gods mixed up! Blasphemy!
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
O Lucifer, son of the morning in Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew is helel, ben shachar. kokhav or star is not found in the verse. The Hebrew kokhve voqer or morning stars does not appear in the text. Why then is it changed?NEWE Bibles: How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Who fell from heaven? SATAN!

Jesus Christ is the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16, 2:28 and II Peter 1:19. 
The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall "The pentagram is used extensively in black magic...it signifies the fall of the Morning Star."
Blavatsky's Theosophical Society also equates the morning star and Lucifer.
The United Nations, NGO Lucis Trust (which used to be called Lucifer now Lucis) "Lucifer as here used means...the morning star and has no connection whatsoever with Satan..."
In the newe biblesJesus Christ is equated withthis fallen creature, which we know is Satan. The newe bibles state it is the "morning star" that fell. Satan never quits trying to be like the Most High (Is 14:14 KJV)
Watch the Bible correctors stand on their heads, put the left foot in  the left foot out, to try and salvalge their beloved perverted text.The newe BLASPHEMOUS Bibles equate Satan with Jesus! I wonder who has been tampering with them? The father of Lies.

MORE BLASPHEMY
Newe bibles: Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone
Newe bibles: Jesus becomes the "capstone" in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7
Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone. The"newe" bibleschange Cornerstone to CAPSTONE. The capstone is the top of the pyramid - not the cornerstone in which the foundation is layed. To New Agers, the capstone or Mercaba, is the top of the pyramid,the source where they channel Nimrod, the all seeing eye - into their third eye. (see your dollar) The capstone is the symbol of Nimrod in many cults and in FreeMasonry(thier god)... a false god,satan.

Are you praying to a new god?
Deuteronomy 32:17,19 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods...And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters...
Judges 5:8 They chose new gods; then was war in the gates. 

The King James Bible has shown itself to be the superior work of godly men,giving us the proper translation. Just seeing how the false versions highly esteem Satan, would shake meenoughtocause me to refuse their perversions, and cast them aside. BUT:

Luke 4:8 Get thee behind me, Satan - OMITTED in the Newe versions
You trust your "capstone" I'll place my trust on the sure foundation  cornerstone Jesus Christ!
KJV Holy Bible: "be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house."Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Another extended quote from Wallace (b/c I could not be type all this out)

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the
 Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Vote for Bush or Repent

There are two sides to every story.
I wonder if he preaches that Democrats are IMMORAL baby killers?
If you do not like his stand join a different churchJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




I have to wonder how this item made it's way to Canada .. or does Jonathan seek out these kinds of
aberrations. I've never heard of this man or his Baptist Church up in the Blue Ridge Mountains. All I can
say is that he is wrong and that this is the exception rather than the rule. I've not heard of anything like
this around these parts of Virginia. Voting is a personal and a private matter. jt

On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:10:23 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


- Original Message - 
From: Jonathan Hughes 
To: lance Muir 
Sent: May 11, 2005 08:36
Subject: Vote for Bush or Repent
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2395269p-8773218c.htmlPastor, 35 more leave churchExpulsion of nine ignited a furor











Chandler resigned 'with gratitude in my heart.' By YONAT SHIMRON, Staff WriterThe pastor of a Waynesville Baptist church who tried to force his political views on his members resigned Tuesday night, taking a few dozen members with him. 
The Rev. Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church in the Blue Ridge Mountains, did not apologize for the division he caused and said only that his underlying concern was to save unborn babies from abortion.
"I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly those of you who love me and my family," Chandler said during a meeting at the church, The Associated Press reported.
Remaining church members said they sat in silence for a long time after Chandler and 35 of his loyal followers left the sanctuary -- a silence broken when one of the members stepped forward and began to play hymns on the piano.
Chandler made national headlines after nine of his congregants were expelled from membership after a contentious meeting May 2. Those expelled said they were forced out because they did not follow their pastor's bidding to vote for President Bush in November's elections.
'Repent or resign'
The church had been embroiled in partisan politics since October, when Chandler told his 100-member congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry needed to "repent or resign."
Many older members, lifelong Democrats, resented the way Chandler, a Haywood County native, imposed his political views on the church, and tried to steer him away from politics. It didn't work.
Still, no one voiced pleasure at Chandler's departure. Many said it was a sad day in the history of the 52-year-old church.
"Maybe the church can heal now and we can go on," said Margaret Biddix, one of the nine members expelled by Chandler's supporters.
The storm that hit the church -- about 300 miles west of Raleigh divided it along generational lines.
Many of the older members are traditionally Democrats, though some have voted Republican in recent elections. Many of the newest and youngest members have always been Republicans. In this, the church reflected Southern voting habits that have dramatically embraced the Republican Party in recent decades.
Now the challenge for the church is to find younger members, said Maxine Osborne, 70, a member. "We hope the church will grow now, and I think it will," she said.
Following convictions
Chandler, 33, said he intended to continue his studies toward a master's degree in divinity at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, where he has been a student.
He did not speak to the news media throughout the past week's ordeal, releasing only one statement through his lawyer saying no one was expelled from the church because of political affiliation.
"He's a young man doing the best he can to stand up to his convictions," said Waylan Owens, Southeastern vice president for planning and communications, who taught Chandler in one of his classes.
Owens said Chandler wanted his members to apply the morals they say they uphold, such as their opposition to abortion, at the voting booth. Roman Catholic bishops did something similar last year when they said they would bar Kerry, a Catholic, from receiving Communion.
But others said the church battle was another example of the Southern Baptist Convention's conservative shift in recent years and its emphasis on a literal interpretation of Scripture.
"When you believe in an inerrant Bible, then the next step is to have an inerrant interpreter and then an inerrant morality," said Bill Leonard, the dean of the divinity school at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem.
Chandler's actions brought rebuke from national groups committed to the separation of church and state. They called on the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the church's tax-exempt status. Federal law prohibits tax-exempt groups from engaging in politics, such as endorsing candidates.
Several church members described Chandler as someone who was uninterested in hearing other

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Vote for Bush or Repent

The other side(not the news media lynch mob)
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20766
"This never has been about politics," he said. "It's always been about whether the Bible applies to the entire life of a Christian." 

Citing verses from 1 Corinthians 6, which he says require the church to keep its disagreements out of the public eye, Chandler is deeply grieved that the rest of the world is now privy to some of the church's behavior. He says he regrets that not for himself, but for those who look to the church for spiritual leadership and guidance."I believe the application of the Bible needs to be to every single area of our lives," Chandler said, and that would include how church members conduct themselves both within and without the church walls.

Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There are two sides to every story.
I wonder if he preaches that Democrats are IMMORAL baby killers?
If you do not like his stand join a different churchJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




I have to wonder how this item made it's way to Canada .. or does Jonathan seek out these kinds of
aberrations. I've never heard of this man or his Baptist Church up in the Blue Ridge Mountains. All I can
say is that he is wrong and that this is the exception rather than the rule. I've not heard of anything like
this around these parts of Virginia. Voting is a personal and a private matter. jt

On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:10:23 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


- Original Message - 
From: Jonathan Hughes 
To: lance Muir 
Sent: May 11, 2005 08:36
Subject: Vote for Bush or Repent
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2395269p-8773218c.htmlPastor, 35 more leave churchExpulsion of nine ignited a furor











Chandler resigned 'with gratitude in my heart.' By YONAT SHIMRON, Staff WriterThe pastor of a Waynesville Baptist church who tried to force his political views on his members resigned Tuesday night, taking a few dozen members with him. 
The Rev. Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church in the Blue Ridge Mountains, did not apologize for the division he caused and said only that his underlying concern was to save unborn babies from abortion.
"I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly those of you who love me and my family," Chandler said during a meeting at the church, The Associated Press reported.
Remaining church members said they sat in silence for a long time after Chandler and 35 of his loyal followers left the sanctuary -- a silence broken when one of the members stepped forward and began to play hymns on the piano.
Chandler made national headlines after nine of his congregants were expelled from membership after a contentious meeting May 2. Those expelled said they were forced out because they did not follow their pastor's bidding to vote for President Bush in November's elections.
'Repent or resign'
The church had been embroiled in partisan politics since October, when Chandler told his 100-member congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry needed to "repent or resign."
Many older members, lifelong Democrats, resented the way Chandler, a Haywood County native, imposed his political views on the church, and tried to steer him away from politics. It didn't work.
Still, no one voiced pleasure at Chandler's departure. Many said it was a sad day in the history of the 52-year-old church.
"Maybe the church can heal now and we can go on," said Margaret Biddix, one of the nine members expelled by Chandler's supporters.
The storm that hit the church -- about 300 miles west of Raleigh divided it along generational lines.
Many of the older members are traditionally Democrats, though some have voted Republican in recent elections. Many of the newest and youngest members have always been Republicans. In this, the church reflected Southern voting habits that have dramatically embraced the Republican Party in recent decades.
Now the challenge for the church is to find younger members, said Maxine Osborne, 70, a member. "We hope the church will grow now, and I think it will," she said.
Following convictions
Chandler, 33, said he intended to continue his studies toward a master's degree in divinity at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, where he has been a student.
He did not speak to the news media throughout the past week's ordeal, releasing only one statement through his lawyer saying no one was expelled from the church because of political affiliation.
"He's a young man doing the best he can to stand up to his convictions," said Waylan Owens, Southeastern vice president for planning and communications, who taught Chandler in one of his classes.
Owens said Chandler wanted his members to apply the morals they say they uphold, such as their opposition to abortion, at the voting booth. Roman Catholic bishops did something similar last year when they said they would bar Kerry, a Catholic, from receiving

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Just after having an effect on my heart (the kids)
you resume your 'jerkyness' so, I can retain my paradigm. Wheeww!

- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: May 11, 2005 11:30
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re:
[TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Am I become your enemy because I tell you the
truth?
Details in the HolyBible, not the Blasphemers
bible..Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Kevin:Why not hold onto the KJV while living it
concurrently and, let those who read other translations get on with doing
the same. Save some of that energy for the 'street'.

- Original Message -
From:
Kevin Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: May 11, 2005 08:14
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

CMON how about some clear ERRORS
like your new Bibles have?
I mean a juicy one like Elkahan killed Goliath!
Ooooh here are some more:

The newe bibles get their God -gods mixed up!
Blasphemy!
Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art
thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
O Lucifer, son of the morning
in Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew is helel, ben shachar. kokhav or star is
not found in the verse. The Hebrew kokhve voqer or morning stars does
not appear in the text. Why then is it changed?NEWE Bibles: How you have fallen from heaven, O
morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to
the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Who fell from heaven?
SATAN!

Jesus Christ is the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16, 2:28 and II
Peter 1:19.
The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall "The pentagram is used extensively in black
magic...it signifies the fall of the Morning
Star."
Blavatsky's Theosophical Society also equates the morning star and
Lucifer.
The United Nations, NGO Lucis Trust (which used to be called Lucifer
now Lucis) "Lucifer as here used means...the morning
star and has no connection whatsoever with Satan..."
In the newe biblesJesus
Christ is equated withthis fallen creature, which we know is
Satan. The newe bibles state it is the "morning star" that fell.
Satan never quits trying to be like the Most High (Is 14:14
KJV)
Watch the Bible
correctors stand on their heads, put the left foot in the left foot
out, to try and salvalge their beloved perverted text.The newe
BLASPHEMOUS Bibles equate Satan with Jesus! I wonder who has been
tampering with them? The father of Lies.

MORE BLASPHEMY
Newe bibles:
Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the
capstone
Newe bibles: Jesus becomes the "capstone" in Matthew 21:42, Mark
12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7
Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone. The"newe" bibleschange
Cornerstone to CAPSTONE. The capstone is the top of the
pyramid - not the cornerstone in which the foundation is layed. To New
Agers, the capstone or Mercaba, is the top of the pyramid,the
source where they channel Nimrod, the all seeing eye - into their third
eye. (see your dollar) The capstone is the symbol of Nimrod in many
cults and in FreeMasonry(thier god)... a false
god,satan.

Are you praying to a new god?
Deuteronomy 32:17,19
They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew
not, to new gods...And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of
the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters...
Judges 5:8 They chose new gods; then was war in
the gates.

The King James Bible has shown itself to be the superior work of
godly men,giving us the proper translation. Just seeing how the
false versions highly esteem Satan, would shake
meenoughtocause me to refuse their perversions, and cast
them aside. BUT:

Luke 4:8 Get
thee behind me, Satan - OMITTED in the
Newe versions
You trust your "capstone" I'll place my trust on the sure
foundation cornerstone Jesus Christ!
KJV Holy
Bible: "be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks,
though they be a rebellious
house."Caroline Wong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Another extended quote from Wallace (b/c I
could not be type all this out)

This longer reading is found only in eight late
manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of
these ma

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1