RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
Agreed. Might He also send street preachers? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline Wong Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 8:52 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 He tells us in many ways as He is not limited by anything. He tells us through scripture, through other people, through experiences and through prayer. These are only just some of the ways. If we ignore Him, then the consequences of our sins grow and we become more enslaved. He continues to speak to us and He may have to use pain and adversity to do so. He never abandons us. He never stops loving us. I should also add that not all pain, adversity and illness is the result of personal sin. It could be the sin of other people or just living in a fallen world. It'll take real wisdom and knowledge to tell another why he is suffering and what he should do about it. Love, Caroline - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:13 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 And HOW does he tell us this? And what does He do if we IGNORE Him? Izzy He tells us when we're wrong (judgment) so that we can turn and do right. Love, Caroline
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
He most definitely may. Would he send a Canadian? :-) Love, Caroline - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:46 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Agreed. Might He also send street preachers? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline WongSent: Monday, May 16, 2005 8:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 He tells us in many ways as He is not limited by anything. He tells us through scripture, through other people, through experiences and through prayer. These are only just some of the ways. If we ignore Him, then the consequences of our sins grow and we become more enslaved. He continues to speak to us and He may have to use pain and adversity to do so. He never abandons us. He never stops loving us. I should also add that not all pain, adversity and illness is the result of personal sin. It could be the sin of other people or just living in a fallen world. It'll take real wisdom and knowledge to tell another why he is suffering and what he should do about it. Love, Caroline - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:13 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 And HOW does he tell us this? And what does He do if we IGNORE Him? Izzy He tells us when we're wrong (judgment) so that we can turn and do right. Love, Caroline
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
That isnot the way you act. Try your lines on someone else. Jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 15 May 2005 18:55:27 -0700 (PDT)Subject: 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 MobileTake Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
Maybe its McDonalds thats going to hell? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline Wong Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:46 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: 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.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
And HOW does he tell us this? And what does He do if we IGNORE Him? Izzy He tells us when we're wrong (judgment) so that we can turn and do right. Love, Caroline
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
Through feelings? Through our heart? Through our understanding?ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And HOW does he tell us this? And what does He do if we IGNORE Him? Izzy He tells us when we're wrong (judgment) so that we can turn and do right. Love, Caroline__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
He tells us in many ways as He is not limited by anything. He tells us through scripture, through other people, through experiences and through prayer. These are only just some of the ways. If we ignore Him, then the consequences of our sins grow and we become more enslaved. He continues to speak to us and He may have to use pain and adversity to do so. He never abandons us. He never stops loving us. I should also add that not all pain, adversity and illness is the result of personal sin. It could be the sin of other people or just living in a fallen world. It'll take real wisdom and knowledge to tell another why he is suffering and what he should do about it. Love, Caroline - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:13 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 And HOW does he tell us this? And what does He do if we IGNORE Him? Izzy He tells us when we're wrong (judgment) so that we can turn and do right. Love, Caroline
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
The Holy Spirit gives some the gift of discerning of spirits. Such people can see angels and demons. They can see how the actions of humans affect the warfare all around us. Be careful not to mock what you do not understand. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 6:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Who knows what doors in the spiritual realm will be opened and what pollution would be released? New Age "CHRISTianity" are you talking about incantations? Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Do you Yahoo!?Make Yahoo! your home page
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
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 !! JD -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
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
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
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
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? -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
[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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
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
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
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: [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
The 'K-man' (not to be confused with Cosmo Kramer) in good form. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 11, 2005 11:01 Subject: [Bulk] 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 margin
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 It is a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION! If the JH did not exist before Erasamus, how did Church fathers quote the non existant text starting 1200 years earlier? 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? NO ANSWER??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 way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was 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
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 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
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: 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 way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by t
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 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 way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formu
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
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 abandon the journey at the very way station I'm at. Faith can blithely park anomalous data for decades just in the off chance that some day it will make sense. Faith keeps my eyes on Christ as I shift around jigsaw pieces of hell, election, freewill, suffering, joy, grace, works etc. Most people operate the same way. There is a mountain of evidence that the KJV is not the best English translation but by faith many say it is. There is evidence all over that God has abandoned some children to hideous suffering but by faithwe say He has not. Logically, no one can be both 100% God and 100% man at the same time but by faith, we declare Jesus Christ is exactly that. Rationally, three Gods in one is nonsensical but by faith we relate to all three distinctively and as one. I've know the stories ofChristians who persevered despite all odds, even to a martyr's death. I know some who met up with evidence that was beyond reasonable doubt and they walked away from Christianity. (ex. Charles Templeton). My pastor is fond of saying to me "Fides quarens intellectum" which is Latin for "faith seeking understanding". That is what theology is. It is not to explain Christianity so that we can believe. As Augustine said, "I believe in order that I may understand." So in summary, my main objection to your assertion that if someone proved Jesus is false, then it would be logical to stop believing is this: there is no room in my faith for such a thought. It is like asking me "is yellow circular?" or "are circles cold?" or "are my cats pious?" :-) I know this is kind of long and I hope it makes sense. I hope this will also show why the Mormon people and the Canadians are so resistant to your arguments. Love, Caroline - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:24 AM Subject: 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, CarolineIf 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!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
rian 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 from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprians quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, and these three are onethe wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma. Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 It is a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION! If the JH did not exist before Erasamus, how did Church fathers quote the non existant text starting 1200 years earlier? 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? NO ANSWER??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 way into copies of the Latin V
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: 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 th
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
ERROR ALERT! Long short of it is it does say Elhanan killed Goliath in the NIV and others. Trie to splain it away, do the hokey pokey but at the end of the day it still says Elahanan killed Goliath! Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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: 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
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
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
They are all WISHFUL thinking and fancy footwork in Latin - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Those quotes ARE NOT real. Don't try to read these works they are not real: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." Cyprian Treatises 1 5:423 As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." Priscillian (385 AD)Liber Apologeticus "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." Varimadum 90:20-21 (380AD) Grammar problem of non existant "comma"discussed in 390AD ". . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?" Gregory of Nazianzus Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit (390 AD) So somebody made them up? All of these? Who was this mystery man? The story about Erasmus promising to insert it in his third edition is the Fable even your wonderful Metzger admits suchDr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). SO here are some who qouted: Cyprian (258 AD) The Varimadum (380 AD) Cassian (435 AD) Cassiodorus (580 AD) Speculum (or m of 450 AD) Victor of Vita (489 AD) Victor Vitensis (485 AD) Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD) Fulgentius (533 AD) Isidore of Seville (636 AD) Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD) Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD) I bet you think these do not exist either: Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century. The early Latin manuscripts which date from the second, third, and forth centuries. Editions of the Vulgate (forth century). Old Latin manuscripts, such as m (ninth century) and r (seventh/eighth century). Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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), attribut
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
News alert! KJV translators "inspired" to add words to Hebrew texts! Claims it's right there for those with the eyes to see! All dissenters to be burnt at the stake! The Emperor IS wearing clothes! Extra, Extra! - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 ERROR ALERT! Long short of it is it does say Elhanan killed Goliath in the NIV and others. Trie to splain it away, do the hokey pokey but at the end of the day it still says Elahanan killed Goliath! Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 fa
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
, 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 the NIV's "morning star" and the NASB's "star of the morning" to refer to Satan in Isaiah 14:12, saying that the title is Christ's alone. However, the KJV is quite clear that it isn't: Job 38:7 (KJV) "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" In Job 38:7, the KJV indicates that this is not just a title for Christ, as it is also given to other angelic beings. One could return the "argument" and say that if "morning star" is only Christ's title, then the KJV tell us there are many Christs because of Job 38:7! (Of course that is ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than saying the NIV and NASB are equating Christ and Satan). Even if you remain unconvinced that Isaiah 14:12 is not referring to Satan, is it such a stretch to suggest that "morning star" or a similar term may be applied to Satan, since he too can appear this way? Consider: 2 Corinthians 11:14 (KJV) "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." Therefore, to accuse the NIV and the NASB of giving "Christ's title" to Satan is to accuse the KJV of giving Christ's title to angels. Of course, we then see that "morning star" is simply a title that can be given to others as well. Even if Isa 14:12 is about Satan, since "morning star" is a title the KJV uses for angels, what's wrong with with using the title for Satan? Most argue (erroneously) that "Lucifer" was Satan's name before he fell. Thus, before he fell, he was "Lucifer", an angel, a "morning star". Whoops. How do KJV-onlies know that the implied analogy is to Christ in Rev 22:16 and not to angels in Job 38:7??? Whoops again. Also, Satan is called a lion in one passage (1 Peter 5:8), while the Lord Jesus is called a lion in one passage (Revelation 5:5). Isn't it kind of a double-standard for KJV-onlies to ignore this while jumping on the NIV's "morning star"?: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/isa14_12.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: Jesus becomes the "capstone" in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7 Jesus Christ i
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
Lots of myths that can be held in ones hand.Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They are all WISHFUL thinking and fancy footwork in Latin - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Those quotes ARE NOT real. Don't try to read these works they are not real: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." Cyprian Treatises 1 5:423 As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." Priscillian (385 AD)Liber Apologeticus "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." Varimadum 90:20-21 (380AD) Grammar problem of non existant "comma"discussed in 390AD ". . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?" Gregory of Nazianzus Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit (390 AD) So somebody made them up? All of these? Who was this mystery man? The story about Erasmus promising to insert it in his third edition is the Fable even your wonderful Metzger admits suchDr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). SO here are some who qouted: Cyprian (258 AD) The Varimadum (380 AD) Cassian (435 AD) Cassiodorus (580 AD) Speculum (or m of 450 AD) Victor of Vita (489 AD) Victor Vitensis (485 AD) Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD) Fulgentius (533 AD) Isidore of Seville (636 AD) Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD) Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD) I bet you think these do not exist either: Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century. The early Latin manuscripts which date from the second, third, and forth centuries. Editions of the Vulgate (forth century). Old Latin manuscripts, such as m (ninth century) and r (seventh/eighth century). Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Sp
Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
His 'children' in what sense of the word, Raymond? - Original Message - From: Bothoms To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 09, 2005 14:31 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Terry-- I certainly agree with you. There is a God. I know it too. We are His children. --RaymondTerry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance Muir wrote: Do you wish web pages that demonstrate irrefutably that god does not exist? Will you change your mind? Wouldn't work. I tryed not believing. Couldn't do it. I know there is a God. I talked to Him just this morning.Terry
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, CarolineIf 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!
Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
I believe that you did. You strike me as a genuine Christian, the real deal, Terry. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 09, 2005 13:16 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Lance Muir wrote: Do you wish web pages that demonstrate irrefutably that god does not exist? Will you change your mind? Wouldn't work. I tryed not believing. Couldn't do it. I know there is a God. I talked to Him just this morning.Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
Exactly. I have no burden of responsibilityonly the burden of love. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline Wong Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 9:44 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Izzy, being Jesus to another person is the most awesome, best thing any human can be. I pray that the Lord bless you, empower you and give you all wisdom and strength as you walk with Peggy and John during these trying and dark days. We are not responsible for another person's salvation. It is between them and God and only He knows where the person is at, what she needs and how it will all turn out. May you rest assured in His sovereign mercy and justice. Love, Caroline - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 9:46 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Caroline, I have a dear friend (Peggy) who chooses to not believe in Jesus Christ. My husband and I have befriended her and her husband (John) for years (since they were our former neighbors) and given her the gospel numerous times and prayed for her often. But she consistently says I dont believe that. She finished 9 months of difficult chemotherapy for breast cancer a year ago. She was the only one in her chemo group that survived. She doesnt thank God for it. A month ago her husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer and began 8 weeks of radiation therapy. He is a Catholic who faithfully goes to mass every Sunday. He worries about Pegs unbelief as well. They are both alcoholics; shes a heavy smoker as well. Last week I was in her neighborhood and decided at the last minute to stop by and drop something off for her. John answered the door and looked upset; I asked why. Peggy just got a bad report from this mornings CT scan. A spot on her lungs. She was terrified. I went out to dinner with them and another couple (also lost.) She went for a follow up PET scan Friday. We await the results as her life hangs in the balance. But I have little hope of her ever changing her mind about Jesus. I only try to befriend her and be Jesus in skin in her life. She knows what I believe, and I dont try to force it down her throat. I would if I could. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Caroline Wong Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:54 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Sometimes we forget how absurd the message is. Naaman almost didn't get his healing because the advice was absurd in his ears. His servants begged him to try on account that he has nothing to lose except his dignity. After Naaman was healed, he became a believer in Israel's YHWH. We receive messages better from people we trust and whom we believe is the expert in this area. This applies to teachers, doctors, salesman and politicians. Our message concerns God, life, reality and eternal destination. Our hearers, in brain processes so sub-conscious that only the Holy Spirit knows what's going on, have to decide if we're the trustworthy guides in this area. In our present time and culture, there are lots of other people claiming they have the answer. I watched Larry King Live when he had a show aboutwhat happens after we dieand his guests were John MacArthur, a rabbi, a Catholic priest, an Islamic scholar, an atheist and a new age. Who would the viewer think is the most trustworthy guide? Unless God elects, gives faith, and opens the eyes, ears and mind of the person, then that person can not believe. No one who believes your message about eternal damnation is true, would choose that. If a doctor told you chemo may not cure your cancer but would extend your life and a naturopath told you chemo would cause you to suffer greatly and die sooner, who would you believe? Because of who I am, I would side with the doctor. My sister in law would side with the naturopath. My dad would get a few more opinions and then ask the family what is the best course of action. My mom would defer all decision to my dad. Nevertheless,it isgoodthat youcontinue to tell people the gospel and I know you do it with the grace, love and wisdom God gave you. Love, Caroline - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:15 AM Subject: 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
Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
Lance Muir wrote: I believe that you did. You strike me as a genuine Christian, the real deal, Terry. Thank you. I appreciate that. I often wonder if it is ever noticable to others. I know that I am too blunt and too dogmatic and often that is mistaken for a hard heart. Terry
Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
Hearts can be 'read' even on TT. Bless you, brother. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 10, 2005 08:33 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Lance Muir wrote: I believe that you did. You strike me as a genuine Christian, the real deal, Terry. Thank you. I appreciate that. I often wonder if it is ever noticable to others. I know that I am too blunt and too dogmatic and often that is mistaken for a hard heart.Terry
RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:33 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Lance Muir wrote: I believe that you did. You strike me as a genuine Christian, the real deal, Terry. Thank you. I appreciate that. I often wonder if it is ever noticable to others. I know that I am too blunt and too dogmatic and often that is mistaken for a hard heart. Terry Dont worry Terryyou cant be too correct. J And God is very blunt. Izzy