Genesis11:1 " The whole world had one language and one common speech" BUT - Gen 10:5, 10:20, 10:31 indicate that the Noah's sons' clans had their OWN languages. Would you please clarify.
Do you think it is fair to judge someone else's beliefs in such a negative manner, simply because they do not merge with your own?
Does God kill sinning Christians?
I was wandering whether you can tell me - How long was Noah in the Ark for?
Where in the Bible (KJV) does it say that "tongues should cease."
Where does the apostolic churches get their reasoning for calling their pastors apostles?
Could you please explain Matthew 12:43-45?
Why are the sins of the father passed down.
Can you please explain John 8:56 to me?
Could you please explain Matthew 13:12 to me. I never seem to understand the meaning behind it.
What does Proverbs 23:31 mean?
Who put the chapter and verse divisions in the Bible and when?
III. Evidences from Astronomy.
A. In ancient times people believed the earth was either flat, or a flat earth under a globe. They thought if you went to the edge of the earth you would fall off. The Greeks thought the earth was flat under a globe which was supported by a huge stick through the center that rotated.
Only until Copernicus, who lived between 1473 to 1543 AD, did anyone suspect a round earth. He was condemned as heretic and as a man out of his mind. Further the Roman Catholic church tried to have him killed! Today we fully understand that the earth is round, and is a planet of the Sun, a star of the galaxy the Milky Way which is a part of the universe.
B. Job 22:12, stated that the earth was in the a vast and distant universe. Isaiah declared the earth was a sphere. (Isa. 40:22a) and Job added the earth rotates on an axis and states "He (God) hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7.)
C. Science is always trying to measure the universe, and always finding new evidence that its calculations are wrong and need upgrading. Jeremiah 31:37, speaks of the vastness of space and says that it can not be measured! This verse says man will never be able to measure it, because God has promised never to set Israel aside.
Jeremiah 33:22, also added that science will never be able to count the stars. Every time science has even made an estimate, they discover a new method of investigation and a new "estimate" is made. Science's use of the new infra red telescope satellite has opened the door now to billions of stars and galaxies that were not know to exist.
The orbits of the stars, and planets are absolute and science can predict their exact location in the sky at any point in time. Jer. 31:35-37, stated this scientific fact over 2500 years ago!
D. In the past it was thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, yet, the Psalmist correctly stated that the earth rotates around the Sun (Psa. 19:6).
E. Man thought in days past that the moon glowed and produced light. Job knew better over 3000 years ago and in Job 25:5a, states the moon is not an luminous body.
Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox."
Job 41:1 "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?"
Psalms 74:14 "Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness."
Psalms 104:26 "There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein."
Isaiah 27:1 "In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."
Most of them were destroyed in the Great Flood of Noah's day. The reason that we find fossilized dinosaur bones in sedimentary rock is that the sediment was deposited by the Flood which rapidly buried many animals in the earth. Noah must have had baby dinosaurs on the ark with him because Job knew about dinosaurs and lived after the Flood. They escaped the Flood by being in the Ark, but because the Flood changed the whole climate and face of the earth they did not prosper as well after the Flood because the drastic change in the climatic of earth over and eventually died out. There are reports of men seeing dinosaurs after 800 AD! The same forces that killed the dinosaurs even today is continuing as species of animals because of climate change are still becoming extinct.
There are also frequent references to "dragons" in the early history of man. These dragons certainly look like dinosaurs and acted like them. There are even a few cave paintings which show dinosaur type animals drawn by cave men.
Nebuchadnezzar had a dragon named Sirrush carved in the Ishtar Gate in Babylon. In China, Japan dragons are revered and considered good luck. Ancient stories said that dragons laid eggs...and so do dinosaurs! Is it not interesting that these ancient people would state that dragons laid eggs. It has only be in the last century that fossilized dinosaur eggs have been discovered! There is the story of St. George who slayed a dragon and he lived between the years AD 250 and 300. The story says the people of the area fed the dragon two sheep a day to keep it from eating them. In the Congo in Africa when natives were shown pictures of a dinosaur they said they had seen them in the remote areas of the jungle and had a name for them.
Yes, dinosaurs once roamed the earth with men. Evolution teaches the earth is millions of years old and the dinosaurs did not live with man. This is totally false as it contradicts true science and the Bible.
This is a very brief explanation of the subject, but there are some good web sites you might like to visit which has articles on subject of Creation. Try:
Bible Truth Web Site: I have a Bible study on the first twelve chapters of the Book of Genesis. You can find it at https://bible-truth.org/biblesty.htm/gen1.htm .
The sad thing about today is that our schools are teaching evolution as a scientific fact when there is absolutely no evidence of evolution in the fossil record or anywhere else. True empirical science does not support evolution and today. Darwinism is being seriously questioned by many in the scientific community who are honest enough to admit it. However, there are those scientists who deny the existence of God and to them their religion is evolution. To deny the Creator and His creation they must conclude that the world happened totally by chance and therefore if there is no Creator God then they not responsible to Him. How sad to willingly blind one's self to the truth.
However, in the Old Testament, there are several times when men are said to have seen God. See Gen. 32:30, Ex. 24:9-10, 33:11, Judges 13:22, Isa. 6:1, Dan. 7:9. Some of these are clearly "visions." The others are called "theophanies" in which God appeared in appearance as having corporeity, in transiently-assumed visible human form. In other words God appeared to men in the Old Testament in a visible material form so they could see Him, however they were not seeing God in His true essence as spirit. I believe it can be shown that the theophanies of the Old Testament were pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus the Messiah.
John 1:18 is true as no man has or can see God in His true essence as spirit.
Man lives in a limited physical and material world God created that exists materially in time and space. God is not limited by time, matter or space, as He is a spirit being. The spiritual world in which the Lord exists in is not like this physical world we live in. We, being material, cannot see the spiritual world. The only reference in the Bible that gives any description is John 3:8, which says that the Spirit is like the wind, we can see its effects but not the wind itself.
If the Bible contains errors, then none of it cannot be trusted. It is interesting to me, and I believe reveals the true carnal nature of man, that he spends so much time trying to find some obscure discrepancy and ignores the great volume of unquestionable truth that man is a sinner and needs to be saved. 1 Cor. 2:14, says a carnal the Word of God is "foolishness" to the carnal man, and that he cannot understand the Word of God because it is spiritually discerned. God has provided the way that a man by believing God and in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ, can repent of his sin, and accept God's unmerited favor (Grace) and receive forgiveness of sin and eternal life. The effort to prove God wrong is a futile pursuit. If a man could prove God wrong, he would in fact be cutting himself off from his only means of salvation.
There are a number of books written on the subject. One I use often is "An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" by John W. Haley. The book addresses hundreds of alleged discrepancies and gives clear explanations.
Let me conclude by saying that there are many things about God we do not know because God has chosen not to reveal them to us. I cannot explain the Trinity, but it is a true fact because God has revealed it to us. Most things we know about God are "revealed" truth. That means that from man's knowledge, experience and intelligence he cannot arrive at a true understanding of who and what God is apart from God revealing it to him. Even in our material world we have much we do not understand. For example: No one on the earth can truly explain gravity. We see its effects and what it does, but we cannot see it or even explain it. We accept it because it is revealed to be real because we see what it does. In a similar way, we believe in God, because we can see what He has done and what He has revealed to us, although we cannot physically see Him.
Matthew 27:5, says that Judas took the thirty pieces of silver and went and hanged himself. Acts 1:18-19, says he purchased a field with the silver and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Neither of these statements excludes the other from being true. Matthew does not deny that Judas hanged himself and afterwards his body fell and burst asunder, he just does not mention it. Peter who is preaching in Acts 1, does not say that Judas did not hang himself previous to his fall, he just does not mention it. Let me ask you a question, did not Matthew and Peter know the circumstances first hand. And did not all the people in Jerusalem know what happened also? Each writer under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was led to record the details of the event as applied to his account. Why would Peter (Peter told Luke who wrote Acts) or Matthew, who were both eye witnesses make up a false tell. Also, both Luke (who wrote Acts) and Matthew had access to the other's Gospel. They were both written around 60-61 AD. Luke got his information directly from Peter whom he knew personally. Why did they not correct one another if there was a discrepancy or why did not the men of their day make note of the supposed error. Also, all the manuscripts have the same rendering of each account.
Let me add also this vital point...both Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it was God who determine what would be recorded in each account. The Bible clearly states that God superintended the writing of this two Gospels and certainly God made no error (2 Tim. 3:16-18, 2 Pet. 1:21).
Probably Judas went and first took the money back to the temple. However, this was "blood money" and the temple officials could not lawfully put it in the treasury of the temple. So refusing to keep it he went out and spent it buying a "potters" field which was to be used for burying poor people. Some believe that it was actually the priests who purchased the field in Judas's name. It is a idiom of Scripture by which an action is sometimes said to be done by a person who was the occasion of its being done. Either case is plausible and neither account is a contradiction of the other.>
Could not Judas have hanged himself and then the rope broke and he fell and burst open, or that his body decomposed and later fell broke open. Could not that have been what the people Peter was address would best remember?
We see in different daily news accounts different eye witnesses giving different details of the same event and we accept it for what it was...two eye witnesses who reported different details of the same event. Where is the discrepancy? Where is the evidence from history that anybody until modern times even questioned these two accounts of the same event. The answer is there is none.
You said, "I am curious if these are errors or inaccuracies show that there are small errors in the Bible." I say, still there are no errors. The error is in judging God's Word to be in error without a thorough investigation and discounting what God said about Him preserving His Word without error.
God does not tell us to believe the Bible in blind faith, but to test it and examine the great and overwhelming evidence of its infallibility. As I said before, I have studied the Bible for over twenty years, and I have never found any supposed discrepancy that did not have a clear explanation.
I posted a new subject to my web page entitled "How we got the Bible." It would help in your understanding to read this material. It was written on the level of a normal Sunday School class and does not go into great depth, but it does give an good overall picture of how the Bible came to us.
God first gave the Sabbath as a duty to man in the book of Exodus. It is true that the Sabbath originated at the completion of the creation (Gen.. 2:1-3), but that was God's rest, not man's. There is no record in Genesis that God gave the Sabbath to man, and there is no record of men keeping the Sabbath before Israel in the wilderness. Neh. 9:13,14 plainly states that the Sabbath was first given to Israel. Some teach that men kept the Sabbath from the days of Adam onward, but this is contrary to the Bible's own record.
Ex. 31:12-18 says the Sabbath was a special sign between God and Israel. If mankind in general had been given the Sabbath following creation, it could not have been a sign for Israel. The fact is that the Sabbath belongs to the nation Israel and not to any other people. It is also important to note that the Sabbath will be an eternal possession of Israel (Ex. 31:16). This sign will never be annulled or transferred to another people. This explains why the prophets foretell that Israel will keep the Sabbath even after the kingdom of Christ is established on earth (Isa. 66:23). It also explains why Jesus Christ mentioned the Sabbath in His prophecies of the Tribulation (Matt. 24:20). Israelites in the land of Palestine still keep the Sabbath today.
In their writings to the churches, the Apostles only mentioned the Sabbath three times. (1) The Sabbath is a symbol of salvation rest in Christ (Heb. 4). (2) The N.T. believer is not bound to keep the Sabbath (Col. 2:9-17). (3) The N.T. believer has liberty in the matter of holy days (Rom.. 14). Those who teach that the Sabbath is binding upon the Christian, are teaching contrary to what the Apostles taught.
Why, then, did Jesus keep the Sabbath? He kept the Sabbath for the same reason He kept all the other Mosaic laws. He also observed the feasts. Jesus did these things because He was born a Jew, born under the law, that He might fulfill it and redeem His people from its penalty and bondage (Gal. 4:4; Rom.. 9:5)
The New Testament clearly says believers in the churches, worshiped on the first day of the week Sunday.
Please note the following:
Christians worship the Lord on this day because of the following Bible facts:
BIBLE EVIDENCE THAT EARLY CHRISTIANS WORSHIPPED ON SUNDAY:
Since those days, the vast majority of Christians have always met to worship on the Lord's day. They do this in honor of the resurrection of their Savior. Christ was in the tomb during the Sabbath, and rose as the firstborn from the dead on the first day. The Sabbath signifies the last day of the old creation (Gen. 2:2). Sunday is the first day of the new creation.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT EARLY CHRISTIANS WORSHIPED ON SUNDAY.
Following are quotes from what are called the church fathers of the end of the 1st Century and later and show it was the practice of the early church worship on Sunday:
The Epistle of Barnabas (about A.D. 100). "Wherefore, also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead."
The Epistle of Ignatius (about A.D. 107). "Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish Law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace ... If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death."
Justin Martyr (about A.D. 140). "And on the day called Sunday all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read. ... But Sunday is the day on which we all hold a common assembly, because it is the First day of the week on which God ... made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead."
Bardesanes, Edessa (A.D. 180). "On one day the first of the week, we assemble ourselves together."
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 194). "He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord's Day [the Lord's day refers to the day He arose which is Sunday]... glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself."
Tertullian (A.D. 200). "We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradiction to those who call this day their Sabbath."
Irenaeus (about A.D. 155-202). "The Mystery of the Lord's Resurrection may not be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's Day, and on this alone should we observe the breaking off of the Paschal Feast."
Cyprian (A.D. 250). "The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day."
Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 250). "On the day of the resurrection of the Lord--that is, the Lord's Day--assemble yourselves together without fail, giving thanks to God and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ."
Anatolius (A.D. 270). "Our regard for the Lord's resurrection which took place on the Lord's Day will lead us to celebrate it."
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 306). "But the Lord's Day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it, he rose again."
In closing God says in Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days."
Christians, not being Jews and under the law, worship on Sunday the day the Lord Jesus arose from the grave, victorious over sin and death. Keeping the Sabbath was part of the Old Testament Law. Note what God says:
Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." Well this is a brief answer, but I think covers the matter and I certainly hope it answers your question and helps you with the matter. Sadly, many sincere people are misled and make much of worshipping on the Sabbath, but as you see it was not a command given to Christians and was not practiced in the early church who met on Sunday.
(Part of the material above is from the Way of Life Encyclopedia by David Cloud.)
Psalms 77:10 "And I said, This is my infirmity: but I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High."; Isaiah 48:12-13 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together."
2 Corinthians 6:7 "By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left")
The right hand was used to show loyalty, "raise you right hand" ; of hospitality "waving or saluting with the right hand", of being trust worthy:
Genesis 14:22 "And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, "
Standing or being seated at one's right hand is regarded as place of honor:
The Bible says that Jesus is at the right hand of God.
1 Peter 3:22 "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
In a nutshell there are more than 5000 manuscripts dating from the 1st Century onward with which modern translations can be compared and their accuracy determined. In addition, there are large numbers of Lectionaries (1st and 2nd century sermons or written lessons) which quote a great portion of the Bible. Almost all the New Testament and a part of the Old Testament can be found in these documents. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain almost all the Old Testament and predate the time of Christ. Thus, we are not lacking in manuscript evidence from which we can make comparisons.
I realize that many of the modern (recent) translations do not have the accuracy of the King James Version of the Bible which is based on the Greek "Textus Receptus." In fact all modern translations are based on the faulty work of two unsaved men named Westcott and Hort. Their method of examining the Bible is called "Higher Criticism" and they accepted many of the errors of the early Catholic scribes and others which put them in their translations. Any knowledgeable Christian rejects these corrupt translations.
Some have made critical statements and brought the King James Version into question. In truth there are few places in the KJV that are at variance with the the Greek manuscripts. They are so few that they are minuscule and involve spelling, numbers, etc. The location of each one is known and we know what the original said. Not one of them affects any doctrine of the Bible. Nothing is lost or changed. Also, many Bibles will identify these variant readings in their marginal notes.
For example Rev. 22:19, the verse should read "tree of life" not "book of life." We know how this happened. Erasmus who translated what has been called the Textus Receptus (Received Text) used the Latin Vulgate to translate the Book of Revelation, because he did not have any Greek manuscripts of it available. He used the Latin Vulgate which was translated from the Greek New Testament. In Latin there is only one letter different between the words "tree" and "book." All the Greek manuscripts say "tree." Thus, we know we have a copyist error. Nothing has been lost, as we know where and what the correct reading is. It affects no doctrine and also we know how it should read. Scholars know that there is only variation in about 3 per cent of the of the Bible. The three percent are all copyist errors or variants in spelling punctuation and etc. It is just not true that we have lost the true Bible. Modern publishers have produced versions which contain mis-translations. However, we know how and where they went amiss. As a Bible believing Christian, and pastor, I warn men of these corrupted translations.
However, to say the Bible cannot be trusted because someone has released a poor translation of it is totally inaccurate and untrue. A translation can be a poor one, but it does not effect the fact there is an accurate translation in English, which is the King James Version. Also, there are 6000 extant Greek manuscripts that exist which we can use for comparison. These have not and will not be lost. God promised to preserve His Word for us and that is "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35) "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (1 Peter :25)
I believe in the biblical doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. This doctrine is referred to as "verbal plenary inspiration." Verbal refers to the very words of the Scriptures and the word "plenary" means "full" and when combined they mean that every word of Scripture was inspired by God.
The Bible passages that teach this truth say, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16) The phrase "given by inspiration of God" literally means, "God-breathed."
Further the Bible says, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21) God-breathed the very word of God in full expression of His thoughts in what
the writer of Scripture wrote. This means that every word that was written was the mind of God without error. In other words, although the Bible was penned by men, it was superintended by God without any error.
God guided them in the choice of every word and expression. This does not mean God did not allow for personality and cultural background of the writer to be used in expressing God's words. God allowed the writers to express His thoughts in the writer's own way.
The key to this matter is what the Bible says about itself. It tells us how men were able to write God's very word. II Tim. 3:16, states ALL Scripture was "God-breathed." Of the many men who God used to write the Bible it can be found that they all had something in common and that was God spoke through them! The Bible is in complete unity and order with itself. All the sixty six books agree with the others, and there is not even one contradiction. If the Bible were the product of man and God had not completely directed the whole of the writing over the 1500 years it was being written, it could not have such unity. But you see God was the Author of the Bible, and His process of directing the writers produced a complete and correct revelation. Man does change, but God never changes, past, present or future. The Bible is a perfect Book in the original autographs, and is perfectly preserved today.
Click here to go to the Way of Life Home page which has more material on this subject.
Note what Romans 1:18-32, and John 3:16-19 says:
Romans 1:18-32:
John 3:16-19:
Basically man is a sinner...that is his nature. John 3:19, says "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather that light because their deeds were evil." Sadly, the nature of men is to reject God and His truth! The natural man, which means a man with his nature to sin, does not want to repent and turn from sin. Still deep down we know there is more to our existence than just this life. So to satisfy man's need to justify their sin and continue in it and still get to heaven, they invent false religion or gods to appease themselves.
A friend of mine suggests another reason for so many different churches. She uses the illustration of a class of history students answering questions on an exam and all missing different questions. Some studied more carefully and diligently than others. She also adds that many people, including church leaders, do not know the common sense rules of interpreting Scripture. If you incorrectly interpret the Bible you will have false beliefs taught.
The God of the Bible stands alone as a God of love and grace. All the gods men have contrived are always made in the image of man, or god men. Man's gods are always made like himself. It is not man's nature to forgive and offer unmerited favor (Grace) and thus the gods he invents know nothing of grace either. That is why all false religions are "works" based. That means they teach to some degree man must work for or earn his salvation. Man in human thought can save himself. They will acknowledge the grace of God, but make receiving God's grace dependent on earning it to some degree. Ephesian 2:8-9, clearly teach that salvation is the gift of God received by faith and not of works.
Most will teach that church membership, baptism, religious rituals, etc are sacraments which are vital to receiving grace. Classic examples are the Roman Catholic Church, Christ of Christ, and the cults such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.
If the Bible is properly and correctly interpreted....and would be accepted there would be no denominations or false religions.
By the way, God did not save me because I became a Baptist. He saved me as an individual person. God's salvation is not in becoming a Baptist or any other religious denomination or group. I became an Independent Fundamental Baptist after God saved me because I wanted to attend a church that was doctrinally correct. I became a Baptist out of conviction because I know the Baptists historically love, believe and teach the Word of God. Even then I did not have to pray and ask which church was better. The Baptist church, by and large (not all) are Bible centered folks dedicated to teaching and living by the Word of God. I compared them with other groups and churches and found the others came up lacking in a devotion to the Scriptures. I love my Savior, and I love His Word, which is the spiritual food that feeds my soul. That's why I am a Baptist.
I am not proud of some things done by Baptists. There are those who are not truly Baptists because the do not love the Bible as Baptists have traditionally done. What makes a Baptist right that they believe God's word and how they live by it, not in their identification as Baptists.
Vine's Expository Dictionary gives the following definition:
The Bible Knowledge Commentary says "(2) Knowledge (gnosis) refers to the ability to apply doctrinal truth to life. Paul also exercised and expressed this gift in this letter (e.g., 12:1-3; 11:3). (Cf. the recurrence of the phrase “Do you not know” in 3:16; 5:6; 6:2-3, 9, 15-16, 19; 9:13, 24; also cf. 8:1-3, 10-11).
(The mysteries of the Gospel would refer to truths revealed in the NT that were not known or revealed in the OT. For example, the "ekklesia", that Jews and Gentiles are equal in the Gospel, etc.)
Albert Barnes explains it this way:
The TV preachers are totally misusing the phrase "word of knowledge." The word "knowledge" is the Greek word gnosis gno’-sis and refers to intelligence or ability to explain spiritual truths already revealed in God's word. It is has absolutely nothing to do with what the TV evangelists such as Pat Robinson, CBN and other false teachers are doing. The term "word of knowledge" is only used once in the New Testament and is not presented as a gift whereby one person knows that there is someone somewhere who has a particular need. This gift dealt with imparting spiritual truths. In fact what would be the purpose of such a gift in the early church when there were no televisions or TV evangelists? It is a total fabrication and perversion of the biblical gift of a word of knowledge.
This shows the evil and cunning ways of the false teacher who will use any lie to mislead people and dupe them out of their money. The TV evangelists use the term to say they had a "word of knowledge" that someone had some particular need or that was in some situation. There is no example in the New Testament of such a thing happening. They then tell their TV audience that God told them specifically about that need or situation. Friends, believe me, this is a tactic used by a con artist. When thousands or millions of people are watching them, no matter what their "word of knowledge" is, it will probably apply to someone listening and that person(s) is misled to think God told the TV "minister" something about them personally. For example: "I have just received a word of knowledge that there is someone who has just received word they have cancer." There would surely be many people who were watching that probably had just received that information and the TV preacher knows this. These religious con artists are lying and God condemns liars and tells us the Devil is the father of all liars.
James 5:13-14 is what God instructs us today to do when someone is sick. The sick person goes to his local pastor and church and asks them to pray for him. He does not go to a TV set or some TV evangelist/healer and seek help. He goes to his local church and pastor. He also is to go to the doctor and take his medicine (anointing with oil). God says the prayer of the local church is God's plan for seeing the sick healed.
By the way.....if any evangelist or ministry is basing its existence on you giving to it and constantly hawking about giving the money....it is not of God. NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE WAS HEALING ASSOCIATED WITH SOMEONE GIVING MONEY. That is not found anywhere in the Bible!!! You look it up and do a study yourself. God's plan for Christians is to be ministered to through their local church....not some TV preacher or evangelist who perverts God's word for personal gain. Do a little investigation about the financial status of these TV preachers. You shouldn't be surprised to find they are all millionaires living on the money people sent them to supposedly do God's work. If the ministry or preacher is operating outside the control, authority and direction of a local church the Bible says God is not in it! The modern "word of knowledge" is unbiblical and is actually a tactic of the religious con artists.
“A book is not the Word of God because it is accepted by the people of God. Rather it was accepted by the people of God because it is the Word of God. That is, God gives the book its divine authority, not the people of God. They merely recognize the divine authority which God gives it.” (Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, "General Introduction to the Bible" Chicago:Moody Press, 1968, p.210).
In other words once a book was written Christians read the book and examined its contents. They recognized that to be included in the canon a book must meet several standards:
1. It must clearly show it was inspired of God. This means it should be in complete agreement with they other books of the Bible. It must not contain doctrinal, historical, or scientific errors. It must have been written by the author who bares its name if one is given and in the time period it is represented as being written.
Therefore the books of the Bible that make up the canon are a part of the canon based on their content. In other words the Books of the Bible stand on their own authority as inspired by God and God's people have recognized this. No man or even group of men actually canonized the Bible....they only recognized the canon and accept it.
Answer:
There are about 6000 extant (existing) manuscripts (mss)of the New
Testament and they all agree with each other word for word about 98.3
per cent of the time. The "variants" which means the places which they
do not agree are well documented and mostly deal with spelling and
punctuation differences. The other variants which are less that a half
percent are clearly seen as being the result of copying the text and
being made my the copyist. For example there is no Greek mss which has
the statement "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" in Acts
9:5. The KJV translators put it there without mss evidence. It is found
in Acts 22:14 in all the Greek mss so it is an accurate statement of
God made at Paul's conversion, although not in the original mss at Acts
9:5. So is the KJV a perfect representation of the original "autograph"
(original copy) of the book of Acts. No, but it is still God's word and
His word is perfectly preserved and nothing is lost or added. The
insertion of the phrase in Acts 9:5 is not an error or mistake and
nothing is effected....we know what God said to Paul and what God chose
to record. Another example of a minor variant. In Rev. 22:19 the phrase "book of
life" is not found in any Greek mss of the New Testament. If it was in
the original autograph then it should be found is the copies of the
originals which were passed down through the centuries, but it is not.
What is found is the phrase "tree of life." We know because it is
documented that Erasmus when he was finishing the TR (Textus Receptus)
from which our KJV Bible is translated did not have a Greek mss of the
Book of Revelation. So he translated the Book from the Latin Vulgate
Translation. There is only one letter difference between "book"
and "tree" in Latin and he mistakenly wrote "book" instead of "tree."
However, we know this and it effects nothing....we know what the
original autographs stated. Am I to be dishonest and ignore that all the
Greek mss have the word tree rather than book? I have studied the matter of translations extensively for the past six
years plus and I know where most of the variants are in the KJV. Not
one of them effects any doctrine in any way. But here is my dilemma. I
know for a fact that these variants exists in the translated text. Am I
to lie and say that the KJV perfectly represents the original autographs, when I know it does not?
By the way, I did not learn this from anyone else....I have studied the matter
for many years now, taken a number of college courses on the
transmission of the Bible...from sound Bible believing men and yes even
some of the those who believe the modern translations are superior to the KJV. I have debated and challenged continually for their false assertions.
I have also personally compared the English translations with the Greek
Majority text of which the TR is a part. I hold two earned degrees from
a fundamental Baptist Bible college which includes two years of Greek.
To be perfect every word and letter must be exactly like the original
autographs and it is not. No translation is a perfect copy of one
language into another. But the translation can, if diligence is
applied, be an accurate representation of the meaning of the words in
the original and that is exactly what the KJV is...an accurate
translation of the Greek text. I am absolute in my teaching that the KJV is best English translation
we have and that it can be trusted completely as being the very word of
God. I reject all modern translations, not because someone told me they
were corrupted....leaving out, adding, and changing the text.....I have
studied and proved it myself. I know they are corrupt and I give no
concessions to the modern texts and condemn them for being a perversion
of God's word. I am as honest in that as I am in the other.
Until the KJV was translated the word of God was preserved in the Greek
mss and that continues today. Should I ignore the Greek Majority text
of which the TR is a part and ignore that before 1611 God's word was
preserved in those Greek mss for over 1600 years and conclude that
until the KJV was translated the Word of God was lost? It was not
preserved in the Latin Vulgate which has many errors....or any other
ancient translation...then was it lost all that time? It was preserved
in the Greek texts and that is a proven demonstrable fact. You see my situation is this....am I to be honest or to lie. We do not
need to lie, to defend God's word and have complete confidence in the
KJV. When we do, we play into the hands of the anti-KJV people who are
inspired of the Devil and who are so ready to point out these things.
We also lose the confidence of the people in the KJV when we lie. God
says the TRUTH will set you free. There are a lot of good men who love the Lord and His word, but they
have not studied the matter for themselves and teach what someone has
taught them or they read in someone's book. I did not get my facts from
someone's books....I study the matter for myself and determined the
truth from the evidence. I am show to make conclusions and only do when
it is overwhelmingly clear what the truth is. I also am not intimidated
by criticism to ignore truth. I serve the Lord in truth and conclude
let all men be liars and God be truth. So the bottom line is I am being
truthful and if I were not I would be sinning.
Answer:
Think with me a little. The Bible tells us that God is love and that He is just. Would it be an act of love or justice to punish innocent people? Of course the answer is no....and when we read such an account as this we must consider that truth and that makes us understand that those that God punished must have deserved that punishment. Think....upon what criteria did God choose these 70 K and not others? There were 400 k people in Israel and most of Israel were not effected. Clearly knowing the character and nature of God that He cannot do wrong, precludes us making the conclusion by reading this that He was in error. Even though the account does not state this, clearly those that died were corrupt and were living in gross sin. God stopped their sinning by death and thereby lessened their judgment and protected the rest of Israel from destructive results of their sins in their society. God certainly would have preferred that they turn from their evil ways that was destroying themselves, their families and nation, but God will not violate a man's will. When David asked God to stop the pestilence, God showed mercy and granted his request. God made us free agents and will not force people to do right. God knew that those who were punished would not turn from their sins, so in an act of mercy He stopped their harmful behavior.
Answer:
Adam's sin is referred to as the "fall of man." Romans 5:12 explains: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. . ." Adam's sin made him a sinner and he lost the innocence in which he was created. He, on rejecting God instructions, became corrupt and that included his very nature. His disobedience brought his corruption on his children...and to all mankind. However, we are not judged by Adam's sin, but for our own. Revelation 20:12 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Because all men are born with the "carnal" nature...which is the nature to sin, they will sin. But God offers us complete and absolute forgiveness for our sins..... if we will receive it. That is why in Genesis 3:15 God promised one who would come and undo the work of Satan in the Garden of Eden. God promised a Savior and that Savior came....the Lord Jesus Christ.
He did not make it hard for us to overcome sin and death that the fall of man brought, but made is simple.....all we have to do was believe the truth...put our faith in Him and repenting of our sins receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life and go to heaven when we die. He did not require that we earn it or merit it by doing good works, He Himself came to earth, God incarnate in the man Jesus Christ and He paid for our sins debt....because we could not do it for ourselves. He suffered and died for us paying the penalty for sin that we could not pay.
God loved us. . . died for every person born on earth (1 John 2:2), and revealed Himself to every man (Romans 1:18-23) so they might be saved. John 3:15-19 reveals solution and the problem.... Verse 19 says, "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, but man loved darkness rather than light, because his deeds were evil."
So man can easily be forgiven of His sins if he will accept God's forgiveness. Problem is that most men do not want to believe in God, or they want a god they can manipulate and basically control themselves. However, our Creator, Almighty God, will not be subjected to man. If He did...what a tragedy that would be that sinful men would be put in such a position! Romans 1:18-32 reveals that God shows Himself to every man, but sadly most men refuse and reject God. They make unto themselves gods like men, animals, etc....instead of accepting our true God and Savior. This is man's problem....he loves sin and refused to accept God's rightness (righteousness). Think....would not the world be a wonderful place if men would not lie, cheat, steal, kill and hurt one another. Would not the world be better if man truly loved each other and as God does... and seek the best for others? What has rejecting God and refusing to believe in Him done for man? Well, the answer is.....the cut themselves off from God grace and the benefits of doing what is right. Man is rejecting God sets his course for destruction. Sin is doing what is wrong....and God seeks to warn us of this and extent to us eternal salvation....
I have an article on my web site at https://bible-truth.org/gospel.html titled "God's Simple Plan of Salvation" I explains God's plan in some detail. Maybe that would help you to understand more about who God is an what is His plan to save men from their sins.
Answer:
The restrictions you mention are part of the Old Testament Law given to the nation of Israel. It is not applicable to us as we are not of the nation of Israel, nor under their laws. The OT law was for Israel was their Constitution and system of both civil and spiritual laws which covered almost everything in their lives. Christians today are in a different dispensation and we are part of the age of the local church. Paul said in Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."
However, behind God's laws were sound moral and practical principles of conduct. The reason for this law, about using wool and linen together was for a twofold reason. One it was to keep Israel separate from the pagan nations around her so they would not be involved in their sins and idolatry. Homosexuality and gross immorality was practiced by the pagan nations that surrounded Israel and the clothes the pagans wore identified them with their sin. This restriction about the wearing of clothes was to given to keep them from appearing like their pagan immoral neighbors.
Further there was a practical application also...The essence of the crime (Zeph. 1:8) consisted, not in wearing a woollen and a linen robe, but in the two stuffs being woven together, according to a favorite superstition of ancient idolaters. The law, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that "wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it can bring on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister" (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary of the Bible)
The restriction about planting different seeds together had to do with cross pollination. For example if two different varieties of grapes were planted together they would cross pollination and produce an undesirable fruit. If kept separate they would produce a pure fruit of the variety planted which was more desirable.
This restriction applied to "vineyards" or the raising of grapes. Today farmers do the same thing in producing pure varieties of crops such as corn and arrange crops to minimize the change of cross pollination.
The OT laws were very practical and scientific. Israel did not know about the science of genetics...but God did and if they followed God's instructions the did not need to know the science behind the law. Following the law produced an ordered society and they prospered.
Answer:
It is technically not true that the KJV was not copyrighted. It was and is copyrighted and the first editions had the words ""Cum Privilegio Regiae Maieftatis". These Latin words literally mean "with privilege from his royal Majesty " In that era when a printer was authorized to print the Bible, he normally paid for and held the copyright and received all profit from the sales.
The first page of the 1611 KJV New Testament bears the copyright. The Old Testament was so marked in subsequent years. Robert Baker paid for the printing of the KJV and his family held the copyright into the eighteenth century. The KJV is still copyrighted in England with only four authorized printers which includes Cambridge and Oxford Universities. Since 1776 the copyright in the United States has been largely ignored, however it is still valid. Some KJV Bibles still are copyrighted and all that are published in the United Kingdom are printed under its copyright. What happened was that when America won its independence from England, American printers ignored the English copyrights. The USA after the Revolutionary War did not have copyright agreements with England and American publishers took advantage of that.
In the USA you will see statements that say the KJV is in public domain and can be copied freely, however technically that is not true as the English copyright has never been repealed. America today has mutual copyright protection laws with most all countries, but in the USA the copyright of the KJV is still ignored and apparently the English are gracious and not willing to press the matter.
The current (1992) copyright statement of the KJV reads: "All rights in respect of the Authorize (King James) Version of the Holy Bible are vested in the Crown in the United Kingdom and controlled by the Royal Letters Patent. No part of this publication may be transmitted, in any form or any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without written permission.
It is true that some of the typo's different readings found in American printings can probably be attributed to the lack of copyright protection.
The honest student of the Bible will admit that there are variants even with editions of the KJV. So, how do we know we have an accurate translation today? We do not have to rely on copyright protections to make sure we have an accurate translation. We have the Greek manuscripts from which the KJV was translated and we can compare our modern Bibles with the Greek texts.
Further no matter what KJV you have, no variant has any bearing on doctrine. The variant readings within the various editions of the KJV are minor variations dealing with spelling and grammatical differences. For example: The Cambridge edition in 2 Chronicles 33:19 has the word "sin"; whereas the Oxford edition incorrectly has "sin(s)". We know what is correct because the Hebrew has the singular and whether singular or plural the meaning is not compromised.
Another well known variant is found in Jeremiah 34:16 and the words "ye had." The 1611 correctly translated the phrase "ye had." (Cambridge, Kirban, New Scofield, some Oxford's, etc) Others editions have incorrectly "he had". (American Bible Society, Moody, Kirkbride, Royal, Tyndale and others) We know it is correctly translated "ye had" but again the meaning is not lost in "he had."
All variants are known and documented. Read my article at https://bible-truth.org/LDS8tharticle.html "Has the Bible Been Correctly Translated? " for more information.
All modern translations are based on the corrupted Eastern or Minority text of Westcott-Hort and are not accurate translations. For a rather blatant demonstration of the corrupted NIV go to https://bible-truth.org/NIVtest.html and take the NIV Test.
For a brief explanation you might like to read part of my article on How We Got The Bible that deals with the attacks on the Bible https://bible-truth.org/Howwegot.htm#010a
I can assure you that whatever KJV you are using, the text is basically the same.
Answer: Philosophy by definition is simply what someone thinks about something. One's philosophy is correct or in error based on the facts and the truth of the matter. Suppose one's philosophy would be that taking drugs, drinking, living a sinful life was good for them. Clearly that is a false philosophy and would lead to trouble and suffering. Just because a person thinks it to be correct ....(or in error) does not establish what is true. So one's philosophy could be very wrong and that is what Colossians 2:8 is referring to. The world's philosophy is to reject God and truth and to believe untruths (lies). So what Paul is saying is do not pattern your life after the false ideas of the world, but on God's truth as revealed in the Bible.
Answer: First God has not done away with the fourth commandment. However, that is not the question....the question is who does it apply too. Let me try to answer your question by explaining to you what the OT Law was and who is it for.
The OT law as given to Israel by God and...it was "their" written law in the same way that we have laws in our country expressed in our constitution, Federal, State and local laws. These laws dealt with setting up statutes that dealt with keeping civil order and setting principles that the government is to enforce.
In the case of Israel, these ten laws were the foundational rules of conduct God given government somewhat like our constitution, but there were only ten of many other laws God gave them in the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy....all called the Law of Moses. Israel was a special people, a nation, chosen by God and were to be ruled as a theocracy which was expressed in the laws that God gave them. These laws made the unique in the world and was given to preserve them as God's people.
As a Christian I keep the principles on which these specific laws were based and expressed in every day life, like not killing, stealing, etc. These law were actions of righteousness within the context of the Nation of Israel. However, as a Christian I am not an Israelite and not a citizen of Israel and the many laws of Leviticus are not given to me. This does not mean that I ignored God's righteous principles and sin. God has given Christians in the dispensation instructions also as expressed in the Epistles of the New Testament. We are to live by them.
We need to understand that these numerous laws given to Israel were based
on righteous principles given by God to all men. They were to be enforced by their government which as I said was a theocracy. It was the responsibility of the priests to administer the law, to judge and to carry out penalties.
God's program for today is that we live by the principles found in God's
word. It is an individual and personal thing with us. We are to assembly voluntarily in congregations to worship the Lord.(Heb. 10:21-15) But our churches and pastors do not have the authority to execute people who commit murder, thievery, etc. To be a valid law, it must be administered by someone who has the authority to carry out penalties when the law is broken. It is our government has that God given responsibility and authority, not our churches (Rom. 13:1-5).
Behind every law God gave Israel was a principle of righteousness. Deuteronomy 6:25 “And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.” Psalms 4:5 “Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.” Isaiah 42:21 “The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.”
Let look at the practical side of this matter: For example: God told
Israel in Leviticus 20:27 “A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.” Do we have theauthority to stone people who deal in the occult? Of course not... If you read the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy you quickly see that the OT laws were given to govern Israel and we as Christian are not under the
OT law.
God first gave the Sabbath as a duty to man in the book of Exodus to the new nation of Israel. It is true that the Sabbath originated at the completion of the creation (Gen. 2:1-3), but that was God's rest, not man's. There is no record in Genesis that God gave the Sabbath to man,and there is no record of men keeping the Sabbath before Israel in the wilderness. Neh. 9:13,14 plainly states that the Sabbath was first given to Israel. Group like the Seventh-day Adventists and others teach that men kept the Sabbath from the days of Adam onward, but this is contrary to
the Bible's own record. There is no record of people keeping the Sabbath before God gave it to Israel.
Ex. 31:12-18 plainly states the Sabbath was a special sign between God and Israel. If mankind in general had been given the Sabbath following creation, it could not have been a special sign for Israel. The fact is that the Sabbath belongs to the nation Israel and not to any other people. It is also important to note that the Sabbath will be an eternal possession of Israel as Exodus. 31:16 clearly states. This sign will never be annulled or transferred to another people. This explains why the prophets foretell that Israel will keep the Sabbath even after the kingdom
of Christ is established on earth in the Millennium (Isa. 66:23). It also explains why Jesus Christ mentioned the Sabbath in His prophecies of the Tribulation (Matt. 24:20). Israelites in the land of Palestine still keep the Sabbath today. I spend tens days in Israel in October 2002 and can testify of that.
In their writings to the churches, the Apostles only mentioned the Sabbath three times.
Why, then, did Jesus keep the Sabbath? He kept the Sabbath for the same
reason He kept all the other Mosaic laws. He also observed the feasts. Jesus did these things because He was born a Jew, born under the law, that
He might fulfill it and redeem His people from its penalty and bondage (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 9:5).
Christians worship God and rest on Sunday. Not as a commandment, but in
respect and love for our Lord and Savior. We do not live godly lives because we are under the law....we do so because we love God and know that
to live righteous lives honors the Lord and is a testimony of His righteousness.
As Christians we do obey God's laws and principles because they are right
and to do otherwise is sin. Galatians 5:18 “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” You see we as Christians in the age
live by a higher principle....we obey God because we love Him...not because the law makes us. Galatians 3:24 gives us the purpose of the
law to Israel.....”Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” The just live by
faith....not because we are under the weight of the law. Do you see the difference?
Respectfully, may I suggest that you not let some church or church leader
put you under Israel's laws that were not intended for you. These people and groups do not keep the OT laws themselves....God say to break
one law is to break the all. James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Do we stone
witches, and children who are disobedient to their parents? Do we stone to death, adulterers, and those that commit fornication? Do we not allow
our children to marry another race of people? Are we not allowed to wear clothes made from two different materials.....well if you are under the
law...that is what the OT law requires.
God says....Romans 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth.”
Ephesians 2:15 “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.”
The Sabbath is for Israel, not for us, yet we worship the Lord as well,
on Sunday the day Jesus arose from the grave and won the victory over sin and death.
Keeping a particular day...or law does not make one spiritual....what
makes one spiritual in living by the principles of God from the heart....not because some person or church says we must do this or that.
I hope you will carefully consider these things.
You cannot honestly equate that the three servants were saved men and the two good servants were saved and the last one lost. That clearly contradicts the fact that a believer has eternal life and is assured of heaven. A believer cannot be lost. (1 Peter 1:3-5)
It is important to understand that the parable is an illustration to teach that servants are to be faithful and those who are not are condemned. This illustration was given to Jews, because that is who Matthew 24-25 is addressed to. The nation of Israel was rejecting Jesus as their Messiah. Some, though only a few, were saved Jews, the rest were unsaved and would not believe and accept Jesus as Messiah. Jesus the Messiah came as prophecies in the Old Testament fulfilling all the prophecies and doing marvelous miracles which showed that He was truly the Messiah. The handful of His disciple believed and followed Him, but most of Israel did not. Thus this parable is a warning to the Jews.... The talents they received was the knowledge of the Messiah. Only those who believed and would spread the Gospel were saved and rewarded.
That is who Jesus is warning. He was saying to them....one day the Master will return and those who served the Master would be rewarded and those that rejected Him and would not serve Him would be condemned. So it is not saying that any believer would be condemned, but would be rewarded according to their faithfulness to the Lord.
A believer can lose reward when judged by the Lord at the BEMA judgment, by not being faithful, but will be saved as 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 plainly states.
Of course the unsaved will also be judged by their works at the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15. They were too given the light of God, but rejected it as Romans 1:18-23 states and are therefore without excuse.
Answer: May I respectfully suggest you read the following passages:
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Romans 7:14)
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:1)
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3:3)
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? (1 Corinthians 3:4)
Paul refers to himself as being carnal, he certainly was a Christian, The Corinthians were also Christians and Paul called them carnal. So I think it is clear that a Christian can be carnal in their actions when they yield to their old or carnal natures.
The word carnal is found in the New Testament eleven times and at least four of these times it is referring to the sinful (carnal) actions of a Christian or believer.
Answer: The Old Testament began to be put into sections before the Babylonian Captivity (586 B.C.) with the five books of Moses being put into a 154 section reading program to be used in a three-year cycle.
Later (before 536 B.C.) the Law was put into 54 sections and 669 sub-divisions for reading.
In the New Testament, the verse divisions were first added by Robert Estienne in his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament. In 1557, the first English New Testament with verse divisions were used
in a translation by William Whittingham (c. 1524-1579). These divisions have been used by nearly all English Bibles since then.
"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright." (Proverbs 23:31) God says not to look upon the wine earnestly, so as to inflame thine appetite towards it; in the same sense men are forbidden to look upon a woman, Job 31:1; Matt 5:28.
When it moveth itself aright; when it sparkleth and frisketh, and seems to smile upon a man.
Look not thou upon the wine - Let neither the color, the odour, the sparkling, etc., of the wine, when poured out, induce you to drink of it. However good and pure it may appear, it "At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." (Proverbs 23:32).
The verse presents the universal principle that the person who receives a lot will normally receive more. The application here is that if you use the knowledge you have and apply it, it will natural cause you to learn more.
The disciples had the privilege of being taught by Christ and if they used and applied that knowledge they were given, more would be also given. You learn your ABCs you can learn to read.
To the one who had not, refers to the Jews who could have had the knowledge of who Jesus was and who could have received the Kingdom of Heaven. But they rejected Him as their Messiah. They saw His mirages, heard His message, and they knew the Old Testament prophecies of His coming, but they did not believe it or allow it to grow into salvation. They did not apply what they knew and lost salvation the Messiah brought and also being a part of the Kingdom of heaven.
They therefore would lose everything, because they would not apply the knowledge that had, they would lose what the knowledge brought which was salvation. They a great advantage of being born Jews and knowing the Old Testament prophecies, plus the advantage of being God's chosen people. The rejected what they knew and lost everything.
The English phrase "and he died" is translated from one Hebrew word "muwth" or "nu meth" mentioned above. It actually does not say where he died, but that he did. It is two statements. They took him to Jerusalem. He died. It does not say he died in Jerusalem. He left the battle field mortally wounded and probably on the way to Jerusalem died.
I think I mentioned this before, but God is the Author of the Bible. He does not make mistakes. When one sees what at first appears to be a discrepancy it simply means we must investigate further. In ten years of answering emails, no one has ever sent me a supposed discrepancies that actually was. There is always a logical explanation. The problem is in our understanding, not in God's word. We have to interpret God's word in its grammatical, historical, and cultural context. When we do...alleged problems disappear because our understanding is enlightened.
Note what Paul told Timothy, "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babbling's: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; (2 Timothy 2:14-17)
There are many web sites that attack the Bible and try to show these alleged errors. These are people who have no good purpose in mind, but seek to destroy the faith of believers, and to keep others from believing. These evil people know better. There are many Bible scholars who have addressed and explained the "supposed problems" so there is no reason for someone who is honest to be ignorant of the matter. These people know they are liars misusing God's word. Yet, they persist. Think..... why would someone go to such lengths to discredit the Bible? What is their purpose? Surely, they work so hard for a reason.
Satan has not changed his tactics since he tempted Eve. Genesis 31. . .Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden." Satan tempted Eve by questioning God's word. In 3:4 he simply lied and said that she would not die. Satan's serpents are still at work, using the same old methods to call God a liar. Who is the real liar"?
Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:15-20)
God says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)
God has not lied to us nor contradicted Himself. The Word of God is ...just that and is true.
Clearly these ungodly people were hard hearted sinful men. Jesus was doing good they were attacking Him. He healed on the Sabbath and they became angry because they said He broken the Sabbath law. You see these people were religious, but lost. They though their birth as Jews would save them along with their keeping the Law. However, Jesus preached salvation by faith (John 3). In Luke 6:17 f Jesus preached righteousness. He rebuked the rich who trusted wealth instead of God. He rebuked the Jews and their ancestors for killing he prophets who told them God's message. If you read the next several chapters you will see that Jesus was condemning these unbelieving and lost self righteous religious leaders and they hated him for it.
This is the context of Jesus' statement in Luke 11:17f. He explained that it was foolish to say He cast out demons by the power of the Devil. Why would demons be involved in casting our demons from some person? He the challenged them by asking by what power did they cast out demons? He said if He with the "finger of God" cast out devils and you reject the Kingdom of God is come upon you. This was the real issue. Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning the promised Messiah, but they would not accept Him.
John the Baptist had preached for the Jews to repent for the promised Kingdom was nigh. He baptized Jesus and declared that He was the promised Messiah. Jesus did many miracles yet the people still rejected Him. They wanted a Savior who would deliver them from the Romans who were oppressing and ruling over them. However, Jesus preached forgiveness and turning the other cheek. He said to love their enemies and to do good to them that despised them. They had hard hearts and rejected Jesus because they did not like His preaching of righteousness.
He was offering to them salvation and forgiveness of sins, but they were only interested in a military leader who would save them from the Romans. They rejected Jesus spiritual teachings because they were unsaved.
Jesus explained in verses 21-26 that if a demon was cast out of a man and that man does not turn to God and put his faith in God, the demon can return and bring other demons with him, because the man is spiritually empty and demon can control him. Read verses 27-29. He told them in verse 29 that they were an evil generation because they would not believe him.
He told them they would not receive any sign....accept that of Jonah who was brought back to life after being in the great fish for three days and three nights. The rest of the chapter records the rejection of the Jews of Jesus as their Messiah.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11)
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. (Leviticus 17:12)
And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. (Leviticus 17:13)
For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. (Leviticus 17:14)
But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:4)
Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the LORD, in that they eat with the blood. And he said, Ye have transgressed: roll a great stone unto me this day. (1 Samuel 14:33)
And Saul said, Disperse yourselves among the people, and say unto them, Bring me hither every man his ox, and every man his sheep, and slay them here, and eat; and sin not against the LORD in eating with the blood. And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there. (1 Samuel 14:34)
Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land? (Ezekiel 33:25)
The shedding of Christ's blood which was a sacrifice for sins occurred the following day when He was crucified. It did not occur at the Lord's table. The strict prohibition against blood was so serious that a Jew would be cut off out of Israel for eating blood. It is ludicrous, to for a second, to think that when Jesus said "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53), He was telling these Jews who were under the Law to violate it. It was simply a metaphor which referred to faith and belief in Him. It is plain from John 6:29, that the eating here spoken of is believing; but it is also plain, that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ in the sacrament is not believing. A sacrament is an act by which one is supposed to receive some sort of redemption, by performing the act. Jesus said nothing in this text of a sacramental eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ which was a part of receiving forgiveness for sins. "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (John 6:29)
God says there are no sacraments, no works, no rituals, or any act of a man that contribute to atonement for sin. He plainly states: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
It has always been a symbolic act even in the Passover, of Jesus' suffering and death on the Cross. It is dishonest to teach what the Roman church does and mislead so many people.
In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 Jesus said to take the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him. That means to remember His suffering. He did not say to take it to remove or atone for sin or that it was a sacrament. He further said to take the bread and cup in verse 26 to "show the Lord's death till he comes." Thus we look forward to His Second Coming. Nowhere does the Bible support the Roman Catholic teaching. The RCC distorts this wonderful ordinance the Lord gave us and falsely uses it to make people dependent on their church for salvation. The Roman Catholic church teaches only it can administer what you call the Eucharist and there is no salvation outside the Roman church. Sir, the teaching of the RCC is false and blatant heresy. The Lord's Supper is not a sacrament but an ordinance given to believers as a memorial to bring to their minds and hearts the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for their sins. It is a reminder to be sensitive to sin and "discern" the Lord's body in our daily lives.
(2.) Heb rephaim, a race of giants (De 3:11) who lived on the east of Jordan, from whom Og was descended. They were probably the original inhabitants of the land before the immigration of the Canaanites. They were conquered by Chedorlaomer (Ge 14:5), and their territories were promised as a possession to Abraham (Ge 15:20). The Anakim, Zuzim, and Emim were branches of this stock.
In Job 26:5 (R.V., "they that are deceased;" marg., "the shades," the "Rephaim") and Isa 14:9 this Hebrew word is rendered (A.V.) "dead." It means here "the shades," the departed spirits in Sheol. In 2 Samuel 21:16,18,20,22, "the giant" is (A.V.) the rendering of the singular form "ha raphah," which may possibly be the name of the father of the four giants referred to here, or of the founder of the Rephaim. The Vulgate here reads "Arapha," whence Milton (in Samson Agonistes) has borrowed the name "Harapha." (See also 1 Chronicles 20:5-6,8; Deut. 2:11,20; 3:13; Joshua 15:8, etc., where the word is similarly rendered "giant.") It is rendered "dead" in (A.V.) Psa. 88:10; Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; in all these places the Revised Version marg. has "the shades." (See also Isa 26:14.)
(3.) Heb 'Anakim (De 2:10-11,21; Joshua 11:21-22; 14:12,15; called "sons of Anak," Numbers 13:33; "children of Anak," Nu 13:22; Joshua 15:14), a nomad race of giants descended from Arba (Joshua 14:15), the father of Anak, that dwelt in the south of Palestine near Hebron (Ge 23:2; Jos 15:13). They were a Cushite tribe of the same race as the Philistines and the Egyptian shepherd kings. David on several occasions encountered them (2 Samuel 21:15-22). From this race sprung Goliath (1 Samuel 17:4).
(4.) Heb 'emin, a warlike tribe of the ancient Canaanites. They were "great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims" (Ge 14:5; De 2:10-11).
(5.) Heb Zamzummim (q.v.), De 2:20 so called by the Amorites.
(6.) Heb gibbor (Job 16:14), a mighty one, i.e., a champion or hero. In its plural form (gibborim) it is rendered "mighty men" (2 Samuel 23:8-39; 1 Kings 1:8; 1 Chronciles 11:9-47; 29:24.) The band of six hundred whom David gathered around him when he was a fugitive were so designated. They were divided into three divisions of two hundred each, and thirty divisions of twenty each. The captains of the thirty divisions were called "the thirty," the captains of the two hundred "the three," and the captain over the whole was called "chief among the captains" (2 Samuel 23:8). The sons born of the marriages mentioned in Ge 6:4 are also called by this Hebrew name.
I have written an article on the transliteration of a few words in the KJV New Testament that I feel would have been better to have been translated. ( https://bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html ) But the fact is the transliteration does accurately represents the Greek words in English. But I would never say, the KJV has errors. And in all my years of study I simply have not found any.
Many commentators fail to recognize this and their interpretation is faulty. I have an article at https://bible-truth.org/OlivetDiscourse.html "Is the church in the Olivet Discourse?" that would give you some parallel reading on this discourse.
Now to your question:
First in order to understand a parable we have to consider that it is a simple illustration of some point in Jesus' discourse. A parable has only one interpretation and makes one point. It is confusing when Bible students fail to understand this principle and try to make a parable "walk on all fours." That means try to find some meaning in every detail of the parable.
Matthew 25:14 gives the subject of this illustration. The kingdom of heaven is the subject and it is like what the parable addresses.
A man goes into a far country and puts his servants are left in charge of his property.
The subject is the kingdom of heaven....so the one who goes into a far country and leaves His servants to take care of his property....is Jesus Christ. The Kingdom of God is clearly the coming Millennial kingdom God has promised to the Jews and the world.
The "Lord" or the one who will be away, gives three different talents or things of value to each of three servants. The first two worked for their master and used their talents to double the talents received. The third servant was unfaithful. He hid his in the ground and did nothing with it. The "lord" or master rewarded the first two servants for their faithful handling of his property. He strongly rebuked the third for his unfaithfulness, and laziness.
The point of the parable is summed up by Jesus in verses 29-30, "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 25:29-30)
The one's "who hath" are the servants of God who put their God given talents to use and God will bless and reward them abundantly. To the unfaithful servant..."who hath not" or who is not faithful and uses his talent for the Lord to produce fruit....what he has will be taken away.
Now we must stop and understand that the parable in its context is dealing with the nation of Israel...the Jews. This is who Jesus was talking to and this discourse if relevant to them. They are God's chosen people whom God chose to receive the revelation of Himself. They are the one's who gave us the Bible, God's word. So they have been given a great deal. But just being a Jew does not save. It is the faithful believing Jew who is saved and will inherit the kingdom of God. (Read John 3) The unfaithful and unbelieving Jew is lost and will be cast into the Lake of Fire with all sinners.
This parable is specifically addressing Jews. Jesus was not talking to the whole world, but to Jews who had rejected Him as the Messiah. They saw His miracles, they knew He fulfilled all the prophesies of the Old Testament concerning the coming Messiah. Yet, most of them would not believe and rejected Him and contributed to His crucifixion. The Jews were given a great blessing in seeing their Messiah come. They saw first hand His miracles and heard His teachings. Over 500 saw His after His resurrection. The problem was the great knowledge they were given fell mostly on deaf ears. Most of the Jews refused to believe and put their faith in Jesus their Messiah. They condemned themselves in doing so. Those that believed were saved and reaped the blessings of salvation and the kingdom of heaven.
Some misguided commentators have mistakenly tried to apply this to everyone including Christians. But that is a mistake. This is addressing Jews and Jews alone.
Yes, we can deduct that in principle it can apply in a general way to all believers, but only in the sense that we are to faithfully use what God has given us to serve Him.
We cannot apply this to Christians and say the unfaithful servant who was cast into outer darkness was saved but later was lost. The reason is because believers who by faith are saved become God's children and are eternally saved and cannot be lost. The unfaithful servant in this parable was a lost and unbelieving Jew who refused the believe and use the great knowledge he was given...that knowledge was the revelation of Jesus was the Christ...Israel's Messiah. (Read John 3:17-22 where Jesus spoke to the Jew Nicodemus)
Those who read and believe the skeptics do not read the overwhelming numbers of real scholars who teach the truth that the Bible is God's word...both OT and NT. This real scholars are honest men who have earned degrees in all the disciplines of science. Some were at one time skeptics until they personally researched the matter for themselves.
So the test is who are you going to believe? The answer is One: the scholars who honestly present the evidence and let the proofs of the authenticity of the Bible stand for themselves. Or Two: "scholars" who twist the evidence to fit their bias. After studying the matter for over twenty five years it is clear to me that the agnostics and skeptics are not honestly and most know they are wrong, but refuse to admit it. The evidence is too clear to be mistaken.
Jesus said why these people do not accept God's truth. "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:19-21)
I have an article titled "How we got the Bible" at https://bible-truth.org/Howwegot.html which you may find helpful.
The are several articles on the subject at https://bible-truth.org/apologeticspage.html#005
The Old Testament was written for the Jews and as was the Mosaic Laws. Although we learn God's principles from the OT, it was never given to the Gentiles.
I suppose that your father does not believe in Jesus Christ if he doesn't accept the New Testament. There are many passages in the OT which speak of the Messiah and Kingdom promised by God to the nation of Israel. Two passages clearly speak of Jesus the Messiah in great detail.
Psalm 22 plainly addresses the sufferings of Jesus Christ on the cross. It was written a thousands years before Christ. The details of the crucifixion are stunning.
Isaiah 53 is an other passage with describes the Messiah to Israel and was written 700 years before Christ.
Anyone who is knowledgeable about the OT will have to admit....the Messiah Jesus is clearly identified in the OT. Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah.
As to sharing your faith with others God tells us to be His witnesses. Of course we cannot force anyone to accept Christ and when they refuse to listen or tell us they are not interested we have to respect their wishes. However, that does not mean that we do not continue to pray for them and keep the door open. They need to know that we love them and are deeply concerned about their salvation. Sometimes people will outwardly seem offend at our witness and resist the Lord, but often deep down they are under conviction, but not wanting to show it. So we continue to love them, pray for them and keep the door open.
Jeremiah was sent by God to warn to warn Judah that He would judge them and destroy their nation as well if they did not repent of their sins. There main sin was in their pollution of the temple, thus the need for this message called the Temple sermon.
Judah did not repent and God sent them judgment in the form of Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian king who came and destroyed Jerusalem and took most of the Jews into captivity into Babylon where the remained for the next 70 years. This was the period of the Book of Daniel.
The principle that we should obey God and worship Him in purity and repent of our sins is taught, but the message is not addressed to Christians today, but the the Jews before the Babylonian captivity.
Abraham did not of course see Jesus literally in "his day," but through the eye of faith rejoiced in knowing that through his descendants the Messiah would come.
Jesus was making an appeal to the Jews to accept Him as had Abraham. The Jews of course, replied asking Jesus how could he have seen Abraham because he was not even fifty years old. In verse 58 Jesus replied, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58) Jesus thus declared that He was the God of Abraham, was before Abraham and was the great "I AM" who is Jehovah God of the Old Testament. This is a strong verse in which Jesus attests to His deity. The Jews understood clearly what He said and took up stones to kill Him. However, Jesus hid from them and past through them unseen.
Genesis 12:3-4 is God's promise to Abraham to send the Messiah through his descendant. Paul explained this in Galatians 3:1-18.
The Bible says that Hades was prepared for the devil and his angel (demons). (Matt. 25:41) A careful reading of Luke 16:19-31 reveals that in the Old Testament dispensation there were two places where the dead went when the died. Those who trusted in God, the OT saints, went to "Abraham's bosom" (v22). Jesus said that Lazarus who believed in God went to Abraham's bosom and the rich man who did not trust in God went to hell. The word "hell" is the "Hades." This tells us that God had prepared a place both for the saints of God and the unsaved who rejected God. Verse 26 says that between Abraham's bosom and hades was a great gulf that was impassable. In Abraham's bosom, Lazarus was comforted and in Hades the rich man was tormented. Abraham when he died went to heaven to be with the Lord so to be in Abraham's bosom would mean one was in heaven where he was. The term "bosom" would refer to someone reclining together like at a meal. At the Lord's Supper the disciples reclined with the Lord around the table is an example. Mainly it means that if someone is by another's "bosom" they are together. So Lazarus was in the same place as was Abraham.
In Luke 23:43, Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with him that day in Paradise. Jesus said that the thief would be with Him....thus the thief would be in heaven, because that is where Jesus was. We understand that Paradise is another name for Abraham's bosom or the place of comfort where the saved who died, during the Old Testament dispensation went when the died. There is no Scripture that says that Paradise was "in" the earth. There was a great impassable gulf between the two places...which could mean that hell was in the earth and Paradise was in heaven where Jesus when.
2 Corinthians 12:4 states that Paul was "caught up" into Paradise which in verse 2 is called the third heaven. So that tells us that Paradise at that time was in heaven...not in the earth.
Revelation 2:7 is the last of the only three places in the New Testament that the word Paradise is found and is called the "Paradise of God."
Heaven is a spiritual place, the Garden of Eden was a material or physical place. The word generally is used to mean a place of beauty, peace, without sin and all that sin brings. The word then is used as a name for heaven where there is peace and no sin, and where the Lord is.
I can find no Scripture that says that God moved Abraham's bosom to heaven. It appears to me that Abraham's bosom was always in Heaven with the Lord. What makes people think it was in the earth is Luke 16:26 that says a great gulf was affixed between the two. Could no the great gulf exist between the earth and heaven? This is what think because it makes perfect sense.
At Christ's Second Coming he will set up His Millennial Kingdom. It will be like the Garden of Eden in that it will be a time of peace and comfort, but it will not be the Garden of Eden. Animals will not be carnivorous and not dangerous to man. Children will play with snakes and a lamb will lie down with the lion. But sin will be present and the children of those who go into the Kingdom will have their sin natures and can and will sin. Their children born in the Millennium will be born with the sin nature and to be saved must believe and receive Jesus Christ as their Savior. At the end of the Millennial a large number of the unsaved will rebel against God. So the Kingdom will not be exactly like the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned....God drove the out.
Let me say many Bible commentators have taught that Jesus took Paradise with him after his resurrection and carried it to heaven. But honestly...nowhere does the Bible say that. Some use 1 Peter 3:19 to teach this....however, that is a gross misunderstanding of the verse. "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19). First, Jesus would not go the those spirits in prison, which means the unsaved who rejected Noah's warning and rejected God before the flood and preach to them. There would be no point in this. No man gets a second chance after death to believe and be saved. Hebrews 9:27 plainly states that "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27) So God could not nor can contradict Himself and offer salvation to those who died rejecting Him as their Savior. If He did it for some He would have to do it for all....yet that is not what God's word teaches.
What the passage means is that through Noah, who preached for 120 years to those who died in the Flood was presenting to them salvation by God's grace. All men in all ages who were and are saved are saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. So Christ was in effect preached to the antediluvians. This passage, so misused by some many, does not and cannot be used to say that Jesus went into Hades and preached to the unsaved. Further, the passage says nothing about Paradise.
I hope this helps you with this. Many pastors and teachers often just teach what someone else taught them....however, sometimes what we are taught is not based on God's word. I was taught a similar thing about Paradise when I was in school, but it never really rang true...so I researched the matter. I think to each of us this follow passage should apply "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15) That has been my commitment since God called me to preach and teach His word.
To keep peace and not to offend the Jews who were keeping the OT laws, they came to a decision as Acts 15 explains, that the Gentiles would not eat things strangled and not eat blood, which was what the Jews practiced. This then would bring a sense of unity to the mixed congregation. In time, as Gentiles were saved and there were fewer saved Jews, the churches became most to be made up of Gentiles and the problem of dietary laws of the OT were no longer a problem. Also following the teachings of the Apostle Paul, the saved Jews began to understand that they were no longer under the law, but in the dispensation of the Church Age. Israel as a nation ceased to exist in 70 AD after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. The Jew were thus dispersed over the Roman Empire and Judaism ceased to be practiced as there was no nation and no temple.
Paul talked about this saying "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." (1 Corinthians 8:13) To the Romans Paul wrote " But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." (Romans 14:15) He was talking about offending a weaker Jewish brother in Christ who did not understand that believers in this the Church Age are not under the OT laws, but serve the Lord in liberty. The Jews felt obligated to keep the dietary laws. The weaker brother not understanding the liberty believers have in Christ would be offended at someone who did not follow the OT laws.
It is well also to understand that the OT laws were simply symbolically teaching righteous principles to the Jews. Galatians 3:24 explains that the OT Law was a schoolmaster that brought believers to Christ.
The principle was that although believers are not under the law and at liberty to eat whatever meat they see fit....if their practice offended a weaker brother they were to abstain, least this cause the weaker brother to stumble and fall spiritually. Paul said to the Galatians "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." (Galatians 5:13)
I hope this makes it clear what the situation was at that time. It is not an issue now, as there are few saved Jews in our churches and mixed congregations. No Jews are truly keeping the OT laws and have not since 70 AD. What they practice is not true OT Judaism.
Sir, respectfully, I am not sure who has been teaching you the things you mentioned in the email, but they sadly know nothing of the Bible.
God used the word "baptizo" which means to immerse or dip. This Greek word is used also in secular usage as well and extra biblical sources also confirm the definition means to immerse. God inspired the writers of the Bible to write exactly what He wanted to reveal...that means every word. (2 Peter 1:21)
Immersion symbolized the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ perfectly....sprinkling does not. (Read Romans 6:3-5) Baptisms were done in the River Jordan by John the Baptist and the Apostles. John was in the water and the people whom he baptized went into down into the water. It was also done in Jerusalem in pools of water. There is no record of baptism in freezing weather...but it gets very cold in Israel and Jerusalem at times in the winter. There were hundreds indoor pools and cisterns in Jerusalem there today and in ancient times available...I know as I have been there and personally seen them. So that too was no problem.
Church meeting indoors and have heated buildings and they baptize indoors. Weather is not a problem in following biblical baptism and the reason we are so particular about this is because God said to immerse for baptism and that is the way He wants it done. We believe God and follow His instructions.
"For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you." (Exodus 12:23) "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle." (Exodus 12:29)
The word LORD is the Hebrew word Jehovah.
God was not protecting Israel from Satan, but from the death that He caused to fall on the Egyptian's first born. The Bible says when God saw the blood on the door ways, He passed over that house. In killing the first born of all Egypt was certainly in not the Satan's interest. He would have preferred that Israel stay in Egypt as slaves. Satan was not trying to destroy the Jews, but keep them from serving God, by keeping them in bondage. God's act was actually one of mercy...in that it made the way to free God's people.
God's act of destroying the first born....ended Satan's hold and the Pharaoh released the Jews and Moses lead them out of Egypt. Many verses in the Bible speak of God's wrath on the unbelievers who reject Him, do evil and love their sin.
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18)
God is just and He will punish those who refuse to accept His mercy and grace, to those who belittle the suffering and death of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. Thank God, though that God gives grace and mercy to all who will believe Him and receive Him as their Savior.
Jesus was answering the question posed to him by the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 12:38. They asked Him to give them a sign to show that He was the Messiah. Jesus responded with His statements of verse 39-45. The fact was Jesus had already proven to them who He was and they would not believe. He had fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies as to His the time, place, events, parentage, of His coming. He had preformed miracles of healings in which He raised the dead, healed those born blind, and lame. He had twice feed thousands of people with only a handful of food. His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 clearly proclaimed His identity and the character of His coming Kingdom. He was affirmed by John the Baptist to be the Messiah and both John and Jesus preached....”repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” That simply meant He was the Messiah come to set up the promised Kingdom for Israel. Many received John’s baptism in preparation for the coming Messiah and His Kingdom. However, in a short time most of the Jews was crying for Jesus to be crucified because they rejected Him as the Messiah. Their believe was short lived. After Jesus’ resurrection He had only 120 converts.
So, Jesus said they already knew who He was. They wanted something more...some magical demonstration of His power. But Jesus refused to grant them their insincere request. He responded saying the only sign they would be given was the sign of Jonah who was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three night. This referred to Christ’s death of being three days and nights in the tomb and then arising on the third day.
Jesus further rebuked them by saying Nineveh only heard the message of Jonah that God was going to destroy them because of their sins. Hearing only the message they repented and believed God and God spared them. He also mentions that the queen of the south saw and heard Solomon and the message of the greatness of God and she too believed...without any sign.
To these unbelieving Jews, Jesus was saying you have the word of God the message of the Messiah as promised in the Old Testament yet you will not believe. They had the 300 prophecies concerning His coming and yet they refused to accept what they plainly did see.
Jesus was saying that if He did show them some sign from heaven they would not truly believe it. They would temporarily be awed by the sign, but not changed spiritually. He used the illustration of a demon that was cast out of a person, who would roam around in dry places and not finding a home would return back to the person he was cast out from. Because the person that the demon was cast out of was not converted and did not savingly believe in God, but only have a temporary change of heart, the person’s heart was empty. This demon could return and take with him seven other demons to possess the person and the last state was worse than the first. Jesus was saying if He gave these unbelieving Jews a sign they would be impressed, but because their hearts were evil with pride and arrogance, they would not savingly believe. They would for a short time follow him, but not be truly converted would be empty spiritually. This would allow the demon a place to return. Jesus was saying that even if they saw a sign from heaven, in time they would return to their unbelief and be much more hardened in their hearts than before. The Gospels record that many people followed Jesus because of His miracles, but did not believe His message and accept who He was. Jesus said, “Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.” (John 6:26) Jesus stated this again while preaching in Bethsaida, “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him.” (John 12:37)
Many have found this passage difficult to understand, but the Bible interprets itself when we read the whole of the passage and understand the situation in which Jesus’ statement were made.
Apostles were the men God called and discipled Himself who He used to give us He word. These were the twelve men who were the Lord's disciples. To that group He also added the Apostle Paul. To be a true Apostle one must have been personally called and taught the by the Lord Jesus Christ. No one today is an apostle because they have not personally been taught by the Lord Jesus.
In Revelation 2:2, Jesus commended the Ephesus church because they tried those men who came their way claiming to be Apostles who were liars. There were men in the church who were claiming to be apostles, but this church considered their claim and rejected them because they were not. Today we have churches who claim to have Apostles, but they too also are found to be liars and should be rejected.
Today we do not have an apostles because after the Apostles of the Lord Jesus died, there were no more. Jesus had ascended back to heaven. They were important in the early church because God gave them special powers, of being able to preform miracles to authenticate their message that Jesus was the Messiah. The Holy Spirit inspired them to write God's word the New Testament and after the Jews had rejected Jesus as their Messiah the miracle or sign gifts ceased. We do not need Apostles today as we have the written and inspired word of God to guide us and reveal truth, whereas in the early church the only have the apostles and not the written word.
Today we have evangelists which are missionaries and pastors shepherd the Lord's churches and teach His people.
In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 Paul is addressing the matter of professing Gentiles in the church at Corinth who were involved in gross fornication. A man was having his father's wife. Paul was very concerning about this situation being allowed to go on unchecked by the congregation. He told them to deal with it, "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:5) So Paul was saying that his man was to be turned over to Satan to be killed (destruction of the flesh) and stop his blatant sin. Sin, of course, is of the devil and the "wages of sin is death." So the natural result of sin will in time bring about the destruction of our bodies (flesh). However, in this case the person sinning was involved in the gross public sin of fornication which was effecting not only the persons involved, but the testimony of the whole church at Corinth. It needed to be stopped immediately. The persons involved seemed to be unrepentant, so Paul is saying the Corinthian church must deal with the matter. Therefore Paul was telling the congregation to turn these people over to Satan who would destroy them. In 1 Timothy 1:20 Paul stated the same thing of Hymenius and Alexander who were opposing God's work by blaspheming. "Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1 Timothy 1:20)
John also addressed this chastening of God saying "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." (1 John 5:16-17) There are sins that lead to death and John is saying that we should not pray for an unrepentant Christian who refuses to turn from their sin. Clearly a Christian can turn from the Lord and go into serious sin and harden his heart and refuse to repent.
In 1 Corinthians 11:28-32 Paul addressed another problem in this church. Church members, Christians, were sinning without regard for the fact that Jesus had to suffer for all their sins. He said these people who were sinning were not "discerning the Lord's body." In other words they had no sympathy or compassion and sinned without regard the suffering of Christ for their sins. Paul said, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. " (1 Corinthians 11:30) God was chastening this sinful Christians with sickness and some God had taken their lives. Again the purpose was first to restore the sinning person and second if they did not repent...to stop their sinning and bad testimony among the brethren.
All these situations involve a person who first is a genuine Christian, but who is publicly involved in a serious sin and refuses to repent. God does not chasten the unsaved. God then chastens the person to restore him to godly living and if the person will not turn from his sin God will take his life. God does this when the sin is gross and public and hurts the testimony of Christ in a church and among the brethren.
The teaching is explained in Hebrews 12:6-11:
"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." (Hebrews 12:6-11)
This should explain this to you. The key to understanding this is chastening does not seem to occur when we commit petty or private sins or if a Christian is repentant for his sins and confesses them as 1 John 1:9 states. In other words if the believer is fighting sin in his life God is helping him overcome the sin. However, God's chastening hand falls on the blatant sinner who willingly sins and refuses to repent. If chastening does not bring repentance....God intervenes and stops further sin by taking the believer's life.
Colossians 2:8 instructs us to "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." But isn't philosophy using logic and reason to deduce something? How are we supposed to reason from the Bible without using philosophy? Could you explain the 7 extra books in the Catholic Bible and why they should not be included? Does the Bible speak of the earth as flat or round? Are Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? Does the Bible contradict itself when it says no man has seen God and also says Moses saw Him? If the Bible gives such a secure base, why are there so many religions? Can you explain to me why you think Matthew 19:14,Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16 say the same thing? How do we get the New and Old Testament canon if it is not told to us in the Bible.
Answer: Though many try to discredit the Bible saying it is not scientifically accurate...the truth is never makes any scientific error and presented scientific truth centuries before man understood it. The following is from my Bible Study "How we got the Bible"
Answer:
In Job 40:15, the God mentions the Behemoth and said "which I made with thee." The description that follows describes a land dinosaur of some type.
In Job 41:1 "God refers to the Leviathan, which describes a water dinosaur."
The supposed mystery of the disappearance of the dinosaurs is no mystery to those who believe the Bible. Dinosaurs were created on the fifth day of Creation (Gen. 1:21) God created "great whales (sea monsters) and every living creature that moveth. He then created Adam and Eve on the sixth day. So clearly the Bible says that man lived with the dinosaurs.
Creation Research Society http://www.creationresearch.org/
Institute for Creation Research http://www.icr.org
Answers in Genesis http://www.ChristianAnswers.net/aig/aighome.html
Creation Evidences http://www.redbay.com/org/creation
Creation Connection http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
Answer:
John 4:24, says that God is Spirit. (Not "a" spirit, as there is no definite article in Greek) John 1:18, says that no man has seen God in His true essence, meaning as He truly exists. The point of the verse is that although men, who are material beings, cannot see God who is spirit, men have seen God, when they looked upon Jesus Christ who was God incarnate in man. It is a strong verse stating the deity of Jesus Christ.
Answer: First, there are no discrepancies or errors in the Bible. Your friends who say the Bible is infallible are correct. I too absolutely believe in the infallibility of the Word of God. I have had lots of people present supposed errors or contradictions, but not one has been shown to be true and stand up to scholarly investigation. Nor have I, after studying the Bible almost everyday now for the past twenty six years found any errors. The problem is not in the written Word, but in the understanding and knowledge of the reader. Most people are not knowledgeable enough (though through study they could be) about the Bible to judge it to be in error. Many will read a passage or two, and with no overall understanding of the context, cultural, historical, theological, linguistic content of the text, and make a judgment that they found an error. There is a logical explanation for each "supposed error." No one has ever found a documented unexplainable error with the Bible. 2 Tim. 3:16, says the all scripture is given by inspiration of God. It is God who preserves His word and He says it will not pass away or a jot or tittle be lost.
Answer: As I said previously the problem is not with the Bible, but of your knowledge of the whole of the Bible and in particular, the interpretation these each passages.
Answer: In this account two eye witnesses are reporting the same event and recording the details of event that impressed them as they were led by the Holy Spirit.
Answer:
You are correct that Jesus worshiped on the Sabbath day which is Saturday. The reason is clear. He did so because he was a Jew, and lived under the dispensation of the Mosaic Law. We in this age are not Jews, but Gentiles living under the Dispensation of Grace or what some call the Church age. As the New Testament clearly says repeatedly, Christians not being Jews are not under the Law. We do not worship in temples, offer animal sacrifices, eat a restricted diet, practice circumcision etc as the Law required the Jews to do.
1. On the first day Jesus rose from the dead (Mark. 16:9).
2. On the first day Jesus first appeared to his disciples (Mark. 16:9).
3. On the first day Jesus met with the disciples at different places and repeatedly (Mark. 16:9-11; Mt. 28:8-10; Luke . 24:34; Mark. 16:12-13; John. 20:19-23).
4. 4. On the first day Jesus blessed the disciples (John. 20:19).
5. On the first day Jesus imparted to the disciples the gift of the Holy Spirit (John. 20:22).
6. On the first day Jesus commissioned the disciples to preach the gospel to all the world (John. 20:21; with Mark. 16:9-15).
7. On the first day Jesus ascended to Heaven, was seated at the right hand of the Father and was made Head of all (John. 20:17; Eph. . 1:20).
8. On the first day many of the dead saints arose from the grave (Mt. 27:52-53).
9. The first day became the day of joy and rejoicing to the disciples (John. 20:20; Luke . 24:41).
10. On the first day the gospel of the risen Christ was first preached (Luke . 24:34).
11. On the first day Jesus explained the Scriptures to the disciples (Luke . 24:27,45).
12. On the first day the purchase of our redemption was completed (Rom.. 4:25).
13. On the first day the Holy Spirit descended (Acts. 2:1). Pentecost was on the 50th day after the Sabbath following the wave offering (Leg. 23:15,16). Thus Pentecost was always on a Sunday.
14. The Christians met to worship on the first day (Acts. 20:6,7; 1 Col. 16:2). Sunday is "the Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10)
Galatians 5:18 "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."
Answer:
The right hand is normally seen as the hand of power or of strength, especially used symbolically in reference to Almighty God.
Exodus 15:6 "Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.",
Acts 5:31 "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."
Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."
There are many other references, but basically the above shows how the term is used. The left hand is presented at the opposite of what the right hand stood for.
Answer: Oh, yes I certainly do believe the Bible to be the perfectly preserved Word of God. I have studied the Bible for over twenty years and I have not even the slightest doubt of its accuracy. In this brief response it is impossible to respond with the mountain of evidence available that the Bible has been accurately preserved. Most of the critics of the Bible have never really studied it. Many just make derogatory statements without any substantiation or they repeat what they have heard, but have not themselves investigated.
Answer: I will let God answer the question Himself.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. "
Answer: Basically the name Baptist has historically stood for churches who believed and followed the New Testament. There many types of Baptists and some are more biblically correct than others in their doctrine and practice. I am an Independent Fundamental Baptist, which is the purest form of what the Baptist name means. We follow the New Testament example of what a church is and accept only the New Testament as our authority for our faith and practice. Unlike Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, etc we accept the Biblical principle that salvation is not in a church, but is freely given by God when a person believes and puts their trust in Jesus Christ alone a part from one's works. A church receives it authority from following the Word of God, and that only makes a church a true church of God. Salvation is a personal matter between God and a man. When the man believes and is saved God says he should join together with other believers and serve the Lord. Thus the church is a group of baptized, believers working to collectively serve the Lord. The church is not the authority...the Bible is. No true Baptist claims authority, nor has a hierarchical government which exercises power over the local congregation as the many churches do. Each true New Testament church is an autonomous body, ruling itself by the Bible, without any outside higher authority. Baptist are unique in following this New Testament principle and example.
For a more detailed answer go to click here.
Answer: The phrase "word of knowledge" is only used once in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 12:8. The English phrase "the word of knowledge" is translated from two Greek words "logos" and "gnosis". "w men gar dia tou pneumatoV didotai logoV sojiaV allw de logoV gnwsewV kata to auto pneuma" (1 Corinthians 12:8)
gnoµsis (gnw`si" , (1108)), primarily a seeking to know, an enquiry, investigation (akin to A, No. 1), denotes, in the N.T., knowledge, especially of spiritual truth; it is used (a) absolutely, in Luke 11:52; Rom. 2:20; 15:14; 1 Cor. 1:5; 8:1 (twice), 7, 10, 11; 13:2, 8; 14:6; 2 Cor. 6:6; 8:7; 11:6; Eph. 3:19; Col. 2:3; 1 Pet. 3:7; 2 Pet. 1:5, 6; (b) with an object: in respect of (1) God, 2 Cor. 2:14; 10:5; (2) the glory of God, 2 Cor. 4:6; (3) Christ Jesus, Phil. 3:8; 2 Pet. 3:18; (4) salvation, Luke 1:77; (c) subjectively, of God's knowledge, Rom. 11:33; the word of knowledge, 1 Cor. 12:8; knowledge falsely so called, 1 Tim. 6:20.
Matthew Henry says, "To one was given the word of wisdom; that is, say some, a knowledge of the mysteries of the gospel, and ability to explain them, an exact understanding of the design, nature, and doctrines, of the Christian religion."he word of wisdom. One he has endowed with wisdom, or has made distinguished for wise, and prudent, and comprehensive views of the scheme of redemption, and with a faculty of clearly explaining it to the apprehension of men. It is not certain that the apostle meant to say that this was the most important or most elevated endowment because he places it first in order. His design does not seem to be to observe the order of importance and value; but to state, as it occurred to him, the fact that these various endowments had been conferred on different men in the church. The sense is, that one man would be prominent and distinguished as a wise man--a prudent counselor, instructor, and adviser.
Abbott's New Testament Commentary says:
To another the word of knowledge. Another would be distinguished for knowledge. He would be learned; would have a clear view of the plan of salvation, and of the doctrines and duties of religion. The same variety is observed in the ministry at all times. One man is eminent as a wise man; another as a man of intelligence and knowledge; and both may be equally useful in their place in the church. 1 Corinthians 12:8. The word of wisdom; a wise and prudent mind or character.
A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament states: word of knowledge--ready utterance supernaturally imparted of truths ALREADY REVEALED (in this it is distinguished from "the word of wisdom," which related to NEW revelations).
In other words the Lord gave some in the early church the gift of intelligence to understand the Gospel and the word of God that they might impart it to others during a time in which there were few Bibles and the New Testament was only begun. It does not refer to new revelation or something that is not already known. The "word of wisdom" was the ability to give new revelation from God and was only active in the early church. Like all the gifts that involved the writing of the New Testament, it ceased as 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 explained when the New Testament was completed.
Answer: Each of the Synoptic Gospels has various parallel accounts of events and teachings in the life of Christ. None of the three Synoptic Gospels are
identical and are addressed to different peoples or audiences. Written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Matthew was written to the Jews, Mark to the Romans and Luke to the Gentiles in general. They each contain a different perspective on the life of the Lord. Yet, the passages you mention and others are found in each of the three Gospels. If you want to study this further find a "Harmony of the
Gospels" which by book, chapter and verse show the parallel accounts of the events in Christ's life including the Gospel of John.
Answer: Please note the following statement:
2. It must be recognized as inspired by the men of God. It must be recognized as God's word by men who serve the Lord as the Jews (in case of the Old Testament), pastors and church leaders.
3. It must have been collected and preserved by the people of God. God's people who studied and read the book because of its content recognized it as inspired of God and they collected copies and preserved them.
This scan is from the bottom of the opening page
of the New Testament in the 1611 King James Version.
This scan is from the Oxford University Press (1911) reprint of the 1611 KJV.
(1) The Sabbath is a symbol of salvation rest in Christ (Hebrews. 4).
Note that this passage is addressed to Christian Jews.
(2) The N.T. believer is not bound to keep the Sabbath (Col. 2:9-17).
(3) The N.T. believer has liberty in the matter of holy days (Rom. 14).
Those who teach that the Sabbath is binding upon the Christian, are going
contrary to what the Apostles taught.
2 Cor. 3:17 “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
/ul>
Gal. 2:4 “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they
might bring us into bondage.”
Gal. 5:1 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
Gal. 5:13 “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”
Answer: Parables are to be interpreted and applied carefully. A parable is an illustration that is meant to teach one particular principle. The principle of Matthew 25:14-30 is of course of a person being slothful. Jesus used them to illustrate a truth, but not to present doctrine. The illustration is of a land owner or master who gave those who worked for him various talents to use to the master's benefit. However, one was slothful and was commended. All men are given the light of the existence of God as Romans 1:18-23 states, but most do not accept it.
Answer: Proverbs 21:31 is a prohibition toward drinking alcoholic wine.
Answer: This is a parable used to illustrate a truth. Jesus in verse 11, told His disciples that it was given to them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to the others (unbelieving Jews who were rejecting Him) the understanding of these things was not given.
Answer: The word "dead" used in 2 Kings 23:30 is the Hebrew word "muwth" or "nu meth" and here should be considered as a participle, dying or in a dying state. The word used can refer to one who has expired, or to one who is dying. The context lets you know which is applicable. It is certain that Josiah was not dead at the time he left the battle field. Carefully read 2 Chronicles 35:23, "And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded. His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah." (2 Chronicles 35:23-24)
Answer: Jesus was replying to the accusation that He was had cast a demon out of a dumb man. Once the demon was gone began he began to speak. Luke 11:14-15 They said He did cast out demon by the power of Beelzebub the chief of the demons. Others challenged Him to show them some sign from heaven.
Answer: Sir, I believe what the Bible literally says. Jesus was taking the Jewish Passover and He took the bread and grape juice and gave it to them. He then explained to His disciples that all the many years of the Jews taking the Passover had symbolized His coming sacrifice and atonement for sin. Nowhere in God's word does it say that the bread and wine literally become Jesus' body. Further, this is figure of speech and simply a metaphor. Think... Were not the Jews prohibited from eating blood? Please note:
It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood. (Leviticus 3:17)
And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. (Leviticus 17:10)
Answer: Unless the Bible tells you differently, you should always accept the words literally. Of course in the normal use of language we use symbol terms, acronyms, hyperboles, symbolism, etc. But the context and make up of the sentence lets one know if what is said is to be taken literally. The following is from Easton's Dictionary of the Bible. In the matter of the English word "giants" it is the Hebrew word "nephilim." As explained below...that literally is correctly translated in English "giants" which is a correct translation. The word has several meanings.
Giants
(1.) Heb "nephilim", meaning "violent" or "causing to fall" (Ge 6:4). These were the violent tyrants of those days, those who fell upon others. The word may also be derived from a root signifying "wonder," and hence "monsters" or "prodigies." In Nu 13:33 this name is given to a Canaanitish tribe, a race of large stature, "the sons of Anak." The Revised Version, in these passages, simply transliterates the original, and reads "Nephilim."
Answer: No, I do not. Yes, the autographs were inerrant, and the KJV is an accurate translation of the copies that God has preserved. Because it is an accurate translation it gives us the inspired Word of God. As I explained, most of the supposed numerical errors can be explained. The problem with making a judgment about the ones that are not clear to us is that we just do not have enough evidence to make a judgment that they are copyist errors or correctly state what the writer under inspiration intended to write. That is a honest and strait forward position on the matter. The weight of the scales will always be toward each account correctly recording what God intended to record,because we are dealing with the word of God. No one can honestly or emphatically say they have found an error in the KJV Bible. So, what is the point of speculating about something that cannot be absolutely determined?
Answer: The discourse of Matt. 24-25 is of Jesus answering the question of His disciples "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matthew 24:3) The whole of Jesus' answer is found in both chapters and to properly understand Jesus' teaching we must consider them both.
Answer: There are always so called "scholars" who discredit the Bible as being God's inspired word. The problem is that most people who buy into their lies are not really knowledgeable about the Bible and how it was written and how God preserved through the ages.
Answer: The Old Testament is a record of God working with the nation of Israel. The time period is the divided kingdom after the Jews split into two nations. Jeremiah was a prophet of God sent to Judah, the southern kingdom made up of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The ten northern tribes called Israel had been years earlier taken into captivity by the Assyrians because of their gross sins and idolatry.
Answer: The Jews who were rejecting Jesus as their Messiah held Abraham, the father of the Jews, in highest regard. Jesus was telling them here and many other times that He was their Messiah. In saying that Abraham, saw "his day" Jesus was referring to the fact that God promised Abrahan that from his descendants would come the Messiah. The Bible says that Abraham believed God and God counted that for righteousness. Abraham understood the significance of God sending the Messiah to the Jews and the world and he rejoiced in knowing the day would come as God had promised. Thus Abraham in believing God's promise, saw by faith the fulfillment of God promise in sending the Messiah as the Savior. He rejoiced knowing that the Messiah would come as God said He would.
Answer: The Bible does not say what happened to the Garden of Eden, so any speculation cannot be confirmed. No where does the Bible say God moved it to the heart of the earth and called it Paradise.
Answer: This was a unique situation that existed in the early churches. The first Christians were all Jews, but in time the churches became made up of both Jews and Gentiles. This created a problem because the Jewish believers were keeping the OT law, and observing the ordinances of the temple. Of course the Gentiles, not being Jews and a part of the nation of Israel, were not under the law and did not keep the law. So they had a divided congregation. The Jews, in keeping the OT law thought it a terrible thing to eat meat with blood in it or animals that had be strangled. The Jews cut the throats of their animals and drained away all the blood following the Levitical laws.
Answer: The curse was actually on Ham and statement is this verse means it was passed on to Canaan...meaning the Canaanites were were the descendants of Ham. Often the Bible uses the name of the father to refer to his descendants. Example is the twelve tribes of Israel are referred to by the name of their man who founded their linage. Judah is the name of the son of Jacob (Israel) and the name of the tribe and descendants.
Answer: The Kingdom of God is used in the Bible is several ways. Mainly it refers to the whole or universal Kingdom of God or His eternal plan He unfolds over the ages. The Kingdom of God has not beginning or end and although is in time...it is timeless. Within the Kingdom of God are the beginning of the earth and universe and each of the preceeding ages that follows. In each of the ages or dispensations God has worked in various ways with man. To date the mankind has gone through six dispenstations of time. There is yet one to go which will be the Millennium when Christ will rule over the earth from Jerusalem. After this thousand year reign, God will hold the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20:15 and then begin and everylasting kingdom called the New Heaven and Earth.
Answer: You are mistaken as the mode of baptism is recorded.... Acts 8:38-39 explain that Phillip and the Eunuch when ...down...into the water for the Eunuch's baptism. If the sprinkled...what would have been the point of going down into the water.
Answer: The account in Exodus 12 says that the Lord was the one who passed over the land and killed the first born of men and animals who did not have the lamb's blood placed on their door lentals.
Answer: The personal accountability of the sins of the father are not passed to his descendants. As Revelation 20:15-18 states each person will be judged according to their own works. What is passed is the results of their father's sins or the negative influence it causes in the lives of his his progeny. A father who sins before his children will set a bad example and they too will most likely follow in their father's steps. For example the father who is a thief will teach his children to be thieves and they will suffer because of their sins and being raised by a sinful father. Another example is that a lazy father will not provide for his children and they will suffer in poverty for that as well.
Answer: Lots of people have trouble understanding this passage. I will try to explain.
Answer: They get it from reading Ephesians 4:11 and misunderstanding when this was given and who is referred to. Paul states that in the early church there were apostles, prophets, evangelist and pastor-teachers.
Answer: The passage is found in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. I have several articles on my web site that examine the modern tongues movement and explain what the Bible teaches on the subject. You can find the articles at https://bible-truth.org/Charismatics.html .
Answer: The following chart give the chronology of the Flood.
Days
Genesis Reference
40
7:12 It rained for forty day and nights.
110
7:24 The waters did not subside until 110 days more making a total of 150 days.
74
8:4 The Ark comes to rest on Mt. Ararat in the seventh month on the seventh month 74 days later.
40
8:6-7 Noah sends out the raven after 40 days.
7
8:8 Noah sends out a dove 7 days later which returns.
7
8:10 Noah sends out the second dove after
7
7 more days which returns with an olive leaf.
7
8:12 Noah again sends out a dove which does not return.
29
8:13 An interval of 29 days elapses from the sending out of the last dove and the removal of the covering on the Ark.
57
8:14 Noah waits for 57 more days and then leaves the Ark.
371
Total time period of the Flood.
Answer: The answer is "Yes" in some circumstances God will take the life of a Christian. Several passages in the New Testament deal with this truth.
Answer: Easter was a pagan holiday (Acts 12:4). This is the only place in which "easter" appears in the Authorized Version (KJV). Some say that this should be translated "passover" and they point to this as an error in the KJV, but they are wrong. The Easter of Acts 12:4 occurred after the Passover. We know this because Acts 12:3 says it was "the days of unleavened bread." The feast of unleavened bread followed the Passover (Num. 28:16-25), but this Easter was after the feast of unleavened bread. It refers to a pagan holiday, probably the celebration of Tammuz, the sun god (Jack Moorman, Easter or Passover?). "Easter" is a proper translation to distinguish it from the Jewish Passover, and the KJV translators were wise in their choice of this word. In using the term "Easter" in Ac. 12:4, The King James Translators merely left intact the reading of Tyndale, Matthews, and the Geneva Bible: "Then were the days of unleavened bread, and when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people" (The Newe Testament by William Tindale, 1526, John Wesley Sawyer, The Martyrs Bible Series).
Enlarging on this subject, Ken Johnson adds: "[Those who claim this is a mistranslation in the KJV] show a lack of two things. First, they neglect the context of the verse for it is a season that is also noted. Second, in English the season or time of year marked as the Passover season has for years been expressed in English as 'Easter.' The KJV translators did not invent this usage nor were they wrong. The Geneva Bible of 1557 translates Acts 12:4 as 'Easter.' This is also true of the 1539 Cranmer Bible--'Easter,' and the Tyndale Bible of 1534--'ester.' This takes the time element back almost 100 years for the usage of 'Easter.' Alfric, at the beginning of the eleventh century, wrote a Homily using the term Easter: 'Fram dam halgan easterlican [Easter season] (A.C. Champneys, History of English, London: Revington, Percival and Co., p. 178).
This calls the Passover season 'Easter' season and it is some five hundred years plus before the KJV saw its publication with 'Easter' in Acts 12:4" (Ken Johnson, A Response to J.H. Melton's Forum Re. the King James Version and Inspiration, p. 12).
Easter is an occasion observed by many Christians commemorating the resurrection of Christ. It is observed on the Sunday immediately after the first full moon that occurs on or after March 21. Originally Easter was a pagan holiday in the name of the goddess of spring, but it was "Christianized" by the Catholic Church and adapted to the remembrance of Christ's resurrection. Sunrise services are adaptations of the ancient worship of the sun.
The entire Easter celebration is extra-biblical. "Good Friday," which is the supposed day that Christ died, is fictitious in that Christ could not have died on Friday. He was three days and three nights in the tomb (Mt. 12:40; 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19; 27:62-64; Lk. 24:1-8; Jn. 2:19). He arose before daylight on Sunday morning at the end of the sabbath (Jn. 20:1; Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2). Thus he must have been crucified on Wednesday or Thursday. The Jewish day begins in the evening (Ge. 1:5,8,13,19,23). (Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity, David Cloud)
In the 17th Century when the Bible was being translated into English, the words, piss, ass, dung, etc were not considered vulgar words, but were the normal words used by society. As time passed the names became to be considered vulgar by society. There is nothing vulgar about urinating or normal body functions. Yet, sinful men have degraded it to such. The KJV of the Bible is a 1611 translation of the Greek Text when the use of these words were not regarded as vulgar. They were a correct and proper translation. The key to our present day understanding is to see them in the context when they were written. Most pastor will explain this when the references are read. The word p---s is used only 8 times in the Old Testament and passage rarely taught or preached from.
To understand the correct type of judgment consider that the Lord Jesus said, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24) Here the Lord says we are to judge with a righteous (meaning right) judgment.
Paul said "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (1 Corinthians 2:15) Note the verse says "judges all things." In other words the wise man will investigate all things and discern if it be of God or not. This type of judging is proper and God tells us we should judge whether something is right or wrong. In speaking about idoltry Paul said, "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." (1 Corinthians 10:15) So we are to judge between what is right or wrong, but not to judge others and past sentence on them. If I see a person doing what is clearly wrong, I can judge that what he is doing is wrong. We love the sinner, but not his sin. I will not pass sentence on him or punish him as that is God's business. I am to reach out in love to all men that they may come to Christ, but that does not mean I am to over look sin and warn men about the consequences of rejecting God's truth. Sir, I am to discern what sin, according to God's word and try to help people overcome it. Part of loving others is telling people the truth and especially those who have been deceived or who are ignorant of what truth truly is.
John states what God wants us to do..."Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1) To the Judaizers who were teaching false things in Galatia Paul soundly condemned them saying, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8-9) How did Paul know that what the Judaizers were teaching was wrong and should be "accused" if he did not examine their teaching? He did examine it by God's word and because it was not of God, he condemned it saying let the person teaching these things be "accused" meaning "set aside for destruction." Sir, that is how serious is the matter of knowing the truth. Sir, Satan is the father of lies, not God.
Sir, would you have me as and honest man and God's called preacher, teach and uphold teaching that are contrary to God's word and is clearly fictional and untrue? Should I tell men the truth or tell them lies. Shouldn't I not examine and judge the Quram and the Book of Mormon and other documents that men say are God's word to determine if the claims are true? Sir, I have done that and extensively studied the matter. I now not only know what the spurious books teach I extensively studied God's word so I can discern between God's truth and fiction.
SOUL [nephesh]SPIRIT [pneuma] is translated LIFE in Rev. 13:15 In this passage the reference is to giving breath (pneuma) which means life. The word pneuma refers to a number of different things not just to the Holy Spirit. pneuma pneuma pnyoo'-mah from 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit:--ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. The KJV is correct!
SOUL [nephesh] is translated HEART in Prov. 23:7, etc The KJV correctly translates the Hebrew word bl leb labe "heart." The Hebrew word does not mean "soul." a form of 3824; the heart; also used (figuratively) very widely for the feelings, the will and even the intellect; likewise for the centre of anything.
The rest of your the examples make the same mistakes. Anyone can look up these words in Strong's concordance or any Greek or Hebrew lexicon and see that the KJV is correct. The problem with the person you mentioned is he is ignorant of basic biblical study skills. The man does not know what he is talking about sadly..... The devil has a lot of ignorant people out there who he uses to attack God's word and bring confusion to God's people. The devil also from the beginning has distorted God's word in deceiving people. That is what he did to Eve, "Hath God said" casting a shadow over God's truth. His agenda is to discredit God's word, place a false word in its stead and cause confusion. I have an article at https://bible-truth.org/Howwegot.html title "How we Got the Bible that will be helpful to you."
Could I ask you a question? Why would any man who proclaims himself God's preacher, representing God's word, attack God's translation and the English Bible the world has used, and that has stood for 300 years and lead millions to the Lord Jesus. Why would he seek to defame it and in its place place a corrupt modern translation that is based on a known and proven corrupted Greek text? Why would God's man do that? My further question is this..."Would God's man do that?"
Answer: 1. In the Hebrew it is, a son of forty-two years, &c., which is an ambiguous phrase; and though it doth for the most part, yet it doth not always, signify the age of the person, as is manifest from 1Sa 13:1, Cmt. on 1Sa 13:1. And therefore it is not necessary that this should note his age (as it is generally presumed to do, and that is the only ground of the difficulty); but it may note either,
1. The age of his mother Athaliah; who being so great, and infamous, and mischievous a person to the kingdom and royal family of Judah, it is not strange if her age be here described, especially seeing she herself did for a season sway this sceptre. Or rather,
2. Of the reign of that royal race and family from which by his mother he was descended, to wit, of the house of Omri, who reigned six years, 1Ki 16:23; Ahab his son reigned twenty-two years, 1Ki 16:29; Ahaziah his son two years, 1Ki 22:51; Joram his son twelve years, 2Ki 3:1; all which, put together, make up exactly these forty-two years; for Ahaziah began his reign in Joram's twelfth year, 2Ki 8:25. And such a kind of computation of the years, not of the king's person, but of his reign or kingdom, we had before, 2Ch 16:1, Cmt. on 2Ch 16:1. And so we have an account of the person's age in 2Ki 8:26, and here of the kingdom to which he belonged.
Answer. 2. Some acknowledge an error in the transcribers of the present Hebrew copies, in which language the numeral letters for twenty-two and forty-two are so like, that they might easily be mistaken. For that it was read twenty-two here, as it is in the Book of Kings, in other Hebrew copies, they gather from hence, that it is at this day so read in divers ancient Greek copies, as also in those two ancient translations, the Syriac and the Arabic, and particularly in that famous and most ancient copy of the Syriac, which was used by the church of Antioch in the primitive times, and to this day is kept in the church of Antioch, from which that most reverend, learned, pious, and public-spirited archbishop Usher did at his own great charge get another copy transcribed, in which he hath published to all the world that he found it here written twenty and two years old, &c. Nor doth this overthrow the authority of the sacred text, as infidels would have it, partly because it is only an historical passage, of no importance to the substantial doctrines of faith and a good life; and partly because the question here is not whether this text be true, but which is the true reading of the text, whether that of the generality of present copies, or that which was used in the ancient copies, which the ancient and venerable translators above mentioned did follow; for it seems unreasonable and uncharitable to think that all of them would have conspired to have changed the text, and put in twenty and two for forty and two, if they had so read it in their Hebrew copies. Nor can this open any great door to those innumerable changes which some have boldly and rashly made in the Hebrew text without any such pretence of authority, as there is for this, which as they are affirmed without reason, or authority, or necessity, so they may as easily be rejected. If all this will not satisfy our present infidels, I desire them only to consider what hath been hinted before upon such occasions, that many difficulties which did seem unanswerable, being now fully cleared by later writers, it is but reasonable to think that this may be so in after-times, either by finding of some Hebrew copies in which it may be twenty and two years, &c., or by some other way.
The daughter of Omri, i.e. of Omri's family; or of Ahab, Omri's son. Grandchildren are oft called sons and daughters, as Mt 1:1; Lu 3:26.