This is laughable.... LAUGHABLE... Your proof for you own Prior's bible version being WRONG is that you believe that the behemoth is a DINOSAUR.... bruh..... please...
Education blinding people? Science has flunked your brain up so much xD. First you say there's dinosaurs... lol... where's your backup the fact they even existed? Science? Alright I'll respsect that.... tell me more about how science says that Dinos lived with Men. XD
Et non sicut Moyses ponebat velamen super faciem suam, ut non intenderent filii Israel in faciem ejus, quod evacuatur
Sed obtusi sunt sensus eorum. Usque in hodiernum enim diem, idipsum velamen in lectione veteris testamenti manet non revelatum (quoniam in Christo evacuatur),
My literal Translation: And just as Moses did put the veil upon his own face, so that not the sons of Israel might look upon his face, for it is removed. But dull are their senses. For all the way unto this day, the selfsame veil in the READING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT remains not revealed, for in Christ it is removed.
2nd Corinthians 3:13-14
Explain this to me, bible Scholar, if the Old Testament has not been revealed to our "dull senses" how can you expect to understand it without using Christ as context? Your Backup is that Dinosaurs walked the earch... kay den... Where is your REAL backup?
According to evolutionists, dinosaurs were nowhere on earth for hundreds of millions of years before man came unto the scene. So explain how the description of the behemoth whose tail is as long as a cedar which is a tree can be a hippo?outlaw_always (US1) said:.......That made so little sense... did you have any backup for your statements at all? Here we are trying to give logical arguments, and you just keep quoting....
This is laughable.... LAUGHABLE... Your proof for you own Prior's bible version being WRONG is that you believe that the behemoth is a DINOSAUR.... bruh..... please...
Education blinding people? Science has flunked your brain up so much xD. First you say there's dinosaurs... lol... where's your backup the fact they even existed? Science? Alright I'll respsect that.... tell me more about how science says that Dinos lived with Men. XD
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
What is laughable is that no one is applying the laws of science to show how the evolution theory is debunked. There is no gradual macro evolution occurring. Even some evolutionists agree that micro evolution will always be micro evolution. A cow will always be a cow and a rose will always be a rose, no matter how many variety of the species that can occur.
There is no way additional genetic information can be added to a living organism. Can anyone point out the law of science that something cannot come out of nothing?
Yet for all its boastings, evolutionists would try to connect fossils as if they are evidence of macro evolution when it is not. They try to fill in the gap with their imaginations, but fail to show any evidence in life today of the different kinds of living macro evolved animals to show that gradual macro evolution, but they can't do that; they can only point to the unseen by using imagination to fill in the gap.
Even more laughable is how evolutionists boasts of millions of evidence of transitional fossils to support gradual macro evolution in time when now leading evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould says that BECAUSE of the huge gaps in the fossil records for transitional fossils to be gradual, he and other leading evolutionists NOW believe that macro evolution was rapid, and to account for the explosion in the fossil record back in around the Pre Cambrian/ Cambrian period, a global flood had to occur to tap that capacity. Of course, I could not find how high he said that global flood was while many mockers continue to say that it was not up to the mountains in covering it.
So what was fact in science,,, has been nothing but a conjecture. This is how they look at the evidence; in respect to the evolution theory. That is laughable.
You can find a news account of fossilized whale bones found with other fossilized marine life on mountaintops.. like the one in the Andes Mountain, FOUND with fossilized land animal bones TOGETHER.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us/whale-fossils-high-in-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html
But no. The evolutionist cited in that article says that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea, trapping marine life, leaving unsaid that land animals just happened to wander up there millions of years later to be fossilized with marine life.
Carbon 14 dating would separate them... but they also forgot to account for the reservoir effect that marine life absorbs carbon 14 at lesser levels than land animals would. Science knows this but gloss over that because they do everything in presenting evidence to the evolution theory.
that is evidence of a global flood for those that believe the Bible over the words of fallible man still shooting in the dark with their false science just because they like the evolution theory.
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
If you believe in Jesus Christ & His words, then He validated the global flood and referred to it as a warning of what is coming on the earth. He even cited Sodom & Gomorrah as well. These are not some metaphorical stories, but actual historical account for those warnings to be legit for anyone to be warned about what is coming on the earth.
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Man's wake up call is coming and many unrepentant believers living in sin & former believers will not be ready nor found abiding in Him when the Bridegroom comes as they run the risk of being left behind unless they look to Jesus now for help in discerning iniquity both religious and carnal ones, to lean on Him for help in departing from them before it is too late.
It is time for reconciled believers to "live" that reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ by applying faith in Him as their Good Shepherd and not just as their Saviour to find the truth and be free from the lies of the world & the religious.
.
Exactly my point, dinosaurs were not on earth the same time as man, so duh how could God say "BEHOLD THE DINOS MAN" while Job can't even possibly see one... you can write your books on this for your Dinophiliac self... go ahead. Plenty of conspiracy theorists will read it. You have literally just proved to me to yourself, that your Behemoth (which is your only argument for the falsity of your own bible) cannot be a dinosaur. (because that matters...I guess....)According to evolutionists, dinosaurs were nowhere on earth for hundreds of millions of years before man came unto the scene. So explain how the description of the behemoth whose tail is as long as a cedar which is a tree can be a hippo?
Why did you make this about evolution...? I never said anything to support or deny Evolution.
Well I guess according to you, I shouldn't trust the bible because we should be "free from the lies o the world & the religious"... because guess what? The bible was written by religious people... heh...Enow (US1) said:It is time for reconciled believers to "live" that reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ by applying faith in Him as their Good Shepherd and not just as their Saviour to find the truth and be free from the lies of the world & the religious.
Enow (US1) said:I have to wonder where you get your information, but if you want to rely on man's teaching then rely on the Lord to confirm to you which is the correct message, there really isn't much I can share with you on that point.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow (US1) said:If you have not read my reply to you before this one, please do, Daniel.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow, the Textus Receptus wasn't based on Antioch translations at all. It was based on 3 Greek texts that Erasmus found in nearby monasteries in Europe, not Antioch. Someone has sold you a bill of goods if you think it's based on Antioch translations. We don't have anything even remotely close to that age in manuscripts.. Additionally, there was an abundance of heresy in Antioch as well as Alexandria. Heresy was everywhere. The reason the majority of the greek texts that have survived are from the Antioch tradition, are because they are newer, and therefore more error prone, copies of the original Greek. Islam moved into the Alexandria region well before Constantinople fell and burned as any manuscripts as they could, which is why fewer of the Alexandrian copies exists.
Also, Rev. 22, The KJV is not based on any Greek text whatsoever as Erasmus didn't have a copy of that last page of the BIble, the copy of Revelation he had was missing that page and as a result, he made the Textus Receptus from the Latin version, not the greek and made some Greek words that are found in not one Greek text, including the phrase Book of life, which in every Greek translation in existence, including the Antioch and Alexandrian versions, records as Tree of life. Therefore the KJV is in error as it is based on not one Greek language copy we have.
There are many modern version which accurately convey the Greek manuscripts, incluing the ESV and the NASB, which are far more literal.
For instance, the KJV in ROm 6:1 doesn't give nearly as harsh a condemnation against sin as the ESV and NASB do, which are far better literal translations than the KJV, which is more of a dynamic equivalent translation. Is the KJV heretical because it doesn't condemns sin as it should? No, just inferior in that one place.
Disclaimer: I have a degree in ancient Bible manuscripts and collect them for a living.
Also, what do you say about this site that shows why 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture?
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
I do not agree with everything at this web site, and even on this page where the first proof that 1 John 5:7 existing was not really that good a proof, because Tertullian could have been commenting about the Triune God, and not necessarily quoting 1 John 5:7, HOWEVER, the other proofs on that list are indeed supporting that 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture because they referred to it as scripture.
This is an example about losing sight of the truth in His words, doing research and having doubts when we can ask Him if 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture. If you read from verse 6 to verse 9, for verse 9 to be true, it has to show at least Two witnesses for God's testimony of the Son to be greater than men's.
John 8:17 testify that the witnesses of two men is true.
Jesus said that two or three other witnesses is required when confirming a true testimony or a true witness: Matthew 18:16
Paul said that two or three witnesses was needed to confirm what is true about him. 2 Corinthians 13:1
So without the background information, thanks to Jesus Christ for confirmation, I know that 1 John 5:7 belongs in there because by removing the 3 Witnesses from Heaven, you take away how the witness of God is greater then men's in verse 9.
Going back to Rev 22....you claim that that Antioch Bible tradition is more trustworthy, and then in the same paragraph you reject the Antioch tradition of the Bible. EVERY Antioch tradition manuscript in existence states that Rev 22 says Tree of life, not Book of life. There is not a single Greek manuscript that says otherwise. You cannot logically state that the Antioch tradition is better and then reject it when it disagrees with what you believe. Doing so destroys any basis of your argument. Stating that someone was crosseyed when they put tree of life isn't an argument either. It's pretty clear that Erasmus, which was one single man who made the Textus Receptus, who was a Catholic, who was an apostate by the way, made the mistake by putting Book of Life instead of Tree of Life.
Why would you claim that the manuscripts from Alexandria (which are very few in number because they were all worn out from use, the claim they were found in the trashcan is an absolute myth) are inferior to the Antioch tradition because of apostasy being in Antioch when the Textus Receptus was made by a Catholic heretic? If the Alexandrian manuscripts are not trustworthy because of heresy then the TR is even more untrustworthy. I don't accept that there was heresy behind the Alexandrian manuscripts. In fact, I bet you are not aware that they haven't found a single manuscript in Alexandria. IN fact, the manuscripts you call Alexandrian were actually found closer to Antioch than the so called Antioch manuscripts. lol
But just in case the Lord is ministering anyway;
Only the pre raptured saints get to have a place in the city; John 14:1-3 This is the first inheritance; the celestiel one; the vessels unto honor; the abiding bride of Christ received by the Bridegroom.
The unrepentant saints left behind do not have a place in the city of God above. Their part is taken out of the book of life; for not being ready, they will have their "portion" with the unbelievers left behind on earth to face the coming fire on the earth ( Luke 12:40-49 ) that will burn up one third of the earth which will be the cause for the new world order to tempt all on the earth during the great tribulation to receive the mark of the beast in order to buy & sell in order to survive at which times, the plagues will hit as well. Think of the saints left behind as the prodigal son that gave up his first inheritance for wild living because this is where the vessels unto dishonor in His House comes from. 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 shows that "destruction" from being that vessel unto honor to being damned as vessels unto dishonor; thus having no inheritance; no place in the city of God no longer. This is that PART that was taken out of the Book of Life for which they were supposed to receive as their names are in it, but it was taken away, even though their names are still in that Book of Life.
There is no way to fit tree of life for what it is for which is for the healing of the nations for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ to line up with the punishment of the plagues for adding to God's words in Revelation 22:18. Those that partake of the tree of life are doing so after the great tribulation; and thus with the King of kings among them, it cannot serve as a punishment for those that mess with His words in the Book of Revelation NOW when the King of kings is living among men.
Once you see the point of the warning in how it ties in with the rest of scripture, Revelation 22:19 cannot be about the tree of life.
So you say that Erasmus had no Greek documents and I say... how can they say that when he made a protest about 1 John 5:7 when they had produced those few Greek documents that seemed relatively "new"? Supposedly, he even written a protest regarding it, and you are trying to tell me he said nothing about Revelation 22:19 if there was no Greek document?
You have to question that.
Look. I took a Liberty Home Bible Institute Course. I did not agree with everything they had taught as the Lord led me to question and prove those questionable things by the scripture of the KJV. They even handed out their Liberty Annotated King James Version for me to use and in the footnotes, supposedly supported by educated Biblical scholars with degrees that the behemoth was a hippo, but you & I can read His words in Job 40th chapter that the behemoth has a tail like a cedar, which is a tree, and that is plain as day testifying to dinosaurs living with mankind.
Now... if you want to use your education to continue to blind you from reading His words plainly and go with the degree people, then I guess you will see the behemoth as a hippo too.
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
But if the Lord is ministering to you, and you see that behemoth as a dinosaur as well, then you need to use His wisdom to see what Revelation 22:19 is really talking about in the context of punishment since it cannot be doled out when the tree of life is being doled out.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth......26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Thanks for sharing, brother, but I do hope the Lord is ministering here.
You missed the point of what I was saying entirely. You keep trying to twist my words to say things I did not say. Erasmus had no Greek manuscripts for Rev 22. I know that because he told us that in his journal. That is where I am getting my information. Regarding it being the tree of life in Rev 22, you keep talking about everything except the facts. It is a fact that not one single Greek manuscript out of 5000 in existence states it is the book of life as you claim. It makes perfect sense that a person who adds to God's word would be punished by not being able to take of the tree of life. That was Adams punishment in the Garden of Eden for adding to God's Word.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Rev 22 says book of life as the KJV does. Not one. To keep talking about John 5 and the Holy SPirit and anything else except Rev 22 makes no sense. So lets limit the argument to that please.
ἐν μέσῳ τῆς πλατείας αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ξύλον ζωῆς ποιοῦν καρποὺς δώδεκα, κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον ἀποδιδοῦν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὰ φύλλα τοῦ ξύλου εἰς θεραπείαν τῶν ἐθνῶν.
I know that some bad translations take "lignum" which is tree to refer to "book". But those were all proven false a long time ago :P Same with the Greek: ξύλον, which means tree or wood, cannot possibly refer to book :P
Enow (US1) said:According to evolutionists, dinosaurs were nowhere on earth for hundreds of millions of years before man came unto the scene. So explain how the description of the behemoth whose tail is as long as a cedar which is a tree can be a hippo?outlaw_always (US1) said:.......That made so little sense... did you have any backup for your statements at all? Here we are trying to give logical arguments, and you just keep quoting....
This is laughable.... LAUGHABLE... Your proof for you own Prior's bible version being WRONG is that you believe that the behemoth is a DINOSAUR.... bruh..... please...
Education blinding people? Science has flunked your brain up so much xD. First you say there's dinosaurs... lol... where's your backup the fact they even existed? Science? Alright I'll respsect that.... tell me more about how science says that Dinos lived with Men. XD
ENow, your serious, right? Evolutionists say Dinosaurs existed ages before humans did. WE human's have only existed for a small fraction of Earth's history. The Behemoth is not a dinosaur
All righty then, but let's not consider this an argument, but a discussion, otherwise, a cooling off period is required for both our walk with the Lord.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow (US1) said:I have to wonder where you get your information, but if you want to rely on man's teaching then rely on the Lord to confirm to you which is the correct message, there really isn't much I can share with you on that point.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow (US1) said:If you have not read my reply to you before this one, please do, Daniel.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow, the Textus Receptus wasn't based on Antioch translations at all. It was based on 3 Greek texts that Erasmus found in nearby monasteries in Europe, not Antioch. Someone has sold you a bill of goods if you think it's based on Antioch translations. We don't have anything even remotely close to that age in manuscripts.. Additionally, there was an abundance of heresy in Antioch as well as Alexandria. Heresy was everywhere. The reason the majority of the greek texts that have survived are from the Antioch tradition, are because they are newer, and therefore more error prone, copies of the original Greek. Islam moved into the Alexandria region well before Constantinople fell and burned as any manuscripts as they could, which is why fewer of the Alexandrian copies exists.
Also, Rev. 22, The KJV is not based on any Greek text whatsoever as Erasmus didn't have a copy of that last page of the BIble, the copy of Revelation he had was missing that page and as a result, he made the Textus Receptus from the Latin version, not the greek and made some Greek words that are found in not one Greek text, including the phrase Book of life, which in every Greek translation in existence, including the Antioch and Alexandrian versions, records as Tree of life. Therefore the KJV is in error as it is based on not one Greek language copy we have.
There are many modern version which accurately convey the Greek manuscripts, incluing the ESV and the NASB, which are far more literal.
For instance, the KJV in ROm 6:1 doesn't give nearly as harsh a condemnation against sin as the ESV and NASB do, which are far better literal translations than the KJV, which is more of a dynamic equivalent translation. Is the KJV heretical because it doesn't condemns sin as it should? No, just inferior in that one place.
Disclaimer: I have a degree in ancient Bible manuscripts and collect them for a living.
Also, what do you say about this site that shows why 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture?
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
I do not agree with everything at this web site, and even on this page where the first proof that 1 John 5:7 existing was not really that good a proof, because Tertullian could have been commenting about the Triune God, and not necessarily quoting 1 John 5:7, HOWEVER, the other proofs on that list are indeed supporting that 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture because they referred to it as scripture.
This is an example about losing sight of the truth in His words, doing research and having doubts when we can ask Him if 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture. If you read from verse 6 to verse 9, for verse 9 to be true, it has to show at least Two witnesses for God's testimony of the Son to be greater than men's.
John 8:17 testify that the witnesses of two men is true.
Jesus said that two or three other witnesses is required when confirming a true testimony or a true witness: Matthew 18:16
Paul said that two or three witnesses was needed to confirm what is true about him. 2 Corinthians 13:1
So without the background information, thanks to Jesus Christ for confirmation, I know that 1 John 5:7 belongs in there because by removing the 3 Witnesses from Heaven, you take away how the witness of God is greater then men's in verse 9.
Going back to Rev 22....you claim that that Antioch Bible tradition is more trustworthy, and then in the same paragraph you reject the Antioch tradition of the Bible. EVERY Antioch tradition manuscript in existence states that Rev 22 says Tree of life, not Book of life. There is not a single Greek manuscript that says otherwise. You cannot logically state that the Antioch tradition is better and then reject it when it disagrees with what you believe. Doing so destroys any basis of your argument. Stating that someone was crosseyed when they put tree of life isn't an argument either. It's pretty clear that Erasmus, which was one single man who made the Textus Receptus, who was a Catholic, who was an apostate by the way, made the mistake by putting Book of Life instead of Tree of Life.
Why would you claim that the manuscripts from Alexandria (which are very few in number because they were all worn out from use, the claim they were found in the trashcan is an absolute myth) are inferior to the Antioch tradition because of apostasy being in Antioch when the Textus Receptus was made by a Catholic heretic? If the Alexandrian manuscripts are not trustworthy because of heresy then the TR is even more untrustworthy. I don't accept that there was heresy behind the Alexandrian manuscripts. In fact, I bet you are not aware that they haven't found a single manuscript in Alexandria. IN fact, the manuscripts you call Alexandrian were actually found closer to Antioch than the so called Antioch manuscripts. lol
But just in case the Lord is ministering anyway;
Only the pre raptured saints get to have a place in the city; John 14:1-3 This is the first inheritance; the celestiel one; the vessels unto honor; the abiding bride of Christ received by the Bridegroom.
The unrepentant saints left behind do not have a place in the city of God above. Their part is taken out of the book of life; for not being ready, they will have their "portion" with the unbelievers left behind on earth to face the coming fire on the earth ( Luke 12:40-49 ) that will burn up one third of the earth which will be the cause for the new world order to tempt all on the earth during the great tribulation to receive the mark of the beast in order to buy & sell in order to survive at which times, the plagues will hit as well. Think of the saints left behind as the prodigal son that gave up his first inheritance for wild living because this is where the vessels unto dishonor in His House comes from. 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 shows that "destruction" from being that vessel unto honor to being damned as vessels unto dishonor; thus having no inheritance; no place in the city of God no longer. This is that PART that was taken out of the Book of Life for which they were supposed to receive as their names are in it, but it was taken away, even though their names are still in that Book of Life.
There is no way to fit tree of life for what it is for which is for the healing of the nations for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ to line up with the punishment of the plagues for adding to God's words in Revelation 22:18. Those that partake of the tree of life are doing so after the great tribulation; and thus with the King of kings among them, it cannot serve as a punishment for those that mess with His words in the Book of Revelation NOW when the King of kings is living among men.
Once you see the point of the warning in how it ties in with the rest of scripture, Revelation 22:19 cannot be about the tree of life.
So you say that Erasmus had no Greek documents and I say... how can they say that when he made a protest about 1 John 5:7 when they had produced those few Greek documents that seemed relatively "new"? Supposedly, he even written a protest regarding it, and you are trying to tell me he said nothing about Revelation 22:19 if there was no Greek document?
You have to question that.
Look. I took a Liberty Home Bible Institute Course. I did not agree with everything they had taught as the Lord led me to question and prove those questionable things by the scripture of the KJV. They even handed out their Liberty Annotated King James Version for me to use and in the footnotes, supposedly supported by educated Biblical scholars with degrees that the behemoth was a hippo, but you & I can read His words in Job 40th chapter that the behemoth has a tail like a cedar, which is a tree, and that is plain as day testifying to dinosaurs living with mankind.
Now... if you want to use your education to continue to blind you from reading His words plainly and go with the degree people, then I guess you will see the behemoth as a hippo too.
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
But if the Lord is ministering to you, and you see that behemoth as a dinosaur as well, then you need to use His wisdom to see what Revelation 22:19 is really talking about in the context of punishment since it cannot be doled out when the tree of life is being doled out.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth......26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Thanks for sharing, brother, but I do hope the Lord is ministering here.
You missed the point of what I was saying entirely. You keep trying to twist my words to say things I did not say. Erasmus had no Greek manuscripts for Rev 22. I know that because he told us that in his journal. That is where I am getting my information. Regarding it being the tree of life in Rev 22, you keep talking about everything except the facts. It is a fact that not one single Greek manuscript out of 5000 in existence states it is the book of life as you claim. It makes perfect sense that a person who adds to God's word would be punished by not being able to take of the tree of life. That was Adams punishment in the Garden of Eden for adding to God's Word.There is no evidence whatsoever that Rev 22 says book of life as the KJV does. Not one. To keep talking about John 5 and the Holy SPirit and anything else except Rev 22 makes no sense. So lets limit the argument to that please.
I understand that Erasmus got it from a Latin source, but have you ever considered why he went with that source and not the majority of the Greek manuscripts? What does his journal say about that?
I would say this; follow my line of questioning as I go with the Lord's help.
When do people have access to the tree of life? When the city of God is down on earth from Heaven? When does that happen? After the great tribulation?
What is the tree of life for? Is it for the healing of the nations?
So tree of life is for the generations coming out of the milleniel reign of Christ.
Now
How can the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 be for us in messing with His words if it is about the tree of life?
Revelation 3:5 has a double negative where Jesus is promising that He would never removed our names from the Book of life; BUT we can lose our first inheritance; our place in the city of God that is written in the Book of life. That is why in Revelation 22:19, his part taken out of the book of life is correct in the KJV because in that same verse, immediately afterwards, it is explained what that part is; his loss of having a place in the city of God.
The other punishment is similar for messing around with His words in verse 18, and that is the adding of the plagues. That is another judgment that is being given which takes place at the pre trib rapture event when unrepentant and former believers are left behind; they will get the plagues, and not just being denied their inheritance in the city of God above.
It is an eternal damnation to be left behind to be received later on as vessels unto dishonor in His House after the great tribulation to serve the King of kings in being spread out all over the world for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ. This is why God has to wipe the tears from their eyes of those saints coming out of the great tribulation; a divine intervention; a miracle has to be performed by God to get them past their loss of that first inheritance.
It is then that the tree of life is accessible for the healing of the nation. Therefore the context of the warning and for the time it is given for, cannot be the tree of life in Revelation 22:19.
The belief that dinosaurs were extinct long before man came unto the scene is from the evolution theory.outlaw_always (US1) said:Exactly my point, dinosaurs were not on earth the same time as man, so duh how could God say "BEHOLD THE DINOS MAN" while Job can't even possibly see one... you can write your books on this for your Dinophiliac self... go ahead. Plenty of conspiracy theorists will read it. You have literally just proved to me to yourself, that your Behemoth (which is your only argument for the falsity of your own bible) cannot be a dinosaur. (because that matters...I guess....)According to evolutionists, dinosaurs were nowhere on earth for hundreds of millions of years before man came unto the scene. So explain how the description of the behemoth whose tail is as long as a cedar which is a tree can be a hippo?
Why did you make this about evolution...? I never said anything to support or deny Evolution.Well I guess according to you, I shouldn't trust the bible because we should be "free from the lies o the world & the religious"... because guess what? The bible was written by religious people... heh...Enow (US1) said:It is time for reconciled believers to "live" that reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ by applying faith in Him as their Good Shepherd and not just as their Saviour to find the truth and be free from the lies of the world & the religious.
I believe the Bible and the behemoth that moves his tail like a cedar which cedar is a tree has to be a dinosaur. So I believe my Bible as it is plainly written without any errant footnotes from biblical scholars trying to deny what is plainly written..
So what other animal that can move its tail that is as long as a tree? It is certainly not a hippo. Good luck in finding that animal without ever coming to the conclusion that it has to be a dinosaur.
Although your historical facts/opinions differ, can we just agree that the teachings of Christ (whether spiritual or other) are good advice for someone trying to be a decent human being.
I am also saying that evolutionists are wrong, and the evolution theory is a false science.jeethBOSS-1 (US1) said:Enow (US1) said:According to evolutionists, dinosaurs were nowhere on earth for hundreds of millions of years before man came unto the scene. So explain how the description of the behemoth whose tail is as long as a cedar which is a tree can be a hippo?outlaw_always (US1) said:.......That made so little sense... did you have any backup for your statements at all? Here we are trying to give logical arguments, and you just keep quoting....
This is laughable.... LAUGHABLE... Your proof for you own Prior's bible version being WRONG is that you believe that the behemoth is a DINOSAUR.... bruh..... please...
Education blinding people? Science has flunked your brain up so much xD. First you say there's dinosaurs... lol... where's your backup the fact they even existed? Science? Alright I'll respsect that.... tell me more about how science says that Dinos lived with Men. XD
ENow, your serious, right? Evolutionists say Dinosaurs existed ages before humans did. WE human's have only existed for a small fraction of Earth's history. The Behemoth is not a dinosaur
How can anyone describe a living dinosaur with mankind in the scripture unless it was and had been seen?
And science cannot date anything accurately past known history of mankind. They are getting errant dating results as shown within human history; and so there really is no taking it at its word that goes beyond the confirmation of history.
Example; a living mollusks has been carbon dated as 2,300 years old dead. Yeah... my confidence in their dating method going beyond the confirmation of human history is zilch.
Those who do have that confidence are not being scientific about it; they are just being a "fan" of the evolution theory.
I have a pretty interesting, but true proof for that you're wrong...The belief that dinosaurs were extinct long before man came unto the scene is from the evolution theory.
I believe the Bible and the behemoth that moves his tail like a cedar which cedar is a tree has to be a dinosaur. So I believe my Bible as it is plainly written without any errant footnotes from biblical scholars trying to deny what is plainly written..
So what other animal that can move its tail that is as long as a tree? It is certainly not a hippo. Good luck in finding that animal without ever coming to the conclusion that it has to be a dinosaur.
DINOSAURS TESTICLES WERE INTERNAL. There I just said it. In Job 22, we read "nervi testiculorum ejus perplexi sunt." Which is translated "the sinews of his testicles are wrapped about." heh.... that's awkward, but a useful statement for me to use, since Dinosaurs, according to scientists, have internal testicles. So there... proved that wrong.
Second why do you even care about this whole dinosaur thing in the first place?
Enow (US1) said:All righty then, but let's not consider this an argument, but a discussion, otherwise, a cooling off period is required for both our walk with the Lord.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow (US1) said:I have to wonder where you get your information, but if you want to rely on man's teaching then rely on the Lord to confirm to you which is the correct message, there really isn't much I can share with you on that point.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow (US1) said:If you have not read my reply to you before this one, please do, Daniel.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow, the Textus Receptus wasn't based on Antioch translations at all. It was based on 3 Greek texts that Erasmus found in nearby monasteries in Europe, not Antioch. Someone has sold you a bill of goods if you think it's based on Antioch translations. We don't have anything even remotely close to that age in manuscripts.. Additionally, there was an abundance of heresy in Antioch as well as Alexandria. Heresy was everywhere. The reason the majority of the greek texts that have survived are from the Antioch tradition, are because they are newer, and therefore more error prone, copies of the original Greek. Islam moved into the Alexandria region well before Constantinople fell and burned as any manuscripts as they could, which is why fewer of the Alexandrian copies exists.
Also, Rev. 22, The KJV is not based on any Greek text whatsoever as Erasmus didn't have a copy of that last page of the BIble, the copy of Revelation he had was missing that page and as a result, he made the Textus Receptus from the Latin version, not the greek and made some Greek words that are found in not one Greek text, including the phrase Book of life, which in every Greek translation in existence, including the Antioch and Alexandrian versions, records as Tree of life. Therefore the KJV is in error as it is based on not one Greek language copy we have.
There are many modern version which accurately convey the Greek manuscripts, incluing the ESV and the NASB, which are far more literal.
For instance, the KJV in ROm 6:1 doesn't give nearly as harsh a condemnation against sin as the ESV and NASB do, which are far better literal translations than the KJV, which is more of a dynamic equivalent translation. Is the KJV heretical because it doesn't condemns sin as it should? No, just inferior in that one place.
Disclaimer: I have a degree in ancient Bible manuscripts and collect them for a living.
Also, what do you say about this site that shows why 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture?
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
I do not agree with everything at this web site, and even on this page where the first proof that 1 John 5:7 existing was not really that good a proof, because Tertullian could have been commenting about the Triune God, and not necessarily quoting 1 John 5:7, HOWEVER, the other proofs on that list are indeed supporting that 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture because they referred to it as scripture.
This is an example about losing sight of the truth in His words, doing research and having doubts when we can ask Him if 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture. If you read from verse 6 to verse 9, for verse 9 to be true, it has to show at least Two witnesses for God's testimony of the Son to be greater than men's.
John 8:17 testify that the witnesses of two men is true.
Jesus said that two or three other witnesses is required when confirming a true testimony or a true witness: Matthew 18:16
Paul said that two or three witnesses was needed to confirm what is true about him. 2 Corinthians 13:1
So without the background information, thanks to Jesus Christ for confirmation, I know that 1 John 5:7 belongs in there because by removing the 3 Witnesses from Heaven, you take away how the witness of God is greater then men's in verse 9.
Going back to Rev 22....you claim that that Antioch Bible tradition is more trustworthy, and then in the same paragraph you reject the Antioch tradition of the Bible. EVERY Antioch tradition manuscript in existence states that Rev 22 says Tree of life, not Book of life. There is not a single Greek manuscript that says otherwise. You cannot logically state that the Antioch tradition is better and then reject it when it disagrees with what you believe. Doing so destroys any basis of your argument. Stating that someone was crosseyed when they put tree of life isn't an argument either. It's pretty clear that Erasmus, which was one single man who made the Textus Receptus, who was a Catholic, who was an apostate by the way, made the mistake by putting Book of Life instead of Tree of Life.
Why would you claim that the manuscripts from Alexandria (which are very few in number because they were all worn out from use, the claim they were found in the trashcan is an absolute myth) are inferior to the Antioch tradition because of apostasy being in Antioch when the Textus Receptus was made by a Catholic heretic? If the Alexandrian manuscripts are not trustworthy because of heresy then the TR is even more untrustworthy. I don't accept that there was heresy behind the Alexandrian manuscripts. In fact, I bet you are not aware that they haven't found a single manuscript in Alexandria. IN fact, the manuscripts you call Alexandrian were actually found closer to Antioch than the so called Antioch manuscripts. lol
But just in case the Lord is ministering anyway;
Only the pre raptured saints get to have a place in the city; John 14:1-3 This is the first inheritance; the celestiel one; the vessels unto honor; the abiding bride of Christ received by the Bridegroom.
The unrepentant saints left behind do not have a place in the city of God above. Their part is taken out of the book of life; for not being ready, they will have their "portion" with the unbelievers left behind on earth to face the coming fire on the earth ( Luke 12:40-49 ) that will burn up one third of the earth which will be the cause for the new world order to tempt all on the earth during the great tribulation to receive the mark of the beast in order to buy & sell in order to survive at which times, the plagues will hit as well. Think of the saints left behind as the prodigal son that gave up his first inheritance for wild living because this is where the vessels unto dishonor in His House comes from. 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 shows that "destruction" from being that vessel unto honor to being damned as vessels unto dishonor; thus having no inheritance; no place in the city of God no longer. This is that PART that was taken out of the Book of Life for which they were supposed to receive as their names are in it, but it was taken away, even though their names are still in that Book of Life.
There is no way to fit tree of life for what it is for which is for the healing of the nations for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ to line up with the punishment of the plagues for adding to God's words in Revelation 22:18. Those that partake of the tree of life are doing so after the great tribulation; and thus with the King of kings among them, it cannot serve as a punishment for those that mess with His words in the Book of Revelation NOW when the King of kings is living among men.
Once you see the point of the warning in how it ties in with the rest of scripture, Revelation 22:19 cannot be about the tree of life.
So you say that Erasmus had no Greek documents and I say... how can they say that when he made a protest about 1 John 5:7 when they had produced those few Greek documents that seemed relatively "new"? Supposedly, he even written a protest regarding it, and you are trying to tell me he said nothing about Revelation 22:19 if there was no Greek document?
You have to question that.
Look. I took a Liberty Home Bible Institute Course. I did not agree with everything they had taught as the Lord led me to question and prove those questionable things by the scripture of the KJV. They even handed out their Liberty Annotated King James Version for me to use and in the footnotes, supposedly supported by educated Biblical scholars with degrees that the behemoth was a hippo, but you & I can read His words in Job 40th chapter that the behemoth has a tail like a cedar, which is a tree, and that is plain as day testifying to dinosaurs living with mankind.
Now... if you want to use your education to continue to blind you from reading His words plainly and go with the degree people, then I guess you will see the behemoth as a hippo too.
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
But if the Lord is ministering to you, and you see that behemoth as a dinosaur as well, then you need to use His wisdom to see what Revelation 22:19 is really talking about in the context of punishment since it cannot be doled out when the tree of life is being doled out.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth......26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Thanks for sharing, brother, but I do hope the Lord is ministering here.
You missed the point of what I was saying entirely. You keep trying to twist my words to say things I did not say. Erasmus had no Greek manuscripts for Rev 22. I know that because he told us that in his journal. That is where I am getting my information. Regarding it being the tree of life in Rev 22, you keep talking about everything except the facts. It is a fact that not one single Greek manuscript out of 5000 in existence states it is the book of life as you claim. It makes perfect sense that a person who adds to God's word would be punished by not being able to take of the tree of life. That was Adams punishment in the Garden of Eden for adding to God's Word.There is no evidence whatsoever that Rev 22 says book of life as the KJV does. Not one. To keep talking about John 5 and the Holy SPirit and anything else except Rev 22 makes no sense. So lets limit the argument to that please.
I understand that Erasmus got it from a Latin source, but have you ever considered why he went with that source and not the majority of the Greek manuscripts? What does his journal say about that?
I would say this; follow my line of questioning as I go with the Lord's help.
When do people have access to the tree of life? When the city of God is down on earth from Heaven? When does that happen? After the great tribulation?
What is the tree of life for? Is it for the healing of the nations?
So tree of life is for the generations coming out of the milleniel reign of Christ.
Now
How can the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 be for us in messing with His words if it is about the tree of life?
Revelation 3:5 has a double negative where Jesus is promising that He would never removed our names from the Book of life; BUT we can lose our first inheritance; our place in the city of God that is written in the Book of life. That is why in Revelation 22:19, his part taken out of the book of life is correct in the KJV because in that same verse, immediately afterwards, it is explained what that part is; his loss of having a place in the city of God.
The other punishment is similar for messing around with His words in verse 18, and that is the adding of the plagues. That is another judgment that is being given which takes place at the pre trib rapture event when unrepentant and former believers are left behind; they will get the plagues, and not just being denied their inheritance in the city of God above.
It is an eternal damnation to be left behind to be received later on as vessels unto dishonor in His House after the great tribulation to serve the King of kings in being spread out all over the world for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ. This is why God has to wipe the tears from their eyes of those saints coming out of the great tribulation; a divine intervention; a miracle has to be performed by God to get them past their loss of that first inheritance.
It is then that the tree of life is accessible for the healing of the nation. Therefore the context of the warning and for the time it is given for, cannot be the tree of life in Revelation 22:19.
In his journal, Erasmus stated he could not find a single copy of Revelation 22. He went to three nearby monasteries and borrowed their Greek manuscripts, only one of which had a copy of Revelation, and that copy was missing the last page of it, as that is the page most likely to fall out of a book. Since he was attempting to create a Greek manuscript that was standard for Europe, since no two copies of any Greek manuscript are the same, he went to the Latin Vulgate and used it's version of Rev 22, translated it into Greek, and put it into the Textus Receptus. In doing so, he created about 20 words in Revelation 22 which are found in not a single Greek manuscript. For most of them, there is no harm done, as one word suffices as well as another (synonyms). However, for the word Tree (of life), he made a grievous error. The Latin word for Tree is almost identical to the word Book, and unfortunately, some Latin copyist accidentally used the wrong word in Erasmus copy leading to Erasmus using the word Book instead of Tree. What is interesting about this mistake, is that 100 percent of all Greek manuscripts that contain this passage use the word Tree of Life. Other linguistic families of that day use the word Tree of life. It is only the Vulgate that uses it, and the Vulgate is not a very well preserved manuscript. In fact, it has been thoroughly rejected by every KJV only person who has written on the matter whose work I have read.
I am not upset with you Enow. I just think it might be possible that you arrived at the conclusion that the KJV only position is correct before looking at all the facts God has given us. it doesnt' matter if it makes sense to you for it to be Book of Life. What we think doesn't matter at all when we interpret God's Word. If our interpretation differs from what God's Word clearly says, we have to match our interpretation with what God has said. In the case of Rev 22:19, there is no doubt that the original text says Tree of Life, meaning the KJV has a mistake in it.
There are dozens of other instances like this I could mention. I only mention this one because the conversation has danced around the evidence in favor of what you want it to say, without actually addressing the textual evidence. I used to be a die hard KJV only guy too, repeating what I had been told (like someone finding Alexandrian manuscripts in the trash, which just isnt' true at all). But when I prayerfully considered the evidence, I realized that God did preserve his Word, just not in the fashion I had been told.
here's the kicker: If God preserved his Word only in the 1611, he must have preserved it for all, meaning that until the 1611 came along, Rev 22:19 was missing for most of human history since everyone only had a copy stating Tree of life. If what is being argued is to be true, We were missing God's word for 1600 years until the KJV corrected every other Greek version in existence. Of course, that isn't what happened.
Tempus (US1) said:@danielbannister (US1)and @Enow (US1)this is by far my favorite thread ever on the forums.
Although your historical facts/opinions differ, can we just agree that the teachings of Christ (whether spiritual or other) are good advice for someone trying to be a decent human being.
I absolutely agree! They are more than moral teachings though, they were a revelation of himself to mankind as the only path to salvation.
If more folks would study and follow Jesus, there were be fewer shootings and wars and violence. We could all take our violent tendencies out on each other playing GGE. lol
I'm actually considered an incredibly kind person. Just not in game here in GGE land. lol
no, its aloha smacknarMolson Beer (US1) said:Allahu Snackbar?
What does the sinews of his testacles "are wrapped about" means? They are internal. Think about it.outlaw_always (US1) said:I have a pretty interesting, but true proof for that you're wrong...The belief that dinosaurs were extinct long before man came unto the scene is from the evolution theory.
I believe the Bible and the behemoth that moves his tail like a cedar which cedar is a tree has to be a dinosaur. So I believe my Bible as it is plainly written without any errant footnotes from biblical scholars trying to deny what is plainly written..
So what other animal that can move its tail that is as long as a tree? It is certainly not a hippo. Good luck in finding that animal without ever coming to the conclusion that it has to be a dinosaur.
DINOSAURS TESTICLES WERE INTERNAL. There I just said it. In Job 22, we read "nervi testiculorum ejus perplexi sunt." Which is translated "the sinews of his testicles are wrapped about." heh.... that's awkward, but a useful statement for me to use, since Dinosaurs, according to scientists, have internal testicles. So there... proved that wrong.
Second why do you even care about this whole dinosaur thing in the first place?
You assume Erasmus made a grievous error. You admit that no 2 copies of any Greek manuscripts are alike, and yet lean on the available textual evidence that it is supposed to be tree; and yet the Latin Vulgate has it as Book which again, you assume that the copyist for the Latin Vulgate made the error there.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow (US1) said:All righty then, but let's not consider this an argument, but a discussion, otherwise, a cooling off period is required for both our walk with the Lord.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow (US1) said:I have to wonder where you get your information, but if you want to rely on man's teaching then rely on the Lord to confirm to you which is the correct message, there really isn't much I can share with you on that point.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow (US1) said:If you have not read my reply to you before this one, please do, Daniel.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow, the Textus Receptus wasn't based on Antioch translations at all. It was based on 3 Greek texts that Erasmus found in nearby monasteries in Europe, not Antioch. Someone has sold you a bill of goods if you think it's based on Antioch translations. We don't have anything even remotely close to that age in manuscripts.. Additionally, there was an abundance of heresy in Antioch as well as Alexandria. Heresy was everywhere. The reason the majority of the greek texts that have survived are from the Antioch tradition, are because they are newer, and therefore more error prone, copies of the original Greek. Islam moved into the Alexandria region well before Constantinople fell and burned as any manuscripts as they could, which is why fewer of the Alexandrian copies exists.
Also, Rev. 22, The KJV is not based on any Greek text whatsoever as Erasmus didn't have a copy of that last page of the BIble, the copy of Revelation he had was missing that page and as a result, he made the Textus Receptus from the Latin version, not the greek and made some Greek words that are found in not one Greek text, including the phrase Book of life, which in every Greek translation in existence, including the Antioch and Alexandrian versions, records as Tree of life. Therefore the KJV is in error as it is based on not one Greek language copy we have.
There are many modern version which accurately convey the Greek manuscripts, incluing the ESV and the NASB, which are far more literal.
For instance, the KJV in ROm 6:1 doesn't give nearly as harsh a condemnation against sin as the ESV and NASB do, which are far better literal translations than the KJV, which is more of a dynamic equivalent translation. Is the KJV heretical because it doesn't condemns sin as it should? No, just inferior in that one place.
Disclaimer: I have a degree in ancient Bible manuscripts and collect them for a living.
Also, what do you say about this site that shows why 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture?
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
I do not agree with everything at this web site, and even on this page where the first proof that 1 John 5:7 existing was not really that good a proof, because Tertullian could have been commenting about the Triune God, and not necessarily quoting 1 John 5:7, HOWEVER, the other proofs on that list are indeed supporting that 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture because they referred to it as scripture.
This is an example about losing sight of the truth in His words, doing research and having doubts when we can ask Him if 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture. If you read from verse 6 to verse 9, for verse 9 to be true, it has to show at least Two witnesses for God's testimony of the Son to be greater than men's.
John 8:17 testify that the witnesses of two men is true.
Jesus said that two or three other witnesses is required when confirming a true testimony or a true witness: Matthew 18:16
Paul said that two or three witnesses was needed to confirm what is true about him. 2 Corinthians 13:1
So without the background information, thanks to Jesus Christ for confirmation, I know that 1 John 5:7 belongs in there because by removing the 3 Witnesses from Heaven, you take away how the witness of God is greater then men's in verse 9.
Going back to Rev 22....you claim that that Antioch Bible tradition is more trustworthy, and then in the same paragraph you reject the Antioch tradition of the Bible. EVERY Antioch tradition manuscript in existence states that Rev 22 says Tree of life, not Book of life. There is not a single Greek manuscript that says otherwise. You cannot logically state that the Antioch tradition is better and then reject it when it disagrees with what you believe. Doing so destroys any basis of your argument. Stating that someone was crosseyed when they put tree of life isn't an argument either. It's pretty clear that Erasmus, which was one single man who made the Textus Receptus, who was a Catholic, who was an apostate by the way, made the mistake by putting Book of Life instead of Tree of Life.
Why would you claim that the manuscripts from Alexandria (which are very few in number because they were all worn out from use, the claim they were found in the trashcan is an absolute myth) are inferior to the Antioch tradition because of apostasy being in Antioch when the Textus Receptus was made by a Catholic heretic? If the Alexandrian manuscripts are not trustworthy because of heresy then the TR is even more untrustworthy. I don't accept that there was heresy behind the Alexandrian manuscripts. In fact, I bet you are not aware that they haven't found a single manuscript in Alexandria. IN fact, the manuscripts you call Alexandrian were actually found closer to Antioch than the so called Antioch manuscripts. lol
But just in case the Lord is ministering anyway;
Only the pre raptured saints get to have a place in the city; John 14:1-3 This is the first inheritance; the celestiel one; the vessels unto honor; the abiding bride of Christ received by the Bridegroom.
The unrepentant saints left behind do not have a place in the city of God above. Their part is taken out of the book of life; for not being ready, they will have their "portion" with the unbelievers left behind on earth to face the coming fire on the earth ( Luke 12:40-49 ) that will burn up one third of the earth which will be the cause for the new world order to tempt all on the earth during the great tribulation to receive the mark of the beast in order to buy & sell in order to survive at which times, the plagues will hit as well. Think of the saints left behind as the prodigal son that gave up his first inheritance for wild living because this is where the vessels unto dishonor in His House comes from. 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 shows that "destruction" from being that vessel unto honor to being damned as vessels unto dishonor; thus having no inheritance; no place in the city of God no longer. This is that PART that was taken out of the Book of Life for which they were supposed to receive as their names are in it, but it was taken away, even though their names are still in that Book of Life.
There is no way to fit tree of life for what it is for which is for the healing of the nations for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ to line up with the punishment of the plagues for adding to God's words in Revelation 22:18. Those that partake of the tree of life are doing so after the great tribulation; and thus with the King of kings among them, it cannot serve as a punishment for those that mess with His words in the Book of Revelation NOW when the King of kings is living among men.
Once you see the point of the warning in how it ties in with the rest of scripture, Revelation 22:19 cannot be about the tree of life.
So you say that Erasmus had no Greek documents and I say... how can they say that when he made a protest about 1 John 5:7 when they had produced those few Greek documents that seemed relatively "new"? Supposedly, he even written a protest regarding it, and you are trying to tell me he said nothing about Revelation 22:19 if there was no Greek document?
You have to question that.
Look. I took a Liberty Home Bible Institute Course. I did not agree with everything they had taught as the Lord led me to question and prove those questionable things by the scripture of the KJV. They even handed out their Liberty Annotated King James Version for me to use and in the footnotes, supposedly supported by educated Biblical scholars with degrees that the behemoth was a hippo, but you & I can read His words in Job 40th chapter that the behemoth has a tail like a cedar, which is a tree, and that is plain as day testifying to dinosaurs living with mankind.
Now... if you want to use your education to continue to blind you from reading His words plainly and go with the degree people, then I guess you will see the behemoth as a hippo too.
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
But if the Lord is ministering to you, and you see that behemoth as a dinosaur as well, then you need to use His wisdom to see what Revelation 22:19 is really talking about in the context of punishment since it cannot be doled out when the tree of life is being doled out.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth......26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Thanks for sharing, brother, but I do hope the Lord is ministering here.
You missed the point of what I was saying entirely. You keep trying to twist my words to say things I did not say. Erasmus had no Greek manuscripts for Rev 22. I know that because he told us that in his journal. That is where I am getting my information. Regarding it being the tree of life in Rev 22, you keep talking about everything except the facts. It is a fact that not one single Greek manuscript out of 5000 in existence states it is the book of life as you claim. It makes perfect sense that a person who adds to God's word would be punished by not being able to take of the tree of life. That was Adams punishment in the Garden of Eden for adding to God's Word.There is no evidence whatsoever that Rev 22 says book of life as the KJV does. Not one. To keep talking about John 5 and the Holy SPirit and anything else except Rev 22 makes no sense. So lets limit the argument to that please.
I understand that Erasmus got it from a Latin source, but have you ever considered why he went with that source and not the majority of the Greek manuscripts? What does his journal say about that?
I would say this; follow my line of questioning as I go with the Lord's help.
When do people have access to the tree of life? When the city of God is down on earth from Heaven? When does that happen? After the great tribulation?
What is the tree of life for? Is it for the healing of the nations?
So tree of life is for the generations coming out of the milleniel reign of Christ.
Now
How can the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 be for us in messing with His words if it is about the tree of life?
Revelation 3:5 has a double negative where Jesus is promising that He would never removed our names from the Book of life; BUT we can lose our first inheritance; our place in the city of God that is written in the Book of life. That is why in Revelation 22:19, his part taken out of the book of life is correct in the KJV because in that same verse, immediately afterwards, it is explained what that part is; his loss of having a place in the city of God.
The other punishment is similar for messing around with His words in verse 18, and that is the adding of the plagues. That is another judgment that is being given which takes place at the pre trib rapture event when unrepentant and former believers are left behind; they will get the plagues, and not just being denied their inheritance in the city of God above.
It is an eternal damnation to be left behind to be received later on as vessels unto dishonor in His House after the great tribulation to serve the King of kings in being spread out all over the world for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ. This is why God has to wipe the tears from their eyes of those saints coming out of the great tribulation; a divine intervention; a miracle has to be performed by God to get them past their loss of that first inheritance.
It is then that the tree of life is accessible for the healing of the nation. Therefore the context of the warning and for the time it is given for, cannot be the tree of life in Revelation 22:19.In his journal, Erasmus stated he could not find a single copy of Revelation 22. He went to three nearby monasteries and borrowed their Greek manuscripts, only one of which had a copy of Revelation, and that copy was missing the last page of it, as that is the page most likely to fall out of a book. Since he was attempting to create a Greek manuscript that was standard for Europe, since no two copies of any Greek manuscript are the same, he went to the Latin Vulgate and used it's version of Rev 22, translated it into Greek, and put it into the Textus Receptus. In doing so, he created about 20 words in Revelation 22 which are found in not a single Greek manuscript. For most of them, there is no harm done, as one word suffices as well as another (synonyms). However, for the word Tree (of life), he made a grievous error. The Latin word for Tree is almost identical to the word Book, and unfortunately, some Latin copyist accidentally used the wrong word in Erasmus copy leading to Erasmus using the word Book instead of Tree. What is interesting about this mistake, is that 100 percent of all Greek manuscripts that contain this passage use the word Tree of Life. Other linguistic families of that day use the word Tree of life. It is only the Vulgate that uses it, and the Vulgate is not a very well preserved manuscript. In fact, it has been thoroughly rejected by every KJV only person who has written on the matter whose work I have read.
I am not upset with you Enow. I just think it might be possible that you arrived at the conclusion that the KJV only position is correct before looking at all the facts God has given us. it doesnt' matter if it makes sense to you for it to be Book of Life. What we think doesn't matter at all when we interpret God's Word. If our interpretation differs from what God's Word clearly says, we have to match our interpretation with what God has said. In the case of Rev 22:19, there is no doubt that the original text says Tree of Life, meaning the KJV has a mistake in it.
There are dozens of other instances like this I could mention. I only mention this one because the conversation has danced around the evidence in favor of what you want it to say, without actually addressing the textual evidence. I used to be a die hard KJV only guy too, repeating what I had been told (like someone finding Alexandrian manuscripts in the trash, which just isnt' true at all). But when I prayerfully considered the evidence, I realized that God did preserve his Word, just not in the fashion I had been told.
here's the kicker: If God preserved his Word only in the 1611, he must have preserved it for all, meaning that until the 1611 came along, Rev 22:19 was missing for most of human history since everyone only had a copy stating Tree of life. If what is being argued is to be true, We were missing God's word for 1600 years until the KJV corrected every other Greek version in existence. Of course, that isn't what happened.
Until you understand what the tree of life is, when it is available, and THEN understand how the punishment for messing with His words in verses 18 & 19, and not just verse 19, when it is a warning for us today when those that sin will get that punishment BEFORE the tree of life is available on earth, it cannot be the tree of life.
As for the wastebasket story....quoted from the link below....
https://kjvbiblebeliever.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/codex-sinaiticus-found-in-a-waste-basket/
"The Sinaiticus manuscript was discovered by a German textual critic and collector named Count Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Von Tischendorf. We will call him Count Tischendorf.
Count Tischendorf says he found what came to be called Codex Sinaitucs in a “basket” filled with old parchment being used to start fires to keep monks warm. Here is his account:
“I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen.”(1).....
(1) Tischendorf quoted by James Bentley in, “Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible–Codex Sinaiticus,” page 86. (c) 1985, James Bentley and Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1986."As for the anti-KJV propaganda....it is an argument against the TR more than the KJV, because the 1599 Geneva Bible has book of life in Revelation 19:22 as I am sure all other Bibles before that one that translated from the TR has it too.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A19&version=GNV
God has preserved His words, but Jesus did give us this warning that we need to discern with His help, His actual words for the message that He wants us to have.
If you are a christian, go to Jesus for verification, not educated men with degrees, because He said for you to do so.
I mean it. Ask Him.
oh brother.... please explain how the hell you make sense dude...Enow (US1) said:What does the sinews of his testacles "are wrapped about" means? They are internal. Think about it.
IT MEANS THAT THE FRICKING VEINS ON HIS BALLS ARE STICKING OUT. God I didn't want to have to say that to a gentle Christian like yourself. Do I have to post a picture of elephant balls? God...
You didn't answer my second question... why does this even matter to you? Is this SERIOUSLY your proof that a certain version of the bible is not inspired? How about looking to evidence stronger than "behemoths" and "dinosaurs" to prove your point... Besides the Bible speaks in allegorical senses also. You obviously believe that, because if you want to say that since God said "behemoth and means dinosaur, therefore dinosaurs were on earth", then I can say that "Since Jesus celebrated the last supper saying 'this is my body, this is my blood do this in memory of me', then we as Christians must celebrate likewise." And ONLY Catholics do so in a real sense, so in YOUR OWN WORDS, and YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, you are falsified as an apostate and disobedient to God's own instruction.
From the Oxford Dictionary:outlaw_always (US1) said:oh brother.... please explain how the hell you make sense dude...Enow (US1) said:What does the sinews of his testacles "are wrapped about" means? They are internal. Think about it.
IT MEANS THAT THE FRICKING VEINS ON HIS BALLS ARE STICKING OUT. God I didn't want to have to say that to a gentle Christian like yourself. Do I have to post a picture of elephant balls? God...
You didn't answer my second question... why does this even matter to you? Is this SERIOUSLY your proof that a certain version of the bible is not inspired? How about looking to evidence stronger than "behemoths" and "dinosaurs" to prove your point... Besides the Bible speaks in allegorical senses also. You obviously believe that, because if you want to say that since God said "behemoth and means dinosaur, therefore dinosaurs were on earth", then I can say that "Since Jesus celebrated the last supper saying 'this is my body, this is my blood do this in memory of me', then we as Christians must celebrate likewise." And ONLY Catholics do so in a real sense, so in YOUR OWN WORDS, and YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, you are falsified as an apostate and disobedient to God's own instruction.
Sinew as defined is "a piece of tough fibrous tissue uniting muscle to bone or bone to bone; a tendon or ligament"
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Sinews is separate from his stones for its meaning of having been created as enjoined as they are "wrapped together.""Wrapped" is hardly meaning sticking out. You are interpreting the scripture out of respect to the evolution theory.
The verse is another way of saying his sinews are wrapped about its tentacles; therefore it is internal.
I do not see how you can apply wrapped "together" as meaning his veins are sticking out on his "balls".
And no... the reference was not about an elephant since his tail is hardly long enough as a tree referenced as a cedar.
But if you do not see it, then we agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing.