|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 18, 2014 9:07:36 GMT -8
alon,
I only claim that the spirit returns to the LORD. It is describe as being recorded in the Book of Life. It is describe as being present with the LORD. But our soul's hope is in the resurrection. When the spirit is placed into a new body.
Jimmie
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 18, 2014 7:17:45 GMT -8
In  (first five books), man is generally describe as being a living soul. However Gen 41:8 & 45:27, Ex 6:9 and Deut 2:30 indicate that man has a spirit. In God is generally describe as being a spirit. However, Lev 26:ll&30 indicate that God has a soul. Through out , man is describe as being filled with different spirits: God, wisdom, knowledge, jealously etc. all of which animate the soul. A tech savvy analogy would be a computer/soul which consists of hardware/body and software(computer programs)/spirit. The hardware/body can’t do any computing without the software/spirit. So what happens when the computer/soul dies. Software is stored on jump drive. Spirit returns to the Lord. Recorded in the Book of Life. Hardware is thrown away. Body returns to the dust of the earth. Computer waiting for new hardware to arrive. Soul sleeps until resurrection. Install software on new hardware. Works even better than the old computer. Spirit is installed into a new body and is ever with the Lord. Well done servant. Install software on new hardware. Software is corrupted. Through it out. Spirit is installed into a new body and is judged wonting and thrown into outer darkness. There will we weeping and gnashing of teeth. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 17, 2014 5:12:56 GMT -8
Linen is made from flax fibers and makes goods wicks for oil lamps.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 12, 2014 5:01:28 GMT -8
Amen. Let your words become my words.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 11, 2014 5:06:10 GMT -8
When I read the word corn, I think of the kernel of corn that is off the corn cob. Moriah Ruth That is Indian corn or Maize. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 10, 2014 14:37:14 GMT -8
The myth of the “Church” of the Bible www.theexaminer.org/volume2/number6/editor.htmWhile I agree with the general conclusion of the article (there is no universal or local Church), I disagree with the logic of how it was derived. church: From Middle English “chirche” < Old English “cirice” < Greek “kuriakos” of the Lord 1. The company of all Christians regarded as a mystic spiritual body. 2. A building for public Christian worship. 3. A congregation. 4. A religious service. 5. A specified denomination “Church of Christ”. 6. Ecclesiastical power. 7. Clergy. If definition #3 of “church” is applied when reading English translations of the Bible the same conclusion will be arrived at. A wise man once said, “Arguments consist of Ideas. Ideas are conveyed with words. Words have definitions. Allow your enemy to define the words and you lose.” You can not accept the definitions of “church” espoused by the Catholic and Protestant Churches and expect to understand the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 10, 2014 10:23:14 GMT -8
Then why insist that "corn" in the KJV is Indian Corn. When it is plain from internal proof that is not what is meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 10, 2014 9:11:27 GMT -8
When I read the word corn, I think of the kernel of corn that is off the corn cob. For me I read and understand things literally. So if the KJV reads corn then I am going to think corn of the cob corn. I am not going to think that it is wheat, oats, bran, etc. Moriah Ruth James 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: When you read the above verse do you take “gay” to mean Sodomite/Homosexual? In law there is something called “Original Intent”. You have to consider what the original intent of the author/translators was. “Gay” does not mean Sodomite in the KJV and “corn” does not mean Indian corn or corn on the cob. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 7, 2014 12:11:30 GMT -8
Not sure what is going on. Alon's and Yedidyah's posts didn't show up, until after I made the above post. I not trying to beat a dead horse.
Jimmie
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 7, 2014 12:05:15 GMT -8
Any good dictionary will help with definitions.
Here is a good source:
John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Changing the word “corn” to “grain” is not going to clarify anything. The word grain also has more than one meaning. It will still take context to determine what is meant by the word “grain”. I could be talking about plants, seeds, wood, sand, sugar, small amounts, a unit of weight (0.00285 ounce), leather, stone, fabric, color, texture or a person’s character. It makes no sense to constrain the meaning of a word to just one. No language that I am aware does that, not even Hebrew.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 7, 2014 8:14:15 GMT -8
Corn:
As is the case with most words "corn" has many meanings. It could be Maize the new world plant that "corn on the cob" comes from. Or it could be any of several cereal plants producing edible seeds such as wheat, rye, oats, or barley in which case "corn" is interchangeable with "grain". It could be something preserved and season with granulated salt or a salt brine as in "corned beef". Or maybe a growth on your foot. The meaning comes from the context and settings. "Corn" did not take on the meaning of Maize until it was introduce from the New World. Thus "corn" in the Old World means grain. In the Bible "corn" means "grain" not "Maize".
Luke 6:1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
You rub wheat, rye, oats, and barley in your hand to remove the husk from each grain. This will not work on ears of corn Maize.
The KJV translators were not as ignorant as we might think.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 28, 2014 12:03:43 GMT -8
Yet he said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” seven times in Matthew 23.
So it is not like Jesus was a Pharisee. Rather he kept Gods law. The Pharisee also kept some of God’s law but added just a little leaven. That leaven is the doctrine of men. The Protestants claim “sola scriptura” and Catholics laugh at them because the Protestants still follow Catholic Doctrine, Sunday worship, holidays etc. I didn’t lay down Christian traditions to pick up Pharisaic ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 28, 2014 12:00:26 GMT -8
Yedidyah,
When I sharpen knives, there is one now and then that has been over used and will not “allow” me to sharpen it. The knife just needs more contact time with the steel. Complaining about the knife being dull has never made it easier to sharpen.
I only hold the KJV above the original texts in one regard: It can be read and understood by people who can’t read or understand the original text. I Cor 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
Would you mind telling me what original text you consider the pure word of God?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 28, 2014 6:30:01 GMT -8
[Believe this or not, as you wish. But again I'll tell you that you are going to have a difficult time convincing any serious Messianics on any position based on the infallibility of the KJV. Dan C Matt 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. 29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. 30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. 31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? I see Messianics as the first son: They deny that there is a pure word of God, yet they do it. I see KJV onlyest as the second son: They declare that they have the pure word of God, yet they refuse to do what it instructs. I hope I got this in the right place and not inside your quote as I did last time. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 27, 2014 7:15:11 GMT -8
alon, Stating someone position as I understand it and then asking for additional information is not a fallacy of any kind. I simply want to know if Yedidyah has any documents that he feels has no errors in it. Such as the “ ” that he says we should be comparing every thing to. What is this “ ”. Apparently it is not the “ ” as found in the KJV. Is it the DSS, LXX, Masoretic, Septuagint, Targums, none of the above. ["No one was celebrating easter back then except the pagans." Was Herod a Jew? You don't have to convince me that RCC and others practice pagan rites. |
|
(first five books), man is generally describe as being a living soul. However Gen 41:8 & 45:27, Ex 6:9 and Deut 2:30 indicate that man has a spirit. In 
