|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 26, 2014 12:37:47 GMT -8
On the last note are you ok with me adding my name in the place of James which was not the brother of Yeshua anyways? Yedidyah Does Yedidyah mean heel catcher? If so then no I wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 26, 2014 12:24:30 GMT -8
Prov 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
Yedidyah,
I have sharpened a lot of knives with steal. I have noticed without contact the knife will not get sharp. I have also noticed that an aggressive angle will dull the knife. I do not argue. Arguing is attacking a person instead of his position. In logic, that is a straw man fallacy. Your position, as I perceive it, is that God can’t preserve his word, at least not in the KJV. If the KJV has errors in it, then the whole lump is leavened and unfit for consumption by it own admission. Is there any bible/document which you fill does not have error in it?
alon,
When I studied with the Jehovah’s Witness, they showed me the roots of easter, chrismas and other pagan rites. The pagan rite go back further than the council of nicaea. Back to Egypt. As far as I can tell 325AD is when RCC officially mixed pagan rites with Christian worship. But that is hardly the first time is was done. Aaron also made the same mistake of brining Egypt into the Church. God didn’t like it then and hasn’t changed his mind. So yes, inclusion of easter into the Church is offensive. However to identify any thing pagan in the Church and to grind it into powder should be welcomed. Was Herod Jew or Pagan? There were more than a few who called themself Jew but acted pagan. The Bible records many accounts of that fact.
Jimmie
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 26, 2014 8:32:38 GMT -8
My source data (strongs) says that G3957 can be easter or Passover. The two terms do not mean the same thing. It is like god/el can refer the one God or to pagan gods. It is simple information easy to find out as you say.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 26, 2014 7:47:40 GMT -8
G3957 pascha, pas’-khah; easter, passover.
As is the case with most words they can have more than one meaning. How do you know which meaning? By context. Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) There you have the context. During the week of unleavened bread, Peter was arrested. The Jew’s pascha/passover was already completed. What is Herod waiting for? The Jew were happy with Peter’s arrest during unleavened bread. Herod was waiting for the passing of his pascha/easter to be completed. No alterations or additions. Just plain meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 25, 2014 9:54:20 GMT -8
alon,
I understand what you are saying about the RCC making Jesus in their own image. But the RCC do not get their doctrine from the KJV. Their teachings are in opposition to what is plainly stated in the KJV. The Baptist et.al also have doctrines that are in conflict with what is plainly stated in the KJV. They hide the truth in plain sight.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 25, 2014 9:42:59 GMT -8
Yedidyah,
Lucifer (a Latin word left untranslated in English) - H1966 heylel or hay-lale - morning star.
Easter the pagan Herod didn’t want to desecrate his pagan holiday of easter. Why christians honor easter is beyond me.
God is the giver of life. The object of a translation is to allow the reader to understand.
Taste is linked to smell. If you can’t smell you don’t have much taste.
Are you saying that Moad built earth works on top of raisins? I think Moab built the earth works on pressed down soil. You also press raisin cakes.
I thought Jimmie was the brother of Jesus/Yeshua. Jimmie/James/Iames/Jacob/Ya’akov/heel catcher.
King Iames’ real contribution is one he got out of the way and allow someone to translate it and two he demanded that no commentaries be included. He assumed that the common people were too stupid to understand it unless someone explained it to them. One should never make assumptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 25, 2014 7:31:22 GMT -8
Yedidyah, I can’t speak to all translations being perfect. I do think that the KJV is though. Because I haven’t found an error in it. I don’t know much Hebrew and even less Greek. Only once has the study of a Hebrew word enhanced my understanding of scripture. And that was only because I didn’t understand the English word either. That word is name/shem. Well that is not quite accurate, if you include the untranslated names of people and places. How can I test anything with God’s law/  when it is subject to the same flat out additions, tampering and mistranslations as Galations. I need two witnesses to be one before I can test anything against either. alon, Did you notice that the translators used “our” in the same sentence that “the” was used to reference God. I.e. “God the Father” and “our Lord Jesus Christ”. Pretty lame for someone who is trying to make God impersonal and distant. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 24, 2014 14:14:02 GMT -8
The best way to know what is OK and what is a redaction is to match it to . If it in any way contradicts or disagrees with , then it is false. The truth is still there, we just should not take what we read as it sounds, or especially not take someone’s word for what it says. Dan C Could you give me an example from Galations that you feel is in conflict with God's law/ ? I come from a KJV only back ground. I put a lot of stock in the ability of God being able to preserve his word in both the original and other languages. If God can direct men to write his word in Hebrew, he can direct men to translate it into another language. I see no conflicts. Jimmie |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 24, 2014 12:11:00 GMT -8
If Paul's intent was that only the "leaders" see his letters, then the truths in the letters would be hidden truth only to be gained from the leaders. A gnostic method of control of the masses.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 24, 2014 11:55:13 GMT -8
It wouldn't take much longer to read a letter from Paul as it would to listen to him present a sermon. Sure Paul sent the letter to a trusted Elder who would then present it to the church/people. The way I understood your post was that Paul sent the letters to the leaders only setting up some kind of Gnostic hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 24, 2014 6:36:35 GMT -8
The “church” assumes all letters were written to everyone, including the "church" and nonbelieving gentiles. This is not so. It was to the leaders in the synagogues. Letters were always to the leadership, never to the assembly. And they certainly would not have been passed to the community at large. Gal 1:11 “Furthermore, let me make clear to you, brothers, …” How could Paul call them “ brothers” if he letter was to the whole congregation, some of whom were falling into idolatry? He calls them “ brothers” because he was writing only to the leadership. Mercian (85-161 CE) wrote of copies of Pauline letters that had been altered by others. He also made his own false, tampered with letters. Mercian’s copies are older than any others we have today. He was one of the “church fathers” responsible for the canonization of the New Testament, so it is likely that what we now have in cannon is one of his redactions. Dan C What I get from your statements is that Paul was in league with people like Mercian. Mercian was a church leader thus one that Paul would have sent his letters to and addressed as brother. If we say that the letters were only for the "leaders", why can't the Jew's say that God's Laws are only for them and not the gentile? |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Feb 7, 2014 9:56:26 GMT -8
Matt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 27, 2014 7:20:28 GMT -8
Matt:23:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
I have been to a lot of churches. Everyone of them claimed that Christ was there.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Nov 21, 2013 6:48:08 GMT -8
My studies and discussions have led me to the conclusion it is probably Shem, the son of Noah. Why is Melchizedek assumed to be Shem? Terah, Serug, Reu, Eber, Salah, and Arphaxad where also alive when Abraham meet with Melchizedek. Maybe it was one of them. Or someone llike Job who's fathers and children aren't recorded for us. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Oct 25, 2013 11:30:43 GMT -8
Yes Ezekiel 18 tells us that we must consider our father’s sins and not do like wise.
Ez 18:14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,
Ez 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
|
|
when it is subject to the same flat out additions, tampering and mistranslations as Galations. I need two witnesses to be one before I can test anything against either. 
