only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.

[FreeinChrist]

The Greek is not the Word of God! Do you speak Greek? No? Then is God powerful enough to give us His Perfect word in our language? If He is, then did He? If not, then why not? If He did, then which version is it, when all but the KJV use corrupted manuscripts from the Vatican?

I already answered the thing about God using Satan that used the books. Any problems with that?

Actually you didn't answer it.
And the KJV supports what I wrote. Did you even note that I quoted it? Here it is in the KJV AGAIN and I will add underline:

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The delusion does not come from Satan, it comes from God. You have to argue with the KJV if you don't agree.


And hopefully you aren't so silly to really think that the scriptures in the original Greek were not the word of God?

 

[FreeinChrist]

As a mystery is written it is the author that "lets" the mystery unfold untill he desides to unveil or take it away and he will let it continue to mystify the reader untill he desides when the end is. Then the mystery is removed or taken away.
Sense God is the author of the book it is he who will let that Wicked be reveiled and thus remove the mystery as to who that Wicked one is.

It is not the Holy Spirit that is taken out it is the mystery of iniquity that is taken out of the way.

That is an interesting idea, but I tend to see it as the restraining of the AC's appearance that is removed.

 

[MC1171611]

Actually you didn't answer it.
And the KJV supports what I wrote. Did you even note that I quoted it? Here it is in the KJV AGAIN and I will add underline:

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The delusion does not come from Satan, it comes from God. You have to argue with the KJV if you don't agree.

God has to give Satan permission to do anything. God uses anything and everything to perform His perfect will. That is the answer to your oft-repeated question. God let Satan influence someone, which in turn fufils God's will.

And hopefully you aren't so silly to really think that the scriptures in the original Greek were not the word of God?

You do not want to get into the Greek argument with me! Okay, try this on for size. There are more than 5,500 different manuscripts that are labeled as the Textus Receptus. All of those differ, not only in words, but in the readings. Now, in order to say that the Greek text(s) are God's Word, you either have to call Him and yourself a liar by saying that all of them are God's Word, or just one; go ahead and find it Mr. Greek expert. We do not speak Greek. God is powerful enough to do whatever He wants to do.

The main issue underlying the whole Bible issue is Final Authority. If we don't have God's Word, then we can't be held accountable to it. But, if we do, then we will be held accountable to it; the question is the same after all of these years: "Yea, hath God said?" -Satan in the Garden of Eden

 

[FreeinChrist]

God has to give Satan permission to do anything. God uses anything and everything to perform His perfect will. That is the answer to your oft-repeated question. God let Satan influence someone, which in turn fufils God's will.

Yes, God has to give Satan permission to do things. However, the Bible - KJV included - clearly states that the delusion is sent by God on those who reject the truth and take pleasure in wickedness. Doesn't say that God permits Satan to send a great delusion.
As I said, you have to argue with the KJV, et al. if you don't like what I wrote.

You do not want to get into the Greek argument with me! Okay, try this on for size. There are more than 5,500 different manuscripts that are labeled as the Textus Receptus. All of those differ, not only in words, but in the readings. Now, in order to say that the Greek text(s) are God's Word, you either have to call Him and yourself a liar by saying that all of them are God's Word, or just one; go ahead and find it Mr. Greek expert. We do not speak Greek. God is powerful enough to do whatever He wants to do.

I think your reasoning here is totally off. And you are undermining yourself because you are dissing the TR when the KJV really relies on the TR.
And you cannot deny that the NT was originially written in GREEK - not English. Like the Gospel of John when it was originally written - isn't that God's word? It was in Greek, not English. And of the original 5000 or so Greek words used in the NT, it was translated into only about 1100 English words. What is more specific as to meaning?

I am sorry but I think you have been listening to some screwball folks who claim the KJV is the ONLY word of God because you are stating the same junk as some of those folks.

 

[AfterFurtherReview]

2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.


People say this is speaking of the Holy Spirit.

How can it be? Will the Holy Spirit ever leave?

Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Many have said it was Pagan Rome restraining the the rise of Papal Rome.

 

[MC1171611]

I think your reasoning here is totally off. And you are undermining yourself because you are dissing the TR when the KJV really relies on the TR.
And you cannot deny that the NT was originially written in GREEK - not English. Like the Gospel of John when it was originally written - isn't that God's word? It was in Greek, not English. And of the original 5000 or so Greek words used in the NT, it was translated into only about 1100 English words. What is more specific as to meaning?

I am sorry but I think you have been listening to some screwball folks who claim the KJV is the ONLY word of God because you are stating the same junk as some of those folks.

The KJV relies on NOTHING, the TR included!The New Testament was written originally in Greek; the common people do not speak Greek (in case you didn't know), so God gave us His perfect Word in English. Again, The KJV needs no evidence from the non-existant "originals"! God does not use the TR today, He uses the Bible in English, and all of the "Bibles" other than the King James are shot through with Alexandrian readings and changes. If you think that God would select something defiled by the Roman Church, than you are sadly mistaken.

 

[FreeinChrist]

The KJV relies on NOTHING, the TR included!The New Testament was written originally in Greek; the common people do not speak Greek (in case you didn't know), so God gave us His perfect Word in English. Again, The KJV needs no evidence from the non-existant "originals"! God does not use the TR today, He uses the Bible in English, and all of the "Bibles" other than the King James are shot through with Alexandrian readings and changes. If you think that God would select something defiled by the Roman Church, than you are sadly mistaken.

King James' instructions to the translators included:

The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."


Regarding the Bishop's Bible, from
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon9.html

The Bishops' Bible, 1568

The great popularity of the Geneva Bible in England moved the new English bishops, who were not entirely in agreement with the exiled radical Puritans, to cooperate in the production of a new official version, which they hoped would rival the Geneva Bible in popularity. Cranmer was now dead, having been removed from his office and burned at the stake during the reign of Mary, and so the project was superintended by Elizabeth's new Archbishop, Matthew Parker. Parker assigned portions of the Bible to various bishops, and so the version has been called the "Bishops' Bible."

1 God, which in time past, at sundry times and in diverse manners, spake unto the fathers in the prophets, 2 hath in these last days spoken unto us in the Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. 3 Who, being the brightness of the glory and the very image of his substance, upholding all things with the word of his power, having by himself purged our sins, hath sat on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 being so much more excellent than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

​

Parker's bishops were not especially competent to do this work, because they had not much proficiency in the original languages, nor did any of them have the literary skill of Coverdale. Moreover, it seems that they were unwilling to imitate the Geneva Bible too closely, and so failed to take advantage of its improvements over Coverdale in the Old Testament. Consequently, their version did not gain wide acceptance, although it was appointed to be the version read in English church services. The Geneva Bible continued to be the one most commonly used for quotation in theological literature, for religious instruction, and for casual reading throughout England and Scotland.

Regarding the KJV and the TR and I am adding the underline:
http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#3
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Truly major differences between the KJV and modern translations of the New Testament are primarily due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus [TR], the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based. According to Bruce Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1992, pages 95-118), the TR primarily resulted from the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Greek scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516. The first edition of Erasmus' text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. (ibid., page 106) That edition was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus "on the spur of the moment" (ibid., page 99). [/font]


[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. The effect of the Textus Receptus on the accuracy of the King James Version[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The TR was used as the basis for the KJV and all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the Revised Version [RV] was first published in England. The KJV translators most directly relied upon the 1598 Greek text by the Theodore de Beze of Geneva, but it also was virtually identical with Stephanus' 1550 and 1551 Greek texts, which were virtually identical with Erasmus' 1535 Greek text. Again, these all were noble efforts, but the editors of these editions did not have access to the current wealth of ancient documents and to today's more scientific knowledge of how those documents had been transmitted and partially corrupted over many centuries.[/font]

If you think that God would select something defiled by the Roman Church, than you are sadly mistaken.

I believe that comment is out of line.

And you dodged the question about the NT being written in Greek in the first place.
oh well.

 

[MC1171611]

And you dodged the question about the NT being written in Greek in the first place.
oh well.

Oh really? Did you read WHAT I SAID?? I will repeat myself carefully, emphasizing what you apparently missed.

The KJV relies on NOTHING, the TR included! The New Testament was written originally in Greek; the common people do not speak Greek (in case you didn't know), so God gave us His perfect Word in English. Again, The KJV needs no evidence from the non-existant "originals"! God does not use the TR today, He uses the Bible in English, and all of the "Bibles" other than the King James are shot through with Alexandrian readings and changes. If you think that God would select something defiled by the Roman Church, than you are sadly mistaken.

Um, what were you saying again?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Oh really? Did you read WHAT I SAID?? I will repeat myself carefully, emphasizing what you apparently missed.

Um, what were you saying again?

Kid, you are just going around in circles like crazy. You had written:
"The Greek is not the Word of God!"

No, you are doging many of my points. You deny that the TR was used in the translation of the KJV when scholars say otherwise.


I don't think you know what you are talking about.
You need to grow up.

 

[MC1171611]

Kid, you are just going around in circles like crazy. You had written:
"The Greek is not the Word of God!"

I did say that. I also said that the New Testament was translated out of the TR. That is a FACT. The other FACT is that the "originals" are no longer available, and that the manuscripts used today by Bible correctors are Alexandrian! (Nestles, UBS, etc.)

No, you are doging many of my points. You deny that the TR was used in the translation of the KJV when scholars say otherwise.

I answer all of your valid points. What you fail to realize is that you are saying that you don't have a reliable Final Authority. I do.

 

[Witness.]

Also in Revelation it is taught that people who take the mark of the Beast and worship his image will go to Hell. That is why the Holy Ghost is gone; Grace through Faith is no longer available! The Holy Spirit will still be on the earth, He just won't be dwelling in the Spirits of the saved, because there won't be anyone that is "saved."

Whew, to be 17 again.........

Anywho MC,

How do you justify your statements above, in the light of this passage:

Rev. 8:14 "And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of the great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."?

The verses before this describe who is being talked about.

I quoted the KJV for you, since you are clearly a KJV onlier. Sadly, the language of the KJV is so archaic sometimes, that often believers fall into all sorts of error when they use it. It is a great translation, but it is not for everyone, as you clearly exemplify. I hope that you grow in your understanding before His return.

John

 

[MC1171611]

Whew, to be 17 again.........

Anywho MC,

How do you justify your statements above, in the light of this passage:

Rev. 8:14 "And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of the great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."?

The verses before this describe who is being talked about.

I quoted the KJV for you, since you are clearly a KJV onlier. Sadly, the language of the KJV is so archaic sometimes, that often believers fall into all sorts of error when they use it. It is a great translation, but it is not for everyone, as you clearly exemplify. I hope that you grow in your understanding before His return.

John

Thank you for your reply.

The people in this passage are those that have been killed for not recieving the Mark of the Beast. We today do not wash our robes in Christ's blood; we are washed from sin by God.

Have you ever been reading through the Bible, and noticed some things that don't line up with what the rest of the Bible teaches? There are things that seem to be contradictions, but when you find out to whom the Book of the Bible is written to, it clears everything up. For example:

Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Compare this to:

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

WHAT?!? That is a contradiction!!

Nope. Look at the address on the mail!

Pauline Epistles:

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: (Church at Rome)
1 Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
Phil. 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: (another Church)

We are the Church of God; the Pauline Epistles are to us for Doctrine.

Who is James to?

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

He's writing to the Jews!

Now, this is not to say that we should completely disregard the rest of the Bible altogether; it just isn't to us, but we can learn from it. Always look at Scripture through the light of:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Seriously, if you have any questions, please ask. I would like to clear up any misunderstandings.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I did say that. I also said that the New Testament was translated out of the TR. That is a FACT. The other FACT is that the "originals" are no longer available, and that the manuscripts used today by Bible correctors are Alexandrian! (Nestles, UBS, etc.)



I answer all of your valid points. What you fail to realize is that you are saying that you don't have a reliable Final Authority. I do.

You haven't shown that you have "Final Authority" any more than anyone else. You identify that "final authority" as the KJV. I quoted the KJV. And no, you haven't dealt with much of anything, and instead want to argue about the TR. Nor do you support what you claim.

And the funny thing is that you claim Jenkins and Lehaye are used to give the great delusion - when you yourself claim to be pretrib. LOL!

As I wrote, grow up. In the meantime, I am putting you on ignore.

 

[MC1171611]

[/color]You haven't shown that you have "Final Authority" any more than anyone else. You identify that "final authority" as the KJV. I quoted the KJV. And no, you haven't dealt with much of anything, and instead want to argue about the TR. Nor do you support what you claim.

And the funny thing is that you claim Jenkins and Lehaye are used to give the great delusion - when you yourself claim to be pretrib. LOL!

As I wrote, grow up. In the meantime, I am putting you on ignore.

What does the Bible teaching of a Pre-Tribulation "catching away" have anything to do with what I said about the Left Behind books? I told you why the TR or any of the other manuscripts can't be the Word of God; there are too many of them. And since when does your quoting the KJV decide it's validity? You have chosen to devoid yourself of a great blessing in God's inspired, in-errant, infallible Word, I'm just pointing out that there can be no other than the KJV.

5,500 differing manuscripts or pieces that are included in the term "TR"
Hundereds of schollars who disagree on the translation
Little knowledge of the original languages today

And, by the way, Bruce Metzger was on the translating comittee for the UBS text, which came from the Alexandrian/Vaticanic texts. (Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and "S") I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

 

[Aziza01]

I think a better reason for the tribulation is summed up in this:

Rev. 22:11 "Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."

The tribulation is the final summation of man's wickedness, and righteousness through faith in Christ. Once it is complete, there will be no room to argue with God on His righteous judgement, because all of the wickedness of sinful man, and Satan's works, will have been complete.

John

I think you are right.

 

[James1979]

MC1171611,

Hi there. I use only KJV too, but seriously you need to calm down and relax.

 

[Witness.]

Hi MC,

Yes, when I first became a Christian and read the New Testament, I felt that much of what James said was a contradiction of Paul's words. Over time, God has taught me enough to understand that there is no contradiction here. It was only my mind that saw a contradiction.

There is a danger in only cutting out a verse or two and accepting them as truth, without considering the context. Look at all the people who have supported unGodly ways by doing just that, taking a verse out of context and running with it logically. Even the KKK feels justified through verses in the Bible.

But God's word is not supposed to be used that way. It is the Bible in its entirety that speaks the truth, and one can never ignore one part for another.

I disagree with your thoughts on why James and Paul seem to say different things. Yes, there are times that the intended audience is important in understanding scriptures, but in this case, the truth that Paul gives, and the truth that James gives, are for all readers of the Bible, not just the intended audience. It can be dangerous when we start to become selective due to intended audience. We can run into an, "it is ok for you, but does not apply to me" mentality, and we have to remember that God's children go beyond Gentile and Jew.

Paul is talking about salvation. It is faith alone that saves a man. Nothing more. James though, discusses what happens after salvation. If a person is truly saved, then they will have a heart that desires to do works that are in accord with God's will. James is pointing out that a lack or works indicates a lack of true faith.

In that light, these verses do not contradict each other, but compliment each other.

John

 

[Witness.]

The people in this passage are those that have been killed for not recieving the Mark of the Beast. We today do not wash our robes in Christ's blood; we are washed from sin by God.

Hi MC,

I am not sure where you have come to this conclusion. Yes, we are washed from sin by God, but it is through the blood of the Lamb of God that this is done. Jesus died and shed His blood as a Holy sacrifice to atone for the sins of the entire world. Washing our robes in Christ's blood means that we have been cleansed through our faith in that sacrifice. Both the people in the passage of Revelation, and those Christians who exist today (as well as those who have existed throughout time) have our robes washed by the blood of Christ.

Salvation through faith in Christ will exist in the tribulation, which is evidence to me that the Holy Spirit will not be removed. It is the Holy Spirit that enters a man, and leads him to the truth of Christ's sacrifice. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can work for God, nor can they come to the truth of Christ.

John

 

[MC1171611]

Hi MC,

I am not sure where you have come to this conclusion. Yes, we are washed from sin by God, but it is through the blood of the Lamb of God that this is done. Jesus died and shed His blood as a Holy sacrifice to atone for the sins of the entire world. Washing our robes in Christ's blood means that we have been cleansed through our faith in that sacrifice. Both the people in the passage of Revelation, and those Christians who exist today (as well as those who have existed throughout time) have our robes washed by the blood of Christ.

Salvation through faith in Christ will exist in the tribulation, which is evidence to me that the Holy Spirit will not be removed. It is the Holy Spirit that enters a man, and leads him to the truth of Christ's sacrifice. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can work for God, nor can they come to the truth of Christ.

John

The reason that I said this is that white robes are a sign of good works. The people in this particular passage have "endured to the end" ( Mt. 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.; Mr. 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.) and have washed their own robes in the Blood of Christ. We are washed from sin in Christ's Blood, but this is something that God does at salvation, not something that we do ourselves.

I am also not saying to throw parts of the Bible out.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This is not to say that all Scripture is doctrine; it is profitable for doctrine. For example:

Matt. 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

This passage of Scripture is clearly teaching that if our eye sins (offends us) then we should "pluck it out"; we however, do not have to do this. We are saved by Grace through Faith, and we are sealed unto the day of redemption.

I also am not dictating that some people today have different rules; we are Gentiles, and part of the Church of Christ, in what is called the Church Age. As such, our Apostle is Paul:

1 Cor. 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1 Cor. 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Phil. 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

This seems strange, but look at what else he said:

Rom. 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Rom. 15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Now, it is established that Paul is our Apostle, and that we should follow him. What gospel did he teach?

Gal. 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal. 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision {Gentiles} was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision {Jews}was unto Peter;
1 Tim. 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

So, if you live in the Church Age (which everyone today does), and are Saved, then your Apostle is Paul, and all other Scripture should be viewed, not as inferior, but as a letter to someone else, which we can learn from.

If you have any questions, please ask here or PM me, and I will answer as best as I can. I don't know much, but what the Lord has given me, I'll use.

 

[Witness.]

Hi MC,

I have encountered these doctrines before. The only thing that I can say is, "Flee from these things, lest they overwhelm you and you become useless for our Lord."

There is much error in what you have typed, but I would only offend you if we continue this conversation.

Peace,

John