• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The Revlation of the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition

Discussion in 'Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum' started by carlaimpinge, Jan 18, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib New Member

    43
    +0
    Rize,

    I was pre-wrath for 8 years. I do have Marvin ROsenthal and Robert Kampen too. Both made many good points. However, I disagree with them.

    True, we do not know the exactly day and hour - Matt 24:36. Impossible we will count 1260 or 1290 or 1335 days countdown till the Second Advent.

    Matt 24:22 tells us, our days shall be cut short. Means Thosands of Christians will be killed during persecutions. Matt 24:22 is not talking about the length timeof Great Tribulation till the coming of Christ. It is talking about Christians' live will be killed by persecutions under Antichrist. You have to read context start with Matt 24:15-22 is talking about horrible persecutions.

    Matt 24:22 have do nothing with the length time of Great Tribulation till Second Advent. It is talking about Christians' life shall be cut off short by killed from persecutions.

    No Christians will know the exactly date when Christ comes, we must be watch and be ready - Matt 24:42 & 44.

    I don't see two phases of Second Advent in the Bible.

    I can see there is only ONE coming at the end of Tribulation.

    Pariousia in Greek means to be present, to arrived. I have no problem with it. Pariousia is same as coming and advent too.

    I did looked at Kampen's chart of timeline at the end of the book. It looks so COMPLEX.

    I disagree with his charts.

    I used to believe same thing as what Rosenthal and Kampen believes on the chart.

    First, I was pretrib. Then became pre-wrath for 8 years. Then now, I am completed posttrib just over 2 years ago.

    We will NEVER suffer the wrath of God.

    The lesson of Egypt. Israelites was protected while the plaques fallen down upon Egytians same time. Same thing what God will do with the Christians during Great Tribulation.

    I respect Ronsethal and Kampen very well. I have nothing against them. Because both were pretrib before. Both believe we will face persecutions under Antichrist.

    Many pretribbers openly as public attack against Rosenthal and Kampen. Even with Dr. Ice Thomas attacks against Rosenthal too.

    Eschatology have do nothing with salvation.

    We all agree Jesus came to earth as virgin birth. Christ died on the cross for our sins. Christ risen from the dead. Christ is coming again!

    That is fundamental doctrine, that we all agree on Jesus Christ.

    Later tonight, I will discuss more on pre-wrath.

    I urge you please go to www.posttrib.net - 'message board'(discussion forum) there lot of discussion on pre-wrath and rapture timing. I would like you to read them.

    Later tonight, I will continue discuss on pre-wrath more.

    Have a nice day!

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 - Amen!
     
  2. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
     

    I wouldn't say impossible, but I suppose it isn't rock solid to say that the day and hour are known because of it.  In any case, I don't think it's needed. 

     

    Ok, possibly.  However, you'll have to demonstrate it to me because my G/E interlinear does not say "our" nor does the context imply (to me) that it means "our days will be cut short".  If it means our days, then it would be saying "And if our days had not een cut short, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect our days will be cut short."

    For the sake of the elect our days will be cut short?  Why not "their" days?

    Perhaps those days will be cut short by the death of the elect... or it could be cut short by the rapture of the elect.  Even if it was "our days", there is nothing to say that a person's days could not be cut short by the rapture.

    Most definitely.

     

    Neither do I.  I think that there is one coming at the end of the tribulation (persecution) and that the saints will be immediately raptured at that point.

    The coming I assume you refer to is Revelation 19:11 which is not a coming at all.  It merely says " I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True."  John is in heaven already so he says this vision of sorts.  Then he merely starts talking about the Rider.  He never says that the rider comes down from Heaven at this point he just starts talking as if the Rider was already on Earth.  Which of course He is because Jesus said that His coming would occur immediately after the sign in the sun, moon and stars (Revelation 6:12).

     

    Ok.

     

    Ok, but to be clear, my end times chronology 

    http://www.christianforums.com/threads/34407.html

    is not Van Kampens.  I simply came up with it after he convinced me that the pre-wrath position was correct and that Mathew 24 lines up with the 7 seals.  After putting my thoughts together, I had a problem because the Anti-Christ appeared to reign in Revelation after the sign in the sun moon and stars.  That's when I found the chronological break that occurs between Revelation 11 and 12.  Any time John talks about a "sign appearing in heaven" there is a break.  In describing this new sign, the events could be placed anywhere in the chronology and so location must be established.  Now it's become easy for me to spot the chronological breaks.  The only thing to do after that was to decide how to intergrate the various chronologies.   In each place where the pre-wrath position cannot live without a chronological break, there is a sign in heaven according to John.

    Except... hmm.  I need to look at the two witnesses again because they prophecy for 42 months.  I think the two witnesses details are told from beginning to end sort of like the great prostitute in chapter 17.  Probably from Revelation 10:1 to 11:13 is a separate chronology which ends at the passing of the second woe (11:14).

    Notice that the first woe passes and then the 6th trumpet is blown.  The second woe passes and the 7th trumpet is blown.  The third woe is never written to pass (because there is no 8th trumpet).  Thus I think the passing woe/trumpet connection is the start of a new "section" so to speak.

    I need to look at Revelation again, carefully, and keep an eye out for all this.

     

    Ok, that's understandable.  However, God doesn't have to do things the same way every time!  The locusts of Revelation 9:4 can harm anyone without the seal of God though!  Yet only 144,000 Jews are sealed!  So this is more consistant with the pre-wrath rapture. 

     

    Yes, it is sad because the pre-trib position is bankrupt.

     

    Agreed.

    I'll take a look at it, but for now, I'm still pre-wrath :)
     
  3. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
    Ok, from now on, I'm modified pre-wrath :)

    From posttrib.net:

    "Like pretrib, prewrath accepts a split second coming (or as some would say, a second coming and then a third coming)."

    I do not believe this (and I didn't think Van Kampen believed it).  I see a single second coming where Christ stays and does not leave.  He is there the entire time in some way (his wrath is certainly there).

    That is, we are raptured, god's wrath begins, eventually Armageddon plays out.  Christ's parousia is that whole period.  His presence is there in our deliverance and in the wrath of God whether it is through trumpet judgments or leading the "battle" of Armageddon Himself.

    That's my position anyway.
     
  4. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
    It seems to me that our only dispute is whether or not the Day of the Lord refers to a period of more than one day, and if so, whether or not it encompasses all of the trumpet and bowl judgments.

    And of course, that would cause you to dispute my time line as well.

    I'll see if I can find definitive scripture that teaches either the timing of the Day of the Lord, or it's length.

    ... A day is unto the Lord a thousand years :)

    I wonder if that 1000 year period doesn't represent a single day.

    Because, if you read Revelation 20:7 it says that Satan comes out of the abyss after the thousand years are over and causes them to gather for battle.  Is there to be 1000 years of non-Christians living, dying and giving birth before Satan gathers them to be destroyed?  This doesn't make much sense to me...  I'm going to put this in my chronology.

    This has no bearing on the day of the lord debate I just initiated, but it answers one question I had (assuming that I am correct about it).
     
  5. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge New Member

    100
    +0
    Christian
    Deafpostrib,

    You're "applying NT truth to OT reality", and not distinguishing the personalities of the Godhead. What fool doesn't know that Jesus is God. So is the Holy Spirit, but they didn't know it at that time. That's a DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH.

    You didn't respond to the statement.

    JESUS is a MAN born of a virgin in time. The saints of the OT DID NOT put their FAITH in "him", the man Jesus. His NAME was unknown. (Pro.30) There was NO man, Jesus before his incarnation. There was the SON, who IS the angel (appearance) of the Lord. You're messed up on the GODHEAD. The "flesh" of Jesus was not IN the OT for "it" was acquired through BIRTH by the Holy Spirit and Mary. (Gal.2, Heb. 2)

    Go BACK to the Bible and quit trying to interpret the Bible around YOUR FALSE DOCTRINE of postrib rapturism.

    They no more KNEW that the ANGEL which was with them was Christ, no more than you know what you're talking about.

    The congregation of God is the church of God? If you "mean" they are the body of Christ you're mistaken. The body of Christ is NOT formed UNTIL after his DEATH. (like Adam, sleep, Gen.2, Eph.2,5) You're way off base son.

    Abraham was saved by FAITH AND WORKS, according to James 2. The passage is Rom.4 RELATES to the INHERITANCE of Israel, and the RIGHTEOUSNESS "imputed" unto the NATION, not the man Abraham, personally. He got the PROMISE for "them". (Rom.4:13, Micah 6, Num.23)
    Wrong again bud.

    You do AGREE with dispensationalism. You're not telling the truth. You DON'T BELIEVE that God will kill a man TODAY for picking up STICKS. (Num.15)

    Gal.3 is speaking of the INHERITANCE as Rom.4. The OT saints were NOT baptized by the Spirit as we are. That puts one into the body of Christ. (1 Cor.12) There was no baptism of the Holy Spirit before Christ's ASCENSION. (Acts 1,2,11)

    All of the people UNDER the OT did not HAVE the Spirit. (Num.11) That is the congregation which YOU CALLED the church of God. It's the the CONGREGATION of Israel, the church in the wildersness. There are LOST JEWS who drop off into the PIT in that church. That's not TRUE of the body of Christ. ALL of them are baptized by the Spirit. (1 Cor.12)

    Paul is speaking NOW, after he had received the revelation, the MYSTERY. This is the way it is NOW, not then. The faith of Jesus Christ was NOT revealed until Paul. (Gal.3, Rom.3) It was REVEALED historically to Paul.

    You sure didn't post anything to prove the saints of Rev.13 are IN the body of Christ.

    So you can't understand the verses? Here son, let me make it simple for you.

    In 2 Thess.2, there is a coming, gathering, revelation, and destruction.

    Paul is talking about WHEN we will be gathered.

    He CONNECTS the gathering TO the revelation of the son of perdition. (LOOK AT THE VERSES. 2 Thess.2:2-3) He says it can't occur until the man is revealed. The GATHERING is connected with his REVELATION.

    That's WHAT I said.

    WHEN is the man of sin revealed?

    It's NOT at his destruction. What happens at his destruction? Christ's comes. We're TALKING though, about the gathering.

    The REVELATION of the man of sin is 42 months BEFORE his destruction. (Rev.13)

    And as Paul said, and I said, the GATHERING is connected to his REVELATION, not his destruction.

    If you can't understand that, you have a problem. That's plain English.

    You do have a problem reading.

    The day of the Lord is an OT term in origination.
    The day of Christ is a NT term in origination.

    The Lord of the day of the Lord is the FATHER, not the son. (Psalm 110, Isaiah 2)

    Christ is the Lord, but he's NOT the Lord of the OT term day of the Lord. It refers to his Father. There we go with the Godhead again.

    Every time you see Lord in the NT, does NOT mean it's referring to Jesus, the Son. (Luke 2:26) Notice all three in the verse, but the Lord is the Father, and Christ is the Son.

    Son, you're caught up in a SYSTEM of foolishness.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Carl
     
  6. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge New Member

    100
    +0
    Christian
    Rize,

    The preweek position is the teaching of pretrib rapturism. They just misidentified the tribulation. The prewrath and post trib followers have DENIED the Pauline statements of a gathering before the tribulation. This gathering is connected with the revelation of the son of perdition, not his DESTRUCTION as posties state. Paul MADE that plain. The revelation is before his destruction. Like Paul and I have said, the gathering is connected to THAT!

    I've read Van Kampen, Rosenthal, and Nigro. They are anti-Pauline and think his ministry is a CONTINUATION of the 12's. It is not.

    Then you read the passage like Darby who associated the apostasy with revelation of the man of sin. That's fine.

    The catch is THIS. There is something which has to occur BEFORE his revelation. That's what is connected with the whole event, which guarantees the GATHERING at his revelation. It's the person, who is taken out of the way. WHEN that occurs, the revelation AND the gathering can occur. It's a SIMULTANEOUS occurrence of gathering, revelation, and delusion. That OCCURRENCE is at the midst of the week, not at the end, or AFTER the tribulation.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Carl
     
  7. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
    Wrong again bud.

    Abraham was saved by true faith which produces works.  James said "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith, but he has no works? ... Someone may say 'You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.' ..." James 2:14, 18

    Works are evidence of faith, and faith that does not produce works is not actually faith.  It is clearly faith that saves us though.
     
  8. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
    Paul never spoke of a gathering that occurs at the revealing of the son of perdition.  I've reviewed the verses in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 and see no support for your understanding of them.

    Ah, so you are mid week then?  I had been wondering.

    And what is this about denying the ministry of Paul?  The way I understand it is that Paul declared himself an apostle and revealed that there are many apostles.  However he is not exactly the same as the 12 apostles which is clear to me because after Judus betrayed Jesus and hung himself, the remaining eleven specifically sought to replace him.  In Revelation 21:14 the necessity have having twelve distince apostles who were set aside is revealed.  As for the ministry that was Paul's, his ministry was the ministry of Christ which is the same ministry of any Christian. 

    I haven't read The Sign yet, so I don't know what kind of crazy things he subscribes too.  I just know that I agree with him on the position of the rapture based on the material he presented in his other book alone.

    You say he "denied" Paul's statements, but that is a lie and you should know it.  He used the statements to prove his points.  You simply have a different understanding of those statements (which is counter to every modern understanding of the Greek that I've encountered).  I could just as easily say that you are denying Paul's statements.
     
  9. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge New Member

    100
    +0
    Christian
    Rize,

    Yes, the old AV.

    Quote:

    It does not by any means say that it will occur at the same time he is revealed.

    Is that right? You couldn't prove that by the AV. I go by what it does say. That's the Book that I read and believe; not ten others.

    It certainly does not say AFTER.

    See, you forget, BEFORE the revelation, there is something to occur! (verses 6-8)

    That's why you're interpretation of the apostasy EQUALING the revelation is INCORRECT. The apostasy comes FIRST followed by the revelation. The apostasy is the DEPARTURE from Pauline teachings in the last days. (2 Tim.3-4) That's what comes first.

    We're SEEING them NOW, among the prewrath rapturists. The posties have been reprobates to the truth since it was illuminated.

    My post was clear on what I said about those within the book of Revelation. Others STATE and TEACH they are Christians, members of the body of Christ without PROOFTEXT. Aaron was the saint of the Lord also. He wasn't in the body of Christ. He was the HIGH PRIEST of the nation of Israel. (Ex.29, Ps.106)

    You have come in on the tail end of several other conversations.

    No Job was not wrong. He was right. Yes, there are LIES in the Bible, but there are also STATEMENTS which are NOT totally understood by those who MAKE them! Job was PROUD and SELF RIGHTEOUS and condemned God. (Job 40:1-8) He He was UNDER the wrath of God JUSTLY, even though he followed what was right. God showed him, he was PROUD and was a child of the devil! (Job 41:34, 42:1-6)) That's what you boys don't understand. As DEATH affected those who had not sinned after Adam's similitude, nor were they UNDER the law which produces death, they STILL died. Why? They were SINNERS under the wrath of God. (Rom.1:28-32)

    Quote:

    The anti-christ's persecution is not the wrath of God, it is the wrath of Satan. It is allowed by God (there can be nothing that happens that is not allowed by God unless God is not omnipotent).

    Wrong bud.

    Isaiah 10:5-6 PROVES you are wrong. The WRATH of the Lord is executed by the Assyrian DURING the great tribulation, for he is the son of perdition. (Isaiah 14:24-26)

    Quote:

    God does use Satan to administer wrath at times, but not against his own people!

    God does not bring his wrath against the righteous!

    He may allow them to be tested, but it is not wrath!

    Can you show us an instance where God brings His wrath against the righteous?

    First statement. Psalm 106:40
    Second statement. I just showed you. JOB. You said he "didn't KNOW" what he was talking about. But he DID! (Job 42:7)

    Quit trying to prove a system.

    The wrath spoken of by PAUL, which ya'll use as a SPRINGBOARD is speaking of a PERIOD OF TIME, not his wrath, Satan's wrath, man's wrath, or anybody elses. The wrath is ASSOCIATED with the day of the Lord, when the woman is in travail. (1 Thess.5)

    People JUMP out of Thessalonians and say that's the vials of Revelation. No way. Its the time period.

    Stick to dealing with verses, instead of ATTITUDES and you'll fare better. By the way, we're EVEN.

    I have read them, and I don't have an IMPERFECT TRANSLATION.

    I have the words of God preserved in my language. If you don't, sorry.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Carl
     
  10. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge New Member

    100
    +0
    Christian
    Rize,

    You reviewed them? You need to again.

    Did you miss what he said in 2:2-3. For that day (the day of Christ, our gathering) shall not come UNTIL there come a falling away FIRST, and that man of sin be REVEALED, the son of perdition.

    The gathering SURE IS connected to the revealing. Wrong again.

    Paul's ministry is not the continuation of theirs. They didn't preach the same message. There's where you missed before.

    Go to my site and check out the article on the gospels.

    Paul is not one of the 12. His ministry concerns the body of Christ, their's didn't.

    No, it's not a lie, for that would make me a liar, and I'm not. He teaches the the 12 preached the SAME message as Paul BEFORE him. They did not. He DENIES the ministry of Paul like I said. Paul's MININSTRY (Rom.16) was UNKNOWN until he revealed it. (Eph.3) Sorry, you flubbed it again.

    Maybe you should read the English instead of Greek.

    Go to my site, and you'll find what I believe and teach.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Carl
     
  11. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
    More fun.  What does AV stand for?  You seem to be using AV to indicate the 1611 KJV.  So you think that it's a good translation eh?  That's another discussion, but just so you know, sticking exclusively to the KJV is completely absurd in my estimation.  We have a hard enough time understanding the Bible when it's written in proper English, there's no reason to complicate matters by relying on a 400 year old version.  So what about all the other countries of the world?  Do they each have their own version, or are we special? :)

    I can't combat your errors if you cling to an error filled translation of the Bible.  What did I say about the KJV?  Whatever I said, I shouldn't have said that it says the same thing, because I really can't be sure what that meant to people 400 years ago.  I'm not an expert in ancient English anymore than I'm an expert in Greek.  Of course, I do have a parallel Bible which helps me understand what King James and his cronies were trying to say :p

    And a quick note; my theology is fluid.  I don't claim to have all the answers, I'm merely seeking them.  I'm fairly certain that you don't have them though :)

    As for God's wrath, I spoke to soon.  If he has a reason to be wrathful, he will bring his wrath upon his own.  However, this is not the context of the Anti-Christ's persecution.  It simply says that he is allowed to wage war against the saints, it does not say that the saints have done wrong.

    Additionally, I don't believe that the abomination of desolation is the revelation of the Anti-Christ, that is when he sets himself up in the temple as God (2 Thess. 2:4).

    Your ability to understand these verses is ruined by the KJV's incorrect translation of "apostasy" into "falling away".  According to my G/E Interlinear, there are only two occurances of this word in the NT and it was translated "forsake" the other time (as in Jews hearing that Paul was preaching that Christian Jews should forsake Moses -- Acts 21:21).

    So it could mean a forsaking (standing off, rebellion) by anyone.  The question is who?  But other scripture makes clear that there will be intense persecution under the Anti-Christ.  Why should we not assume that this does not refer to a "falling away" that comes before he is even revealed?

    Did you know that in Greek, when things come at about the same time, the one that is most important is put first.

    For example, when Jesus was stabbed by the spear when He was dead on the cross, it says that blood and water came out.  Now, medical science tells us that this is correct, but that the water would come first (only it would be a much smaller amount of water and a great amount of blood).  Thus the blood is listed first.

    Perhaps in this situation, the apostasy (forsaking, falling away, rebellion whatever) is listed first because it is a much more important sign than the revealing of the son of perdition.

    I don't say that the wrath in Thess is the vials of Revelation, I say that it is the day of the Lord which includes the vials (bowls :p ) of Revelation among other things.

    Now, look at 1 Thess 5:9-11, even in the KJV.

    "God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation [deliverance :p ] by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."

    All one big sentence.  God hasn't appointed us to wrath, but to salvation whether or not we are alive or dead.

    He's summing up the entire teaching on the rapture.  The 1611 KJV didn't have chapters and verses.  The teaching began in verse 4:13 and ended in 5:11.  It is a coherent thought.

    And you want to attribute this "wrath" to what?  I suppose you can attribute it to whatever you like, but it is clear to me that the saints will be around for the Anti-Christ's fun and games which makes this God's wrath that the saints are going to miss out on.
     
  12. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
    Trying to refute someone who believe that the KJV is perfect and inspired is like trying to refute a Muslim using the Koran. I can't do that because your book is not perfect and inspired. I won't even try. Muslim's say I can't talk definitively about the Koran unless I speak Arabian and can read the original language. You say the same about the KJV.

    Sorry, I don't read 400 year old English very well.

    I ask you again, what about all the poor fellas that don't speak English? Why have we been blessed with a special translation? It's understandable that the original languages are inspired. The Bible had to come in some language or another, but what is so special about this translation?

    You don't have the words of God, you have a strong delusion :(
     
  13. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
    Apparently you don't understand English (and you're not willing to look at Greek).

    Observe.

    I have to go back home first, and put gas in my car.

    That wouldn't even be proper English today.  Was it proper English in 1611?  I don't know.  I do know that in the Greek, the sentence is structured exactly like that, yet Greek sentence structure is extremely different from our own.  If you read Greek literally it comes out sounding like this:

    not some you might thoroughly deceive by no one manner.  Becase if not might come the standing off first and might be uncovered the man of the lawlessness, the son of the destruction,

    Now, in the 400 years since the "AV" (what is that supposed to mean, the authorative version?) was written, Greek scholars have learned a lot.  Why shouldn't I trust the modern scholarly concensus that the "first" applies to both the "standing off" and the uncovering of "the son of destruction"?

    I'm willing to bet that Greek scholars, in examining numerous other Greek documents, have found that "first" is used in exactly that manner.  I'm putting my faith in modern scholarly concensus of course, but you're putting your faith in 400 year old scholarly concensus which you imagine was ordained by God.  Should I be impressed?  Explain to me why "Yoshua" was twice mistranslated into "Jesus" when it was actually referring to the Joshua of the OT.

    The KJV is just as uninspired as every other translation, and a lot less accurate.

    And how do you connect the "gathering" to anything?  In that stupid KJV it doesn't make any kind of sense anyway.

    It says "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."

    To me, it looks like Paul is just making an introduction.  He beseeches them by the coming of Jesus and the gathering to him.  It doesn't even sound physical necessarily.  It's poor English (though it might have been great in 1611).

    Paul's ministry was unknown until he revealed it?  That is not true at all. Sonny boy.

    Do you remember when Peter had the vision of animals descending from heaven in a white sheet (or did the KJV muddle it up for you?).  If you remember correctly, you'll know that it was given to Peter to teach to the Gentiles as well.  But Peter didn't take to it and Paul later had to correct him.

    You're living in a fantasy world man.

    Go look up Acts 7:44-45.

    I hope you're familiar with the stories of Moses and Joshua, otherwise you won't catch the one indisputable error in the KJV translation.

     
     
  14. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
    I'm looking at your website link. It's nice that they actually air the goods up front. They are distinguishing between a day of Christ and a day of the Lord. Excuse me while I consult the Greek.

    [edit]
    Well no big surprise here.  Those instances are translated the day of the Lord directly from the Greek.  The word for Lord is translated Lord or Master every time it is encountered.  The completely separate word for Christ is translated Christ or Messiah depending on context.

    So it's a big conspiracy by Christian's to hide the truth which was revealed in the error filled KJV.  A truth which Paul revealed by writing "day of the LORD" the same way it is written everywhere else?

    You are a fringe element among fringe elements my friend.  I'm on the fringe because of careful research.  I may be wrong, but I can correct my beliefs when they are demonstrated to be wrong.  Your beliefs are reliant upon believing in the infallibility of a translation that is provably erroneous.  Perhaps you can at least understand why no one here is taking your seriously.
    [edit-end]

    You can read the KJV if you really want to. You can be wrong (or right) about when the rapture is, I really don't care. At least salvation is obvious...

    ...then again, you've misinterpretted that as well haven't you? Faith and works you said.  But that won't really harm anything.  Afterall, true faith proves itself by works, so if both are promoted in unison (unlike some churches I know of that seem to promote works and not faith), then there is no real problem.

    And again, what are non-English speaking people to do? I'm going to make some KJV-freak answer that one of these days!

    Peace be with you :) 
     
  15. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge New Member

    100
    +0
    Christian
    Rize,

    You're an amazing chap then.

    You say it's an error filled translation, but give none. You fail to mention the one which is not error filled. How bout' dat? I'm sure you won't, for you as all religious pragmatic humanists believe your OPINION is the final authority based upon your "little" noodle.

    It said the same thing as it does today. It looks like you can't read ANY kind of English, but dabble in trying to "distort" what little you do read of every language.

    You have spoke too soon "many" times. Of course his WRATH is the context of the tribulation. The time of Jacob's trouble is HIS WRATH on HIS PEOPLE, the people of HIS WRATH. (Isaiah 10) You were tying to prove a doctrine as others, and absolutely didn't KNOW what you were talking about.

    I don't believe his revelation is WHEN he sits down in the temple either. We agree.

    And now you think you're SMARTER than the King James translators. (incorrect translation?) That's just what I SAID you would say. The little noodle is "having delusions" of grandeur. You just SAID you were no EXPERT in Greek.

    It's easy to let you "demonstrate" your own ignorance.

    The King James has it correct. It's a falling away FROM his doctrines. It's a match to the PROPHECY of Paul in 2 Tim.3-4. Oh, how do I know it IS in Thessalonians? (see 2 Thess. 2:15) He's WARNING them to believe his doctrines. That ole King James bible is put together pretty good! I don't have any problem READING or BELIEVING it. Neither have a LOT of born again Christians. Of course, they were bible believers though, not bible revisors and critics.

    Why, I just attribute it to the CONTEXT in which it appears. YOU KNOW what that is, which means you are WRONG AGAIN. The body of Christ see NONE of the tribulation, NOR the son of perdition.

    The original languages are inspired? THERE's the delusion. The apostles spoke the words of God in MANY LANGUAGES in Acts 2. Paul spoke MANY TONGUES. Was he just chitchatting? No bud, he was preaching the words of God. What do you think those were for?

    You couldn't prove that dung, no more than you could prove you believe any bible, which you don't.

    God's WORDS are preserved in many languages. The King James Bible is the word of God in English.

    Well, I'm not a Muslim, and you can't read modern English, so we do have a problem. Nothing that I'm worried about though. I'm in good company with others who believed and still believe the same Bible that contains the words of God, which saved me.

    Why would I want to take lessons in Greek from a man like you, who's NOT an expert by his own admission, and "uses" it, JUST to teach what he believes? That's foolish. I can read and believe, and teach what I read and believe from an English Bible in my own language. I can't help it if YOU'RE ignorant. Maybe UNBELIEF is the problem. (Psalm 119:66) You'd think after 200 versions printed after the King James, they could get it right. They can't.

    I understand English. I also understand people who REFER to God's words, as the STUPID King James Version. It shows their subjective prejudice and hatred of a book which God Almighty BLESSED and hasn't the others.

    Why you poor chap, you don't have the words of God, have access to the words of God (original languages), or have even SEEN or READ a copy of the words of God. Poor man.

    All the believers had COPIES of the scriptures.

    Quote:

    And how do you connect the "gathering" to anything? In that stupid KJV it doesn't make any kind of sense anyway.

    You're right, kid. You CAN'T understand English. You're an illiterate.

    Paul's MINISTRY concerns the Body of Christ, which is stated plainly to be UNKNOWN to the sons of men in other ages. Paul received the REVELATION child. He said so. (verse one and two.) You must have FORGOT Paul was saved AFTER Peter. You also forgot, that he went to Jerusalem and THEY PERCEIVED the grace that was given to him of God. (That's Eph.3).

    Why you poor boy. You look for mistranslations instead of biblical truth? Typical. You're the ONE living in a fantasy world.

    Quote:

    Explain to me why "Yoshua" was twice mistranslated into "Jesus" when it was actually referring to the Joshua of the OT.

    You were right AGAIN. You are not an expert in GREEK. They "translated" it CORRECTLY, bud.

    THE GREEK TEXTS SAY JESUS (iesou). You didn't or couldn't READ the Greek. Oh I forgot to tell you, kid, I know a little about Greek too! I knew enough right then to prove you LIED and didn't know what you were talking about.

    Now, I've had enough of your "lying slander" of the King James translators, your stupidity in not being able to read English or Greek, and your DISRESPECT towards the greatest Book this world has ever SEEN. The HOLY BIBLE.

    Quote:

    You can read the KJV if you really want to. You can be wrong (or right) about when the rapture is, I really don't care. At least salvation is obvious...

    ...then again, you've misinterpretted that as well haven't you? Faith and works you said. But that won't really harm anything. Afterall, true faith proves itself by works, so if both are promoted in unison (unlike some churches I know of that seem to promote works and not faith), then there is no real problem.

    And again, what are non-English speaking people to do? I'm going to make some KJV-freak answer that one of these days!

    Why you poor illiterate.

    If you were on my site, you KNOW what I believe about SALVATION. It's certainly NOT faith and works.

    That's HOW Abraham was JUSTIFIED. Oh, that's right, you were WRONG AGAIN. He was justified in Gen.22 by OFFERING Issac, BEFORE the had faith and believed. His faith did NOT save him, his offering did. FAITH and WORKS.

    WE (the body of Christ) are saved by FAITH. We are JUSTIFIED by FAITH.

    Like I said before, which you couldn't read, being an illiterate, Rom.4 referred to Abraham RECEIVING the INHERITANCE for Israel, which was GRACE. That is how every believer today is saved. That's the comparison is the chapter.

    Abraham's PERSONAL salvation (James 2) was by Faith (Gen.15) and Works (Gen.22)

    Sorry bud, that's all for you. Your incompetence is shadowed only by your hatred for the King James bible. That's the irrational belief of ERRORS which can't be proven to maintain your "image" of learned biblical instruction.

    You couldn't tell my daughter how to pick her nose.

    Good day.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Carl
     
  16. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
    Can I make a suggestion?  If you're not going to quote from previous posts, please write in complete sentences and replace pronouns with proper names so that I can easily follow you.

    Yes, the KJV is an error filled translation.  And even if it was as good as modern translations, the fact that it is practically written in another language is a good reason not to use it.  The archaic words of the KJV often have different meanings today than they did then.

    And I did present an error.  One that is indisputable.  It is Acts 7:45.  It says that Jesus lead Israel into the promised land when it was clearly referring to Joshua.  The reason the KJV text says Jesus is because His name is Joshua.  Or Yoshua more accurately.  The OT prophet and Jesus (and many other Jewish males of Jesus' time) shared the name Yoshua which means "Yahweh is my Salvation".  The KJV translators rendered all NT uses of this name as "Jesus".  If you are familiar with the history of Moses and Joshua, the error should be very clear.  You could probably do some gymnastics and ignore it if you choose, but why should you?  Where has God promised you a flawless translation of the Bible into your native language (which isn't 17th century English anyway). 

    As for the translation which is not error filled, I didn't mention it because it does not exist.  I believe that the original manuscripts were divinely inspired, but are lost.  What we are left with is a shadow of a shadow of a shadow, yet God's truth still shines brightly through the shadows.  The first shadow is the translation of the Bible from it's original language to our own.  The next is our understanding of our own language which is not always perfect, and the last shadow is being able to put all of the teachings on a subject together to get a coherent "doctrine".  Despite these problems, the Bible is still scripture and unbreakable.  I'm not a "pragmatic humanist".  I'm a fundamentalist Christian.  I believe in creation, a young earth, infilling with the Holy Spirit, the continuing of gifts and anything else you can think of.  I'm also very careful not to subscribe to doctrines without intensive deliberation and study.  I'm not perfect, but I'm willing to change if you can demonstrate that I'm wrong.

    What does Isaiah 10 say?  I know very well that God brings wrath against Israel and anyone else if they are not righteous.  But for what purpose will he bring wrath upon the justified Christian?  I can see none.  Instead he will allow an hour of trial and testing that will reveal who worships the Father in spirit and truth.  To those Christians who are not true, it will be an hour of wrath.  But they are not Christians, and so it does not matter from who the wrath comes.  Yet since the true Christians will also experience this persecution (though being "kept" through it by the strength of Jesus), I know it is not the wrath of God.  It is an hour of testing by which Satan will bring wrath upon anyone professing the name of Christ (true or false).  The sign in the sun, moon and stars alone tells me when the rapture is.  The either details are merely supporting.

    I am no expert in Greek, but being aware of the Greek can be very helpful anyway.  The difficulty comes in understanding the language structure.  Investigating the original meaning of a word can be quite enlightening, but there is only so much that can be done without really learning the language.  As for why the KJV translators would make the mistake I'm pointing out.  Well for one, because they were not inspired, and thus imperfect and ordinary in their ability.  Without someone pointing it out, it is very easy to miss the problem in Acts7:45.  I suppose the translator for that section was not familiar with the stories of Moses and Joshua.  The story of moses can be difficult to read since it is interspersed throughout the Torah.  Fortunately, I saw a word for word enacting of it which etched it into my memory (that was some bad acting though :) ).  In short, I don't believe I'm smarter than the KJV translators, I believe that I'm better informed. 

    Can you explain to me what Revelation 6:8 means?  I'm having trouble understanding how one can "kill by death".

    2 Timothy 3:1-5?  Please don't think that I'm trying to insult you, but I simply cannot believe that anyone would take this to mean what you just said it means.  You think that this passage refers to believers abandoning the doctrines of Paul?  Paul?!  What about Jesus?!

    It says that people will be "lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphermers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power there-of"

    So, you believe that somehow this explains how Christians are abandoning the doctrines of Paul?  It sounds to me like the popular Christian church.  The average professing Christian (in America anyway) attends church as if that will get them into "heaven".  They spend the rest of their lives doing a little bit of everything that is listed here.  And even some of the most disciplined churches deny the power of the Holy Spirit.  So you suggest that this is the "falling away"?  Ok, I agree that this is possible.  It may also be the "falling away" that occurs because of the Anti-Christ's persecution, and it may also be the growing perversity of the non-Christian and false-Christian world.  It doesn't really matter to me.  What does matter is that it is not at all clear, by that passage in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9, that the rapture will occur immediately after the two conditions listed.  It is clear that it will occur sometime after the conditions.  Jesus clears up the specific time by revealing that there will be a sign in the Sun, moon and stars immediately preceding the coming of Jesus (Mathew 24:29-30).

    The KJV doesn't say anything about "Paul's doctrines".  It just says a "falling away".

    So, you believe that anyone who doesn't simply trust the KJV translator is a Bible "revisor" and "critic".  But what are you?  You are a critic of my Bible, and you have not yet given me a reason for it.  What we have here is a war of opinions.  On what basis should I accept the authority of the KJV translation and accept it as infallible?

    As for whether or not the body of Christ sees the tribulation, how many second comings of Christ do you believe in?  If there is a single one, then please explain why the sign Jesus attached to it (Mathew 24:29-30) occurs after the first 5 seals (Revelation 6:12-17) in which the number of martyrs are completed (6:9-11)?  Why does the section of Revelation describing the fine details of the Beast's persecution of "saints" correspond perfectly to my timeline?  After the Beast's persecution is described (Mathew 24:15-28, Revelation 6:7-8, Revelation 13), which would certainly result in a number of martyrs (Revelation 6:9-11), the sign in the heaven appears at the appointed time (Mathew 24:29-30, Revelation 6:12-17), followed by the business of the 144,000 Jews (Revelation 7:1-8; Revelation 14:1-5), the preaching of the Gospel to all the nations (Mathew 24:14, Revelation 14:6-7), coming judgment is pronounced upon the worshipers of the Beast (Revelation 14:9-12), the rapture (Revelation 14:14-16, Mathew 24:30-31, Revelation 6:9-14), the harvesting of the grapes of wrath (Revelation 14:17-20) and finally God's wrath (Revelation 6:17; Revelation 8:1-13 and beyond).

    If there are two comings of Christ, how in the world are we supposed to distinguish between them when every second coming scripture I've seen fits right into the timeline that I've presented.  Did you look at my time line and the reasons I have for putting the things in it where I put them?  If there is an inconsistancy that I have not seen (a distinct possibility) please point it out to me.

    Back to your post.

    So, you believe that the original languages weren't inspired?  So when Jesus was talking about OT Jewish scripture saying that they cannot be broken, and when Paul spoke of them (in your inspired KJV) as God breathed/inspired they were wrong?

    I'm not even going to get into speaking in tongues with you, but what does it have to do with the ancient Hebrew writings, and the new Greek/Aramaic writings that make up the New Testament?  You think that they were speaking in tongues because the Biblical text was not infallible?  I suppose people spoke in tongues until 1611 then right? :)

    quote:
    "You couldn't prove that dung, no more than you could prove you believe any bible, which you don't."

    Colossians 3
    (8) But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

    Matthew 7
    (1) Judge not, that ye be not judged.  (2) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.  (3) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?  (4) Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?  (5)Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    That goes for both of us.

    (continued below)
     
  17. Rize

    Rize Well-Known Member

    +13
    Atheist
    US-Libertarian
    So there are flawless translations in many languages, but only some people are lucky enough to have one?  I suppose the Greeks and the Hebrews weren't among them from what you said above.  If we need a flawless translation, why doesn't every culture need one?

    Your hypothesis appears to be that because you believe and because others believe the KJV must be infallible?

    1 Corinthians 2:4  "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power:"

    There are many hundreds of different cults that simply believe they are correct.  When are you going to demonstrate why anyone should believe that the KJV is an infallible translation?  And again, I've never said that any translation is perfect.  You're the one making that claim.

    I believe that the KJV has been a great blessing to the church for centuries, but the time of its usefulness has passed.  Now it is merely a relic with poetic words that many churches will not let go of.  It still contains a great deal of truth, but the difficulty in reading 400 year old English and the mistakes of a 400 year old understanding of Greek are not worth it.  That is what I believe is stupid.  Clinging to a 400 year old book because you cannot live without a flawless translation.  Whatever happened to the guiding of the Holy Spirit?

    I have read the KJV and I do have a copy of it (it's one 4th of my parallel Bible).  It's also read in my churches exclusively (though they do it out of tradition not unsupported doctrine).

    As for the "gathering" verse, how do you know that your understanding of the 400 year old English is correct?  Perhaps you've gotten good at it with practice.  Even so, the 400 year old english is not unlike another language in itself.  For example, when Paul says "For ye suffer fools gladly" he means, "For you tolerate fools gladly".  Now, someone without proper training and experience cannot understand the archaic meaning of suffer in this verse.  This is not modern English no matter how much you want to pretend that it is.  The truth is, no person is gauranteed to understand their native language, much less a 400 year old dialect of it.  I'm still waiting for the reasons why someone should believe in your doctrine that the KJV is flawless.

    quote:
    "Paul's MINISTRY concerns the Body of Christ, which is stated plainly to be UNKNOWN to the sons of men in other ages. Paul received the REVELATION child. He said so. (verse one and two.) You must have FORGOT Paul was saved AFTER Peter. You also forgot, that he went to Jerusalem and THEY PERCEIVED the grace that was given to him of God. (That's Eph.3)."


    How does this explain your unorthodox belief that Peter was not meant to preach to the gentiles, and all of those other things that I've already forgotten about?  I'm not getting the connection; sorry.  I already said that Peter was told to offer salvation to the Gentiles, but he ultimately regressed and didn't do it.  So Paul came and corrected him (which is why they admitted that "grace" was given to him by God).  This does not support your belief in any way.

    I lied?  So Jesus name in Aramaic, was not Yoshua which is translated Joshua in the OT and, Jesus in the NT?  To really be accurate, it should have been Yoshua in all cases.  Instead it was Jesus in all NT cases, and Joshua in all OT cases.  However, distinguishing Jesus Christ from the OT prophet by translating those two instances as Joshua and the rest as Jesus would have been acceptable.  In other words, there is only one person I know of who's OT name is different in the NT, that is Joshua.  This is a mistake.  Also, you said that the Greek is not inspired, so why would the KJV translators have used it in that manner and blindly translated all occurances of Jesus.  So, as I said, you've done some gymnastics.  Isn't iesou pronounced ee ay soo?  Which is similar to yoshua (just ad an "ah" to the end of ee ay soo ah and say it quickly).  From my understanding, the mis translation to Jesus is a result of transliteration to English through Latin.  Deciding to keep Jesus name as Jesus in understandable since it had sunk in.  But again, rendering the occurance "Jesus" when it means the OT prophet Joshua, is misleading, and certainly inferior to modern translations (if not downright erronous).  Even if this is correct, you still have not shown where this doctrine comes from or why anyone should believe in it.

    One more thing, did it ever occur to you that an error might be a mistake rather than a lie?  I have quite a bit of respect for the Bible, friend.  I have enough respect for it to study it diligently rather than trusting a 400 year old translation to render accurate doctrine.

    Stop fueling your misconception of my reading ability by referring to me as a "poor illiterate".  I'm defending the undeveloped reading abilities of the rest of the country by demonstrating that 400 year old English is very different from modern English.  As for my own literacy, I can read a 500+ page book in a day, and my ACT score (5 years ago) was in the top 95% of the national average in reading.  With near daily writing for a Website and on various forums, my ability has only increased since then.  And don't think I'm bragging, I'm just telling you what is true.

    If you don't believe that salvation is from faith and works, then why did you say so above?  Sorry if there was a misconception.  Ah I see, that's part of your unorthodox doctrine.  Why didn't you simply point out that I misunderstood your doctrine instead of taking the opportunity to belittle me?  Not that I did better, but at least I put a few smilies in my posts as an attempt to indicate that all was in good humor.

    In any case, I'm afraid that it is you who are wrong.  James entire purpose of bringing up Abraham was to demonstrate that faith produces works and that without works faith is dead.  In a single quote of the OT it is summed up right before your eyes (2:23) "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed (faith) God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:  and he was called the Friend of God."

    As the KJV says, in James 2:22 "Seest though how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"  The works didn't save him, it made his faith perfect so that faith could save him!  Verse 22 was written immediately after verse 21 and 20 for a reason.  You have:

    20) Faith without works is dead
    21) Abraham was justified by works
    22) His faith with works perfected his faith
    23) Abraham believed and was imputed righteousness

    So you either have a contradiction (21 and 23) or you take the logical progression at face value.

    God imputed righteousness to Abraham because he believed.  Which is to say, because of faith.  His work was used by James to demonstrate that true faith produces works.  Thus, Abraham, just like us, was saved by true faith that produces works.  Do you think that somehow having an infallible translation means that you cannot have false doctrines?

    And I do not hate the KJV.  I hate (yes I'll use the word) the fact that many people have been tricked into believing that it is inspired.  Why shouldn't I?  Do you not hate grave error when you recognize it?  Even if I am wrong, I have a right to hate it until I'm convinced otherwise.

    quote:
    You couldn't tell my daughter how to pick her nose.

    Good day.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Carl


    And speaking of hate, how can you, with good conscience, write "In Christ Jesus" two words after insulting me?

    Is anyone else reading this?  Can you believe this guy?

    I suppose I should thank you though.  I need to learn how to keep my ego in check and refrain from making playful jabs at people's doctrine.  Perhaps your insults will remind me to do that.

    [edit]

    I won't edit out any improper remarks I made in my posts above so as to hide them, but if I offended you (and I assume that I did as the fruits indicate), then I whole heartedly apologize.  I'm sorry.  Let's please stop the writing of anything that even looks remotely like an insult whether it be an insult of someone's doctrine or of the person himself.

    Instead challenge the doctrine that you do not believe with logical argument and evidence.

    Again, I'm sorry :(

    Though what you said of me looked horrible to my eyes, I cannot now imagine that what I said of you looked any better to Jesus. :sigh:
     
  18. Annabel Lee

    Annabel Lee Beware the Thought Police

    +1,100
    Christian
    US-Others
    Carlaimpinge dear.....
    Did you skip your medication?
     
  19. Blackwing

    Blackwing Music Man With Black Wings(duh...)<img src="http:/

    +7
    Non-Denom
    *admin hat on*


    Please keep to the OP and topic. Do not make this a KJV thing. This is not the appropriate forum for that.

    And to everybody concerned, please refrain from flaming and trolling. If this gets out of hand people will be warned and this thread will be closed.

    Thank you

    *admin hat off*
     
  20. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge New Member

    100
    +0
    Christian
    Blackwing,

    I pointed out the man's inconsistencies in statement. (Not being a Greek scholar and then claiming to be smarter than 47 other men in Greek, who were Greek scholars.)

    I pointed out the man's ignorance of what he stated. (The King James was not "translated" correctly. It certainly was in the passage he mentioned.)

    I pointed out the man's SORRY remark about the Holy Bible being "stupid". (Let's hope you don't agree with that.)

    I pointed out the man's illiteracy in reading modern English after he testified that he can't teach Greek, or read the King James. Many people can read all three.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Carl
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...