|
|
USER COMMENTS BY PREACHERJOND |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 3 · Found: 294 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
9/2/08 9:02 PM |
preacherjond. | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote: Then read Ezekiel 45:21!!! It reads: "In the first [month], in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the PASSOVER, A FEAST OF SEVEN DAYS; unleavened bread shall be eaten." This passage in Ezekiel takes place in the millenial reign of Christ and is a memorial to the feast in Exodus of which you did not read or you would know that the Passover happened in one night.How many nights did the Lord PASS OVER the Israelites? And then there were seven days of unleavened bread-- just like it says in Acts. "then were the days of unleavened bread" You can jump thru all the hoops you want to throw out the true Word of God and keep your false Bibles-- but you'll be sorry you did. "To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" [URL=http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/doctrine.htm]]]Doctrines affected by Bible versions[/URL] |
|
|
8/31/08 2:41 PM |
preacherjond. | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote: ALL MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS ... COUNTERFEITS ERROR ... ERROR-FILLED ... BLASPHEMOUS ... devil injecting POISON. Okay, you've stated your case quite clearly -- you've made your charges. Now ... so I can get on with burning ALL my other versions of the Bible except the KJV, please give me the doctrinal ERROR(s) which so fill them. Show the outright BLASPHEMY contained therein. I don't want innuendo, specious inference, or merely variances in translation. I WANT MEAT! I want a verse (or passage) out of one of the modern translations [not a paraphrase] that is so obviously and so seriously WRONG concerning an essential, fundamental Christian doctrine that, if believed, would lead me to damnation. Provide me some proof other than your typical KJVO bombast, and I, too, will become a KJV-Onlyite! It would be better for you to study it for yourself and ask God to show you... that is if you really want the truth. |
|
|
8/30/08 10:58 PM |
preacherjond. | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote: "one of HIS false bibles" (?) Are you asserting that anything other than the KJV is a "false bible" belonging to Satan? You better be absolutely 100% certain that the NKJV or the NASB I hold in my hand is a "false bible," because if it's not, then you are ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil ... and that's the unpardonable sin, preacher! Let me preach it loud and clear, ALL MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS(THAT BEING ALL THAT CAME AFTER THE KJV)ARE NOT THE INFALLIBLE, INERRANT, DIVINELY PRESERVED WORD OF GOD. They are counterfeits that claim to be. Each one contains truth, but each one also is mingled with error, and they are becoming more and more error filled and you have outright blasphemous books like "THE MESSAGE". Each of these versions claims to be the infallible Word of God but is far from it.The devil is up to his same old tricks that he used to deceive Adam and Eve in the garden--he is mixing lies and falsehood in with the truth. He started ever so subtily getting people away from the true Word of God, and as time goes on he keeps injecting more and more poison, and the professing church gets closer and closer to being fully innoculated. And he's sure doing a very good job of it. |
|
|
8/29/08 10:18 PM |
preacherjond. | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
rogerant, and MurrayA, DC49, nobody said anything about baptism being a requirement for salvation. I was referring to the fact that one must be a true born again believer as a requirement before they are baptised, the same as they are to be a true born again believer to receive the Lord's supper. If this verse is left out, you have an open door for all sorts of unbiblical baptism doctrines such as baptismal regeneration, the baptizing of infants, and such.And the passage in Isaiah shifts its subject and begins to speak about the power behind the seat of the king of Babylon. The descriptions that are given and the language used makes it impossible to fit the king of Babylon. Without this passage and the one in Ezekiel 28 you have no background information about our adversary who was an angel of God and now wants to decieve us- and is doing a very good job on you. You think the devil would want everyone to know this passage is about him? Looks like he has fooled you into thinking that its not with one of his false bibles And the "Johaninne comma"... thats a real scholarly name huh? The fact is that there IS manuscript evidence for the verse, so it does belong in the Word of God, and it only proves all the more that the line of divine preservation is distinct. Good day. |
|
|
8/28/08 1:34 PM |
preacherjond. | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote: but I pay attention to citations. Additionally, because I read several Bible versions, none of this "stuff" tends to bother me all that much. And this line of thought is exactly why the professing church is in the mess that it's in. They have no final authority, they have not a solid foundation,so you have ignorance of Bible doctrine and apostacy. So which one of your versions are the Word of God? None of them say the same thing and disagree with each other in thousands of places. |
|
|
8/26/08 7:01 PM |
preacherjond | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DCJ49,1 Timothy 3:16 KJV "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." NASB "And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who(who is the "he" here) was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory." NASB changes 'God was manifest in the flesh' to 'He who was revealed in the flesh.' Also the added 'who' changes the sentence structure and meaning. Jesus came in the flesh and was God manifest in the flesh. This is lost in the NASB and I don't want a Bible that gets it wrong on a very important verse on the deity of Christ. Revelation 1:11 KJV "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and What thou seest, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia ..." NASB "saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: . . ."" NASB leaves out "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." This is a reference to Christ, and who He is, as the eternal God, the only begotten of the Father, and the firstborn from the dead. Again it"s wrong. |
|
|
8/20/08 10:11 PM |
preacherjond | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
hidemi williges wrote: Preacherjond, Sadly, when darkness prevails it extinguishes any light that there might be. True, but the Word of God shall stand forever. They'll never get rid of our beloved old King James Bible. Amen!! |
|
|
8/20/08 6:04 PM |
preacherjond | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
hidemi williges wrote: There is a very big Catholic bookstore not far from where I live. Browsing the store, they have the books you listed plus; The Good News, NASB and the NIV. I don't know what the requirements are for Catholics. I can only state what I see displayed. For the record, I am not confusung the NAB and the NASB. They have both. Interesting thing though, is the NAB site proclaims almost exactly the same thing as modern versions state as to their purpose and development. WWW.usccb.org/nab/bible/prefaceold.htm And I would make a guess that there was not a KJV Bible anywhere in the place. The RCC hates the KJV Bible, and has tried many times to destroy it. The best they've ever done is get its name changed from the Authorized Bible, to its now present name King James which "coincidentally" happened around the same time that the "New" "Revised" "Standard" "Version" was published. Woulda been kinda hard to go up against something that was Authorized, don't you think? Hmmm, I just wonder if modern version promoters and the RCC are of the same spirit? |
|
|
8/18/08 8:35 PM |
preacherjond | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
preacherjond. wrote: This business of "inviting Christ into ones heart" or "making a decision for Christ" or "repeating a prayer to be saved" are false doctrines that are duping many, many people and leading many, many souls into hell. God convicts, God calls, and the sinner believes on Jesus Christ, he does not "invite Him into his heart". God presents the gospel to the lost man and shows him his sin. The lost man repents turning from his sin and places his complete trust upon the Saviour, he does not "make a decision for Him". He places his trust solely upon Jesus Christ, not "receives Him into his heart". Jesus does indeed indwell the man at the instant he is born again, but it is because he believed on Him, not because he received Him. "As many as received Him"... They trusted in Him, believed on Him, and He indwelled them at that very moment, this was not an action on the believers part. They received because they believed, He was given to them. |
|
|
8/18/08 8:05 PM |
preacherjond. | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Wayne wrote: If you are really saved, then you invited Christ into your life, which constitutes a prayer. "To many as received Him, to them He gave the right/authority to become the children of God." Thus you had to pray/invite Christ into your life as He would not just have "Saved" you without your permission. This business of "inviting Christ into ones heart" or "making a decision for Christ" or "repeating a prayer to be saved" are false doctrines that are duping many, many people and leading many, many souls into hell.God convicts, God calls, and the sinner believes on Jesus Christ, he does not "invite Him into his heart". God presents the gospel to the lost man and shows him his sin. The lost man repents turning from his sin and places his complete trust upon the Saviour, he does not "make a decision for Him". He places his trust solely upon Jesus Christ, not "receives Him into his heart". Jesus does indeed indwell the man at the instant he is born again, but it is because he believed on Him, not because he received Him. "As many as received Him"... They trusted in Him, believed on Him, and He indwelled them at that very moment, this was not an action on the believers part. They received because they believed, He was given to them. |
|
|
8/17/08 7:48 PM |
preacherjond | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Alan H wrote: \"[John] Owen argued that if the infallible Word is not preserved wholly and intact, then the Book is useless and our faith has no sure foundation. He raised this concern: “It will assuredly be granted that the persuasion of the coming forth of the word immediately from God, in the way pleaded for, is the foundation of all faith, hope, and obedience. But what, I pray, will it advantage us that God did so once deliver his word, if we are not assured also that that word so delivered hath been, by his special care and providence, preserved entire and uncorrupt unto us, or that it doth not evidence and manifest itself to be his word, being so preserved? (Isa 59:21, Matt 5:18, 1 Pet 1:25, 1 Cor 11:23, Matt 28:20)” (450). In other words, if God’s Word is not perfect today, fully preserved, how then can we appeal to it as our sure and steadfast, final and supreme rule of faith and practice? We simply cannot! If the Scriptures be not perfect, Christians are a most miserable[QUOTE]Amen and Amen. For all the KJV defenders: Stand strong brothers and sisters, bind the whole armor to yourselves, and do all to stand! For we wrestle not against flesh and blood. AMEN! |
|
|
8/16/08 10:38 AM |
preacherjond | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Jesus did not quote the Septuagint for the following reasons: Jesus spoke of the jots and tittles of the Old Testament (Mat. 5:18), and this refers specifically and solely to the Hebrew language. Jesus referred to the Old Testament by its Hebrew division rather than by its Greek division: In Luke 24:44 He referred to the things “which were written in THE LAW of Moses, and in THE PROPHETS, and in THE PSALMS, concerning me.” This is precisely the order of the Old Testament in Hebrew, but in the Greek Old Testament the order is the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, as in the English Bible. When Jesus referred to the first and last prophets that were martyred in the Old Testament, He referred to them by the order of the Hebrew Text rather than by the order of the Greek Septuagint. “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Mat. 23:35). By this statement, the Lord Jesus charged the Jewish leaders with the deaths of the prophets throughout throughout the Old Testament age, and He used the Hebrew canon. Abel was killed in Genesis (chapter 4) and Zacharias in 2 Chronicles (24:20-22). Find out how much evidence there is for a LXX |
|
|
8/14/08 7:57 PM |
preacherjond | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote: IF you had ONLY the KJV to go by, no commentaries to reference, no one to give you explanation, would you know what 2Cor 8:1 meant? "Moreover, brethren, WE DO YOU TO WIT of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;" And how about 1Thess 4:15? "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord SHALL NOT PREVENT THEM which are asleep." Try this one: "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now LETTETH [WILL LET], until he be taken out of the way." [2Thess 2:7] If you would read the whole Bible you will find that these words are used in many other places and by looking at the context in each instance you can use these other verses to determine the meaning of these passages. God didn't give His Word and then leave us not being able to understand it.The reason why people can't understand the KJV, but they can modern versions, is because they have not the Spirit. The Word of God is a spiritual book, it takes a Spiritual man to understand it. Modern versions are not the Word of God, so it doesn't take a Spiritual man to understand them, so thus it is with most professing Christians today, which is why they like the new versions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|