Freedom and Grace Forums
July 24, 2014, 04:00:44 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: is alive!
  Home Help Search Members Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 624
1  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Some errors in the beloved KJV on: July 23, 2014, 10:59:37 AM

I see a lot of posts which portray the KJV as flawless, the only real "gospel".  But i don't see any response to these errors listed below from anyone.  Since maka refuses to answer them, would anyone else like to try to defend or explain them?  (Of course, the "short form" of defense is to say that all deviations in the KJV are inspired by the Spirit, no matter how much they may contradict other parts of Scripture.  Convenient explanation.)

I see you have been busy, bro' mak', at copying and pasting.  But i don't see that you have made any real attempt to answer this beginning list of errors in the beloved KJV.  Please forgive me if i am wrong about that.

Here is the current state of the list of probable errors in the 1611 KJV.

1.  The KJV used the word "Easter" when it should have used the word "Passover" in Acts 12:4.  (All other translations have corrected this error.)

2.  The KJV used the word "kill" when the word "murder" would have been more correct -- for example, in the Commandment prohibiting it.

3.  The Greek word meaning "immersion" was changed to "baptism" in several places in the KJV.

4.  The Greek word meaning "assembly" was consistently changed to a different Greek word meaning "pertaining to the Lord" in the KJV, which then morphed into our "church".  

5.  The Greek word meaning (Holy) "Spirit" was translated as (Holy) "Ghost" 90 times by the KJV translators, but they switched to "Holy Spirit" 7 times where the same Greek word occurred in the NT.  All other versions are consistent in their translation of the word as Spirit.

6.  In Isaiah 45:7, the KJV says that God "creates evil", which is untrue by our current definition of "evil".  Most newer translations translate the word correctly as God "creates calamity / disaster".

7.  In many places the KJV incorrectly translated the specific place names "Sheol, Gehenna and Tartarus" as "hell", but it did so inconsistently.  Many more modern versions maintain the original nouns since they have primary meanings different from the idea of a place of unending torture (which came into the Church after the 2nd Century).

8.  Though not really "errors" in the KJV necessarily, it is good to be aware that over 700 english words in the KJV have changed in meaning in the last 400 years.  They can cause misunderstandings which will have to be cleared up later.  It may be better to use an updated version of the KJV which updates those words which have changed over time, while retaining as much as possible of the grandeur of the language of the KJV -- or else have a dictionary handy like the one at:

[ ]

2  Forums / Main Forum / Re: KJV . . . any other gospel . . . let him be accursed. on: July 23, 2014, 10:57:26 AM

I think you missed the question i was raising.  Can you see any major differences between the KJV and the ESV in the verses you cited?  Is the ESV "another gospel"?  I think not.

I think it is time to raise the "Errors in the KJV" topic again, since you have never responded to those errors.
3  Forums / Key Life Forum / Re: The dark side of islam on: July 23, 2014, 10:50:30 AM

One "bright aspect" of the dark side of Islam has been showing up on the news lately.  Wherever fanatical, rabid islam is in control of a country, the conversion rate to Christianity secretly soars.  Just like it did under jewish and roman persecution of Believers.

Now why, i wonder, would that be consistently true?  Isn't it because people begin to see the evil and tyranny of a mankind-developed religion, compared to the freedom and grace among those who have Jesus actually living in them?

In the darkest night, the smallest light is magnified as it drives away the lack-of-light.  And Christ is the Light Who lights the Believer with forgiveness and self-sacrificial love.  Cruelty and tyranny are opportunities for Him to reveal the contrast between His character and satan's.  And that was just as true when false "churchianity" was in control (like the crusades, and the inquisition) as when radical islam is now.

1 John 1:6-7. 2:9
"If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.  But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin....
He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.  He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him."

Philippians 2:14-16
"Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the Word of Life..."

4  Forums / Key Life Forum / Re: free games online on: July 23, 2014, 10:28:45 AM

How true.  The Way of the Truth-Life.
5  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Who would you believe ?[ on: July 21, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

When Jesus gives convincing proofs, they are infallible.

When He gives sure proofs, they are not fallible in any way.

When He shows proof in many ways, we can count on each way being infallible.

He is perfectly consistent.  And convincing, and sure, in as many ways as He chooses to reveal Himself.
6  Forums / Main Forum / Re: accounting on: July 21, 2014, 05:55:42 PM

Well, we will all be involved in a "Final Accounting", right, anaya?

And either we will "give an account" of what Jesus has done for us, or of what we have done to suppress and reject Him.  The last Credits, and Debits...
7  Forums / Main Forum / Re: KJV . . . any other gospel . . . let him be accursed. on: July 21, 2014, 05:51:22 PM

A different translation of the original languages of the Bible isn't necessarily "another" Gospel, though some may be (like the New World Translation of the JW's).

Let's see if the English Standard Version says the same things as the KJV in these verses, or if it has made any fundamental changes in meaning.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4  ESV
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,..."

Ephesians 2:8-9  ESV
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,  not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Romans 10:17  ESV
"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

Romans 10:9-10  ESV
"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Romans 10:13  ESV
"For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”"

Galatians 1:8-9  ESV
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.  As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

I see only minor differences between the KJV and ESV on these verses.  So the ESV is not "another gospel", right, maka?  Or do you see some important corruptions which change the meaning?
8  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Free sins vs our part. on: July 21, 2014, 05:31:19 PM
First, KK, I have a Q.  Do you think we have to confesses "in sufficient detail" to be forgiven?  I've wondered about this before because I tend to have thoughts of things I regret come to mind, and I just pray, "Father, please forgive me!"  Or words to that affect.  I don't go into detail expounding on all what I did, etc.  Do you think, "Father, please forgive me," is enough to be forgiven?  If not then the fear will be, "Did I forget to mention something?  Did I explain enough?  Is there something in the past I haven't thought to ask forgiveness for yet?," etc.  

I tend to think of sin as a state of being as much as actions taken.  I have a sin nature and therefore I sin.  While we aren't required to repent for having a sin nature (since we will all soon sin and need to repent for that) when people talk about the curse from Adam they are speaking to that inborn sin nature that, without salvation, will doom us all.  Though it's not something that can be changed in this spiritual economy, I wish I could "repent away" my inborn sin nature.    

We are truly forgiven because of Christ's work on the Cross, but we may not always experience that.  Most all of us have done things we haven't felt forgiven for, even knowing that He died for us.  But by "confessing" our wrongness and His rightness, thanking Him for forgiving us, we are letting go of feelings that we don't deserve to be forgiven and accepting the "giving-for-ness" He has provided in advance.  Going to Dad with our "boo-boo" and expecting Him to "kiss it and make it better", so to speak.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,"  1 John 1:9 says.  Yet, if we suppress His conviction of wrongness, and refuse to confess some sins, we don't get to experience that forgiveness and cleansing, until we change our minds.  And if we are His, we will eventually change our minds about our sins, hopefully before the Resurrection, when our "sin natures" will be forever removed.   Smiley

Of course, one of the sins we sometimes cling onto is the lack of faith that He has forgiven our sins.  And that sin of doubting His love keeps us in bondage to guilt and shame, to one degree or another, until we learn to trust Him more, as He teaches us more about His astounding love for us.
9  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Eternal torture appears dead at last on: July 20, 2014, 04:17:14 PM
OK,that 'same word for the duration of heaven and hell' argument gets bandied about A LOT,but why all of a sudden,when talking about the fate of lost sinners,do the meanings of DIE/DEATH,DESTROY/DESTRUCTION,and PERISHING/PERISH as we understand the plain meanings of these words in the English language get changed to mean,'Eternal conscious suffering'? I've yet to see/hear anyone explain that in a truly meaningful way...maybe Ed Fudge will cover that in his book that I'm still waiting to arrive. huh

 Also,'hell' is not the same thing as the 'Lake of Fire',and in fact we're told,will be cast into it./

Glad to see you responding, bigor.  Obviously, i agree completely with your points.  It is very unfortunate that the KJV confused its tranlations of words like Sheol/Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna into "hell" at times, but not consistently.  If they had stayed with the greek/hebrew words and accepted the meanings of those words, there would not have been as much confusion over the concept of hell.

As you know, Jesus tended to use the word Gehenna, which referred to a burning garbage dump just outside Jerusalem where the fires were kept going by continually adding refuse.  And the dead (not living) bodies of rebels who had been executed were thrown on the fires, since they did not deserve a normal burial.

It was Christ Who pointed to that burning dump and warned that the wicked would face the same punishment.  But theology has twisted that into eternal torture by the error of teaching that everyone is in some way immortal -- yet the Bible never says that, only theologians.
10  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Eternal torture appears dead at last on: July 20, 2014, 03:58:49 PM
KK, I love ya bro, so PLEASE don't take this wrong; but has it ever occurred to you that you might, just might be wrong?  I know, impossible, right?  But, just maybe....  There are points to be taken on both sides of the issue - one of the chief for me is that it would simply be unmerciful (since mercy is a virtue you value in God) for those since Cain to have been suffering in hell all this time when the last sinner in the last moments before hell is tossed into the lake of fire to suffer only a second before being consumed.  Since you worry about the mercy of God, how would that be fair for Cain (whoever the first hell occupant was) to be suffering these thousands of years before being consumed, and the ,perhaps greater sinner, from the tribulation to not suffer at all  - just, "Poof" consumed?  If you are going to change the concept of hell why not just do away with it all together?  Then He could be loving to everyone - no punishment at all?  The problem here is that hell isn't a punishment for sin (breaking the law), it's a consequence of not accepting Christ (the remedy).  The whole world has drank poison, and some refuse the antidote.      

You worry about God seeming to be unfair, unjust, unkind, unloving, whatever; but the message of annihilationism (whatever you choose to call it) to the unsaved is: "So what?  I reject Christ now, live how I want; and then get burned up immediately.  I'd rather do that than accept Christ and spoil all my fun!"  

You are braver than I am.  I would shake in my boots to so strongly take your position at the risk, the possible risk, that I might be wrong and have to explain to God someday, "Well, God, the whole hell thing made You look so bad.  I was just trying to cast you in a better light."  To have to do that in the face of all those souls that may die and go to hell because they thought it was no "big deal" after all.  KK, said so.  Wouldn't it be safer to say, "I strongly believe hell isn't eternal and this is why, but I could be wrong."  Something like that.  Just in case?  

As for me, as you know, the same word for "eternal" is used for eternal life as eternal punishment.  For that and so many other reasons I’m tired of posting, I believe the torment of Hell is eternal.  I don't know why Big-O or anyone who has accepted Christ should worry.  The ones who need to worry, need to be warned, are those that have rejected Him, or have not yet received Christ.  

Yes, it has occurred to me that i might be wrong, in fact, at first, as i started researching "conditional immortality" in the Word, i was afraid i was seeing errors.  I couldn't believe that so many great Believers hadn't seen what i was seeing.  

But the Bible is what we need to go by, not tradition, or worship of great people of the past.  And the Scripture makes it clear that the lost will be totally destroyed in the End.  Let me suggest, again, that you take the outline in the first post above and look at the verses cited for reference, and then give me a point by point refutation.

I would be more open to you than to many people, since i agree with so much of what you post here.  Still, i am biased toward the exact wording of Scripture versus what theologian-folk like to call "hermeneutics", when those "hermeneutics" contradict the plain wording of the Word.

l.a.:  "The problem here is that hell isn't a punishment for sin (breaking the law), it's a consequence of not accepting Christ (the remedy)."

The greater problem is that mankind is completely mortal, since the Fall, and the only way (Way) to become immortal is through a direct connection with the Source of all Life.  Thus, we need Christ as the "remedy", as you say, but the thing remedied is the fact that every person needs to be "born again" through Jesus coming to live in them, or else they will be competely consumed in the everlasting fires.

As to the fairness of God regarding the lost, i believe there is ample evidence that they will be judged fairly at the Great White Throne, and they will suffer to the appropriate degree so that ultimate justice will be done.  A Hitler will suffer more than a "nice little old lady who didn't need Jesus, she thought".  (As we sow, so shall we reap, if we don't accept Christ's atoning sacrifice for us).

Therefore, the rebels, like i was, don't get off "scot free" in their sinning -- there will be "weeping and wailing" in the Second Death process -- but it is a Second Death, not a first eternal torture.  We are not told how long the final death process will take, but it could well be that each lost person must first experience the suffering they caused others while alive.

No matter what the exact details, we can count on our Dad also being merciful to His worst enemies, as He commands us to be.  And a final termination is what they will most desperately desire, since to have to be in Heaven (on the new earth) with God would be a kind of hell for them -- so in compassion He will let them go, into non-existence, not prolong their agony indefinitely.

l.a.:  "As for me, as you know, the same word for "eternal" is used for eternal life as eternal punishment."

Yes, and it actually means "ages of ages".  The difference is in the object being referred to.  In the case of Believers, the "ages of ages" of their Life in Christ is neverending, since they have His immortality given to them at the Resurrection.  For the lost, the punishment is eternal, also, the Second Death; it is not eternal "punishing" but rather a one-time punishment with eternal consequences and effects.  (Just like eternal Redemption is a one-time redemption with unending effects and consequences, and eternal Justification is a one-time justification with unending effects and consequences.)

So eternal punishment is a final punishment, the ultimate penalty in the perfect Law of God which is death, and that death lasts forever, it will never be rescinded, there will be no more resurrections after the Judgement is completed.  And "Death and Hades" will also be destroyed when there is no more need for either, since all the lost will be terminated.

If i am wrong, as you say, i would trust our perfect Dad to understand that His wording in His Word is what i based my belief/teaching on.  And increasing numbers of Believers are seeing what has been there all along -- a final, total, destruction to ashes in the Lake of Fire for all of those who reject eternal Life in Christ.

So how about giving me a point by point rebuttal of the Scriptures i have laid out in the first post above?  I would appreciate your effort and i would try to keep from getting "hostile" about your disagreements.  (By grace, not natural human personality inclinations, of course.)

11  Forums / Main Forum / Re: The unrepentant sinner--problem for Arminians only? on: July 20, 2014, 11:17:31 AM

Glad to share any experiences i have had, especially how Jesus has set me free from the extreme self-inflicted prisons i had condemned myself to.  (And how there is ever more freedom available for all of us...)
12  Forums / Main Forum / Re: The unrepentant sinner--problem for Arminians only? on: July 17, 2014, 01:23:50 PM
What I have in mind is a particular sexual sin being debated in the Christian church as to whether or not it's actually a sin. Liberals insist these folks are born that way and conservatives say choices are involved in the fruition of that sin into the subsequent lifestyle. As an adherent of TULIP, however, I think the issue isn't all that relevant given God sovereignly deciding whom He'll save independent of man's decisions. Those He saves becomes "ex-whatevers". Those He doesn't remain in that sin until natural death. Arminians, OTOH, may not have it so easy because their theology typically says that a sinner, once empowered by HS, can willingly choose to repent of sin and follow Christ. So, how is he to explain the unrepentant homosexual who insists he's really saved?

Here's one more point of view.  As a "recovered homosexual" (recovered by Christ), i can say that yes, i did choose that lifestyle, it wasn't dictated to me by my genes, anymore than my alcoholism was.  I may have had a genetic "predisposition" to one or both of them, but it was my earliest and deepest choices which determined my later addictions.

I didn't just get forced to get drunk repeatedly, i wanted to, and shut out any spiritual conviction which disagreed.  I didn't just mechanically get forced to have sex with men, i wanted to, and i suppressed any spiritual sense of wrongness sent from God.  And repeated shutting out, or suppression, combined with rationalization and justification of sin leads to strongholds of behavior, since we justify that "it's just the way I am".

But in Christ we are new creations -- and still we can hold onto some of our older identities until the time comes to deal with them, too.  I didn't stop smoking cigarettes (after 40+ years of puffing away) right away after receiving Christ -- i accepted Him as Savior of my life but wasn't ready to be nicotine-free until years later.  So was i "unsaved" until i quit (by His grace), the smoking, drinking, sexing, cussing, etc.?

Naw, that doesn't make any sense.  What does make sense is that He initiated "a program" of freedom, and focused my attention on one sin addiction at a time, and it took years (and still continues).  I was just as saved as a "smoking Christian" as when i became a "smoke-free Christian".  The same principle seems to apply to the other patterns also.

He was (is) very patient and persistent with me (us).  But if i had persisted in all my "multiple addition identities", then there would be no reason to think that i was being "saved".  The Savior starts His work when we call upon Him sincerely, and that may take some time, but He is reliably faithful.  Love never fails once received.

John 1: 11-13 Amplified
"He came to that which belonged to Him [to His own—His domain, creation, things, world], and they who were His own did not receive Him and did not welcome Him.

But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name—

Who owe their birth neither to bloods nor to the will of the flesh [that of physical impulse] nor to the will of man [that of a natural father], but to God. [They are born of God!]"
13  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Free sins vs our part. on: July 17, 2014, 12:55:33 PM

You seem to me to be missing the most fundamental reason for "confessing our sins".

When we tell God and others that we have done wrong, in sufficient detail, we are admitting that He is right and we were not following His instructions.  We, as reborn Believers in Christ, are kids going back to our Heavenly Dad, and agreeing with what He had been indicating to us all along -- expecting, without demanding, His forgiveness (since it has been provided for us at the Cross), and looking for Him to empower and encourage us to try again.

This childlike simplicity eliminates much confusion, and doesn't get us tied up into curses and blessings, or other works.  It's merely honesty with Him, and trusting Him, and depending on Him, instead of ourselves.  Beautiful way to live, when we actually do it.  True?

I hear that "honesty" is just "oneness with Truth", and we know Who that is, don't we.  The feeling of "being out of fellowship" is not on His part, but it is on us.  When we have done wrong and know it, we instinctively shut ourselves off from conscious unity with Christ, just as the first parents did in the Garden.  And He draws us back to Himself, until we are willing to admit our wrongs and thank Him for His rightness in our lives.

Whoops, too many words.  Short form: remember His love for us, repent/confess, trust/obey.
14  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Eternal torture appears dead at last on: July 15, 2014, 05:54:46 PM
KK, can't believe anyone is requesting this. For crying out loud give it a rest.  
You may feel this way,but for some of us this issue is a BIG DEAL in how we see,and move forward,(if at all) with God.I think it needs to be talked about more openly in places like this forum,because fair & balanced discussions are NOT happening in the vast majority of 'mainstream' churches.My .02,and YMMV./ cool

I have to agree.  Though the teaching of the eternal torture of the finally impenitent has lost a lot of popularity and support in the last few decades, there are plenty of churches still hanging onto the doctrine.  I hear evidence of it often on Christian radio, with very little being said about "conditional immortality", which is usually just dismissed by calling it a long confusing name which sounds like heresy -- "annihilationism".  

And there are not many other topics which so influence the less-than-conscious image we have of God than what we have been taught He will do to His enemies in the End.  The outline above, in post one, shows how eternal torture distorts His love, grace, justice/fairness, mercy, compassion and character in general.

Sorry, l.a., this is just too important to too many Believers not to continue the dialog as long as anyone is willing to look into it.  We shall know the Truth and He will set us free, especially from our wrong understandings of our perfect Dad.
15  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Eternal torture appears dead at last on: July 15, 2014, 05:49:11 PM
  Oh,it's still alive & kicking in many circles,unfortunately. Sad

 Just met and spoke with a pastor friend this morning who stated that he absolutely believes in a hekk of eternal conscious suffering.

 I came home,and just ordered Edward Fudge's book,The Fire that Consumes........vee shall seE!!/ huh

 Vera Lee~ Afro

Fantastic!  I have heard about Fudge's book, but never took the opportunity to buy it.  I hear it is long, but I would be glad to discuss it with you, if you are willing.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 624
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!