Born Crucified

From the TR: It is quite obvious that there are more words here than just "There are three that bear record in Heaven. and there are more words than just "the Spirit, the water, and the blood"

Hmmmm, possibly a diamond or trapezoid. "4 corners of Earth" = points along hemispherical/equitorial lines of the globe? "4 corners of Earth" = nonliteral expression? I was joking, Gauntlet. I do not believe the earth is rectangular, square, diamond or trapezoid shaped.

Everybody knows the earth is either retangular or square in shape. Hmmmm, possibly a diamond or trapezoid.

now I am confused. do you own one of the 24 hand-written Wycliffe Bibles of 1384 or do you own a copy of the Wycliffe Bible of 1384? I own a copy

A person cannot be saved apart from the Word of God. One cannot lead another to Christ without presenting to that person a portion of the Bible. Even if only by memory, the Bible is the tool that must be used to lead another to the Lord.

yes, I do. when was it printed? The Wycliffe Bible was hand-written in 1384. There are only a known 24 in existance. and you own one of the 24? I own a copy.

yes, I do. when was it printed? The Wycliffe Bible was hand-written in 1384. There are only a known 24 in existance.

yes, I do.

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary was not written by Wycliffe, but by people of the late 20th Century.

The claim that verse 8 was not there until the 16th Century is a false claim by someone trying to push a false doctrine. In the fourteenth Century, Wycliffe translated from the Greek and Hebrew and his version had verse 8: It is false claims such as the one purporting that there was no verse 8 until the 1500's that cause most Bible believers to go on the defensive when it comes to other versions. and paraphrases.

glorywatch, There are several different versions that remove "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" from verse 7 and remove "There are three that bear record in Heaven" from verse 8. When read from these versions, you get the false the deception is obvious Take for instance, the ESV: 1 John 5:7-8 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. Here is the ASV: 1 John 5:7-8 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. (Notice, the Father and the Word do not bear witness in this version, thereby not a good translation either)

Is God double-minded? Why would He tell some people "There are three that bear record in heaven; the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost," and tell others "There are three that bear record in Heaven; the Spirit, the water and the blood"?

I beg to differ. Paul, as well as many others had the writings of the Prophets. Jesus Himself read from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue. Philip was said to have ministered to the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading from Isaiah. They had their Bible. It was Old Testament Scripture, but it still pointed to Christ. I do not deny this. They had the Tanakh. And as we see, all the Old Testement writings that pointed to Jesus, were read by the same people who denied Christ. But, How than, did the Apostles and disciples in that time teach people about Christs coming and lessons? Did they hand them a bible? No. They preached the word. The gospels were documented after Christs resurrection. The rest of the books we have are simply letters to the church. Do you think that the Church of Corinth was reading Romans 8:23 on the Sabbath? Of course not, they didn't have that. Disciples went out and verbally spread the word...This was also the reason for the true "gift of tongues". It was a language between two cultures in order for them to understand each other thus the spread of the gospel. The gospel being that the Messiah had come. Not to mention, look at the churches that were written to. These were gentiles for the most part. They didn't even study the Tanakh. I'm sorry...but the very scriptures that you aim to protect via the KJV are the very scriptures you are destroying by taking them out of context. This just goes to show...it's better to have a different version, with an understanding of the scriptures in their entirity If one can't understand and grasp the KJV. A different version that in some verses denies the virgin birth? A different version that is some verses remove the deity of Christ? A different version that in some verses removes the blood? A different version that in some verses removes the suffering that Christ went through and instead gives Him a black eye? No thanks.

I beg to differ. Paul, as well as many others had the writings of the Prophets. Jesus Himself read from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue. Philip was said to have ministered to the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading from Isaiah. They had their Bible. It was Old Testament Scripture, but it still pointed to Christ.

Many could translate who are not guided by the Holy Spirit, but one who is unsaved may not translate correctly. Take for instance, when God's Word speaks of 'qadesh', the KJV translates 'sodomite.' Other versions translate it as 'temple prostitute.' Does this mean God is not against prostitution except in the Temple? Other translations say 'cult prostitute.' Does this mean that as long was one is not in a cult, one can be a prostitute? There are many translations of the Bible out there. I myself own 62 different translations. Which is right? Sodomite? Temple Prostitute? Cult Prostitute? Idolatress? or one of the many other translations? You see, therein lies the problem. God's Word is right, and for a translation to be right, one would have to have to be guided by the Holy Spirit in the translation or there is confusion. God is not the author of confusion. His Word declares that those who love and make lies shall in no way enter His Kingdom. Who is right? which translation is right? they all cannot be right when they all say different things and lead to differing thoughts.

Jesus does save, but without the preaching of the Word of God, Jesus cannot save.

The question was asked by in the OP: Your question implies that one cannot be saved under the teaching from the King James Bible... 'would you rather someone come to Christ reading a modern version or stay lost using the King James Version? IT is clear what was said and it is clear what is implied. I have not twisted anything. I quoted you word for word.

That's the point I make---as we are all called to preach the Gospel to every creature, we had better make sure it is plainly understood. The Holy Spirit isn't helped along when we offer archaic language to the unbeliever. We must offer the Gospel in our own language--verbally and written, so that others will be drawn to Christ. For those who are KJV purists, I rather think they are worshiping the written word rather than the author, and I would ask them how anyone who doesn't even speak English can possibly know Jesus in the first place, seeing as old King James never translated the Scriptures in Latvian or Spanish or Swahili. To imply that one cannot be saved through the reading of the King James Bible is to deny the Salvation of all those who were led to Christ over the last 398 years that had nothing prior to the modern versions being released. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why is He not able to minister His Word through the same means He used 398 years ago? Language is not the barrier at all. I was saved under the teaching and preaching of the cross through the King James Version. If one truly wishes to understand God's Word, God will give to that one an understanding. The Holy Spirit doesn't need our help if we are going to dismiss what was written already. Just because the language is 'archaic' does not mean God wants us to throw it away or that He wants us to dismiss it as being ineffective. The "thee's and thou's" of the King James English are still being used amongst the Amish and some Mennonite communities today. And they have no problem there. The problem is not a language barrier at all, it is the heart.

Actually, I don't hold myself to any of the OT Mosaic Law. Paul taught that those who put themselves under the Law were to follow 'all the law.' He said the Galatians were foolish to allow themselves to be bewitched into following the law. But even so, where is the command in the Old or New Testaments that tells us we are to tithe our money? Surely there must be at least one verse that states such? As to keeping the doors open, why not do that through offerings? Tithes were never for the upkeep of the Tabernacle/Temple... they were for feeding the ministers of the Tabernacle themselves. Perhaps someone can also tell me why the Church body in Acts 4 who sold their possessions and came and laid the full price at the Apostle's feet did not tithe 10% of that full price to the Church maintenance fund? There is no mention by Peter that they were supposed to tithe part of that increase of money they received for selling goods. When Ananias and Sapphira kept back part of the price in Chapter 5 of Acts, why did Peter not tell them they were robbing God because they did not tithe? His only rebuke to the two of them was that they had lied to the Holy Ghost. The only mention I find of tithing in the New Testament after the cross was the tithe by Abraham to Melchizedek. And that was of the spoils of war and not of Abraham's own property. Why did none of the Apostles teach that tithing of money was required... or even necessary... in any of their epistles?

I am just trying to find the answers. IN the Old Testament, I see no evidence that tithe was required outside the boundaries of national Israel. In my Bible studies, I was always told that if something is not in the Word of God, we should not preach it or teach it. People constantly preach and teach that the tithe of money is required by God and yet none have verses to substantiate their teachings. Why is this? Are we to teach outside God's Word? Is there not a curse pronounced to those who add to or take away from the wonderful truths of God's Word? Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The levites were the subjects being cursed in Malachi, not the congregation. The Levites were cursed no less than 3 times in the book of Malachi for their evils in the temple. In Chapter 3, they were wronging the widows, the orphans, the strangersin the land by not feeding them from the storehouse. Numbers 18 and Leviticus 27 are clear that the INCREASE was of the fruit and grain, flocks and herds. It was not frum all trades. Where is the Scripture that states that the tithe was changed from crops, flocks and herds to money?

Perhaps you could post some New Testament Scripture that commands the tithing of money? or at least provide the verses that state the tithe was amended to include those outside the borders of national Israel? If the Scripture was provided to show that we are to tithe our money, it would end debates concerning tithes once and for all.

Hi, ThePastorsWife. Perhaps you can point me to the Scripture that says that tithing was for the upkeep for the tabernacle? From what I read, the tithe was specifically for the Levites who were not allowed to have an inheritance and not for the upkeep of the tabernacle. I would think freewill offerings would be more for the upkeep of the Church, etc.. Again, I do not believe that tithing means 10% of any income as the only tithe God required was of crops, flocks and herds. Many would be shocked to find that neither Christ, nor His Disciples were required to tithe according to the laws God set forth concerning tithing.

Abraham tithed to a Semitic Canaanite king... Melchizedek. That tithe was of the spoils of war, not Abraham's own property. Abraham is never said to have tithed again. If people are going to say we must pattern Abraham and his tithe, then we must pattern it all the way. Go to war, and if victorious, give a tithe of the spoils to the king of the land and then give the rest to another king; just as Abraham gave the remainder of the spoils to the king of Sodom. Abraham's tithe was not of his increase because he had already vowed to God that he would not keep any of the spoils of war for himself. Money was in abundance prior to God's tithe being instituted. Money is mentioned no less than 44 times prior to God making it a law that Israel tithe. And yet, money is never said to be a tithe. As a matter of fact, in Deuteronomy 14, we read that if the tithe was too great to carry, one could sell the tithe FOR MONEY. Then when they arrived at the place that God had ordained, they were to BUY BACK THE TITHE WITH THE MONEY. Then they were to eat the tithe with the Levites. Tithes were not money even though money was in abundance. Leviticus 27:30-32 is specific as to what the tithe is from... the produce of the land; i.e., the fruit of the trees or the seed (grain) of the land, and of the flocks and herds. That which is given of the oil and wine, etc., as a firstfruit or off the top is not the tithe. Tithes and firstfruits were two separate things. Nehemiah 12:44 distinguishes the difference between the tithes and the firstfruits. Actually, no. Because the man worked for the money, not the sheep. The herdsman was the one responsible for tithing of his flock, not the one who bought a sheep and there was no increase from the purchase of that sheep. What would be the purpose of the purchase of the sheep? would it be for starting a flock? There would have to be more than one in the beginning. If the purchase is just for food from that one sheep, there would be no tithe required. Even if the purpose was to raise sheep, then the tithe would not be required until offspring were born, and that, enough offspring to tithe from. Moses, being a Levite, would have followed God's command to accept tithes and offerings. He would not have owned any property of his own and would have taking his turn working in the Tabernacle carrying out the duties God set forth for that ministration. The Levites were to receive the tithes and offerings from the congregation. The third year, the tithe was not to be eaten at the Tabernacle, but was to be used to feed the widows, the orphans, the Levites living in one's city, and the foreigners who were in the city as well. It was not used in the Tabernacle at all. It really should not be argued at all since God's Word declares who was to tithe, who was authorized to receive the tithe, what the tithe consisted of, and how often the tithe was required. So, since God's tithe was not to be received from people outside of national Israel, and that law was never abolished, why do people give what they call a tithe all over the world when God specifically said they were not to tithe? Leviticus is specific as to the tithe. The tithes of Leviticus 27 could not be received from proselytes, from non-Israelites, from unclean animals, from defiled lands inside Israel, nor from the defiled lands outside of Israel. There is no Scripture that says the tithe was amended to include those living outside of the boundaries of national Israel. Back to Melchizedek... Abraham gave him tithes of all. But the law, which you say was not abolished, states that all God requires from the spoils of war is 1/1000th of the spoils... not a tenth! Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth... tithes. The tithe received of Melchizedek was not God's requirement, but rather the act of obedience to an arab custom to give a tenth of the spoils of war to the king of that land.

Forgetting is to pay for a drink is not stealing. Realizing one forgot to pay and then not going back and paying... that would be stealing. The Lord chastens whom He loves. Sounds like you feel the chastening hand of the Lord upon you. Take the money for the drink to your boss next business day and all will be well, I am sure.