Is the Rapture Biblical?

[Enoch2021]

Hi Enoch2021,

 

I do enjoy reading your posts which are presented so well with clear, precise truth for those who would work through it. I also learnt much concerning the various Bible versions. So thank you for that work & it is a pleasure to read a brother`s work upholding the truth of God`s word.

 

Blessings, Marilyn.

 

You're welcome.

 

It's a very "Rare" animal receiving any compliments on the threads I post on, so I appreciate your kind words.

 

I spend the majority of my time in various "Science" Forums taking evolution to the Woodshed and beating it Senseless   Even in the aristocracy of academia, I run into the same Phenomenon (Conceptually)

 

This one....

 

(Acts 17:11) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

 

I always thought the last part of this verse was the problem..... "and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."  But alas, it is not.  The first part of the verse is the Elephant in the Room...."they received the word with all readiness of mind".

 

You spoke to this before.....Being Teachable!!  This is Hands Down without even a Glimmer of Doubt the Biggest Problem I run into....  i.e., their minds are already made up.

 

IMHO, when you reach the Unteachable Point...whether it be PRIDE, stubbornness, et al, it's OVER; The "die is cast".  What a scary place that would be.

 

 

I heard this many years ago and it rings in my ears daily.......The only true barrier to truth is the presumption that you already have it.  

 

 

I don't have much of a choice Upholding the WORD of GOD, that "die is cast"  

[Marilyn C]

Hi Enoch2021,

 

I so agree with you. I have found even here that I can agree with some points people say eg inchrist & then disagree on other areas. The challenge also is to have the right attitude. I used to love to `cut & thrust` but am more & more concerned for the other person that I wont put them off the truth (if that is what I am presenting) by my bad attitude.

 

Looking forward to more discussions as I`m sure there are areas we will have to work through. But as we both have a similar grounding those discussions will lead us into new areas perhaps.

 

Blessings, Marilyn.

[ghtan]

Hi Enoch 2021,

 

Thanks for naming all the other translations that do not agree with the KJV. I did not know there were so many.

 

Reading the NIV preface, it says its NT translation is an eclectic one, i.e. it based its translations on ALL available greek manuscripts not just Westcott and Hort. (And there are thousands of greeks manuscripts.) So to say that the non-KJV translations just follow W&H is plainly wrong. I have not checked the prefaces of the other english versions but I would be surprised if the rest just rely on W&H. (Actually, the W&H has been largely superseded by the UBS and NA greek texts.)

 

Now, just specifically on Rev 5:9-10, if the KJV alone is correct and all the other versions are wrong even though they refer not only to the W&H text, there must be a conspiracy among the translators and editors of all those other versions to disagree with the KJV. Is that logical? (I think we can safely eliminate the possibility that they are ALL too naive or deluded to be able to tell right from wrong.) Or is it much more likely that all these translators and editors can see that the KJV is wrong on Rev 5:9-10?

Edited November 4, 2014 by ghtan

[Enoch2021]

Hi Enoch 2021,

 

Thanks for naming all the other translations that do not agree with the KJV. I did not know there were so many.

 

Reading the NIV preface, it says its NT translation is an eclectic one, i.e. it based its translations on ALL available greek manuscripts not just Westcott and Hort. (And there are thousands of greeks manuscripts.) So to say that the non-KJV translations just follow W&H is plainly wrong. I have not checked the prefaces of the other english versions but I would be surprised if the rest just rely on W&H. (Actually, the W&H has been largely superseded by the UBS and NA greek texts.)

 

Now, just specifically on Rev 5:9-10, if the KJV alone is correct and all the other versions are wrong even though they refer not only to the W&H text, there must be a conspiracy among the translators and editors of all those other versions to disagree with the KJV. Is that logical? (I think we can safely eliminate the possibility that they are ALL too naive or deluded to be able to tell right from wrong.) Or is it much more likely that all these translators and editors can see that the KJV is wrong on Rev 5:9-10?

 

 

 

=========================================================================================================================

 

 

 

Thanks for naming all the other translations that do not agree with the KJV. I did not know there were so many.

 

 

They're all Corrupt...as I illuminated in Detail. 

 

 

Reading the NIV preface, it says its NT translation is an eclectic one, i.e. it based its translations on ALL available greek manuscripts not just Westcott and Hort.

 

 

You read the preface?     My word.  Westcott and Hort aren't "Manuscripts" and the 3 Main Sources for each of the editions I listed are the demonstrably Corrupt Alexandrian Codices I alluded to previously.

 

 

there must be a conspiracy among the translators and editors of all those other versions to disagree with the KJV. Is that logical?

 

 

Logic has nothing to do with it.  If you have problems with Conspiracies, I suggest you read Psalm 2 slowly.

 

Is there Precedent? ....

 

(Genesis 3:1-4) "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?  {2} And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:  {3} But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.  {4} And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

 

So, satan's tactics 101:

 

1. Create Doubt

2. Change GOD'S WORD.  <---------     

 

There are over 400 translations of the Bible.......ahhh, why?  And if not satan, then who?  

 

There is One True Vine, however.  It requires "a smidgen" of Due Diligence to uncover it.

[ghtan]

Ah well, I rest my case. You live in a world where all our bros and sisters who work tirelessly on the UBS and NA greeks texts, and the various translations, are conspiring against the KJV. On the other hand, I give those hundreds of scholars who form those committees that translate the bible versions the benefit of doubt that they have no hidden agenda against the KJV. If they unanimously disagree with the KJV on any particular verse, it indicates to me that they are convinced that the KJV is wrong on that verse. I certainly would not pin my hopes for the timing of the rapture on a certain reading of a verse that nearly all other translations disagree with, because the chances are very high that I would be disappointed.

Edited November 5, 2014 by ghtan

[Enoch2021]

Ah well, I rest my case. You live in a world where all our bros and sisters who work tirelessly on the UBS and NA greeks texts, and the various translations, are conspiring against the KJV. On the other hand, I give those hundreds of scholars who form those committees that translate the bible versions the benefit of doubt that they have no hidden agenda against the KJV. If they unanimously disagree with the KJV on any particular verse, it indicates to me that they are convinced that the KJV is wrong on that verse. I certainly would not pin my hopes for the timing of the rapture on a certain reading of a verse that nearly all other translations disagree with, because the chances are very high that I would be disappointed.

 

============================================================================

 

 

Ah well, I rest my case.

 

 

You have no case unless you call Unsupported Opinions and Rogue Sweeping Generalizations a Case....I call them what they are: Fallacies.

 

 

all our bros and sisters who work tirelessly on the UBS and NA greeks texts, and the various translations, are conspiring against the KJV.

 

 

Strawman (Fallacy).  I never said that, I said their source documents are proven demonstrably Corrupted.

 

And, I'm gonna need extensive background checks ("FBI Type") on each of those "bros and sisters" that go back @ least 3 generations.  Along with extensive one on one interviews with me, Personally!

 

 

I give those hundreds of scholars who form those committees that translate the bible versions the benefit of doubt that they have no hidden agenda

 

 

Well that's an assumption based on Vapor. There's a saying about assumptions...

 

And define Due Diligence....?

 

I certainly would not pin my hopes for the timing of the rapture on a certain reading of a verse

 

 

I don't.

 

I have about 30 Scriptural and 5 Basic Reasoning Proofs... that accomplish that mission.

 

And there is no "Timing" of the Rapture in regards with the 24 Elders "directly"...it's just their Identity, that is the question.

 

 

If they unanimously disagree with the KJV on any particular verse

 

 

First, Consensus doesn't equal TRUTH.  And, it's a Fallacy----Argument to Popularity.

 

Second,  Do you think they sit in the room....come up with a verse from their Corrupted Codices then compare it to the AKJV....then, make a call?

 

 

I rest my case on the overwhelming proof against Westcott and Hort: Their Own Words, Their Corrupted Source Documents, and their Memberships and relationships with known Satanists!!

 

It's quite the Open and Shut Motif.  The Jurists seats were still cold!

[PeteWaldo]

I have not checked the prefaces of the other english versions but I would be surprised if the rest just rely on W&H. (Actually, the W&H has been largely superseded by the UBS and NA greek texts.)

 

Let's take a look at what Dr. Frank Logsdon who wrote the preface to the NASB (which in my view is at least better than Rupert Murdoch's NIV), wrote after he investigated more closely, what had been done:

 

"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard,

...I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord ... We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...

I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it? ... I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ...

When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended.  However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV.  Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV ... The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times .. The deletions are absolutely frightening ... there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? ...

I don't want anything to do with it ...

[T]he finest leaders that we have today .. haven't gone into it [the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived ... I'm going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things ...

[Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct.  How correct? 100% correct! ...

If you must stand against everyone else, stand."

Dr. Frank Logsdon

While Dr. Logsdon may have allowed his pendulum to swing a little to far the other way, by suggesting the KJV is 100% correct, you get the drift regarding what this could say regarding corruption of the pop-bible versions. There are few ventures more profitable, than creating yet another version, of the largest selling book in the world.

Edited November 5, 2014 by PeteWaldo

[ghtan]

Hi Peter,

 

Nice to meet someone new on this forum. I do not know anything about this Frank Logsdon and so I will limit my comments to what you have in your article.

 

First, if Frank wrote the preface to the NASB and now suddenly does a flip-flop, I would question his credibility. He couldn't have been forced to work on the NASB, nor to write its preface, so why does he change his mind now? I think a person who does such an about-turn is not a reliable witness. (That is provided all this is even true.)

 

Second, the translation of the NASB was not done by him alone but by a team - apparently, there were 58 translators in all - so have the rest recanted? If not, why do we believe one man against the rest? If ten preachers came to your church and preached a similar idea but one comes and preach a completely different idea and even says that the idea preached by the previous ten was wrong, would you believe the one or the ten? Surely you would give the benefit of doubt to the ten until you carefully investigated the claims of the one. Have you carefully investigated the claims of the one? (Especially if there is any truth in the article.) I don't read any proof in your article, only rambling.

 

Third, as you noted, Frank has probably exaggerated by saying that the KJV is 100% correct. But if he did indeed say that, I would question his objectivity. No translation can claim to be 100% correct; the translators do the best that they can using whatever is available to them at that time. I doubt even the KJV claims to be a perfect translation. If instead Frank is prone to exaggeration, then might he not have exaggerated many other things in his version of events?

 

Therefore, I think if we believe Frank, it is because we choose to and not because the evidence supports him. (And this applies only if he did say what the article says he said).

 

Cheers!

Edited November 6, 2014 by ghtan

[PeteWaldo]

Hi Peter,

 

Nice to meet someone new on this forum. I do not know anything about this Frank Logsdon and so I will limit my comments to what you have in your article.

 

First, if Frank wrote the preface to the NASB and now suddenly does a flip-flop, I would question his credibility. He couldn't have been forced to work on the NASB, nor to write its preface, so why does he change his mind now? I think a person who does such an about-turn is not a reliable witness. (That is provided all this is even true.)

 

So not knowing anything about Frank Logsdon you were willing to go ahead and speculate in negative judgment against our Christian brother. Did you bother to check the veracity of what he wrote online, before you voiced suspicion as to whether the account itself was true - against me and/or the source I relied on by writing: "(That is provided all this is even true.)".

For pity's sake didn't you even Google - dr frank logsdon - before passing judgment on him, let alone the veracity of what I included about what he wrote?

 

Did you decide to rail against Logsdon and whether that account even existed, because you have read some of the books that carefully and systematically study the differences between hundreds of specific verses in the the pop-versions as compared to the King James, or are you attacking the messenger even while you remain in relative ignorance to the subject? Why don't you try picking up a used copy of one of those books like "New Age Bible Versions", and rip out everything in the book except for the hundreds of pages that compare the pop-version verses next to the King James, side by side, and then draw your own conclusions? Then rather than starting down the road of demonizing a brother you can instead discuss the substance of the subject.

 

You asked "why does he change his mind now" which was made clear in the post that you were replying to when Dr. Logsdon wrote:

 

I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ...

When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended.  However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV.  Upon investigation.....

 

In other words he investigated the subject after his error was pointed out to him by his brethren.

Have you investigated the subject through the view from both sides?

You further wrote:

 

I think a person who does such an about-turn is not a reliable witness. (That is provided all this is even true.)

 

I would contend that someone who staunchly holds a specific belief, while squeezing their eyes shut to cognitive dissonance, makes the absolute hands-down worst witness. Like much of the product of seminaries.

 

I would further suggest that folks that have held a cherished belief with their whole hearts, that later overcome what they were indoctrinated or indoctrinated themselves to believe, because of a truth they later found that is contrary to their former belief, make the most credible witnesses.

 

They've believed something with their whole heart, and then something contrary to it, and again with their whole heart. Plunged into it fully. They are intimately familiar with both sides of the coin.

 

Do you think that somebody that is indoctrinated into say futurism, that passionately advanced it for years, yet never honestly investigated the other two approaches of preterism or the tradition of historicism would be a better witness, than someone who held futurist doctrine for years and even uploaded websites exploring and advancing it, that later came to believe it was in serious error by discovering that one of the other whole approaches was far superior based on its own independent merit?

 

Do you think that Muslims that have overcome the false prophet Muhammad, and have come to Jesus Christ, are unreliable witnesses regarding Islam?

For those "former 'Christians'" that make the claim of going the other way, their testament itself is always all that is needed, to expose their foolish - and particularly purely carnal - efforts to witness against the Gospel ("children of the flesh").

 

How about ex-Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons? Do you think they make the best witnesses against their former beliefs, having studied them, had them preached to them, discussed them with like-minded brethren, and held them with their whole hearts? Than someone who never held those beliefs?

 

My friend, I would suggest that someone like Dr Frank Logsdon who spent no small amount of time being involved in working on the NASB (by the way he describes his participation), that later investigates the evidence thatis brought against, that is so condemning that it causes him to rail against it in a very public Christian rebuke in efforts to set himself straight with Jesus Christ, would perhaps be the most convincing testimony against it. A man who makes it clear that he is in fear of God for what he was in part responsible for.

All I had to do was see the term "antichrist" capitalized in some verses and not in others, in my "less bad than most modern bibles" New King James version, to set it aside as being too driven by doctrine.

 

Second, the translation of the NASB was not done by him alone but by a team - apparently, there were 58 translators in all - so have the rest recanted? If not, why do we believe one man against the rest?

 

I would speculate that for more than a few, the reason is that few things are more profitable than creating yet another version, of the best selling book in the world.

 

I would encourage you to investigate the changes and omissions and then draw your own conclusions.

 

And on that note I bid you all, adieu.

Edited November 7, 2014 by PeteWaldo

[Enoch2021]

 

Hi Peter,

 

Nice to meet someone new on this forum. I do not know anything about this Frank Logsdon and so I will limit my comments to what you have in your article.

 

First, if Frank wrote the preface to the NASB and now suddenly does a flip-flop, I would question his credibility. He couldn't have been forced to work on the NASB, nor to write its preface, so why does he change his mind now? I think a person who does such an about-turn is not a reliable witness. (That is provided all this is even true.)

 

So not knowing anything about Frank Logsdon you were willing to go ahead and speculate in negative judgment against our Christian brother. Did you bother to check the veracity of what he wrote online, before you voiced suspicion as to whether the account itself was true - against me and/or the source I relied on by writing: "(That is provided all this is even true.)".

For pity's sake didn't you even Google - dr frank logsdon - before passing judgment on him, let alone the veracity of what I included about what he wrote?

 

Did you decide to rail against Logsdon and whether that account even existed, because you have read some of the books that carefully and systematically study the differences between hundreds of specific verses in the the pop-versions as compared to the King James, or are you attacking the messenger even while you remain in relative ignorance to the subject? Why don't you try picking up a used copy of one of those books like "New Age Bible Versions", and rip out everything in the book except for the hundreds of pages that compare the pop-version verses next to the King James, side by side, and then draw your own conclusions? Then rather than starting down the road of demonizing a brother you can instead discuss the substance of the subject.

 

You asked "why does he change his mind now" which was made clear in the post that you were replying to when Dr. Logsdon wrote:

 

I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ...

When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended.  However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV.  Upon investigation.....

 

In other words he investigated the subject after his error was pointed out to him by his brethren.

Have you investigated the subject through the view from both sides?

You further wrote:

 

I think a person who does such an about-turn is not a reliable witness. (That is provided all this is even true.)

 

I would contend that someone who staunchly holds a specific belief, while squeezing their eyes shut to cognitive dissonance, makes the absolute hands-down worst witness. Like much of the product of seminaries.

 

I would further suggest that folks that have held a cherished belief with their whole hearts, that later overcome what they were indoctrinated or indoctrinated themselves to believe, because of a truth they later found that is contrary to their former belief, make the most credible witnesses.

 

They've believed something with their whole heart, and then something contrary to it, and again with their whole heart. Plunged into it fully. They are intimately familiar with both sides of the coin.

 

Do you think that somebody that is indoctrinated into say futurism, that passionately advanced it for years, yet never honestly investigated the other two approaches of preterism or the tradition of historicism would be a better witness, than someone who held futurist doctrine for years and even uploaded websites exploring and advancing it, that later came to believe it was in serious error by discovering that one of the other whole approaches was far superior based on its own independent merit?

 

Do you think that Muslims that have overcome the false prophet Muhammad, and have come to Jesus Christ, are unreliable witnesses regarding Islam?

For those "former 'Christians'" that make the claim of going the other way, their testament itself is always all that is needed, to expose their foolish - and particularly purely carnal - efforts to witness against the Gospel ("children of the flesh").

 

How about ex-Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons? Do you think they make the best witnesses against their former beliefs, having studied them, had them preached to them, discussed them with like-minded brethren, and held them with their whole hearts? Than someone who never held those beliefs?

 

My friend, I would suggest that someone like Dr Frank Logsdon who spent no small amount of time being involved in working on the NASB (by the way he describes his participation), that later investigates the evidence thatis brought against, that is so condemning that it causes him to rail against it in a very public Christian rebuke in efforts to set himself straight with Jesus Christ, would perhaps be the most convincing testimony against it. A man who makes it clear that he is in fear of God for what he was in part responsible for.

All I had to do was see the term "antichrist" capitalized in some verses and not in others, in my "less bad than most modern bibles" New King James version, to set it aside as being too driven by doctrine.

 

Second, the translation of the NASB was not done by him alone but by a team - apparently, there were 58 translators in all - so have the rest recanted? If not, why do we believe one man against the rest?

 

I would speculate that for more than a few, the reason is that few things are more profitable than creating yet another version, of the best selling book in the world.

 

I would encourage you to investigate the changes and omissions and then draw your own conclusions.

 

And on that note I bid you all, adieu.

 

 

 

=========================================================================================================

 

 

Well thought out, poignant, and concise.