Jump to content

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  331
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,713
  • Content Per Day:  1.15
  • Reputation:   21
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/28/2004
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

My objections to the Textus Receptus being the only inspired text:

1) More manuscripts have been found post-completion of the TR that are more complete in their copy of scripture.

2) Eremaus collected these manuscripts in quite a hurry

3) He made many errors in his translation that the Alexandrian texts cover

4) He somtimes translated back from the Vulgate, in essence using Latin to validate the Greek

5) Many of the manuscripts he used can't be dated prior to the tenth century. Only a few go back to the sixth.

6) The Alexandrian manuscripts can be dated anywhere from the first century to the eigth century, giving us a closer time frame.

7) The Alexandrian and TR are around 85% similar and differ on word variants that aren't really translatable in English.

8) The Alexandrian manuscripts are a collection of scriptures dated to the early centuries, whereas the TR is dated to later centuries leaving more room for error in copying.

9) The Alexandrian texts, prior to the 9th century when the Byzantine empire began copying texts en masse (where we get the TR, otherwhise known as Codex Byzantine), these texts were copied more and relied on more than the Byzantine texts.

Those are just a few of the problems I have....I'm sure there are more. :thumbsup:

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  117
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  3,860
  • Content Per Day:  0.53
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/10/2005
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1984

Posted

Well said, Super Jew :thumbsup:


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  32
  • Topic Count:  669
  • Topics Per Day:  0.09
  • Content Count:  59,781
  • Content Per Day:  7.65
  • Reputation:   31,175
  • Days Won:  323
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

SJ, I have read that the Alexandria texts were created in the area that the Gnostic's were very prevalent and some of the teachings of the Gnostic's may have creped into those texts.

One example was changing the text in John 3:16 to read that if ones believes he/she "will" be saved, whereas the original that is used the other texts say should be saved, or might not perish.

It is where some of my good Baptist brothers and sisters get their easy salvation doctrine, and I do not think it is correct.

So I personally have to really look at the differences between them, because they do make a great deal of difference in salvation doctrine.

se


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  331
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,713
  • Content Per Day:  1.15
  • Reputation:   21
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/28/2004
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

And the Codex Byzantine first emerges during a time and place where Arianism was predominate. :taped:

The Alexandrian text can be accused of having gnostic influence, however it is much harder to prove this. For instance, in sometimes seems to affirm the deity of Christ more than the TR in certain instances....something a gnostic would not have done.


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  722
  • Content Per Day:  0.10
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/01/2005
  • Status:  Offline

Posted (edited)
My objections to the Textus Receptus being the only inspired text:

1) More manuscripts have been found post-completion of the TR that are more complete in their copy of scripture.

2) Eremaus collected these manuscripts in quite a hurry

3) He made many errors in his translation that the Alexandrian texts cover

4) He somtimes translated back from the Vulgate, in essence using Latin to validate the Greek

5) Many of the manuscripts he used can't be dated prior to the tenth century. Only a few go back to the sixth.

6) The Alexandrian manuscripts can be dated anywhere from the first century to the eigth century, giving us a closer time frame.

7) The Alexandrian and TR are around 85% similar and differ on word variants that aren't really translatable in English.

8) The Alexandrian manuscripts are a collection of scriptures dated to the early centuries, whereas the TR is dated to later centuries leaving more room for error in copying.

9) The Alexandrian texts, prior to the 9th century when the Byzantine empire began copying texts en masse (where we get the TR, otherwhise known as Codex Byzantine), these texts were copied more and relied on more than the Byzantine texts.

Those are just a few of the problems I have....I'm sure there are more. :online2long:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Super Jew...my nemesis...haha...

Here I go. I will defend the Textus Receptus, point by point:

1) You say that the Alexandrian manuscripts are more plentiful. This does not mean that these texts are more reliable than the Textus Receptus. Why would you presume such a conclusion? Just because the Apocrypha manuscripts may be more abundant than the epistle of Jude's manuscripts, this does not prove Jude lesser. I do not see your relativeness here.

2) Eramus collected these texts in quite a hurry...so what? God parted the red sea in quite a hurry too. I don't see how this is relative. I'd be in a hurry to choose the KJV over the modern versions anyday. This doesn't mean that the KJV is false. It means CONFIDENCE.

3) He made mistakes? Oh really? Just stating this so does not make it so. Would like to see some proof. Accusations are easy.

4) How eramus translated is beyond me. Professing themselves wise, they became fools. I am neither a scholar nor a wise man. I am, however, resting in the simplicity of Christ. He is able to preserve His word. Whichever way He chooses to do so, is up to Him. Latin, Greek...whatever. God preserved His Word...that is the argument here. Let's not get lost in the details. God is in charge of them.

5) Again, you use age to validate preservation or non-preservation. I already told you why the TR manuscripts are newer. They were being copied more readily and used more often, thus, wear and tear, etc. Also, the Catholic Church hunted down the TR manuscripts and burned them whenever they could. Now you can see why there is more of the Alexandrian texts...no one was reading them, and the persecution was not present on the same level in regards to them.

6) Again, you use age as a defence. This will be proven an unworthy stance. Read on.

7) I agree that the TR and the Alex. manuscripts are VERY, VERY SIMILAR. However, this does not mean that they are ALIKE. They are not. In some very important issues and doctrines, they DIFFER. One word can and does make a difference.

8) You assume that because the TR is newer, that there was more time for error to creep in. This is the same point that the heretics Westcott and Hort make. Let me ask you this...Is anything too hard for God??? He can preserve His Word in His own wisdom...however, His ways are foolishness unto those that perish and know not the truth of the simplicity of Christ.

9) I don't care how many texts and variants and codex's the Alexandrian versions used. This does not mean a thing. If anything, it means that there is a wider chance of error creeping in through these variety of texts, etc. God's way is the narrow way.

Finally, let me make MY case. God says in Psalm 119:89,90...

"FOR EVER, O Lord, Thy Word is SETTLED IN HEAVEN...unto ALL GENERATIONS."

Let's use common sense...greek, this text/that text, and all complexity aside... How does God function and work? He tells us that He will preserve His Word. He did not say HOW He would do this, only that HE WOULD. Not only...He tells us that He would do this for ALL GENERATIONS.

Common sense/Biblical sense should tell us something here. If a certain group of manuscripts were NOT AVAILABLE to certain generations...would THESE MANUSCRIPTS pass God's litmus test for preservation as stated in Psalm 119, the Book of Isaiah and Luke, etc.??? Of course not. If I could not read or hear the Alexandrian texts in 1324 AD, for whatever reasons (whether it be they were lost, hidden, etc.)...these are, in turn, NOT QUALIFIED TO BE COUNTED AMONG GOD'S WORD. His Word is unto ALL GENERATIONS...not SOME generations.

Also, the Alexandrians texts differ from each other. Read the NIV, the NASB, etc., and what you will see is footnotes like this:

"Some versions may not contain..." "The most reliable manuscripts say..." "The oldest texts say...", etc., etc.

This is Satan's weapon...casting DOUBT upon God's Words. Yea, hath God said? Remember those words spoken in the garden of eden?

God is not UNSURE of 1 John 5:7, or the last 9 verses of Mark, or 1 Timothy 3:16, etc. God is very, very SURE...let me tell you that. The King James Version says what it says. The Textus Receptus manuscripts are the SAME. They do not differ, or leave out parts, or add in parts to God's Word. And this is why I believe that the TR manuscripts are reliable.

Jesus said that we should not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of God's mouth. The modern versions themselves admit that they are not sure of God's EVERY WORD. They question themselves, differ from one another, and raise questions and doubts concerning the Word of God.

The KING JAMES VERSION and the TEXTUS RECEPTUS texts have been available throughout the ages, and do not conflict or differentiate from each other. They have chronological succession behind them, and textual conformity supporting them. This proves divine preservation as the other manuscripts cannot make the same claims...which were BOTH promises by God...who cannot lie!!!

According to the NIV, maybe Jesus didn't rise from the dead, or wasn't really God...but according to the KJV...He certainly did rise again and is God Almighty.

Thus saith the Lord?...or...Some manuscripts may contain...???

You pick.

Edited by halifaxchristian

  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  722
  • Content Per Day:  0.10
  • Reputation:   10
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/01/2005
  • Status:  Offline

Posted
And the Codex Byzantine first emerges during a time and place where Arianism was predominate. :online2long:

The Alexandrian text can be accused of having gnostic influence, however it is much harder to prove this. For instance, in sometimes seems to affirm the deity of Christ more than the TR in certain instances....something a gnostic would not have done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh really??? Which of the following is more gnostic???

"...Great is the mystery of godliness, GOD was manifest in the flesh..."-KJV, 1 Timothy 3:16

"...Great is the mystery of godliness, HE who was manifest in the fless..."-NASB, same verse

"For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are ONE."-KJV, 1 John 5:7

"For there are three that testify."-NASB, same verse

Yeah...King James Version, like, soooooo gnostic!!!!

NOT.


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  100
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,029
  • Content Per Day:  0.14
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2005
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/23/1982

Posted

:huh::emot-puke::huh::online2long:

you guys are fuuuuuuuuuuuuny when it comes to defending your belief. keep it up. You're making my television of no use nowadays. :P


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  32
  • Topic Count:  669
  • Topics Per Day:  0.09
  • Content Count:  59,781
  • Content Per Day:  7.65
  • Reputation:   31,175
  • Days Won:  323
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

well, that is at least one good thing that will come of this. television is evil at it's core these days and you'd do well to stay away from it anyway.... :huh:


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  100
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,029
  • Content Per Day:  0.14
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2005
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/23/1982

Posted
well, that is at least one good thing that will come of this. television is evil at it's core these days and you'd do well to stay away from it anyway....  :huh:

good advice. I'll take it. Just keep me entertained positively. :24::24:


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  331
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,713
  • Content Per Day:  1.15
  • Reputation:   21
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/28/2004
  • Status:  Offline

Posted

I gotta say, that's an interesting debate style Halifax :24:

Since the quote thing bugs out after 6 quotes, what you said will be in bold, and my response in the normal colors.

You say that the Alexandrian manuscripts are more plentiful. This does not mean that these texts are more reliable than the Textus Receptus. Why would you presume such a conclusion? Just because the Apocrypha manuscripts may be more abundant than the epistle of Jude's manuscripts, this does not prove Jude lesser. I do not see your relativeness here.

What I asserted was that since the TR was completed we have found more manuscripts that date to an earlier date that clarify some of the misunderstandings the TR left. Secondly, the argument about the Apocrypha is non applicable seeing as how no one has ever considered them Holy Writ (with exception to the RCC). Yet in exploring God's true word, we have to examine which manuscripts work and which ones don't. If a manuscript used in the TR disagrees with ten other manuscripts that pre-date it and no other manuscripts can be found to match the accused one, then it's kind of hard to justify continual use of it. Yet this is what TR advocates continue to do.

As a side note, I find it ironic you would mention this, seeing as how the original King James had the apocrypha. :24:

Eramus collected these texts in quite a hurry...so what? God parted the red sea in quite a hurry too. I don't see how this is relative. I'd be in a hurry to choose the KJV over the modern versions anyday. This doesn't mean that the KJV is false. It means CONFIDENCE.

He had to come back and make two other editions because of the vast number of errors he made. :24:

He made mistakes? Oh really? Just stating this so does not make it so. Would like to see some proof. Accusations are easy.

Again, the fact remains that he had to return to make two other editions. Which one is God's Word, the first edtiion, the second one, or the third one?

How eramus translated is beyond me. Professing themselves wise, they became fools. I am neither a scholar nor a wise man. I am, however, resting in the simplicity of Christ. He is able to preserve His word. Whichever way He chooses to do so, is up to Him. Latin, Greek...whatever. God preserved His Word...that is the argument here. Let's not get lost in the details. God is in charge of them.

This is what you are missing. He didn't have that many Greek manuscripts available to him. THat ones that were available to him were dated to the medevil times. Yet even these were few and far between. His work on the Textus Receptus was basically back-translating the Vulgate. In other words, the translation you condemn as "heretical" is what the Textus Receptus is based upon. I forget how much of the TR is based on the Vulgate, but I do remember it is a majority.

In other words, he saw what it said in Latin and then translated it into Greek. This is what the TR is, a translation from Latin (with a few exceptions of what were then "new" Greek manuscripts) into Greek. THe Alexandrian manuscripts, however, are just that. A collection of Greek manuscripts that were found in Alexandria after having not been used since the foundation of the Codex Byzantine. What is more ironic, is that the Vulgate would have used manuscripts similar to these and not the Byzantine manuscripts (as none of those are dated before 900AD and the Vulgate was written in the 5th Century). This means consequently that the TR had to rely on Alexandrian text, because from the Alexandrian text came the Vulgate, and from the Vulgate came the TR. :24:

Again, you use age to validate preservation or non-preservation. I already told you why the TR manuscripts are newer. They were being copied more readily and used more often, thus, wear and tear, etc. Also, the Catholic Church hunted down the TR manuscripts and burned them whenever they could. Now you can see why there is more of the Alexandrian texts...no one was reading them, and the persecution was not present on the same level in regards to them.

The reason we see the Alexandrian manuscripts go into "hiding" is because the Byzantine manuscripts, authorized by the RCC, began to be used more frequently. Likewise, because of the Vulgate there was no longer a belief that translation needed to be made. Versio Vulgate does mean "The common version". It was written in every day Latin so that the people could understand what the scriptures talked about in their own language, it was a universal language. So manuscripts were lost, neglected, or ignored simply because there was a belief that no further translation was needed. Of course, languages evolved over time and subsequently the need for a new translation based on the Greek was needed. Yet because of the negelect of manuscripts, not that many were available.

I agree that the TR and the Alex. manuscripts are VERY, VERY SIMILAR. However, this does not mean that they are ALIKE. They are not. In some very important issues and doctrines, they DIFFER. One word can and does make a difference.

They don't differ on any systematic theology, this has been a proven fact for quite some time.

You assume that because the TR is newer, that there was more time for error to creep in. This is the same point that the heretics Westcott and Hort make. Let me ask you this...Is anything too hard for God??? He can preserve His Word in His own wisdom...however, His ways are foolishness unto those that perish and know not the truth of the simplicity of Christ.

The problem with this is that you haven't (and can't) prove that God's word is only preserved in the TR, which is nothing more than some tenth century manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate. You cannot assume this when debating, instead you have to prove it before using it. You can't fiat the argument and put it in place, it creates a strawman.

Now, what I am advocating is that the Alexandrian manuscripts go so far back to even the second century, close to the death of the apostles. This means from the time the originals were copied to the first manuscript we find, there is only about 140 year time frame of difference. Seems like a lot, but when compared to the TR where there is a 840 year difference, almost a thousand years, we see why newer can sometimes be better. The manuscripts used in the TR are almost 1,000 years removed from the originals, whereas the ones used in the Alexandrian are less than two hundred years removed. This is highly significant because it gives us a more accurate translation. What it shows even more is that even though there is a time frame between the TR and the AM, the fact they are so similar gives credit to the scribes that copied the scrpitures over the centuries.

I don't care how many texts and variants and codex's the Alexandrian versions used. This does not mean a thing. If anything, it means that there is a wider chance of error creeping in through these variety of texts, etc. God's way is the narrow way.

It shows that the early church relied on the Alexandrian texts. This means if these texts are wrong, heretical, or do not contain the word of God, the early church from 200AD-900AD was without the Word of God. Christians went to their death in the Roman arenas without knowing the true Word of God? That is what you are advocating. I have the easier position of saying that both the TR and the Alexandrian texts are the Word of God but merely differ on slight points. At this point, we have to discuss which one is better when differences occur, not which one is more inspired.

Let's use common sense...greek, this text/that text, and all complexity aside... How does God function and work? He tells us that He will preserve His Word. He did not say HOW He would do this, only that HE WOULD. Not only...He tells us that He would do this for ALL GENERATIONS.

His Word is truth, and even though every translation has errors the truth is preserved completely. The errors never touch the doctrinal issues of the church, they are merely grammatical or spell a name differently, but they never touch the doctrine. This shows how God has preserved His Word (truth).

Common sense/Biblical sense should tell us something here. If a certain group of manuscripts were NOT AVAILABLE to certain generations...would THESE MANUSCRIPTS pass God's litmus test for preservation as stated in Psalm 119, the Book of Isaiah and Luke, etc.??? Of course not.

This destroys your own argument because the Textus Receptus did not come about at best until the tenth century and at worse the sixteenth century. :blink:

If I could not read or hear the Alexandrian texts in 1324 AD, for whatever reasons (whether it be they were lost, hidden, etc.)

It was available via the Latin Vulgate (which would have used the Alexandrian text types in translation) and then transfered to the the TR. His truth remained the same even though the grammatics were messed with. Since the discovery of the Alexandrian, we can now skip the Vulgate and stop the back-translating and go directly to the primary source, the "grandfather" of the Vulgate and the TR.

Also, the Alexandrians texts differ from each other. Read the NIV, the NASB, etc., and what you will see is footnotes like this:

"Some versions may not contain..." "The most reliable manuscripts say..." "The oldest texts say...", etc., etc.

Every single manuscript you ever look at will differ in some way or the other. This is even true of the TR. The reason for the footnotes is to tell people that older manuscipts add something or dont' have something. Even when translating the TR and using manuscripts, differences would have occured and been run into, this is why we see him consulting the Vulgate. :b:

This is Satan's weapon...casting DOUBT upon God's Words. Yea, hath God said? Remember those words spoken in the garden of eden?

Casting doubt would be using manuscripts that obviously do not agree with the majority and saying they are God's Word. Manuscripts that declare Jesus and Christ were seperate, and other heretical things. Simply saying, "using the older version is better because..." does not cast doubt. Jesus remains King, God remains soveriegn over all, and the systematic doctrines remain untouched no matter which translation or group of manuscripts you use.

The Textus Receptus manuscripts are the SAME. They do not differ, or leave out parts, or add in parts to God's Word.

You're wrong ;) He used manuscripts from the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries, of which some differend from one another. Again, this is why he consulted with the Vulgate.

The modern versions themselves admit that they are not sure of God's EVERY WORD.

So does the King James :huh: Or at least the original preface did. It stated that it wasn't the only source of God's Word but that it was established by the King for the purpose of creating a Bible in common English...not for the purpose of establishing God's Word.

On this I must ask you, if a modern translation based entirely off the Textus Receptus was created for our modern tongue, would you consider it the Word of God?

The KING JAMES VERSION and the TEXTUS RECEPTUS texts have been available throughout the ages, and do not conflict or differentiate from each other

The King James has only been available since 1611 and the TR, at least the version used by the King James, wasn't available until 1522, and it doesn't primarily use manuscripts. This means that from 200AD - 1522AD God's Word wasn't available...according to you. Thus, you are asserting that in the past 2,000 years of church history, only 500 of those years have contained the Word of God?

Furthermore, the King James at points inadequately translates the Greek, even in the Textus Receptus. A perfect example of this is Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9.

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Acts 9:7

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Acts 22:9

Now, this isn't a contradiction, but it does show how the King James is sometimes inadequate in its translation. Going to the Textus Receptus, I read how it should be translated. Acts 9:7 is used in the genetive case, meaning they heard a noise, but did not understand it. Acts 22:9 is used in the accusative case meaning they didn't understand what they heard, in essence, they did not hear.

This doesn't debunk the King James but merely shows that even it can have it's translation inadequacies and errors.

"...Great is the mystery of godliness, GOD was manifest in the flesh..."-KJV, 1 Timothy 3:16

"...Great is the mystery of godliness, HE who was manifest in the fless..."-NASB, same verse

Neither. What I was asserting is that the argument can be thrown back at those that follow the TR. Both manuscripts were written in areas under heavy influence from cults.

As for what this says, the "he" is assumed to be Jesus Christ in Timothy. It states that He was revealed in the flesh...this is something a gnostic would not dare say because the flesh was evil. Paul, in both translations, admits to the fleshly nature of Christ.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are ONE."-KJV, 1 John 5:7

"For there are three that testify."-NASB, same verse

You forget that the way the verses are constructed (as in 1:9 and 1:8) is different in the two translations. 5:7 in the NASB is found in verse 8.

"For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

This, once again, defeats any gnostic argument because it shows the nature of God. One of spirit, of physicality (water) and one of flesh (blood).

BTW, you may want to check the site you copied that off of. Verse seven says, "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth." The reason "heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one" is omitted is because it's found in later manuscripts, possibly added to defeat the gnostic heresies. Nothing wrong with it because it is truthful, but it simply is not found in earlier manuscripts, thus the omission.

Hope that helps.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • You are coming up higher in this season – above the assignments of character assassination and verbal arrows sent to manage you, contain you, and derail your purpose. Where you have had your dreams and sleep robbed, as well as your peace and clarity robbed – leaving you feeling foggy, confused, and heavy – God is, right now, bringing freedom back -- now you will clearly see the smoke and mirrors that were set to distract you and you will disengage.

      Right now God is declaring a "no access zone" around you, and your enemies will no longer have any entry point into your life. Oil is being poured over you to restore the years that the locust ate and give you back your passion. This is where you will feel a fresh roar begin to erupt from your inner being, and a call to leave the trenches behind and begin your odyssey in your Christ calling moving you to bear fruit that remains as you minister to and disciple others into their Christ identity.

      This is where you leave the trenches and scale the mountain to fight from a different place, from victory, from peace, and from rest. Now watch as God leads you up higher above all the noise, above all the chaos, and shows you where you have been seated all along with Him in heavenly places where you are UNTOUCHABLE. This is where you leave the soul fight, and the mind battle, and learn to fight differently.

      You will know how to live like an eagle and lead others to the same place of safety and protection that God led you to, which broke you out of the silent prison you were in. Put your war boots on and get ready to fight back! Refuse to lay down -- get out of bed and rebuke what is coming at you. Remember where you are seated and live from that place.

      Acts 1:8 - “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth.”

       

      ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY
        • Thanks
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 3 replies
    • George Whitten, the visionary behind Worthy Ministries and Worthy News, explores the timing of the Simchat Torah War in Israel. Is this a water-breaking moment? Does the timing of the conflict on October 7 with Hamas signify something more significant on the horizon?

       



      This was a message delivered at Eitz Chaim Congregation in Dallas Texas on February 3, 2024.

      To sign up for our Worthy Brief -- https://worthybrief.com

      Be sure to keep up to date with world events from a Christian perspective by visiting Worthy News -- https://www.worthynews.com

      Visit our live blogging channel on Telegram -- https://t.me/worthywatch
      • 0 replies
    • Understanding the Enemy!

      I thought I write about the flip side of a topic, and how to recognize the attempts of the enemy to destroy lives and how you can walk in His victory!

      For the Apostle Paul taught us not to be ignorant of enemy's tactics and strategies.

      2 Corinthians 2:112  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. 

      So often, we can learn lessons by learning and playing "devil's" advocate.  When we read this passage,

      Mar 3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
      Mar 3:27  No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strongman; and then he will spoil his house. 

      Here we learn a lesson that in order to plunder one's house you must first BIND up the strongman.  While we realize in this particular passage this is referring to God binding up the strongman (Satan) and this is how Satan's house is plundered.  But if you carefully analyze the enemy -- you realize that he uses the same tactics on us!  Your house cannot be plundered -- unless you are first bound.   And then Satan can plunder your house!

      ... read more
        • Oy Vey!
        • Praise God!
        • Thanks
        • Well Said!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 230 replies
    • Daniel: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 3

      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this study, I'll be focusing on Daniel and his picture of the resurrection and its connection with Yeshua (Jesus). 

      ... read more
        • Praise God!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 13 replies
    • Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2
      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this series the next obvious sign of the resurrection in the Old Testament is the sign of Isaac and Abraham.

      Gen 22:1  After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
      Gen 22:2  He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

      So God "tests" Abraham and as a perfect picture of the coming sacrifice of God's only begotten Son (Yeshua - Jesus) God instructs Issac to go and sacrifice his son, Issac.  Where does he say to offer him?  On Moriah -- the exact location of the Temple Mount.

      ...read more
        • Well Said!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 20 replies

×
×
  • Create New...