David Buffaloe

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Good points

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 16, 2013

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (I Timothy 3:16) The word "trinity" is not used in the scriptures. For more details read: http://holyspiritministriescanada.blogspot.ca/2013/04/jesus-promises-are-everlasting-part-680.html

Phil Vanderhamm

commented on Apr 16, 2013

After reading a paper by Jonathan Edwards on the Trinity I discovered the eternal importance of understanding the Trinity. Without the Trinity we have a lonely God, a single faceted entity that must be terrified by its own existence. With the Trinity we don't have love. At the heart of the Christian doctrine of love is the triune nature of God. All love, says Kelly Kapic (about whom I know nothing but this quote), "is but a reflection or shadow of intratrinitarian love" There has eternally existed a dynamic social relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit characterized by love, and we have been called to share in this holy community of love. (John 14 through 17) Right on, Jared Moore.

Jerry Burns

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Jared, if you would change your title to "4 Reasons the Trinity Should NOT Be Part of Your Preaching" I could agree. I have educated people who attend the Church I Pastor. If I shared your article with them I would be laughed out of the pulpit. For example, they would immediately pounce on the "co-equal" claim. Your article creates a three person God with The Father "all powerful." He is the only one who doesn't answer to anyone. There goes the "co-equal" argument. You claim the Father is the Father of Jesus. Matthew 1:20 claims that the Holy Spirit if the Father of Jesus. We must be careful of sharing "orthodoxy" when it cannot be held up or proven with scripture. We live in an enlightened age where people can read and reason things from the written Word of God.

Jared Moore

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Jerry, thanks for the comment. I disagree with your interpretation of Matthew 1:20 (Historic orthodox Christianity and Scripture disagree with you as well). The Person of Christ existed prior to the Holy Spirit fertilizing Mary's egg. The Person of Christ existed prior to the incarnation. In the incarnation, God the Son united Himself with a human nature; there's union without fusion; there's distinction without separation. God the Son was already united with deity before the incarnation. After the incarnation, God the Son is both fully God and fully man. Historic orthodox Christianity agrees with me, as do the Scriptures. Consider the Chalcedonian confession: "Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that it is to be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same God, perfect in divinity, and perfect in humanity, true God and true human, with a rational soul and a body, of one substance with the Father in his divinity, and of one substance with us in his humanity, in every way like us, with the only exception of sin, begotten of the Father before all time in his divinity, and also begotten in the latter days, in his humanity, of Mary the virgin bearer of God. This is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, manifested in two natures without any confusion, change, division or separation. The union does not destroy the difference of the two natures, but on the contrary the properties of each are kept, and both are joined in on person and hypostasis. They are not divided into two persons, but belong to the one Only-begotten Son, the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. All this, as the prophets of old said of him, and as he himself has taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers has passed on to us."

Jerry Burns

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Thanks Jared for your response to my comments. Please understand that I am commenting on your article as written and should not be mistaken as a personal attack. What I am reading in the article, and also in your response to my comments is, that we should parrot "orthodoxy" not scripture. I have noted that your response to my point of view quotes "orthodoxy" - not scripture. You keep referring to God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and God the Father. You keep referring to God as a person. These statements do not hold up under scrutiny of "scripture." Once again, I am not attacking you personally. I just feel your article contains inaccuracies and contradictions that I feel must be challenged. I do respect you and your efforts to study the subject. Your degrees, and pursuit of the same, are to be commended!

Jerry Burns

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Clarification to previous post. Only The Father is ever referred to as "God the...." I am only suggesting that we use biblical terminology and scripture in our defense of what some would call "orthodoxy."

C.brian Ross

commented on Apr 16, 2013

The Doctrine of the Trinity, although one of those that is absolutely central to the Christian faith, is also one of the most illogical - hence the difficulty in understanding it! I deal with it, at some length, in my book "Great Words of the Christian Faith", available at https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B009EG6TJW It isn't expensive, and 30 of net profit goes to support the persecuted church. Happy reading!

Derek Nett

commented on Apr 16, 2013

I feel it is of great importance that we do not add to or take away from the word of God! Therefore I would like the discussion of the God head to revlove around Scripture and not a man made word. My statement is I believe in one God who is Father, son and spirit.

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Agreed! The foundation for wisdom and knowledge has to be the scriptures -- the Word -- as written. This is why terminology that is not in the Bible should be suspect. This is particularly applicable when authors use words like trinity, deity, Chalcedonian confession, triune, co-equal, orthodoxy, and persons, for example, that do not appear in the Bible. Further, if we are suggesting that the Sonship pre-existed the birth of Jesus and existed after I Corinthians chapter 15, which states Paul was the last of all to see Jesus, then a re-read of the Bible, particularly the New Testament is in order. Church-anity and religious doctrines should not supersede the Word that our Lord God and Saviour Himself delivered so that we might have salvation ...

Jared Moore

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Jerry, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity has been tested and tried for thousands of years. You act like you're affirming Scripture and I'm affirming something else. The truth, however, is that we're both interpreting Scripture, but Christian history is on my side. Please provide Scripture that teaches against the Trinity.

Jonathan Downs

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Appealing to ?Christian History? as ?being on your side? is a grave error. Col 2:8-10 tells us to beware of "traditions of man"...and then it proceeds to tell us that the "fullness of the Godhead" is in Jesus, and that Jesus is the head of all principality and power. If you believe that the persons of the trinity are co-equal?.then this scripture is wrong.

Jerry Burns

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Dear Jared, I didn't mean to stir up a tempest. I simply have some very strong convictions and beliefs that are founded on scripture. I would urge you and others as well to put aside "orthodoxy" and "Christian History" for a moment and search the scriptures for themselves. Start with what the Apostles preached. Paul said, that we are not to preach any other gospel than what the apostles preached. It is no secret to anyone who studies "christian history" that the "wrong turn" the Historical Church took was disastrous! Isaiah said that it would return to mankind "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little." Put down the books of christian history and orthodoxy and study the scriptures for yourself. A good place to start would be John 4:24 (KJV) "God is a spirit" (singular - one) and work out from there. Thanks for allowing me express myself. I will now bow out and let others have the microphone. God bless

Jared Moore

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Jerry, when you say, "Put down the books of christian history and orthodoxy and study the scriptures for yourself," you're saying, "Believe that the Holy Spirit guides you alone, and ignore how He has guided the church for thousands of years." I think you believe in yourself too much. Concerning John 4:24, I agree. God is Spirit. I am a monotheist. Once again, I believe what I believe because it's what the Scriptures teach. Historical Christian orthodoxy was right because they were simply affirming what the Scriptures taught. Once again, prove from Scripture that historical Christian orthodoxy is wrong on the doctrine of the Trinity. I'm asking, "Why do you believe what you believe?" "What Scripture causes you to reject the doctrine of the Trinity?"

John Jabes Gonzales

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Thank you Pastor for your wonderful information. Lightens up my day here at the Philippines. Well, it is important for us to know that the TRINITY is God in one person. I'm a former atheist and now a born again Christian believer. I do remember when the TRINITY was shared to me by the evangelist who shared to me the Gospel. Now I have this wonderful fellowship to God. Fellowship with God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the best thing a person should experience before he leave the earth. Only by then you will know that God exist and that God is love. God bless you and rock on!

Bea Morillo

commented on Apr 16, 2013

could you please define to me the meaning of the word "person"

Bea Morillo

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Another thing when you say co eternal it can't apply to Son because he has a beginning and also he died?

Jared Moore

commented on Apr 16, 2013

Person refers to personality. Also, John begins His Gospel with "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and Word was God" (John 1:1). He later reveals who this Word is: Jesus Christ (John 1:14). God the Son has no beginning. He's always existed. However, God the Son united with a human nature in the incarnation (John 1:14; Phil. 2:5-8). He was previously only united to His God nature. He's now fully God and fully man. God the Son Incarnate was born, hungered, thirst, learned, suffered, died, then physically rose from the died. God the Son, however, experienced none of these things through His divinity (divine nature), only His humanity. God cannot die. God the Son can die through His humanity. We're speaking of mystery here, but we can only say what the Scriptures say. God the Son while laying in a manger as a baby was still holding all creation together (Col. 1:16-17). Jesus Christ while hanging on a cross, was sustaining the lives of those who crucified Him (1 Cor. 8:6). The list can go on and on. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man. He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. He is the Son. Yet, there is One God. One God in Three Persons.

Wilfredo Balagapo

commented on Apr 16, 2013

In Christ Jesus were complete...... Colossians 2:9-10 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God head bodily . (verse 10) and yee are complete in him which is the head of all principality and power ..... There is only one God .... one God, Christ Jesus.....nothing else my brother

Bea Morillo

commented on Apr 16, 2013

In matthew 28:19 -Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost - the essence of trinity as claimed by trinitarian can be seen. My question is was this commandment dis- obeyed by the apostles? Because when the disciples did the baptism they did not baptized in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost but instead they baptized in the name of Jesus.Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5

Bea Morillo

commented on Apr 16, 2013

If Jesus is fully God and fully man, yet he is not the father nor the holy spirit, then who is the true among them. Also if these three were seperate , distinct person, co eternal and co equal in power how come they became ONE?Each of them acquires powers and titles of being God, how would it be that there's only one GOD?

Alicia Jones

commented on Apr 17, 2013

The word was made flesh to dwell among us. The word is God. The virgin birth a child to be called Immanual meaning, God is with us..

Alicia Jones

commented on Apr 17, 2013

Jesus as he as he spoke with his disciples he explain.He who have seen me have seen the Father, I am in the Father and he in me.

Rev Chinedu Nnakwue

commented on Apr 17, 2013

The Doctrine of Trinity is very scarce in the Church. This is because of the complex of the Doctrine. Only weak minds can argue it. Water has three shapes, Solid, Gas, and Liquid. Yet they are the same. They assume different titles and function yet they are the same. God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are the same.

Rev Chinedu Nnakwue

commented on Apr 17, 2013

The Doctrine of Trinity is very scarce in the Church. This is because of the complexIty of the Doctrine. Only weak minds can argue it. Water has three shapes, Solid, Gas, and Liquid. Yet they are the same. They assume different titles and function yet they are the same. God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are the same.

Rev Chinedu Nnakwue

commented on Apr 17, 2013

The Doctrine of Trinity is very scarce in the Church. This is because of the complexIty of the Doctrine. Only weak minds can argue it. Water has three shapes, Solid, Gas, and Liquid. Yet they are the same. They assume different titles and function yet they are the same. God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are the same.

Dale Arnett

commented on Apr 17, 2013

Who sits on the right hand of the father, a fleshly god or Jesus as God. Just asking.

Dale Arnett

commented on Apr 17, 2013

Who does Jesus promise to send, the comforter and who will the comforter listen to, himself? A comment was made concerning human reason. this that told me the source of this false teaching that comes against the trinity, human thought.

Charles Ingwe

commented on Apr 17, 2013

Lovely discussion on the trinity. I only wish to learn more from beloved ones who can enlighten me, considering 1cor 15:28 which says "and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all". Is this not bringing out a point that the trinity aspect was for the salvation purpose where son is God's spirit in the flesh and since flesh is of a lower state, the term son come into play as compared to the source, father? After the salvation purpose then the inspired author Paul tells us that the trinity teaching will soon cease. I presume that we stand safe guided by the scripture 1 cor 13:9 that "we know in part and prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away". This is what makes God remain the almighty God and revered for his thoughts are engraved in deep wisdom. Yet we stand soon for very soon we shall come face to face with him and we shall be all smiles. Blessings.

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 17, 2013

http://holyspiritministriescanada.blogspot.ca/2013/04/jesus-my-saviour-god-to-me-part-672.html

Clarence Bolton

commented on Apr 17, 2013

I know old Satan is LOL. I can just imagine what some of your congregations are like.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 17, 2013

Amazing, frightening, and sad to see how many people actually don't believe the Word of God when it speaks of the Trinity! God is triune! The very first verse in the Word of God teaches the Trinity. The word "God" in the Hebrew is "Elohim" which is a uni-plural noun. This uni-plurality is implied in Genesis 1:26. Who was God speaking to when He said in Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness:..." As far as the word "Trinity" not being in the Bible, neither is the word "Rapture" but I am going to go up to meet Jesus in the air when the Rapture takes place regardless of whether or not the word appears in the Bible! 1 Thess. 4:13-18, I Corinthians 15:51-57. You will go crazy trying to explain the Trinity. But if you don't believe it you will go to hell. Something to think about!

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 17, 2013

There is only one high priest. That is Jesus, who is a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Father in creation -- Son in redemption and now Spirit and comforter/friend. Just like the apostles baptized new believers in the name of Jesus -- Acts 2:38 -- they knew who Jesus was. They did not use the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit as many religions practice today. Why not? Because the apostles had been with Jesus -- even after He had risen -- and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that He was God in the flesh. The only begotten. Doubting Thomas said, "My Lord and my God." Is there another? No way. Our God became a/our Saviour only once and He did so in order that we might have salvation. And now, according to the scriptures, the Church is His body. We are the body of Christ. We are His bones. We are His flesh. We are the temple in which He is pleased to dwell. We are the people called by His name. "For there are three that bear record in heaven -- the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost -- and these three ARE one." (I John 5:7) For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. The early believers continued steadfastly in the teachings of the Spirit of God, which they in turn delivered to us. As the scriptures state, "For another foundation can NO man lay other than that which has been laid." This is the apostles' foundation with Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone.

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 17, 2013

In the beginning God. (Genesis 1:1) John 1:1-14 confirms the same -- "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God .. and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." This is the starting point." But my concern is that someone would condemn other believers to hell for discussing doctrinal issues from a perspective that does not align with longstanding church/religious traditions. In my mind, all scripture is given by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness and therefore is worthy of consideration. Not just one verse here and there but all scriptures together. If we do not, how will the believing body of Christ today ever understand or learn the mystery, "which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God who created ALL things by Jesus Christ" if only church creeds (and not Biblical scriptures -- the Word) are allowed to be presented? At the name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The name above every other name. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all!

John Makuluka

commented on Apr 17, 2013

Jared, we repect your school but remain biblical. God has never been triune. That is human understanding of God. The sonship of Jesus is not eternal because it will cease. This is why the scipture has never used the term you have used "God the Son". No, there is no God the son but the Son of God. God is a Spirit. and as Spirit he is one and has never been three. Jesus is just the revelation of God the Spirit in flesh for the purpose of salvation. For to save the lost man the blood is the requierement. Or God as Spirit does not have the blood to shed. This is why he has made a body (tent) to tabernacle God (Spirit). So, by having the body, the blood was provided to be shed for the remission of the sin. 1 Cor 15:28 reveals that the sonship will cease and we will remain with the fathership only. If Jesus is God the Son, that means his Godship will ceased! No. Jesus is the only one God who existes, the Jehovah of Old Testament. The revelation of sonship will end when the work of salvation through the blood will end. Then our salvation will already be perfect. But the person of Jesus will never end because he is Jehovah. This is why Jesus told philip who was asking to see the Father that: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after i have been amon you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, show us the Father?" (John 14:8-9). And in revelation, it is revealed that in heaven there is only ONE THRONE for ONE PERSON. And Jesus proclaimed that He is that one person. If they are different persons as trinity claims, so, where is the throne of the Holy Spirit and the Father? Scriptures are simple and clear if we read with the mind of Christ. Paul said ""For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor 2:16). I underline this: WE HAVE THE MIND OF CHRIST. Once you will get this mind you will understand that Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament. He is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Please, don't rely on the mind of the christian history which the devil has influenced so much and people has created terminology to define what they believe instead of rely on what the word says. We don't need the history to be on our side but Jesus to be on our side. That's better. Neither Jesus nor the apostles had ever defined the relation of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by TRINITY. Where, you guys, did you get it from?

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 18, 2013

@John Makuluka writes, "Neither Jesus nor the apostles had ever defined the relation of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by TRINITY. Where, you guys, did you get it from?" I get the teaching of the Trinity from God's Word. Besides the couple of verses I already shared, how about 1 John 5:7 "For there are THREE that bear record in HEAVEN, the FATHER, the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST, and these THREE are ONE." Sounds like a Trinity to me! And since this was written AFTER the resurrection of Jesus it is safe to say that ALL THREE exist in HEAVEN RIGHT NOW!

Charles Ingwe

commented on Apr 18, 2013

With due respect, I pray that brother Dennis you surely will do well not to use hell as a threatening tool. Our God is not even interested in seeing people get to hell. if discussing the word of God with the sincerity I have noted in all the brethren who are discussing will summon the wrath of God then surely the scripture Prov 25:2 which states " It is the glory of God to conceal a thing ;but the honour of Kings is to search out a matter " is rendered useless. We are coming from a background where scripture was terribly distorted and justice demands that we discuss. Threats must not be allowed. We remain brothers even in diverse views apart from those that refute christ as the only savior. Blessings.

Charles Ingwe

commented on Apr 18, 2013

Brother Dennis, what is your understanding of 1 Cor 15:28

Lindsey Fogg

commented on Apr 18, 2013

your all forgetting a very important message that was given in Matt.3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Lindsey Fogg

commented on Apr 18, 2013

your all forgetting a very important message that was given in Matt.3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Jerry Burns

commented on Apr 18, 2013

Thank you Dennis for bringing into the discussion a couple of POWERFUL scriptures that confirm the Oneness of God. When God created man in HIS IMAGE he created ONE PERSON (Adam - not Triplets.) You make reference to there being three persons in heaven today. You are twisting the scripture to say what you want it to mean. The Bible doesn't say "there are three in heaven." It says, correctly by the way, that "there are three that BEAR RECORD in heaven." I, Jerry Burns am one person. However, I, that one person, bear record at the county courthouse at least three times. My name is recorded on a Birth Certificate that my parents filed. It is on a Marriage License that my wife and I filed. And it is recorded again on another Birth Certificate that my wife and I filed on the birth of our Son. So, Jerry Burns, one person, bears record in the county courthouse as a Son, Husband and a Father. That does not mean I am three persons, and if I am, we certainly don't live there right now! "Bears Record" simply means what it says.

John Makuluka

commented on Apr 18, 2013

Denis, that scripture you mentionned does not exist in the earlier texts. This is why it is considered as spurious. Just give me the scripture which talk about co-eternal of trinity. Brother, trinity is from pagan andf rom the devil. The sonship of Jesus had never existed before the incarnation. It started at the birth of Jesus. The angel said to mary:"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born WILL BE CALLED holy--the Son of God." (LUC 1:35). Notice the future form of the son of God. Before his birth he was not called the Son of God. And 1 Cor 15:28 reveals that the sonship of Jesus will cease. So, there is no eternity in the Son of God. The sonship is not the nature but a function, a revelation, a manifestation of God for the puepose of salvation. Denis, stop being religious. Read the Bible with the revelation of God, with the mind of Christ. God bless you

John Makuluka

commented on Apr 18, 2013

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that testify: 1Jn 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. (English Standard Version)

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 18, 2013

I will get back to all of you later as I am dealing with a flooded basement right now. So don't think I am ignoring anyone or anything you have said!

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

This is going to take several post so be sure to read them in order. Also, please let me finish all of them before you reply. First, the argument is made that the word "Trinity" doesn't even appear in the Bible. Therefore, the doctrine can't be true or biblical. By that same faulty logic the doctrine of monotheism cannot be true or biblical either, since that specific English word isn't in the Bible. The English word "Bible" doesn't appear in the Bible either. The word "ethics" isn't in the Bible. But doesn't the Bible teach ethics? The word "morals" isn't in the Bible. But doesn't the Bible teach morals? I could go on, but I think you get my point! When you use this argument you are committing the classic logical fallacy known as "non sequiter," meaning your conclusion does not logically follow your premise. Just because the term "Trinity" isn't in the Bible, this, in and of itself, does not prove that the doctrine isn't systematically laid out in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. It clearly is, and that is why the doctrine exists. Continued in next post.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

Next: There is only one God. Deuteronomy 4:35 "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him." Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Here are some other Old Testament verses: Deut. 4:39, Isaiah 37:20, 43:10, 44:6-8, 45:5, 14, 21-22, 46:9. Romans 3:30 "Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Other New Testament verses: Galatians 3:20, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, James 2:19. There is only one TRUE God. Jeremiah 10:10 "But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation." 1 John 5:20 "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." All other so-called "gods" are false gods. Psalm 96:5 "For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens." 1 Corinthians 8:4 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one." Other verses Isiah 37:19, 41;23-24, 1 Corinthians 10:19-20. All of these verses clearly show that there is only one God. Again, this is called "monotheism" but that word doesn't apppear in the Bible so it must not be true. Continued in next post.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

Next there is a plurality to God. As I've already posted before, The word "God" in the Hebrew is "Elohim" which is a uni-plural noun. This uni-plurality is implied in Genesis 1:26. Who was God speaking to when He said in Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness:..." Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of US, to know good and evil:..." Again, who is God talking to? Some might try to say that God could be speaking to angels in these verses, but that doesn't hold water. God was speaking to co-creator(s) in these verses (Let us MAKE man..." Who could be a co-creator? Not the angels. Next, The Father Is called God: 2 Peter 1:17 "For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." He is called LORD: Matthew 11:25 "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." He is OMNIPOTENT: Psalm 135:6 "Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." John 10:29 "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father?s hand." He is OMNISCIENT: Matthew 10:29-30 "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered." He is OMNIPRESENT: Jeremiah 23:24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD." He is ETERNAL: Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." He CREATED ALL: Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" He RESURRECTED JESUS: 1 Thess. 1:10 "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come." He is THE GIVER OF LIFE: Deut. 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." He is THE GIVER OF GIFTS: Hebrews 2:4 "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?" Next we will see the same is true of Jesus, the Son.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

Next the Son: Called GOD: John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." Col. 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." John 5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." He is called LORD: Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." He is OMNIPOTENT: Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Col. 1:16-17 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." He is OMNISCIENT: John 16:30 "Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God." Col. 2:2-3 "That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." He is OMNIPRESENT: John 1:48 "Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee." He is ETERNAL: Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." John 1:1-2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God." He CREATED ALL: John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Col. 1:16 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" He RESURRECTED JESUS: John 2:19-21 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body." He is THE GIVER OF LIFE: John 1:4 "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." John 11:25 "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:" And He is THE GIVER OF GIFTS: Eph. 4:7 "But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." Next we will see that the Holy Spirit also possesses these characteristics.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

Now the Holy Spirit: He is called GOD: Acts 5:3-4 "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." He is called LORD: 2 Cor, 3:17-18 "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." He is OMNIPOTENT: John 3:8 "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." He is OMNISCIENT: 1 Cor. 2:10-11 "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." He is OMNIPRESENT: "Psalm 139:7 "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" He is ETERNAL: Heb. 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" He CREATED ALL: Gen. 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." He RESURRECTED JESUS: 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" He is the GIVER OF LIFE: Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." John 3:5-8 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." He is the GIVER OF GIFTS: 1 Cor. 12:11 "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." So in these examples from the Word of God, we see that the Bible teaches that there is only one God, and that there are three persons who are called God in the true sense, and who have the nature and attributes of that one God. I will continue in the next post.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

To continue with the Holy Spirit as a Person, let me show that He has the qualifying attributes of personhood: a MIND, WILL, and EMOTIONS: MIND: Romans 8:27 "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." WILL: 1 Cor. 12:11 "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." EMOTIONS: Eph. 4:30 "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Like any person, the Holy Spirit can be GRIEVED: Again Eph. 4:30 "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." LIED TO: Acts 5:3-4 "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." OBEYED: Acts 13:2 "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." REJECTED: Mark 3:29 "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:" ACCEPTED: John 14:17 "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." ANGERED: Micah 2:7 "O thou that art named the house of Jacob, is the spirit of the LORD straitened? are these his doings? do not my words do good to him that walketh uprightly?" SENT: John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." QUOTED: Acts 13:2 "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." BLASPHEMED: Matt. 12:31 "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." HE HIMSELF CAN: SEND: Acts 13:4 "So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus." SPEAK: John 16:13 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come." WITNESS John 15:26-27 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." PRAY: Romans 8:26 "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." How can any of these be attributed to an impersonal force? How can you quote the wind or electricity? And how can you blaspheme an impersonal object? can you blaspheme gravity or sunlight? You can only blaspheme - to treat as common or worthless - a person. To do the same with an object is called sacrilege, not blasphemy. And believers cannot be baptized in the name of an impersonal force, when the name of that force is joined with, and the same as, that of the Father and the Son: Matt. 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

Let me continue by disputing the belief that while there is one God He is comprised of one Person who simply manifest Himself at different times through Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. The belief that God is one in substance as well as essence, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct Pesrons. THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE THREE DISTINCT PERSONS. Jesus is NOT the FATHER: Matt. 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" The gramatical construction of this verse is very revealing with regards to the Trinity. First, each Person of the Trinity is identified individually with the use of the definate article preceding each (THE Father...THE Son, THE Holy Spirit. The use of the definate article for each Person of the Trinity identifies each as unique and distinct from the others. Yet at the same time, thise verse groups each into a singular entity by use of the singular form "the name of". What is this name? The singular name of God is Yahweh/Jehovah, and THE Father, THE Son, and THE Holy Spirit share that name. Other verses that identify the Father and the Son as two separate persons: John 3:17, 35; 5:22-23, 31-32; 8:16-18; 11:41-42; 12:28; 14:31; 17:1-26; Romans 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 15:24-28; and many more! CONTINUED in next post.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

Jesus is NOT the HOLY SPIRIT: Again Matt. 28:19 identifies the Son and the Holy Spirit as separate Person. Next, Jesus tells us that He would send the Holy Spirit. John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" This verse also shows that each Person of the Trinity is mentioned as separate individual Persons. Key points in this verse include 1. Jesus will send the Holy Spirit. 2. From the Father, 3. The Holy Spirit will go out from the Father. 4. And testify about Jesus. And just so we understand who the Comforter is John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,..." Another verse that identifies Jesus and the Holy Spirit separately is John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." Here we have two important elements: 1. Jesus will go away, 2. And send the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus arose and ascended in His physiacl human body, the Spirit He sends is not Jesus Himself. Another important verse is John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" Once again, the elements are here to show that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate. Jesus said He would ask the Father. If Jesus was simply a manifestation of the Father, then He would be asking Himself, which sounds irrational rather than orthodox. The verse also refers to the Holy Spirit as "ANOTHER" Comforter" seprate from Jesus. Continued in next post.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

And finally we see that The Father is NOT the Holy Spirit: Once again, Matthew 28:19 as dicussed before. John 14:16, and 15:26 which have already been quoted, remain as evidence that the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. We also see in Romans 8:26-27 "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." The Holy Spirit intercedes for us with the Father. If the Holy Spirit were the same Person as the Father, He would not need to intercede with Himself. One more verse that shows the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit are three different Persons. Luke 3:21-22 "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." This is the baptism of Jesus. Each Person is described here sepatately. First, note that Jesus was praying. Again, was Jesus praying to Himself? No, that simply doesn't make sense. Instead Jesus was praying to the Father. As He did, the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus as a physical manifestation like a dove. The voice of the Father was then heard from heaven, speaking to the Son. This shows that each Person of the Trinity is unique and separate. So in conclusion, it is clear from reading the Bible that there is only ONE God, know in the Old Testament as Yahweh/Jehovah. It is clear that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are EACH God. It is also clear, that each Person is separate and distinct from each other. One God in three Persons, the Biblical Trinity. Now I will answer the question of 1 Cor. 15:28 in the next post.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28: Jesus is still subordinate to God, but as the Son to the Father; i.e., they are equal in nature, but the Son is subordinate relationally to God. The ?Heavenly Chain of Command? remains in tact: 1 Cor. 11:3 ?But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.? God the Father did NOT put Himself under the authority of His Son Jesus. Jesus, even after His resurrection, deferred authority to His Father. 1 Cor. 15:28 "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." We see that God the Father Has given Jesus all authority in heaven and earth right now. Jesus said so Himself in Matt. 28:18 ?And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.? God the Father has as well given Jesus a name ABOVE all names. Phil. 2:8-11 ?And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.? God the Father has ALSO given Jesus rulership. Heb. 1:8 ?But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." But once the Son?s mission is complete all authority will revert back to the Father so that the roles and responsibilities of the Godhead will be re-established. Simply put, God the Father will always be God the Father, and God the Son will always be God the Son, and for all eternity they will continue to relate to each other as Father and Son.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

@John Makuluka, you saying that 1 John 5:7 doesn't appear in earlier text doesn't prove anything. All the modern versions are translated from the corrupted manuscripts of Westcott and Hort. The KJV is translated from the Recieved Text. Modern translations contradict themselves many, many, many times. If you want to read a corrupted version of the Bible, by all means do so! I'll stick with the one which has stood the test of time! And in the true version of God's Word, the KJV, 1 John 5:7 is inspired by God! I could go a LOT DEEPER in the argument against modern versions, but 've already spent a lot of time with with the Trinty.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 19, 2013

And finally, I mispoke about going to hell if you don't believe in the Trinity. What I meant to say is that you will go to hell if you REJECT the Trinity. This is a huge distinction. I think there is a difference between not having all of our theological ducks in a row and an out and out rejection of the Trinity. In theory one can be woefully ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity. But if one rejects the doctrine of the Trinity then we?re dealing with something that extends beyond mere ignorance since rejection entails some idea of what it is that is being rejected. The good news isn?t that some God did something; it?s that a particular God did a particular thing. One might be ignorant of the finer details of one thing or another but they can?t have a decent understanding of them, reject them, and then still claim the benefits that come from them. But one MUST believe that Jesus was and is God in Flesh to be saved. If you do not have Jesus, you do not have salvation. John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 20, 2013

It is most unfortunate that church organizations continue to hang on to Matthew 28 verse 19, even though the present rendition was birthed by the so-called church fathers in 300 AD. Even Roman churches admit that they altered the original rendering. Indeed, the original intent -- administered by the Apostles in Acts -- was that believers were to be baptized in His name -- the name of Jesus. Peter and the apostles in Acts 2:38-42 said so when the people on the Day of Pentecost asked, "What must we do to be saved?" Encyclopedias verify this change. Matthew 28:19 according to the catholic encyclopedia, for example, verifies this to be so (Volume 2, 435) Other main line encyclopedias make reference to the same revisions and (mis)interpretations of the original text. Since the number of scriptures that have been posted here are sufficient to understanding that our Lord God -- the same God who created us in the beginning loved us enough to become our Saviour -- becoming flesh and shedding His holy spirit blood for our transgressions, I would suggest reading about Melchisedek for further insights. However, in the interim, please allow me one final observation. That is, if the "Son" existed prior to being conceived in Mary, then there was no need for the Christ to be prophesied of throughout the Old Testament. At the same time, there would have been no need for I Corinthians 15 elaborating on "who" in this world would be the very "last" to see Jesus if the Sonship continued. Praying for a revelation for those still lost in a doctrine that was never Biblical in the first place. Blessings to one and all ...

Jim Best

commented on Apr 20, 2013

How sad that in a supposedly Christian forum the most essential of all Christian doctrines, the doctrine of the Trinity, has been hijacked by those who reject and redefine it. I have only one question: If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, do we find one person in the Triune God having fellowship with another person (e.g. The Son having fellowship with the Father). Answer: We certainly do. To reject this so very obvious point is to conclude that one person has fellowship with one person - himself! The word fellowship necessitates two persons minimum. I will not elaborate further, since both Dennis and Jared have done a good job in their responses. So not only is the Trinity redefined, the word Fellowship must also be redefined in the process along with a myriad of other terms (e.g. The Father did not SEND the Son, He SENT Himself, etc; etc; etc.).

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 20, 2013

@Janice how about Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." A child was born, but a SON was given. There is a distinction because of the incarnation of the Son. Also John 1:1-2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." And Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 starts at the beginning and looks forward from creation. John 1:1-2 starts at the beginning and looks back into eternity.The Son has always been. One more thing, what do you have to say about all I wrote? Why don't you comment on all of that?

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 20, 2013

I love it when people come on here and challenge you and then when you take the time to answer them, they don't come back to read the comments, or maybe they can't refute what the Bible REALLY say about the Trinity.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 20, 2013

I also love it when some people come on here and say "That verse isn't in the oldest manuscripts," or "This verse was added 300 years after the original texts were written." REALLY! So we can just pick and choose what verses we want to believe and discard the rest. If you don't think that God can keep His Word pure, and preserve it for our day, or that He needs to correct it for our day, then maybe you want to throw this verse out also: Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." The first words out of Satan's mouth to human beings was, "Yea, hath God said?" And he's still using people to question it today!

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 22, 2013

Part of the problem is that there is nothing else in the universe exactly like God. He is unique. Any attempt to explain his nature will, by necessity, break down at some point. The Trinity has a long tradition of Scriptural interpretation in its favor. That doesn't necessarily make it true, but it does mean one should take that tradition seriously. And of course, the doctrine of the Trinity is not without its holes. But that is to be expected when discussing the nature of God. C. S. Lewis offers an analogy that has always been helpful to me. Imagine a universe that was composed of only two dimensions, instead of the three-dimensional time we are familiar with (for the purpose of the analogy, we do not include time as a dimension, nor do we consider some of more modern theories in physics that propose that the universe actually contains many more dimensions that we are not aware of). In a two-dimensional universe (length and width), a cube is impossible. The most you can have is a square. Now let's imagine that this third dimension (height) does exist, we are just not aware of it. Now, we do have the possibility of the existence of a cube, which is simply six squares joined together. But because we do not perceive that third dimension, we are unable to perceive cubes, nor even understand the concept of six separate squares joined as one cube. Let's apply that analogy to the concept of the Trinity. The Bible says that God is spirit. I do not believe that what John is referring to by "spirit" is the Holy Spirit. I believe he is referring to a dimension of the universe, distinct from the physical (3-D) dimension of the universe. Currently, we cannot perceive that dimension. But what if in that spiritual dimension, God can exist as ONE being, but composed of THREE separate persons, just as in the 3-D physical universe, a cube can exist as ONE object composed of SIX separate squares? Not a perfect analogy, of course. But it does go to show that God's nature can be such that it would be very hard for us to understand by our own reason and logic. Fortunately, a perfect understanding of the nature of God is not a prerequisite for salvation! The important thing is to study and think through this doctrine for ourselves, and always to be aware that no matter which side of the issue we land on, neither side has all the answers.

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 22, 2013

@Dennis, I know you have no intention of starting a debate on textual criticism, which is good because neither am I! I have, at best, a very basic, elementary understanding of textual criticism; and I'm sure you know a lot more about this field than I do. I would like to say this, though. Those who conclude that certain verses may not have been in the original manuscripts are not just picking and choosing which verses they want to believe and discarding the rest; and I don't think it is fair to characterize them in this way. They have reasons for their conclusions. They make their conclusions based on evidence. Now, you may disagree with the what they infer from the evidence. But you can't just say that the reason they question the veracity of a verse is simply because they don't like what the verse says. Now, I m very familiar with the King James Version of the Bible. It is the Bible I read growing up. It is one of the reasons why I learned to love literature, and why for the last fifteen years I have taught a class each spring on the Bible as Literature, using the KJV as our text. I read through the KJV every fall in preparation for that class. But since I began college, I have also made it a practice to read through the Bible each year in the modern translations. Currently, I read through at least the KJV and the NRSV (my current preferred translation) each year, and I usually read through another translation as well, from the more literal end of the the spectrum (e.g. NASB) to the more dynamic end (e.g. NLT) and anything in between. My point is that after decades of reading, I can tell you with confidence that there is nothing essential to salvation that one can read in the KJV that one cannot also read in any of the more modern translations, as long as these translations are read as a whole.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 22, 2013

@Bill, I wondered where you were! : ) You are correct, I don't want to start a debate about textual criticism. And you are correct to say that I have studied this very deeply. But let me give you a quick explanation as to why I believe the KJV IS the Word of God while modern version can only claim to CONTAIN the Word of God. The first reason I say this is the manuscripts from which the versions were translated which I already stated in a previous post. Next God says in His Word: Deut. 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." And Rev. 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." Jesus said in Matt 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." So God is VERY concerned with His Word. We are not to add or take away anything He has written in His Word. Let me give you an important deletion the NIV made in Col. 1:14 as one of MANY examples that occur in modern translations. The KJV says "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV says "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." Notice what is missing in the NIV? Just the "Blood" which washes away our sins. A very important omission! Over and over you read in the modern translations "Some manuscripts omit" "Not found in older manuscripts" "Some manuscripts do not have." What does this do? It cast doubt on the Word of God. People begin to think "Can I trust what the Bible says?" Again, as I already quoted, Psalm 12:6-7 promises that God will keep His Word pure and preserve it. So did God not keep His promise from the time of the KJV until the "better" modern translations of our time? Did His Word need corrections that took a couple hundred years for Him to make? This is EXACTLY what Janice and John are doing, casting doubt on God's Word. And one more thing, look at the copyrights. Texts may be quoted up to 500 verses without permission, you can't quote a complete book, etc. Whose Word is it, God's or mans? Man copyrights his words, God doesn't bind His Word so that it can't be copied and quoted up to so many words. 2 Tim. 2:9b "...but the word of God is not bound." I am not saying that there isn't enough of God's Word for a person to be saved in most modern version, but as more versions are written, they are getting farther and farther away from the original. Satan is subtle, he doesn't change God's Word completely all at once, he takes his time and corrupts it so that one day, people won't trust it at all, and because of that, won't be saved.

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 22, 2013

@Dennis, yes, I'm back! I unplugged completely over the weekend and spent some quality time with my boys. I appreciate your response. Allow me to share some thoughts, beginning with the example of Colossians 1:14. It is true that most modern translations do not contain the phrase "through his blood" in the text, although most standard translations will include it in the footnotes. However, one cannot possibly infer from this "omission" that the NIV, or other modern translations, therefore deny the role of Christ's blood in our redemptions. The reason I say that is because if you read the parallel passage in Ephesians 1:7 in the NIV, it reads as follows: "In him we have REDEMPTION THROUGH HIS BLOOD, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God?s grace" (emphasis supplied). And Hebrews 9:12 in the NIV reads: "He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own BLOOD, thus obtaining eternal REDEMPTION" (emphasis supplied). So even though the phrase is missing in Colossians 1:14, it appears in two other passages. If there was some subtle, Satanic plot to diminish the role of Christ's blood in the work of redemption, why would the "blood" be removed in only one verse, but be left in in two other ones? One could argue that a better explanation would be that the original manuscript of Colossians did not include that phrase, but that since the phrase WAS included in the manuscript of Ephesians, a scribe may have assumed that it was deleted from Colossians at some point, and with good intentions may have decided to "add it back in." And thus, a textual variant is born! Now, like I said, I don't know enough about textual criticism to know how credible that explanation would be, but I do know enough to know that the explanation is not without merit, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of agenda to remove verses that one does not like. That's why I said the translation must be read as a whole. Many times when I've seen someone point out a certain phrase or verse that has been "omitted" in the modern translations, it is usually case that the omitted phrase is either not essential to the proper interpretation of the passage, or the omitted phrase is present in a parallel passage, as we saw in Ephesians 1.

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 22, 2013

@Dennis, second, truth will never cast doubt on the word of God, so we must never be afraid of stating the truth. There are over 24,000 manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts of the NT in existence. And the truth is that there ARE variants among these manuscripts. Some manuscripts DON'T have certain phrases. Some words or phrases are NOT found in older manuscripts. That is simply a fact. Now, people draw different conclusions from these facts, and that is what textual criticism is about. But there is no reason that pointing out these facts should cast doubt on the word of God IF people have a proper understanding of the transmission of the manuscripts and of the nature of the variants. Everyone one of these manuscripts was produced by hand. When we're talking about dozens of thousands of manuscripts, of course there are going to be variants! Of course there are going to be omissions and additions! But none of these variants essentially, or even substantially, changes the overall message, when read AS A WHOLE. In fact, the real miracle is that with such massive numbers of hand-coppied manuscripts, there aren't MORE variants, or at least more substantive variants. And I believe that is because, as you pointed out, God has indeed preserved his word! So, these variants exist. Pretending they don't because one fears that admitting it would cast doubt on God's word does not make sense. On the contrary, pretending variants don't exist could very well backfire, because anyone who studies the Bible seriously WILL at some point be exposed to these variants. And the fact that no one ever mentioned that to them before could make them wonder, what are they trying to hide? Third, you asked, "So did God not keep His promise from the time of the KJV until the 'better' modern translations of our time? Did His Word need corrections that took a couple hundred years for Him to make?" But that question does not take into account everything that happened BEFORE the KJV was published. Modern English had already been in existence for about 100-150 years before the original publication of the KJV in 1611. Did God not keep his promise before that time? If the KJV IS the word of God, does that not mean that the word of God did not exist in the modern English language during it's first century and more of its existence? And what about all the other contemporary languages that are spoken today? Do Bibles in other languages have to be translated from the KJV in order to be valid, because the KJV IS the word of God? The implications of what you are arguing are quite problematic! Finally, 2 Timothy 2:9 has nothing to do with copyright laws, as these laws are a recent invention and were completely unknown either to Paul or Timothy. The purpose of copyrighting modern translations is to remunerate the translators for their work, as well as to continue to fund further work. Whether one agrees or disagrees with these reasons, one cannot use 2 Timothy 2:9 as an argument against copyrighting. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these matters. Have a blessed day!

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 22, 2013

@Dennis, one last thought. Everything I've written thus far should by no means be taken to imply that I believe all translations are equal. I do not believe that to be the case. Many translations are better than others. And NO translation is perfect, not even the KJV! My main point has been that we cannot simply dismiss ALL modern translations as inferior to the KJV. The KJV is a very good translation. But there are many modern translations that are equally as good.

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 22, 2013

Let's try this again. First and foremost, all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Jesus, for it pleased His Father, the Holy Spirit, that in Him should all His fullness dwell. He, Jesus being the brightness of God?s glory and the express image of Himself as a Son. Without question, He is God Himself, manifested in the flesh as a son. He is the unseen God now appearing a a son. Within Jesus did all of God dwell. God in the beginning created man in His own image, complete with a perfect body equipped with God?s breath, and therefore becoming a living soul. After his fall, this perfected man degenerated into a fallen body, like a dying or spiritually dead soul. Losing intimacy and fellowship with God, man would no longer enjoy those evening strolls with His Creator. In other words, sin isolated man from God?s immediate plan. Adam was called a son of God by creation. Conversely, Jesus became a Son of God by the seeding of God?s own spirit. That which is conceived in you Mary is of the Holy Spirit. There is only one God. Satan also believes that to be so and he trembles. Jesus, as a man (and similarly tempted to sin but never succumbing) spoke with God. He was altogether human. Man never instructed God on humanity. Rather, God now revealed Himself as a human. After all, humanity is spiritual requiring only a body to have visual expression. God is pure humanity. We are the fallen humanity being expressed either in a male or female body and existing all the days of our lives in male or female bodies. Sons or daughters manifesting outwardly our inward feelings. Let's look at this from a perspective that is already familiar to us. As children, we converse in son or daughter voices. As adults, we may become a father or mother. Still, in these new roles, we remain in the same bodies as we did when we were formally recognized as son and daughters. The difference is that we now express ourselves in the language of a father or mother and equally, depending on the scenario, use language as son or daughter. In short, we can speak both as a son or daughter or as a father or mother, whilst all this time confined in the same body. Taking this example one step further, we converse with others in a language becoming of neither a son or daughter. Instead, we speak as free individuals, debating, discussing and fellowshipping with our peers and colleagues. All of this performance then being manifested in a son or daughter's body. Are you three persons? Of course not. You are one person. So, likewise God, in order to reveal Himself to us expressed Himself in demonstrative language that would not be foreign to us. He Himself as a son displayed to us how we ought to walk. He Himself walked as a Son. God as a Son permitted the vials of our sin to be poured upon Him. In His death, He fathered us. He took our place and we inherited His salvation freely. Now He who indwelt Jesus now inhabits us who believe, conversing with us in Spirit in the same manner originally designed in the beginning. It is within this relationship, God desires that we would grow in grace and knowledge and not stagnate or grow weary. Therefore, we should at all times earnestly contend for this one faith which at the first was delivered to the early believers by none other than the Lord Himself. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. I and my Father are one. Thomas said, "My Lord and my God."

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 22, 2013

I Timothy 3:16 -- "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Receive your redemption as a gift from your Great High Priest - Jesus. One God, revealing Himself as a Father and then as a Son, and finally, as your friend in His holy spirit. There is no other. The same Lord God who created us in the beginning willingly became flesh so that we might be saved. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh. (John 1:1-14) "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6) The other point that should be made here is that the apostles knew "who" the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were when they administered Matthew 28:19. That is, the apostles went on to baptize new believers -- beginning with Acts 2:38 -- in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. For thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness. These are the words spoken by Jesus to John the Baptist when Jesus appeared before John to be baptized. John did not understand why someone of such prevalence would approach John to be baptized. Indeed, the idea was so unimaginable to John that he told Jesus that it should be the other way around. In fact, John figured that he was not even worthy to untie the shoes worn by Jesus and here Jesus was asking to be baptized. John thought it was he who needed to baptized. But here was Jesus looking to be baptized. And so John, as the scriptures point out, baptized Jesus. In so doing, John had seen the dove from heaven descend and rest on Jesus. John was right. Jesus was altogether pure. There are some interesting parallels to be noted here. Fire did not descend upon Jesus as was the case in Acts chapter 2 where purification was required prior to the descent of the Spirit of Jesus into the assembled group of believers. Still, Jesus was the holy child of God. Jesus is the only begotten Son. He was conceived by the holy spirit seed which is why John was so reluctant to baptize Jesus. It is also the reason Jesus spoke the foregoing words. But when John obeyed and baptized Jesus, it was to fulfill all righteousness. In that moment, Jesus was revealing the righteousness of God. He who never had sinned took our sin upon Himself. He, the just one put Himself in our place. He was also revealing to future generations - us - the scope and scale of the love God had for His created people. Talk about mercy love and grace when the God who created man would put Himself in our place. Oh, the love that went in to fulfilling the salvation plan. Oh, the grace that brought that same plan of salvation to man. Oh the mighty gulf that God did span when He died for us at Calvary. He put Himself in our place so that we might be saved. Equally important, because of God's love, we become clothed in the righteousness of Jesus. This puts a totally different slant on righteousness. Herein. is the righteousness of God revealed.

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 22, 2013

God existed first and foremost and nothing had existed without Him. He is in total control of all things. The universe is His whether the components of the universe are visible or invisible. He alone spoke this world into its form and equipped mankind with the capability to enjoy its richness from one generation to another. In this context, the farmer may plant the seed and reap the harvest but without the seed, neither could have occurred. In the same manner does our offspring have seed within themselves. The question is why is it that, even to this day, the Lord God of Glory is so mindful of man? Indeed, God has set man over the works of His own hands, desiring that man be fruitful and multiply. As such, God continues to replenish His creation, of which God Himself, upon completion of His handiwork, saw His creation to be good. In fact, He loved this creation, called man for the creation was "God Himself invisible in created form." The Heavens declaring His Glory and the earth showing forth His handiwork. Unfortunately, something went askew. Thankfully, not according to God's plan. For He had purposed by the counsel of His own will that His earthly creation was only to be a stepping stone into an unbelievable eternal glory. In fact, the revelation is in the next unveiling of God's purpose. This because we, as the offspring of Adam's fallen race became recipients of penalties administered to mankind by the Lord. We had become slaves to sin imprisoned by its desires, even though we try dressing it up and whitewashing our projection of ourselves to others. We do so even when we remain fully aware that we are really wolves in sheep's clothing. The Lord describes man as a being whose heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. Still, God had a vision. At the time of administering the curse, God reached out in Love promising that the seed of a woman would bruise the serpent's head. This seed was not of Adam's fallen race but rather a "new seed", a precious Seed, a Holy Spirit Seed, a Seed in which all the nations of earth could be blessed. The Precious Seed of Promise passed from Eve into Seth as recorded in scriptures and travelled down through the ages until the seed arrived in Sarah, who was barren. God had promised to Abram that in His seed would all the nations of the earth be blessed. Remember that God's ways are not our ways. His thoughts are higher than ours, and with God nothing is impossible. Even though Abram was now 100 years of age and his natural capabilities as a man had passed, the Lord had a miracle in mind. As promised, the Adam seed was to be no more! So what did the Lord do? He resurrected Abram's capabilities and at the same time placed into Abram a precious promised Seed. Now we see His purpose unveiling. God opened Sarah's womb allowing the two promised precious Seeds to pass into Isaac, fulfilling the scripture, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called. As a consequence, another genealogy commences. This genealogy begins with Abraham and not with Eve. These two genealogies travel as before until the fullness of time comes in the culmination of the predetermined foreordained destination of these two precious promised Seeds destined mission was to terminate their journey in a young virgin girl named Mary. An angel informed Mary that she was now with child. The angel stated that which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Spirit and that she would bring forth a Son. His Name was to be called JESUS. He would save His people from their sin. God Himself to be veiled in the flesh, appearing in fashion outwardly as Adam's offspring and inwardly as the Precious Promised Seed of God's Holy Spirit! In JESUS' veins flowed the blood of God's holy spirit.

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 22, 2013

God was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew Him not! John the apostle declared that our hands have handled the Word of Life. For the life was manifested and we have seen Him and we declare unto you that eternal life was with the Father. Certainly, the truth of who Jesus quickly becomes evident from His question to Mary and Joseph, "Do you not know that I must be about my Father?s business?" Jesus is the child of the Holy Spirit, the fetus coming forth from the Promised New Seed. Two seeds - the first seed deposited into Eve and the other seed into Abraham. As a consequence, the fetus is conceived by the Spirit of God who fathered Jesus, who being the express image of God, and in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells. Recall Jesus' response to Philip who had accompanied Jesus for three years. Philip said to Jesus, "Show us the Father and we will be satisfied." Jesus' said to Philip, "Have I been so long time with you Philip and yet you have not known Me? He that has seen Me has seen the Father. Why are you saying, show us the Father?" Unfortunately, the same lack of understanding when it comes to the Godhead appears to be the case today. Many are searching to find God. But the unseen invisible God is now visible in the face of Jesus, who is the brightness of God?s glory, the express image of His person. When Jesus walked on earth as a man, there was no beauty that we should desire Him. He had no form or comeliness. His physical appearance was indistinguishable, and like the others. In fact, you would have not picked Him out in a crowd. He had been clothed in Mary?s womb in fashion as a man. Jesus was tempted like all others who wear the apparel of Adam?s fallen offspring. However, He did not sin. Sin did not have dominion over Him, for He walked in the Spirit, thereby not fulfilling the lusts of Mary?s generational fallen flesh. Instead, Jesus was Holy and un-defiled. Separate from sinners yet reaching out to them with no condemning view. For He did not come to condemn the world but that the lost through Him could be saved. Redemption required a payment in full of a subject at least equal to the debt that had first enveloped man into slavery. But in the beginning, Adam sinned. Thereby, death passed through Adam into his offspring - us. In order for humans to be redeemed, payment required that a holy righteous man die. One who was completely pure - the Lord of Glory. Only God was willing to sacrifice His own body. His natural sin adorned body which had not succumbed to sin and neither was any guile found in His mouth willingly laid down His Life to save lost souls. God commended His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners He, as a Son, laid down His life for us. He, the just one paying the price in full for the unjust. His body more marred than any other body, and yet He endured all pain and agony.

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 22, 2013

The question is why? The answer? Because the love of Jesus, His love, means more than anything. None of His bones were broken. The reason being that the bones were the bones of the fetus, the child of the Holy Spirit who had never ever sinned. But the body capable of fleshly sin was to be marred beyond recognition. He, in his own body, bore our sins nailing our sin to a tree. His body was cursed! Still, He took our curse upon Himself. He substituted His righteous body, robe-ing Himself with our garments of sin. The whosoever will in His righteous robes, setting us free, and as a consequence, redeeming us from all of our sin. Beloved, we are the sons of God redeemed by the grace of God, brought back to where we can fellowship with the LORD GOD OUR SAVIOUR. Factually, Heaven has decreed that there is no other name under Heaven given among men whereby one can be saved! Recall Paul, (formerly known as Saul) whilst journeying on route to Damascus, and intent on bringing chaos into believers lives, was suddenly confronted by a Light and a Voice. From within the Light the voice, saying to Saul, "Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?" It is hard for one to kick against their conscience. Paul, now being in the throws of bewilderment utters, "Who are you Lord?" The Lord introduces Himself, saying, "I AM JESUS." God's name is assuredly Jesus. This is confirmed in Isaiah which saith that the Holy Spirit child would be called Wonderful, Councillor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace.

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 22, 2013

God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. It is not me that is doing the work -Jesus said - but rather the Father who dwells within me. He is doing the work. The bones of the fetus of the Holy Spirit child were not to be broken inasmuch as the fetus was without sin. Similarly, the blood that indwelt the fetus was likewise exempt. For in the fetus veins dwelt the life giving blood of God?s own Holy Spirit. This is why the precious innocent blood was poured onto the earth, fulfilling the scriptural demands. Without the shedding of blood, there was to be no remission of sin. The only remedial atoning blood was that holy undefiled blood of the Holy Spirit that was sacrificed freely, and yet, with agonizing torture, administered by the hands of fallen, unbelieving religious fanatics. In their ignorance, and intent on crucifying the Lord of glory, the judicial system, at the conclusion of their proceeding had issued a verdict that stated, "I find no fault in Him." The judge then proceeds to wash his hands as if soap and water were capable of removing him from any awareness of conscious guilt. Passing his authoritative power into the hands of a murderous multitude, they were more than willing to rid the earth of Jesus. What they did not know is that this salvation was purchased not with silver or gold, but rather by one who is called the Lamb of God, whose innocent blood poured forth from the veins of the Holy Spirit on earth. In this case, the earth being the womb of mankind. This redemptive blood is the remedy for all sin, offered freely to everyone, including those sinning wilfully in ignorance. It is for this reason that whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Whoever will call upon the name of Jesus. You will recall that the angel declared that the child's name was to be Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sin. The name of Jesus is above every other name in heaven and on earth!

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 22, 2013

Many descriptive title names have been advanced as if they were actual names. Such is not the case, because they are not names but rather descriptive titles. In this context, it does not matter how beautifully rendered they may be, they are still not names. The Lord of Glory's name is Jesus! He introduced Himself as being Jesus. The early believers went everywhere preaching Jesus. This is my blood shed for many for the remission of sin. As often as you eat this bread and drink this wine, you do show forth the Lord?s death. The apostles divided the wine among themselves. God is not the author of confusion. Let all things be done decently and in order. Moses lifted up a bronze serpent in the wilderness which had been secured to a pole, thereby securing healing to whoever would gaze upon it. So, likewise Jesus, that He also would be lifted up on a pole that whoever should look upon Him could also be delivered from whatever bondage engulfed them! Let's consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus, who had taken upon Himself to take on a lower fashion in appearance than that of the Angelic Hosts. Angels cannot die. Jesus in order to redeem man from His fallen estate would if He were to save man have to taste death for every man, (the Just for the Unjust). He was to fulfill the determination of that which had already been predetermined before the very foundation of the earth. That is He, the Lamb of God, would be delivered into the midst of wicked men and be slain, thereby achieving opportunity for the lost to have redemption. In other words, He Himself taking away the sin of all those individuals who call upon His Name - "JESUS" He, God Himself as a son conceived of the Holy Spirit (as a child) to be veiled in sinful flesh , thereby enabling the predetermined counsel of God to be manifest, He was in the world and the world was made by Him as John recorded. Further, John states that his hands handled of the Word of Life. Abraham had it revealed to him that in his seed would all the nations of the earth be blessed. That seed of blessing was the seed of the Holy Spirit Jesus. Like Simeon of old, who upon seeing Jesus in the temple as a babe, adopted a prayerful attitude before God saying, Now let your servant depart in peace for my eyes have seen your salvation. There was none righteous, in God's eyes. No, not one. Therefore, God Himself made a way. The Creator God Himself as a son would become man's Saviour. He came to sacrifice Himself. He offered His own flesh. which had been capable of sin but had not sinned. Instead, He walked in the Spirit accomplishing His Father's business. He became a propitiation for sin. His own blood, the blood of the Holy Spirit to be shed once and once for all. As a consequence, there is no more or other sacrifice for sin. Jesus, the only priestly mediator presenting Himself to the world was sacrificed, causing the veil of the temple to be rent in two from top to bottom. He did so that we who believe in Him can now come boldly to God?s Throne of Grace. There is no greater love story than we become redeemed by God Himself as a son.

Janice Mckendrick

commented on Apr 22, 2013

This is the covenant I will make with them after those days. Not according to the former covenant that I made with their fathers but a new covenant. Indeed, this covenant is not an addendum to the former as in the old or former written in stone. Rather, the new covenant is to be written on the fleshly tables of individual's hearts. God promised the inheritors of this new covenant that He would be to them their God and they shall be to Him their people. Yes, a people which were not a people but now are the people of God, a purchased people bought at an invaluable price. Of God?s own blood flowing in the veins of God?s only begotten son Jesus. Please note that the Scriptures state "begotten and not begat." The First Covenant issued and delivered at the mount to Moses was a covenant gendering to bondage, whereas the New Covenant brought life. These covenants were in existence from the garden of Eden, typified as two trees of which Adam was forewarned not to partake of. In fact, he was told that if he were to eat of the tree of knowledge, of good and evil, he would surely die. Conversely, the other tree was the tree of Life. The first Covenant was detailed and outlined at the mountain. It was a covenant between God and man. One might consider it to be a covenant of do?s and do-not's, a covenant of blessings and curse. Upon delivery of the first Covenant, three thousand persons perished. If we contrast this with the New Testament, the New Covenant saw three thousand persons saved. The contrast then is life and death. The First Covenant was written on stone. It was a covenant of death. The new covenant is to be written upon the fleshly tables of our heart. In other words, the New Covenant was a covenant not dependent upon we, the fallen race. If we had been allowed to partake of the tree of life, we should have for all eternity been compassed about with calamity. That is why Adam and Eve were removed from the garden, thereby preventing us from bringing the roof down on our heads. The New Covenant was a covenant brought into effect by the Lord Himself. The Lord covenanting with Himself. A covenant between the One God who is Spirit and God Himself as a son -- not another person. This is the reason that JESUS is the Author and the Finisher of Our Faith. He alone is able to award the free gift of eternal life. This free gift brought into reality not as a result of our work, for it is written in the scriptures - "It is not obtained by works, lest any man should boast." Recall that Abraham had two sons. The first one by a bond woman and the second by a free woman. The child born to the bond woman was man as usual, endeavouring to do things his way. The other son born to the free woman was a child of promise to Abraham coming forth into life against all impossible odds. Isaac, the child of promise. We, like Isaac are God?s children of promise. This people have I formed for my name?s sake. We have been made alive, resulting from God?s Love that will never let us go. We are engraved in the palms of His hands. We are His offspring. The First Adam was of the earth. However, the second Adam, the Lord Himself coming out of Heaven enabling salvation to be obtainable by He, as a Son, sacrificing Himself. He put Himself in our place. This is the New Covenant. The testament written in blood. This is why the scriptures state that he who has the Son has Life. We are the Seed of Christ. Beloved now are we the Sons of God, fellowshipping with our Great God and only Saviour the Lord Jesus. His blood avails for us.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 23, 2013

@Janice, I really don't quite know what to make of your posts. All I can say is, how do you answer my post #51-#53?

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 23, 2013

@Bill, like I said, I really don't want to debate textual criticsim at this time. It would take a LOT of time and space. Maybe we can tackle that issue sometime in the future. I will say this though, I have had several people who I have witnessed to express that they are confussed by the number of translations and they do wonder which one is right. It IS a hinderance for some people. That, my friend, is not debatable.

John Makuluka

commented on Apr 24, 2013

Denis, it's like in your comment #56 you send people to hell because they deny trinity us doctrine of God! I understand that you have been taught to defend your religion. But one thing is true: trinity is a man made doctrine. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles have proclaimed trinity. In fact, they don't know where this concept come from. God is eternal. But 1 cor 15:28 reveals that the sonship is not eternal. Yet several times the scriptures reveal that jesus is eternal. So we understand that the Son of God (not God the Son) is not a nature or a name but a revelation of God or a descriptive title. In heaven there is one throne for one person not three. May God help you to have the mind of christ as I said earlier. God is ONE not TRIUNE. The triune vocabulary is not biblical and godly. That is just a man made doctrine.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 24, 2013

@John, sorry but you are wrong! The Scriptures I quoted prove you are. Did you even take time to read them? It seems like 1 Cor. 15:28 is the ONLY verse you and others cling to for you belief, yet I think I did a great job of explaining what that verse means. And BTW, I DON"T send ANYONE to hell! God does! The Trinity is a GOD made doctrine!

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 24, 2013

@John, why don't you go over EVERYTHING I posted and refute it! Please give me your explanation of ALL the verses I quoted! Also answer this question, where is the word "monotheism" found in the Bible? And do you believe that I am going to hell because I believe in the Trinity? You quoting one verse to prove your point shows how shallow your belief is! 2 Peter 2:20 says "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." This means you don't take one or two verses of Scripture and build a doctrine around it! Explain the uni-plural name for God in Genesis 1:1 Elohim. Please try to defend your doctrine from the Word of God by refuting what I quoted from the Word of God!

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 24, 2013

@Dennis, I won't deny that there are many who are confused by the number of translations and who wonder which one is right. My question is, what do we do about this? Like I said, the variants exist. That is also not debatable. The reason why modern translation include footnotes that say things like, "Some manuscripts omit 'x'" or "Some manuscripts add 'x'" is because some manuscripts DO. That is a fact. And the reason these footnotes do not appear in the KJV is because those manuscripts were unknown in the seventeenth century. But we do know about them, now. So what do we do about it? We can't just ignore it. And we can't just tell people not to read modern translation because they contain some differences from the manuscripts that were used by the KJV translators. That's not going to cut it with most people who are serious about studying the Bible for themselves. I propose two things: First, those who are preachers and teachers of the church need to educate their church members about how the manuscripts were transmitted. Whichever textual family one ultimately considers more reliable, teachers must let members know that there are manuscripts that differ, and that that is to be expected in a process where the manuscripts were copied by hand over the course of hundred of years. Second, those who are preachers and teachers of the church need to assure their church members that none of these difference essentially change the meaning or interpretation of the Bible as a whole. Like I said, I've been reading many different translations, including the KJV, for decades. I can guarantee you, there is nothing essential for salvation in the KJV that you will not find in modern translations. I'd like to know what you think of these two proposals. God bless!

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 24, 2013

@Bill, you say, "And the reason these footnotes do not appear in the KJV is because those manuscripts were unknown in the seventeenth century." That is why I believe the KJV is the true Word of God. I don't trust the other manuscripts, for MANY reasons! Then you say, "And we can't just tell people not to read modern translation because they contain some differences from the manuscripts that were used by the KJV translators. That's not going to cut it with most people who are serious about studying the Bible for themselves." I disagree. I do teach that very thing. Why can I teach that? Because I have done what you have propossed. I have gone over the difference in manuscripts with my church. I have explained and shown them the reasons why modern translations cannot be fully trusted. I have educated them by expressing BOTH sides of the argument. With regard to your second proposal, I do believe the differences are important as I have stated previously. If Jesus is concerned with every "jot" and "tittle" of His Word, I am concerned with "subtle" changes also. But as I did say, I believe people can still be saved by reading some modern versions. Like I said before, Satan is subtle, he doesn't change everything at once.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 24, 2013

Also, I believe 1 John 5:7 and Matt. 28:19 belongs in the Bible, and just because "some" do not, doesn't mean that they are right, no matter why they believe it. When God says in 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." I believe exactly what it says. I do not understand what Jerry was trying to say about "bear record" but I understand that there are THREE in heaven and those three are ONE.

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 24, 2013

@Dennis, as usual, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response. Let me try to reply point by point. 1) I respect if you do not trust the other manuscripts. I am sure you have your reasons, and I am familiar with other serious Biblical scholars who likewise believe that the TR is more accurate to the originals. I am somewhat confused, however, by one thing you said concerning this point. In quoting my comment that the manuscripts that most modern translations were unknown in the seventeenth century, you replied that that is the reason you believe the KJV is the true word of God. Could you please elaborate on that, because I fail to find any connection between the KJV translators not having access to certain manuscripts with the KJV being the true word of God. I mean, just because they didn't know about these manuscripts doesn't mean they didn't exist. They did exist, hundreds of years before the translators of the KJV began their work. Hundreds of years before the translators of the KJV began their work, before modern English began to be spoken, many Christians read these manuscripts as the true word of God. This is historical fact. How do we reconcile this historical fact with the claim that the KJV (and its underlying manuscripts) alone is the true word of God? Since God has promised to preserve his word, did he not preserve his word among the Christians who only had access to the manuscripts you dismiss? 3) Regarding my first proposal, there is no disagreement. You have done what I propose. You didn't just tell them not to read modern translations and just leave it at that. You have educated your church members. You have presented both sides of the argument, and you have given the reasons for your conclusion. People who seriously study the Bible will respect that, even if they do not agree with your conclusions. 4) Regarding my second proposal, let's take the example of Colossians 1 that you gave earlier. You believe the differences are important. Can you explain to me why it is so important that the NIV of Colossians 1 does not contain the phrase "through his blood" like the KJV does; when the parallel passage of Ephesians 1 in BOTH the NIV and the KJV DOES contain that phrase. Can one really argue that the NIV diminishes the importance of the blood of Christ when the phrase, although absent in Colossians 1, is PRESENT in Ephesians 1? I look forward to your thoughts. God bless!

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 24, 2013

@Dennis, yes, I don't really know what Jerry was trying to say about 1 John 5:7 either! But I do know this: there is plenty of Biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity apart from 1 John 5:7. And if the doctrine of the Trinity cannot stand without 1 John 5:7, then maybe the doctrine really isn't as Biblical as we think it is. No doctrine can stand on the foundation of one text alone.

Anthony Leon Perkins

commented on Apr 24, 2013

@ Dennis, I read your well stated arguments last week and you may have included these two verses but I frankly don't remember. Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. One could argue that there is more than one throne in heaven from these two verses. Blessings.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 26, 2013

@Anthony, no I didn't use those verses. Thank you for reminding me of them. They do indicate that there is more than one throne. Thanks for pointing that out!

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 26, 2013

@Bill, I trust that the Holy Spirit guided the translators to use only the manuscripts that God wanted in the Bible we now have. God, of course, knew these manuscripts existed and if He had wanted them included in our Bible, they no doubt would have been included. They rejected other manuscripts such as the Vatican manuscript, and the Sinaitic manuscript. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit these tainted manuscripts were cast aside and were not included in the Textus Receptus. These manuscripts disagree with each other 3,000 time in the gospels alone. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are the oldest, but they are not the best manuscripts!!! That's where the modern translators went wrong! They foolishly accepted the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply because they were old. They did not attempt to find out why they were so vastly different from the Greek text that Christians have known to be the infallible Word of God. As far as the blood being left in Eph. 1 while taken out of Col. 1, as I said, Satan is subtle, he doesn't completely destroy the Word of God all at once, he does it little by little. And as I've also pointed out, he has been successful in getting people to question God's Word by these changes. You need to remember that that is just one example of many changes and omissions found in the NIV and other modern translations. And as far as 1 John 5:7 is concerned, you know that I didn't base my belief in the Trinity solely from that verse or Matt. 28:19. As I pointed out to John, it seems like the only verse they use to refute the Trinity is 1 Cor. 15:28, and I called him on it. My point was that just because some don't believe those verses belong in the Bible, does NOT mean that I will not use them to defend the Trinity.

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 26, 2013

@Dennis, again, thank you for your response. As I said earlier, I don't have the knowledge to be able to debate on textual criticism intelligently, so for the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct that the TR is more accurate to the original manuscripts than the Vatican or Sinai manuscripts. (By the way, just for clarification, it is my understanding that the Sinai manuscripts were not discovered until the latter half of the eighteenth century at the earliest, so we can't really say that the KJV translators rejected those manuscripts, as they were not aware of them.) Assuming the accuracy of the TR however, does not answer my questions on the practical implications of your position, however, the biggest question being: do the changes essentially change the message of the Bible? Now, concerning Colossians 1 and Ephesians 1, you claim that Satan is subtle and he destroys the Word of God little by little. But that argument doesn't make sense in this case because there is no "changing little by little" process here. There are some manuscripts that add the "blood" phrase in Colossians 1, there are some manuscripts that omit it, but EVERY manuscript in existence has the phrase in Ephesians 1. Nothing is changing about that. There is absolutely nothing in the two-thousand-year history of that text to suggest the phrase is not original to Ephesians. Where do you see any "little by little" process here? So, at least in this specific example, my point stands. The variant in Colossians 1 does nothing to change the essential message of the Bible as a whole. Whether or not the phrase is original to Colossians 1, the essential meaning remains since there is no doubt that the phrase IS original to Ephesians 1 and communicates the same idea there as it would in Colossians 1. In this example, nothing has been changed. Can you offer another example that DOES essentially change the message of the Bible? I have two other questions regarding practical implications. 1. Not every Christian community had access to the manuscripts of the TR. So, for those who didn't, for those who only had access to manuscripts such as the Vatican or the Sinai, did they not have access, then, to the true, infallible word of God? Did God not keep his promise of preserving his word to THOSE communities. 2. The KJV was not published until about 100-150 years after modern English began to be spoken. So, prior to the publishing of the KJV, did those generations of English-speaking Christians not have the true, infallible, word of God? Did God not keep his promise of preserving his word to THOSE Christians. I am eager to read your response. The weekend is close upon us, and I try to spend as much time with my boys as possible, so if you don't hear from me until about Monday or late Sunday, please be sure that I haven't gone anywhere and that I've taken the time to read your response. God bless you!

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 26, 2013

@Bill you are correct about the Sinai manuscripts. I was writing my response from memory (and as I get older, it isn't as sharp as it used to be). That is the reason I didn't want to debate this issue at this time. I haven't studied it in a while. The date of the manuscripts: the Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (about 350 AD). The Vaticanus was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. It omits: Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28 Psalms 106-138 Matthew 16:2-3 The Pauline Pastoral Epistles Hebrews 9:14-13:25 Revelation. Besides all that, in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places. The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the KJV, but they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable. The Vaticanus also contains the Apocrypha. The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas" to the New Testament. The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus: "On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament." On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century. Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus: "From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose." These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily. I did write that the blood in Col. 1 was one of MANY differences. But if you want an example where it does make a big difference consider the next post.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 26, 2013

Daniel 9:20-27 is one of the MOST exacting prophecies concerning when the Messiah would come. Verse 25 tells us that one of the signs would be the wall being rebuilt. "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the WALL, even in troublous times." This decree was given in 445 B.C. So we have a prophecy given by God as to the time the Messiah would come and also the signs that go along with this prophecy. Now consider the NIV's rendering of Daniel 9:25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anoited One, the ruler come, there will be seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a TRENCH, but in times of trouble." So again, the sign was a WALL would be rebuilt, not a TRENCH dug. I think you would agree that a wall is different from a trench! So a major prophecy has been changed.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 26, 2013

Next let me give you an excerpt from a book to explain the other manuscripts you are asking about: The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book. "QUESTION: I've heard that there have been many manuscripts discovered since 1611 that the King James translators didn't have access to. Do these strengthen or weaken the King James Bible? ANSWER: They strengthen the King James Bible. EXPLANATION: There have been many manuscripts found since 1611, but there have been no new READINGS found. Many critics of the Word of God have used the argument of "new evidence" that the King James translators didn't have as a basis to degrade its authority. The fact is, the King James translators had all of the readings available to them that modern critics have available to them today. One of the most prominent manuscripts which has been discovered since 1611 is the Sinaitic manuscript. This witness, though horribly flawed, was found amongst trash paper in St. Catherine's monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1841 by Constantine Tischendorf. Sinaiticus is a sister manuscript of the corrupt manuscript Vaticanus. Both read very similarly. So, although the Sinaitic manuscript was discovered over 200 years after the Authorized Version was translated, its READINGS were well known to the translators through the Vatican manuscript which was discovered in 1481 and also through the Jesuit Bible, an English translation of 1582. So we see that there are no readings available today to scholars which were not already in the hands of the King James translators. We might further add that an honest scholar will admit that this "great number of newly discovered manuscripts" that are trumpt abroad agree with the Greek text of the Authorized Version rather than challenging it." Then you ask if God preserved His Word before the KJV, of course He did. The Old Testament of the KJV was translated from the Masoretic Text. This text was in use during the time of Christ and He quoted from them many times. If the Masoretic Text was acceptable to Christ then it certainly should be accepted by every child of God. This text was kept pure by the Hebrew priests who were given the responsibility of caring for it. Let me once again continue in the next post.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 26, 2013

Now let me give you a chronology from my studies of the KJV: 1. From the birth of Christ to 100 A.D. the original manuscripts were written in the Greek language. 2. The New Testament was compiled by 400 A.D. a. by 170 A.D. 20 N.T. books had been accepted by the early Christians. b. by 400 A.D. all 27 books of the N.T. had been accepted by the early Christians as they were guided by the Holy Spirit. 1. The Holy Spirit guided so that only the genuine books were included. 2. The Holy Spirit also guided in the selection of the pure manuscripts. 3. The Holy Spirit so guided that false gospels and manuscripts were set aside. c. the original manuscripts were lost but the Received Text that was produced during this time was a faithful reproduction of the original autographs. 3. 452-1453 A.D. The Textus Receptus was used by the Greek Church during this time under the direction of the Holy Spirit. 4. 1516 A.D. Erasmus edited the first printing of the Greek N.T. a. This was in agreement with the Textus Receptus. 5. 1526 A.D. Tyndale's New Testament in English was printed. He was burned at the stake in 1536 because he had the Bible printed in English. 6. 1550 A.D. Stephens Greek N.T. (Textus Receptus). 7. 1611 A.D. The King James or Authorised Version of the Bible was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus in the N.T. and Hebrew Masoretic Text in the O.T.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 26, 2013

So, I believe I have answered all your questions in one way or another. God Bless You!

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 26, 2013

@Dennis, I appreciate the thoroughness of your response. It was quite educational! I just want to clarify one point: None of the comments I made have been for the purpose of criticizing the KJV or claiming that it was not as reliable or trustworthy as more modern translations. Like I said at the beginning, I believe the KJV is an excellent translation. I guess my major point has been this: when we speak of God preserving his word, the way I understand it is that even though these variants exist, even though communities of Christians throughout the past two thousand years have had manuscripts that differ in many ways from each other, God still speaks through all of these manuscripts. Some communities of Christians only had access to the TR manuscripts, and I believe they had the true Word of God because God promised the preserve his Word. Other communities only had access to the Vatican manuscripts or to the Sinai manuscripts, and I believe that they also had the true Word of God because God promised to preserve his Word. Thank you for the additional example Daniel 9. Although I have to say, again, I don't see the change in detail as essentially changing the meaning of the prophecy. Sure, a trench is different than a wall. But the primary sign for that start of the prophecy is the command/decree to rebuild and restore Jerusalem, and that sign is given in BOTH the KJV and the NIV. Rebuilding the streets and a wall, or rebuilding the streets and a trench, are not separate signs, but simply an elaboration of the primary sign, the command to rebuild Jerusalem. I don't see how replacing the word "wall" with the word "trench" would change the date of when that command went forth; unless there was one command that specifically referred to rebuilding a wall, and a separate command given at a different time that specifically referred to digging a trench, although I'm not aware of two such commands. Otherwise, we are again dealing with a minor detail that does not essentially change the meaning of the text. If the decree to restore Jerusalem was 445 B.C., then that was the date, and both the KJV and the NIV would support that prophecy. Anyway, yes, you did answer my questions in some way or another, and I appreciate your patience and your willingness to share your knowledge with me. It is clear you have put a lot of thought and study into this issues, so your comments are very much worth taking seriously. I will keep them in mind as I continue to learn more about this subject. Although I know I will never be an expert in textual criticism, I do wish to learn and understand as much as I can. Have a wonderful weekend, and know that I will keep you in my payers as you minister to your church this weekend. God bless!

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 28, 2013

@Bill, it most certainly is important that the wall was to be rebuilt as far as the starting point for the 70 weeks prophecy. The first decree was given by King Cyrus in 536 B.C. You can find this in Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chron. 36:22-23. In these passages, not one word is mentioned about restoring and rebuilding the city Jerusalem. All that is mentioned in this proclamation is the house of the Lord, the temple. The second decree was given in 519 B.C. After the Jews appealed to King Darius, he issued a decree to make a search in the king's treasure house in Babylon. The search was made, and revealed the decree that had been given by Cyrus. The decree given by Darius was then a renewing of the one issued by Cyrus, but with penalties attatched. If you read Ezra 5:1-6:12, you find that nothing is said of the city, just the temple. The third decree was given in 458 B.C. Artaxerxes king of Persia gave Ezra a letter giving him permission to go to Jerusalem and take the priests and Levites with him. Ezra was given authority to collect gold and silver, buy bullocks, rams, and lambs for offerings in the temple; and, should it become necessary, draw on the king's tresury for "whatsoever more shall be needful" for the house of God. There is nothing in this decree concerning the restoration of the Holy City Jerusalem. The fourth decree was given in 445 B.C. In the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, Nehemiah appeared before the king with a sad heart. His countenance told the king that something was drastically wrong with Nehemiah, he was under a heavy burden. We see this in Nehemiah 2:1-3. When Nehemiah made this statement to the king, he wanted to know how long the prophet wanted to be away, and just what he wanted the king to do concerning the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. Nehemiah was allowed to return to the Holy City, and his mission was not only religious; it was also political in the eyes of the enemies of the Jews, because outsiders such as Sanballat and Tobiah opposed the mission, saying that the building of the WALLS and restoration of the city would be an act of rebellion and a danger to the king's empire. Nehemiah and the group who returned with him repaired the WALLS in 52 days (Neh. 6:15), but it took 12 years to complete the rebuilding and restoration of the city of Jerusalem, re-establish the law and ordinances of worship in the temple. Nehemaiah's rebuilding of the WALL and the city is definately a fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 9:25 "..."The street shall be built again, and the WALL, even in troublous times." Then look at Neh. 2:11-16 Nehemiah views the ruined WALLS. In chapter 3 we read of the builders of the WALL. In chapter 4:1 we read "But it came to pass, that when Sanballat heard that we builded the WALL, he was wroth, and took great indignation, and mocked the Jews." Verse 3 "Now Tobiah the Ammonite was by him, and he said, Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone WALL." Verse 6 "So built we the WALL; and all the WALL was joined together unto the half thereof: for the people had a mind to work." Again, Daniel 9:25-26 is the most important Old Testament prophetic calculation for the time of Messiah. If Daniel 9:25 is speaking of a trench and not a wall, then the command to Nehemiah CANNOT be used as the starting point as nothing is said in ANY of the passages in Nehemiah about a trench! So, yes changing words in God's Word is VERY dangerous!

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 28, 2013

@Bill, Where was the Bible before 1611? In the available Antiochian manuscripts. The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts existent throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, (NOT to be confused with Jerome's corrupt "Vulgate") or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD. That it would be difficult to gather all of these sources together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence to God's reasoning for the collation and translation of the KJV. God did keep His Word about preserving His Word. The Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are NOT God's Word as I explain in post 92.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 28, 2013

@Bill, Are the Scriptures just the "ideas" of God, or are they the very WORDS of God? God promises to preserve His WORDS. Psalms 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." You shall not add or take away, says God. Deuteronomy 4:1-2 "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. 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." God cares about every one of His words. Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." God's words will never pass away. Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." God will curse those who change His Word. 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." This doesn't sound like God inspired only the "concepts" in Scripture. He clearly directed every word and will not tolerate man's meddling with it. Thus my argument that a WALL was built, not a trench dug. He calls them "His Words." The KJV preserves God's WORDS because it was translated using "formal equivalence." All other Bibles were translated using "dynamic equivalence," in which the translator is free to change words as long as he conveys the "idea." Also let me give you one more example I think is important. Did you know that there is only one verse in the whole Bible that tells us we need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ before we are baptized? That verse is Acts 8:37. Why is it missing from the text in the NIV? I hope I have made a good case for my believing that the KJV is THE Word of God, while the modern versions only contain it.

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 29, 2013

@Dennis, as to the prophecy of Daniel 9, I appreciate the further explanation you provide. I'll have to look into it. I'd like to focus on one specific point for the moment. My question to you, regarding the Antioch manuscripts is: were these manuscripts available to *all* Christian communities throughout history. In other words, were there any Christian communities at any time who did not have access to the Antioch manuscripts, or who only had access to the Vatican or Sinai manuscripts?

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 29, 2013

@Bill, In the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, there were many copies of the originals of the Greek N.T. books. There wasn?t a printing press at this time in history of course, so exact copies were made by hand, compared to the original, and then given to the various churches. These copies of the originals became known as the Antioch Manuscripts, then later as the Textus Receptus. Since many of the Jewish people at this time in history were living in surrounding COUNTRIES with different native languages (Acts 2:5-11), the originals were translated into their NATIVE languages as well. These are now referred to as the Ancient Versions. The originals, lasted at least into the 3rd Century A.D. Tertullian (160 - 225 A.D.) makes reference to the Apostles? Autographs - Originals - as being existing in his day. In his work entitled ?On Persecution Against Heretics?, back in the year 208 A.D. it states, "?the very thrones of the Apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally." Remember, the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts didn?t come along until around 350 A.D. So my answer would be that yes ?these manuscripts were available to *all* Christian communities throughout history.?

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 29, 2013

@Dennis, thank you for that answer. I'd like to move on to the topic of "words" vs. "ideas." As you know, Language is a field I am much more competent to discuss. First, I'd like to correct something you wrote earlier, that all other translations other than the KJV use "dynamic" rather than "formal" equivalence. That is not true. There are many modern translations that use formal equivalence, most notably the NASB, but there are others. But on the bigger issue, you claim that God clearly directed every word of Scripture. If that is the case, can you explain to me 1 Corinthians 1:14-16, which reads, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other"? Specifically, I'd like to know, if God directed the words in this text, and if God knew that Paul had baptized the household of Stephanas, why did he not remind Paul of this earlier, so that Paul would've included the household of Stephanas along with Crispus and Gaias. And, even more significantly, if God knew whether or not Paul had baptized anyone else in the Corinthian church, even though Paul didn't remember, why didn't he remind Paul?

Dennis Cocks

commented on Apr 30, 2013

@Bill, I stand corrected on "formal equivalence." But they still use the corrupt Vatican and Sinai manuscripts. As to those whom Paul baptized, I don't see why it matters that Paul said he baptized the household of Stephanas after he said he baptized Crispus and Gaius. And as far as Paul not knowing whether he baptized anyone else, that doesn't suggest that these words are not inspired. The Holy Spirit dictated these words to Paul just as truly as He dictated the rest of the epistle. The Holy Spirit didn't deem it needful to give a record of all the converts Paul had baptized (if there were others), because baptism has nothing to do with redemption. Baptism isn't so significant or important that Paul should keep a record of each and every person he baptized nor that the Holy Spirit should remind him. If He did, I'm sure that would add fuel to the fire of the ones who believe baptism saves you.

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 30, 2013

@Dennis, the point is, why would the Holy Spirit dictate to Paul to write the specific words, "I don't know whether I baptized anyone else"? I mean, if the Holy Spirit did not deem it necessary for Paul to record all the converts he had baptized, he could've simply just not said anything at all. But according to your belief, the Holy Spirit specifically dictated to Paul to write down that he did not know whether he had baptized anyone else, apart from those he had already listed (whom, for some reason, the Holy Spirit DID deem necessary to include in the record). So my question is, why that specific statement? What does that statement contribute to the text that would not be present if that statement was missing?

Bill Williams

commented on Apr 30, 2013

@Dennis, also, I want to clarify something, because I don't want you to misunderstand. I am by no means suggesting that Paul's statement--that he did not know whether he had baptized anyone else in Corinth-- is NOT inspired. No, ALL Scripture is inspired by God, including the parts that, I believe, simply reflect the human limitations and weakness of the authors that God used (in this case, Paul's faulty memory). So, I'm not saying Paul's statement is not inspired. I just don't agree that inspiration equals dictation. I believe God inspired the authors without having to dictate to them word by word what they needed to write.

John Makuluka

commented on Dec 5, 2014

May God bless you Janice Mckendrick for getting the revelation about Godhead which God prevents Jared to get.