This is a COPY of a page from a forum that has been deleted from the internet
The Berean Chronicles Forums
  King James Bible Discussion
   Understanding Lisa Ruby's Nit picky attack on Aho
 		 Support
 Search
 

[read page 2 here]

Kelly McGinley
Administrator
Global user

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 17
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
 
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
Understanding Lisa Ruby's Nit picky attack on Aho
 

 What one needs to understand is that Lisa Ruby promotes Eric Phelps info, whom is a hard core Calvinist. Of which she needs to explain why she is so worried about the KJV and yet promotes a man who has doctrine of demons. She also attended church with David Bay, who is a Calvinist. I am not sure if that means she attended a Calvinist church but very probable. It appears that she is trying to make David look better by acusing Barbara Aho of doing what David Bay has done.
Just exposing some possible motives for her nit picky, out of context attacks.
Kelly
7/6/2006, 10:06 pm Applaud Smite Send Email to Kelly McGinley   Send PM to Kelly McGinley
 
Anthos
Registered user
Global user

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 9
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
 
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
Re: Understanding Lisa Ruby's Nit picky attack on Aho
 

 Lisa Ruby is not pro Calvinism!I'm sure of that.She posts alot on google groups about suicide trying to warn people about hell and convince them not to kill themselves.A Calvinist would probably beleive that if a person is suicidal it's because God wants them to be that way so they will go to hell,if she believed that its God's will that they kill themselves then why would she try to stop them. Not to mention the fact that she's a huge opponent of Eternal Security, which is one of the main tenents of Calvinism. Also,it's Darryl Eberhart not her that sites Eric Phelps as an information source and she has a disclaimer on his website were she says she has reservations about some of the people he sites. Just because someone uses information from someone who's beleives in some false doctrine doesn't mean that they agree with them and just because someone believes in false doctrine doesn't mean that they're always wrong.I really enjoy your show and have been greatly affected by Lisa and her website and I hope this whole dispute doesn't turn into something really ugly.I wish everyone one on both sides would please think more carefully and be more considerate before they post things.
7/7/2006, 12:06 am Applaud Smite Send Email to Anthos   Send PM to Anthos
 
ByCharis
Registered user
Global user

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 44
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Avatar
 
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
Re: Understanding Lisa Ruby's Nit picky attack on Aho
 

 Hi All,

I can understand the tendancy for KJV only believers to go to the extremes of KJV re-inspired perfect words because of all the promoters of that view which we have all read and been taught by when we first start looking into the matter. I was of that view at one time myself for a while. So when someone hears that these words are only translations and can perhaps be better translated by another word, the first thought is OH NO THEY CAN'T! These are the very words of God and no other word can be substituted. It is conditioned thinking that we've been subjected to to think that these words are the same words as the original autographs or even better. Lisa obviously is trying to contend against the new versions, but has fallen for the extreme view which also is in error. The KJV is a translation; it's not the original words, but it does have all the words there and we can look up the Greek words for a fuller explanation. Such is the case in many places where understanding the meaning of the Greek word will help in determining the interpretation and inspired meaning of the text.

Lisa is, apparently, very anti eternal security and pre-tribulation rapture. Having found out that Barbara is both of those was also part of Lisa's problem with her. We are all very passionate about our doctrines, but sometimes we have to find out that something we thought was correct is not correct and then we must change for the love of the truth. Right? Until then, we oppose the truth and those who believe it, though we are still sincere and thinking we are doing God's will and service for him. But all the while we are sincerely wrong. I've been there a few times myself! I think we all have in our Christian growth.

May I say, that just because I do believe in eternal security and the pre-trib rapture, etc. that I in no way endorse Reformed Covenant theolgy or Calvinism. There doctrines stretch truths of scripture into extremes that make them in error. The same may be said for Arminianism, which is the opposing doctrine to Calvinism. They are fundementally wrong also, imo.

What neither doctrine does is pay attention to the Apostle Paul who gives doctrine for the Genitles and for this dispensation of the grace of God. The Reformers brought out some truth, but retained many false doctrines from Catholicism and then corrupted the truths that they had found and used them for political manipulation and their so-called "just wars." They hold to replacement theology which replaces the church with Israel and so therefore, apply all of the kingdom doctrine and covenants God gave to national Israel to the Body of Christ, the new creation of both Jew and Gentile. They put the believer under the law for growth, which is not what Paul taught for growth and they actually do not believe in the biblical doctrine of eternal security, but in the doctrine of the Perserverance of the Saints. Their doctrine on election denys the believer's responsibilty and volition (not free will) to exercise his faith in order to be saved. Arminianism deny's election and says it's all free will, which takes assurance and security out of the gospel and replaces it with the believer's works. Both doctrines end up denying the cross of Christ and what Paul taught about salvation and assurance. They are both heretical, in my opinion.

On election..........I do not see how we can get around the fact that scripture clearly teaches it throughout the Holy Bible. I've studied the subject from scripture more than once and cannot deny that election is certainly proclaimed. Not just corporate, but individual. Perhaps it would be a good idea for those who oppose it to do their own study and not listen to man made doctrines. Scripture also teaches that whosoever will may come and God is not willing for any to perish and that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Therefore anyone who wills may come to faith and be assured that all of his sins were paid for by the Lord Jesus Christ.

But I would encourage everyone to search the scriptures for yourself before you call eternal security or election a doctrine of demons.

If I am wrong, I am always ready to be corrected by a better understanding; but so far the Lord has established my heart in the most abundance of grace through the doctrine of the mystery revealed to Paul alone.

May I add a bottom line to eternal security as I see it. When we trust in Paul's gospel of grace which is receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our saviour by faith, believing that He died for our sins and was resurrected, the Holy Spirit honors that simple faith in the word of God and baptizes us spiritually into Christ's death and resurrection. That is why we are then dead unto sin but alive unto God and our life is hid with God in Christ and we are complete in Him. This is the crux of the matter. If you believe Paul's gospel of simple faith in Christ dying for your sins you are now dead with Christ. Upon believing you die. That old nature is to be reckoned dead with Christ. He took you into the grave with him when he "tasted death for every man." Therefore, you are also raised with Him and are seated with Him in the Heavenlies. That is your spiritual position and it is given to you freely by simple faith and trust. That is all God requires for salvation in this dispensation. If you do not believe that and want to add something to it or take something from it, then you have not believed the only gospel that will save you as you deny what God has said to Paul. Do you know that Paul said that there will be those at the Great White Throne judgment (which is the lost) that will be judged according to HIS GOSPEL? Dear Bereans.............don't be one of those. Believe what Paul said and you will be saved by faith alone. That is what God has commanded and the gospel wherein you stand.

This is the glory of God, that no one will boast about their own works in any way, but will be there simply because of His great MERCY.

Many are zealous for God but without knowledge. Listen to Paul. He is our Apostle and from where God is speaking to us today. All the scriptures are for our use and instructions and doctrine and so on..........but salvation comes from listening to Paul.

So, just because because the Bible does teach election and eternal security does not mean that Calvinism is correct. Just wanted to set that record straight. I will be happy to engage in more discussion about it if anyone feels the need or has questions about the scriptural basis for my beliefs. God grace is the most awesome of gifts and His salvation the most precious treasure in the universe. I thank Him forever and ever.

 

---
God is gracious,

ByCharis
 
7/7/2006, 1:30 am Applaud Smite Send PM to ByCharis
 
dbanks
Registered user
Global user

Registered: 07-2006
Posts: 1
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
 
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
Re: Understanding Lisa Ruby's Nit picky attack on Aho
 

 Hello Everybody & God Bless
I'm new to this forum, so bear with me.
I hoped that this forum would be a supportive interaction between/among lovers of Jesus Christ. There doesn't seem to be much of that going on here. Seems like some on the forum have their own agendas, and have been downright mean-spirited.
We're all on a journey and learning new things everyday. I thank Barbara Aho & Janet Mosier for their deligent research and for Kelly to put this all out to us.

db
7/7/2006, 6:23 am Applaud Smite Send Email to dbanks   Send PM to dbanks
 
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 21
Karma: 0 (+1/-1)
 
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
Re: Understanding Lisa Ruby's Nit picky attack on Aho
 

Charis wrote:

"Lisa is, apparently, very anti eternal security and pre-tribulation rapture."

I am opposed to the unscriptural unconditional eternal security teaching and am not personally against pre-trib Christians, although I do not hold the pre-trib doctrine anymore. I am post trib, as is Kelly McGinley.

I warn about a post-tribber radio broacaster who calls pre-tribbers morons and claims they are not saved:

"These morons don't even know the true Savior."

Yes, truth divides but standing on the truth should not make one behave in an unkind manner toward others.

See: http://libertytothecaptives.net/james_lloyd_warning.html

And here is a Message to my Pre-Trib Visitors
http://libertytothecaptives.net/message_to_pre_trib.html

My thread was about the King James Bible and Barbara Aho's stand on it (and Kelly's as well because she is yoked with Barbara), but this issue is being made into one of Lisa Ruby VS Barbara Aho. This should not be. The matter at hand is the most serious one facing Christians today: Which Bible is the Word of God?



Last edited by Lisa Ruby, 7/7/2006, 5:50 pm
 
7/7/2006, 11:37 am Applaud Smite Send Email to Lisa Ruby   Send PM to Lisa Ruby
 
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 21
Karma: 0 (+1/-1)
 
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
Re: Understanding Lisa Ruby's Nit picky attack on Aho
 

There would have not been a need to start the thread, "Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority" if Kelly had replied to me in April when I first wrote to her about my concerns about the Designer Mark of the Beast article on Barbara Aho's website and her remarks about the King James not always following the Textus Receptus.

Kelly never answered this concern but she did write back to ask me if I was a Calvinist and to comment on the mention of Eric Jon Phelps on my tacklingthetoughtopics.net website. (I own the site but the content belongs to Darryl Eberhart and I disclaim Eric's Calvinism and other doctrinal stands that I don't agree with.) I assured Kelly that I am not a Calvinist. She already knows I am not a Calvinist so I do not know why she started this thread. [update 02/12/07: This site has been deleted from the internet.]


When someone emailed me with concerns about the David Bay matter, I responded to him at length and forwarded my letter to him (with cc's visible) to Kelly and David Bay. (This letter was also forwarded to Barbara.) This letter included my concerns about Barbara's Designer Mark of the Beast article. Kelly responded briefly but she ignored my remarks about Barbara's comments about the King James Bible.

At this point I felt deeply concerned but did nothing for months until I received a forward from Mary Hostak. At this point I felt it was best to deal with the matter in Kelly's own forum rather than write an article or do a podcast without trying to get this matter resolved.

I am sorry that Barbara and Kelly now agree the King James has some errors in the translation (the MOB 'error' is a soul-damning 'error') but at least this matter has been made known to all.

Sincerely,

Lisa Ruby



Last edited by Lisa Ruby, 7/7/2006, 12:01 pm
 
7/7/2006, 11:48 am Applaud Smite Send Email to Lisa Ruby   Send PM to Lisa Ruby
 
TruthSeeker24
Registered user
Global user

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 25
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
 
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
Re: Understanding Lisa Ruby's Nit picky attack on Aho
 

 Good to see you Lisa. I like a lot of info on your site. I will look at both sides of this issue, but I won't make waves on this thread. This situation is your business.

By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)
7/7/2006, 12:07 pm Applaud Smite Send Email to TruthSeeker24   Send PM to TruthSeeker24
 
Anthos
Registered user
Global user

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 9
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
 
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
Re: Understanding Lisa Ruby's Nit picky attack on Aho
 

 I've been thinking about the mark of the beast, wouldn't the best precaution be to just refuse any type of mark, whether it be on or in the skin, a chip,tattoo or whatever.
7/7/2006, 1:06 pm Applaud Smite Send Email to Anthos   Send PM to Anthos
 
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user

Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 21
Karma: 0 (+1/-1)
 
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
Letter that was forwarded to Kelly, Barbara, and David Bay months ago.
 

Kelly McGinley, David Bay, and Barbara Aho received forwards of the email below. (Martin forwarded it to Barbara Aho.)

Both Kelly and Barbara could have responded to me months ago about my concerns about Barbara's comments about the King James bible that are stated on her website but chose not to do so.

When I received the forward from Mary Hostak (No, I did not ask her to email Barbara and forward me her response.) Mary Hostak is a woman of good character who is not mad at Kelly, as Kelly claims. She simply warns about a product that Kelly sells. It is called the Berkey Light water filter. Her filters did not work even after she contacted the company and tried to correct the situation. She wrote an article about it and I link to it on my website. This hardly amounts to Mary being 'mad' at Kelly Mc Ginley.

(Note: Please do not vilify Martin for his innocent bystander part in this situation. He simply wanted my opinion on this matter and I answered him and hoped that finally Kelly might deal with my concerns about this most important matter.)

My letter to Martin (that was forwarded to Kelly, David Bay, and Barbara Aho) is below.


Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:03:56 -0400
To: "Martin Lauchenauer"<aon.912800837@aon.at>
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Re: Lisa, Can you please reply to me!
Reply-to: Commissioned@hushmail.com
From: "Commissioned@hushmail.com" <commissioned@hushmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin,

I wrote to Kelly McGinley about David Bay's compromise with his Pegasus webmaster and also about Barbara Aho's correction of the
King James Bible and how she has written an article that states the mark of the beast is "on" the right hand and forehead, not "in" the way the King James Bible states. I also quoted Barbara's writings where she says that the King James does not follow the Textus
Receptus in all places:

"The King James Version, although far superior to modern versions,does not always follow the Textus Receptus, the Received Greek Text of the New Testament. The verses pertaining to the mark of the beast are different in each. The Received Text (Textus Receptus) states that the Mark of the Beast will be placed ON, not IN, the right hand or the forehead. Our position is that the Textus Receptus was verbally inspired by God and is the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men. The George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Textus Receptus) 8., which is based on the Greek Text of Stephens (1550), reads as
follows in the three verses pertaining to the Mark of the Beast:"
http://www.watch.pair.com/stuph.html

(Note added 1/14/07: Thomas Newberry, the late Plymouth Brethren leader who authored the George Ricker Berry English Interlinear, did NOT regard the Textus Recpetus as the word of God.) See: George Ricker Berry Author Against the Textus Receptus and The George Ricker Berry English Interlinear: Corrupt Foundation

Kelly did not answer even though I sent two emails asking her about this matter. I will forward these emails to you. I do wonder if she will retaliate against me for mentioning this but the way she has handled the David Bay situation is not godly. I did not tell her this because she did not answer my questions about Barbara Aho so I
feel she is not open to hearing this. She should not correct others if she is not willing to receive correction herself.

She did not answer me about my concerns about Barbara Aho but she did ask me if I am a Calvinist. No, I am not and I told her so. I
also asked for a copy of David Bay's DVD so I can see who is involved with him. She said she would send it to me. I also asked Kelly not to send the letter around that you are sending to

everyone--the one that I wrote to you about David's webmaster and the satanic logos on his website. (These are the ones someone named David Warner did for the Harry Potter series.)

To Kelly's credit she said she would not forward that letter. (But you have already sent my letter to others I believe this was for the best because my goal in writing it was to help others learn from David's compromise. From now on please ask me about forwarding personal emails though.)

Barbara Aho is quite similar to David Bay in beliefs. Barbara, like David Bay, is pre-trib and once-always-saved. Barbara links to the
writings of Miles J. Stanford on her God's Plan of Salvation webpage:

http://www.watch.pair.com/salvation.html. The name of the link is "The New Birth Explained." This link goes to Miles J. Stanford's webpage where the reader will learn about the false Scofield, Chafer and Darbyite dispensationist doctrines.
http://www.withchrist.org/MJS/newbirth.htm

Kelly's silence on this matter causes me to think she does not think Barbara's beliefs and stand on the King James Bible as not being perfectly translated about the mark of the beast is not important. If Kelly is going to continue to promote Barbara Aho she needs to disclaim and warn against the things that Barbara teaches that Kelly knows are not right. To do otherwise is to compromise.
Compromise is the way to hell and God's people need to know this. God is not mocked--not in any area and not by anyone. We cannot pluck something out of our brother's eye while someone we are yoked with has the same thing in her eye.

I will forward the emails that I sent to Kelly McGinley about this matter. I wanted her to confirm that she received them but she did not confirm. However, she did reply to other emails so I assume that she is getting her email without interference. I do not want her or any true Christian spiritually destroyed by compromise and that is my motivation for telling you this and thus making her
accountable to others who also care about her soul.

As far as David Bay is concerned, if he does not have an agenda to discredit the King James Bible, he needs to deny what Ron Rife said in his emails to Cheryl) (IF it is not true) and get rid of and renounce The Amplified Bible that he sells and promotes on almost every webpage because that "Bible" is very much against the real Bible--King James.

The Amplified Bible is dangerous because it is translated from the same corrupt manuscripts that the other fake Bibles are translated from. The way that David references Bible verses by putting the words King James Version/Parallel Bible next to each other as if they were equal in accuracy and authority is extremely misleading. David would also have to disassociate himself from his Pegasus
webmaster (pegweb.com) that he is in business with and that has maintained his website for many years--perhaps even from the start of his online ministry. This is for starters.

I thank you for your concern about this matter and I respect you for your courage to get involved.

Lisa Ruby

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:09:40 -0400 Martin Lauchenauer
<aon.912800837@aon.at> wrote:
>Lisa,
>I would be glad if you comment regarding the >ongoing discussions concerning David Bay Cuttingedge.org and Barbara Aho
>http://www.watch-unto-prayer.org/ and www.TheBereanChronicles.com.
>
>If you can tell me something I would be glad.
>
>thanks
>Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.5

wkYEARECAAYFAkRVJj0ACgkQCy2fhsDFuc7sNwCgocJIwMosQKcNgP3IwkmHQtu+rckA
oLxTGE6SA00Wca3ToC64XbF3VFYo
=loxD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Note to the reader: Both Kelly Mc Ginley and David Bay responded to this letter. Kelly's letter indicated that at that point in time (May, 2006) she did not agree with Barbara Aho's position that the King James Bible is wrong about the placement of the mark of the beast. If Kelly denies this I will post her letter to prove my statement is true. Kelly's remarks on her radio broadcast reveal that she now believes Barbara Aho's teaching--that the King James Bible is incorrectly translated in a few places and that the mark of the beast is really 'on' the right hand or forehead rather than 'in.' My motive in contacting Kelly privately and then finally making this matter public was because I do not want her (or her listeners) to be subverted from the right way of the Lord.]

7/7/2006, 6:51 pm Applaud Smite Send Email to Lisa Ruby   Send PM to Lisa Ruby
 
[read page 2 here]

Add a reply

 
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.4  -  Link to us   -  Blogs   -  Hall of Honour   -  Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
Logged in as Lisa Ruby from xxx.xxx.217.121 (logout)      Board's time is: 7/7/2006, 6:51 pm

Back To Main Page | Barbara Aho Which Bible? | Email Us