|
[Click here to read page 2]
|
|
Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
This post is directed to Barbara
Aho and will be copied and sent to her at her email address so
that she will be aware of the post.
A friend of mine, Mary Hostak, emailed Barbara Aho of Watch Unto
Prayer with some questions and forwarded it to me on Monday,
June 26, 2006. (I was amazed at the timing of this forward
because I was in thought about Barbara Aho's stand on the Bible
as well as other beliefs all weekend.)
Below is Mary Hostak's letter to Barbara Aho.
Hello Barbara, just a question. Which bible is your final
authority?
Which bible do you bet your life on as far as being infallable?
Are you also eternal security and pre trib in your belief??
Thank you Barbara, Mary
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
9
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
Barbara's reply is below:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Watch Unto Prayer" <baho@watch-unto-prayer.org>
To: "Hostak" <passiton@pldi.net>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: question
Hi Mary, so sorry it has taken me so long to respond. To answer
your questions, I use the King James Version but always check
the Textus Receptus because the KJV does not follow the TR
precisely. That said, and
I have not stated this publicly (yet), but the New King James
seems to follow the TR more closely than the KJV; at least we
haven't found any instances where it differs from the TR. As for
your other questions, I do believe in eternal security and the
pre-trib rapture. God bless, Barbara END EMAIL
When I received this forward, I was aware that God pressing me
to take action. After some days in prayer I am finally posting
this letter to the forum.
I have been very concerned about an article on Barbara Aho's
website called Desigher Marks of the Beast in which the writer
states that "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." and "The Received
Text (Textus Receptus) states that the Mark of the Beast will be
placed ON, not IN, the right hand or the forehead."
http://www.watch.pair.com/stuph.html
The writer then cited the
George Ricker Berry Interlinear
Greek-English New Testament (Textus Receptus) to "correct" the
King James Bible. (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 Receptus as the word of God.) See:
The George
Ricker Berry English Interlinear: Corrupt Foundation
The writer of "Designer Marks of the Beast," who holds that the
mark of the beast is ON rather than in the hand or forehead,
cited James Strong's definitions as another reason to correct
the King James. This citing is on shaky ground because James
Strong was on the committee for the corrupt 1881 Revised English
Version.
Indeed, the General Preface to the Strong's Concordance
indicates that it is a "verbal index to the Holy Scriptures as
they exist in the three most important forms now known...the
partly Hebrew and partly Greek original text ...and the
Authorized and Revised Versions."
I found Barbara's email statement, "the New King James seems to
follow the TR more closely than the KJV; at least we haven't
found any instances where it differs from the TR" contradictory
in view of the fact that she has a chart on her own website that
shows the corruptions in the New King James as well as other
modern 'bible' versions. See:
http://www.watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
This article provides ample evidence that the New King James is
corrupt:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm
I felt it was necessary to post this email publicly in the hopes
that Barbara will reply publicly. Her views about the King James
Bible as not being correctly translated in all places and her
support of the New King James Version as being closer to the
Textus Receptus does not conform to the Berean Chronicles' stand
of holding to the King James translation as being the word of
God in the English language. The Word of God is pure and
contains no mistakes.
Sincerely,
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
|
|
6/30/2006, 11:31 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby
|
n8tureboy
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
5
Karma:
0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Thank's for the heads up.....we
await Barbaras clarification on this most important issue.
|
|
7/1/2006, 6:51 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to n8tureboy
Send PM to n8tureboy
|
comeuphither
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
189
Karma:
2 (+2/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
so what is it you are saying lisa?
even if Barbara corrects a mistake, like we all do........that
doesn't make her someone we should
 and stay clear of...its
eternal security in Christ as long as we don't stray from faith
in that work alone.
(ADDED: ITS FAITH IN CHRIST AND THE CROSS AND YES, I AM
ETERNALLY SECURE IN THAT ALONE.THIS IS TO CHARIS ON HER E.S TO
ME ALSO)
that guarantees the work of the Holy Spirit to work in us and
clean up our lives and its him that brings about the works that
is done in ,me if it brings forth fruit and glorifies my God and
savior Jesus Christ. not works that we have to do! that brings
nothing but proud feelings that "I" did a good thing. shunn
that.
that is what i meant by being Holy in our walk in Christ. any
work that is done by me its the Holy Spirit doing it through me
whether its witnessing, its by his power in me, his
leading....... I know the word, cause my teacher, Holy Spirit is
in me and teaches me. and he gives me discernment and lately,
i've had to use it quite often even now. cause i like to expose
the work of darkness thats on overtime.(END)
I agree with that much. the link you provided I am familar with
and i could say ALOT of incorrect doctrine is on there. but that
doesn't mean i'm going to judge you as being one yourself just
because you linked it. I have discerment and i watch carefully
things around me. i might post some crap on NWO or noahide laws
but thats just a chance i have to take . if it is bogus, i have
it deleted. I do hate putting evil on the front line but thats
how people find out.,
I think I wrote my share on the catching away and whether you
are pre, mid, post or nothing, my hope stands firm,hes coming at
any moment and many are not going to be ready because they are
too busy arguing about which one to believe. I'd rather focus on
him daily and reading my bible about him makes me anxious to
want to go home. AMEN !
DEB~ KJV bible with original Greek text.
Last edited by
comeuphither, 7/2/2006, 7:52
pm
|
|
7/2/2006, 5:35 am |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to comeuphither
Send PM to comeuphither
|
Barbara Aho
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
07-2006
Posts:
3
Karma:
3 (+3/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Dear Lisa and Mary,
We have expressed in our Statement of Faith that our final
authority is the Greek Textus Receptus. This Greek text is
available in various Greek-English Interlinear New Testaments. I
work with a researcher who has studied Greek and we frequently
compare the KJV to the Greek text, and note where they differ.
Recently, we began comparing the NKJV to the Greek text and were
surprised that we could not find any significant departures from
the TR. I shared this with Mary but have not made a public
statement because we are still in the process of researching the
NKJV. To post a private e-mail which says the NKJV “seems to
follow the TR more closely than the KJV” and interpret this as
“support of the New King James Version” is neither a fair
statement nor a fair way of handling the matter. Had you asked
me I would have explained that we are in the process of
researching the NKJV and not prepared to draw any conclusions
yet. I think my e-mail said as much.
You find fault with my interpretation of the Mark of the Beast
because I “cited the George Ricker Berry Interlinear
Greek-English New Testament (Textus Receptus) to "correct" the
King James Bible.” Do you believe that where there are
differences between the KJV and the TR that the KJV reading is
right and the Greek wrong? If so, you should know that it was
Peter Ruckman who introduced the notion that “the English KJV
corrects the Greek Text” and that many King James defenders have
taken issue with this as a false teaching. To believe that the
KJV corrects the Greek Textus Receptus puts one squarely in the
Ruckmanite camp. See: [url]http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm[/url]
In my report on the Mark of the Beast I used the Greek-English
Interlinear as proof that the word “epi” in Rev. 13:16, 14:10
and 20:4 is more accurately translated “on” than “in.” The
primary meaning of “epi” is “on” and the KJV translates “epi” 45
times as “on” in the book of Revelation. (Strong’s #1909) If God
wanted to use the word “in,” He would have used the Greek word
“en.” We should also look at Biblical precedents where a mark
was set on people: Gen. 4:15 “the Lord set a mark upon Cain” and
Ezek. 9:4 “And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of
the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon
the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the
abominations that be done in the midst thereof.”
I cited Strong’s Concordance #5480 to show that “charagma” means
an “imprint” or “brand” which would be “on” the skin, not a
microchip “in” the skin. James Strong was not on the committee
for the 1881 ERV, but on the O.T. Committee for the 1901
American Standard Version, still not good. However, the meaning
of “charagma” is corroborated in other sources such as Wesley
Perschbacher’s New Analytical Greek Lexicon: #5480 “to notch,
engrave; an imprinted mark, Rev. 13:16, et al.; sculpture, Acts
17:29.”
Some of our reports which were written many years ago used the
KJV as the standard of comparison with modern versions because
we “assumed” the KJV was a word-for-word translation of the
Textus Receptus. We have since learned that, although the KJV
translates the Greek properly in most areas, in some places it
does not and we are concerned about a few problem areas. The KJV
is far superior to any modern version based on the very corrupt
Westcott-Hort Greek Text, but only the Greek Textus Receptus can
be considered inerrant and therefore the standard. Even the AV
translators esteemed only the Received Greek text as the perfect
standard, and all translations to be imperfect versions: [url]http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref9.htm[/url]
“No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to
be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that
some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting
forth of it. For what euer was perfect vnder the Sunne, where
Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an
extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priuiledged with the
priuiledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?…
“Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the
beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor
yet to make of a bad one a good one,... but to make a good one
better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not
justly to bee excepted against; that hath beene our indeavour,
that our marke.” (1611 AV Preface)
There were many revisions of the 1611 Authorised Version in the
years that followed its publication. The Apocrypha was part of
the 1611 AV and it was not permanently removed until 1827.
Erasmus did not include the Apocrypha in the Received Text,
however it was included in the Codex Alexandrinus A, Vaticanus B
and Codex Sinaiticus. In this respect, the AV translators did
not follow the Textus Receptus but the Alexandrian manuscripts.
Actually, they were imitating the earlier English Bibles which
contained the Apocrypha.
If King James Only believers are going to insist that the KJV is
a perfect translation, then it will be at the expense of the
Greek Textus Receptus, for they cannot both be inerrant. This is
precisely what the Masonic conspirators want us to do, for their
endgame is to get rid of the Textus Receptus, which will
effectively do away with the New Testament in every language.
(Continued in next post)
|
|
7/2/2006, 1:02 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Barbara Aho
Send PM to Barbara Aho
|
Barbara Aho
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
07-2006
Posts:
3
Karma:
3 (+3/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho (cont'd)
The article you recommended on
the NKJV is very deceptive. The author states “While passing off
as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the
Receptus over 1,200 times.” Yet he produces not one reading out
of the Textus Receptus as evidence to back up this wild
allegation. If what follows are supposed to be instances where
the NKJV ignores the TR, well, most actually prove the opposite
– that the NKJV follows the TR.
His next point: “In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions
of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord".
The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament"
are completely omitted.” Since Melton cites no verses as proof,
we spent several hours trying to find these “omissions” by
comparing instances of these words in the KJV with the NKJV.
Here is a preliminary report:
- Of the 450 times “blood” appears in the KJV, it is also
translated “blood” in the NKJV, except for 19 instances the NKJV
translated it as “bloodshed” where, in most verses, the KJV is
translated “shed blood.” (Ex. 22:2; Lev. 17:4; Deut. 17:4, 22:8,
II Chron. 19:10; Prov. 28:17; Is. 33:15; Ezek. 9:9, 19:10, 22:9,
22:13, 38:22; Hos. 1:4, 12:14; Joel 3:21; Micah 3:10; Hab. 2:12;
Heb. 12:4) In I Sam. 25:26, II Sam. 16:8; 20:1, the NKJV has
“bloodthirsty” instead of “blood.” In Lev. 19:16, the NKJV uses
the phrase “take the life” instead of “stand against the blood”
of thy neighbor in the KJV. Although the word “blood” is not
used here, it is a good translation.
- There are 105 verses in the KJV where the word “repent”
occurs. In most verses where the Interlinear renders the Greek
as “repent,” it is also in the NKJV, e.g. Matt. 3:2: “Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” In some verses, the NJKV
uses a different word in keeping with the Greek, e.g. Heb. 7:21,
“The Lord has sworn and will not relent, You are a priest
forever according to the order of Melchizedek” In verses where
the TR differs from the KJV, such as “regret” in II Cor. 7:8,
the NKJV follows suit. “For also if I grieved you in the
epistle, I do not regret it…”
- Where the KJV is translated “hell,” the Hebrew Masoretic O.T.
Text uses the word “sheol” and the Greek New Testament (TR) uses
the word “hades.” So does the NKJV. The actual Hebrew word was
“sheol” and the actual Greek word was “hades.”
- The Textus Receptus and NKJV both use the phrase “new
covenant” instead of “new testament.”
- The Greek TR and NJKV both use the word “demons” instead of
“devils.”
- The NKJV uses the word “condemnation” instead of “damnation.”
- There are 22 pages devoted to “Lord” in the Strong’s
Concordance. How are we to know the 66 verses where “Lord” is in
the KJV but missing in the NKJV? Mr. Melton could have
identified the verses so we could verify his statement, but
chose not to. Why? Probably because the reader would see that
these are not omissions at all, but legitimate translation
options.
- There are 7 instances of “JEHOVAH” in the KJV but the same
Hebrew word YHWH is translated “Lord” or “Lord God” in thousands
of other KJV verses. In the 7 verses where the KJV uses
“JEHOVAH”, the NKJV either translates the word “Lord” (Ps.
84:18) or “YAH, the LORD” (Is. 12:2; 26:12) or “LORD” with
“Hebrew YHWH, traditionally JEHOVAH” in a footnote (Exod. 6:3).
In Gen. 22:14, the NKJV translates “Je-ho-vah-ji-rah” as
“The-LORD-Will-Provide” with the footnote “Hebrew YHWH Jirah”;
in Exod. 17:18, “Je-ho-vah-nis-si” as “The-LORD-Is-My-Banner”
with footnote “Hebrew YHWH Nissi”; and in Judges 6:24,
“Je-ho-vah-sha-lom” as “The-LORD-Is-Peace” with footnote “Hebrew
YHWH Shalom”
- Where are the 50 omissions of “heaven” and 51 omissions of
“God” in the NKJV? Mr. Melton could have given them, but he
didn’t and so the reader must collate thousands of verses to
find them. Given his honesty thus far, we suspect they are not
really omissions but acceptable translations that just differ
from the KJV. The NKJV does not “omit” all these words, or any
of them that we have found; they are all accounted for in the
Greek, but another acceptable translation has been chosen.
We have not had time to investigate all of Mr. Melton’s
allegations but plan to do so, not that we are impressed with
his “research” but as part of our own research into the NKJV.
Did you, Lisa, compare the NKJV to the Greek TR or even the KJV
before posting this article? Perhaps you can point us to verses
where the NKJV ignores the Textus Receptus. We haven’t found any
so far.
I hope the outcome of this challenge will be that every good
Berean who reads this will purchase a Greek-English Interlinear
New Testament (Textus Receptus), a Greek Lexicon, and a
Concordance, if they don’t already have these, and do their own
research on the KJV and NKJV. As Kelly says, don’t believe me
but search out the facts for yourselves!
Blessings,
Barbara
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when
ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it
[Received Text] not as the word of men, but as it is in truth,
the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that
believe." (1 Thes. 2:13)
|
|
7/2/2006, 1:15 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Barbara Aho
Send PM to Barbara Aho
|
Anthos
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
7
Karma:
0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Mrs./Ms. Aho,If you don't believe
that the KJV is the perfect or best translation of God's Word
then why do you think that the New World Order is trying to
outlaw it?If the NKJV is more accurate then why wouldn't they go
after it instead? Why worry about David Bay attacking king James
or saying Fracis Bacon wrote it ,why worry about what people
think about it.I myself haven't made up my mind about whether or
not the KJV is perfect although its what I mainly read.I don't
mean to seem like I'm attacking you ,thanks for all the
information you've given about the NWO,Priory of Sion and the
like, but I just wanted to know what you thought
Last edited by
Anthos, 7/2/2006, 8:13 pm
|
|
7/2/2006, 4:29 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Anthos
Send PM to Anthos
|
Barbara Aho
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
07-2006
Posts:
3
Karma:
3 (+3/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Anthos, the issue at stake is the
Textus Receptus, the Greek text from which both the KJV and the
NKJV New Testaments are translated and many foreign language
translations as well. Although there are some mistranslations in
the KJV and most probably the NKJV, both of these Bibles are
light years ahead of the modern versions based on the corrupt
Westcott-Hort Greek text. So the main issue is the Greek
manuscript family on which a translation is based – the
Byzantine (Textus Receptus) or Alexandrian (Westcott-Hort Text).
We project that during the Tribulation period all translations
based on the Textus Receptus will be banned because the NWO
agenda is to completely eliminate the Word of God. (Rev. 6:9 &
20:4) The KJV is now under attack by David Bay and others
because it contains so much sound doctrine derived from the TR.
Bibles based on corrupted Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts will
be tolerated for a time because they diminish the cardinal
doctrines of the Christian faith. But eventually the Canon of
the New Testament as we know it, even the corrupt modern
versions, will be replaced with Gnostic gospels and epistles.
I hope this answers your question.
Barbara
|
|
7/2/2006, 7:44 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Barbara Aho
Send PM to Barbara Aho |
Anthos
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
7
Karma:
0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Thank's for answering my question
Mrs./Ms. Aho. I agree about the Textus Receptus being much
better than the Westcott&Hort text.I only read TR Bibles,mainly
the KJV and some relatively unkown versions to help with some
difficultly worded verses.
|
|
7/2/2006, 8:23 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Anthos
Send PM to Anthos
|
comeuphither
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
189
Karma:
2 (+2/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
AMEN BARBARA. my spirit says
within me that the NKJV bible is the devils best. its hard to
detect if you don't know or understand the KJV to begin with.
no, its satan's clever copy almost alike but he knows the word
better than anyone. christians are so deceived today and I'm am
so grateful and humble that he would choose me to do what I am
able to do for his glory. i go through many spiritual battles in
many forums, but it gives me greater insight and afterwards i'm
a little bit stonger and more keen to these so called christians
that i try to fellowship with but usally ignored. hmm, my lowest
post is always about the cross and what was done there. the
highest post is always on evil, NWO,iluminati, jesuits,catholic
crap,and a scripture war back and forth. i think it was a
contest to see who is still the top deceiver. one was very
strong, i liked her and wrote to her but had reservations . now
i know. i can't say more yet but in due time .
I saw your name signed uop barbara and was estactic, hehe. i
know charis will be too.
we got your back honey,we know whats going on. i have your back
on another ministry too! got things on them.
Hi Kelly! love you and your show. I hope your daughter is doing
good today, bless her heart. I will pray for you and your
family, I know that has to take alot out of you .draining your
strength. we will lift you up in prayer sister to our heavenly
father in Jesus name. God Bless DEB~
ps you bet your sweet bippy that the mark is the star of satan
not David. i can prove it also because i don't stop at someone
else's research i do my own and so many people ask whats the
mark? and when they are told they come back with you hate jews
blah blah blah. retarded! if a christian, like most i know,
hates jews and thinks the church is now God's favor, then you
are either deceived or lazy to read and know him who does not
break covenants! we love his people for they brought salvation
to us by their rejection.but their blindness will be removed and
they will be saved. and i will show and prove it if anyone wants
to disagree. satan has that nation right now, and his occult
buildings already in place. but God will count his people and he
will bring them who scattered them. thats why the star of satan
is his mark. David had no star of such, but israel did and
served idols after coming out of egypt, again and again. acts 7
records it also at the death of Stephen.
i will post to prove when i go back into my hyper stage, haha.
one more thing, you people who are negative about Barbara and
her ministryshows us others that you lack the knowledge and
discernment and to rightly divide the word of truth. you are
planting doubt in those who also don't discern.
Glory to God Barbara, for when men shall persecute you for all
manners of things rejoice, for you are part taker in the
sufferings of Christ. AMEN love you sister, DEB~
Last edited by
comeuphither, 7/2/2006, 8:49
pm
|
|
7/2/2006, 8:26 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to comeuphither
Send PM to comeuphither
|
ByCharis
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
33
Karma:
1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Hi Barb,
That's very interesting. I've always shied away from the NKJV
because I thought it departed from the Masoretic text. I believe
I've read it has readings from the revised Masoretic rather than
the Ben Chayem (sp?). But if it is a good translation then I
will have to get one. I find it's always helpful to read the
interlinear texts along with the English. I don't have a hard
copy, but use a computer program, which is great because it's
fast and quickly searchable.
When this post came up I checked up on the words epi and en and
found the same thing. Epi is definately translated "upon" except
one or two places of "in," when it means "holding in the hand."
If the mark is to be inserted IN the hand under the skin like a
chip would be, the word would definately have be en, not epi.
Why the translators used in, rather than on, I don't understand.
Much has been made of this difference among the KJV defenders
because they have been conditioned that the mark of the beast
will be a microchip. The word that is rendered mark means a
scratching or an engraving or a stamp of some sort, more like a
tatoo would be. Maybe there will be a chip involved as well, but
the mark itself is on the right hand or the forehead and is
apparrently visible and worn like a badge of ownership.
I started reading a good article on the history of the Textus
Receptus and how Erasmus put it together, etc. I've yet to
finish it, but here it is for those who want to read it.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/sorenson-ch10-1.html
I might also add that I agree with Barbara that we should not
get taken in by the idea that the KJV is not a translation, but
a newly inspired word of God that takes precedence over the
underlying manuscripts (Ruckmanism). That is a snare and has
been the basis of the attack against the defense of the KJV by
it's enemies. You might say it could even be part of a plot of
the Hegelian Dialectic to discredit the Hebrew and Greek TR
texts. I suspect Texe Marrs may be cooperating with this. He is
a Ruckmanite. I used to get his newsletters and bought Ruckmans
books from him several years ago. I read them and did learn
quite a bit about manuscripts and the history of them, etc., but
there is an attack against the Hebrew and Greek in them and the
idea that the translators were inspired with the words rather
than just a good translation from the original languages.
Nice to see you posting, Barb, even if it was under attack. Hope
to see you more on here, but know that you are busy researching
which is your passion and calling.
Deb, I'm glad that you are trusing in the finished work of
Christ alone by faith. I'm sorry that you think there is
erroneous doctrine on Miles Stanford's site. He is one of the
teachers the Lord has blessed me greatly through. I think that
if you took the time to study the Pauline epistles and
Dispensational doctrine teachings you would see the harmony of
the Scriptures much more clearly. If we don't rightly divide,
(cut a straight line) then the harmony becomes a haze of
confusion and contradiction. You spend a lot of time (in service
to the Lord) on the boards and posting things; I spend my time
(which I feel led to do) in studying doctrine. So I'm sorry that
we disagree, but doesn't mean we aren't still friends.
j~
---
God is gracious,
ByCharis
|
|
7/2/2006, 11:32 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send PM to ByCharis
|
Add a reply
Page:
1 2
[Click here to read page 2]
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: 7/3/2006, 2:52 pm |
|
|