Rock of Ages!!!

The history of Charles Lyell and uniformitarianism
"Lyell entered Exeter College, Oxford in 1816, and attended William Buckland's lectures. He graduated B.A. second class in classics, December 1819, and M.A. 1821.[2][3] After graduation he took up law as a profession, entering Lincoln's Inn in 1820. He completed a circuit through rural England, where he could observe geological phenomena. In 1821 he attended Robert Jameson's lectures in Edinburgh, and visited Gideon Mantell at Lewes, in Sussex. In 1823 he was elected joint secretary of the Geological Society. As his eyesight began to deteriorate, he turned to geology as a full-time profession.[3] His first paper, "On a recent formation of freshwater limestone in Forfarshire", was presented in 1822.[3] By 1827, he had abandoned law and embarked on a geological career that would result in fame and the general acceptance of uniformitarianism, a working out of the idea proposed by James Hutton a few decades earlier."
Wikipedia "Charles lyell"


  It is important to nottice that Lyell was not trained as much of a scientist himself, but more educated in the field of being a lawyer. So most of His work was based upon the findings of James Hutton and his theory of plutonism.  Evolutionist are fond of criticizing academic credentials even though the founders were soo unacredited.

"Plutonism (or vulcanism) is the geologic theory that the rocks forming the Earth were formed in fire by volcanic activity, with a continuing gradual process of weathering and erosion wearing away rocks, which were then deposited on the sea bed, re-formed into layers of sedimentary rock by heat and pressure, and raised again. It proposed that basalt was solidified molten magma. It was named after Pluto, the classical ruler of the underworld, or alternatively after Vulcan, the ancient Roman god of fire and volcanoes."
"The Frenchmen Compte de Buffon (a Roman Catholic, but likely a secret skeptic) postulated that the earth had gradually cooled from a molten lava state over at least 70,000 years and Pierre Laplace (a strong atheist) imagined that the solar system had slowly condensed from a gaseous nebula. The German Abraham Werner and the Scottish James Hutton (both deists) developed geological theories that the sedimentary strata formed slowly over millions of years. "
The 19th century scriptural geologists: historical background by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG–USA

"The catastrophists dominated the first 35 years or so. They believed that the geological/fossil record could only be explained by imagining that there had been several or many global or regional floods in earth history. George Cuvier, a famous French comparative anatomist and nominal Protestant, published his influential Theory of the Earth in 1813 (English version; the original in French was published a year earlier in Paris under a slightly different title). From studying the fossils found in the rocks in and around Paris he believed that the earth had suffered at least three or four floods, the last of which was Noah’s Flood."
The 19th century scriptural geologists: historical background by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG–USA


"  The theory was first proposed before 1750, by Abbé Anton Moro who had studied volcanic islands, and was subsequently developed by James Hutton as part of his Theory of the Earth published in 1788. It contested Abraham Werner's neptunist theory which proposed that the Earth had formed from a mass of water and suspended material which had formed rocks as layers of deposited sediment which became the continents when the water retreated, further layers being deposited by floods and some volcanic activity." Wikipedia" plutonism"

"Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.
Uniformitarianism was formulated by Scottish naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton, which was refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830.[1] The term uniformitarianism was coined by William Whewell, who also coined the term catastrophism for the idea that Earth was shaped by a series of sudden, short-lived, violent events.[2]"
Wikipedia "uniformitarianism"
"The contributions he made to correct understandings of ignaceous rocks is large. but his outstanding acheivement was formulation of the uniformitarian principle, which states that natural agents now at work on and within the earth have repeated with general uniformity through immensely long periods of time."
"Hutton reasoning inductively from a wealth of evidence, concluded that the earth dates from the remote past ; he could see no vestige of a beginning- no prospect of an end."
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA Geology: B. 18th century

Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

naturalistic assumptions: Uniformitarianism most obvious operates under the worldview of naturalism.  There is nothing fundamentally different about our ancient past.

  One thing of interest is that Sutton's theory provides no origin of the earth.  But how does the earth exist if it was never caused?  We know the earth is limited and that it changes.  If this theory is designed to accomodate an eternal earth, how can it give explanation for the age of the earth?

   Essentially this leads one to a pantheistic worldview.  The idea that matter is eternal.  This could not be the case.  Matter is not eternal due to entropy.  Because energy escapes and matter breaks down.
So the gravity and rotation of the earth would eventually break down.  So at somepoint, something had to get the earth started.  The naturalist answer for this is in the "big bang theory".  Which would be a starting point but would still require the miraculous to take place to have nothing to turn into something.  However if there is a required intervention wouldn't this theory fall apart?  Because there can not be something supernatural in an solely natural world.
  So originally uniformatarianism descended from a form of pantheism.  Then it was adapted to a form of deism. The ages are kept at a long range in order to support this theory; also they are used to accompany the idea of biological evolution. And vice versa.

Obvious bias
Lyell was not a geologist by training. he was a lawyer. Which is the essence of bias. Lawyers are paid to deliver a onesided arguement.
"I devoured Lamark... his theories delighted me... I am glad that he has been courageous enough and logical enough to admit that his argument, if pushed as far as it must go, if worth anything, would prove that men may have come from the Ourang-Outang. But after all, what changes species may really undergo!... That the Earth is quite as old as he supposes, has long been my creed..."Lyell K. 1881. The life and letters of Sir Charles Lyell. 2 vols, London. vol. 1 p. 168
  Lyell had even stated that his goal was to "free the science from moses" life and letters and journals john murray 1881

1Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.



An unproven system:
If we were to find the system of uniformitarianism to be true, we would have to find Lyell's model of geological strata as consistent across the face of the earth.  When in fact we have not found this. In fact there are few locations on the earth that have this specific order and we do not have.
"Whatever the method or approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts... There is no place on earth where a complete record of the rocks is present....  To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be placed together.  The results will be at best only a very incomplete record.  If the complete history of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of 30 volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one comeplete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattering bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words of letters."  Brown Monnet and Stovel  Introduction to Geology

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Ties with evolution
"I devoured Lamark... his theories delighted me... I am glad that he has been courageous enough and logical enough to admit that his argument, if pushed as far as it must go, if worth anything, would prove that men may have come from the Ourang-Outang. But after all, what changes species may really undergo!... That the Earth is quite as old as he supposes, has long been my creed..." [16]"
Lyell K. 1881. The life and letters of Sir Charles Lyell. 2 vols, London. vol. 1 p. 168
"If I had stated... the possibility of the introduction or origination of fresh species being a natural, in contradistinction to a miraculous process, I should have raised a host of prejudices against me, which are unfortunately opposed at every step to any philosopher who attempts to address the public on these mysterious subjects".[18]
Lyell to William Whewell, March 7, 1837. In Lyell K. 1881. The life and letters of Sir Charles Lyell. 2 vols, London. vol. 2 p. 5

In dating the age of the fossils, they use circular reasoning having the rock layers dated by the fossils.


You may love luci but where is desi?
  When we find a fossil or skelaton what can we prove?
Other than the fact that it used to be a living thing.
   We have no proof that luci had any relative and we have no proof that lucy was not simply a mutant.
If the geological column has been debunked then how do we know its age?
More important is the question of "where is the missing link?" Because now if we accept a connection between apes and man  how do we link them with another species?
  Now I am not dealing with an exhaustive argument of lucy.   Many point out that this creature was a knuckle walker,  that the knee is not original.  That many paintings portray human  parts when the skelatons shows no evidence.
  What I am saying is that if all these things are proven accurate on the evolution case they still have not proven to have a valid case for this being mankinds ancestor.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.



Proper Logic
A. Science bases it's information upon the obersvation of present facts. 
B. History bases it's information based on the obseervation of recorded facts
C. Since Science focuses on observation of the present and history observes the past.  History has a more reliable information concerning the past.
D.  If Uniformitarianism is evidentially neutral and it does not have historical support. (human history is limited to 5-6,000 years) then we need to look to the best historical evidence.


The crafty snake
There was a snake early on who changed every thing! ......
Not that guy!

Titaniboa!!
This massive snake fossil ranging from 50-150ft(estimation because we are unaware if the complete fossil was preserved)  has stirred up some controversy in the scientific community.
Because a giant cold blooded animal would require  very warm weather.  even in columbia the weather would have had to be about 10 degrees hotter.
There are other giant repties in this record of fossils as well. For instance a giant aligator and tortoise.  So many scientist are convinced that this proves the climate there was warmer.  But if this is true then it proves that giant cold blooded reptiles existed in the past. 
Previous scientists under a uniformitarian philosophy would not draw this conclusion.  They took the millions of dinosaur fossils and claimed that they were actually warm blooded. in order to keep with this school of thought.  This is why we heard so much about dinosaurs being linked in evolution with birds.
But now there is nothing inconcisstent and dinosaurs were probably cold blooded. therefore the earth was warmer.  Hence the natural processes of the earth were not uniformitarian.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-Titanoboa-the-40-Foot-Long-Snake-Was-Found.html#ixzz2B52GpyOm Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-Titanoboa-the-40-Foot-Long-Snake-Was-Found.html#ixzz2B4zC2L4G

Not only do we see the need for a warmer climate but we also see the need for a higher oxygen level due to the findings of giant insect fossils.  Insects breath through there skin and could not sustain enough oxygen for a large body.
"Reign of the giant insects ended with the evolution of birds
June 04, 2012
By Tim Stephens
 "   Giant insects ruled the prehistoric skies during periods when Earth's atmosphere was rich in oxygen. Then came the birds. After the evolution of birds about 150 million years ago, insects got smaller despite rising oxygen levels, according to a new study by scientists at the University of California, Santa Cruz. ..."
"This fossil insect wing (Stephanotypus schneideri) from the period about 300 million years ago when insects reached their greatest sizes, measures 19.5 centimeters (almost eight inches) long. The largest species of that time were even bigger, with wings 30 centimeters long. For comparison, the inset shows the wing of the largest dragonfly of the past 65 million years. ..."
http://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html
^{Genesis 6:4a "}There were giants in the earth in those days;"

keep it in the canopy!
Why was the atmosphere so different?
While creationist scientist have different opinions.  I believe the bible has the answer to this as well.  In the creation story there was a canopy over the earth.  I believe this was a cloud of ice/hydrogen particle.  Similar to the ice clouds over the planet urinus.  God had perfectly arranged them there to provide a utopian environment.  That was rich in oxygen and heat without the harmful radiation we recieve nowadays.

This is not simply a new theory.  This was a historic observation by many tribes and natians and cultures in the ancient world.
"The notion of the sky as a solid object (rather than just an atmospheric expanse) was widespread among both ancient civilisations and primitive cultures, including ancient Greece, Egypt, China, India, native Americans, Australian aborigines, and also early Christians.[25]
The sky is depicted as a solid dome arched over the earth in both Mesopotamian and Indo-European mythologies (e.g., creation myths) and poetry. The Sumerian sky-god An ruled these firmament-like "heavens", which the wind-god had separated from the flat disc of the earth below, and there were primordial seas above the firmament. Ancient Indians also believed in a solid sky: "Firm is the sky and firm is the earth," says the Rig Veda.[25] This approach to cosmology is probably universal, and is also encountered in mythologies of the New World." Wikipedia firmament

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

    Give the Bible a chance!
  The Bible is the most historical of the ancient accounts. 
A.  It has the longest record.  (most histories do not exeed 5,000 years)
B.  Everything is linked in specific geneologies. 
C.  It has been confirmed in many cases by archaeology (a classic example is the record of the hittites which scholars denied.)
D.  The point of a global flooded is corroborated universally. (virtually every ancient culture agrees to this much.
E.  historic geology) the early geologist assumed a catastrophic flood.
all the earth has marine biology in the fossil records. 

Obviously If you believe The scripture is the Word of God, You are more likely to hold this as true.  Also if you reject scriptures you will not like the idea of accepting such an incredible event.

To this I ask you the following is it the logic that is the problem here... or is it the consequences?  If the World was once destroyed it could be so again.  If the biblical account is true, it may mean that the God of the Bible is real and that I am accountable to Him.  You may look at the earth and find all of the destruction caused by rejecting the God of the Bible. And if this is bother you I encourage you to research www.biblesmack.net  and read what the scripture says about salvation.

1 Peter3:18 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:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

metaphysical monster: The voodoo of Word of Faith theology

  The metaphysics movement or "new thought" was popular at the turn of the 20thcentury. One left over version was the christian science movement. But a more popular movement accepted in many churches within orthodox christianity is known as the word of Faith movement.
"New Thought, sometimes known as Higher Thought,[1][2] promotes the ideas that Infinite Intelligence, or God, is everywhere, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, sickness originates in the mind, and "right thinking" has a healing effect.[3][4]
  Although New Thought is neither monolithic nor doctrinaire, in general, modern day adherents of New Thought believe that "God" or "Infinite Intelligence" is "supreme, universal, and everlasting", that divinity dwells within each person, that all people are spiritual beings, that "the highest spiritual principle [is] loving one another unconditionally... and teaching and healing one another", and that "our mental states are carried forward into manifestation and become our experience in daily living".[3][4]
   The New Thought movement is a spiritually-focused or philosophical interpretation of New Thought beliefs. Started in the early 19th century, today the movement consists of a loosely allied group of religious denominations, secular membership organizations,[citation needed] authors, philosophers, and individuals who share a set of beliefs concerning metaphysics, positive thinking, the law of attraction, healing, life force, creative visualization, and personal power.[5] The three major religious denominations within the New Thought movement are Religious Science, Unity Church and the Church of Divine Science. There are many other smaller churches within the New Thought movement, as well as schools and umbrella organizations. " wikipedia "New Thought"
   "One popular critic and opponent of The Word of Faith, D.R. McConnell of Oral Roberts University, has charged in a thesis entitled Kenyon Connection, that Kenyon adopted the teachings of New Thought and relabeled them. Thus, the Word of Faith movement, in McConnell’s view, constitutes a "Trojan Horse". This argument was the primary conclusion reached by McConnell’s master’s thesis published as a book, A Different Gospel."  wikipedia "Word of Faith"



What is faith?
"it is the force of faith which makes the spirit world function" the Laws of Prosperity pg. 19 Kenneth Copeland Publications
"God can not do anythingfor you apart or separate from faith"
"faith is God's source of power" Freedom from Fear pg 11-12 Kenneth Copeland ministries

Romans 4:17(kjv) (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Romans 4:17 As it is written, I have made you the father of many nations. [He was appointed our father] in the sight of God in Whom he believed, Who gives life to the dead and speaks of the nonexistent things that [He has foretold and promised] as if they [already] existed. (amplified)
One Word of Faith teacher defined faith through this passage as many do. "Calling those things which be not as though they are."
    Now philosophically there is a problem at the start. In a metaphysical philosophy faith is the ability to believe in something untrue. So Faith defined in metaphysic terms is to create something true out of something false.
So when we have faith in God... Is God not true, Is He only in our imagination?


How do we read the Bible?
The Bible as a spell book
Many Times preachers in the Word of Faith movement will use scripture as an authority with out the use of hermeneutics. In otherds Words they will disregard the context of the verses they quote. Then they will place authority on what they have said. This means that they can change and even add meaning to the Bible. Is this method scriptural?
1 Cor.14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

God wants us to take the scripture according to it's context. we have to be careful how we handel the word of God.
2Cor. 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.


The use of the Amplified Bible... The amplified Bible is an interesting translation that provides the reader with built in commentary and leaves a lot of words with a variety of possible translations as oppose to actually translating the text.

This is a fine Bible study tool. Yet leaves a lot of room for confusion especially for those young in the faith. As we shall soon see the Word of Faith movement thrives off of confusion and irrational theology.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

What is man?
psalm 8:5 Yet You have made him but a little lower than God [or heavenly beings], and You have crowned him with glory and honor.

In Word of Faith teaching man is not simply a mortal being but a creature intended to have deity.
"God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself." "He was not a little like God. He was not almost like God. He was not subordinate to God even."  Following the Faith of Abraham, tape#01-3001, side 1.
 Hebrews 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

 Here the author of Hebrews settles the controversy, man is lower than the angels. Who by the way are lower than christ.  since being lower than the angels is lower than God there is no controversy and in no real or ontological way is man the same as God.


What is God?
In Word of Faith theology God is an enchanced man who became a deity.  This is very similar to the mormon Gospel.  I believe there is probably some influence from various groups descending out of Missouri were the original mormons dwelled.
"God is not 427 feet tall, weighing 4000lbs, and got a fist as big as this room. He's big,  but He's not a monster. He measured out Heaven with a nine inch span...The distance between my thumb and my finger is not quite nine inches.  So I know he is bigger than me thank God.  Amen?" Jerrry Savelle
framing your world with the Word of God part 2 audiotape #ss-36, side one Jerrry Savelle evangelistic association
deuteronomy 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,




Is God Sovereign?

john 10:10 The thief comes only in order to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have and enjoy life, and have it in abundance (to the full, till it [b]overflows).

 A word of faith teacher taught that this was a watershed verse.  Claiming the God was not fully Sovereign because evil existed.
Ultimately this leads to the heresy of manichaeinism.  The idea of 2 Gods one which is evil, and one which is Good.  WOF teachers commonly give godlike attributes to Satan.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
  God is sovereign over all things. While I do not conclude that this passage teaches that God is the creator of moral evil.  God is definitely Sovereign and in control of destruction upon the earth.


Are we healed?
Isaiah 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole.
  He endured physically for our spiritual sins. Therefore by his physical stripes we are spiritually healed.

Are we supposed to be wealhy?
3john 2 Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in every way and [that your body] may keep well, even as [I know] your soul keeps well and prospers

3 john1 The elder unto the well beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
   It doesn't take long to nottice that this is not a proclamation from the father but john the apostle giving a greeting to Gaius.




Is this an indictment of all charismatics?
"Furthermore, it is tragic that a number of non-charismatics have attempted to use the faith teachers to prove that the charismatic movement is in chaos." Hank Hannengraaf Christianity in Crises pg. 48
There are many charasmatic teachers who are thoroughly orthodox and not involved with the word of faith movement.  Walter Martin, Gordon Fee, Keith Green, Wayne Grudem etc.


What are man's words compared to God's Words?

The Damned Savior
"Do you think that the punishment for our sin was to die on a cross?  If that were the case, the two thieves could have [aid your price.  No, the punishment was to go to hell itself and to serve time in Hell separated from God.... Satan and all the demons of hell thought that they had Him down to the very pit of hell itself to serve our sentence." Frederick K. C. Price Ever increasing Faith Messenger (june 1980)


"Because he was "made sin," impregnated with sin, and became the very essence of sin, on the cross he was banished from God's presence as a loathesome thing.  He and sin were made synonymous...It was not sufficient for christ to offer up only his physical life on the cross. His pure human spirit had to descend into Hell.... His spirit must not only descend into hell, but into the lowest hell...
The Father turned Him over, not only to the death of calvary, but to the satanic torturers of his pure spirit as part of the just desert of the sin of all the race. As long as Christ was "the essence of sin" he was at Satan's mercy in that place of torment...
While Christ identified with sin, Satan and the host of hell ruled Him as over any lost sinner. During that seemingly endless age in the nether abyss of death, Satan did with Him as He would, and all hell was "in carnival" Paul Billheimer  Destined for the Throne pg 83-84

But the gospel is explained in the scripture…
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
The Subject of the Gospel is Jesus Christ and what He did. It is this gospel which saves us.
Romans 1:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

And the Gospel cannot be altered.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Now I am not accusing all of altering the gospel. But I know that there are teachers in this tradition who are. And a little leaven leaven’s the whole lump.
I shouldn’t have to see a teacher of God’s Word get nervous hearing me talk about how great heaven will be. Because this is the truth.
Matthew 6:20
King James Version (KJV)
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Heaven is not currently on the earth right now and for Good reason. The scripture teaches it would be corrupted.

I pray for anyone encounetering this teaching that they place faith in God through scripture and not man-made religion.
quotations gathered from "christianity in crises" by Hank Hannengraff

Where's the church at anyway? (poetic rap)

Where's the church at anyway?
You here all these busted religious people say.

I can't forget the memory
Kinda hope that it happens to me .

Jesus loved us dearly but he told us straight
That this world won't stop the hate.
So many dead though still be alive.
While we live all messed up and dead inside.
Nobody remembers, no one cares.
Mention their names you get stares.

Used to be... say "Jesus" and you get beat, tortured with your family tossed out on the street.

But what they don't tell you is the death toll wouldn't stop.
Constantine took control
Just to put Peter on the Rock

Confusion in the courts! Empire religion!
Put away your Bibles, the sword is the mission!
Worship Old gods now their just called apostles
But all of the real saints of God are just burnt up fossils

All they wanted was to follow God on their own.
Chased down into caves under candlelight all alone.

Call em left; call em right. they'd worship God all night
The were montanist, donatists, culdees, cathars and novations.

Albigensees, Waldenses, paulicans and nestorians
Hussites Lollards, anabaptists and more.
Neever Shifting or moving their convictions and core.

Picture this, a small pierenes village
The peace gets raped as the land gets pillaged
Families rounded up gathered in one place.  they been taught peace, but not at this pace.

Time to take the preacher, most holy teacher, 
be an example to the flock of how they gonna treacha!
Beat him and burn him in front of our women and babies
The soldiers are bloodthirsty like they got rabies!

They put us down and beat us; we can't take this no more!
We can't take one more smack of this Babylonian whore!
50 vrs. 120 soldiers; wasn't good odds.
They couldn't survive, they had offended our God.

Amidst their graves we didn't believe what we did!
Why couldn't they live and let live?
After it all we approached the prince with sorrow and feeling needy.
We told him all we wanted was peace, So he signed a treaty.
They let us live, like 5 years.
But only our genocide could stop the tears.

How long oh LORD?
As we wait for vindication.
But now it's all good though life had such frustration.
Now we are with Jesus as he is seated on the throne. While they roast in the underworld all alone...

If you can't join them... BEAT them!!!

  So I had another debate with Dr. Sarfati.  It is funny how you interact with someone you admire.  I have posted a couple times on the group "Jesus is the lamb".  Everytime Dr. Sarfati would respond to my post it was critical.  So I had the desire to post an article that was good but completely in line with what he taught and I even cited His ministry as a source.  Yet after a few weeks no response and then later he went back to critical remarks. Sometimes you are going to across people that you really want to please.  Yet they are just not going to be pleased by you.  So then he posted this article which I knew was in opposition to me. So I realized that if i could not simply gain his approval I could conquer his opposition and win respect.  Ultimately I was counciled by a friend in the group to remember that I should be content with The Lord's approval and not worry about if others(even christians) accept or reject me.
Meanwhile, I believe that the Bible version debate will be the theological and even apologetic debate of the 21st century.  As a New age culture picks and probes at the internal integrity of the christian religion we must be ready with an answer.  I think me and Dr. Sarfati had a classic arguement which is why I had to post this facebook debate. 




Jonathan David Sarfati


“What is overlooked in the approach that assumes that the earlier manuscripts were corrupted and produced by heretics is the fact that virtually all Gospels manuscripts harmonize. That is, in parallel passages between two or more Gospels, virtually all manuscripts, from time to time, change the wording in one Gospel so that it duplicates the wording in another. Would heretics do this? It represents rather a high view of scripture—or, as Paul said in another context, zeal that is not according to knowledge. Further, the great majority of these harmonizations are either found in isolated manuscripts or in later manuscripts. This tells us that the tendencies of the earliest scribes was to harmonize, but because such harmonizations are done sporadically and in isolation they are easily detected. And later scribes produced their copies in great quantities in a heavily concentrated area, resulting in a more systematic harmonization—again, something that is easily detected.”

Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text
danielbwallace.com
      Matt Singleton I find it interested how you excluded the beginning of this section: "Myth 3: Heretics have severely corrupted the text.



This myth is usually promoted by King James Only folks who assume that the manuscripts that came from Egypt were terribly corrupted. A more sophisticated approach seeks to demonstrate this in passage after passage. For example, would orthodox scribes begin the quotation of Isaiah 40.3 and Malachi 3.1 in Mark 1.2 with “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet”? The alternative reading, found in the majority of manuscripts, reads “As it is written in the prophets.” But the earliest, most widespread reading is “in Isaiah the prophet.” It looks as though the later scribes were troubled by this attribution and they ‘corrected’ it to be more generic so as to include Malachi." So in other words, the later manuscripts have corrected the old errors of the original manuscript. So the short text grew into a more complete text.

December 31, 2012 at 2:06pm · Like..
Matt SIngleton What does that sound like? Something small and simple changing to more complex over long periods of time? evolution? perhaps because the manuscript text critics were also text critics of dating authorship. representing textual evolution. You will also find this evolution going back the evolution of religion which goes back to the evolution of man/anthropology.

December 31, 2012 at 2:11pm · Like..
Matt SIngleton I want to pay careful attention to this section "Scholars have for a long time recognized that the Gospel writers shape their narratives, including the sayings of Jesus. A comparison of the Synoptics reveals this on almost every page. Matthew quotes Jesus differently than Mark does who quotes Jesus differently than Luke does. And John’s Jesus speaks significantly differentyly than the Synoptic Jesus does. Just consider the key theme of Jesus’ ministry in the Synoptics: ‘the kingdom of God’ (or, in Matthew’s rendering, often ‘the kingdom of heaven’). Yet this phrase occurs only twice in John, being replaced usually by ‘eternal life.’ (“Kingdom of God” occurs 53 times in the Gospels, only two of which are in John; “kingdom of heaven” occurs 32 times, all in Matthew. “Eternal life” occurs 8 times in the Synoptics, and more than twice as often in John.) The ancient historians were far more concerned to get the gist of what a speaker said than they were to record his exact words. And if Jesus taught mostly, or even occasionally, in Aramaic, since the Gospels are in Greek the words by definition are not exact." Why do we have to assume differents quotes are all the exact same quotes from different words? Why do we even have to assume that these men are making up stories off of their memory without the divine intervention of the Holy Spirit? I believe that the gospel writers are intelligent and with the revelation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit they are in errant. the words of God were penned by God in heaven psalm 119:89 "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."

So God had a reason for every Word that was penned down. 2 peter1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

December 31, 2012 at 2:21pm · Like..
Jonathan David Sarfati None of the above shows that the late Byzantine manuscripts are better. About the harmonization, a while ago I responded to someone who brought up:



“Therefore we have the Scriptures today, the "more sure word", and I would also conclude that God's word does not contradict itself, yet the Codex Sinaiticus does in various places including Mark 1:2-3 where it quotes from Malachi and Isaiah, yet attributes it all to Isaiah which is a contradiction.”



My response:



You mean Mark 1:2–4 which says:

"2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" —

3 "a voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’"

4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."



The first quotation (v. 2) comes from Malachi 3:1, as you note, and only the second quotation is from Isaiah 40:3. But this is no error, given the Jewish citation methods. The Jews often kept all the Prophets on a single scroll, and so would often cite the most prominent of the prophets. It it more likely that later gentile scribes failed to realize this, and "corrected" the text to "As it is written in the prophets". But there is no error in following the citation conventions of the day rather than 21st-century practices, as various biblioskeptics unreasonably demand.



Another example is in Matthew 27:9–10:



"9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel,

10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me."



Here, most of this was from Zechariah 11:12–13, and only a small allusion to Jeremiah 18:1–4 and 19:1–3, and the field mentioned in Jeremiah 32:6-9. Once more, some scribes tried to "correct" this, but far fewer manuscripts have this "correction" than the previous one. Hence the majority text has exactly the same type of supposed "error" that you criticize.

January 1 at 4:27pm · Like..
Matt SIngleton The Byzantine text is superior to the alexandrine text because it identifies with what the scriptures say about themselves.

Scriptures says that the church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth 1timothy 3:15 and the scriptures are preserved for the assurance of salvation of that true church. 1 Peter 1:23-25

The Byzantine copiest out number the alexandrines almost 100/1.

And they were living at a time where they could evaluate the alexandrines manuscripts as well as manuscripts that we could never see.



"the prophets" is a common biblical phrase and classification of biblical writers. Matthew 11:13



The passage you site in Matthew 27:9-10

Sites Jeremiah as opposed to Isaiah. In the MacArthur study bible study notes on this text it says "Jeremiah came first in the order of prophetic books, so the prophets were sometimes collectively referred to by his name." however that would disqualify the explanation of the alexandrine text of mark 1:2, after all Isaiah would not be the head of the scroll.

Also it maybe that the references to Zechariah were simply illustrative, while the fulfillment of prophecy is literally accomplished in Jeremiah.



And let's get rid of the deceptive notion that the alexandrine texts are somehow the originals. They contradict themselves on 3,000 occaisions vaticanus vrs. Sinaiticus.



And even James white admits that there are thousands of manuscripts which were burned and have simply aged because of use.

But which manuscript has God's people used most?

January 1 at 9:17pm via mobile · Like..
Jonathan David Sarfati Arguments from circumstance mean nothing. Probably hardly any Bible was used for longer than the Vulgate. The above sounds like something a roman Catholic would say, since it is tradition-centred not Bible-centred.



There are no two Byzantine manuscripts that are identical. Nor are any of them identical to the so-called Textus Receptus.



On the issue of prophet citations, here is something from our site—http://creation.com/claimed-bible-errors:



Also, Noel Weeks, PhD in ancient history and languages at Brandeis University under Cyrus Gordon, showed how this actually supported the reliability of Scripture. In an interview in Australian Presbyterian by CMI-supporter Rev. Peter Hastie, he was asked, “Can we say that the Bible is true even though it is imprecise with some of its statements? For example, Matthew attributes a quote from Zechariah to Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9. Isn’t this an instance of imprecision?” Dr Weeks replied:



Let me tell you a story about when I was doing my PhD at Brandeis University in Boston. Brandeis is a leading Jewish university. I remember sitting in a lecture by a very fine Jewish scholar, Nahum Sarna, who was talking about the canon of the Old Testament as it was understood in early Judaism. One of the topics he touched on was the order of the books. He said, “Well, you know that there was a period in which Jeremiah was regarded as the first book of the prophets.” Of course, nobody in the class knew that. Anyway, he continued, “One proof is that you have a quote from Zechariah quoted as being from Jeremiah because in the Jewish way of labelling things you call a book by its first few words, and you call a collection of books by the first book in that collection. Thus one of the evidences that we have of Jeremiah being the first book of the prophets in the first century is the New Testament.” I was sitting there thinking, “This Jewish audience doesn’t understand why that’s an important question, because this particular text has been held up as proof that there are errors in the New Testament. All it says is that the New Testament is a Jewish document. It is speaking in the language that Jews would speak and understand.”

Claimed Bible errors

creation.com

A correspondent claims there are errors in the Bible, but all of the alleged  

Matt SIngleton If your position is bible centered then argue from scripture. I showed you where the bible gives detail to it's preservation. Am I right? If so your argument against the text is not according to God's Will, if not, then you should tell my why the scriptures say something else.

Why would denying the superiority of the Catholic bible be catholic? Codex vaticanus is under the control of the Roman catholic church. And until his recent death cardinal Carlo martini committee for the Nestlé/Alund text.



Why does it matter if the Byzantine manuscripts are identical? When are you going to hold the alexandrine manuscripts to any level of accountability?



The Byzantine differs in spelling while the alexandrine differs in canons.

Differences of spelling only show us that there where so many different copyists to destroy the idea of conspiracy.

But when people claim the gospel of mark is the first gospel and yet claim that it does not have an account of the resurrection; you can spin it however you like. But reality bears the fruits of apostates like Bart Ehrman.



As long as you think that there is not a single inspired book on planet earth you will have to compromise with scripture. At which point you will have to give up on key points of your apologetic and eventually, theology.

January 1 at 11:34pm via mobile · Like..
Jonathan David Sarfati Just come out with it: are you KJV-only?

January 2 at 1:35am · Like..
Matt SIngleton I am a preservationist. I believe that God has preserved his word perfectly for us in the Hebrew masoretic text and the Greek textus receptus.

I believe that the authorized version nicknamed Kjv is the standard English translation of the Bible.

I recommend the Kjv. Though translations are not perfectly inspired. But derive there authority from the Greek and Hebrew.

January 2 at 1:42am via mobile · Like..
Matt SIngleton Put it like this, if you saw me talking to James white and Peter Ruckman.

James white would say I am king James only. But Peter Ruckman would call me a liberal TR man.

January 2 at 1:47am via mobile · Like..
Matt SIngleton But my position is essentially the same as Westminster, Charles spurgeon, d.a.Waite, Henry Morris, Frank Logsdon and Edward hills

January 2 at 1:53am via mobile · Like..
Jonathan David Sarfati One can be a preservationist, but this doens't entail that God preserved the Biblical manuscripts they way you think. The KJVO way is untenable because it would follow that no Bible existed before the Romanist Erasmus performed his textual criticisms on a few Greek manuscripts. None of these MSS is identical to the so-called Textus Receptus, so where was the "preservation"?

What is the evidence that God preserved Scripture in the TR, which differs from the Majority Text in 1,800 places?



The Westminster divines were too early for the textual debate. Spurgeon preached a sermon called "And we are: A Jewel from the revised Version", based completely on the superiority of the Alexandrian text in 1 John 3:1. I know much more than Henry Morris did about this issue; his writings on textual matters were very weak (James White showed where Dr Morris erred on both factual and logical grounds http://vintage.aomin.org/A%20Response%20to%20a%20Brother%20in%20Christ.html). I have rebutted Waite's slanderous attacks on the NIV, again showing that he is loose with facts and guilty of double standards.



The Geneva Bible is a much better translation of the same texts that the KJV translators used.

Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White

vintage.aomin.org

Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, J...ehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing the Gospel of God's grace!See More.January 2 at 2:14am · Edited · Like..Matt SIngleton Your first premise is contradictory, you say that the idea of original manuscript remaining intact means it disappeared???

You are not omniscient.

You did not live in every century. You are assuming your own uniformitarianism idea of the text.

Their were many copies that existed in those centuries that you don't have access to.


Why does the "majority text" matter?

One minute it is utterly ignored when it prefers the traditional reading. But it only seems to matter to disagree with the TR.

Well, let's acknowledge the truth.

10% is not the majority!!

Von soden's critical text is only based on about 500 of the 5000 Greek manuscripts. That means he can choose the text which will disagree most with the TR. and that has been the on-going mission of textual criticism.



Of the Westminster were too early for the textual debate, perhaps they were too early for sola scriptura debate. Perhaps they were too early for the justification debate as well!

Who were they to stand up against Rome?

All they claimed was that they had absolute authority from scripture. But if they did not then the premise of the reformation falls apart.



James white constantly errs on factual grounds. He is still selling the myth about Erasmus and the wet manuscript which was dispelled by Bruce metzger.

Or this constant obsession with Erasmus and 6-7 manuscripts ignoring the work of stephanus and Beza when Beza possessed 19 manuscripts.

Also ignoring how the reformers were aware of textual issues sense the KJV translators compared 15 ancient translations on top of their work with the Greek text.



Spurgeon Preached on mark 16:16

Morris was smart enough to know about the evolutionary presuppositions of the text critics.

Defending the NIV is equivalent to defending neo-orthodoxy. If God inspired the words of scripture then the words need to be translated.



www.wayoflife.org

Way of Life Literature

www.wayoflife.org

THE APPLE STORE: A WINDOW INTO THE NEW AGE (Friday Church News Notes, December 2...8, 2012, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - I love Apple equipment, but on recent visits to Apple stores in two different countries, I realized that these are true windows into the New Age. Indeed, the...See More.January 2 at 8:10am via mobile · Like · Remove Preview..

Jonathan David Sarfati The same could be said about KJVOs who go on about their text agreeing with the "majority" of the manuscripts. But suddenly, when their reading is finds no support in the majority, it no longer matters. The fact remains: your view of textual preservation is untenable, because no manuscript looks like what you claim the "preserved" text is.

January 3 at 6:54pm · Like..

Matt SIngleton No the preservationist view is completely rational.

God inspired the bible without error

God preserved the Bible for believers

God provided a perfect text for believers.



What is irrational is.

God inspired the bible without error

God could not preserve his word with out error

God's people stop believing in Christ alone for salvation.

But the church was intact as a genocidal idol worship empire.

Suddenly people believed the bible correctly and thwarted the "church" with a bible filled with errors. Which the popes could correct at any time with their superior manuscript.

So that we now live based upon tradition which is superior to a more popular tradition because it is more in accord with the bible which the bigger tradition has held to the whole time.



The fact is that we hold to our canon because we believe the scripture which says that God would preserve His word for us are true. 1peter 1:23-25.

If God preserved the canon for us, then he could preserve the manuscript for us.

January 3 at 8:15pm via mobile · Like..Matt SIngleton I have read you arguing against evolution with aging methods that are not in line with evolution even though the result does not equate a young earth.

Such as the rate at which the ocean expels salt and the rate at which which the rate at which the moon orbits away from the earth.

Why are you using evidence that does not lead exactly to a 6,000-10,000 year old earth??

Because you new that evolution

Runs on a naturalistic system. So everything has to fit a naturalistic system or the premise of evolution and secular empiricism fails.

Young earth is based in the supernatural power of God.



I bring up that the majority of manuscripts agree with the TR over and against the alexandriane manuscripts.

Which means that the churches by and large rejected these manuscripts.

You say will they don't agree perfectly.

Just like the young earth position,

Revelation is the answer. The bible teaches that the word of God would be preserved among believers.

The textus receptus is the basis of most of the worlds bibles including the most reproduced book on earth.



Now besides the fact that many of Erasmus views moved toward an evangelical position.

The reformation NEVER based the bible on his work alone. Robert stephanus, and Theodore Beza and the elziver brothers and finally scrivener who based his work off of the textual decisions in the AV.



To claim that this is all the work of a catholic is A-historical.

January 3 at 9:50pm via mobile · Like..
Jonathan David Sarfati What are you talking about? Our reasoning for our age arguments is expressed in http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth



Yes, the KJVOs must indulge in historical revisionism to re-invent the Catholic Erasmus, an opponent of Luther and the Reformation, a...See More

Age of the earth

creation.com

Evidences for a young age of the earth and the cosmos.Yesterday at 11:20am · Like..  
Matt SIngleton Reading your age of the earth article you have vindicated my statement.

It's the same premise.

Science is not absolute, therefore it must bow it's knee to revelation.



The same logic of preservation.

Biblical criticism is a science which is not absolute, therefore it must bow it's knee to biblical criticism.



"to re-invent the catholic Erasmus, an opponent to Luther and the reformation"

This argument grows weaker and more embarrassing when you are encapable of giving a rebuttal after I have refuted the premise.



Erasmus never opposed Luther on any point other than free-will. And that is a subject which anabaptist, Luther's protege Melanchthon, and arminius opposed Luther and Calvin on in that day.

Besides the fact that Luther chose Erasmus work over and above the complutesuan polyglot; the Swiss anabaptist would have their sermons preached directly from Erasmus text, in order to deepen their convictions about anabaptist doctrine.

But you are still, yet again, refuted on this point. Because even if Erasmus was a raving papist, the reformers were not dependent solely on his work alone.

As Calvin's successor Theodore Beza had more greek manuscripts of his own than Erasmus. Not to mention the work of stephanus and the Elzivir brothers and others previously mentioned.



Still waiting on that...



Yet God preserved the word in the desert where Christians couldn't read it and have assurance of salvation, so that could be overcome by pagans claiming to be representatives of Christ.....sure.

But now we have a great authority which contradicts itself 3,000 times between 2 manuscripts and does not have the same OT or even NT canon that we have.

Based upon the authority of a "church father" who castrated himself denies that Son and Holy Spirit are of equal power to the Father, doesn't preach faith alone, argues for universal salvation even to the devil. Yep, sounds pretty orthodox!


Now with any facebook wall the debate didn't have an official end.  But after a week goes by I feel it is safe to it concluded. Also remember that as in any debate we are not as deep in our references as one would see in a research paper.

btw, I made a statement the otherday that Dr. Sarfati liked so there is hope ;)

Did Paul believe in the resurrection?

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

This may seem odd but biblical critics who deny the resurrection will argue for the organization of a myth and many have claimed that Paul did not really have a full understand that christ was really physically resurrected and did not profess the gospel.  Thus nobody understood the resurrection.

Now this is an amazing leap because we have to assume that Luke never taught the resurrection based on His account even though Luke was His disciple.  we also have to believe that the apostles were clueless as to the fact of a physical resurrection.  But I fifgured I would humor these assumptions and ask the question did Christ resurrect according to paul?

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
Now at this point the claim would be made that Paul is referring to a future resurrection.  Although we do see a present tense reference.

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
   They would also claim paul understood a spiritual resurrection.  But why would that be a point of contention?  Who could make a solid arguement over whether anyone truly is in heaven?




17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
   Here we see the idea of annihilation is looked upon as a curse.  which would have to be the case if there was no reurrection of christ.


19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
How could christ be the firstfruits of the dead if never rose from the grave?

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Obviously they expected christ alive.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

So Paul believed that jesus was real because he had so many witness his life and resurrection.  Also they believe he literally would die.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
5 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come

Is John's gospel the same as Paul's?

This is an article in response to a group that is commonly referred to as hyper-Dispensationalist. Many of which would refer to their teach as the "gospel of Paul".  This group argues that the apostle Paul was give a special dispensation to give the gospel to the Gentiles.  This much is biblically based (read Galatians 2 and Ephesians 3).
So that Jesus and the apostles were not concerned about doctrines like justification by grace through Fsith alone.  Instead they were focused on "the Gospel of the kingdom" as they delivered the gospel to the circumcised.
However hyper Dispensationalist take an extra step in this.  They claim that there are in fact 2 gospels. As a result the writings of the apostles have no direct message to the believer today. In an extension to this further the writings of John were meant for the Jews only.


It is significant that John wrote this after the fall of Jerusalem. It is also significant that John was writing either amongst gentile converts in Ephesus or to thesis rounding cities from the island of Malta, in both cases these people were evangelized by Paul.


Yes, John the baptist preaches a baptism of repentance. But the apostle John doesn't mention it.

That is from the Synoptics for a reason.

In regards to John 3:16.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.



First of all John and Paul wrote Greek not English and several translations translate the word "shall"

Secondly, assuming that "should" is the proper translation it makes no difference for two reasons.

A. In John 3:17 John is telling Gentiles that "the world through him might be saved" meaning that the gospel John is preaching is available to them.

B. John 3:18 says "He that beleiveth is not condemned.." this is present tense. So Gentiles reading the gospel of John had a sure foundation for their salvation that no one could tear asunder.

John 4:23 has Jesus prophecy "But the hour cometh AND NOW IS, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth:"

John is not writing for the departed Israel, this not a lamentation this is the good news.

And church history records how John would minister to the Gentiles. One of his disciples was the martyr polycarp. And He had a disciple named Irenaeus whose association to John gave him the ability to make the open and shut case that John was the authentic gospel of John.

Paul stated that his gospel was that which was seen of the apostles
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

ephesians 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.



The gospel is not divided

Some thoughts on acts 8:37

Acts 8:36-38 King James Version (KJV
acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 Earlier this week on a facebook group I was debating the superiority and inspiration on the text receptus. Another facebook user challenged me about this specific text "I assume you believe as well that Acts 8:37 was taken out of many bibles based on a conspiracy, yes?"

Here is my response.

Acts 8:37 is part of the textus Receptus Greek, greek manuscript E08 and the western Latin tradition. 9not to mention the early english translations (tyndal, wycliff. matthew, geneva. AV etc.) and any TR based translation.
We don't have it in the alexandrine text. Nor do we have it in 10% of the Byzantine text which we call a "majority".  (or Majority text by von Sodon)


  So obviously what must have happened is that Jerome, unbeknownst to his employer pope damasus was a raving baptist!  He was insecure about lack of biblical grounds for believers baptism and He wanted his priest to be thoroughly equipped in the roman catholic doctrine of believer's baptism!  They even made just 1 greek manuscript supporting acts 8:37 to cover their tracks.
  This was a very important conspiracy because they missed the previous conspiracy at Constantinople to conflate the text. Probably because Westcott and Hort were the first ones to hear of such a conflation.
   Now since we do not have the originals, if we deny that God is Sovereign and did not preserve the text perfectly in at least one copy.  Then we have no authority to claim what the canon consist of.  Nor What original manuscripts consist of.
  Besides the lack of authority the evolving text advocates to deny whether scriptures are inspired.  They also have to claim knowledge about manuscripts which they have not personally studied, which includes:

A. The majority of the Byzantine texts.

B. future manuscripts which are waiting to be discovered.

C. Manuscripts which have worn away out of decay

D. Manuscripts which were put to flames in times of persecution.


  We also have to assume that men of the past were incapable of accesses information back then. When they may have possessed information which we don't have.
Eventually when looking at manuscripts we have to put a prejudice over which group is more likely to be right.
   So if it is between the alexandrine church infiltrated with Gnosticism and adhering to neo-Platonism or whether it was the school of Antioch which had a good Christian tradition alongside a strong Jewish scribal influence, where the full deity and complete humanity were strongly held up.  I will side with antioch.
If this issue is between the Byzantine's and the textus receptus then I will side with the textus receptus. They would had to have motive to go against the Byzantine textus receptus. The Byzantine empire would be corrupted by Eastern Orthodoxy. Yet the protestants held to the gospel of grace.

John Calvin's assistant Theodore beza is reported to have gotten information from the ancient Waldenses. That they had received their text from antiochan missionaries in the 2nd century. This preserved their text better.  The church is the pillar and ground of truth 1timothy (3:15) and I find the Waldenses to be a true church while the Catholics and alexandrines are not.