Thursday, May 4, 2017

It Was Not About The Tree Or The Fruit. The Gospel, Part One.

Did you know that most people don't know the true story behind man's fall from Grace?

The Gospel Story

The Reason

Some time after God created the time-space reality, in which we live, the first man was formed * by God, from the dust of the world, before the herbs of the field, on the third day of creation. The first man's name was Adam. He was placed in Eden, a garden paradise made especially for him.

On the sixth day, God created ** mankind, man and woman.

Adam, was joined little later by his mate, Eve, who was also formed, from the body of Adam.

After an unknown period of time, Adam and Eve, disobeyed the one rule that God gave them. He told them not to eat from one tree, in the garden. After being tempted, by Satan, Eve ate from the tree. However, it was not about the fruit or the tree. It was disobedience, that Satan taught Eve, that day.

Disobedience revealed a different perspective to Eve. Up to this point, it didn't even occur to her to do anything, other than obey God's simple rule. However, afterwards, it opened up a new line of reasoning, 'What If?'. It was 'What If?', that caused Adam to deliberately enter into sin.

When Eve ate of the fruit and then delivered the fruit to Adam. He was given something that he hadn't had up to then, a choice. He could have continued to follow God and let Eve perish or he could give himself up to disobedience, in an effort to save Eve.  Many people really come down hard on Adam for his choice, that day, for this disobedience created a fracture or separation between God's existence and ours.

However, if you think about it, Adam's choice not only opened him up to mankind's ridicule and condemnation, he also experience AGAPE, for the first time. AGAPE is a totally committed love, that only God possessed, up to that point in time. It was good for us, because AGAPE would be needed for mankind to be reconciled back to God, but unbeknownst to mankind, it would take almost 4000 years for reconciliation to happen.

Unfortunately, for Adam and Eve and the rest of mankind, God required a penalty/punishment for this disobedience. From this point on, man would experience both physical death and spiritual separation from God for the next 4000 years.

* The Hebrew word used in the Genesis 2 account is YATSAR, meaning 'to form from existing materials'.

** The Hebrew word used here, in this excerpt, from Genesis 1, is 'BARA' which means, 'to create out of nothing'.


  1. Hi Keith,
    yes I believe absolutely that the first Adam was a living being formed out of the dust of the earth and the second Adam was a life-giving Spirit. Jesus, the last Adam came four thousand years after God began forming the earth and, as we are the body of Christ on earth, I believe where Jesus said 'Today and tomorrow I do cures, the third day I shall be perfected' that He is talking as 'one day is with God a thousand years'.
    I believe that the 'mankind' spoken of on the sixth day is the last Adam Jesus, Whom we shall all be in (as in we being the church when we believe), six thousand years after God formed the earth - Genesis ch. 1 being an overall view of mankind in the flesh becoming God's children in the Spirit, with the sun and the moon representing the coming of Jesus (the Son)and the moon (the church which can only reflect the light of the sun (Son) on the fourth day.

  2. Hi Brenda, I have no problem with that interpretation, but on a figurative or metaphorical level.

    (I almost feel weird saying metaphorical, since it is abused so much by Paul. :-) LOL)

    However, how do you see the "mankinds" on a literal level?

  3. Hi Keith,
    I have to say that it is a literal level that I see Genesis ch. 1. I see it as an overall prophetic view of the six thousand years of God's plan. I see the sun and the moon coming on the fourth day as representing Jesus as the light of the world and we, the church as the being represented by the moon which can only reflect the light of the sun at night. I believe that where God says 'Let us make man in our image.' He is talking about Jesus and Himself causing mankind to be born of God's Spirit over the last two thousand years - fulfilled after six thousand years.
    I could have a real discussion on these issues, and I find all people's views interesting.

  4. Hi Brenda, what you are doing is what typically is called a prophetic representation of literal events. In Judaism, there are seven levels of scriptural interpretation. The first level and our anchor to reality is literal. This was followed by the prophetic, figurative, metaphorical levels. The final three are personal interpretations, led by the Spirit, but have an anchor to the literal level. All levels must be anchored to the literal level.

    With all that said, your interpretation could be placed in the figurative, metaphorical and prophetic levels. There is still a literal level in all of Scripture. In Genesis 1, there is a literal generalized view of the actual creation of the earth and the universe. In Genesis 2, it narrows it down to a specific time within chapter one, before the herbs were in the field, which was day three.

    It is very clear that there are two literal creations of man, Adam and mankind. I do like your prophetic interpretation and it fits very nicely into the literal level of the B'rit Hadashah, New Testament.

  5. Hi Keith again,
    yes I have always seen Genesis ch. 1 as an overall view of the six thousand years as in one day is as a thousand years with God as stated in 2 Peter ch. 3 v. 8:-
    'But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.' I believe the first Adam was 'formed from dust' before the shrubs, plants and rain - (a living being), and the last Adam was 'created' a life-giving Spirit, being perfected (as in Jesus saying 'today and tomorrow I do cures' (on believers), the third day I shall be perfected.
    I believe the 'today and tomorrow' are the two thousand years after He was born of God's Spirit and the third day is when the sixth thousand years are completed.

  6. Hi Brenda, Totally agree, that the Genesis days are from God's perspective and most likely a thousand or more years. I say 'more' because Peter was quoting Psalm 90:4. In Psalm 90:4, the Hebrew word 'Shawneh', translated as years, can also mean an a lifetime, an era, an eon, definitely, a very long measurement of time.

    When you put both Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3, together, we find that he was possibly referencing God's day as being 1000 lifetimes, 1000 eras, 1000 eons, etc. Either way, a day in God's existence has really no time reference, because he is outside time.

    On the literal level, Creation days were somewhere between 1 day up to millions of years. I've never had a problem with the age of the earth and Genesis, because the text gives us the truth.

    I also agree that your personal interpretation is also a figurative or prophetic vision, of the literal events within the plan of God, that compliments the Word of God.

    As for the forming of Adam and the creation of mankind, they also occurred literally during the time specified in Genesis 1 and 2.

  7. I just checked this out, with my interlinear bible. How could they have got this wrong? It is plain as day. I always thought that the two creations were the same. I was always taught that the day six creation in Gen 1 and Adam in Gen 2 were the same. If you believe that, then there would be an error right there in the first two chapters of the Bible. I'm going to investigate it a little further, but you do bring up a good point.

  8. Hi Keith, that's a nice interpretation :-) but I would rather believe the Bible which is the Word of God.

    Let's look what God really did on the THIRD day, Genesis 1:3 – 9, "Then God said, 'Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.' God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
    Then God said, 'let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them;' and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
    There was evening and there was morning, a THIRD DAY."

    Hmmmm, nothing mentioned about God creating a man called Adam on the third day. From where did you get that idea that God created Adam on the third day ?

    Well my friend, it's NOT in the Bible, just read it again, it's just not there. You have made that up, or have invented that story all by yourself, or perhaps your denomination has taught you that, but surely NOT the Lord.

    And neither did God say that He created on the sixth day MANKIND.

    Well my friend, if you make up a story like that, then more likely the rest of the story is also NOT true.

    Do you grant me to comment to the rest of your story ?
    I think it would do you a lot of good to know the TRUE account of God's creation according to the Scriptures (Bible) and the Spirit if the Lord.


  9. Paul, Please answer the following questions.

    1. What is Genesis 2 about?
    2. What is the timing, otherwise, when did it happen, as documented in Genesis 2:4-5?

  10. Hiker Boy, That is why God is guiding us into his original text and away from the erroneous translations, that change the Word into Man's word. This is the spirit, that Paul has been referencing. Unfortunately, the spirit of this world has influenced Paul. We must always look to the infallible Word of God, through God's Spirit, not man's word, for the truth.

  11. Keith, there is NO original text ! And because there is NO original text therefore the god of this world has lead you astray to believe that lie.

    Again, the infallible Word of God is the Bible and NO other books or texts.

    Point 1. Genesis chapter 2 is where the Lord explains to you how He made Adam and Eve and how He orchestrated the fall of His perfect creation.

    Point 2. Genesis 2:4 – 5, again, the Lord Jesus Christ is telling you that on the SIXTH day when He formed Adam, that the plants of which He created on the THIRD day had not yet sprouted, because the Lord had not yet sent any rain etc.
    The complete plant is contained in the seed, but without rain, the plants don't come out of the ground.

    Look my friend, you need to read the Bible slowly and in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ and then He will lead you into all the truth.
    Anything else is just useless religion.

  12. I don't understand what you mean by no original text Paul. When the Bible was written it had to be in some kind of language, hence the original text. When was Genesis written? And what language was it? Please do not be vague like usual. Answer it straight up.

  13. Tim, an original is the FIRST, like the 10 Commandments Moses brought down from mount Sinai, that's the ORIGINAL.
    Or, if you are the FIRST who writes something; then only that which you have written is the original, and any other writings of that which you have written are COPIES.
    If you write something, and after, I rewrite that which you have written, that is called a COPY.
    And if I translate that which you have written into another language, then it is called a TRANSLATION.
    Now the Bible is different.
    The Bible is called the WORD GOD, and it is written by God. We both know that God is Spirit (John 4:24) and it is God who wrote the Bible by the hands of the man of God who were filled with the Spirit of God, men of all walk of life. Whether those men fully understood what they were writing or not makes no difference, it was God who wrote the Bible without errors.
    I testify to that, and I also claim to know the author personally :-)

    Nobody knows when Genesis was written, not even you.
    And don't ask silly questions which profit you nothing.

  14. Paul, it has every profit right now because it gives us insight to God's word. To know what language it was written is is to know the original language. In YOUR own words right here to know who the first person was who wrote it is to know the language it was written in. Yes, I think we all here agree that the actual word of God was written by God through man... inspired, God breathed. But the Bible you bought at the store was translated from an ancient language. English was not spoken in 6000 BC. English itself is a translated and morphed language, dare say evolved. Unless your Bible was miraculously written on empty pages and given directly to you by God then you do not have a Bible written in the original language. Some words have two meanings and that's what I have been trying to tell you from my blog. Nothing has changed the message of God and nothing could but to get the deepest meaning you need what God originally said. Such​ as in the US we have slang and say some things are cool. Now does that mean we like it or is it lower in temperature? To know our language is to know the real meaning.

    We don't know exactly when Genesis was written I never claimed to do so. But we know it was written before English developed. Moses DID NOT speak English.

    The question is 100% valid.

  15. I think we all agree that God preserves his Word. Therefore, when translations differ, you must go back to the earliest text of the original tongue, for clarification. To do otherwise introduces error, which is clearly seen in most modern translations. Upon closer inspection, these errors are along the many erroneous manmade, Satan introduced, doctrines, within today's christian assemblies.

  16. By the way, Paul, the Hebrew and the Greek are the original tongue, not English.

  17. I don't think the words written are in error but when one doesn't know the original language or meaning it allows for misinterpretation. And that causes division and human doctrines.

  18. I do agree that interpretation without knowing the culture, idioms and language are a big source of the problems. But, what about YHWH, Elohim, Adonai, etc.? They are all changed to the Generic God or Lord. How about words added that change the meaning? How about verses added, that do not appear in the earliest text? How about Easter inserted for Pasach? How about actual names added into the text, that do not appear in any text whatsoever? I can go on and on and on. The more I get into the original languages, the more an more I see the fingerprints of Satan all over the modern day translations

    Now, as for the salvational text, I agree that God has preserved the ones necessary for salvation. However, most of the rest have been bastardized or corrupted by Satan, to divide the church. It is so obvious. Again, Satan's fingerprints are all over them and has been his method of driving a wedge between God and his people, since the garden incident.

  19. Over the years I have noticed that many scripture verses have changed according to which version of the Bible I might have. I tend to go on line and search for the original interpretation on these occasions. I find that interesting.
    The version I have now is the New Oxford annotated, but I also have some old versions with more Hebrew information in them.

  20. Keith I do not disagree but even if it was left as "Lord" we can understand that it means one with authority and one in whom we need to obey, and so forth. But what Paul is missing is that when you understand that the original word is Elohim which means Creator and is a more powerful word than just Lord it YHWH which encompasses all of God's attributes into one then you miss out on a better relationship. You still get the message of the Gospel but not all the glory that you can have through Him. And as I said it also allows for misinterpretation by mankind, human error not biblical error.

  21. Keith I do not disagree but even if it was left as "Lord" we can understand that it means one with authority and one in whom we need to obey, and so forth. But what Paul is missing is that when you understand that the original word is Elohim which means Creator and is a more powerful word than just Lord, or YHWH which encompasses all of God's attributes into one then you miss out on a better relationship. You still get the message of the Gospel but not all the glory that you can have through Him. And as I said it also allows for misinterpretation by mankind, human error not biblical error.

  22. Hey Tim, I agree with 99.8% of what you said, with one exception. When we give in to the smallest of change, or may I say, compromise, isn't that what Satan wants? With the smallest compromise, such as making YHWH, God or Lord, do we not get Paul's erroneous manmade doctrine? That little change or compromise allows Paul's and other non biblical doctrines to gain root to grow and give places for the birds of the air, disciples of Satan, to make their nest within the church.

  23. Look Tim, even if you would know what language a scroll was written in, it still doesn't profit you much.

    Because there are NO originals, therefore we don't know, and we really don't need to know it anyway.
    Was Moses educated in the Egyptian or the Hebrew writings ? Well, I don't know. It's debatable and I really don't care, because it has no value for me and for you and for anyone else.

    But what profits all of us is, if we all believe that the BIBLE is the complete Word of God and is without errors, then your and our trust will be in the God of the Bible which is Jesus Christ.
    It is Jesus who is the Word (John 1:1) and not some kind of ancient writings or language.

    The danger is, if you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God without error, then you will NOT trust or accept the Bible to be the authority over you, and the Bible then is NOT suitable to you for correction in doctrine and in conduct (2 Tim. 3:16).

    It is simple; if you believe and do what the Bible said, then you will be blessed and you will receive the reward from the Lord in that which you have obeyed.
    But if you knowingly or unknowingly disobey what it says in the Bible, then you will receive the consequences of your disobedience, and it doesn't mater what you think or believe, there is NO excuse for you before the Lord.

    If you don't know the simplest meaning, then you cannot know the deepest meaning.
    The deepest meaning of God's Word you can only know if you know the Lord your God personally.
    Or as I have said, 'the author of the written Word which is Jesus Christ the Lord'.

    And remember, the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT write to you or to anyone else in a language you do NOT understand.

  24. Keith, 'Hebrew and Greek are the original tongue', of WHAT ?
    Do you mean of God,s Word ?
    Are you saying that God spoke to Adam in Hebrew or in Greek ?

    No my friend, you are not a little bit deceived, you are very much deceived (1 Tim. 2:14).
    And the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is NOT divided and neither is His Word the Bible.
    You are trying to divide the Word of God which is the Bible, by saying that it is erroneous. Jesus said that a house divided against it self shall not stand! What do you think, that the Church of Jesus Christ is divided ? Well, I think NOT !
    All the churches of this world are divided and they surely will fall, but NOT the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of which I am an ambassador.
    Jesus Christ is the God of His Church, and Satan is the god of all the churches of this world (2 Cor. 4:4 and Rev, 12:9).
    Satan is the god of all the churches of this world, that is because they worship him, and anyone who does NOT worship Jesus Jesus Christ of Nazareth is worshiping Satan who is the god of this world.

    But we, worship just as they did in the BIBLE, Jesus Christ our only Lord and God (Mat. 28:9).
    Well Keith, it amazes me that you can't see that.
    And why do you say that I believe in non biblical doctrines, if you don't believe the Bible ?

  25. Hi Brenda, I agree. We must keep Gods Word pure in our hearts. Otherwise, we get erroneous doctrines, such as Paul's doctrine. It used to amaze me to see such doctrines. However, Satan has done a great job of blinding people from the truth.

  26. Ok, Paul, The first complete English bible is the Wycliffe bible. Later, the KJV. Of course, now, we have so many versions. Which one has authority of the truth?

  27. Keith,

    That just makes you 99.8% smarter than you were.

    I don't think we "give in". I think whoever was translating was doing the best they could given the time period and changes of lanuage.
    You have to remember that we weren't as thorough as we are now. Some words to them in 1500 such a LORD may have been THEE word to translate to. That is why I don't like the KJV, although it is pretty accurate. But that is also wahy I like the CJB and MOUNCE and stuff becuase it uses the words that are closest to what was written while it was being written. Now to agree with you that if we keep moving away from what was originally written and we lose he true meaning then yes we went wrong. I don't think God would allow that. I feel we still get the message, even the short limitations that some of us ( have with God's word. I do not think saying LORD instead of YHWH is "erroneous" as in misleading but it is limiting what you can get out of it. I have already stated the other part that you said. I agree if man takes this limitation and creates a new doctrine out of it then it becomes misleading.

  28. BrendaMay 8, 2017 at 7:23 AM

    Hi Keith,
    yes Satan may have blinded people from the truth, but it is still our choice whether we believe or not in what is written.
    Even though there are errors in the different versions of the Bible the truth regarding God and Jesus is in all of them:-
    1 Corinthians ch. 15 vs. 20-28 clearly states:-
    'But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.'

    The fact is that it is our choice whether we believe what is written or not, and when a person keeps trying to prove the scriptures wrong (which they can never do) then I believe it is simply because they have to argue to sustain what they falsely believe, especially when they do not even share part of the testimony which they claim to have. Don't you think it strange when nobody appears to come onto that person's site to agree with them?

  29. Hey Tim, Hebrew and Greek has been around for a long time and was available to those who translated and are translating the scriptures. I'm a purist. Any translation or change from the original or earliest is compromise. Saying otherwise is just like saying a little white lie is not really a lie.

    Don't you think that if the scriptures were maintained, Paul's doctrine would not have legs to stand on?

  30. Paul,

    It does help knowing what language it was written in. For example, down your way in your neighbor Australia, if I said we were rooting for something, they would take offense. If I knew the actual language I would understand why there is an offense. To the USA it just means to support something. It would profit both the writer and the reader. When I say You are welcome in spanish--- de nada actually means "of nothing", it doesn't translate perfectly. Saying goodbye in English is adios is spanish, but it actually means "with God". So, yes knowing the original language IS beneficial.

    You say there are no originals but YOUR post told us all what an original is. The very first time God had man write this down was the original, so how can there not be any original? I understand everything we have TODAY is a copy but what was the first printing of God’s word written in? You have to know it was not English. Etymology shows you how English developed over time. It is a Germanic language that mixed with some Romance over the years. We have Old English (Germanic) then Middle English (Middle Ages to the KJV) to Modern English. If you are saying all we left are copies, sure, we all know that, but that is what Keith is saying. The copies of a copy of a copy of a copy may not be the exact word since languages change and do not translate well.

    How did you get the Bible you use? Did you buy it in a store, or did God give it to you? If you said, you bought it then it has been translated from a different language. If you say God gave it to you then see a doctor.

    Moses had to be educated in Hebrew and Egyptian, that is what he was. How is it debatable? His name Moeshe is Hebrew. Moses is like Thutmoses. Both languages were similar.

    You said, “And remember, the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT write to you or to anyone else in a language you do NOT understand.” So if I was Jewish, YOU just said He would speak to me in Hebrew. Jesus’ name would be Yeshua IN HEBREW. YOU JUST SAID IT YOURSELF.

    Now, the rest I pretty much agree with you. But, you would be blessed even more if you knew the deepest of meanings of words from God you get so much more. I think you do you have a relationship but you are obsessed with one topic and limit Him and that is limiting you in your joy.

  31. Keith,

    Yes. But were saved before or after you knew that?

  32. Good Point Brenda! I agree, as I have said many times, that God has preserved his salvational doctrine through all versions. This reveals the fingerprints of its supernatural origin. However, as for the rest, Satan's fingerprints are just as prevalent. The rest are to assist in developing our personal relationship with the God of the Universe.

    As designed, it requires the believer to dig out the truth, here a little, there a little, precept upon precept. Didn't God, speaking through Solomon, say, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; but the glory of kings is to search out a matter."?

    You are correct. It is our choice to choose the compromised translations or search it out, in the earliest text. I think the choice is obvious.

  33. Tim, I agree that the truth is for only those who have the Spirit of God, within them. So, Yes, it wasn't until I was saved, that my ears were open to the truth. I know we both believe that. Are you saying that the compromised versions are useful, in some way?

  34. Tim and Paul, I totally concur with Tim's last comment to you. You are missing out on a deep, valuable and loving relationship with the God of the Universe.

  35. Yes Keith, the scriptures we have are very relevant, useful, and can lead people to Christ. Otherwise I would not be a Christian. When I go back and see the original meaning to the scripture, I get a deeper feel for God and what He really wants me to know. My dad said this one time: do you want to go to heaven in a volkswagon or a cadillac? Reading the KJV, NIV, or NLT will get you that relationship that is needed. They all say Jesus came and died and resurrected. But they will not let you know all about God.

  36. Tim, Isn't that what I've been saying?

    If you look back, in the comment section, I wrote,

    "Now, as for the salvational text, I agree that God has preserved the ones necessary for salvation. However, most of the rest have been bastardized or corrupted by Satan, to divide the church. It is so obvious. Again, Satan's fingerprints are all over them and has been his method of driving a wedge between God and his people, since the garden incident."

    That was actually before the influx of the 99.8% knowledge boost, that I got from you. :-P LOL

    As for the English versions being used to bring people to the Messiah, are you saying the original text wouldn't?

    So, in reality, you are saying to use a compromised text to lead them into salvation, but tell them afterwards, that if you want to know God and develop a closeness with him, you have to use this other version. Makes no sense to me to intentionally muddy the waters. I actually cry sometimes, when I think about all those years I missed, by going down the wrong path. Again, why not start off with the real scriptures, instead of starting with a stumbling block, immediately after giving yourself to the Messiah?

  37. Noooooo, the original text would be even better!! All I am saying is for those who do not know about the original text God can still save them and the message is still there for them. We can still teach from it. We can still learn from it. But to get the full value of it...the meat, not the milk, then you go to the source. It's the same thing preachers have been doing but in their own way. The problem is when people refuse to know more about God. I agree if you have the original text then teach from it. Some just may not be able to handle the meat yet. You know I love to teach with the CJB.

  38. First of all, I really love our conversations. Always Have. Always Will. Yes, I know that you love the CJB. I do too. God has used Dr. Stern to draw the Jews and the Gentiles, back into the body. I still use it as reference, at times, but less, since I found out that the Masoretic Text was changed, in a vane attempt to counter Messianic claims.

    I haven't seen or heard too many preachers teaching the Bible lately. I agree that the main problem is the people refusing to know more about God. Don't you think that has a lot to do with the version of the bible they are using? Just Kidding....kind of.

  39. I love to see Mounce Greek Linear.

  40. Mounce Greek Interlinear

    I haven't made it all the way through, but it is promising.

  41. OK, before I opt out from that page, I like to say again that I appreciate all of the comments and inputs of those so important matters, which most people from every denomination and creeds don't like to talk about.

    Perhaps a short comment :-)
    Keith, if the Wycliffe Bible is the first Bible written, then why don't you believe it?

    Remember, I have been saying that the Bible is written for those who don't believe in Jesus Christ.
    The Bible is NOT written for me; the reason is, because I know the Lord Jesus Christ personally. And I believe that the Bible is God's Word WITHOUT errors.
    Did all the Apostle and disciples had a Bible?
    The answer is NO ! They didn't need a Bible because they knew the Lord Jesus Christ personally and believed in Him just as I do.

    The Bible was written for those who cannot put up with sound doctrines like you and anyone else who does NOT believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His written Word the Scriptures (Bible).
    If the Bible has errors, then show us where those errors are.

  42. Paul you never addressed my post at all. I didn't expect you to but I had some hope.

  43. Paul, The more you write, it becomes more and more evident that it is not the God of the Bible, with which you have a relationship.

    I never said that the Bible has errors. Show me one place, that I said that the Bible has errors. You can not. I have said and always will say that it is your translation that has the errors. God's Word, the REAL BIBLE, his Scripture is pure. His Scripture is God-breathed and is valuable for teaching you the truth, convicting you of your sin, correcting your faults and training you in right living; thus anyone who belongs to God may be fully equipped for every good work. Since you do not believe that scripture applies to you, it proves that you do not belong to God. You serve the god of this world. It shows when contradiction upon contradiction shows up in your writing. God is not a God of confusion. I have said that many times.

    It is incredible the length of your misunderstanding.

    Your comment, "Did all the Apostle and disciples had a Bible? The answer is NO !" shows your lack of basic reasoning and understanding. Of course, they had the real Bible. Both Y'shua and his disciples quoted from it.

    Finally, Doctrine is gotten from God's Word, not some channeling of a voice inside your head. Even God said, that he put his Word above even his own name. Of course, His Word doesn't apply to you.

  44. Keith,
    Just to verify, if we did not have the original language, would the English version be good enough to have to hear the gospel?

  45. Hey Tim, We both agree that God has maintained his salvation text. Therefore, the Gospel, the fact that Y'shua was given as a gift/sacrifice for the sins of mankind and afterwards he showed the righteousness of that gift/sacrifice, by rising from the grave, on the third day, according to the scriptures, does appear in all translations I've read. The English translations would be good enough to hear the Gospel. I don't think we've ever disagreed on that. If I ever implied that, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to.

  46. It had implications sometimes. Maybe....just maybe that is what Paul is seeing. Trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. I took it a little that way. I didn't think you were saying that but I wanted to make sure.

  47. Paul and I have gone through this over and over, the past year and a half. He knows where I stand. It started when he and I first discussed Yahweh and Isaiah 9:6.

  48. Yes, I find it hard to opt out from that page, but will remind you about that on another page.