Bible Contradictions (ever heard this one before from skeptics?)

[FreeInChrist]

There is only one definition for "covenant", and it is "promise(s.)

"God said" equals immediate reputation to fulfillment. In other word, God can't lie, which means everything He says He's going to do will come to pass.

Now, I must ask: am I interacting on this thread with you or AI?

INCORRECT.

They are "aliens" to God, "strangers" to God. They know not God and God considers them as "nothing" and "less than nothing." Saul says that the mixed-race Jews (think Samaritans) who grew up as Gentiles in Gentile lands and heavily influenced by Greek culture are the audience to what Saul said in his Ephesian letter about these mixed-race Jews of the Diaspora are "aliens to the commonwealth of Israel" and "strangers to the covenants of promise." These are Abraham's seed mixed in with non-Hebrews whose offspring lost their Hebrew heritage, their manner of dress, language, ways of thinking, and even idol-worshipers that Saul writes to in ALL his letters. Just look at the context: Israel/Hebrews. The Word of God including the Hebrew Scripture (Law, Psalms, Prophets) is to and for the Hebrew people/Israel. Each "book" of the Old and New Testaments from Matthew to Revelation are written by a Jew to and for other Jews, and in the case of the "New Testament" Jewish Christians, written to them.

Who was alive when Genesis 9 occurs? Just Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. While it states the Noahic Covenant is made to Noah and his seed, there were no other people alive. Gentile nations did not exist when God spoke to Noah, just Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and I doubt they were present when God and Noah spoke. YOU atre inserting "Gentile nations" when Gentile nations did not exist. So, you are adding to the Bible and confusing the subject and the content.
To Abraham God says "all families of the earth" meaning Abraham's seed through Ishmael, and Esau, and Ishmael's sons' children, etc. Since the blessing of covenant is already blessing from God only those families or seed of Abraham are blessed. The seed of Ham and Japheth do not have any blessings of or from God. It is the families that are born from Abraham that are blessed ONLY.

And the "New Testament view" above misidentifies "Gentiles" as non-Hebrew Gentiles and I don't. Gentiles are the mixed-race Jews of the Diaspora who grew up Gentile having lost their Hebrew heritage because of assimilation into Gentile and Greek culture. Samaritans and "Gentiles" in the New Testament refer to mixed-race Jews who grew up as Gentile, spoke like Gentiles, accents like Gentiles, dressed like Gentiles, spoke like Gentiles, thought like Gentiles, ate Gentile food (opposite what Hebrews eat in Scripture.) They are still Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise because God made promise to Abraham and his seed.

You're taking this from ChatGPT or Gemini or some internet search, right?

Natural Israel is spiritual Israel.
No, the disobedient Jews are the ones grafted BACK INTO the Olive tree. God never called non-Hebhrew Gentiles an Olive tree, so be consistent and stop trying to force a new identity for the ones grafted BACK INTO the Olive tree, which are the disobedient natural Olive tree which is Israel. The Olive tree is representative of Israel.

No, not all prophecies or promises have been fulfilled - today. There are still Old Testament promises and prophecies that have NOT all been fulfilled.

ERROR.
Gentiles did not exist in Noah's day. Only Adamites.

The "Concept" is correct.
The "Gentile Status" is incorrect.
The "Future Hope" is correct.

The Law of Christ (Greek: "Anointing" = Spirit) IS the Scripture and is the same as the Doctrines of Christ. It is the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets which were Authored by the "Christ" or the "Spirit."

The "single new man" refers to the non-mixed race Jew and the mixed-race Jews joined together to make a "new man."

Now what?

Not me anymore.... it would be one of the trinity of Ai living on this laptop.

Don't like it? Why not... saves my fingers and you certainly are capable of rebuffing anything those guys say.....

Even when they put a different spin on things without bloviating....

You pitched a fit when I said I would not communicate anymore with you.

You pitched a royal fit when I put you on ignore briefly....

Now you are pitching a fit that it is Ai... 3 different sources that come to the same conclusion....

You have sent me by giant steps on that yellow brick road... just figure it is the scarecrow responding to your strawman.

 

[FreeInChrist]

The covenant is between God and Abram the Hebrew and his Hebrew seed.

Against my better judgment, I’ll respond—speaking only for myself.

The covenant God made with Abram and his descendants was foundational within God’s redemptive plan. That point is not in dispute. What is in question is whether that covenant was ever presented in Scripture as the means by which sins are forgiven.

The New Testament consistently treats the Abrahamic covenant as preparatory rather than final. It points forward rather than standing as the fulfillment itself.

Jesus’ was sent not an afterthought. Scripture presents him as central to God’s purpose, not a contingency plan. Without that purpose, the redemptive narrative itself makes little sense.

Abraham remains important in redemptive history, but the New Testament identifies the covenant inaugurated by Jesus’ blood as the decisive means by which salvation is realized.

I am now asking for a specific text: where is the Abrahamic covenant itself presented as providing forgiveness of sins?

By contrast, Jesus explicitly identifies his blood as “the covenant,” and Hebrews describes him as mediator of a new covenant that redeems from sins committed under the first. That distinction matters, especially if we are claiming to follow the text rather than tradition.

The Holy Spirit is promised to Israel NOT Gentiles.

This is not true. I would let you know what a commentary said about this.... but you are not interested in the truth.

If you are truly born-again by the Spirit, there is a Hebrew parent somewhere in your family ancestry.

Have you found yours?

I almost popped for anther $100 to get updated DNA but then something stopped me. And what that was is the fact that
if I go searching anymore, that is certain I am doubting my Lord and Savior....

I have the spirit living in me.... I know because I had a treu conviction in the past.

Your statement is not true ....but brevity only allows me to say this.

No ~ your statement ...."If you are truly born-again by the Spirit, there is a Hebrew parent somewhere in your family ancestry" is not true according to biblical teaching.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Not me anymore.... it would be one of the trinity of Ai living on this laptop.

Don't like it? Why not... saves my fingers and you certainly are capable of rebuffing anything those guys say.....

Even when they put a different spin on things without bloviating....

You pitched a fit when I said I would not communicate anymore with you.

You pitched a royal fit when I put you on ignore briefly....

Now you are pitching a fit that it is Ai... 3 different sources that come to the same conclusion....

You have sent me by giant steps on that yellow brick road... just figure it is the scarecrow responding to your strawman.

No, I merely identified your heresy to think you have any "right" to separate yourself from a born-again Christian. You have no rights. It's not a democracy, it's a theocracy. The only time a believer would separate themselves from another believer is if that believer is in sin and backslid. Or if that brother is teaching heresy.
You need to learn what it is God has given you FOR MY BENEFIT because if you don't understand how the body functions you could be denying other brethren of your gifts, pounds, and talents. You see, I understand who I am in the body of Christ. I know my call, my ministry, my gifts, my pounds, and my talents. The Holy Spirit has taken me to extremes in order to put me in the center. But it is MY journey, and I know the Word of God. I know what the Lord has given me to give to my brethren and I give to my brethren. But my brethren through ignorance don't know who they are in Christ, their call, their gifts, talents and pounds. I know the Voice and the Word of God, and I can discern true from false, good and evil. I know that a brethren who gives love to unbelievers is an adulterer. I know that a brethren who calls an unbeliever "brother" is joining Christ to a whore for surely they do not have the same Father. And you? What do you know? You claim Christ but are ignorant of the things of God. The things you SHOULD know, you really don't.
We must ALL see the same Jesus; we must ALL say the same thing as God. To do otherwise is to oppose Him.

 

[FreeInChrist]

No, I merely identified your heresy to think you have any "right" to separate yourself from a born-again Christian. You have no rights. It's not a democracy, it's a theocracy. The only time a believer would separate themselves from another believer is if that believer is in sin and backslid. Or if that brother is teaching heresy.

Then why do you wat me to respond. I do not learn of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from you... All you do is accuse that the Gentiles have no covenant with God.... even when the Holy Scriptures prove. you lie.

You countered this with while Jesus was talking to His Jews at the last supper, Gentiles were not invited....

Yes, I said that that crudely because otherwise you would not understand.

You do not give a flying fig that YOUR>>>YOUR Saul that you quote and talk so much of was hand picked by
God to be the first king of Israel, as directed by the prophet Samuel. This selection was part of God's plan for Israel, despite the people's desire for a king.

You never give credit to the fact that your Saul had a duel name... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? God did not change it and neither did Jesus.... Go look it up if you doubt me . And it was after Acts 13:9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him.. that Saul was after that called Paul.

But your hero you mention all the time was actually chosen but the most Holy God on high to be the apostle to the Gentiles that you seemingly cannot stand.

You will learn nothing from me....

You need to learn what it is God has given you FOR MY BENEFIT because if you don't understand how the body functions you could be denying other brethren of your gifts, pounds, and talents.

You are rambling and not making any sense... from this point.

You see, I understand who I am in the body of Christ. I know my call, my ministry, my gifts, my pounds, and my talents. The Holy Spirit has taken me to extremes in order to put me in the center. But it is MY journey, and I know the Word of God. I know what the Lord has given me to give to my brethren and I give to my brethren. But my brethren through ignorance don't know who they are in Christ, their call, their gifts, talents and pounds. I know the Voice and the Word of God, and I can discern true from false, good and evil. I know that a brethren who gives love to unbelievers is an adulterer. I know that a brethren who calls an unbeliever "brother" is joining Christ to a whore for surely they do not have the same Father. And you? What do you know? You claim Christ but are ignorant of the things of God. The things you SHOULD know, you really don't.
We must ALL see the same Jesus; we must ALL say the same thing as God. To do otherwise is to oppose Him.

 

[Victoria]

The difference is that God is faithful but He does not have or need faith. The translation of the KJV of Romans 3:3 with "faith of God" is wrong. As I indicated, the correct translation there is "faithfulness of God". In the same way, the translation of the KJV of the "faith of Jesus" Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16; 3:22 is wrong. It is "faith in Jesus". God, the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit, do not need or have faith in God, in the Father, in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit. There is no rational argument for such a case.

It's the faithfulness of God/Jesus that keeps us saved, not our faithfulness. And of course, Westcott & Hort said the KJB is wrong b/c it goes against Catholicism's religious doctrine. Gotta make it say faith "in" Jesus, & make faith a "work." The Alexandrian manuscripts were rejected by the church early on for a very good reason. They're in serious error, & the manuscripts contradict itself as well.

Were you aware that Westcott & Hort agreed w/ the Arian take on Jesus' deity (that Jesus is a created being)? It's clearly obvious in any translation that states things were made "through" Him, & not "by" Him. John 1:3 KJB says made by Him. Jesus is God in the KJB.

 

[Victoria]

@Rockerduck made a really good point on This Thread in regards to newer translations:

All modern translation bibles are for profit. They are patented and had to change so many words to become a new work. Also, all modern translations have received updates. The KJV is public domain and hasn't needed updating. So, if the modern translations are correct, why did they all require updating. Critical text is in its 28th revision.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Against my better judgment, I’ll respond—speaking only for myself.
The covenant God made with Abram and his descendants was foundational within God’s redemptive plan. That point is not in dispute. What is in question is whether that covenant was ever presented in Scripture as the means by which sins are forgiven.

Fleshly circumcision foreshadowed sanctification in circumcision of the "heart" (life.)

The New Testament consistently treats the Abrahamic covenant as preparatory rather than final. It points forward rather than standing as the fulfillment itself.

It is through God's prophecy of future 'bondage' that establishes God's direct deliverance from this enslavement in a land 'not theirs.'

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. Genesis 15:13–14.

Jesus’ was sent not an afterthought. Scripture presents him as central to God’s purpose, not a contingency plan. Without that purpose, the redemptive narrative itself makes little sense.

True.

Abraham remains important in redemptive history, but the New Testament identifies the covenant inaugurated by Jesus’ blood as the decisive means by which salvation is realized.

True. And in the statement by Jesus that "no jot or tittle shall pass away until all is fulfilled" and that Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it" established substitutionary sacrifice that applies only to the children of Israel. Under the Law the animal that was sacrificed was for the temporary atonement of Israel's sins, and that by stating He came to fulfill complements to whom the sacrifice for sin was made: for the children of Israel, and like the animal that was sacrificed to atone - although temporary - the sins of the children of Israel, so, too, did the sacrifice made by Jesus was made to finally and eternally atone permanently the sins of the children of Israel. The "prophet like unto Moses" was prophesied to come from out of Israel to and for Israel. There is no prophecy or promise that Messiah was also to atone the sins of the non-Hebrew "world" thus Jesus' sacrifice was to and for Israel ONLY.

I am now asking for a specific text: where is the Abrahamic covenant itself presented as providing forgiveness of sins?

As stated above flesh circumcision foreshadowed a "circumcision of the heart/life" which is performed by the Spirits' application of the salvation bought by the Son. All three members of the Trinity were intimately involved in the redemption of the children of Israel. It was the Father's Plan, the Son implemented the Plan, and the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED TO ISRAEL (Joel) applies the Plan to God's elect who are again, the children of Israel.

By contrast, Jesus explicitly identifies his blood as “the covenant,” and Hebrews describes him as mediator of a new covenant that redeems from sins committed under the first. That distinction matters, especially if we are claiming to follow the text rather than tradition.

There was no direct "[redemption] from sins committed under the first (covenant.)" The Doctrine of Imputation evidences a "nature-swap." Jesus was imputed 'our' sinful nature, and we are imputed His Righteous nature.

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; (<--- identifies Saul and Barnabas as two who were given the 'ministry of reconciliation')
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. ("us" meaning Saul and Barnabas)
20 Now then we (Saul and Barnabas) are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Corinthians 5:17–21.

Verse 21 mentions the "nature-swap" imputation accomplished by the Lamb of God. Thus, the statement that 'we' sin because we are sinners is the correct perspective over 'we' are sinners because we sin. One addresses the sinful nature God's elect are born with, the other addresses the sinful acts we do.

This is not true. I would let you know what a commentary said about this.... but you are not interested in the truth.
Have you found yours?

It is not necessary for me to "find" the Hebrew parent in my ancestry. The Promise of God establishes a covenant between Abram the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) and his Hebrew seed. As long as a person is of the seed of Abram/Abraham they are heirs of the Promises. And it doesn't matter the dilution of DNA, the Lord knows them that are His and for whom He died, rather, resurrected so that we who are of the seed of Abram the Hebrew may be born at the appointed time, and born-again at the appointed time. God is not waiting for persons to "accept" Jesus into their "heart", He is actively involved in saving those whose names are [written] in the "book of life of the lamb slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world" (Rev. 13: 8.) Compare:

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; Revelation 5:9.

and

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. John 17:6.

The eleven (first there were twelve) were sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel before Jesus went to the cross, and the eleven, along with Saul, were sent "to the Gentiles" because that's where the majority of all Jews living at the time resided. They were to first herald to the Jews and mixed-race Jews (Abraham's seed) the coming of the Promised One and then explain His mission and what His life - and death - and resurrection accomplished.

God had scattered the twelve tribes among the Gentiles. First the ten northern kingdom tribes were conquered by the Assyrians and taken back to Assyria in 722 BC. Then the two southern kingdom tribes were conquered by the Babylonians (586 BC) and taken back to Babylon. Daniel is among the more prominent persons who were exiled to Babylon. Years later (ca. 522 BC) Cyrus, king of Babylon allowed first, Nehemiah, to return back to their homeland and later, Ezra to do the same. Scripture identifies a "remnant" that was prophesied to return while the majority of all Jews living remained in Gentile lands.

17 Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman.
18 Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it:
19 And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them. Ezekiel 36:17–19.

Later to gather them up again:

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
Ezekiel 36:24–28.

I almost popped for anther $100 to get updated DNA but then something stopped me. And what that was is the fact that
if I go searching anymore, that is certain I am doubting my Lord and Savior....

I have the spirit living in me.... I know because I had a treu conviction in the past.

Your statement is not true ....but brevity only allows me to say this.

No ~ your statement ...."If you are truly born-again by the Spirit, there is a Hebrew parent somewhere in your family ancestry" is not true according to biblical teaching.

According to Scripture God made covenant with a man named "Abram" (the Hebrew - Gen. 14:13) and his Hebrew seed. God's promise is made to Abram and extended to his seed (his descendants.)
Abram is blessed and so is his descendants who are identified as "families of the earth."

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Genesis 12:3.

4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. Genesis 15:4–5.

18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: Genesis 15:18. (ff)

2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Genesis 17:2–4.

"Gentile" is a term to describe a person or persons who are not of the Hebrew seed of Abraham. The Hebrew word is "goy" (singular), and "goyim" if plural. The word came into use gradually. In Biblical Hebrew, the word goy (גּוֹי) literally means "nation" or "people." Its plural form is goyim.
Genesis 10:5: This is the first time the word appears in the Bible. The KJV translates it as "Gentiles" and "nations."

3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations ("goy") Genesis 10:3–5.

Although the KJV translators use "nations" or "people" it had not yet meant "non-Hebrew" but only "people."
Genesis 12:2: God uses the word goy to describe the people that would come from Abraham.

Take notice the word is used of a "people" that would come from (out of) Abraham, so here it does not yet mean "non-Hebrew" or "Gentile" because "non-Hebrew children cannot come from two Hebrew parents (Abe and Sarah.)

2 And I will make of thee a great nation (or "people") and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: Genesis 12:2.

There is a specific instance in Genesis 14 where the word "goyim" is almost treated like a proper name or a specific kingdom.

1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations; Genesis 14:1.

In the original Hebrew, he is called Melech Goyim. While the KJV translates this as "king of nations," some other scholars and older translations sometimes transliterate it as "king of Goiim," treating it as the name of his specific territory (possibly the Gutium).
In the context of Genesis and the KJV:

Goy (Singular): Used for any nation, including the future nation of Israel (Gen 12:2, 18:18).
Goyim (Plural): Generally, refers to "the nations" of the world at large.
Modern vs. Biblical Usage: Today, "goy" is often used specifically to mean a non-Jew. However, in the book of Genesis, it was a neutral term for a collective group of people or a political body.

 

[FreeInChrist]

It's the faithfulness of God/Jesus that keeps us saved, not our faithfulness. And of course, Westcott & Hort said the KJB is wrong b/c it goes against Catholicism's religious doctrine. Gotta make it say faith "in" Jesus, & make faith a "work." The Alexandrian manuscripts were rejected by the church early on for a very good reason. They're in serious error, & the manuscripts contradict itself as well.

Were you aware that Westcott & Hort agreed w/ the Arian take on Jesus' deity (that Jesus is a created being)? It's clearly obvious in any translation that states things were made "through" Him, & not "by" Him. John 1:3 KJB says made by Him. Jesus is God in the KJB.

Westcott and Hort are the worst possible reference for anything biblical.

And cannot be simply explained.. because one needs to read much about them to know how bad they were.
Such as their textual model leaned heavily on a very small number of manuscripts, particularly Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
At the same time many references say they set aside the broader manuscript tradition as largely secondary.

Also their approach rested on theoretical assumptions about textual history that not everyone agrees with, which means their conclusions reflect interpretation as much as pure data. These reason, among others, some question whether their work represents a balanced assessment of the full manuscript evidence.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Fleshly circumcision foreshadowed sanctification in circumcision of the "heart" (life.)

It is through God's prophecy of future 'bondage' that establishes God's direct deliverance from this enslavement in a land 'not theirs.'

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. Genesis 15:13–14.

True.

True. And in the statement by Jesus that "no jot or tittle shall pass away until all is fulfilled" and that Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it" established substitutionary sacrifice that applies only to the children of Israel. Under the Law the animal that was sacrificed was for the temporary atonement of Israel's sins, and that by stating He came to fulfill complements to whom the sacrifice for sin was made: for the

.

children of Israel, and like the animal that was sacrificed to atone - although temporary - the sins of the children of Israel, so, too, did the sacrifice made by Jesus was made to finally and eternally atone permanently the sins of the children of Israel. The "prophet like unto Moses" was prophesied to come from out of Israel to and for Israel. There is no prophecy or promise that Messiah was also to atone the sins of the non-Hebrew "world" thus Jesus' sacrifice was to and for Israel ONLY.

As stated above flesh circumcision foreshadowed a "circumcision of the heart/life" which is performed by the Spirits' application of the salvation bought by the Son. All three members of the Trinity were intimately involved in the redemption of the children of Israel. It was the Father's Plan, the Son implemented the Plan, and the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED TO ISRAEL (Joel) applies the Plan to God's elect who are again, the children of Israel.

There was no direct "[redemption] from sins committed under the first (covenant.)" The Doctrine of Imputation evidences a "nature-swap." Jesus was imputed 'our' sinful nature, and we are imputed His Righteous nature.

These are your response to ...

FreeInChrist said:
I am now asking for a specific text: where is the Abrahamic covenant itself presented as providing forgiveness of sins?

You do not know what you believe you understand....

When Christ Jesus said "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." refering to Jesus' words during the Last Supper,

This indicates that his sacrifice would establish a new agreement between God and humanity, offering forgiveness of sins.

Matt 26:28 does what I expected you to do, but did not.

And before you say it..... Matt 26:28 goes beyond Hebraic Jews. Because, if Matthew 26:28 were only for Hebraic Jews, then Gentile salvation would require a separate covenant which is something the NT explicitly denies.

The covenant that Jesus talked about is rooted in Israel, fulfilled in Christ, and extended to all humanity without distinction.

 

[Jim]

If what @jeremiah1five advocates for is actually true, then there is no reason whatsoever that any non-Hebrew should not lie, steal and cheat whomever he wants or whomever it is convenient to do so because there is nothing to lose spiritually by doing so. If the only spiritual end for the non-Hebrew is the eternal condemnation that @jeremiah1five claims, then by all means all such non-Hebrews should do whatever they can to whomever needs be to get the best for themselves in the here and now.

 

[FreeInChrist]

If what @jeremiah1five advocates for is actually true, then there is no reason whatsoever that any non-Hebrew should not lie, steal and cheat whomever he wants or whomever it is convenient to do so because there is nothing to lose spiritually by doing so. If the only spiritual end for the non-Hebrew is the eternal condemnation that @jeremiah1five claims, then by all means all such non-Hebrews should do whatever they can to whomever needs be to get the best for themselves in the here and now.

You are so right @Jim ,

Soooooo....

Makin my list, checkin it twice,

Soon will find out who is wrong or whose right..

And when it comes to the day I stand in front for my account

And when I am asked how I could end the way that I turned out

I can honestly exclaim with a sparkle in my eye.

Tis all because of @Jeremiah 1 five.

A poet I ain't, but you get the idea

 

[FreeInChrist]

@Rockerduck made a really good point on This Thread in regards to newer translations:

All modern translation bibles are for profit. They are patented and had to change so many words to become a new work. Also, all modern translations have received updates. The KJV is public domain and hasn't needed updating. So, if the modern translations are correct, why did they all require updating. Critical text is in its 28th revision.

The New King James Version (NKJV) was published in 1982, with the New Testament released earlier in 1979.

 

[mikesw]

Westcott and Hort are the worst possible reference for anything biblical.

That hardly seems justified. At least that is to say that I have not seen ultimate harm from what they propose. If I saw it as critical at this point in my studies, I might look further into the differences of the texts like the NA28 and textus receptus.

And cannot be simply explained.. because one needs to read much about them to know how bad they were.
Such as their textual model leaned heavily on a very small number of manuscripts, particularly Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
At the same time many references say they set aside the broader manuscript tradition as largely secondary.

I looked into some of the slander against them and felt that was inappropriate and, of course, inaccurate. I watched the following video and checked through one or two books of their letters and found nothing quite legit in many accusations made against them. There was misquoting or selective quotes used improperly.

Also their approach rested on theoretical assumptions about textual history that not everyone agrees with, which means their conclusions reflect interpretation as much as pure data. These reason, among others, some question whether their work represents a balanced assessment of the full manuscript evidence.

It may be true that they pursued and theory of the available older manuscripts as the better sources. However, that does not make their theory evil. Furthermore, it seems their concepts are being used to improve the quality of Greek in the textus receptus branch of scriptures.

I may check into more arguments for the textus receptus at some point, but it would not seem to hinge on Westcott and Hort being evil degenerates seeking to destroy scriptures.

 

[Victoria]

The New King James Version (NKJV) was published in 1982, with the New Testament released earlier in 1979.

Hey there Free,

The NKJV makes Jesus Christ a created being (John 1:3), & salvation a process (1Cor 1:18) as well as the other newer versions do.
My personal conviction is to reject anything that attacks the Word of God.

Paul warns of deception and false letters written in his name
back in the first century. He refers to those who produce
them as those which corrupt the Word of God. That many do
not realize the vast scope of the deception is a sign of how
well it is working. It is logical to conclude that over the past
two thousand years Satan’s deceptions have multiplied. The
simple fact that many do not understand where God’s Word is
today shows the magnitude of Satan’s influence.

2 Thessalonians 2:2 - That ye be not soon shaken in
mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word,
nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at
hand.

2 Corinthians 2:17 - For we are not as many, which
corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of
God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2 Timothy 3:13 - But evil men and seducers shall wax
worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Modern versions are the evident handiwork of Satan to
subvert and corrupt God’s Word and to circulate his false
doctrine as a substitute. Information today is often presented
as truth, when in actuality, it is falsehood and deceit (Col.
2:8). 1 Timothy 6:20 similarly warns of “science falsely so
called.”

Modern versions change and corrupt God’s Word, perhaps
motivated by money and/or renown.

1 Timothy 6:10 - For the love of money is the root of
all evil: which while some coveted after, they have
erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through
with many sorrows.

Matthew 23:5-7 - But all their works they do for to be
seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and
enlarge the borders of their garments, 6) And love
the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in
the synagogues, 7) And greetings in the markets, and
to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

2 Peter 2:1-3 - But there were false prophets also among
the people, even as there shall be false teachers among
you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even
denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves
swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious
ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil
spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with
feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment
now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation
slumbereth not.

It is imperative that translators heed the following warnings
before setting out to translate the Word of God.

Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word
which I command you, neither shall ye diminish
ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments
of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 - What thing soever I command
you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor
diminish from it.

Proverbs 30:5-6 - Every word of God is pure: he is a
shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6) Add
thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and
thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:18-19 - For I testify unto every man
that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,
If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19) And if any man shall take away from the words
of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his
part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,
and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Then why do you wat me to respond. I do not learn of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from you... All you do is accuse that the Gentiles have no covenant with God.... even when the Holy Scriptures prove. you lie.

The Holy Spirit proves God has covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles?
Post your proof. Show me where in the Old Testament God made salvation covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles and tell me the name of this non-Hebrew Gentile who was recipient of such covenant.

You countered this with while Jesus was talking to His Jews at the last supper, Gentiles were not invited....

Of course, non-Hebrew Gentiles were not invited to Jesus' last Passover. They never are. Passover is a mainly Hebrew observance commanded by God in Exodus when the Hebrew descendants of Abram were afflicted by bondage by their Egyptian masters. This bondage was prophesied by God in Genesis 15. This prophecy also contained deliverance by God of the Hebrew people. The Scripture addresses their bondage and how God delivered them out of their affliction and led them into the desert to serve Him.

Yes, I said that that crudely because otherwise you would not understand.
You do not give a flying fig that YOUR>>>YOUR Saul that you quote and talk so much of was hand picked by
God to be the first king of Israel, as directed by the prophet Samuel. This selection was part of God's plan for Israel, despite the people's desire for a king.

You never give credit to the fact that your Saul had a duel name... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? God did not change it and neither did Jesus.... Go look it up if you doubt me . And it was after Acts 13:9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him.. that Saul was after that called Paul.

Jesus called out to Saul by his Hebrew name (Acts 9.) As a follower of Jesus, I address Saul by his Hebrew name as Jesus did. Since Saul ministered to offspring of mixed-race Jews of the Diaspora it makes sense to use the "Gentile" expression of the Hebrew "Saul" since Saul was ministering to Jews that were for the most part completely Gentile living in Gentile lands and heavily influenced by Greek culture. I'm sure that if I went to Mexico for some important business, they would address me by the Spanish rendering of my English name. But to claim God changed Saul's name to "Paul" is not true. He didn't. All it is for mixed-race Jews who grew up Gentile in Gentile lands is a matter of speaking the local language. Saul was called "Paul" because Gentile Jews were more comfortable to do so rather than call him by his Hebrew name. It's just a matter of social preference.

But your hero you mention all the time was actually chosen but the most Holy God on high to be the apostle to the Gentiles that you seemingly cannot stand.

Everyone who is named in the book of life of the lamb slain is called out by God. Saul went among the Gentiles to reach his Hebrew brethren living in Gentile lands because that's where the majority of all Jews and mixed-race Jews lived since 722 BC exactly where God had scattered them. As a rabbi and Pharisee Saul knows the covenants God made with Abram the Hebrew was extended to his Hebrew seed. He asked for an heir and God accommodated him. And when Isaac died without receiving what was promised by God to Abraham did not come to pass, then the promises passed to Isaac's son, Jacob. It is an inheritance that follows a Hebrew bloodline as God declared it would:

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Genesis 17:7.

This covenant has still not been fulfilled and each and every succeeding generation of children born from Abraham to the present have been linked to heirship as long as God delays its fulfillment. The covenant is enduring and is eternal. There are no non-Hebrew Gentiles included in this covenant nor are they included in the Mosaic Covenant nor the New Covenant. If Saul truly sought to circumcise non-Hebrews or to compel them to obedience to the Law of Moses there would have been great upheaval including riots by the Jews for all Jews are taught the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a God of the Hebrew people ONLY. That's what Scripture reveals and that is what I echo. IF there was a covenant made between God and non-Hebrew Gentiles recorded in the Old Testament, I would be one of its proponents. But there is none. I recognize how many wants to change the Law and the covenants to include non-Hebrews but I'm not buying. The covenant was made by God and joined by Abraham and when he died the promises were passed to his son. When his son (Isaac) died without seeing its fulfillment the covenant and its promises passed to Jacob. When Jacob died without seeing its fulfillment the covenant and its promises were passed to Jacob's sons equally. Each and every generation of Hebrews that are the descendants of Jacob are the rightful heirs according to the promise of God. Jacob's twelve sons became the rightful heirs of the Abrahamic Promises each and every generation thereafter who inherited those promises and who died without seeing their fulfillment.

You will learn nothing from me....
You are rambling and not making any sense... from this point.

The parable of the pounds and talents is more than money. I would prefer you just say "I don't know about these things" rather than just say I'm rambling.