Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Tithing In The New Testament

When people say tithing is not in the New Testament:

The Storehouse of the Church:
I Corinthians 16:2
Upon the FIRST DAY (Sunday) of the week let every one of you lay by him in STORE, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Tithes Go To The Storehouse:
Malachi 3:10
Bring ye all the TITHES into the STOREHOUSE, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Children of Abraham, a Gentile, Tithed Before the Jewish Law Was Established:
Hebrews 7
7 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Gentile Christians are Children of Abraham:
Galatians 3:7
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM.

Monday, April 9, 2018

Unity or Division: Two Opposing Ways To Interpret The Bible


There are two opposing main philosophies of interpreting the Bible:
Unity
OR
Division

Unity says that different words in the Bible that are similar are identical. This philosophy is also called Inductive Logic or Covenantalism/Covenant Theology as a system. This is favors a figurative and subjective view of the Bible.

Division says different words in the Bible that are similar are distinct. This philosophy is also called Deductive Logic or Dispensationalism as a system. This favors a literalist and objective view of the Bible.

To further understand the differences, let's look how someone using Unity or Division interprets the same passage.

Luke 1
46 And Mary said, My SOUL doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my SPIRIT hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Here we have to words: SOUL and SPIRIT, that are different but seemingly similar.

The Unity interpreter will assume since soul and spirit are doing similar things in this passage, and since both soul and spirit are both immaterial, apparently, both are identical. In other words, the Unity interpreter will combine soul and spirit into one thing and have the words as synonyms for each other.

The Division interpreter on the other hand, will be more critical. Because similar words are different are distinct, he concludes that since the Bible uses different words, no mater how similar, they are separate and distinct. And technically, magnifying and rejoicing are two different things, too. In other words, soul and spirit are separate and distinct and not the same, even though they are closely related. (We know the Division interpreter is correct here because of 1 Thess. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12)

Okay, so why is this important? Because how you read your Bible will determine what you believe. The list of the following word collections are very important theologically, whether they are distinct or not:

Soul vs Spirit
Mercy vs Grace
Israel vs Church (and related words such as Elect and Sheep)
Kingdom of God vs Kingdom of Heaven
the different Gospels (Gospel of the Kingdom, Paul's Gospel, the Eternal Gospel, etc.)
the different Baptisms (John's Baptism, Baptism of Fire, Baptism of the Spirit, etc.)
Book of Life vs Lamb's Book of Life
Things That *Sound* Like Salvation (adoption, creating a new heart, repentance, etc.)
Things That *Sound* Like A Loss of Salvation (apostasy, falling away, backsliding, etc.)
Etc.

Calvinists, for example, heavily use Unity interpretation on Romans 9 by equating Israel to the Church and then applying the whole chapter to salvation, when the words salvation and the church and related words do not even appear in the passage at all. A Division reading takes the passage at face value of it speaking about the nation of Israel. Yes, even the verses where it says there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ have a different Unity and Division interpretations (A Unity would think that passage wipes away all identity, Division only limits the identity changed as salvation identity, because, for example, the same passage also mentions neither male nor female and people who become saved do not become a third gender).

Those who believe in loss of salvation for example take everything bad in the Bible that sounds like punishment and make it mean a loss of salvation. For example, verses on backsliding is taken to meant sliding into hell by those who believe in loss of salvation. That is a Unity interpretation.

Now, a Division interpretation does not discount figurative language in the Bible. For example, when the Bible uses the words "like" or "as", to literally interpret those signal words means the figurative language is in the literal grammar.

So which is correct? Well, if it isn't obvious, it's the Division interpretation.

2 Timothy 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Friday, April 6, 2018

Comprehensive KJV Only Guide

This will be a long, long post. Whatever points you bring up will probably be at least alluded to in the post.
The Severity of the Why the Topic of Bible Transmission/KJV Only is Essential:
The Bible, if you are a Christian, is where we get all of our beliefs from. If you get the Bible wrong, you get most, if not all, your theology wrong. If you do not have a perfect Bible today in your hands, you cannot have a perfect belief, because faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Revelation 22
18 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.
Now some may argue that isn’t a literal reading or it applies only to Revelation or whatever. It doesn’t discount the fact that the Bible at the very least holds its own words (or Revelation’s) very important, and at the most, threatens hell or an equivalent for those who add or subtract words.
We do see the same words in in Deuteronomy, and thus since it is a cross reference, it covers the whole Bible from Old to New (or at the very least, Deuteronomy and Revelation).
The point is, handling the Bible’s words is a severe thing, whatever way you look at it.
Categories of KJV Only:
First understand not every KJV Only adherent believe the exact same things about the KJV.
  • Preference KJV Only
    The person only prefers to read the KJV for its language, prose, or some other non-important reason that has no or little bearing whether it is the Word of God or not. May feel comfortable with other versions.
  • Best Manuscripts KJV Only
    The line of Antioch and Majority Manuscripts used throughout church history where the KJV is translated form versus the corrupt Alexandrian and Minority Manuscripts rejected by church history where most newer versions are based of. This one may be comfortable with NKJV and other Majority text derivative translations.
  • Best Translation KJV Only
    Comparisons between the KJV and other versions are often a thing with this category. Very closely related to Best Manuscripts, and may use some Supernatural/Prophetic KJV Only arguments. Prefers the KJV as it is the best English translation and version due to the KJV translators exceptional translation skills and other humanistic considerations. They may believe however that a KJV equivalent can exist or can be achievable in otherm non-English langauges as equal to the Word of God.
  • Supernatural/Prophetic KJV Only
    Based on the belief that God is supernaturally active in Bible transmission and translation and publishing and language spread today, and is based on prophetic readings of the Word of God about the Word of God that the KJV seems to fulfill. The KJV is the final and only perfect Word of God for today, and that excludes other language translations as well. So-called Ruckmanites, “double inspiration”, “KJV Superior” also falls in this camp but is not exclusive to them. This category seeks out to strip all humanistic reasoning of Bible transmission and replace them with Biblically-based supernatural reasoning.
Reasons why someone can be KJV Only:
  • Reasons for Perfection
    Objective Truth versus Subjective Truth
    Either there is an objective truth apart from myself or a subjective truth of myself.
    Subjective truth deals with trying to judge interpretation, meanings, intentions, emotions, feeling, figurative, all personal things, when it affects me.
    (For example, it is subjective when someone says this Bible passage says to me, and sees the same meaning in a different wording.)
    Objective truth however deals with trying to judge ideas, words, literalness by their own merit apart from myself.
    (For example, focusing on the differences of the wording because the wording is different in each version, even though they sound the same to me. Each version stands on its own in objectivity. They may mean the same in subjectivity, however, each subjectivity is different.)
    An argument where the object, in this case, the Bible, is not fixed or stable, but is wholly reliant on meaning, is a subjective philosophy.
    Subjective philosophy is inherently sinful, because self is inherently sinful. Any truth must be apart from selves.
  • Reasons for a Perfect Bible
    The Bible claims to be Truth itself, along with the Son of God and the Spirit of God.
The Scripture of God is Truth
John 17:17
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
The Son of God is Truth
John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
The Spirit of God is Truth
John 16:13
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
So if we have many valid Bibles, we have many truths. Right?
But as we note on other things called truth, they are exclusive.
There is one true Christ, and many false Christs
Matthew 24:24
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
There is one true Spirit, and many false spirits
1 John 4
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
And in that case,
There is one true Bible, and many false Bibles
2 Corinthians 2:17
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.
This passage is speaking about the many forgeries of Paul’s and other apostle’s letters already spreading in Paul’s time. Things like Gnostic gospels and so on. They had a Bible version problem back then. It isn’t just a modern phenomenon.
  • Reasons for a Perfectly Worded Bible
    The Bible promises objective words preserved, not subjective meanings.
Isaiah 28:10
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Matthew 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
A jot is the dot on an “i” and a tittle is the line across a “t”.
Matthew 24:35
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Nowhere in the Bible do we see the same emphasis at all at so-called “core meanings” like the Bible does with individual words.
The power of individual words are often very understated.
If you add a single word “not” in Genesis 1:1, you will reverse the whole meaning of the Bible.
Here, we see the Bible put great credence on the differences between similar words:
Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
This verse is how we know that the soul and spirit are separate as a joint and marrow are distinct. Those who hold to a figurative interpretation often confuse soul and spirit as one thing.
And we see the hermeneutics principle of the Bible: division, not unity, when it comes to the Bible. In other words, words that seem the same but are different… are different more than they are the same. (For example, Israel and the Church are related, and both are people of God, but are ultimately distinct and divided from each other, not unified. Or faith, hope, love are all good traits, but are different from each other. Or grace and mercy are very similar, but are actually opposite in definition, and must not be confused as one thing.)
2 Timothy 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Why is this important? Each individual word is important in the Bible. If each objective word is important, then subjective meaning is secondary.
  • Reasons for a Perfectly Worded and Translated Bible
    So in this case, is the original point (Perfection) broken by this? If an original needs to be translated to be perfect, then the original wasn’t perfect? The original is the objective object, right?
We look at this more below in the assumptions of perfection. The mistake of thinking that is thinking perfection is static, not dynamic. The idea of objectivity is not broken. Adaptation does not always break objectivity. Wrong adaptation does, however.
The Bible has been translated even in Hebrew and Greek times. In fact, we see Jesus quote from an Aramaic translation of Isaiah, not Hebrew Isaiah. The apostles translated Old Testament references in the Greek New Testament. So we have a basis on how to translate the Bible.
  • Reasons for the KJV being that Perfectly Worded and Translated Bible
    Only the KJV has pure manuscripts, a Spirit power-filled history even in modernity, and it is the only Bible that fulfills prophecies about the Bible itself. I expound on why below under Basics of KJV Only, but first, let me destroy your assumptions with counter-intuition.
Addressing Assumptions:
  • Assumptions about God
God inspired the originals once and that’s it or in other words (Or)
God creates everything perfectly once and leaves it alone (Deistic God)
False. God does not leave even His perfect creations alone, much less the Bible.
God is not active in the Bible transmission process of inspiration, preservation, and translation (Deistic God)
Again, as noted, false. God is involved with everything, and especially the Bible transmission process.
  • Assumptions about Perfection and Concepts
    Perfection is an instant process, which is why the originals were perfect!
    False. There is more than one type of perfection. What you propose is a deistic, instant perfection which is not found in the Bible.
    Static perfection versus dynamic perfection. Anything on Earth and not in Heaven needs a dynamic perfection. Perfect Adam was innocent, but not perfect, Biblically. Since the Bible came down from Heaven, it needs a dynamic perfection, not a static one.
Patience is not instant and is one of the few times we see the word “perfect” in the Bible
James 1
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
A perfect Jesus needed to grow in wisdom, and stature, and favour. He did not come down as a static perfect angel, but a dynamically perfect Son of Man that grows.
Luke 2:52
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
In that same sense, the Bible needed to “increase” to perfection, in this case seven times
Psalm 12:6
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
We cover the prophecy in this verse below.
  • Assumptions about Languages
    Hebrew and Greek are “holy” languages! God can only work through them!
    False. All languages were created by God at Babel
There were many versions of Hebrew/Greek/other Bibles like we do with English
False. Only one for each language at a time. There was one Hebrew Bible in the time of early Israel. No other competing Bibles, whether Hebrew or another language. There was one Aramaic Bible in time of the exile. No other competing Bibles whether in Aramaic or another language. There was one Greek Bible for the apostolic era, then one Syriac Bible for the era after that, then one Latin Bible for the Dark Ages (not the Roman Catholic New Vulgate, but the Old Vulgate), then one German Bible for Reformation (from Luther), then, finally, one English Bible for today.
We also see that the main Bible of an era is always in the main language of the people of God in that era. Since the Gentile Church is the major force of the people of God today, it is English (along with other reasons).
  • Assumptions about Originals and Bible Transmission
    The originals are the originals
    False. The true originals reside in heaven forever. Since the ones on Earth are thus earthly originals, they have to go through a purification process.
Psalm 119:89
89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.
Only the originals given to the Bible writers are/could be perfect
They were perfect, but only for their time. They were incomplete as time went on.
Only the originals were inspired (Or)
Inspiration is a static, one-time thing!
False. Scripture is given by inspiration, and scripture by definition means copies (script-, writing -ture, repeated), not originals. We know it is speaking about copies because the same word are used to talk about the manuscripts of the Old Testament that Paul had, which are definitely copies, not original autographs.
Inspiration only happens with Bibles
Humanity, too, is inspired the same way. Adam the original human was inspired by God the same way He inspired the originals. The Bible uses the same word of inspiration and breathing for both instances.
Thus with that, we can make direct analogies from humanity’s transmission to the line of Bible transmission.
  • Assumptions about Manuscripts
    The older a manuscript is, the better and more accurate, right?
    False. The more numerous a manuscript is, the better. because God is involved in the Bible transmission, it follows that the majority of the Bibles the Church uses in its history would be correctly preserved. The fact we have older manuscripts that differ from the majority means those were reject copies, rejected by the Church at large in history. This is the same reasoning why we don’t accept the extra gospels to the canon is because they weren’t accepted by the church at large.
Also, rejected older manuscripts can only be found if they are preserved, which means they weren’t used at all. The ones the church actually uses, broke down, of course, and so new copies had to be made. This is why we have so many copies of the Majority Text but so little of the Minority Text: the church trusted it, and so they made more copies of it, and the older copies wore out quick, which is why we don’t see older Majority manuscripts.
  • Assumptions about Translations
    Translations can never be holy or supernatural! ( Or We never see translation in the Bible!)
    False. Translation is in the Bible, both the spiritual act, essence, and process.
    First, we see God translating Enoch. And as I note, humanity is inspired the same way as Bibles were inspired and took the same supernatural act, thus we can note that this translation also applies to correct Bible translation.
Second, we see in the Gospels Jesus reading an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Isaiah, not the Hebrew Isaiah. Hence we know translation of the original can be valid.
Third, we see how the apostles translated Old Testament passages to New Testament references. For example, we see how the apostles translated the Isaiah passage Jesus quotes from to the Greek New Testament. This process is very close to how the KJV translators translated to English and is very different from the scholarly translation process we see today.
Translation is a human/secular/scholarly thing apart from Bible transmission!
False. As noted, Inspiration and Translation are both parts of the same human transmission, and hence there is no reason to conclude translation is apart from divine Bible transmission
Translations were never done in Bible times
Look above for the answer.
Translations can never be better than the originals
False. As I have shown, Enoch the translated is superior to Adam the original.
  • Assumptions about Word-to-Word Equivalency and Accuracy
    This Bible version has a better word-to-word equivalency rating than the KJV!
    This is often said about comparing ESV, NASB, etc. to the KJV. However, the basis of the accusation is faulty at best.
The root assumption of a better word-to-word equivalency comes from uninspired Hebrew and Greek to English lexicons. No, dictionaries are not inspired, but the Bible is.
Also, another assumption is that word-to-word equivalency is a valid standard. It isn’t. We see how the Bible translates Old Testament passages it references in the New Testament. For example, the Hebrew Tetragrammatron, God’s name spelled out, is translated by the apostles into Greek Kyrios, which just means Lord. And you can technically spell it out in Greek, but the apostles in inspiration of the Holy Spirit “reduces” it to mere Kyrios.
  • Assumptions concerning Updates and Relevancy
Covered more under Archaic Words in the Bible below.
Basics of KJV Only:
  • Manuscript Evidence
The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, the Minority Manuscripts, often said as older, were found in the equivalent of church trash cans and with recent research considered possible forgeries
  • Translation Evidence
    It is no secret the exceptional pedigree of the King James translators. Their work was double checked and triple checked and debated in different languages.
Their translator’s methodology is also very transparent, documented in the Preface and elsewhere. Often, they are accused of Anglicanism, or colluding with the king, but we have their documents to show what they were thinking in translating whichever word or not. In character and spiritual matters, too, they were off the charts. Modern translator methodology however is very centralized, usually with an editor-in-chief.
We also see the King James translators consistently translate the Bible how the apostles themselves translated Old Testament passages references to the New Testament, and took that methodology and applied it to English.
  • Historical Evidence
    We see the KJV behind both of the nationwide Revivals (such as the Welsh revival), Great Awakenings, the Missionary Movements, which is considered the Philadelphia Church Age. We see the founding of the first “Christian” nation, America and its subsequent rise to superpower. (while the term “Christian nation” is controversial, compared to other governments’ founding documents and such, it definitely is, and that’s all that matters, and besides, all mentions of “Christian” in the Bible talks about outward appearance, not salvation). No other version can boast of being part of those movements in any significant manner.
  • Prophetic Evidence
    Only the KJV can fulfill Psalms 12:6
Psalm 12:6
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
English is the seventh language the Bible was translated in.
The King James is the seventh English translation.
The 7th edition of the KJV is the world’s best selling book. Yes, this includes all other Bibles and KJV editions.
Isaiah canon of 66 explained below in Miscellany.
Jeremiah prophecy of an evil king creating a perfect Bible explained below in Miscellany.
  • Versions Comparison Evidence
    Perhaps the most common evidence. This includes comparing the KJV with the NIV, ESV, etc. where the modern versions remove key words, phrases, and entire verses. Or sub in a fotnote that casts doubt upon truth such as “this chapter is not present in the oldest manuscript” blahblah.
There is no space for that, Google is your friend for comparisons.
  • Modern Evidence
    English as the fastest growing international Gentile language
    The KJV is the best selling book and Bible of all time
    The 7th edition of the KJV is the best selling book of all time
    The KJV is also the one read most by Christians
The great success of the KJV means it does have fruit.
Acts 5
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
Even in the flood of modern versions we have today, the KJV reigns supreme. Compared to KJV’s 85% superiority, the closest we see is NIV at 11%.
Miscellany:
Evil King creates a Perfect Bible in the Bible
How about the person of King James (or Anglicanism or something)?
Accusation of the influence of the king on translation is overblown.
But more importantly, we see in the Bible that God creates a perfect rendition of Jeremiah’s books along with other books of the Bible under an evil king’s command in Jeremiah 30. To accuse King James of being evil is actually fulfilling Bible prophecy and pattern.
Archaic Words in the Bible
Should archaic words be updated to synonyms?
The Bible actually does speak about archaic words.
I Samuel 9
9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was.
11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?
Here we see the Bible acknowledging that seer is an archaic word in comparison to the word prophet. Yet in the next passage, it continues to use seer instead of prophet. Just simply put, an archaic synonym of a word is still preferred if it is more accurate.
Since the Bible is our guide, we should follow
The Bible Canon (66) in the Bible
Did we get the canon through historical or scholarly or otherwise humanistic reasons? Yes, they were trusted by the churches and whatnot.
However, supernaturally, the current 66 book canon (and the 39 and 27 Testament division) we have is largely based on Isaiah’s 66 chapters which is also divided into 39 and 27. Each chapter of Isaiah corresponds to a book by theme in order. Coincidence? If one believes in the hand of God, no.
Before anyone says that chapters do not show up in original manuscripts, they actually do in Isaiah, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah Aleph having the same 66 and 39/27 divisions we have today.
Verses and Chapters in the Bible
The claim is made that chapters and verses do not appear in originals manuscript, and that makes them a bad thing.
However, chapters do appear in older manuscripts for some books. As I already said, Isaiah does. Psalms does, too, you can see the divisions.
However, chapters and verses are actually improvements. It makes it easier to find passages. And since Jesus was often quoting passages by themselves, having a divided Bible is not wrong (and as I show, the Bible says to divide it, not unify it)
Lack of copyright of the KJV
The King James Bible lack a copyright. A copyright on a Bible signifies someone else other than God owns that version. A copyright also signifies that it must be at least 30% different from any other material for it to be legally sold. So whenever a new version comes out, it must be 30% different from the NIV, the ESV, etc. for it to be legal. And as I note, since the Bible places a huge importance on words, a 30% is way over threshold for it to be safe.
Why KJV Onlyists are often/usually Young Creationist, Dispensational, Fundamentalist, Baptist, etc. (Not all the time, but enough to warrant a point)? Since we take the Word of God literally when it says “every word”, as in every literal word, we tend to beliefs that depend on literal interpretations. Young Creationist comes from interpreting Genesis 1 literally, for example. Dispensationalist comes from interpreting Israel and Church as totally separate entities. Things like that.
Having multiple versions destroys literalist beliefs based on objectivity of the Bible. Which is why most who do not hold the above beliefs often will not have a KJV.
Conclusion:
This is a massive evidence dump. Yes, you can probably nitpick some of the “weaker” points (really only mostly I haven’t developed them here for lack of time and space), but taken as a whole, no version of the Bible can claim all the evidences at once.
For example, you can bring up other Bibles without a copyright. Or other Bibles translated from the Majority Text. Fine and all. But no other copyright-less or Majority Text Bibles have the same history and prophetic and power and spread. Thus all the evidences must be taken holistically as a whole, not just one or two things.
If you are intent in holding on your Bible version, it doesn’t matter anyways, as I don’t really aim to change your mind. My only aim is that we do have a comprehensive case, and that this doctrines about Bible transmission and translations, are essential.
FAQ:
What about the Apocrypha in the early copies of the KJV? Why do you have an uninspired map in the back of your Bible? I guarantee you that map mistakes where Mt. Sinai truly is. The Apocrypha was never considered to be part of the Bible proper. It is the same as a map in the back of your Bible, useful for history and reference. The translators noted as such, and since I believe in a purification ideology, it being removed is further evidence of purification.
So people who do not use the KJV are unsaved? No, that’s a strawman. Usage of Bible versions have nothing to do if someone is unsaved or not. All Bible versions have enough salvation information in them for salvation’s sake. But also does a gospel tract. At any rate, salvation passages alone do not make a perfect Bible.
If you are talking about the Revelation 22 passage, we have ample evidence the passage is talking about the actual Bible translators and scribes who do intend to remove or add words to the Bible. The book of life, which is for physical life, is not the Lamb’s book of life, which is for salvation.
How about people in the past (Adam, Jesus, Paul, etc.), did they have a perfect Bible?
Yes and no. This goes back to the dynamic perfection part. The Bible they had back then was perfect for their time. But not today’s time. Why? Well, the Jews had the Old Testament, but lacked the New Testament. That makes the Bible they had back then incomplete. But it was perfect for their time. Even in the New Testament, the epistles have not been gathered into one place, making the Bible splintered. We now have the full 66 book canon in our hands in our own language.
As I put in the question, why didn’t God give Adam a whole Bible? This problem still plagues those who believe the originals are the only true Bibles. If the originals are the only true Bibles, then the true Bible was only available back then. Not before they were given, not way after they were given. So in this KJV Onlyism beats the originals philosophy.
How about people who do not have English as their language? Can they have a perfect Bible in their own language?
( Or What makes English special?)
As a holder of the supernatural and prophetic KJV Only category: Accurate, yes. Perfect? No. English seems poised to dominate all languages. Yes, the Chinese language may be spoken by more people numerically, but English is spoken by more nations, if not all nations. English is taught in virtually all countries actively while as many as 2000 languages die each year.
This is a speculation, but since modern statistics do support it: In conjunction to having the perfect Word of God in English, English will become the language of the End Times to reflect the fulness of the Gentiles when Christ raptures the Gentile Church and the Antichrist comes.
This word in the KJV is better rendered as this other word in this other Bible translation, etc. The root assumption here is that the Hebrew or Greek Interlinear Lexicon or Dictionary you use to prove this is inspired. Which they are not, and cannot be inspired. With translations, it is possible they or at least one is inspired.
Also, most so-called word problems are easily solved by context reading, careful literal reading, and/or cross referencing. For example, Easter in the KJV is correct instead of Passover because it is in the context of a pagan king’s festival, the feast of unleavened bread, which the Passover is, already passed, when one reads the passage in question. Virtually all word rendition problems are solved that way.
What about different KJV editions? There are differing reasons about the editions. The first reason is the reason by comparison: changes between KJV editions is minor, spelling and punctuation most of the time, and whole words some of the time. Differing editions would be at least 10x smaller scale changes compared to modern revisions.
The second reason is what I tend to believe, and that the editions are part of the purification process. The editions were perfect for their time. But the final one, which is the most prominent and best selling book of all time (yes, that specific edition) is the perfect Word of God we have today.
Despite all this, I will stick with my version. What’s the worse that can happen? Well, you won’t lose your salvation if you’re not KJV Only, as I note. However, it does bear noting what errant philosophies you may hold in regards to the Bible, God, and whatnot. First, the erring philosophy of subjectivity, which means you will hold passages that are literal to be not literal. Second, an assumption that God may be deistic (at least in Bible transmission). Thirdly, you will not have a perfect belief.
Romans 10:17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Some other question not in this post? I’ll update this thread as needed.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Considerations in Designing Side Scrolling/Platform Strategy Games

The hybrid of a side scrolling strategy or platform strategy game is rare, but not unheard of. Worms is probably the most popular turn-based example. Awesomenauts is a popular 2D sidescroller MOBA. Here are some considerations in designing a hybrid of both sidescrolling/platforming and strategy.

Sidescrolling Consideration:
Y-Axis: Movement and positioning in the Y-Axis. Top down and other games have an equal positioning advantage as the X-Axis, but in sidescrollers, the Y-Axis is special.

A game that does not or does little to utilize the Y-Axis most of the time eventually becomes boring unless by design that is prevented with other considerations such as spacing and formation.

Terrain: Related to the Y-Axis, however, has to do with if terrain affects the sidescrolling gameplay. terrain can be platforms or flat or destructible (like Worms) or a combination. Terrain also may offer gameplay advantages, especially with gravity enabled.
Gravity: Also related to the Y-Axis. If gravity has an effect, then it will affect movement in the Y-Axis.
Spacing: Spacing refers to the fact whether or not objects can overlap with each other or displace each other or a combination (allies can overlap but enemies can't, for example)

Platforming Considerations:
There's not much difference in considerations with sidescrollers, however, platformers have a more focused with physics, so things like gravity is a given with a platformer.

Platforms: The consideration is not about the actual platforms themselves, but the mechanics of the platforms. Platforms here are more in line with dynamic terrain, such as moving platforms, spikes, and the like.
Physics: Just simple or more complicated ragdoll physics? More complicated physics may lead to unpredictability.
Jumping and other Movement Mechanics: Platformers have mechanics such as jumping, dashing, walljumps, crouching, climbing, and other acrobatics.

Strategy Considerations:
Formation: Will a formation of units be more effective or will a doomstack of units be more effective? For example, having archers in the back while having spearmen in the front and has to do with Spacing.
Positioning and Cover: Y-Axis and Terrain placements (ie having archers on higher ground) and also has to do with Gravity and Spacing.Will terrain prevent weapons from hitting?
Timing: Will timing be necessary for any of the strategy?
Pathfinding: Since strategy is about sending units with orders usually, how to handle pathfinding over weird platforms or terrain.
Construction: Will structures be constructed and how to aid a strategic effort? Will they be on terrain or platforms?
Time: Will it be real time or turn based?

Saturday, January 27, 2018

True Bible Reasons Why Church Is On Sunday Not Saturday


We go to church on Sunday, but the Jews held Sabbath on the last day. Why?

Often, people will use verses on Jesus being resurrected on the first day, or that the observance of Sabbath and days must be fully convinced in his own mind, but a deeper study of those actually either is incomplete or misguided.

And that is not even to say that the Jews didn't use the solar Gregorian calendar, but the Hebrew calendar which is based on the lunar cycle. Which means the last day of the week in the Hebrew calendar is not always Saturday, but could be Wednesday then Thursday the next month. At least according to Google.

The Sabbath. Is it on Saturday or Sunday?

People miss the point. It isn't about the Sabbath. Going to church isn't the Sabbath. They are two totally different things.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Sunday or the first day of the week has replaced the Sabbath, but that doesn't mean people are wrong in gathering to worship on the first day

But where does it say we are to meet in church for the Sabbath? Nowhere, either. The Sabbath is to be holy, yes, but people make a logical leap and assumption that means "go to church".

In fact, the first day and last day are both important and holy in the Bible.  They are both important today, as well. Those days are when schools are off, and many, if not most, jobs are off.

So before I lose you with this reasoning seemingly without a point, I will make this assertion so you know where I stand: Saturday is still the Sabbath and a day of rest, however, Sunday is the day of assembly primarily for New Testament believers.

Notice I didn't say worship. We must worship God every day.

Let me substantiate this claim Biblically.

What is the Sabbath?


Exodus 20:8-11
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.




Where in these passages say that we are to gather together and worship on the Sabbath? Nowhere. To keep it holy, yes, but do not make the assumption and logic leap that "keeping it holy" is equal to "going to church". It may mean that, but not necessarily.

What it does say is that the Sabbath is mainly for rest, and it is in the seventh day.

Schools and many jobs have Saturdays off. It is already considered a day of rest.

So:
Sabbath = last/seventh day of the week
Sabbath = rest
Saturday = off day from school and/or work
rest = off day from school and/or work
Saturday = last/seventh day of the week
Sabbath = Saturday

But what about keep holy, then, if it doesn't mean go to church? Keeping it holy means keeping it apart as its own day. The word holy means "sanctified, or set apart". The passages explain it, six days man shall labor, and on the seventh, man will rest, making it a special day apart. It doesn't mean go to church.

Now, we have established that the Sabbath is the last day and is about rest. What about the first day?

The First Days In The Bible

The first mention we have of the first day is in Genesis 1, like we do about the last day. God uses the Creation week as the reason why the last day is the Sabbath. Without getting too convoluted, I would surmise it is obvious why the first day is on the surface important in the Creation week, for it being the beginning. It is also important because Jesus rose again on the first day. But that is just the shallow end of reasoning if we want to prove why we assemble on the first day and hence why we will just pass over those reasons, no pun intended.

We know in Acts that the disciples gathered on the first day.

Acts 20:7
7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Here we see clearly that the disciples came together on the first day.

Notice the phrase break bread. I believe this is referring to the communion (for obvious reasons). This will be important later on.

We also use this verse to justify all day meetings and also Sunday evening services, even if we don't always go till midnight.

Now, where does it say the first day replaced the Sabbath? Nowhere. Where does it say that the disciples gathering together means Sabbath? Nowhere. Where does it say preaching only happens in the Sabbath? Nowhere.

Now certain people would do some mental gymnastics and claim that since in Jewish time, days began in sunset or nightfall or whatever, and thus it was technically the last day, not the first day.

Which makes no sense because if they considered the first day as that time, it was the first day, and the day before the last day.

1 Corinthians 16:2
2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Here we see a command to the church to lay in store on the first day of the week. We understand this to be tithes and offerings. Where do we see it commanded that we are to collect offerings on the Sabbath?

Even in the Old Testament do we even find the first day holy for worship in some contexts.

Nehemiah 8:2
And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

Nehemiah 8:18
Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.

These passages show it isn't out of the ordinary to hold services on the first day or any other day of the week, even if it went from first to last day. Notice, too, on the eighth day, which is the first day repeating again, a solemn assembly was held.

Exodus 12:16-17

16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

This is in the context of the Passover. So why is it relevant to the debate?

Jesus told us to observe the communion as oft as we will:


1 Corinthians 11:24-25
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 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.

Remember breaking bread when the disciples were gathered together in Acts? They were observing the communion.

The communion is our equivalent Passover as Christ fulfilled the Passover. We have unleavened bread to remember Christ our Lord, hence we need to observe it on the first day as does the feast of Unleavened Bread, not the last day.

Notice it doesn't say that the Passover observance on the first day replaces the Sabbath last day, doesn't it?

Lastly, we are to assemble as much as we see the day approaching:


Hebrews 10:25
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Now whether one chooses to assemble Saturday or Sunday or any other day of the week, we should assemble. And there's no Biblical law against assembling on Sunday. We should assemble more, in any day, not less. We have the liberty to.

So:
First day = Passover
Passover = communion
First day = disciples gathered + preaching
Disciples gathered = communion/Passover
First day = store tithes and offerings
Disciples gathered = assembling
Assembling + preaching + store tithes and offerings = go to church
Sunday = first day
Sunday = go to church

In Conclusion


We assemble with the church to worship God on Sunday
NOT because it is the Sabbath
NOT because it replaced the Sabbath
BUT
BECAUSE the disciples did so
BECAUSE it is commanded to store our tithes and offerings on the first day
BECAUSE the first day is still important even though it isn't the Sabbath
BECAUSE we are to observe communion as oft as we will, which is connected to the Passover, which happens in the first day of the week
BECAUSE we are to assemble any time as the day comes
HENCE
We may observe BOTH the last day of rest of Saturday and first day of assembly of Sunday.

Two weekend days sound nice, don't you think?



Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Counter-Intuition: Assumptions About Bible Translations That Are Just Isn't So

Assumption: Bibles are the same if they have the same meaning
Root assumption: Specific words are unimportant as long they get the meaning across
Counter: The Bible says God preserved the words, not meaning or ideas
Counter: Changing just one word in any text can drastically even completely reverse the meaning of said text. (Adding a "not" in Genesis 1:1 will completely destroy the meaning of the whole Bible)

Assumption: Only original languages are holy
Root assumption: God made the original languages only
Counter: God made all languages at the Tower of Babel

Assumption: Bible translations can never be inspired, inerrant, preserved, etc.
Root assumption: Bible translations are removed from the divine process
Counter: The Bible's original languages already has been translated en route. The Bible in Jesus' day was a translation of Aramaic, not the Hebrew. The New Testament uses Greek translated Old Testament references. All of these translations were inspired.

Assumption: There is no proper way to translate the Bible so scholars have to do so
Root assumption: Bible translations has never been done in Bible times.
Counter: Bible translation has been done in Bible times, and we can pattern the our Bible translation after them. For example, we know how the apostles translated the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament references to Greek in the New Testament

Assumption: Bible translations can never be better than the original
Root assumption: Originals are always better
Root assumption: Translations are never mentioned in the Bible
Counter: Adam the original and Enoch the translated. The Bible uses the same words for inspiration of humanity as the same inspiration for the Word of God and hence we can make the leap that the translation of Enoch is in the same vein as inspiration and translation for text.

Assumption: Only the originals are perfect
Root assumption: The originals were perfect
Counter: The originals were not perfect, or rather, they were perfect for their time and time only.
Counter: God destroys the original writings in Jeremiah, and many like words were added.
Counter: The Bible says that patience has her perfect work. Nowhere do we see anything in the Bible instantly completely perfect (perfect as in both in form and maturity) without a time period of testing, trial, and purification. Jesus was born a baby, and had to grow in favor with God and man first, before going into ministry.

Assumption: No Bible translation can be the perfect Word of God because that means people before its translation didn't have the perfect Word of God
Root assumption: There can't be a progression because it is monolithic
Counter: There is a progression. God didn't give the whole original Bible at once, either. Revelation didn't come with Genesis. The Old Testament books were enough for the Jews for their time. The New Testament was added because it was enough for the Church for their time. It was collected all in one even long after he apostles' death in one place.
Root assumption: If there was no perfect Word of God back then, then the Bibles they had back then didn't do much
Counter: The Bibles they had were enough for them in their time period for what God wanted it to do
Counter: Jesus the perfect Word didn't come until many thousands of years later. Why didn't He come earlier to save?

Assumption: Bible translation beyond the original languages reduces the meaning of the originals
Root assumption: Reducing meaning is bad
Counter: Reducing meaning is good as it makes the language more specific.
Counter: (see below)

Assumption: Bible translations need to have word-for-word equivalency
Root assumption: Languages have only one word-to-word equivalency
Counter: They don't. However, translating always niches down to the correct specific word needed to be used. For example, we see the apostles translate Hebrew to Greek in more specific, specialized words or to more generic words but with less synonyms. For example, Hebrew Elohim can refer to God, gods, kings, angels, judges. Greek translates some to God, some to others, according to context. Hence translations should niche down to specific wording, instead of wider meaning. 

Assumption: Bible translations lose the force of the original languages
Root assumption: The force of the original languages is necessary (Contradicting the updated relevancy assumption)
Counter: Bible translations need the full force of the translated language, not the original language.

Assumption: Bible translations need to be relevant and updated to the modern speaker
Root assumption: Bible translations need to be updated for relevancy, not accuracy
Counter: The Bible in fact acknowledges archaic language even in light of modern words in I Samuel (seer versus prophet, where the book says prophet is the modern word, but continues to use archaic seer). There are times when archaic words are more accurate than modern words.
Counter: The main Bible versions have always been translated into the earliest, most basic form of languages. For example, early form Hebrew for OT, early form Aramaic for Daniel and translation, and koine Greek for New Testament, a Greek 400 years older from the apostles' time. And in that same vein, the English of 1611 is a language 400 years removed from us today, and even earlier.

Assumption: There can be more than one Bible version in any language and it still be the Word of God
Root assumption: There were multiple versions of other languages accepted as God's Word
Counter: There is only one version of Hebrew accepted. There is only one version of Aramaic translation of that Hebrew accepted. There is only one version of Greek translation of that Hebrew and Aramaic accepted. Hence it follows that there can only be one version for one language.

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

InDev: Conveyor RTS


Conveyor RTS is an RTS based on Command and Conquer 4 Crawler system + Factorio style construction/crafting + Warrior Kings faction system + Warzone open world. Resources are limited and players must always be on the move.