It is hard, sometimes, with the many different revelations, ideas and theories that arrive over the Web, to know quite what to think about all manner of things.
This is certainly an act of the devil because God is not the author of confusion, so when I sense confusion in my mind I try to remember to take a step back and meditate for a moment on my own limitations, intellectual and in all other realms.
That's why I decided some time ago that I would have nothing to do with the attempts to use "more authentic" names for God and Jesus. Everyone seemed to say things differently and I became quite confused, so I went back to the Bible and decided to stick with God and Jesus Christ.
I have noticed that when people start with the "Y" names they are quite likely to start getting into Hebrew roots or Torah keeping ideas at the same time.
I know the church is full of deception, so could it be that our Baptist and evangelical preachers are deceiving us about the reality of the New Testament and the commonly held view that the Jewish Law was annulled with the sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour?
It's a complicated issue indeed, and people start aggressively quoting Bible verses to support this position or the other, but after a while I started to notice a preponderance of pridefulness among self-professed Torah keepers or Hebrew roots advocates.
I dislike these ideas quite a bit. We have new wine so we need new bottles.
I love the Old Testament as I love also the New, and I don't believe we will be condemned for eating a bacon butty, having a foreskin, or going to church on Sunday.
I don't know the identity of the Jews, but I think it is undeniable that Britain was historically one of the most faithful Christian countries, if not the most faithful. I see our King James Bible is the benchmark and its long endurance is key indicator of its absolute reliability.
On a side note, I learned recently that King James believed he was the King of Israel, thus I suppose giving credence to the ideas of British Isrealism.
We are told that the English language is a mishmash of derivatives and borrowings from other more ancient languages, but that may not be true at all. Perhaps it is the root rather than the branch.
Certainly, my King James edition is more reliable than the 1604 Giovanni Diodati Italian version, which, although very faithful and close to the AV seems, to me at least, to reflect the influence of Rome.
Otherwise, I wonder, why did the translator survive without being condemned to the stake as, we are told, occurred to Tyndale?
This is certainly an act of the devil because God is not the author of confusion, so when I sense confusion in my mind I try to remember to take a step back and meditate for a moment on my own limitations, intellectual and in all other realms.
That's why I decided some time ago that I would have nothing to do with the attempts to use "more authentic" names for God and Jesus. Everyone seemed to say things differently and I became quite confused, so I went back to the Bible and decided to stick with God and Jesus Christ.
I have noticed that when people start with the "Y" names they are quite likely to start getting into Hebrew roots or Torah keeping ideas at the same time.
I know the church is full of deception, so could it be that our Baptist and evangelical preachers are deceiving us about the reality of the New Testament and the commonly held view that the Jewish Law was annulled with the sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour?
It's a complicated issue indeed, and people start aggressively quoting Bible verses to support this position or the other, but after a while I started to notice a preponderance of pridefulness among self-professed Torah keepers or Hebrew roots advocates.
I dislike these ideas quite a bit. We have new wine so we need new bottles.
I love the Old Testament as I love also the New, and I don't believe we will be condemned for eating a bacon butty, having a foreskin, or going to church on Sunday.
I don't know the identity of the Jews, but I think it is undeniable that Britain was historically one of the most faithful Christian countries, if not the most faithful. I see our King James Bible is the benchmark and its long endurance is key indicator of its absolute reliability.
On a side note, I learned recently that King James believed he was the King of Israel, thus I suppose giving credence to the ideas of British Isrealism.
We are told that the English language is a mishmash of derivatives and borrowings from other more ancient languages, but that may not be true at all. Perhaps it is the root rather than the branch.
Certainly, my King James edition is more reliable than the 1604 Giovanni Diodati Italian version, which, although very faithful and close to the AV seems, to me at least, to reflect the influence of Rome.
Otherwise, I wonder, why did the translator survive without being condemned to the stake as, we are told, occurred to Tyndale?
No comments:
Post a Comment