Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Response to Spiritual Deception in the Highest

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Response to Spiritual Deception in the Highest

    Question 1.

    ---------------

    Is the KJV the only Bible? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    I recently was shown some work from a guy named Robert Breaker who is a KJV-onlyist. He recommended a book that can be found on his web site called "Spiritual Deception in the Highest." After all, the obvious work of spiritual deception is to get people away from the KJV. (We all know eschatologically the biggest disaster to the devil came in 1611 when for the first time there was actually a Bible.) So if you want to see this work, then you can see it here.

    I realize there aren't as many KJV-onlyists today as there used to be most likely, but they are still out there and either way, this is dealing with issues that many people will still struggle with. I do definitely plan to get back to Life Is A Game, but I figured I could use my skills here to deal with this. Thus, time to look at this work and see the charges that are made.
    Bible Question #1: Who was it that saved Shadrach, Messach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Turn to Daniel 3:25. In this verse, Shadrach, Messach and Abednego have been thrown into the fiery furnace. However, they are NOT alone! Another one (a fourth) is there to deliver them !

    Let's start off by looking at this verse in a 'modern version'. (Notice: the wording in each 'modern version' will differ slightly from all the others. But, those small differences, will not materially affect this report).

    Suffice it to say that, at the end of Daniel 3:25, a 'modern' version has a reading "similar to" the following:

    "... and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods ..."

    "a" son of the ( plural ) gods?! Who is that? What is His name ? Notice how that reading is very vague and "non-descript".

    But, look at this same verse in your King James Bible. The Authorized (KJ) Bible says:

    "... and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God". i.e. Jesus Christ.

    It was JESUS CHRIST, THE only begotten Son of God, who delivered Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. Jesus saved them from the fiery furnace; and it's Jesus who will save you and me from the fiery furnace (i.e. from hell, from the lake of fire ).

    The Bible is clear: There is ONLY ONE SAVIOUR: The LORD Jesus Christ, THE Son (capital S) of God (big G). Jesus is the ONLY one who saves from the fiery furnace, NOT "a" son of the (plural) gods (little g). Jesus saved in the past, He does it today, and He will save in the future ! Amen ?

    So let's put this in some context.

    The Hebrew word listed here is Ela and is 424 in Strong's. Now going to BlueLetterBible, let's see where else this shows up in Daniel.

    2:11 And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.

    2:18 That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

    2:19 Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

    2:20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

    2:23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king's matter.

    2:28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

    2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

    2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

    3:14

    Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?



    3:15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?

    3:26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.

    3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

    3:29 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.

    I have only covered chapters 2 and 3 here as these terms also show up in 5 and 6 and then stop, though surely it is not because God is not mentioned. It's interesting that this term only shows up when it is interacting in a pagan environment. Both the Hebrews like Daniel and his friends and the pagans like Nebuchadnezzar use this term. When the Jews use it, it more refers to their God in the singular and when the pagans use it, it refers to the gods in the plural. Sometimes King Nebuchadnezzar will use it to refer to the God of Israel, but only when directly speaking to a Jewish person.

    So what is more likely here?

    When Nebuchadnezzar is speaking to his fellow pagans, he is not likely to say the Son of God. He is more likely to say a son of the gods, which is the way a pagan would understand matters. Now does this diminish Jesus? Not at all. Assuming that Jesus is the fourth man in the fire, which I have no problem with, this is still painting Jesus as a divine being and a Jewish reader would think that the divine being was a son of God in some sense.

    It might be easy for Johnson, the author of the work in question, to paint to a conspiracy, but it's far more level-headed to just look at the text. The pattern is consistent and rather than seek to impugn someone else, it's better to just understand why they translate the text a certain way. It might not be as easy, but it is more fitting in Christian character.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters
    (And I affirm the virgin birth)
    Is the KJV the only Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. I recently was shown some work from a guy named Robert Breaker who is a KJV-onlyist. He recommended a book that can be found on his web site called “Spiritual Deception in the Highest.” After all, the obvious work of … Continue reading Response To Spiritual Deception in the Highest question 1

  • #2
    If King James English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Why is that heathen using the modernized KJV???? The actual wording is "....and the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God."

      Linky
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Why is that heathen using the modernized KJV???? The actual wording is "....and the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God."

        Linky
        I've heard the dude doesn't even use the Apocrypha!

        I mean, that was included in every 1611!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

          I've heard the dude doesn't even use the Apocrypha!

          I mean, that was included in every 1611!
          The Puritans didn't approve of the Authorized Version. As good non-Conformists, they stuck with the Geneva Bible.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #6
            Part 2.

            -------------

            Do we have more corrupted verses? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

            So as we continue our look at KJV-onlyism, we're responding to this work. I plan to respond to more than one question today. First, let's start with one that deals with the virgin birth, which I do affirm.
            The answer, of course, is that God was Jesus' father. Let's look in a 'modern' version of the Bible, at Luke 2:33.

            Starting in Luke 2:27 Simeon has gone into the temple to see the baby Jesus (who is with Joseph and Mary). Again, depending on the particular 'modern' version, in verse 33, it will say something similar to:

            " ... and his FATHER and mother were amazed at the things which were spoken of him" [i.e. of Jesus].

            What do you mean "... and his father ..." was amazed at the things which were spoken of him?! Jesus' father was NOT Joseph! Jesus' father was God!

            Now, let's look in the Authorized King James Bible. The KJV has the correct reading; in Luke 2:33 it says:

            "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him".

            For a 'modern' version ( NIV, NASV, RSV etc.) to say Joseph was Jesus' father is blasphemy! Think about the doctrinal implications: If Jesus had only an earthly father and mother, then he is just any man. If he is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved! If we are not saved, then we have a big problem!

            Here! Here! Indeed! How can we indicate in any way that Joseph is the father of Jesus?! Of course, God is His Father! Absolutely! To the flames then with any translation, or should I say transgression, that says that Joseph is the Father of Jesus!

            Oh wait.....

            Look at Luke 2:48.

            And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why has t thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

            And that is in the KJV!

            How dare they! Surely Mary who had the virgin birth, which I do affirm, would know who the father of Jesus is! How dare she not say Joseph! That would mean Jesus is just an ordinary man and we are still in our sins! We have a big problem!

            How dare the KJV deny the virgin birth! (Which I do affirm)

            Now let's go to a common type of objection.
            Turn to Matthew 18:11. You may have a hard time finding this verse. In many new, 'modern', versions this verse is missing! The verses are numbered 10 then 12, 13, 14! Or you may find verse 11 is in brackets, casting doubt as to whether it is scriptural.

            Let's see what the Authorized King James says:

            "For the Son of man is come TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST."

            This one verse, which summarizes Jesus' entire mission to earth, is either ignored in 'new' versions; or it is put in brackets casting doubt on it! This verse contains a KEY piece of Christian doctrine.

            People have to know they are lost, i.e. that they have a problem, to know they need a saviour.

            This is a common problem with KJV-Onlyists. They look at the KJV as the perfect and then if there is any difference between the KJV and a modern translation, well the problem is the modern translation because they removed that verse. How do we know the verse was in the original? Because it's in the KJV and that's the perfect version!

            Never mind that this passage is paralleled in Luke 19:10 which does have the Son of Man coming to seek and to save that which was lost. If this was a conspiracy of some sort, you would think that one would also be removed. So why would this not be in a manuscript?

            Odds are that many a scribe could copy from memory, perhaps from hearing a verse read in the worship service, and when he copies Matthew, he automatically fills in that part. Another possibility is sometimes sidenotes would be written and this could be one and sometimes that would be included in later copies. How do we know what the original most likely said? Because we have enough copies that we can cross-reference them. If you want a good reference book on textual criticism, I recommend this one.

            Thus far, two questions answered. Nothing convincing. Just shoddy research on the part of KJV-Onlyists.

            In Christ,
            Nick Peters
            (And I affirm the virgin birth)
            Do we have more corrupted verses? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. So as we continue our look at KJV-onlyism, we’re responding to this work. I plan to respond to more than one question today. First, let’s start with one that deals with the virgin birth, which I do affirm. The answer, … Continue reading Response to Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 2

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              The Puritans didn't approve of the Authorized Version. As good non-Conformists, they stuck with the Geneva Bible.
              Heretics!

              Comment


              • #8
                Part 3

                https://www.deeperwatersapologetics....ighest-part-3/

                ----------------

                Do we have more evidence of bad translation? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                So as we continue our look at this work, we find more and more of bad argumentation from KJV-Onlyists. The first question is about Noah.
                Bible Question #4: Noah was a great man used by God to build the Ark. To be called for such a task required Noah to be approved by the Lord God. So, how was Noah 'justified' before God? Was Noah's justification by his own works?

                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                For the answer, turn in your Bible to Genesis 6:8. In a 'modern version' it says something like:

                "Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."

                Now think what the word favor implies. Favor implies that Noah was 'better' than others. Favor implies Noah was approved by God because of his own 'good works'.

                Now compare that to the KJV. It says:

                "Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the Lord".

                Even though Noah was used of God, he was also in need of grace (just like all of us). Noah was NOT justified by his good works, but by God's grace.

                Look at verse 9: It says Noah walked with God. Notice that Noah's walk with God occurs, in verse 9, AFTER Noah received grace from God, in verse 8. Grace precedes our walk with God. We are NOT justified (NOR saved) by our own works.

                Remember, Noah got drunk on occasion (Gen 9:21). He was in need of God's amazing grace. We are, too.

                The consistent theme of the Bible is that we are saved by God's grace and NOT by our own works. Grace and favor have two totally, different, meanings.

                The Authorized King James Bible is consistent with the Bible's teachings. These 'modern versions' are not.


                Nothing in this text is about justification. It is not about how Noah was forgiven of his sins. The word here is hen and looking at how the KJV translates it, they translate it sometimes as grace and sometimes as favor. The idea here is that by saying favor, the text implies that Noah was better than his fellow people.

                Newsflash. Noah was better. The very next verse said he was a righteous man, blameless in his time, and he walked faithfully with God.

                This is not about Noah finding grace, which we could say would be something intrinsic to Noah that God discovers, but favor, in that because Noah lived differently, He was allowed a special blessing. Is that really a problem?

                Not at all.
                Let's look at 2 verses. Turn to 1st Peter 4:1. In a 'modern' version it says: "... Christ suffered ..."

                In your Authorized King James Bible the full reading is quoted as:

                "... Christ suffered FOR US."

                Notice the last two words give the FULL meaning. Leaving out "for us" misses the point entirely!

                This is confirmed again in 1 Corinthians 5:7b. In many 'new' versions it says:

                "For Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed."

                Again, the full reading is found in the King James Bible. It says:

                "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed FOR US."


                This seems to imply that a modern reader of a modern translation won't know this. The problem is when you look at a text like 1 Peter 4, there are differences in Greek such that some have "for us" and some do not. I suspect the same for the other passage as this would be something natural for a scribe to add.

                Of course, it's easier to just slander others and argue for your conspiracy theory.

                Now if the KJV-onlyist wants to argue their text is superior in the Greek, they need an argument for that. It can't just be asserted.

                We'll continue next time.

                In Christ,
                Nick Peters
                (And I affirm the virgin birth)
                Last edited by Apologiaphoenix; Yesterday, 11:04 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Circular reasoning? They claim the KJV is the only correct version because it just is?
                  If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    The Puritans didn't approve of the Authorized Version. As good non-Conformists, they stuck with the Geneva Bible.
                    Those who rejected the AV and favoured of the Geneva Bible included some of the translators of the AV.
                    Last edited by tabibito; Yesterday, 10:05 PM.
                    1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                    Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    If Palm Sunday really was a Sunday, Christ was crucified on a Thursday (which could be adduced from the gospels anyway).

                    "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      One of the versions that I have contains an entire section of the words that now have different meanings than what they were back in 1611.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        One of the versions that I have contains an entire section of the words that now have different meanings than what they were back in 1611.
                        I would like to see that.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Are we talking about the 1611 Project?
                          When I Survey....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post

                            I would like to see that.
                            Dug it out. It's actually a part of the preface of the RSV put out by the American Bible Society.


                            A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. Many forms of expression have become archaic, while still generally intelligible—the use of thou, thee, thy, thine and the verb endings -est and -edst, the verb endings -eth and -th, it came to pass that, whosoever, whatsoever, insomuch that, because that, for that, unto, howbeit, peradventure, holden, aforetime, must needs, would fain, behooved, to you-ward, etc. Other words are obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say.

                            Thus, the King James Version uses the word “let” in the sense of “hinder,” “prevent” to mean “precede,” “allow” in the sense of “approve,” “communicate” for “share,” “conversation” for “conduct,” “comprehend” for “overcome,” “ghost” for “spirit,” “wealth” for “well-being,” “allege” for “prove,” “demand” for “ask,” “take no thought” for “be not anxious,” etc.



                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Part 4

                              ---------------

                              What problems are in the modern versions? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                              So let's dive back into the train wreck here.
                              Bible Question #6: How did Jesus' going to the cross bring our redemption?

                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                              A 'modern' version will NOT tell you how! (in Colossians 1:14). It says (of Jesus):

                              "in whom we have redemption ..."

                              The full Christian doctrine is only included in the King James reading of the same verse. Properly stated, it says (of Jesus):

                              "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD ..."

                              Without the shedding of blood there is NO remission of sins. Leaving out "the blood" misses a key point of doctrine (and leaves us in our sins).

                              There's a simple reason for this. In the manuscripts that were used, the phrase "Through his blood" is not there. It is easy to understand how a scribe could have added such a phrase or it could have been in the margins and then became part of the text. It's easier for KJV-onlyists to say conspiracy, but let's look at other places in the NIV....

                              Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

                              Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

                              Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace

                              Colossians 1:20. and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

                              Note that last one is in the very same chapter! If you're involved in a conspiracy to remove the blood, you try to do that everywhere and not just one spot. KJV-onlyists are not expecting people to check up on their claims.
                              Bible Question #7: Who does Jesus "call" and what does he "call" them to do?

                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                              The questions are getting harder! Open a 'modern' version to Matthew 9:13b. It says something like:

                              "For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners".

                              Notice how the end of this verse begs the question: "... call the righteous, but sinners TO WHAT?" Turn to the same verse in the King James Bible:

                              "... for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners TO REPENTANCE".

                              Those last 2 words are crucial! Hell (and then the lake of fire) will get all the sinners who don't repent. Jesus will get all the sinners who do repent. There is a big difference in those two eternal outcomes. And, there is a big difference in these two translations.

                              We are all sinners, and we must all repent, to be saved.

                              Which this quote is found exactly in Luke 5:32. Go to a Gospel search and look up the word repent and you will find several mentions. Why does it not show up in the text above? Because it isn't in the manuscripts that were used for translation. That's not a conspiracy. The way to argue against it is to have a non-question begging argument that it is the correct one.

                              KJV-Onlyists have not given us one yet.
                              Bible Question #8: What happens to those who do not receive the testimony of Jesus Christ, i.e. what happens the those who do not receive the gift of everlasting life?

                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                              In many 'modern' versions you won't find out! This is because part of the verse is missing (in Mark 6:11). Let's turn there now. A 'modern' version reads something like:

                              "... shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."

                              However, the King James gives the full teaching:

                              "... shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, IT SHALL BE MORE TOLERABLE FOR SODOM AND GOMORRHA IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, THAN FOR THAT CITY".

                              I think the reader will agree that this verse contains important information we need to know!

                              Matthew 10:15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

                              Matthew 11:23-24 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.

                              Luke 10:12 --- I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

                              Again, what does it say about KJV-Onlyists that you can see their arguments are faulty when you do a Bible Search online for just a couple of minutes if that long?

                              In Christ,
                              Nick Peters
                              (And I affirm the virgin birth)
                              What problems are in the modern versions? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. So let’s dive back into the train wreck here. Bible Question #6: How did Jesus’ going to the cross bring our redemption? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A ‘modern’ version will NOT tell you how! (in Colossians 1:14). It says (of Jesus): “in … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 4

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 01-24-2023, 11:09 AM
                              14 responses
                              88 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 01-23-2023, 01:30 PM
                              10 responses
                              67 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 01-20-2023, 09:30 AM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 01-17-2023, 09:56 AM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 01-11-2023, 01:22 PM
                              1 response
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Working...
                              X