{"id":13578,"date":"2023-11-09T20:14:12","date_gmt":"2023-11-10T01:14:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/awarningministry.com\/?p=13578"},"modified":"2023-11-09T20:14:14","modified_gmt":"2023-11-10T01:14:14","slug":"read-study-learn-teach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/awarningministry.com\/index.php\/2023\/11\/09\/read-study-learn-teach\/","title":{"rendered":"Read Study Learn Teach"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Read Study Learn Teach: October 2023<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read Study Learn Teach<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Sunday, October 8, 2023<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Roger Fulk Sr. 12m \u00b7 WE WANT YOU!! To Stay in Touch! ESPECIALLY WITH >>> “BAPTIST CHURCH HISTORY” OUR FAVORITE GROUP! When you sign up for our mailing list, you will be able to … “Stay tuned” for news and updates delivered straight to your inbox. Here you will find many different subject(s) with information and resources for your learning\/teaching needs! WE WANT TO WELCOME YOU TODAY! BAPTIST CHURCH HISTORY = DISTINCTIVES, THEOLOGY, ECCLESIOLOGY, DOCTRINE, HISTORY, HERITAGE = NEW SERIES https:\/\/lp.constantcontactpages.com\/su\/RLnM9V3\/BAPTISTCHURCHHISTORY<\/a> https:\/\/lp.constantcontactpages.com\/su\/RLnM9V3\/BAPTISTCHURCHHISTORYat October 08, 2023<\/abbr><\/a>No comments: <\/a> <\/a>Email This<\/a>BlogThis!<\/a>Share to Twitter<\/a>Share to Facebook<\/a>Share to Pinterest<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Armageddon – The End of The World<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.collegeoftheopenbible.com\/armageddon.html<\/a> Armageddon – The End of The World\u200bThe battle of Armageddon is a great, future war that will be fought at Mount Megiddo (present day Palestine) that will conclude the seven years of great tribulation. This will be the most devastating of all wars humanity will experience. All of the events during the Great Tribulation will gravitate to this decisive and grave moment when Jesus Christ returns and defeats and destroys the enemy. No one can predict when this will happen with certainty. Only that it will happen (Matthew 24:36)\u200bNote Revelation 16, where the preparation for the battle is described in verses 12-16. Note also, chapters 17-20. This battle is the final and decisive war and it is more than just a physical war. All of the forces of good and evil will be fighting for power in hopes of prevailing over God’s people and preventing the Lord’s Second Coming to the earth. Armageddon – The Winner Is… The distinct difference between this and other wars is that the outcome is sure. We know who the winner is. Christ Jesus is the victor, and then establishes His rule and reign on planet earth for one thousand years. Sincerely, Dr. Arthur Belanger WE ARE READY TO HELP! 1-864-607-5200 Related subject: End Times Prophecyat October 08, 2023<\/abbr><\/a>No comments: <\/a> <\/a>Email This<\/a>BlogThis!<\/a>Share to Twitter<\/a>Share to Facebook<\/a>Share to Pinterest<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saturday, October 7, 2023<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

THE \u201cOLD FASHIONED LANGUAGE\u201d OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Roger Fulk October 7, 2023 King James Bible King James Only 0 Will Kinney \u2013 King James Bible Debate THE \u201cOLD FASHIONED LANGUAGE\u201d OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE \u201cArchaic and Inerrant\u201d beats \u201cModernized and Wrong\u201d Any Day of the Week.You may prefer any modern English bible version because you think it is easy to understand, but if it corrupts and teaches false doctrines and not even you or the people who put it out believe it is the inerrant words of God (and they don\u2019t) then what good is it? One of the main reasons the modern version promoters tell us we need to get rid of the King James Bible and buy one of the multiple choice modern versions is because they say that the old King James Bible is too hard to understand and it uses \u201carchaic\u201d words. They tell us that people don\u2019t talk like that today (with all those \u201cthee\u201ds and \u201cye\u201ds) and that we need something easy to understand.First of all, let me point out what none of these people are telling you. You need to know where they are coming from and where they want to take you. It is a proven fact that not one of them actually believes that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and infallible words of God.Just ask them. I have been discussing and debating the King James Bible issue for years now, and I have never run into a single modern version user who honestly believes that his particular version IS the infallible words of God and that when other versions differ from his in either text or meaning, then the others are wrong and his is right. NOT ONE. When you ask them to SHOW you a copy of this \u201cinfallible Bible\u201d they seem to want you to think they actually believe in, most of these people then begin to backtrack and come out with something like \u201cWell, only the original Hebrew and Greek are inspired.\u201dWhat they utterly fail to notice is the obvious FACT that there IS NO \u201cthe original Hebrew and Greek\u201d in existence. They have never seen a single word of these \u201coriginal autographs\u201d and have no way of knowing if their particular flavor of the month bible version (which are always changing with each new edition to come down the pike) matches their unseen, unknown and unreadable \u201cthe originals\u201d or not. They are bluffing and they are professing a faith in something that they KNOW does not even exist! Furthermore, I always find it amusing and highly ironic that these same people (Bible agnostics \u2013 they don\u2019t know for sure what God may or may not have said) and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible end up referring us to \u201cthe\u201d Hebrew and \u201cthe\u201d Greek.It should be pointed out that there is no such thing as \u201cthe\u201d Hebrew and much less anything called \u201cthe\u201d Greek. There are literally THOUSANDS of variant readings in both the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and numerous very different printed Greek editions are out there in Bible Babblelonia Land today.I also find it highly ironic that these same people who complain about the \u201chard to understand and archaic language\u201d of the King James Bible, now want us to learn two very difficult archaic languages that are no longer spoken today and that are FAR more difficult than anything you will find in the English text of the King James Bible.Biblical Hebrew and Greek are very different from modern Hebrew and Greek and no native speaker talks that way. Don\u2019t these people ever stop to think through their position and what they are actually saying?Where do these modern Version promoters want to take us? The simple truth is they want us to become bible agnostics and unbelievers in the infallibility of the Bible \u2013 ANY bible in ANY language \u2013 just like they are.The only Christians I have run into over the years who REALLY believe in an infallible Bible are the King James Bible believers. We may not always agree on what the Biblical texts MEAN, but we all DO agree on what the Bible text SAYS.Those in the Bible Babble Buffet Camp don\u2019t always agree on what their varying texts mean either, and they certainly do not agree on what their contradictory and ever changing texts SAY.USA Today came out with a very interesting article in 2011 that found that people who actually READ the Bible, are far more likely to be King James Bible readers. It\u2019s called Bible Readers Prefer King James Version. You can see the article here.http:\/\/usatoday30.usatoday.com\/news\/religion\/2011-04-21-king-james-bible.htmHere is one quote from this USA Today article \u2013 \u201cAlthough there are two dozen English-language Bibles in many contemporary translations, THE KING JAMES VERSION REIGNS EVEN MORE SUPREME AMONG THOS WHO ACTUALLY READ THEIR BIBLES: 82% of those who read the Good Book at least once a month rely on the translation that first brought the Scripture to the English-speaking masses worldwide.\u201dIt is a proven fact that the majority of present day professing Christians no longer believe that \u201cThe Bible\u201d is the infallible words of God. Among the clergy and seminary students the percentage is in the 90\u2019s. See what the polls and professors are saying here \u2013 \u201cThe Bible is NOT the infallible words of God.\u201d \u2013http:\/\/brandplucked.com\/thebiblenotinspired.htmIF a Christian REALLY believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, then the \u201cold fashioned language\u201d is not an issue at all. Sure, the King James Bible has some words that are older or have different meanings than we may be familiar with.But people are learning new vocabulary or new meanings to English words all the time in any field of study, be it sports, biology, the sciences, mathematics, medicine or just about anything imaginable. If you are interested in something, you learn the meaning of the words that are found in this field of interest. Even when you start using the computer we have to learn some new words or different meanings to words we already knew \u2013 Words like \u201cmouse\u201d, IPad, \u201cKindle\u201d, Office, Word, \u201cpaste\u201d. If interested, see the whole article here with many concrete examples of the corruptions found in the modern \u201ceasy to understand\u201d versions. http:\/\/brandplucked.com\/archaickjb.htm \u201cHe that hath ears to hear, let him hear.\u201d Luke 8:8 \u201cBut if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.\u201d 1 Corinthians 14:38. BRANDPLUCKED.COMAnother King James Bible Believer Will KinneyKing James Bible Debate \u00b7 The Book of the Judges \u2013 Some examples of the Bible Babel Buffet.These are just a few examples taken from the book of Judges that show how not all bible versions say the same things but with different words. It is my contention that the King James Bible is always correct. It is the preserved, inerrant word of God and all other modern English versions are inferior and often wrong.Not all Bible versions are as ridiculous as this following example, but you have to admit the New English Bible of 1970 goes beyond the bounds of the usual blunders found in most inferior versions of God\u2019s word. (For several examples of bonehead blunders in such versions as the NASB, NIV, NKJV, Holman Standard see my article here:http:\/\/brandplucked.com\/blundernasnkjnivhol.htmJudges 1:14 KJB \u2013 \u201c\u2026and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou?\u201dIn Judges 1:14 all versions I have consulted say basically the same thing, except the NEB \u2013 New English Bible of 1970. In the King James Bible we read of Achsah, the daughter of Caleb, who had just been given in marriage to Othniel. \u201cAnd it came to pass, when she came to him (her new husband) that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and SHE LIGHTED FROM OFF HER ASS; and Caleb said unto her, WHAT WILT THOU?\u201dHowever only the NEB 1980 (New English Bible) says: \u201cWhen she came to him, he incited her to ask her father for a piece of land. As she sat on the ass, SHE BROKE WIND, and Caleb said, \u2018WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?\u201dIt\u2019s hard to make stuff like this up, but when somebody tells you that all bibles say essentially the same things, they really haven\u2019t studied the issue very much.However, thankfully, the Revision of the NEB was done in 1989 and the Revised English Bible now says: \u201cShe dismounted from her donkey, and Caleb asked her, \u2018What do you want?’\u201dJudges 3:22 \u2013 \u201cand THE DIRT came out\u201dKing James Bible \u2013 \u201cAnd the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and THE DIRT CAME OUT.\u201dThe word \u201cdirt\u201d is a euphemistic term which means his excrement. It is not even an archaic word. Webster\u2019s 1999 dictionary defines dirt as \u201cany foul or filthy substance, as mud, grime or excrement.\u201dThe New Oxford American Dictionary gives one of the definitions of \u201cthe dirt\u201d as \u201cinformal \u2013 excrement: a lawn covered in dog dirt.\u201dThe first definition given for dirt in Webster\u2019s Collegiate dictionary 1967 here on my desk is 1. excrement.Not only does the KJB tell us that Ehud stuck the dagger into the belly of the very fat king Eglon and that \u201cthe dirt came out\u201d but so also do Wycliffe 1395, the Great Bible 1540 \u2013 \u201cbut the dyrt came out.\u201d, Matthew\u2019s bible 1549 \u2013 \u201cAnd the dyrt came out.\u201d, the Bishops\u2019 Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Webster\u2019s translation 1833, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby\u2019s translation 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation \u2013 \u201cand THE DIRT came out\u201d, the RSV \u201cand THE DIRT came out\u201d, NRSV 1989, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1995 \u2013 \u201cy sali\u00f3 el esti\u00e9rcol\u201d, La Biblia de las Am\u00e9ricas 1997 \u2013 \u201cy se le salieron los excrementos.\u201d, Italian Diodati 1649 \u2013 \u201ce lo sterco usc\u00ec fuori.\u201d, the Amplified Bible 1987- \u201cEhud did not draw the sword out of his belly, and THE DIRT came out.\u201d, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 \u2013 and THE DIRT came out.\u201d, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, and the Modern Greek Bible \u2013 \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\u201d = \u201cand went out manure\u201d.The New Jewish Version 1985 \u2013 \u201cand THE FILTH came out.\u201dThe Jubilee Bible 2010 = \u201cand the EXCREMENT came out.\u201dThe ESV 2001-2011 says: \u201cand THE DUNG came out.\u201dThe Judaica Press Tanach 2004 \u2013 \u201che did not draw the sword out of his belly; and THE EXCREMENT came out.\u201dThe Douay-Rheims 1610 says: \u201cTHE EXCREMENTS of the belly came out.\u201dThe Voice 2012 \u2013 \u201cand the contents of Eglon\u2019s intestines spilled out.\u201dNew Living Translation 2013 \u2013 \u201cand the king\u2019s bowels emptied.\u201dAdam Clarke comments: \u201cThe original, parshedonah, occurs only here, and is supposed to be compounded of peresh, dung, and shadah, to shed, and may be very well applied to his having an evacuation in the natural way through fright and anguish.\u201dDavid Guzik\u2019s Commentary notes: \u201d Without being coarse, we can see how real and true-to-life the Bible is; in the Bible (unlike most moves and television programs) people go to the bathroom.\u201dJohn Gill comments: \u201cand the dirt came out -the margin of our Bibles is, \u201cit came out at the fundament\u201d; that is, the dagger did, the thrust being so strong and vehement; but that is not so likely, the dagger being so short, and Eglon a very fat man. The Targum is \u201chis food went out\u201d which was in his bowels; but as the wound was closed up through fat, and the dagger stuck fast in it, it could not come out that way: rather therefore this is to be understood of his excrements, and of their coming out at the usual place, it being common for persons that die a violent death, and indeed others, to purge upon it.\u201dMatthew Pooles\u2019 English Annotations \u2013 \u201cHis excrements came forth, not at the wound, which closed up, as is usual when persons die either a natural or violent death.\u201dThe BIBLE BABBLE BUFFET VERSIONSHowever many other versions give us totally different meanings for this verse, and don\u2019t even agree with each other.The NKJV 1982 says: \u201cand HIS ENTRAILS came out.\u201dNew Living Translation \u2013 \u201cSo Ehud did not pull out the dagger, and the king\u2019s bowels emptied.\u201d (Good paraphrase)Darby 1890 \u2013 \u201cfor he did not draw the sword out of his belly, and IT came out between the legs.\u201dGood News Translation 1992 \u2013 \u201cEhud did not pull it out of the king\u2019s belly, and IT STUCK OUT BEHIND, BETWEEN HIS LEGS. \u201c (Ouch!)Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901 \u2013 \u201cfor he drew not the sword out of his belly; and IT came out behind.\u201dThe NASB 1995 and Legacy Standard 2021 have: \u201cand THE REFUSE came out.\u201d (More than a little vague. What exactly is \u201crefuse\u201d, empty soup cans and sandwich bags?)Common English Bible 2011 \u2013 \u201cthe fat closed over the blade, and HIS GUTS SPILLED OUT.\u201d Footnote- Hebrew uncertainRotherham\u2019s Emphasized bible of 1902 gives us a totally different meaning with: \u201cfor he withdrew not the sword out of his body, \u2013 and HE CAME OUT INTO THE ANTE-CHAMBER.\u201dNIVs 1978 and 1984 editions read \u2013 \u201cEven the handle sank in after the blade, WHICH CAME OUT HIS BACK.\u201dBUT the NIV 2011 now reads \u2013 \u201cEven the handle sank in after the blade, AND HIS BOWELS DISCHARGED.\u201dSo, were the two previous the NIV editions wrong and this late$t one finally got it right?The Message 2002 \u2013 \u201cThe fat closed in over it so he couldn\u2019t pull IT out.\u201dNames of God Bible 2011 \u2013 \u201cThe BLADE STUCK OUT IN BACK.\u201d Footnote \u201cHebrew meaning uncertain.\u201dInternational Standard Version \u2013 \u201cthe sword point exited from Eglon\u2019s entrails.\u201dHolman Standard \u2013 \u201cAnd Eglon\u2019s INSIDES came out.Lamsa\u2019s translation of the Syriac Peshitta says \u201c\u2026the fat closed upon the blade, because he did not draw the sword out of his belly; AND HE WENT OUT HASTILY.\u201dThe 1961 Bible in Basic English actually reads this way \u2013 \u201che did not take the sword out of his stomach. And he went out into the \u2026\u201dThat\u2019s how it really reads. It just ends with three dots\u2026 \u201cand he went out into the\u2026\u201d That\u2019s it!Young\u2019s \u2013 \u201cthat he hath not drawn the sword out of his belly, AND IT GOETH OUT AT THE FUNDAMENT.\u201d (Say What?!)Dan Wallace and Company\u2019s NET version reads \u2013 \u201cfor EHUD did not pull the sword out of his belly.\u201dThis made up version by Daniel Wallace and Friends adds the word \u201cEhud\u201d, and gives a meaning different from all the other versions. The \u201cscholars\u201d who put together this NET thing just omit the phrase altogether. Wait till you see what they did with Judges 5:8!The Catholic ConnectionThe Catholic versions exhibit their usual confusion and constant change. The earlier Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay read \u2013 \u201cSo that he did not draw out the dagger, but left it in the body as he had struck it in: and forthwith, BY THE SECRET PARTS OF NATURE, THE EXCREMENTS OF THE BELLY CAME OUT.\u201dBut the 1968 Jerusalem bible says: \u201c\u2026and the fat closed over the blade, for Ehud left the dagger in his belly; THEN HE WENT OUT THROUGH THE WINDOW.\u201dThen the 1970 St. Joseph NAB has \u2013 \u201c\u2026and the fat closed over the blade BECAUSE HE DID NOT WITHDRAW THE DAGGER FROM HIS BELLY.\u201dThis is also how the New Jerusalem bible 1985 reads and then tells us in a footnote that this reading comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew adds other words that seem to be a \u201ceuphemism \u2013 to relieve nature\u201d.And now in 2009, once again a Catholic translator has changed his latest version, the Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) and it now reads \u2013 \u201cInstead, he left it in the body just as he had struck with it. And immediately, BY THE PRIVATE PARTS OF NATURE, THE FILTH OF THE BOWELS WENT OUT.\u201dSo did THE DIRT (the EXCREMENT) come out of the very fat king Eglon (KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV 2011 and others), or was it his ENTRAILS AND INTESTINES (NKJV, Holman), or was it THE DAGGER ITSELF that came out (NIV 1978, 1984 editions, RV, ASV), or was it Ehud who \u201cwent out INTO THE ANTE-CHAMBER\u201d, or \u201cOUT THROUGH THE WINDOW\u201d, or was it as Young translated \u201cit goeth OUT AT THE FUNDAMENT\u201d?There is a simple fact recorded in the Scriptures here that excludes the idea found in the NKJV and Holman versions of it being his entrails or his insides. The verse tells us that the fat closed upon both the blade and the haft. There was no open wound through which his intestines could pour out of his body. His belly was sealed shut.It is also noted that Eglon was a very fat man, so it is highly unlikely that the dagger itself came out the other side of his body as the previous NIVs and ASV have it. The only thing the phrase \u201cand the dirt came out\u201d can logically refer to is the fact often observed in those who die in a violent manner is that the king defecated from shock.John Gill and other commentators take this view and support the reading found in the King James Bible.The King James Bible is correct and the NKJV, Holman, NET, NIVs 1978 and 1984 editions and many others are simply wrong. To see more examples like this from the book of Judges, go here \u2013 http:\/\/brandplucked.com\/bookofjudges.htm God bless.BRANDPLUCKED.COMAnother King James Bible Believerat October 07, 2023<\/abbr><\/a>No comments: <\/a> <\/a>Email This<\/a>BlogThis!<\/a>Share to Twitter<\/a>Share to Facebook<\/a>Share to Pinterest<\/a>Newer Posts<\/a>Older Posts<\/a>Home<\/a>Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roger Fulk Sr. 12m \u00b7 WE WANT YOU!! To Stay in Touch! ESPECIALLY WITH >>> “BAPTIST CHURCH HISTORY” OUR FAVORITE GROUP! W…<\/p>\n\n\n\n