#Kjv only
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
shiningthelightministries · 14 days ago
Video
youtube
Bible Study - What You Must Do To Be Saved!
3 notes · View notes
geminiagentgreen · 4 months ago
Text
youtube
Cultish: Answering King James Only objections with Wes Huff
4 notes · View notes
ironwoodatl01 · 1 year ago
Text
Just an update post to let people know I am alive:
Homo bad.
Abortion is murder.
Christ is King.
Palestine shall be free from the river to the seas.
8 notes · View notes
ironwoodatl01 · 10 months ago
Text
Agreed.
Proverbs 31:10 - 31 - 10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. 11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. 13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. 14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. 15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. 16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. 17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. 18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. 19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. 20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. 21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. 22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. 23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. 24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. 25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. 26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. 29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. 30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
A virtuous Woman is many things but meek, submissive, and fragile she is not.
You have to wonder why if the Christian right (mainstream not the fringe weirdos) advocates these meek submissive fragile doormat women, then how it is they keep producing women who are community leaders and protest organizers and TV personalities and politicians and business owners and degree havers and so forth. I mean just ask yourself how docile your average Trump rally mom is
174 notes · View notes
Text
Jack Chick, Dr. Peter Ruckman were they Christians?
Men of God or Satan’s False Teachers? Jack T. Chick and Dr. Peter S. Ruckman they were Life Long Friends. They both Taught you have to Repent of Sin to Be Saved. That you have to Turn from your Sins to Be Saved. If you do not agree to Stop Sinning than you cannot be Saved. Is this True or False? I will completely answer this.  Jack T. Chick, Chick Publications, Christian or not Christian? I will…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
1 note · View note
zukkaoru · 1 year ago
Text
love using my knowledge of the bible to write fics. don't so much love having to look up every verse i want to reference in king james version instead of whichever of the three other versions i memorized verses in because if this character is 27 in ~2012 he definitely didn't grow up reading the berean study bible
19 notes · View notes
ironwoodatl01 · 10 months ago
Text
Take Sarah, as in the OP's example.
Genesis 16:1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
Sarah herself admitted she was infertile and willingly gave her maid to Abraham to conceive children. Luna-Drinker doesn't seem to agree with that.
Genesis 18:5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee.
Sarah also admits that she was in the wrong for giving her maid to Abraham to conceive.
Genesis 18:9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
Would Luna agree that women should stay in the tent while men are speaking?
Genesis 18: 11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
Funny, even Sarah herself admits she is past her 'expiration date'.
Sarah opposes everything Luna says about her. Sarah is submissive to Abraham and prioritizes Abraham over herself in the household.
Does this not support Ephesians 5:22? Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
As in Sarah's example, a biblical woman should be submissive to her husband. Not because she is lower in status than a man, but because it reflects the Church's subjection onto Christ.
Now, speaking of Bathsheba, and her husband Uriah the Hittite.
2 Samuel 11:8 And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of meat from the king.
9 But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord, and went not down to his house.
10 And when they had told David, saying, Uriah went not down unto his house, David said unto Uriah, Camest thou not from thy journey? why then didst thou not go down unto thine house?
11 And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.
Uriah was a man disciplined enough to refrain from pleasure while the armies of King David were fighting in the field.
Funnily enough, Bathsheba, who must be aware that she is married to Uriah, did not protest when King David brought her to him to lay with her.
If Luna had read 2 Samuel, she would have seen that Bathsheba did not do her duty to Uriah, while Uriah maintained his dignity as a husband to his wife.
In this case, Uriah was a biblical man who put his faith in an unbiblical woman. Uriah died for that, too. Luna seems to have forgotten that.
The red pill community needs to read the Bible. When Abrahams wife was old and infertile God didn't say "ya bro just find a new wife" in fact he scolds Abraham for being unfaithful. King David's affair with Bathsheba resulted in his dynastys downfall. Joseph was told by God to be a father to a son that wasn't biologically his. So I don't want to hear "as a man I deserve a young hot wife" or "women have expiration dates" or whatever. READ THE BOOK!!!!
3K notes · View notes
kjvfactcheck · 7 months ago
Text
Transliterate or Translate? The Case of Azazel
Curious about why modern Bibles use "Azazel" instead of "scapegoat"? Dive into our latest blog post for an in-depth look at the intriguing debate! Discover the four main interpretations of this mysterious term and how they affect our understanding.
Why do modern versions transliterate the word Azazel instead of translating it “scapegoat” like the King James Version? Why would a translation project choose to transliterate a word instead of translating it? Is it better to transliterate or translate Hebrew words? Does this point of linguistics impact our theology or our understanding of the Jewish sacrificial system? Survey of Azazel…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
5 notes · View notes
shiningthelightministries · 5 months ago
Video
youtube
Bible Study - 10 Keys Of Wisdom Revealed!
3 notes · View notes
ironwoodatl01 · 2 years ago
Text
Tumblr media
Instead of asking why God allows evil to exist, ask why humans allow evil to exist.
If they do not know what is evil or are powerless to stop evil, are they in any place to comment on God's judgment since humans are not better placed in any way to resolve the matter? That would be like a layman making comments about a mechanic's job in regard to a car.
God told Adam and Eve not to eat the one fruit in the Garden of Eden and in exchange, God gave them both all the other fruits in the garden to eat. Adam and Eve listened to the serpent and disobeyed God's explicit instructions, how is that God's fault?
In any case, why couldn't God put what he wanted in HIS Garden? We can't blame the woman who gets raped even if she wore inappropriate attire, how can we blame God when Adam and Eve committed the wrong in the first place?
Furthermore, it is a misconception that God is a loving God. He is a merciful God, in which case love is a consequence of God's mercy because one must love something to spare it punishment when it is possible to do so.
God allows evil out of mercy because no one is good. To destroy evil, God must destroy everyone. Therefore God holds his wrath as an act of mercy.
Tumblr media
Why does God allow evil to exist?
Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭13‬:‭24‬-‭30‬ ‭NASB
“But God is perfect and all powerful, why can’t He get rid of the evil without harming the good?”
Because the evil isn’t just “bad people” among us. The evil is in our own sinful hearts. To get rid of evil, He would have to get rid of us too.
In our Baptism, in Confession and Absolution, in hearing the Gospel, and in Holy Communion, we receive the forgiveness of our sins won for us by Christ on the cross. But while we live here on earth, we still live with our sinfulness - though we are no longer slaves to it (Romans 6).
When Christ returns on the Last Day, then we can finally be resurrected in our glorified, perfected bodies and live with Him without sin and all its consequences. That will happen - just in God’s timing, not ours.
It may feel like we are waiting a long time and suffering under the weight of evil in this world, but when we are in the world without end, this life will seem like a distant memory, a blip compared to eternity.
Almighty, everlasting God, Your Son has assured forgiveness of sins and deliverance from eternal death. Strengthen us by Your Holy Spirit that our faith in Christ may increase daily and that we may hold fast to the hope that on the Last Day we shall be raised in glory to eternal life; through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.
162 notes · View notes
bills-bible-basics · 7 months ago
Photo
Tumblr media
Jesus is Our Only Mediator Graphic 09 #Christian #BibleStudy #Jesus Visit https://www.billkochman.com/Graphics-Library/ to see more. "Jesus is Our Only Mediator" KJV Bible Verse List: https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse097.html "Jesus is the Author of the New Covenant" KJV Bible Verse List: https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse188.html "Jesus is the Door and the Straight Gate" KJV Bible Verse List: https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse314.html "Washed in the Blood of the Lamb" KJV Bible Verse List: https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse283.html Article: "The Blood Atonement: In Jesus' Own Words": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/atonemt1.html Article: "Apostasy of Oprah Winfrey: America's False Prophetess?": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/Oprah-Winfrey-Apostasy-False-Prophetess-1.html https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/jesus-is-our-only-mediator-graphic-09/?feed_id=215654&Jesus%20is%20Our%20Only%20Mediator%20Graphic%2009
2 notes · View notes
ironwoodatl01 · 1 year ago
Note
👻👻 ooooo scary gay people
Oooo we’re disobeying god oooooo
Anyway any condemnation of gay people in the Bible is a mistranslation or written based on scientific misunderstandings of the time.
NOT going to tell you to kill yourself. Stay alive and well, please. Just look into supporting queer people as a Christian.
Look into how the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and how you should not love someone to perdition.
2 notes · View notes
queer-as-used-by-tolkien · 1 year ago
Text
I have full executive authority to modify my text posts for another audience - to express the exact same sentiment but in words that the new audience will understand. To translate, if you will, from "broad and unknown Tumblr audience" who speak the Tumblr lingo and dialect and who could be literally anybody, to "close family with a humongous bunch of shared experience and similar language to talk about them," who share my worldview and understand what I'm saying without getting offended by a caveat I forgot to include or a specification or detail that I thought was unnecessary. (E.g. on Tumblr I might say "my friend X", but to family I'd just say "X")
Translation from one to the other, and vice versa, is necessary for both clarity and brevity. Different audiences require different approaches.
Tumblr audience might have sentences providing caveats or clarity or introduction to a concept that the family audience already knows or doesn't need. For brevity, I would cut those out, but I might also add sentences to help with transition or to aid in pacing of the ideas, concepts, or story. (This also goes for fic; is the fic for fans only or is it friendly to fandom-blind readers? Same story, told in slightly different words sometimes.)
But they are still my words and all those words remain as true as they were in the original form (assuming I didn't decide to lie to one group). In fact, if somebody had access to both versions (and understood both), they could see more of my mind, heart, and will than otherwise; for example, my willingness to even do such a thing as translating or providing two different versions. A family member who forgot my relation to X might be reassured by the label "friend" when describing her. (It might also mean a lot to the friend, if she read both accounts.) It always helps to see further caveats, examples, side notes, details, or even just different phrasing that I thought would help one group's perspective but wouldn't be too useful for the other unless they were doing a deeper study of my words, for whatever reason.
Now if I DID decide to lie, of course, you can't believe either version (or any new one I came up with), because now I'm a liar and you can't trust anything at all. But assuming I'm not a liar (and nobody has messed with my words, or it's not an outright faked screenshot or deep fake or whatever) - assuming I am truthful and you trust me (and/or my messenger), you can learn a lot from the differences of how I convey the same idea.
Between the two versions I might also do things like update typos or accidental occurrences of misgendering, clarify grammar, institute proper capitalization, and so on.
It makes me think of a post I saw once about the differences between Hunger Games books and movies; how the books tell a story of how awful war is to kids, and how awful the capitol is to make them have a love triangle to survive, and how awful it is for them to sit back and watch it as entertainment. And how the movies have us sit back and be entertained while children have a love triangle and fight each other. It seems like a classic case of "movies butchered the books," but the author was actually involved in and had quite some say in the production of the movie. Looking at them, they both together tell a more powerful story than otherwise. I'll see if I can find that post because it was a JOURNEY.
Anyway. The author has ultimate authority to translate their work to different audiences, with different emphases and details, whether the work is a Tumblr text post or an essay or verbally telling a friend what happened to me today.
Same goes for the Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God (John 1). (For one thing, translating God Himself into human form while preserving his divinity? Major translation skills there.)
The four gospels are an example of this; Matthew, for example, is addressed primarily to the Jews and includes many extra details, adding things like "BTW this was in fulfillment of XYZ prophecy" and including the genealogy through David and all like that. Luke is written by a Gentile to Gentiles, and tells similar stories but often with different details.
Only one gospel mentions that when Jesus fed the five thousand, it was at evening; only one mentions that it was a little boy who had the five loaves and two fishes; when Jesus asks a disciple what they're going to do, only one gospel mentions that Jesus said it "to try him."
John is far more focused on Jesus' divine nature, including many stories not included in the others. Different details, different emphases, different audiences, although ultimately, all four are available to us who have lived after the first century AD.
The gospels also show off another aspect of the author having final authority to translate while still being pure, truthful, and accurate: quotations from the Old Testament.
The OT was written in Hebrew. Jesus reads from a Greek translation and calls it Scripture. (I.e. equally as inspired as the original.) The apostles and writers of the New Testament often do likewise.
The same can be true of other translations as well. Translations into Latin, into German, into French, into Old English, into Early Modern English... God is the master of language. He created it, after all. Jesus is the word. All Scripture is inspired and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness...
But only the author has that authority. If I tell my sister one thing and she tells my friend something in anything other than my own words, it may still be true; but it's slightly less true than my own words. Hopefully, usually the difference is negligible, but in a contest, anything I've ever said or written on the topic is more accurate than what somebody else said.
Hence, if there's something strange about the story my sister tells, my friend would do well to take it with a grain of salt (or more than one, if she knows I have a bad relationship with my sister.) If not, this can pass from one to another like a game of telephone until it devolves into gossip that's wholly untrue, outright malicious, etc.
I and only I retain the right to point to two different versions of my words and say both are equally true. My sister can't say "her words and mine are equal" unless she was there, and even then, any differences would be down to her own different perspective (and level of honesty), not mine.
You never know when somebody might embellish a Bible translation. I hear Satan has quite the interest in perverting God's words (just see Genesis 3). Compare your translation carefully with both itself and others.
On that note, let me share some comparisons to get you started.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
One of them has to be wrong. What do you think?
4 notes · View notes
tinyshe · 8 months ago
Text
youtube
0 notes
bannedpreaching1611 · 11 months ago
Link
Paul’s Third Missionary Journey Part 2 | Pastor Anderson
0 notes
joycrispy · 2 years ago
Text
Awhile ago @ouidamforeman made this post:
Tumblr media
This shot through my brain like a chain of firecrackers, so, without derailing the original post, I have some THOUGHTS to add about why this concept is not only hilarious (because it is), but also...
It. It kind of fucks. Severely.
And in a delightfully Pratchett-y way, I'd dare to suggest.
I'll explain:
As inferred above, both Crowley AND Aziraphale have canonical Biblical counterparts. Not by name, no, but by function.
Crowley, of course, is the serpent of Eden.
(note on the serpent of Eden: In Genesis 3:1-15, at least, the serpent is not identified as anything other than a serpent, albeit one that can talk. Later, it will be variously interpreted as a traitorous agent of Hell, as a demon, as a guise of Satan himself, etc. In Good Omens --as a slinky ginger who walks funny)
Lesser known, at least so far as I can tell, is the flaming sword. It, too, appears in Genesis 3, in the very last line:
"So he drove out the man; and placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." --Genesis 3:24, KJV
Thanks to translation ambiguity, there is some debate concerning the nature of the flaming sword --is it a divine weapon given unto one of the Cherubim (if so, why only one)? Or is it an independent entity, which takes the form of a sword (as other angelic beings take the form of wheels and such)? For our purposes, I don't think the distinction matters. The guard at the gate of Eden, whether an angel wielding the sword or an angel who IS the sword, is Aziraphale.
(note on the flaming sword: in some traditions --Eastern Orthodox, for example-- it is held that upon Christ's death and resurrection, the flaming sword gave up it's post and vanished from Eden for good. By these sensibilities, the removal of the sword signifies the redemption and salvation of man.
...Put a pin in that. We're coming back to it.)
So, we have our pair. The Serpent and the Sword, introduced at the beginning and the end (ha) of the very same chapter of Genesis.
But here's the important bit, the bit that's not immediately obvious, the bit that nonetheless encapsulates one of the central themes, if not THE central theme, of Good Omens:
The Sword was never intended to guard Eden while Adam and Eve were still in it.
Do you understand?
The Sword's function was never to protect them. It doesn't even appear until after they've already fallen. No... it was to usher Adam and Eve from the garden, and then keep them out. It was a threat. It was a punishment.
The flaming sword was given to be used against them.
So. Again. We have our pair. The Serpent and the Sword: the inception and the consequence of original sin, personified. They are the one-two punch that launches mankind from paradise, after Hell lures it to destruction and Heaven condemns it for being destroyed. Which is to say that despite being, supposedly, hereditary enemies on two different sides of a celestial cold war, they are actually unified by one purpose, one pivotal role to play in the Divine Plan: completely fucking humanity over.
That's how it's supposed to go. It is written.
...But, in Good Omens, they're not just the Serpent and the Sword.
They're Crowley and Aziraphale.
(author begins to go insane from emotion under the cut)
In Good Omens, humanity is handed it's salvation (pin!) scarcely half an hour after losing it. Instead of looming over God's empty garden, the sword protects a very sad, very scared and very pregnant girl. And no, not because a blameless martyr suffered and died for the privilege, either.
It was just that she'd had such a bad day. And there were vicious animals out there. And Aziraphale worried she would be cold.
...I need to impress upon you how much this is NOT just a matter of being careless with company property. With this one act of kindness, Aziraphale is undermining the whole entire POINT of the expulsion from Eden. God Herself confronts him about it, and he lies. To God.
And the Serpent--
(Crowley, that is, who wonders what's so bad about knowing the difference between good and evil anyway; who thinks that maybe he did a GOOD thing when he tempted Eve with the apple; who objects that God is over-reacting to a first offense; who knows what it is to fall but not what it is to be comforted after the fact...)
--just goes ahead and falls in love with him about it.
As for Crowley --I barely need to explain him, right? People have been making the 'didn't the serpent actually do us a solid?' argument for centuries. But if I'm going to quote one of them, it may as well be the one Neil Gaiman wrote ficlet about:
"If the account given in Genesis is really true, ought we not, after all, to thank this serpent? He was the first schoolmaster, the first advocate of learning, the first enemy of ignorance, the first to whisper in human ears the sacred word liberty, the creator of ambition, the author of modesty, of inquiry, of doubt, of investigation, of progress and of civilization." --Robert G. Ingersoll
The first to ask questions.
Even beyond flattering literary interpretation, we know that Crowley is, so often, discreetly running damage control on the machinations of Heaven and Hell. When he can get away with it. Occasionally, when he can't (1827).
And Aziraphale loves him for it, too. Loves him back.
And so this romance plays out over millennia, where they fall in love with each other but also the world, because of each other and because of the world. But it begins in Eden. Where, instead of acting as the first Earthly example of Divine/Diabolical collusion and callousness--
(other examples --the flood; the bet with Satan; the back channels; the exchange of Holy Water and Hellfire; and on and on...)
--they refuse. Without even necessarily knowing they're doing it, they just refuse. Refuse to trivialize human life, and refuse to hate each other.
To write a story about the Serpent and the Sword falling in love is to write a story about transgression.
Not just in the sense that they are a demon and an angel, and it's ~forbidden. That's part of it, yeah, but the greater part of it is that they are THIS demon and angel, in particular. From The Real Bible's Book of Genesis, in the chapter where man falls.
It's the sort of thing you write and laugh. And then you look at it. And you think. And then you frown, and you sit up a little straighter. And you think.
And then you keep writing.
And what emerges hits you like a goddamn truck.
(...A lot of Pratchett reads that way. I believe Gaiman when he says Pratchett would have been happy with the romance, by the way. I really really do).
It's a story about transgression, about love as transgression. They break the rules by loving each other, by loving creation, and by rejecting the hatred and hypocrisy that would have triangulated them as a unified blow against humanity, before humanity had even really got started. And yeah, hell, it's a queer romance too, just to really drive the point home (oh, that!!! THAT!!!)
...I could spend a long time wildly gesturing at this and never be satisfied. Instead of watching me do that (I'll spare you), please look at this gif:
Tumblr media
I love this shot so much.
Look at Eve and Crowley moving, at the same time in the same direction, towards their respective wielders of the flaming sword. Adam reaches out and takes her hand; Aziraphale reaches out and covers him with a wing.
You know what a shot like that establishes? Likeness. Commonality. Kinship.
"Our side" was never just Crowley and Aziraphale. Crowley says as much at the end of season 1 ("--all of us against all of them."). From the beginning, "our side" was Crowley, Aziraphale, and every single human being. Lately that's around 8 billion, but once upon a time it was just two other people. Another couple. The primeval mother and father.
But Adam and Eve die, eventually. Humanity grows without them. It's Crowley and Aziraphale who remain, and who protect it. Who...oversee it's upbringing.
Godfathers. Sort of.
27K notes · View notes