Search results

It's "bona fide", and it's Latin, not English.

Right… and believe that the Lord was contradicting Himself when He inspired Galatians 3:28. That’s a better solution for sure.

Interesting. Are you aware that the Textus Receptus did not exist before about 1515, and was not called by that name until about 1632?

It is if you already have learned to which man the numbers refer but keep on playing with them for some other reason.

There’s a very simple explanation: Paul was quoting someone else in verses 34-35 and then correcting him in verses 36-38. The evidence for this is the phrase, “as the Law also says”, which is not in the Law anywhere. Paul knew the Law very well and wouldn’t have made that error. With those two...

So it shall be to you as you have refused instruction.

I’m not interested in your numerolatry.

I'm sure you're aware that some of the manuscripts have 616, not 666. I'm sure you're also aware that those numbers are both gematria for the same person using different languages. I'm sure you're also aware that because of this, all of your blather about 666 is far off the mark. Or... maybe...

Next time, read the context before asserting its subject. Matthew 18:2-6 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the...

Really? So they can't be saved? Wow. Your concept of "Bible based Church" has nothing to do with the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

The point is that your interpretation of Scripture may be erroneous, and if you don't examine your interpretation, you might never discover that it is wrong.

Yet we have all encountered immature adults.

You're displaying chauvinism and arrogance, not mature Christian character. The Hebrew term rendered "helper" is ezer kenegdo. It is used of God Himself. If you were consistent, you would believe that God is a mere "helper" of men. ... or be ignorant of the key terms in the original languages...

So you never consider cultural context? That’s foolish.

It's rather thoughtless to ask for "chapter and verse" after being told plainly that the relevant information is not in Scripture.

Not knowing offhand, I'd have to check the sources.

There is a view that the person who died on the cross was not Jesus but a lookalike, explaining how Jesus could appear to the disciples after His "death". If memory serves, it is the Moslems who teach this falsehood.

I strongly suggest you do some homework on the Hebrew word translated "helper"... look particularly at the subject of that noun in all its uses, then come back and review this passage. You seem to be fond of adding to Scripture in order to support your presuppositions. God did not curse Eve or...

Another unwarranted assumption.

I'll just let that speak for itself. No further commentary needed.