Thursday, 7 August 2008

Jesus Called For Paedophiles To Be Killed




















It is to Jesus that we must turn for the cure for paedophiles in the Catholic Church and Church of England.

Christ himself called for the death penalty for paedophiles.

You wont hear your local trendy lefty vicar or your catholic priest calling for the death penalty - which is more proof of their apostasy - but Christ did.

In the Bible's New Testament, Jesus tells his disciples, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."

He didnt say this just once - but more than once.

(see Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; and Luke 17:2)


This is a direct call by Christ in the New Testament for paedophiles to be killed.

Those so called whimpering, gutless pseudo-Christians of the Liberal Heretic Church which is the spawn of Judeo-Marxism and not of Christianity, will never admit that Jesus sanctioned the death penalty.

Instead they promulgate the lie that Jesus was some sort of crypto-pacifist hippy, which is about as far as possible from the reality.

He fought the Romans, he fought the Pharisees, he fought the money changers and he is foretold to re-appear with a sword and fight all the evil in the world in Revelations.

The day he returns and all the paedophiles priests and paedophiles in the prisons have millstones placed around their necks and then are thrown into the sea is a day to look forward too.

On that day I will once again enter a church and give thanks for Christos, as on that great day I will know that all the apostates and perverts will no longer be the poison inside the church.

The issue of what is 'sin' opens up a whole load of interesting issues as to how far Jesus wanted the death penalty imposed.

Jesus says that it is better for the sinner to be killed than for them to be allowed to carry on sinning, which is in complete contrast to the usual 'love the sinner, but hate the sin' bullshit we got peddled to us at school and in church as kids.

In this case Christ is saying that contrary to forgiving the sin, it is better for the sinner (in relation to his immortal soul) that he be killed in order that he not further sully his soul with sin or that he reoffend and damage the souls of the children they abuse.

This is clarified in the following quotes ;

Luke 18 : 17 - " Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.


Matthew 18:3 and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Mark 10:15 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."


What Christos is saying is that a paedophile who abuses a child damages the inner spiritual child as much as the physical body of the child - and by so doing this hinders the abused person from achieving the state of spiritual innocence required for them to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

In the Gnostic texts in order for an adult to enter the Kingdom of Heaven they must become as spiritually innocent as a child - in effect undergo a spiritual rebirth and become as a child.

This is Christos saying that the effect of the Gnosis is that the inner illumination transforms the soul into that of a spiritual child.

This spiritual child is Christos - the spiritual rebirth the Gnostic experiences is that of them giving birth within themselves to the the inner Christos Child itself.

It is this inner child that is the 'Grail Child' that Mary Magdelene carries with her - and it means that Mary is Sophia/ Wisdom/ The Holy Grail and the Grail Christos Child she carries is symbolic of the inner 'Child Christ Soul' of the reborn initiate.

The Da Vinci Code took literally what was a spiritual allegory - the Grail child of Mary / Sophia and Christos is the inner Christos Child of the reborn Gnostic initiate that allows them access to the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Gnostic experiences an inner spiritual rebirth where they themselves become the 'Christ Child' and this opens the Kingdom of Heaven up for them.

The secret of the Grail is that Mary IS the Grail and at the same time she is the Gnosis that the Church has long sought to hide - Once one understands the Gnosis one is filled with the wisdom of Mary / Sophia and is reborn as a Christ Child.

Mary Magdelene WAS Sophia, an incarnation of Barbelo on earth - she is the Gnosis and the path to wisdom.

Mary is the Grail, she is Sophia, she is Wisdom and she is the Gnosis - once one understands all these things then one is prepared for the inner illumination that allows the birth of the inner Christ Child which allows the reborn 'Christos Child Soul' of the initiate access to the Kingdom of Heaven.

I believe that the section of the Gnostic cGospel of Phillip that so called 'experts' believe may state that Christos kissed Mary Magdelene and is evidence of a physical relationship, is in fact evidence of a spiritual relationship in that his kisses should be read as a form of 'drinking' wisdom from the lips of Mary - in that Mary was the living embodiment of the Grail itself - as she was the Grail incarnated in human physical form, and by 'kissing / drinking' from her lips Christos was partaking of the spiritual wisdom of Sophia of whom Mary was an emanation. This is what is meant by the 'Sacred Marriage' of the Gnostic Texts.

Both Christos and Mary were spiritual beings - Christos was the message bearer and Mary the container of his spiritual wisdom.

This is of immense import for it suggests that BOTH CHRISTOS AND MARY WERE INCARNATED TOGETHER - AND THAT THE CHRISTOS / MARY 'DIVINE MARRIAGE' WAS IN FACT THE KEY TO THE REVELATIONS OF THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS.

This is of immense importance as it means that Mary and Christ were the male / female aspects of God and that Mary was the container of the spiritual wisdom that sustained Christos on his mission - hence his regular 'kisses' which represented his partaking of her spiritual sustenance.

What is more important than this is the fact that whilst Christos died, Mary lived. This means that her wisdom, and the key to the Gnosis, still survives. This is symbolised by the Holy Grail - which when it appears is symbolic of the knowledge of the Gnosis being offered once more to the world


This is why the heretic Roman Church called her a 'whore' - as she was the living path to the inner Christos through wisdom of the Gnosis as opposed to the path of obedience to the Church and the demiurge throug obedience to its priests.

What Christos is saying in Matthew 18 : 6 is that the actions of a paedophile so damage the child and adult that it is difficult for them to be reborn as a spiritual child.

This is why Christ advocates the death of the paedophile - as he recognises that not only does the paedophile place their own soul in danger, they also damage the soul of the victim.

Therefore it is better they are killed.

Note that the comments relate specifically to crimes against children, and not against adults.

This is simply because an adult can choose to forgive the sinner, whilst a child bears the burden of the crime for all their lives.

Once a child is brutalised sexually then that 'stain' remains.

An sexually abused child can experience the Gnosis and inner rebirth, but it will be far more difficult for them than for an person who had not been sexually abused as a child.

This explains the meaning of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV


What Christos is saying is that all sins can be forgiven and all wrongs forgiven - EXCEPT THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN BY ADULTS.

Christ is saying that those adults who consciously choose to commit sins against children, or cause children to commit sins or who teach children to be sinners, should be killed.

This is repeated in the Bible not just once but three times, so the point Christ was making is explicit.

This is in line with the Gnostic teachings of Christos as in the Gnostic Gospels where Christos says that just because you are an obedient Bible obeying Christian, that this does not mean that you will enter the kingdom of Heaven - for in order for an individual to enter the Kingdom of Heaven Christos says that they must be reborn in LIFE as they will not be reborn after death ;

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error, they must receive the resurrection while they live."

- Gospel of Philip

The Gnostic Church called the literalist Biblical Christian view of the resurrection 'the faith of fools’, claiming those who announced that their dead master had come physically back to life confused a spiritual truth with an actual event. The Gnostics quoted the secret tradition of Jesus:

‘To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.’

In order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven your soul must be reborn via the Gnostic illumination as the Christos Child.

The beauty of the Gnostic gospels is that it offers an alternative path to redemption other than through obedience to the Yaldabaoth / Yahweh / Jehovah Church -and this is what the secret of the Holy Grail is truly about.

The symbol of the Grail is in fact a symbol of the Gnostic Inner Path to the Kingdom of Heaven, for the Grail is Mary /Sophia / Wisdom, and those who drink of the Grail are those who have drunk of the wisdom of the Gnosis and who have experienced inner enlightenment.

It is no concidence that the symbolism of the Grail as in the books, films etc we watch is so prevalent today - this is becase the Gnosis has been reborn and therefore the Grail has re-appeared.

The Gnostic Gospels suggest that whoever ‘sees the Lord’ or who experiences the birth of their own inner spiritual Christos Child can through inner vision claim that his or her own authority equals or surpasses that of the apostles and their successors.

By teaching that we should forgive paedophiles and those who commit sins against children or who teach children to be sinners ( eg those who sexualise children eg child pornographers and those who assist the sexualisation of children in order for their sexual exploitation by society ) then the Church is in fact contradicting the very message of Christ.

Those who commit sin against children, who incite children to sin, who teach them that sin is normal and acceptable, according to Christ must be killed.

Here we have a teaching of the Christos that offers a radical re-interpretation of the message of Christos.

When were you taught that in Sunday School ?






Add to Technorati Favorites

12 comments:

lormarie said...

Why am I so drawn to this blog? Whatever the case, I have a deep history with Christianity both positive and negative. I always took this verse to mean that the penalty for harming children or causing them to sin would be severe to the highest degree. So it is clear here that Jesus didn't take too kindly to those who harmed children...that my also include teaching them false doctrines (causing them to sin) as well as child abuse. Then again, there are plenty of instances in the OT where children were harmed but attributed to God's actions

2 Kings 2:23-24

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you baldhead!” they said. “Go on up, you baldhead!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Whether or not this can really be attributed to God is debatable. For some, it's conflicting.

alanorei said...

Interesting article, Lee, thanks

What is also interesting is that the KJB - and only the KJB - establishes the link between sodomites and child molesters.

Compare Genesis 18:20 and 19:4. "The cry OF Sodom and Gomorrah" is the cry of abused children because 19:4 indicates that all the adult males, young and old, were partakers in this evil.

You won't find that in any modern version, whether the NIV, beloved by evangelicals or the NKJV, beloved by conservative fundamentalists.

The modern translators all cover up for the child molesters. That is why the national church today isn't fit for purpose and "good for nothing, but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men" Matthew 5:13.

dizzyfatplonka said...

Like the article Lee, could I suggest that you widen the scope, for Jesus does not name phaedos specifically.
Im sure the

http://www.mothers-for-justice.net

Could do with the secret courts being slung in the canal with a stone around their necks also!

Get them onside Mate

alanorei said...

Re: 2 Kings 2:23-24, while it doesn't satisfy everyone, the context is Old Testament, i.e. don't denigrate a Prophet of God. See 2 Kings 1, for another example of God's judgement and remember that in the conquest of Canaan, the Israelites were commanded to put men, women and children to death.

Again, it's Old, not New Testament conditions.

But God's greatest indignation against Israel came when they adopted the heathen practice of sacrificing children to Baal, or Moloch, as in the time of Elijah.

lormarie said...

Re: 2 Kings 2:23-24, while it doesn't satisfy everyone, the context is Old Testament, i.e. don't denigrate a Prophet of God. See 2 Kings 1, for another example of God's judgement and remember that in the conquest of Canaan, the Israelites were commanded to put men, women and children to death.--AOrielly

And that's a problem for a lot of people. How can God in the NT state that those who harm children deserve death but send bears to maul children? Although some concordances show that the original word meant teenagers--then again, that same term was used to describe the infant Moses? Some believe that it wasn't the insult (bald head) that caused the children to be cursed but the phrase "go up" referring to a supernatural event that took place. Also as you have pointed out, men, women, and children were killed upon orders of Yahweh.

Again, it's Old, not New Testament conditions.--Allen Oreilly

I participate for the most part in forums about the atheism/theism debate. Many would answer the above stating that Jesus clearly affirmed everything in the OT. So those actions would still be relevant. Besides, there are plenty of things in the NT that many find troubling.

But God's greatest indignation against Israel came when they adopted the heathen practice of sacrificing children to Baal, or Moloch, as in the time of Elijah.--AllenOreilly

Perhaps, but then again, children were killed on the orders of Yahweh.

Disclaimer, I'm not attacking the Bible, just not afraid to admit that some things in it are quite troubling.

alanorei said...

Re: How can God in the NT state that those who harm children deserve death but send bears to maul children? etc.

First, you can safely set aside references to the original word. The text says "little children" and means what it says.

The answer is that in the Old Testament, it was dangerous for anyone to mock a prophet of God.

The NT references, e.g. Luke 17:1, 2, don't refer to any misdemeanour on the part of the children, but rather to someone offending them, or committing an offence against them. Elisha did nothing against his juvenile mockers. The insults were unprovoked.

And in the OT, any kind of disrespect to a man of God or even a holy artefact could bring down God's judgement without mercy, as in 2 Kings 1 and also 1 Samuel 6:19-20 (where the Indiana Jones plotline came from).

Re: Yahweh, the correct term is Jehovah. 'Yahweh' is an invention of non-Christian German theologians from about the 19th century or earlier.

Re: Jesus's affirmation of the OT. Yes, He certainly did. But again, a right division has to be made with respect to God's dealings with nations and individuals at different time periods, thus St Paul's admonition in 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJB only).

John 1:17 explains the difference: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

The OT largely demonstrated God's holiness and judgement (though also His mercy, Lamentations 3:22, 23).

Through the Lord Jesus Christ, most of the NT demonstrates God's grace and mercy, Personified, John 1:14, 1 Timothy 3:16 (mainly KJB, though the NKJV is also correct here - the counterfeit reading, NIV etc., would have been too risky).

The technical term is progressive revelation.

It is also interesting that while men plotted against the Lord and eventually murdered Him, no woman who met the Lord didn't love Him.

It was a very wise man, the late Bob Jones Snr., who therefore said that "The greatest moral monstrosity on the face of this earth is a woman who doesn't love the Lord Jesus Christ."

Re: The OT and the NT that trouble many people. They are designed to, i.e. 'comfort the afflicated but also afflict the comfortable.'

Re: children killed on the orders of Jehovah.

Not those sacrificed to Baal and Moloch, Jeremiah 19:5, 32:35.

If you mean Elisha's juvenile mockers, see above.

Of those killed during the conquest of Canaan and burnt to death in Sodom and Gomorrah any with no knowledge between good and evil Deuteronomy 1:39 i.e. innocent, though dying violently in this life, would have gone to the place of Old Testament salvation called Abraham's bosom (if not directly to God Himself) Luke 16:22 and thus have been eternally saved.

The problem is that folk think their righteousness is greater than God's. It isn't. Ezekiel 18 is a good commentary to this effect.

lormarie said...

First, you can safely set aside references to the original word. The text says "little children" and means what it says--alanorei

Actually, the bible doesn't always mean what it says when you consider that the original texts were not written in English. What we have now are translations. Not everything translates perfectly and even accurately into other languages. Case in point, the genealogies in Matthew and Luke include two different men as the father of Joseph. This is often used to support the belief that the Bible contradicts itself. Matthew's gospel uses the word begat and Luke's gospel uses the word son. If we rely on "what it says", that is a clear contradiction. If we consider that it is a translation, things become clear. According to a concordance I use, the original word for begat implies a direct father son connection. Son, as used in Luke, can mean father/son, but can also imply grandson, son-in-law, nephew, etc. Therefore, we cannot simply rely on what it says. Even the KJV isn't perfect.

Elisha did nothing against his juvenile mockers. The insults were unprovoked.--AlanOrei

Would you have handled the situation the same way he did?

It was a very wise man, the late Bob Jones Snr., who therefore said that "The greatest moral monstrosity on the face of this earth is a woman who doesn't love the Lord Jesus Christ."--AlanOrei

Normally, I prefer to avoid discussions on gender with white men who describe themselves as nationalists or racialists, but since you brought this in... I find his comment to be terribly insulting because most of the chaos created in this world came via men who "don't love the Lord Jesus Christ." I don't know why Jones would say something like that.

The problem is that folk think their righteousness is greater than God's. It isn't. Ezekiel 18 is a good commentary to this effect.--AlanOrei

Well that's true of people similar to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. But for others, myself included, feeling better than God isn't the issue.

What Christos is saying is that all sins can be forgiven and all wrongs forgiven - EXCEPT THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN BY ADULTS.--DOL

I forgot to respond to this. UNFORTUNATELY, the sexual abuse of children is not the unforgivable sin according to the Bible. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is. I don't mean the Rational Response Squad Blasphemy Challenge, LOL. I once got into a discussion with an ExChristian who could not understand why Blasphemy (of the Holy Spirit) was unforgivable but molesting a child is not. From my POV, a person who blasphemes/rejects God "at that level" would probably do anything evil including molest a child.

alanorei said...

Actually, the bible doesn't always mean what it says when you consider that the original texts were not written in English. What we have now are translations. Not everything translates perfectly and even accurately into other languages

The Bible means exactly what it says.

"I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
"
Isaiah 45:19

Re: originals and translations etc.

God is able to preserve His words.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" Psalm 12:6, 7

Nothing is lost in translation and translation is actually an improvement on the 'original,' wherever the scriptures uses the term, e.g. God translated the kingdom from Saul to David, 2 Samuel 3:5. Look at the use of the word in Colossians 1:13 and Hebrews 11:5.

No-one has yet found an 'error' in the KJB that withstands scrutiny, or an 'inferior' translation.

However, the modern versions are riddled with errors, all of them.

Moreover, NT Greek is a dead language, like Latin and OT Hebrew is spoken only by a miniscule percentage of the world's population. Reverting to the original languages is a retrograde step. God has moved on. So has His Book. All revivals etc. in the last 500 years have come from the KJB Text, not the Greek or Hebrew.

Case in point, the genealogies in Matthew and Luke include two different men as the father of Joseph.

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are not a case in point. Otherwise, the bible would long ago have gone out of print.

Luke 3 gives the Lord's genealogy through His mother. A father-in-law in scripture can sometimes be listed or referred to as a father, e.g. 1 Samuel 24:16. You have to allow the scripture to implement its own rules.

Re: Elisha's handling of the situation, again you should rightly divide between the OT and NT. Read Luke 9:52-56 (corrupted by most modern versions).

Re: insulting comment. Bob Jones Snr. said it because it is true. Individual reactions are something else. However, read Matthew 15:21-28, where verse 26 is about the most insulting remark anyone could make to anyone (the term Canaan is significant in the ethnic context). But the essence of the passage is that the way up is the way down. The Hamite woman mentioned accomplished something that no (male) scholar or sceptic has ever done, in 2000 years.

"Well that's true of people similar to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. But for others, myself included, feeling better than God isn't the issue"

I didn't say feeling, I said thinking. The (male) individuals listed are wrong, because they are full of the Devil, Isaiah 14:13-15. Ezekiel 18 is right. I suggest once again, read it.

Re: your last paras. It is true that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, 1 Peter 1:18, 19. However, the Lord's commentary on the judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah is instructive, Matthew 11:23, 24. Note that Nineveh got a chance to repent, Jonah 1-4. Sodom etc. did not. The question is, why? I suggest that the nature of Sodom's sin has something to do with the answer.

But in sum, the legal and spiritual aspects have to be addressed separately, as Lee's original post indicates. Capital punishment for serious crimes is scriptural and should be implemented after due process but even the condemned felon can escape hell, the repentant thief being one example, Luke 23:39-43.

Which also bears reflection.

LorMarie said...

The Bible means exactly what it says.--AlanOrei

So, are we to cut off our right hand or pluck out our right eye if either offends us?

Matthew 5:29-30
29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off , and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Nothing is lost in translation and translation is actually an improvement on the 'original,'--AlanOrei

I remember speaking with a rabbinical student who claimed that English has basically butchered the meaning of biblical texts. I'm paraphrasing his stance, but I can see where he's coming from. English is a complex language. It is nearly impossible for any translation to be perfect. The problem is, you may feel that saying such a thing means something is wrong with the bible itself. That is not the case. I'm just being realistic about things.

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are not a case in point.--AlanOrei

I say they are. To illustrate my point, explain how you know Luke's genealogy is traced through Mary using only the bible (no extra Biblical sources, please).

Re: insulting comment. Bob Jones Snr. said it because it is true. Individual reactions are something else. However, read Matthew 15:21-28, where verse 26 is about the most insulting remark anyone could make to anyone (the term Canaan is significant in the ethnic context). But the essence of the passage is that the way up is the way down. The Hamite woman mentioned accomplished something that no (male) scholar or sceptic has ever done, in 2000 years.--AlanOrei

First I'd like to say that I am familiar with arguments regarding Ham and Canaan. I have no doubt as to what your view is as I am sure you can figure out mine. Lastly, one thing you should know about me is that I am not impressed with big names, philosophers, scientists, or anything else behind quotes and opinions. In other words, I wouldn't care if the pope made the comment that Bob Jones Sr. made. If I say it's wrong, it's wrong (to me it is).

Re: your last paras. It is true that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, 1 Peter 1:18, 19. However, the Lord's commentary on the judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah is instructive, Matthew 11:23, 24. Note that Nineveh got a chance to repent, Jonah 1-4. Sodom etc. did not. The question is, why? I suggest that the nature of Sodom's sin has something to do with the answer.--AlanOrei

I agree with that to a point. It always appeared to me that Sodom and Gomorrah were far into that "particular sin." Others debate about what the nature of the sin was. A church I used to attend regularly taught that it had nothing to do with homosexuality. Whether right or wrong, that's what they taught.

No-one has yet found an 'error' in the KJB that withstands scrutiny, or an 'inferior' translation.--AlanOrei

OK, I'll start with this one from the KJV:

2 Kings 8
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

alanorei said...

So, are we to cut off our right hand or pluck out our right eye if either offends us? Matthew 5:29, 30

The context is what would keep you out of hell. In the Church Age (now), the scripture reveals that you have to receive Christ to keep out of hell, John 1:12, 13.

Nothing should prevent you from taking that step, if you haven't. The Lord meant what He said, because He knew about hell, having created it, Matthew 25:41.

I remember speaking with a rabbinical student who claimed that English has basically butchered the meaning of biblical texts.

Coming from an individual who would have rejected the New Testament in its entirety as holy scripture, this stance does not surprise me.

It is nearly impossible for any translation to be perfect.

i.e. it is possible, therefore, even if difficult. The King's men were up to the job. See The Men Behind the KJV by Gustavus Paine.

But the scripture itself contains 'perfect' translations. Check Acts 21:40, 22:1-41. Numerous translations exist in scripture itself which not even the 'originals onlyists' dispute, e.g. Acts 8:32, 33.

If I say it's wrong, it's wrong (to me it is).

In the scripture, this is called being wise in one's own conceit, Proverbs 26:12. The Devil had the same problem, Isaiah 14:13, 14. Proverbs 16:18 is also worthy of reflection.

I didn't put forward Dr Bob as a big name. I put him forward as a wise man. There is a difference.

"Great men are not always wise" Job 32:9.

A church I used to attend regularly taught that it had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Probably based on taking Ezekiel 16:49 out of context (this is how that teaching is usually concocted). The context is verse 50.

Re: 2 Kings 8:26 versus 2 Chronicles 22:2. Again, if this apparent contradiction was actually so, the bible would long be out of print.

But it should be understood that this is an OT historical, rather than translational issue. The accuracy and quality of the translation of these passages is not at issue, i.e. 'the Hebrew' says the same.

Re: the historical aspect, Dr Peter S. Ruckman in The 'Errors' in the KJB, p 241ff, states that Ahaziah was anointed king aged 22 but didn't occupy the throne until age 42.

Dr Gerardus Bouw, in The Book of Bible Problems, p 112ff, however, says that the passages refer to two different Ahaziahs.

Both explanations have arguments in their favour.

If you can come up with a definitive explanation, please let me know. I recommend both books.

However, these passages do not constitute an 'error' as such, but rather an unresolved problem, of which various examples exist in the scriptures, e.g. James 4:5, no-one has yet located "the scripture" referred to. Neither has anyone positively identified Melchizedek yet, Genesis 14:18-20, Hebrews 7.

If and when you can, a great many KJB believers, including myself, would be interested in the results.

lormarie said...

The context is what would keep you out of hell. In the Church Age (now), the scripture reveals that you have to receive Christ to keep out of hell, John 1:12, 13.

Nothing should prevent you from taking that step, if you haven't. The Lord meant what He said, because He knew about hell, having created it, Matthew 25:41--AlanOrei

If we are not to pluck out our eyes, then the text doesn't mean what it says. That's true of many biblical passages?

In the scripture, this is called being wise in one's own conceit, Proverbs 26:12. --AlanOrei

A case could be made that you are breaking the first commandment...making an idol out of Bob Jones Sr. I believe his comment was nothing more than his opinion. No big deal.

The Devil had the same problem, Isaiah 14:13, 14. Proverbs 16:18 is also worthy of reflection.--AlanOrei

Devils, demons, goblins, gremlins. Some people don't believe in such "entities." No offense to those who do. I'm just not a "devil made me do it" type of person.

Re: the historical aspect, Dr Peter S. Ruckman in The 'Errors' in the KJB, p 241ff, states that Ahaziah was anointed king aged 22 but didn't occupy the throne until age 42.

Dr Gerardus Bouw, in The Book of Bible Problems, p 112ff, however, says that the passages refer to two different Ahaziahs.--AlanOrei

Personally, I think that the argument for two Ahaziah's is reaching.

However, these passages do not constitute an 'error' as such, but rather an unresolved problem, of which various examples exist in the scriptures, e.g. James 4:5, no-one has yet located "the scripture" referred to. Neither has anyone positively identified Melchizedek yet, Genesis 14:18-20, Hebrews 7.

If and when you can, a great many KJB believers, including myself, would be interested in the results.--AlanOrei

That's the problem, I can't find the answers to the mistakes in the KJV because they are just that, mistakes. I believe that either the passage in Kings is wrong or Chronicles is wrong. To me, those mistakes (if they appeared in the original texts) make the bible more authentic and thus believable. To claim that everything is error free and perfect is to be "super spiritual" which I think is not healthy. That can lead to unrealistic or extreme religiosity like the people I reference here http://lormarie.com/2008/07/19/are-some-christian-groups-mimicking-pagan-services/.

As for Melchizedek, I know no more about him than I do "Cain's wife."

alanorei said...

Re: If we are not to pluck out our eyes, then the text doesn't mean what it says.

The key word is "if" as found in both verses as well as in your comment. The Lord is illustrating what is preferable to hell. He often spoke in strong terms, as indicated elsewhere by his use of distinct metaphors, e.g. John 10:7, 15:5. He is simply saying that self-mutilation is better than hell, if it would keep you out of there. It is also a pre-crucifixion discourse. As indicated in my earlier post, the position now is you don't have to do the one or go to the other.

That said, although a saved man, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer applied the passage when burnt at the stake on March 21st 1556. He thrust his right hand into the flames and held it there until it burned to a crisp and dropped off, declaring "This unworthy right hand" Fox, edit. Forbush, p 249. He had signed his recantation of the Reformed Faith with that hand but re-affirmed his Protestant convictions in a sermon delivered at St Mary's Church Oxford, which precipitated his immediate execution.

Re: A case could be made that you are breaking the first commandment...making an idol out of Bob Jones Sr

Disagreed. I said he was a wise man who spoke the truth. I did not say he was omniscient, which is exclusively God's attribute.

Re: I'm just not a "devil made me do it" type of person

I didn't say that you were. I was simply pointing out an apparent subjectivity - to which anyone is prone.

Re: whether to believe in unclean spirts etc. Missionaries do. So do any Christians who have been involved in deliverance ministries. I suggest read Doreen Irvine's testimony, From Witchcraft to Christ or possibly He Came To Set The Captives Free by Rebecca Yoder-Brown MD (she has her detractors, naturally).

Re: I believe that either the passage in Kings is wrong or Chronicles is wrong. To me, those mistakes (if they appeared in the original texts) make the bible more authentic and thus believable.

The passages in the KJB match the Masoretic Hebrew text, as Drs Ruckman and Bouw do affirm. To insist that one or the other must be a mistake, when neither are proven errors because explanations are possible, is somewhat presumptuous, I think.

I have heard the 'inconsistency = authenticity' argument before (from a Christian pastor/evangelist in about 1970). Although it seems reasonable, the problem is that it relegates the bible to the words of men, not God. If that is the case (which it isn't) then as St Paul said, in a similar context, "your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins
"
1 Corinthians 15:17.

Re: To claim that everything is error free and perfect is to be "super spiritual" which I think is not healthy.

I didn't claim that everything is error free and perfect. I claimed that the KJB is error free and perfect.

I do think it is somewhat more ""super spiritual"" confidently to charge with error the document that was, as I think I've said, the standard of truth in our law courts for many a long year when British justice was not only done but seen to be done.

If that is your stance, then you are certainly more spiritual than me, as well as more intelligent.

Re: Melchizedek, I understand that identification of him as Shem, Noah's second son, solves 90% of the problems, i.e. 100% certainty is not possible - for now.

Re: Cain's wife. He married one of his sisters, Genesis 5:4, unidentified in scripture. Consanguinity doesn't become a problem for humans until much later, which is why it is forbidden in the Mosaic Law. The Creation Science Movement in this country has probably got some literature on this.

Thank you for the blogspot address, which is noted. To be fair to Lee, who has been very patient with us both, it may be better to continue further discussion there, if needed.

Anyway, I'll keep a look out on your blog for this purpose, and this is to advise, if Lee is OK about posting this missive, for info.