Scriptural Corruption?

The most predominate means of adding to scripture (or taking away from scripture) is to use such techniques to change the contextual meaning of the text to fit a secular, unbiblical man made philosophy.

It is most often used by folks who don’t like the plain meaning of the text because it conflicts with their beliefs.

They then must change the meaning of many passages as well to be consistent with their error, and start endless threads of “let’s change the meaning of this passage”

They also demean 2000 years of biblical scholarship and lift themselves as experts in the biblical languages because they can read a lexicon, while dismissing real languages experts that have studied for decades.

That is a pretty good summary if any can accept it.

peace to you

 

I believe the Biblical gift of salvation is the Biblical easy believism!

Matthew 11:27-30, All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

2 Corinthians 11:3, But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

John 3:16, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

Sounds a whole lot like Vanology.

 

Three is false per Matthew 7:21-23.

Denial of Biblical easy believism is to call God a liar per 1 John 5:9-13 in my view.

Titus 1:2, In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; . . .

 

We are at odds here.
. . . that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. . . .

 

Jesus warned about this in John 14:23-24 & John 15:20 Peter testifies that it was happening already in his day as those wresting the scriptures and not just Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15-17

I see Paul having to contend with a false teaching that the resurrection had happened already that overthrew the faith of some in 2 Timothy 2:18 and yet I find that false teaching inserted out of place in verses 52-53 of the event in Matthew 27:45-54 of what the centurion was seeing Christ on the cross, therefore verses 52-53 is a lie that was added to scripture.

Paul also had to contend with tongue for private users as if they are being self edified in that way for why Paul was exhorting believers to study the scriptures in 2 Timothy 2:15-16 and shun vain profane babbling. So 1 Corinthians 14:4 is a lie since Paul instructed for those that speak in tongues, to pray for an interpretation because until it is interpreted, it is unfruitful to the tongue speaker until he understands it per 1 Corinthians 14:12-15 and so how can 1 Corinthians 14:4 be true when tongues cannot edify self? It is an outright lie and so obviously added scripture. Paul even set the precedent for all the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:4 to profit the body of Christ 1 Corinthians 12:7 and so no member of the body can tell any other member of the body that they have no need of them which tongues for private users are saying the same thing in verse 21 of 1 Corinthians 12:19-21. Indeed, in the operation of the gifts of tongues and prophesy, 2 or 3 witnesses are required to established that testimony as coming from God in 1 Corinthians 14:27-29 & 2 Corinthians 13:1 & Matthew 18:16

It is right there in our faces and we allow these wrested scriptures to be used by tongues for private users,

Then you have John 16:13 in all Bible versions testifying that the Holy Spirit cannot speak from Himself at all and so the Holy Spirit cannot turn God's gift of tongues around for Himself to speak back to God and so 1 Corinthians 14:2 is a lie and I dare say the word "unto" should be switched out with from to get the truth in His words since the holy Spirit is not speaking any mysteries to God but from God to men. Same goes for 1 Corinthians 14:28 for how can anyone be commanded to be silent in the church and yet still speak to himself and to God? It is annoying today when people are whispering beside you and you are trying to hear what is being said and we have a sound system too and so imagine anyone trying to use verse 28 as if it is okay for them to use tongues for private use "quietly" in the church. It is not of the Lord at all.

There can be no lie of the truth and yet I can see now why I am stuck with correcting tongues for private users because someone wrest the scriptures to teach that tongues are for self edification when it can never be because that is the epitome of confusion when they cannot prove they are being self edified from when supposedly the Holy Spirit praying out loud for them. And so they try to be wise in their own eyes and say they know. Really? Then why did Paul instruct those in church to ray that someone may interpret so they can understand that tongue for that tongue to be fruitful to the tongue speaker as well?

It is apostasy for how they gained that kind of tongue and that is for looking to receive that baptism with the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues which Jesus warned against for any believer to do as becoming an adulterous generation in Matthew 12:38-40 and unless they repent and pray normally & be edified by scriptures, and chase no more after the Holy Spirit to receive again after any other sensational signs of confusion in the flesh, they are at risk of being left behind Revelation 2:18-25

1 John 5:7 about the Three witnesses in heaven was originally scripture as it was cited as such in debates ranging far back as 200 A.D. in debates over the Trinity & deity of Jesus Christ.

Chick.com: Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?

Yet what early church would even allow Sadducees and Pharisees be near the scriptures that they had, but Jesus did say those that did not love Him will not keep His words nor the sayings of His disciples and so one can imagine imposters infiltrating he churches for the sake of changing the scriptures here or there without anyone noticing and apparently, succeeding too, but we have enough of His words as truth to spot the lies when verses are running against scripture with the Lord's help per 1 Thessalonians 5: 21-24 & James 1:5-8 & 1 John 2:20-21 & 1 John 2:26-28 & Hebrews 4:12-16

John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Easy believism or OSAS is true BUT there is a consequence for not living that reconciled relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ and that is if one is found in unrepentant iniquity by the time the Bridegroom comes, they will be excommunicated from attending the Marriage Supper in Heaven 1 Corinthians 5:8-11 and left behind to die 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 & Revelation 2:18-25 & 2 Corinthians 5:7-11 & note verse 15 of 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 in spite of physical death in vs 16-17

 

Sorry but I don't understand. What have crickets got to do with adding to or subtracting from Scripture? Perhaps "crickets" has a meaning other than the grasshopper-like insects that I am not aware of. Thanks for your patience

 

Just wild guess but I believe the reference to crickets is towards the expected lack of response to his OP; hence silence where all he hears are the sounds of crickets.

 

Of course, there is that tactic of liberal woke Democrat that would ignore when someone does answer the question from which they can claim crickets anyway.

Silence means silence as any response has to be seen as a response even if it is not accepted whereby crickets cannot be applied.

Funny how my initial post got scooted down from post #2.

@canadyjd posted "The most predominate means of adding to scripture (or taking away from scripture) is to use such techniques to change the contextual meaning of the text to fit a secular, unbiblical man made philosophy.

It is most often used by folks who don’t like the plain meaning of the text because it conflicts with their beliefs." end of quote

So he did answer the question. Not a cricket.

@37818 Posted the way that he did because in your OP, you stated "Today, we have the liberal "Easy Believism" doctrine, which makes an accommodation for the flesh. And on the other hand we have legalism which has manufactured doctrine."

So your comment in the OP allowed for him to choose that side line off topic to respond on, but in retrospect, your refusal to believe in Easy Believism does qualify as an example of a passive scriptural deletion by glossing over scriptures that says otherwise for how we are saved. John 3:15-18

@kyredneck was replying to @canadyjd 's comment on your summary by posting "That is a pretty good summary if any can accept it." which the term "Vanology" is according to your personal belief. Not sure how you can assign that as negative or a personal attack from the comment by itself unless you are carrying other "obvious negative " comments of his from earlier exchanges with you from other threads for why you see his reply in that way.

Nevertheless, he was not replying to your OP since he was replying to another member's reply in this thread, but since he did not reply to the OP, you can claim crickets in that regard. Course, if he ever wanted to reply to the OP, he can but since you are glossing over some of these replies and claiming crickets, he probably does not care to do so.

You provided that off topic by mentioning it first and so the exchanges between you two is why it is not on the OP. You cannot claim crickets in that regard but by denying scriptures that supports Easy Believism which does not include doing whatever you want like living in sin, that is usually a projection by those that speak against Easy Believism, your action can be seen as deleting scriptures by ignoring the truth in scriptures even though it is still written in the scriptures.

There are more scriptures in post # 9 that members can read for themselves that is about how those who do not love Him will not keep His words per John 14:23-24 nor the words of His disciples John 15:20, and so that is the main reason why there will be adding and deleting scriptures. Peter announced that those believers that err, were already wresting the scriptures and even Paul's epistles back in their days per 2 Peter 3:15-17 all because they do not love Jesus Christ & His words.

And one has to wonder how Acts 15th chapter could have had happened unless converts were trending back to Judaism for why they would not love His words to keep them, especially when they are entrusted to make copies of the N.T. scriptures.

 

No such Biblical teaching.

 

New translations.

 

Thanks, that makes sense. I'd never heard "crickets" used in that way before.