Is Rapture the correct term?

[olegig]

And that He told them at the time of the Transfiguration that some of them would still be alive when He came into His kingdom.

Let me see if I can answer that one for you:

Mark 9:1-4 (King James Version)
Mark 9
1And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
2And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

As seen in the text above those who were promised to see the kingdom of God come with power had the fulfillment only a few days later in vs. 4.

 

[asterisktom]

Let me see if I can answer that one for you:

Mark 9:1-4 (King James Version)
Mark 9
1And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
2And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

As seen in the text above those who were promised to see the kingdom of God come with power had the fulfillment only a few days later in vs. 4.

I was surprised that you made that particular choice. Two problems:
1. The text doesn't say that the Kingdom of God came with power (Mark 8), or that "the Son of Man" at that time was "coming into His kingdom" (Matt.). So the Transfiguration could not be a fulfilment of what Christ prophesied (See all three Gospel passages and study out what was actually promised in all its details).
2. Your interpretation would make for a very lame Prophecy from Christ, as if He would have said, "Verily, verily I say unto you in six days' time most of you will be alive still." That would be ridiculous; such a phrase would be uselessly stating the obvious.

No, clearly Christ meant something different. Clearly, the disciples would have expected something different. This is seen - apart from the reasons above - by their still asking Him about the kingdom at the opening of the Book of Acts.

 

[Darrell C]

Lets look at why some believe in the "Rapture"

Hi to All,

I'm new here, so I hope I don't upset anyone with this reply. Keep in mind, I am only stating the reason for my belief in the Rapture, as some have stated why they don't.

The term Rapture, though a modern term for a Latin word (rapturos, I believe), is the most common term for this particular doctrine in use today. And it is so much easier to say than "the catching away". So to answer Salty's question, I don't have a problem using this term.

Though I am not a Catholic, and do not venerate the Vulgate, I would remind some that this was the translation used by many for a long time. We would be arrogant in assuming that God's hand's were tied at this time in history, and that no-one was saved by hearing His word as preached from this translation.

Which leads to my thought that reliance on a translation is problematic in itself. While I am not a Language Scholar, I do not feel that understanding God's word is only for the scholar. Peter may have known greek, but he was, after all, a fisherman.

On the flip-side of that coin, neither do I think we should make the error of discounting proper interpretation and disregard the efforts of the scholars either. They help those of us that are limited (I myself) to understand the import of grammatical, historical, and cultural aspects found in scripture, that without knowledge of, we would be in serious error in our doctrine.

(I'm sure this has all been discussed before, but bear with me)

One of the things I see as important to understanding the beliefs of others is actually understanding what they believe. This applies to us as brethren who should be of like mind, but is also important in witnessing. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe our greatest defense against false doctrine is a solid understanding of truth.

So, although it is off topic, a few thoughts on why I believe in the "rapture".

1-It was said the bible does not teach a tribulation. It does in many places (we can discuss this further if you wish, in a proper thread).

This is the starting point for a belief in the catching away.

Daniel chapter 9 describes seventy weeks (properly, 70 sevens) of judgement for Israel. They are separated into 3 (4, if you count Messiah being cut off) periods.

7 weeks, then: 62 weeks, then: Messiah is cut off (some calculate this time to coincide with Christ's triumphal entry) then: 1 week.

This last week is Daniel's seventieth week. The Messianic Judaizers (or at least some of them) consider Jacob's time of Trouble (another term for this seven year period) to refer to the second 3 1/2 years.

Jesus spoke of tribulation, and then great tribulation: this is why most see a distinction between the first and second half of the tribulation.

All of that is secondary to the fact that this seventieth week, the tribulation, is directly dealing with Israel. At this time, the "time of the gentiles" will have ended, and gentile inclusion will be ended. Not saying gentiles will not be saved at this time, but I believe what we call the "Church Age" will also end.

The tribulation is the Day of the Lord, a terrible time of judgement: specifically for Israel, because it is the final fulfillment of prophecy, but also judgement for "all those who know not God and do not obey the Gospel".

So the first thing to know about those who believe in the rapture is that some of us see this time period as pertaining to Israel and the gentile world in judgement.

Sorry, be back in a bit...

Please let me know if any are unhappy that I am so woefully off-topic, or if it is okay to express some thoughts that do not directly deal with the thread's particular topic.

God bless.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

Back to the OP. I prefer the term "gathering/changing" to the word rapture. Since it describes the same event, it more aptly uses Scriptural terms (1 Cor 15, 2 Thess 2) to descibe the event. It only happens once, in the air, and only happens to the Church.

 

[olegig]

asterisktom,

1. The text doesn't say that the Kingdom of God came with power (Mark 8)

So you do not think it took just a little power to bring about what appeared in vs. 3&4?

2. Your interpretation would make for a very lame Prophecy from Christ,

Again, I hardy think the appearance of Elisa and Moses was lame.
I bet those with Jesus did not think of it as lame, in fact I bet they believed what they saw, even though they did not understand it.

IMO most folks problem with the scriptures is one of belief, not understanding.
Does one really feel God will reveal understanding to an individual who does not even believe the simple word in the first place?

No, clearly Christ meant something different. Clearly, the disciples would have expected something different. This is seen - apart from the reasons above - by their still asking Him about the kingdom at the opening of the Book of Acts.

Here you make a very good point for indeed it seems the disciples had no idea of what was coming ahead of them.
They knew nothing of the mysteries that would later be revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ through though Paul.

All they knew is what had been revealed in the OT about God promising a Messiah who would be a physical King, physically setting on the throne of David, while physically ruling over all Israel.
And they knew Jesus was that promised Messiah to the Jews.

I have no doubt God will keep His Word in the future. Do you doubt the Word of God?

 

[asterisktom]

asterisktom,


I have no doubt God will keep His Word in the future. Do you doubt the Word of God?

No. Have you quit beating your wife?

I figured one loaded question deserves another.

 

[asterisktom]

2. Your interpretation would make for a very lame Prophecy from Christ,

Again, I hardy think the appearance of Elisa and Moses was lame.

Not so fast. What about Christ's prophecy?

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

1. He said unto them - people with Him, apostles.
2. Verily - truly. He is not lying.
3. Some of those standing right there will see the fulfillment.
4. Fulfillment part 1: They will not taste death.
5. Fulfillment part 2: They will see the kingdom of God coming with power. They will see Christ coming into His kingdom (per Matt.)
6. Corollary: The time frame of the prophecy - mere days before the transfiguration - make that event extremely unlikely as the time of fulfillment. Such would be as trivial as me prophesying that tomorrow there will be birds flying in the air over Del Rio, Texas.

Please, deal with this first. And then I will oblige you with the rest.

 

[olegig]

good morning asterisktom,

olegig said in #65:
All they knew is what had been revealed in the OT about God promising a Messiah who would be a physical King, physically setting on the throne of David, while physically ruling over all Israel.
And they knew Jesus was that promised Messiah to the Jews.
I have no doubt God will keep His Word in the future. Do you doubt the Word of God?

to which you answered in #66:
No. Have you quit beating your wife?
I figured one loaded question deserves another.

I am glad to know you do not doubt the Word of God and feel He will keep His Word of prophecy and sometime in the future Jesus Christ will return and physically reign from the throne of David and all Israel will be saved and given the land they were promised.

1. He said unto them - people with Him, apostles.
In Mk 9:1 Jesus said "some of them that stand here..."
Do you not feel the Peter, Jame, and John of vs.2 were standing there?
IMO He said "some" because it quiet possible Judas was in the crowd. You remember Judas don't you???
He was one of the "chosen" who went straight to hell.
John 6:70 (King James Version)
70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

asterisktom, you do agree that one of the chosen is now a devil in hell don't you????

2. Verily - truly. He is not lying.
A very good point, one should believe Him without question.

3. Some of those standing right there will see the fulfillment.
Again, I would ask: "Was not the appearance of Elias and Moses a bit powerful???"
And note in vs. 5 the disciples did not question what was going on, they wanted to build tabernacles to mark the occasion.

4. Fulfillment part 1: They will not taste death.
IMHO Peter, James, and John were very much alive; but we need also to recognize that many times prophecies can have more than one "fulfillment".
There can be a near fulfillment and a fulfillment further out.
Perhaps we should investigate what Jesus meant when He used the term "death". (Oh, those pesky terms again..)

please see:

John 11:11 (King James Version)
11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

Jesus said Lazarus was only sleeping; but!!!,,,,BUT!!! all the humans would swear Lazarus was dead, had suffered death.
In John 11:39 Martha even said "he stinketh"......

asterisktom, IMO if we are to discern what Jesus meant in Mk 9:1 by the use of the term "death"; then I feel we should search the scriptures for the definition and not rely on what man would wish Jesus to be saying.

I know I will see Jesus coming to get me in all His glory before I taste of death even if it is another 500 yrs.
My old body may be laying in the grave; but my soul and spirit will live forever!!!! amen???

5. Fulfillment part 2: They will see the kingdom of God coming with power. They will see Christ coming into His kingdom (per Matt.)

I have no doubt that had "all Israel" accepted Jesus as Messiah at the First Advent, then He would have been killed by the Romans (it had to happen to fulfill prophecy) and the Second Advent would have shortly come about.

But Israel did not; therefore the near fulfillment stands and we are left waiting for the far fulfillment to be completed.

6. Corollary: The time frame of the prophecy - mere days before the transfiguration - make that event extremely unlikely as the time of fulfillment. Such would be as trivial as me prophesying that tomorrow there will be birds flying in the air over Del Rio, Texas.

If those birds are flying hand-in-hand with Elias and Moses, then I would take note my friend for there is a time prophesied in the future when Elias and Moses will again appear followed shortly by some birds that are invited to eat on the remains of those unbelieving earth dwellers.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[asterisktom]

good morning asterisktom,

Good morning to you, too.

I am glad to know you do not doubt the Word of God and feel He will keep His Word of prophecy and sometime in the future Jesus Christ will return and physically reign from the throne of David and all Israel will be saved and given the land they were promised.

Sigh* Do not put words in my mouth. Did you want to discuss these things, or did you want to posture? I do not believe in Christ's physically reigning from from David's throne.

I believe the Bible, instead. Don't you? (There. That is an example of me posturing. It comes across as irritating and condescending and is not conducive to productive discussion)

6. Corollary: The time frame of the prophecy - mere days before the transfiguration - make that event extremely unlikely as the time of fulfillment. Such would be as trivial as me prophesying that tomorrow there will be birds flying in the air over Del Rio, Texas.

If those birds are flying hand-in-hand with Elias and Moses, then I would take note my friend for there is a time prophesied in the future when Elias and Moses will again appear followed shortly by some birds that are invited to eat on the remains of those unbelieving earth dwellers.:smilewinkgrin:

When you get around to actually answering my question perhaps we can get somewhere. You still have not dealt with it.

I am not going to bother any more answering your post unless you answer in a simple, meaningful way to my simple question. I just don't have the time nor desire to get into convoluted convo that never goes anywhere.

Once again - for anyone - When do you think Christ's words to His disciples were fulfilled when He said "there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power"?

BTW, I do not believe in double fulfillment here, but even if it one believed that it still wouldn't make sense. It would still mean a lame fulfilment if it happened just a few days later.

 

[HankD]

Good morning to you, too.

Sigh* Do not put words in my mouth. Did you want to discuss these things, or did you want to posture? I do not believe in Christ's physically reigning from from David's throne.

I believe the Bible, instead. Don't you? (There. That is an example of me posturing. It comes across as irritating and condescending and is not conducive to productive discussion)

When you get around to actually answering my question perhaps we can get somewhere. You still have not dealt with it.

I am not going to bother any more answering your post unless you answer in a simple, meaningful way to my simple question. I just don't have the time nor desire to get into convoluted convo that never goes anywhere.

Once again - for anyone - When do you think Christ's words to His disciples were fulfilled when He said "there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power"?

BTW, I do not believe in double fulfillment here, but even if it one believed that it still wouldn't make sense. It would still mean a lame fulfilment if it happened just a few days later.

Greetings Tom,

I'll try to give a scriptural explanantion of a few things here, not exhaustive, because personally and IMO a protracted debate will just cause strife.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.​

The word in the vulgate (an update to the various versions of the first century Old Itala) for "caught up" is rapiemur, Harpazo in the Greek.

This is also the root of the following passage in both the Latin and the Greek:

2 Corinthians 12
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.​

Call it what one will (rapto, harpazo), it simply means to be taken from one place to another in a quick or sudden manner.​

As to: Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.​

Notice that they (some) will indeed die the mortal death but not until they see his the coming of the Son of man in His kingdom.​

Personally, because it is stated that they will not die until they see His "coming" I don't believe this applies to His bodily return but the events following the signs and wonders of Acts 2 and the coming of the earthly manifestation of His kingdom, the Church.​

The Book of Acts ending on that note:​

Acts 28
30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.​

More on his bodily return...​

Luke 17
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed (apokalupto).​

Matthew 24
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.​

Notice that just before judgment falls in both these scenarios, an elect few are quickly removed or delivered out of the area of destruction.​

In my view the time period between Acts 2 and the present is the "coming of the lord in His kingdom", the "rapture" being His sudden appearing (apokalupto) in which "every eye will see Him" just before which the elect will be either quickly removed and/or or protected from the impending doom.​

Then when He does makes His apokalupto He will come suddenly and bring swift destruction with Him against all the ungodly.​

And yes, the time duration and the order of the series of events surrounding what is called the Great Tribulation is debatable.​

I would also disagree with you that there is a difference in methodology between the devolpment of the doctrine of the Trinity and eschatology.​

It took 2-3 centuries to fully develope the doctrine of the Trinity (in it's proper place and time) and still not universally accepted in "Christendom".​

IMO, Eschatology is now in its proper time and place to be developed because the end of the age is upon us. I guess we won't know all the details until the very end and even then some will get it wrong.

HankD​

 

[asterisktom]

Greetings Tom,

I'll try to give a scriptural explanantion of a few things here, not exhaustive, because personally and IMO a protracted debate will just cause strife.

Thank you, Hank, for your in-depth response. I agree that pursuing these things too far tends to cause strife. Don't worry, I am not up for one of those. BTW, the eschatology group I started in 98 has plenty of discussion in their archives: I read recently arguments I made there for positions I am now quite against.

But, just to zero in on one thing: Do you not think that the fulfillment for the prophecy of Jesus ("there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.") is not too soon to place at the beginning of Acts? After all, that would be just a few weeks after the Transfiguration, and hardly fitting, IMO, as far as time-frame is concerned.

Here is the reason why I asked the question - of anyone. I am reading through J. Stuart Russell's The Parousia, and I have to say that he makes a pretty good case for a semi-Preterist position (that is, he has convinced me on much, but not all of that position). My position on this is more in line with RC Sproul, as far as I can see. RC, BTW, Sproul wrote the Forward to this book, blending nine parts commendation with one part caveat.

So the reason for the question is to see what reasonable alternative there was to the view that the prophecy of Christ had its fulfilment in 70 AD. So far I have seen none. In fact, for years now, in all the commentaries I read, sermons read, Greek professors heard back in school, I have not encountered a convincing alternative to what I am reading in The Parousia.

 

[olegig]

asterisktom

Did you want to discuss these things, or did you want to posture?

You stated you had a problem with what Jesus said about the 3 still being alive when they saw His Kingdom and I gave you a literal answer.
So far as discussion, I have not seen any positive thoughts from you on the subject as yet to discuss.
It appears your position is only: "that cannot be, because that is not the way I (asterisktom) believe it."

I do not believe in Christ's physically reigning from from David's throne.

That's fine, many don't; but I am interested in what you do with all the scriptures that speak of it.
But with that light, I do understand the only interpretation of the 3 being alive would have to concur with your unbelief of the physicality of the fulfillment of scripture.

I believe the Bible, instead.
Hummm, I suppose that would require yet another discussion to discern which Bible we are talking about.

When you get around to actually answering my question perhaps we can get somewhere. You still have not dealt with it.

So far, I can't see where we have gotten past the part about how Jesus used the word "death" and nor have we finished with the part about "some".
But now you wish to jump into the meat of the passage and deal with the implications of the "after 6 days" of Matt and Mk and the "about and 8 days" of Luke?
I will say that 7 comes between 6&8 and "...that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2Pet 3:8

Once again - for anyone - When do you think Christ's words to His disciples were fulfilled when He said "there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power"?

Why don't you just come clean and give us your interpretation; then we can set back and shoot arrows at you, (you know the saying,,turn-about is fair play).

You speak of posturing and loaded questions, check out the one above in blue for me thinks you already have an answer for which you are searching.

 

[asterisktom]

You stated you had a problem with what Jesus said about the 3 still being alive when they saw His Kingdom and I gave you a literal answer.
So far as discussion, I have not seen any positive thoughts from you on the subject as yet to discuss.
It appears your position is only: "that cannot be, because that is not the way I (asterisktom) believe it."

Here are my positive thoughts copied and pasted from another post:

Here is the reason why I asked the question - of anyone. I am reading through J. Stuart Russell's The Parousia, and I have to say that he makes a pretty good case for a semi-Preterist position (that is, he has convinced me on much, but not all of that position). My position on this is more in line with RC Sproul, as far as I can see. BTW, Sproul wrote the Forward to this book, blending nine parts commendation with one part caveat.

So the reason for the question is to see what reasonable alternative there was to the view that the prophecy of Christ had its fulfilment in 70 AD. So far I have seen none. In fact, for years now, in all the commentaries I read, sermons read, Greek professors heard back in school, I have not encountered a convincing alternative to what I am reading in The Parousia.

I do not believe in Christ's physically reigning from from David's throne.

That's fine, many don't; but I am interested in what you do with all the scriptures that speak of it.

"All the scriptures"? What scripture - just name one - says that Christ will be physically reigning from David's throne.

But with that light, I do understand the only interpretation of the 3 being alive would have to concur with your unbelief of the physicality of the fulfillment of scripture.

See? This is why pursuing this with you is problematic: You put words in my mouth - and then expect an answer. That last sentence is hard to even understand.

 

[RevJWWhiteJr]

Not a single reference to "tribulation period". Positive on that. I checked.

And, yes, no mention at all of an interim period of years between coming1 and coming2.

But perhaps the biggest factor that turned me away from this theology was that it just had no answer for Christ's many promises to come to His own "soon", or "quickly". And that He told them at the time of the Transfiguration that some of them would still be alive when He came into His kingdom.

Great Tribulation is mentioned three times in the scripture. "the great tribulation" is not. "great tribulation period" is not. Does that mean there is no great tribulation period? The teaching exists in scripture, the 70th week of Daniel. The "week" of the seven year peace treaty between the anti-christ and Israel.

What other "term" or "phrase" is not in the scripture that almost all Christian denominations and views use almost every day?

"The Second Coming". Ain't in there. Does that mean "it" will not take place?

Bro. Chip

 

[RevJWWhiteJr]

Oops

I posted that without refreshing my screen, sorry. Your engaged, so to speak. I'll wait.

 

[HankD]

Thank you, Hank, for your in-depth response. I agree that pursuing these things too far tends to cause strife. Don't worry, I am not up for one of those. BTW, the eschatology group I started in 98 has plenty of discussion in their archives: I read recently arguments I made there for positions I am now quite against.

But, just to zero in on one thing: Do you not think that the fulfillment for the prophecy of Jesus ("there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.") is not too soon to place at the beginning of Acts? After all, that would be just a few weeks after the Transfiguration, and hardly fitting, IMO, as far as time-frame is concerned.

Here is the reason why I asked the question - of anyone. I am reading through J. Stuart Russell's The Parousia, and I have to say that he makes a pretty good case for a semi-Preterist position (that is, he has convinced me on much, but not all of that position). My position on this is more in line with RC Sproul, as far as I can see. RC, BTW, Sproul wrote the Forward to this book, blending nine parts commendation with one part caveat.

So the reason for the question is to see what reasonable alternative there was to the view that the prophecy of Christ had its fulfilment in 70 AD. So far I have seen none. In fact, for years now, in all the commentaries I read, sermons read, Greek professors heard back in school, I have not encountered a convincing alternative to what I am reading in The Parousia.

Yes , it's a stretch (howbeit a small one IMO) for Acts 2 to line up in the temporal sense with what Christ is saying. However He did relate it to the natural life time of those standing there, this certainly would include the years between His statement and the Day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit and His ministry to the earthly manifestation of Kingdom of God, the Church.

I like Sproul and partial preterist would be my second choice.

However, each position (including my own) has difficulties, for right now I've made a home in a standard but moderate/modified dispensational platform.

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

I like Sproul and partial preterist would be my second choice.

However, each position (including my own) has difficulties, for right now I've made a home in a standard but moderate/modified dispensational platform.

HankD

Sounds good. As I said, I am still going through the book (Parousia), checking out passages, taking notes - and taking exception, as well, in a few places. But over all it is pretty convincing.

 

[asterisktom]

Great Tribulation is mentioned three times in the scripture. "the great tribulation" is not. "great tribulation period" is not. Does that mean there is no great tribulation period? The teaching exists in scripture, the 70th week of Daniel. The "week" of the seven year peace treaty between the anti-christ and Israel.

What other "term" or "phrase" is not in the scripture that almost all Christian denominations and views use almost every day?

"The Second Coming". Ain't in there. Does that mean "it" will not take place?

Bro. Chip

Hello Chip,
My concern for "The Great Tribulation" or "Tribulation Period" is that both phrases come IMO with excess baggage. The same with the word "rapture".

But rather than dwell on that I'd rather you tell me how you managed to extract all this from Daniel: "The "week" of the seven year peace treaty between the anti-christ and Israel."

Thanks.

 

[MovieProducer]

I don't mind using terms that don't appear in the bible as long as I'm not attributing them as biblical terms. "Trinity" and "second coming," both of which have been mentioned in this thread, come to mind.

 

[Robert Snow]

Since I was unable to read them...would you mind paraphrasing them to see if "all" the people say AMEN?

All his words can be summed up in these four letters: KJVO