Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - creationliberty

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 31
21
Wild Emails @ CLE / Lies to Me to Justify Herself
« on: November 14, 2023, 02:00:12 PM »

MICHELLE FROM WA

Just found your website and have been listening to your 5013c info. Just read your info on abortion and I don't understand why you call it a waste of time for Christ followers to stand at abortion clinics. Are we not to love our neighbors as ourselves? It wouldn't be very loving to ignore the slaughter of our time. Have you seen all the abolitionists of abortion that bring the gospel to those clinics daily and daily babies are saved?? I follow many of them on fb and most have live videos every day so I see them being saved daily. I myself have gone out to these demonic centers and have been able to share the gospel and have seen God work miraculously in some areas. I have seen moms choose life because the signs were there, and believers there offering help.


If you don't understand why I said that, and you want an explanation, I have an entire teaching on abortion along with an audio series that you can listen to, where I explain it in a lot of detail, and if that's not enough, then you can always ask me for it, but there's nothing about your letter that remotely indicates that you care about why I said what I said. You only followed up a statement with some rhetorical questions, which indicates that you have no intention of discussing this matter. It seems you only care about convincing me of your position, and if that's the case, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by this, so you'll have to clarify that for me.


Hello, thanks for responding! I did read the article, and I will listen to the podcast audio to see if that helps, but my questions for you were genuine. I am really curious why, as I stated in my message regarding how I did not understand. I thought you would explain it more in depth, so I am honestly just trying to understand. I have never heard this take on it. I know you said that signs won't quickly change a mindset to pro life, and I agree, but what I am asking is why you think it's a waste of time when babies lives are saved? Please explain. I know for a fact that when Christ followers don't show up to these kill mills, all babies that are scheduled to die that day will, but when people show up to share the gospel and offer help, some of them will live. I don't see how that could be a waste of time in any way?


what I am asking is why you think it's a waste of time when babies lives are saved?
I don't know where I said that. If that is something you think I said, write down the quote (or give me the time stamp of the video) where I said that, so I can understand what you're referring to.

TWO DAYS LATER, AFTER NO RESPONSE:

I'll wait. Whenever you get me that quote, we'll talk about it.

END OF DISCUSSION

This woman lied to me and used loaded, rhetorical statements (with question marks on the end of the sentence) as her argument.
I will comment on that in a reply on this thread.

24
Wild Emails @ CLE / Casting Doubt on the KJB
« on: November 03, 2023, 10:38:50 AM »
Part of the reason I posted this here is because this man sent me the wrong email address, so I could not write him back. I figured this would also be good for all of you to see. This was sent to me almost two years ago, and I did not respond to it until now, after I finished my book on the King James Bible. At the end of the letter, he said he wasn't looking for a response, so I didn't bother to address it until I was done with my book; however, the email address he gave me doesn't exist.

DANIEL FROM ILLINOIS

There were more drastic changes than the stuff you mentioned in your article. These drastic changes change doctrine.

Here are some examples of what I am talking about.

1611 Ruth 3:15
“Also he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
1769 Ruth 3:15
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”

1611 Song of Solomon 2:7
“I charge you, O ye daughters of Ierusalem, by the Roes, and by the hindes of the field, that ye stirre not vp, nor awake my loue, till she please.”
1769 Song of Solomon 2:7
“I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.”

1611 Job 39:30
“Her yong ones also suck vp blood: and where the slaine are, there is he.”
1769 Job 39:30
“Her young ones also suck up blood: and where the slain are, there is she.”

The 1611 translators knew the original languages fluently while Blaney did not know any Hebrew and Greek during the revision.

I'm not trying to get a reaction out of you and if you choose to brush this off as heresy then go ahead. I can't force you to change your mind nor am I trying to to. I'm just trying to provide you with information. As always it's best to do your own research (which you already do that anyway). Don't worry I'm not offended by you.

Here's a video that might help go along with this.
https://youtu.be/bcopIyZ7nZE

Thanks for taking the time to read this email and don't worry about responding to me. You don't have to respond if you don't want to. A response is not the point nor intention for this email.



Thanks for sending this to me. I know it's been a while, but I have kept your email in my inbox for the past couple of years because I wanted to address it eventually. I was waiting for the time I would work on turning my article on the KJB into a full-length book, which I am close to finishing a first draft. I came back to this email to see if there is anything in it that I wanted to address in my book, and what I discovered was a lot of bad arguments. I do not say that to upset you, but the fact is that the man in the video you sent me was not making complete arguments for what he was saying; he was only making partial arguments and some of what he was saying was just flat-out wrong.

For example, he argued that John 8:44 says that, concerning the Devil, "there is no truth in him," and he instead interpreted that to mean that "the Devil cannot say anything that is true," and those are completely different concepts. Just because the Devil is the father of lies, does not mean he cannot speak something that is true, but if he says something that is true, it is not from any genuineness of heart because he had fallen from the truth and "abode not in it." Therefore, the Devil uses the truth for the purpose of deceit, however, the video's author was using his faulty interpretation to say that his argument about differences in the editions of the KJB were valid, when they had no standing.

For example, in Gen 3:1:
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

What Satan said there was true, and Eve verified that. He then proceeds to use that to deceive her, but that statement was true; God did say that. There was a lot of that type of fallacious argument that I saw in that man's video you sent me (but I don't have time to go through all of them right now; I just wanted to give you an example), and I'm assuming that you didn't notice those things, otherwise, it is unlikely you would have recommended it to me.

I'm not going to go through all the Scriptures you listed out (again, for the sake of time), but let's address one of them so I can show you the problem with what you sent me. This was concerning to me only because you sent me that email, and for the past couple of years, I was a little worried that maybe there were some errors in the KJB I'm using, but thankfully, God has taught me over the years to read the context for myself to gain understanding, and that has shown me that what I'm reading is correct.

First, I'll quote you:
1611 Ruth 3:15
“Also he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
1769 Ruth 3:15
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”


I am presuming (since you didn't take the time to highlight what you wanted me to address) that your objection is the difference between "he" and "she" in the text. This is one of the printing press errors that was corrected. Keep in mind that the printing press errors were not fully taken care of until the mid-18th century, because only 72% of the errors had been corrected by 1638.

In fact, I would argue that both are correct (which is why I suspect that it took so long for this error to be discovered), but the word 'she' is more accurate to the context because it was about Ruth. Both Ruth and Boaz went TOGETHER into the city. We already know that Boaz went to the city because you can see when you go on to the next chapter:
Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.
-Ruth 4:1


Boaz was already going to the city, but the word 'she' then tells us that Ruth went with him, which makes sense based on the promises that he made to her in chapter 3.

This is why I would encourage you to keep studying on this subject, but remember to always read the context of the chapter, and make sure you understand it fully. I have, many times in the past, led others astray because I believed something someone told me in a video, and I didn't fully research it, and I have regretted that many times. Although I still make foolish mistakes, I have worked hard to try and remedy that about myself for the sake of Christ, and I hope you will also dedicate yourself to doing thorough research for Him too.

Thanks for your input. Have a great day.

END OF DISCUSSION

I addressed that point in my book as well. There will always be someone who will try to turn us away from the King James Bible, and in this instance, it wasn't someone who hated the KJB. Rather, I think this is a man who uses the KJB regularly and is sincere, but he has been led astray by some people claiming to have good intentions, while expressing bad arguments.

Free to Read Book:
Why Christians Should Study The King James Bible

25
Why Christians Should Study The King James Bible

A history of bible versions, where they came from, and why the KJB stands far above all others.


32
Wild Emails @ CLE / Good Question About Lucifer Does NOT Mean Satan
« on: September 21, 2023, 05:05:36 PM »
I recently made a post in the updates section that is a correction of a doctrine I previously taught that was wrong, and that is that "Lucifer" in Isa 14:12 is referring to Satan. That is incorrect, it is referring to the King of Babylon, likely Belshazzar, since he was the last King of Babylon. Sadly, I learned the wrong thing from Kent Hovind, since he was my first teacher, and I can't go back and change my old teachings on audio to fix that. I'll just make corrections in new teachings as I go, as well as correct old written teachings when I can, and that'll take time.

It's rare that I get good questions in email, but sometimes I do. I wanted to share this one because I thought it would be helpful to others:


RANDY FROM MINNESOTA:

Hi Chris - just a quick note to say that I saw your forum note and I agree with your comments regarding Isaiah 14 as a chapter that is specifically referring to the king of Babylon. Every verse in chapters 13 and 14 point to this.  I have wondered at this for a while, or at least I had the question as to where we get that it was Satan. But I was listening to what many false teachings were saying. So, In the past I just settled on a duel perspective, both Satan and Babylonian King. But after your comments I think it is the King of Babylon. So thanks for your thoughts. But I am wondering then does this mean that Lucifer is just a term used to describe the King as a “self enlightened” one? Not referring to Satan. And if so, this means that Lucifer is not another name or the prior name of Satan. Wondering if this is what you think as well.


People can call Satan "Lucifer" if they want, but it's simply a misunderstanding, and it became a sort of cultural "meme" that "Lucifer" now refers to Satan, simply because people wanted to interpret "falling from heaven" as literal, rather than metaphorical, representing the King of Babylon being greatest of all thrones in all kingdoms of the world, being lifted up high and falling far. A lot of memes have been created based on misinterpretations of things; I'm mean, case in point, lightning is worshiped as a god by pagans, so I don't see much difference.

The Luciferians simply worship a "god" who they think is a "lightbearer" (as the word 'lucifer' indicates), and thus, as we have confirmation in other Scriptures, they worship devils, meaning that they worship Satan anyway, whether knowingly or unknowningly.

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
-1Co 10:20


END OF DISCUSSION


33
What's New @ CLE / (CORRECTION) Isaiah 14:12 is NOT Talking About Satan
« on: September 19, 2023, 12:01:25 PM »
Once again, I have to thank Kent Hovind for teaching me false doctrine because I have repeated something he taught everyone which was not true. The one named "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14 is NOT referring to Satan. I am not saying that there are people who refer to Satan as "Lucifer," but that is not the context of Isaiah 14, and sadly, I have, many times, taught that wrong.

This is a name that was being given to Nebuchadnezzar because the context of the chapter (and surrounding chapters) is Babylon.

Let's read it again:

Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD. I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts.
-Isa 14:11-23


It was Nebuchadnezzar that considered that he, being the man with the highest authority in the world, thought he would ascend into godhood. It was Nebuchadnezzar who God said would be brought down to hell for his arrogance. He was a leader of the world at the time, and when he was bought low, the people marveled at him that he, at one time, had made the nations to tremble in fear. This is why God said he would rise up and cut off Babylon, which He did, and that is why, today, Babylon is nothing but a shadow in name.

Nebuchadnezzar thought he was going to bring light to the world, which is why he is mockingly called "Lucifer" in this passage, which may have even been a name he gave to himself at one point.

Sorry that I taught this wrong for so long. I still have doctrines imprinted into me by corrupt teachers that I am slowly working out.

37
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) The Church is Not a Building p2
« on: August 28, 2023, 01:22:17 PM »

38
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) The Church is Not a Building p1
« on: August 21, 2023, 07:56:22 AM »

39

40

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 31