This is an interesting site. My first book, back in 2002 was titled "It Was at Hand: A Biblical Response to Dispensationalism." A revision or overhaul, and much expanded book on that subject is "Israel Rapture, Tribulation: How to Sort Biblical Fact from Theological Fiction." Those two books touch upon and deal with many of the things you wrote in this post. I would be happy to provide a PDF of "Israel" for your review. If you would like a hard copy, I can arrange that.
Wow. I just found your channel/Substack yesterday through Spotify, as a recommendation as I was listening to the Gary Demar podcast and for that I'm so thankful. As a Truther who is also a Preterist Christian, this information is gold. This information helps solidify my inclinations that Zionism (a product of Dispensationalism) is one of the largest psyops ever created. The NWO/Globalist know all this and there's a reason they pick "vaccines" and "bill 666" as vaccine patent number, to telegraph deceived Christians that the end is near, no need to fight back! This is all prophesied, rapture is near! Ugh, makes me sick! Israel (the 1948 state owned and funded by Rothschild!) is the sodomy capital of the world and one of the ungodliest countries in the world. I grew up in a dispensational setting and it pains me to see my parents still trapped but it's post like these that are encouraging as I see people waking up. I can't wait to devour your other articles. Thank you.
Thank you Kyle, I have come to many of those same conclusions. Christian Zionism is without a doubt one of the most pernicious heresies to ever infect Christendom.
I’m firmly convinced we have been provided a false interpretation of the eschaton in order to neutralize the only entity that was prophesied to prevail against the gates of Hell: Christ and His Church.
Scipio, I noticed that you too are also a lover of the Authorized Version. To what extent, if any, do you feel the language/certain translations of the AV has contributed to our modern-day ineptitude when it comes to eschatology? I'm thinking of verses like Matt 24:3 (but there are many others) , "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matt. 24:3 KJV)". In that verse, as you well know, the word "world" is the Greek word "αἰῶνος", which means "age". Of course, in the 19th century leading up to today we start getting many interpretations that this is referring to our physical world. When the truth is that Jesus is referring to the end of the age, the age He and all of Creation had lived up to the point (the Old Covenant age). Perhaps in 1611 the distinction between an "age" and a "world" wasn't as sharp. I really feel that these "mistranslations" were benign in intent and not a part of conspiracy by the translators of the KJV. Modern translations, which I do believe are not as trustworthy as the KJV/NKJV, anything from the Alexandrian/"eclectic" tradition usually do translate it as "age", which to them could mean something totally different than the age Jesus had in mind. (New age?) Anyways, just a random question I like to ask other KJV readers.
I agree with you, much of our issues stem from anachronistically applying modern definitions to Old English words and Hebrew phrases. While I do like the AV (its modern spellings are useful for quotations), the 1611 is the bar for me as far as English translations go and I what I use for my personal Bible.
One of the many reasons I prefer the 1611 is because of the translator's notes in the margins on trickier Greek or Hebrew words (although aeon here in Matt. 24 is not one of those instances).
Unfortunately many of were indoctrinated in dispensationalist doctrine, and it is the prevailing view of evangelical Christianity. It is difficult for many not only to let go of these heretical doctrines, but to even be open minded to study what the Scripture is actually saying. Now it is difficult to even find a church that is not polluted with Zionism, futuristic eschatology, rapture, etc.. Thankyou for the great post!
Thank you 🙏 it’s definitely harder to find nowadays but there are still good churches out there who haven’t bent the knee to the golden calf of Israel.
Thank you for this fine work on this worthy subject. I testify that coming to understand the covenant structure of the Bible has been one of the greatest blessings to me in my pilgrimage.
After I came to understand that this profane thing called Zionism had infiltrated our ranks, it was a struggle for me to understand the true nature of our faith. And by God’s grace, I have found that in truth, Christianity is not Jewish. The Old Covenant Church (so to speak) was like a scaffolding. God preserved them to preserve scripture, bloodlines and prophecy so that when the Messiah came He could be verified as such beyond all doubt. Their overall purpose was to bring forth the Messiah, which they did. Their purpose fulfilled, and God having completely fulfilled His promises to this people (and they having completely broken their covenant promises with God), their whole religious economy was dissolved. Their temple was a snare to them (and believers) as was their insane pride in their bloodline, so God removed both. Their genealogies were destroyed in 70 AD with the temple, so no one can prove any relation to Patriarchs now. This has in effect ended forever any hope of reinstating the priesthood and thus the sacrifices. God has put a final period to it all; it is gone forever. The scaffolding has now been taken away and what remains is good news and blessing for all people (as was promised in the covenant with Abraham). God’s dealings with mankind from Genesis 3.15 to Revelation 22.21 has always been Christ-centered and not Jew-centered. So down with the wicked idol of Dispensationalism! Our Lord has been dishonored and misrepresented to the people of the earth long enough!
Hebrews and Galatians make this point quite clear for us: the Bible’s symbolism truly comes alive when properly viewed through a covenantal lens (Hebrews 10:1-2).
OK, you have my attention. My exposure to what I've been calling "rapture obsession" is recent. It's not something I grew up with and that is now wired in. I grew up with quite a few false teachings that had to be discarded, an experience that I don't encounter that often in other people I talk with in the church. So I'm investigating what you have to say, and finding quite a bit of understanding that we have in common. The differences are opportunities to learn.
I'm not a fan of the KJV. I grew up with it in the 1950s and 60s, and was taught the vocabulary and grammar of the dialect. I can read it fairly easily now. But the people with whom I share things from the Bible generally do not have that background. Then there's the matter of TR vs. NA Greek. I can work with either, backed up by tagging, lexicons, grammars, and commentaries. There's a fair amount that is simple enough form me to read directly, in the NT and in the LXX.
So I was a little puzzled by the discussion about John 6:69. (I find v. 68 more interesting.) The replacement of which you write would seem (I haven't researched this) to go back to the TR and its particular manuscript preference. You've presented two variants of v. 69, ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ("Christ, the Son of the Living God") and ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ ("the Holy One of God"). My UBS5 apparatus for the NA28 lists three more major variants (the TR version appearing last), "ὁ χριστός" ("The Christ"), ὁ χριστὸς ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ ("The Christ the Holy One of God"), and ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ("Christ, the Son of God"). And even among those, certain manuscripts omit certain words. The apparatus does not offer translations and as this is simple Greek, I'm translating off the top of my head. Sorry if I overlooked anything.
The TR reads "ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος", the last of the listed variants. The NA28 instead selects ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ ("Holy One of God") as the "preferred" variant, with scholars giving it an "A" appraisal ("The letter A indicates that the text is certain"). Good for them, I guess. Being "preferred" and all, it's what tends to turn up in a lot of modern translations.
Personally, if there's an issue of meaning, and you have pointed out a possible one here, I prefer to read across the variants, take them in, and consider what might be going on with that. If I find what I'm seeing disturbing, I ask God about it, as part of the dialog of me reading and the written word answering. I'm starting to find the "rapture" interpretations (elsewhere, not here) very disturbing and I ask frequently about that. If I have a commentary, I'll see what it says. For John, I have the Klink commentary, which has this to say about the words in question (the NA28 preferred variant), which includes a footnote about your point:
---
Peter adds to the confession of the Twelve by declaring with two perfect-tense verbs—“we have believed and have known”—that Jesus is “the Holy One of God” (ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ). The disciples had from early on been more than willing to see Jesus as the Messiah (cf. 1:41, 45, 49), but now they see him and their understanding of “Messiah” as something more. There are no parallels for this title in Judaism [footnote: The only other occurrences of the title in Scripture are in the Synoptics (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34), where it is spoken by a demon!]. Rather, rooted in the words of Jesus himself, “the Holy One of God” is the emissary, the one who came descending and ascending, the “I AM,” the “bread of life,” the revelation of God, the Judge and the life, the Son of Man. Peter is confessing what he has been “given” to see and believe. It is to all of this that the Gospel has been serving as witness. In Jesus is found everything God wants to do and is doing.
Thanks CM, I love comments like this and appreciate those who have a deep understanding of Scripture. Admittedly there is some disagreement over this verse (that seems to be quite common for these Messianic verses.)
I agree though, Darby’s Bible is in many ways the first modern, critical Bible translation. An undermining of Messianic verses is the hallmark in my eyes of the Critical Texts and its progenitors, which Darby certainly numbers among.
I’ll be touching on issues like the Rapture in Part 3, but I highly recommend this series of teachings by Steve Gregg in the interim. He does a great job showing both sides of the argument fairly, and ultimately why he (like I) no longer holds to a pre-mil view of the Rapture:
Thank you -- those recordings were a good review. I was aware of most of what was presented already, but seeing it together in one place goes beyond simply "being aware".
The recordings were made in the same time frame as when I left the faith for the second time over the shenanigans of the evangelical church, and this helps me recall what I was thinking at the time. I don't claim that my response was appropriate, but it is clearer now what must have been going through my mind. The eschatology with which I had been brought up was itself hugely corrupt, but it was post-trib, coming closer to scripture than this.
Thank you. More input should be helpful. I've grown weary of pastors I respected who quote 2 Tim. 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine..." but employ circular arguments to establish their "sound doctrine". They seem to have caught themselves in a trap, one which they would preach against in any other context. They got together, agreed upon "doctrine", and now if they question what they came up with they stand to be expelled from their peer group, facing shame from the others.
I might be misinterpreting what I am seeing, but there is evidence. For me, though, it is still an open investigation. I need to understand how their teaching affects those who follow them. I have seen what appears to be a split and departure within my own local church over this very teaching (the details are not entirely clear -- confidentiality requirements), and while the size of split is small, it involved elders leaving and it directly affected two other people close to me. It's not an abstract matter.
I’ve been planning this series awhile and I did not start out as vehemently against this ideology as I am now. I agree that this issue is not an abstract, secondary issue. It stabs at the very heart of what the Gospel is.
But indeed, there is no quicker way to become ostracized than to question Israel’s supposed primacy over the Church.
The rampant factionalism within the Church practically ensures that most pastors will almost certainly never allow the Holy Spirit to actually change their mind on this topic. Our identity is wrapped up in these ideas; no one wants to think that their grandpappy or mom led them astray, wittingly or not. To grow out of lockstep with the prevailing dogma is to risk your very livelihood. It takes courage to step out in faith like that, no doubt.
Another verse came to me later (had to search for this one):
Mark 1:34 - "...and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him."
Were the demons the only others knowing that Jesus was "the Holy One of God"? Was Peter quoting the demons?
With regard to Darby and textual changes in his translation, I see this from him in the EXTRACTS FROM INTRODUCTORY NOTICE TO THE 1884 EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:
---
"I have always stated the Textus Receptus in the margin where it is departed from, except in the Revelation, Erasmus having translated that from one poor and imperfect MS., which being accompanied by a commentary had to be separated by a transcriber; and even so Erasmus corrected what he had from the Vulgate, or guessed what he had not. There was not much use in quoting this."
---
I haven't been able to locate, in a reasonable amount of search time, a Darby Bible with marginal notes (my software doesn't offer a Darby Bible at all). If they were present, there should be one on this verse. This phrase is not from the TR. But then he was producing a "modern" translation, and this verse agrees well with present-day "modern" translations, not that that really establishes anything.
Thank you for exposing Darby. I had no idea he was an occultist. The 'christian' occultists today, may be even more frightening. Your exposé alerts us to be on guard and test Everything.
If the church was doing its job people wouldn’t feel powerless to engage against the evil. So the church has created this insecurity in its followers that sends them fleeing, escaping to the alternatives. The alternatives waiting for them with arms wide open including New Age, Hollywood Superheroes, Fantasy Literature bringing life to magick including Harry Potter (did this genre start with Lion Witch & Wardrobe?)
It is the all encompassing wicked manipulation of Christianity that has caused me the most confusion of what is true, correct Christian belief! Thankfully, I know what's going on! Your Research, along with many other brave whistleblowers, have cleared up any and all misunderstanding!
“Dispensationalism teaches that the Old Testament must be interpreted within its own context.
This is, in my opinion, the most important belief of a dispensationalist because it leads to the rest. The core teaching of dispensationalism is that the Old Testament must be interpreted according to its own context, and the New Testament cannot reinterpret or change the meaning of a passage. In other words, one does not need the New Testament in order to know the true meaning of an Old Testament passage. The New Testament is crucial to our understanding of the unfolding revelation of God, but a dispensationalist is adamant that the New Testament does not reinterpret the Old.”
In this way, Dispensationalism is at odds with every other major interpretive model and goes a long way explaining why its beliefs are so aberrant.
If mainstream propaganda SEEMS to be collapsing it's a surefire head fake. Jones, Roman Catholic, and Barrett, Muslim, see the world from their own ecumenical point of view.
This is an interesting site. My first book, back in 2002 was titled "It Was at Hand: A Biblical Response to Dispensationalism." A revision or overhaul, and much expanded book on that subject is "Israel Rapture, Tribulation: How to Sort Biblical Fact from Theological Fiction." Those two books touch upon and deal with many of the things you wrote in this post. I would be happy to provide a PDF of "Israel" for your review. If you would like a hard copy, I can arrange that.
Wow. I just found your channel/Substack yesterday through Spotify, as a recommendation as I was listening to the Gary Demar podcast and for that I'm so thankful. As a Truther who is also a Preterist Christian, this information is gold. This information helps solidify my inclinations that Zionism (a product of Dispensationalism) is one of the largest psyops ever created. The NWO/Globalist know all this and there's a reason they pick "vaccines" and "bill 666" as vaccine patent number, to telegraph deceived Christians that the end is near, no need to fight back! This is all prophesied, rapture is near! Ugh, makes me sick! Israel (the 1948 state owned and funded by Rothschild!) is the sodomy capital of the world and one of the ungodliest countries in the world. I grew up in a dispensational setting and it pains me to see my parents still trapped but it's post like these that are encouraging as I see people waking up. I can't wait to devour your other articles. Thank you.
Thank you Kyle, I have come to many of those same conclusions. Christian Zionism is without a doubt one of the most pernicious heresies to ever infect Christendom.
I’m firmly convinced we have been provided a false interpretation of the eschaton in order to neutralize the only entity that was prophesied to prevail against the gates of Hell: Christ and His Church.
Scipio, I noticed that you too are also a lover of the Authorized Version. To what extent, if any, do you feel the language/certain translations of the AV has contributed to our modern-day ineptitude when it comes to eschatology? I'm thinking of verses like Matt 24:3 (but there are many others) , "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matt. 24:3 KJV)". In that verse, as you well know, the word "world" is the Greek word "αἰῶνος", which means "age". Of course, in the 19th century leading up to today we start getting many interpretations that this is referring to our physical world. When the truth is that Jesus is referring to the end of the age, the age He and all of Creation had lived up to the point (the Old Covenant age). Perhaps in 1611 the distinction between an "age" and a "world" wasn't as sharp. I really feel that these "mistranslations" were benign in intent and not a part of conspiracy by the translators of the KJV. Modern translations, which I do believe are not as trustworthy as the KJV/NKJV, anything from the Alexandrian/"eclectic" tradition usually do translate it as "age", which to them could mean something totally different than the age Jesus had in mind. (New age?) Anyways, just a random question I like to ask other KJV readers.
I agree with you, much of our issues stem from anachronistically applying modern definitions to Old English words and Hebrew phrases. While I do like the AV (its modern spellings are useful for quotations), the 1611 is the bar for me as far as English translations go and I what I use for my personal Bible.
One of the many reasons I prefer the 1611 is because of the translator's notes in the margins on trickier Greek or Hebrew words (although aeon here in Matt. 24 is not one of those instances).
How clever are the evil ones. Deception is their weapon and they wield it expertly.
Thanks Scipio; I would likewise suggest reading The Incredible Scofield and His Book by Jack Canfield.
Thank you for reading it Russell. I will be referring quite heavily to that book next week!
I will be eagerly awaiting Part II!
Unfortunately many of were indoctrinated in dispensationalist doctrine, and it is the prevailing view of evangelical Christianity. It is difficult for many not only to let go of these heretical doctrines, but to even be open minded to study what the Scripture is actually saying. Now it is difficult to even find a church that is not polluted with Zionism, futuristic eschatology, rapture, etc.. Thankyou for the great post!
Thank you 🙏 it’s definitely harder to find nowadays but there are still good churches out there who haven’t bent the knee to the golden calf of Israel.
Thank you for this fine work on this worthy subject. I testify that coming to understand the covenant structure of the Bible has been one of the greatest blessings to me in my pilgrimage.
After I came to understand that this profane thing called Zionism had infiltrated our ranks, it was a struggle for me to understand the true nature of our faith. And by God’s grace, I have found that in truth, Christianity is not Jewish. The Old Covenant Church (so to speak) was like a scaffolding. God preserved them to preserve scripture, bloodlines and prophecy so that when the Messiah came He could be verified as such beyond all doubt. Their overall purpose was to bring forth the Messiah, which they did. Their purpose fulfilled, and God having completely fulfilled His promises to this people (and they having completely broken their covenant promises with God), their whole religious economy was dissolved. Their temple was a snare to them (and believers) as was their insane pride in their bloodline, so God removed both. Their genealogies were destroyed in 70 AD with the temple, so no one can prove any relation to Patriarchs now. This has in effect ended forever any hope of reinstating the priesthood and thus the sacrifices. God has put a final period to it all; it is gone forever. The scaffolding has now been taken away and what remains is good news and blessing for all people (as was promised in the covenant with Abraham). God’s dealings with mankind from Genesis 3.15 to Revelation 22.21 has always been Christ-centered and not Jew-centered. So down with the wicked idol of Dispensationalism! Our Lord has been dishonored and misrepresented to the people of the earth long enough!
A fine book that has helped me is From the Garden of Eden to the Glory of Heaven by James R. Williamson. Out of print, but on eBay. An excellent sermon series on this same subject is here: https://beta.sermonaudio.com/broadcasters/sovgrace/series/100266?sort=oldest
Amen 🙏
Hebrews and Galatians make this point quite clear for us: the Bible’s symbolism truly comes alive when properly viewed through a covenantal lens (Hebrews 10:1-2).
OK, you have my attention. My exposure to what I've been calling "rapture obsession" is recent. It's not something I grew up with and that is now wired in. I grew up with quite a few false teachings that had to be discarded, an experience that I don't encounter that often in other people I talk with in the church. So I'm investigating what you have to say, and finding quite a bit of understanding that we have in common. The differences are opportunities to learn.
I'm not a fan of the KJV. I grew up with it in the 1950s and 60s, and was taught the vocabulary and grammar of the dialect. I can read it fairly easily now. But the people with whom I share things from the Bible generally do not have that background. Then there's the matter of TR vs. NA Greek. I can work with either, backed up by tagging, lexicons, grammars, and commentaries. There's a fair amount that is simple enough form me to read directly, in the NT and in the LXX.
So I was a little puzzled by the discussion about John 6:69. (I find v. 68 more interesting.) The replacement of which you write would seem (I haven't researched this) to go back to the TR and its particular manuscript preference. You've presented two variants of v. 69, ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ("Christ, the Son of the Living God") and ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ ("the Holy One of God"). My UBS5 apparatus for the NA28 lists three more major variants (the TR version appearing last), "ὁ χριστός" ("The Christ"), ὁ χριστὸς ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ ("The Christ the Holy One of God"), and ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ("Christ, the Son of God"). And even among those, certain manuscripts omit certain words. The apparatus does not offer translations and as this is simple Greek, I'm translating off the top of my head. Sorry if I overlooked anything.
The TR reads "ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος", the last of the listed variants. The NA28 instead selects ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ ("Holy One of God") as the "preferred" variant, with scholars giving it an "A" appraisal ("The letter A indicates that the text is certain"). Good for them, I guess. Being "preferred" and all, it's what tends to turn up in a lot of modern translations.
Personally, if there's an issue of meaning, and you have pointed out a possible one here, I prefer to read across the variants, take them in, and consider what might be going on with that. If I find what I'm seeing disturbing, I ask God about it, as part of the dialog of me reading and the written word answering. I'm starting to find the "rapture" interpretations (elsewhere, not here) very disturbing and I ask frequently about that. If I have a commentary, I'll see what it says. For John, I have the Klink commentary, which has this to say about the words in question (the NA28 preferred variant), which includes a footnote about your point:
---
Peter adds to the confession of the Twelve by declaring with two perfect-tense verbs—“we have believed and have known”—that Jesus is “the Holy One of God” (ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ). The disciples had from early on been more than willing to see Jesus as the Messiah (cf. 1:41, 45, 49), but now they see him and their understanding of “Messiah” as something more. There are no parallels for this title in Judaism [footnote: The only other occurrences of the title in Scripture are in the Synoptics (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34), where it is spoken by a demon!]. Rather, rooted in the words of Jesus himself, “the Holy One of God” is the emissary, the one who came descending and ascending, the “I AM,” the “bread of life,” the revelation of God, the Judge and the life, the Son of Man. Peter is confessing what he has been “given” to see and believe. It is to all of this that the Gospel has been serving as witness. In Jesus is found everything God wants to do and is doing.
---
OK, so there are differing views.
Thanks CM, I love comments like this and appreciate those who have a deep understanding of Scripture. Admittedly there is some disagreement over this verse (that seems to be quite common for these Messianic verses.)
I agree though, Darby’s Bible is in many ways the first modern, critical Bible translation. An undermining of Messianic verses is the hallmark in my eyes of the Critical Texts and its progenitors, which Darby certainly numbers among.
I’ll be touching on issues like the Rapture in Part 3, but I highly recommend this series of teachings by Steve Gregg in the interim. He does a great job showing both sides of the argument fairly, and ultimately why he (like I) no longer holds to a pre-mil view of the Rapture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ahR_bVW44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57z38KWVOJY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGoy0WZ69Yk
Thank you -- those recordings were a good review. I was aware of most of what was presented already, but seeing it together in one place goes beyond simply "being aware".
The recordings were made in the same time frame as when I left the faith for the second time over the shenanigans of the evangelical church, and this helps me recall what I was thinking at the time. I don't claim that my response was appropriate, but it is clearer now what must have been going through my mind. The eschatology with which I had been brought up was itself hugely corrupt, but it was post-trib, coming closer to scripture than this.
Thank you. More input should be helpful. I've grown weary of pastors I respected who quote 2 Tim. 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine..." but employ circular arguments to establish their "sound doctrine". They seem to have caught themselves in a trap, one which they would preach against in any other context. They got together, agreed upon "doctrine", and now if they question what they came up with they stand to be expelled from their peer group, facing shame from the others.
I might be misinterpreting what I am seeing, but there is evidence. For me, though, it is still an open investigation. I need to understand how their teaching affects those who follow them. I have seen what appears to be a split and departure within my own local church over this very teaching (the details are not entirely clear -- confidentiality requirements), and while the size of split is small, it involved elders leaving and it directly affected two other people close to me. It's not an abstract matter.
I’ve been planning this series awhile and I did not start out as vehemently against this ideology as I am now. I agree that this issue is not an abstract, secondary issue. It stabs at the very heart of what the Gospel is.
But indeed, there is no quicker way to become ostracized than to question Israel’s supposed primacy over the Church.
The rampant factionalism within the Church practically ensures that most pastors will almost certainly never allow the Holy Spirit to actually change their mind on this topic. Our identity is wrapped up in these ideas; no one wants to think that their grandpappy or mom led them astray, wittingly or not. To grow out of lockstep with the prevailing dogma is to risk your very livelihood. It takes courage to step out in faith like that, no doubt.
Another verse came to me later (had to search for this one):
Mark 1:34 - "...and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him."
Were the demons the only others knowing that Jesus was "the Holy One of God"? Was Peter quoting the demons?
With regard to Darby and textual changes in his translation, I see this from him in the EXTRACTS FROM INTRODUCTORY NOTICE TO THE 1884 EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:
---
"I have always stated the Textus Receptus in the margin where it is departed from, except in the Revelation, Erasmus having translated that from one poor and imperfect MS., which being accompanied by a commentary had to be separated by a transcriber; and even so Erasmus corrected what he had from the Vulgate, or guessed what he had not. There was not much use in quoting this."
---
I haven't been able to locate, in a reasonable amount of search time, a Darby Bible with marginal notes (my software doesn't offer a Darby Bible at all). If they were present, there should be one on this verse. This phrase is not from the TR. But then he was producing a "modern" translation, and this verse agrees well with present-day "modern" translations, not that that really establishes anything.
Thank you for exposing Darby. I had no idea he was an occultist. The 'christian' occultists today, may be even more frightening. Your exposé alerts us to be on guard and test Everything.
If the church was doing its job people wouldn’t feel powerless to engage against the evil. So the church has created this insecurity in its followers that sends them fleeing, escaping to the alternatives. The alternatives waiting for them with arms wide open including New Age, Hollywood Superheroes, Fantasy Literature bringing life to magick including Harry Potter (did this genre start with Lion Witch & Wardrobe?)
After 30 years of pain I can relate to this post. We need to stick with the old paths. https://mhc.thekingsbible.com/ https://prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Heidelberg-Catechism-with-Intro.pdf
The Church is captured, during the Communist Long March through the institutions.
It is the all encompassing wicked manipulation of Christianity that has caused me the most confusion of what is true, correct Christian belief! Thankfully, I know what's going on! Your Research, along with many other brave whistleblowers, have cleared up any and all misunderstanding!
Jesus's founding principle of Christianity is "Do No Harm". If something violates this principle it is not Christian.
Did you mean to say that the that Dispensationalism uses the Old Testament to define the New Testament? I thought they had it the other way around.
I can see how that wording was somewhat obtuse, but yes. This theology strictly interprets the OT divorced from the context it is used in the NT.
https://petergoeman.com/how-do-you-define-dispensationalism/
“Dispensationalism teaches that the Old Testament must be interpreted within its own context.
This is, in my opinion, the most important belief of a dispensationalist because it leads to the rest. The core teaching of dispensationalism is that the Old Testament must be interpreted according to its own context, and the New Testament cannot reinterpret or change the meaning of a passage. In other words, one does not need the New Testament in order to know the true meaning of an Old Testament passage. The New Testament is crucial to our understanding of the unfolding revelation of God, but a dispensationalist is adamant that the New Testament does not reinterpret the Old.”
In this way, Dispensationalism is at odds with every other major interpretive model and goes a long way explaining why its beliefs are so aberrant.
Something’s in the air…. https://www.bitchute.com/video/OARhBew6zXAK/
If mainstream propaganda SEEMS to be collapsing it's a surefire head fake. Jones, Roman Catholic, and Barrett, Muslim, see the world from their own ecumenical point of view.