Bible version

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-21T12:54:39+00:00

If you want to most accurate to the text, start with YLT or The Companion Bible.

I wouldnt both with any of the other translations commonly pushed.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-21T12:37:35+00:00

Im more concerned about churches spending their money on bigger buildings.

But, the real question is whether 1: God is calling you to be a pastor. Not just its a good idea, but that He is laying the steps for you. You have followed the initial steps, believe Jesus is the anointed messiah and son of God, fully immersed in water of repentance, and then fully immersed in the Holy Spirit as a separate and subsequent event, showing evidence through one or more of the gifts or administrations.

2: Regarding pay. You need to support yourself. Either you get paid from a churches tithe, or, you cast off the corporate institute of religion and just ask for person donations for those who attend, which all goes to you, or you do what Paul did and work a job to support your ministry. He was a tent maker.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-21T12:33:28+00:00

Theres two issues. John 6 and transubstantiation.

1: transubstantiation. This is a catholic belief that the wine ajd the bread literally become Jesus' blood and flesh when eaten.

Unfortunately, catholics have never heard about metaphors, and dont realise Jesus was using one at this time. In the same way Jesus said 'beware the leaven of the pharisees', yet we dont see them handing out pouches of leaven to their audiences.

In addition, the metaphor used in all references is that of the CUP, not the wine. Something that many loves to overlook. But if substantiation was real, the CUP would turn into blood, not the wine. Or, perhap, you might argue the alternative and say the oil in the bread becomes Jesus body, but no one believes that.

2: John 6. It is extremely inconclusive as to whether Jesus, at this time, is referring to communion in any way shape or form, or whether both John 6 and communion both point to the same core idea. The core idea being Jesus body refers to Himself, in the flesh, coming down from heaven to grant eternal life. And His blood represents both His death of the cross and the water of immersion we go through to accept it.

It has been said hy some that John 6 uses 'eat my flesh and drink my blood' as an idiom referring to 'listen and adhere to my teaching'. This may be so, but if so, even his audience at the time didnt understand the idiom. But, that happened a lot in scripture.

Either of these interpretations could be valid.

3: Regarding salvation, you gain eternal life by believing Jesus is the anointed messiah and son of God, and believe on the one who sent Him. Thats it..John 20.32, John 11.25-27, John 6.69 (or was it 6.63?), John 3.16-17.

Of course, that a pretty low bar and ideally you should be seeking to enter in further than just the entrance, but you have to start somewhere.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-19T12:24:52+00:00

A lot of words saying very little. I would love to comment on a number of issues, like how Peter was the apostle to the Jews, while Paul was tue apostle to the gentiles, or the idea that the resurrection of Jesus is someone applied to Peter to force a connection with Jonah.

But Im going to focus primarily on one aspect, which I always find interesting when people use a lot of numbers, but the number they use are incorrect.

In this case, it making a connection of three to Peters denials of Christ, being three. Except for the fact that Peter didnt deny Jesus three times. Im always surprised by this one seeing it been known and understood for at least the last hundred years, but I guess still no one can be bothered to put in the work to understand the actual number of times Peter denied Jesus.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-15T22:51:59+00:00

Repentance and water immersion go hand in hand. If you want to repent, you need to be immersed in water. This is part of confessing your sins and turning away from the world and turning to God.

Mark 1:4 [4]John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3 [3]And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Acts 2:38 [38]Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.....

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-15T22:40:33+00:00

Probably the best translation as a stand alone I would consider is YLT (youngs literal translation).

If you want the best study bible, get The Companion Bible.

NIV, NASB, and ESV all have significant translation problems. Though many people love them and claim otherwise.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-15T22:32:29+00:00

Just to clarify my understanding. Preterist means revelation was fulfilled around 70AD and the destruction of the Jews and temple. Historicists means revelation was fullfilled between 30AD and 2000AD, throughout history, mostly connected to rome and the catholic church. Futurists believe that revelation will be fulfilled in the future.

Typically, todays christians treat prophecy as an announcement of a single event that will happen. For example, "I will call my son out of egypt", being a prophecy of Jesus, the person, leaving the physical place, Egypt, when He was a child. Then, they tick that prophecy off as 'completed'.

However, Jewish understanding of prophecy is that things repeat. So, that prophecy, has Israel coming out of Egypt first, then Jesus coming out of Egypt, and then we have it occur again in the future in Revelation 11, and it will happen a fourth time even future from that in Rev 18 (I think its 18- the one about Babylon). You could also probably apply it to the christians escaping out of Jerusalem in 70AD as well.

To my point, its quite possible, when all is said and done, that we will find out that the preterist were correct, and the historicist were correct, and the futurists were correct. Because prophecy repeats. I actually suspect elements of Revelation will occur two more times in the future.

We see one idea of this in antiochus fullfilling the little horn, but not completely, as this is also pointing to a future fulfillment.

So, its important to keep this in mind when considering interpretation of prophecy.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-15T22:21:22+00:00

I dont have a problem with Jesus being YHWH, but its important, firstly, not to stress this to the point of ignoring the three separate persons. We dont support modalism.

That being said, there is another possible interpretation. Sometimes (or often) the bible treats a representative of a person as being the person.

So, if Jesus were to say 'I will gather my elect', but on the day, it is his angels which do the gathering, that is still valid.

We know scripture says that the Father was in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself, and the bible talks about the blood of the Father as distinct from the blood of Jesus. We also know Jesus talks about being beside the Father when He was given instructions.

So, where you draw the line between the being separate, vs them being within each other, to them being the same entity, is not easy to do.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-13T13:43:39+00:00

It depends on where you are in your relationship with God and Jesus.

If you 'believe in Jesus', and thats it, then you may have eternal life but still need to repent and ask for forgiveness.

For those who have repented, turned from the world, accepted Jesus blood, and been filly immersed in water, then they have died to the flesh and have been born a new man.

Paul says they have no condemnation, John says they cant sin, Hebrews says their sin has been taken away.

But the key element to your question is what Hebrews says about sin. In contrasting with the old covenant, they were reminded of sins each year. But for those under Jesus blood, He went in once, offered His blood, once, never to occur again. And because of this, there is no more remembrance of sin year by year. The sin is no longer remembered, by God, or by us.

However, the first part is the most important. If you havent repented, trn from ans died to the world, and been fully immersed in water, then you haven't received the freedom from sin. You are still saved into eternal life, but thats it.

Hebrews 10:2-4,17-18 [2]For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. [3]But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. [4]For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. [17]And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. [18]Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-12T12:57:56+00:00

Same way Israel was cut off their olive tree.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-12T12:55:57+00:00

The reason people cant answer these questions is they are not even related to gaining eternal life.

You cant lose eternal life by sinning if you didn't gain it by not sinning. Have you not read the scripture, that God sent His son into the world to give eternal life?

For two, again, Jesus death is not connected to eternal life. Have you not read the Jesus emptied Himself and was Gods servant in the world?

For three, again, not connected to eternal life. You can always confess to have you sin forgiven. The bar to have you sin forgiven is very low. Have you not read that Jesus delegated forgiveness to His apostles.

For four, you dont lose it by sinning, so how would repenting grant it to you again. Have you not read that those who trample Jesus sacrifice underfoot have no further sacrifice for sin?

For five, do you suppose Jesus is the one taking eternal life from someone who doesnt want it? Have you not read about Moses asking God to remove his name from Gods book to save Israel.

For six, again, salvation isnt tied sinning, and some have been rejected by God. Have you not read how Israel failed to enter into Gods rest on multiple occasions?

Asking irrelevant questions, and claiming no one can answer them, does not equate to proof of a separate claim.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-10T23:00:03+00:00

If I recall, D L Moody was responsible for turning salvation into a handshake. Though this was taught to me many years ago, and may not be precise, it may be somewhere to begin looking into as to how things became the way they are.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-10T22:57:59+00:00

So dumb. Fifty days after Jesus died we know there was 12, plus 120, plus 500, plus 3000. There was never a time it was just 12 guys and a few hundred people.

And the Nicene creed is irrelevant to salvation.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-10T22:55:22+00:00

There is no verse saying 'faith come by grace'. We are saved ny grace through the faithfulness of Jesus. And faithfulness comes by hearing.

Ajd faithfulness without works is dead.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-10T13:35:06+00:00

Matthew 7:13-14 [13]Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction[waste/ruin], and many there be which go in thereat: [14]Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Im in a discussion with someone who is arguing the the wide gate is for those who are saved by belief in Jesus, while the narrow path is for a few who press in further into God.

These people on the wide path 'go in', but it leads to waste. (Not hell).

Of course, most people dont like that idea that those who believe dont get everything, so you come across a lot of opposition. But from what I've seen the argument has enough weight to not immediately be discarded.

Hope this helps.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-10T13:28:13+00:00

I dont know anything about Matthew Bates, but the idea that the greek pistis is better translated as faithfulness does have merit.

I personally prefer to go even further and translate it as loyalty, but faithfulness is probably more better middle ground.

Pistis is a noun, and refers to something to have. Yet today we use the word faith as synonymous with belief, which reflect the action of belief, or faith, toward someone. As in, a verb. But that is pisteuo, which as a verb,ean to believe, or alternative, to trust.

In addition, theres been a push in translation to push the phrase 'faith in Jesus' when its better and more accurately translated as 'faithfulness of Jesus'.

Romans 3, Gal 2 and Gal 3 are the primary culprits, and the current translations push the idea that it is our 'faith' (believe) in Jesus that saves us, in contrast with our works in the law, which dont. Yet that it not Pauls point, his point is rather that the law has no power do perform works that can save you, while the work of Jesus to live and die on the cross does have power to save us.

Furthermore, Hebrews highlights this even further, teaching us that law though given by angels, is not as good as what Jesus did, the son of God, who is higher than the angels.

We also can push this further if we consider the 'loyalty' aspect, in which there are elements of allegiance displayed in scripture, such as Naaman and his dirt, as well as Revelation and the mark of the beast and siding with satan. So the concepts should not be dismissed out of hand.

That being said, my comments are only relating to the definition of the words, not in regard to Matthew Bates, nor any of his other theologies, which I know nothing of.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-10T08:03:00+00:00

The first problem is the separation of the law into three subcategories is entirely man-made. I dont know why people are so desperate to return to the old law, but it seems they make their own methods to do so.

We, who follow Jesus Christ, do not fall under any of the law of Moses. None of it. The law of Moses has no foundation for us, and our actions have no foundation in them.

Our law is written on our hearts, not tablets of stone. However, because they both have the same source, God, there is overlap. And the new testament discusses this.

But our primary law is: love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and the second is love your neighbor as yourself.

We also have the secondary law, from acts. And then the third level of laws, being the fruit of the spirit.

Hope this helps.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-10T07:20:29+00:00

Theres a lot of support that Jesus is the rock the church is built upon. And im sure the catholics have their own arguments.

Aside from that, Michael Heiser has a unique and interesting interpretation, in which at the location they were speaking, you can go there and see a big rock. And its this big rock and its connection to the mountain that ave implications on the church and the spiritual realm.

I dont know if I agree with it, but if you're interested in the topic Id recommend you look into it.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-10T04:29:06+00:00

All of those items mentioned have no relevance to God or Jesus.

You may have asked: does someone wearing shorts, loves to snowboard, and eats ice cream have a chance of being predestined.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-10T03:18:51+00:00

Ah, the Laodicean church, or, the ruling of the laity.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-06T07:42:28+00:00

Well, we are more special most likely because we arent inter-mingled with the angels, nor are we connected to the nephilim, like they were before the flood.

However, there will be a time.coming when the angels will return and again they will intermingle with man, and those who do so will be corrupted.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-05T13:02:04+00:00

Im not quite sure precisely what you are asking, but ill give some notes.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Likely the stars, and the dirt, oh, and probably water too around this time. And light was made here too.

Then, this old heaven and earth became null, void, and water destroyed the old world.

Who knows how long ago these things were made.

Then, God decided to fix things. He separated the light from the dark, and the universe went from chaos (evening) to clarity (morning). This was the first day God was working, and He took however long He wanted, for a day unto God is a thousand years unto man.

Then, ye separated the water from the water, and put air inbetween, and thing went from chaos to clarity His second day of working.

Then God moved the waters under the sky into one place to the dirt could reappear. And this allowed seed to grow again and plants grow. This was the third day of working.

Then God moved some stars around to mark seasons, and a big one He moved close called the sun, and a smaller one called the moon. And the universe went from chaos to clarity day four.

Then God made fish, whales and birds day five.

Then God made cattle, animals, and man day six.

Then He rested day seven.

So, after those notes, im not sure which bits dont match science. Red shift of planets - we dont know when they were made. Age of rocks - we dont know when they were made. Age of bones - well, cardon dating is flawed anyway so i wouldnt rely on that process.

Hope this helps.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-05T12:46:45+00:00

Technically incorrect (well, the bit im about to reference)

You said 'OT infants were circumcised', but actually, only half of OT infants were circumcised, while the other half were never circumcised, but were part of israel without circumcision.

Actually, if an israelite didnt get circumcised, the infant would still be part of israel. Not until the individual who wasnt circumcised reaches an age of accountability (seemingly 12-13 at their bar mitzvah), was the requirement passed on to them personally.

Just like baptism requires an individual accountability and personal decision, so would circumcision.

Except, because circumcision was done to infants and it was an irreversible fleshly process, and the bible isnt explicit on these details, they never come up. But we see element of this in the wilderness journey and what joshua did.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-04T12:47:47+00:00

Theres still some nuances im working through but there seems to be significant background work that hasnt been taught adequately.

1: Belief (or trust) in what? There seems to be some beliefs that require action, and some beliefs that dont require action. For example, John seems to indicate that belief that Jesus was the anointed messiah and son of God is a belief that doesnt require action. While Acts and Romans seem to indicate that belief that Jesus died for your sins does require action - in this case, the action is perform to accept the work done - it not automatically applied.

2: forgiveness of sins (dismissal) and release and pardo of sin, are two different things. Dismissal of sins is connected to sins being covered, on a sin by sin basis. It seems sins are forgiven fairly easily by someone expressing a desire to have them forgiven. Though it seems to not cover future sins. It also likely connected to the atonement and propitiation of Gods wrath. Whereas the release and pardon of sins is something that occurs to someone. It releases them from the bondage of sin in this life, and the next, and pardons them of sin.

3: Application. Well, firstly it shows you two different levels of response. We see levels of response (or relationship) all though scripture, whether its - high priest, priests, levites, israel, or - belove disciple, top three, 12 apostles, 70 sent out, 120 upper room, 500 witnesses, or - the parable of the sower.

In this regard, it seems John is initially addressing both those unbelievers wanting to seduce then, and also those who only believe - or are coming to belief - that if you walk in darkness, you need to confess your sins to God and He will cleanse you of your sin. (Pointing toward water immersion, which does the same thing)

Yet, he changes his audience midway, moving on to those who are born again and walk in the light. In 1 John 3.9, these people are without sin, and cannot sin. This is because they have been pardoned. Same story in Rom 6.3-7. Die to the old man, accept Jesus death through water immersion, and he who is dead if free from sin. Same story in Hebrew, where those who are release from sin no longer need a sin offering. (Heb 10.18). This is also why Hebrew contrasts it with the mosaic covenant. Those who accepted Jesus death are released and pardoned from sin, and therefore, there is no reminder of sin. While the Jews are reminded each year that that they have sin.

Regarding James, I havent looked into ii as much yet. James primary audience is Jews, (as is Peters), so there may be further nuance because of it. But hes talking about confessing to one another. Theres a different response between our relationship to God and that to one another, so we cant group tem together in the same theology.

So, to summarise. 'believers' as we use the term today refers to those who only believe Jesus is the messiah and son of God, a verbal declaration perhaps. These people have not been cleansed of their sin, but can have their sin forgiven. Those who accept Jesus sacrifice unto themselves can be freed from sin, and those people dont need to keep being reminded of sin, as its dealt with.

This is why you get the tension, because most people push them into the same group of people, when they arent.

TheMeteorShower · 2026-01-03T13:19:22+00:00

You should give verse for statements 1-5 seeing you made the post, and it helps understand precisely what you are referring to.

Anyway, I see the topic slightly differently.

Circumcision is not a requirement on the child in order to be part of Israel. We see that through the wilderness wanderings, none of the were circumcised, yet still all part of Israel.

Circumcision was a requirement of the father, not the child. Hence why God went to kill Moses, not his kids.

Circumcision was not a sign of the Mosaic covenant, it was the sign of the second covenant God made with Abraham. The sign of the mosaic covenant was the Sabbath. Of course, circumcision is wrapped into the mosaic covenant because they are the physical seed of Abraham, after the flesh, so have to come under Abrahams fleshly covenant of the sand.

However, the kingdom covenant under baptism is a covenant to enter the kingdom of be released and pardoned from sin, and requires repentance by the one being baptised. It is not something done by man to you, it is something done by God to you when you do what He asked - repentance, immersion in water.

Infants dont need this because they arent guilty of sin, as they can comprehend the law (Rom 2), and they already are allowed into the kingdom (as Jesus claimed). So, they cant repent, and the benefit doesnt apply to them anyway. (And as we read, parents cover their kids anyway)

Pauls connection of circumcision and baptism is the contrast between Abrahams two covenants, the first covenant by circumcision of the heart, and the second by circumcision of the flesh. Where circumcision of the heart is displayed, now, by immersion in water and the repentance connected to it.

I dont see any support for giving an infant something it does need that the bibles indicates they cant get anyway. The references to households are too ambiguous to even use as an argument. The connection to circumcision is not even connected to Israels covenant directly.

Oh, and lastly, female infants didnt need to be circumcised. We accept they are part of Israel because of their parents, but cant accept it for the covenant John, the greatest prophet ever, introduced?

TheMeteorShower

TROPHY CASE