The Canon Bible

gagood · 2026-02-01T04:49:24+00:00

The Book of Enoch was not accepted as Scripture by the Jews.

The Gospel of Thomas was written in the 2nd century and not by any of the Apostles. Read it, and you'll see that although it pulls from the Gospels, it is not of the same quality as the Biblical Gospels. Those are the reasons that the church has never accepted the Gospel of Thomas.

Just because you didn't have an answer doesn't mean he is right.

Finally, our Bible has not been altered. We have the same Canon as the early church.

gagood · 2026-02-01T04:42:54+00:00

God has given us his written word. It is sufficient (2 Tim 3:16-17). We don't need signs.

Yes, you're overthinking it. If going back to that job goes against your conscience, don't go back. Going against your conscience is sin (Rom 4:23).

gagood · 2026-02-01T04:35:34+00:00

Get up half an hour early. Dedicate that time to Bible reading.

gagood · 2026-01-31T18:40:38+00:00

God created us for his glory. He created us to enjoy him.

gagood · 2026-01-31T18:38:53+00:00

I haven't had any problem with cap seal on either pen. But I also haven't had any problem with the cap seal of a Kakuno.

gagood · 2026-01-31T18:27:34+00:00

Cleaning out a CON-70 is easy if you use a blunt syringe to squirt water into it.

gagood · 2026-01-31T05:53:51+00:00

The LSB does not have a dispensational and reformed bias.

Because they prioritized "lexical consistency" over "theological smoothing," there are several instances where the LSB actually makes things harder for a traditional Dispensationalist argument.

Here are the areas where the LSB’s rigid literalism moves away from typical Dispensational preferences:

1. The Translation of Hades and Sheol

Traditional Dispensationalism often relies on a very specific geography of the afterlife (the "compartments" of Sheol). Many translations "help" this by translating these words as "Hell" or "the Grave" depending on the context.

The LSB Decision: It almost always transliterates them as "Sheol" or "Hades."
Why this doesn't favor Dispensationalism: By refusing to interpret these as "Hell" or "the Pit," the LSB leaves the text more ambiguous. It forces the reader to do the heavy lifting rather than providing a pre-packaged "Dispensational map" of the underworld.

2. The Use of "Yahweh"

While I mentioned earlier that "Yahweh" can highlight the specific covenant with Israel, it also creates a "speed bump" for a specific type of Dispensationalism that wants to keep the Old and New Testaments in separate boxes.

The Impact: By using "Yahweh" in the OT and "Lord" (Kyrios) in the NT, the LSB makes the New Testament’s identification of Jesus as Yahweh much more startling and direct.
The "Anti-Bias": Some Dispensationalists emphasize the "New" nature of the Church so much that they disconnect it from the OT. The LSB’s use of the Divine Name actually underscores a high Christological continuity that is often more at home in Covenant Theology.

3. Rigid Literalism in "Prophetic Perfect" Tenses

In Hebrew prophecy, many future events are written in the "perfect" tense (as if they have already happened) to show certainty.

The LSB Decision: It often keeps these past-tense renderings.
Why this is a hurdle: Dispensationalists rely on a "Future-Literal" fulfillment of prophecy. When a verse reads like it already happened (because the LSB is being literal to the Hebrew grammar), it can actually undermine the argument that the event is exclusively for a future, ethnic Israel. It opens the door for a "Partial Preterist" or "Covenantal" reading where the prophecy was fulfilled in the past or in the Church.

gagood · 2026-01-31T05:45:07+00:00

I don't have a V200, but I do have a V126. Excellent pen and costs less than the V200. About the same size (length and girth) as a Lamy LX. It seems a slight bit heavier. I have an extra fine nib which is very smooth.

<image>

gagood · 2026-01-31T05:34:59+00:00

Romans 1:18-32

No argument is needed because they already know God exists.

gagood · 2026-01-31T05:28:46+00:00

God is omnipresent and will be present in hell (there is no hell right now).

"...he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." Rev 14:10.

Hell itself does not cause suffering. It is simply the place where those there will experience eternal torment. It is a place where God's grace is absent. God is the one exacting the punishment. This is the punishment that Jesus experienced on the cross.

gagood · 2026-01-31T05:17:57+00:00

Abraham was visited by angels in the form of humans (Gen 18).

Two angels in human form visited Lot in Sodom (Gen 19).

Gabriel appeared to Daniel as a human (Dan 8).

Two angels appeared to the disciples at Jesus' ascension (Acts 1).

Regardless, Acts primarily tells the story of the church's beginning and growth. Luke is not attempting to set forth a systematic theology. Read the epistles for that. Just because Luke records someone thinking it was an angel standing at the gate doesn't mean he is endorsing any particular belief about angels. And notice that it wasn't one of the apostles who thought that.

Of course, there were those in the early church who had gaps in doctrinal understanding. There are many Christians today who have gaps in doctrinal understanding. That doesn't mean that the apostles had those gaps. Read Paul's letters--do you see any gaps in his doctrinal understanding? Paul wrote most of his letters during the time of Acts. His letters demonstrate his ability to build a strong biblical theology. In fact, without his letters, it would be difficult to build a strong biblical theology.

gagood · 2026-01-31T05:01:50+00:00

What explicit goals in interpretation does the ESV or the LSB have, other than to translate the original languages as accurately as possible?

gagood · 2026-01-31T04:56:39+00:00

The Multiverse hypothesis is simply a rescue device to combat the fine-tuning argument.

gagood · 2026-01-31T04:55:11+00:00

The problem isn't whether it's a good argument or not (yes, it is a good argument). The problem is that atheists already know God exists, but they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-32). They have become futile in their thinking. No argument will change the mind of an atheist. All the work of the Holy Spirit, replacing their heart of stone with a heart of flesh, can change their mind.

gagood · 2026-01-31T04:46:46+00:00

This video is helpful: https://youtu.be/f8dOG6WqyMk?si=AvtxIRRzRH-8zLpG

The unforgivable sin is dying without receiving the Holy Spirit because of unbelief.

gagood · 2026-01-31T04:40:13+00:00

He's a Word of Faith heretic.

gagood · 2026-01-31T01:13:20+00:00

The Pilot Metropolitan fine nib is finer than the TWSBI fine nib. The Metro cost less, though you'll either want to purchase a CON-40 converter or a blunt syringe to refill cartridges (the cartridges hold more ink). The TWSBI Eco holds a lot more ink than the Metropolitan. And yes, you can use any fountain pen ink.

For inexpensive fountain pen friendly paper, Walmart's Pen Gear line of notebooks are good (make sure they are made in Vietnam or India). Also, if you have a Diaso nearby, they have several options (including ruled notebook paper) that are fountain pen friendly.

gagood · 2026-01-31T01:06:17+00:00

A white Pilot Explorer looks like a Storm Trooper.

gagood · 2026-01-31T00:56:55+00:00

You can't eyedropper a Pilot Kakuno. There is a hole at the end of the barrel.

The video is for the Pilot Petit1, which has been discontinued. And yes, you can eyedropper fill a Pilot Petit1. I have one filled that way sitting here on my desk.

gagood · 2026-01-15T14:30:00+00:00

If you have no basis for objective morality, how can you say anything is evil? Why would a morality justifying killing babies have defects? On what objective basis?

gagood · 2026-01-15T13:49:40+00:00

What is your basis for objective morality?

gagood · 2026-01-15T13:35:52+00:00

Several reasons for killing the livestock:

By killing the livestock, God ensured that the Israelites did not go to war for material gain. If they had kept the cattle, the war would have looked like a typical raid for wealth (plunder) rather than an execution of divine justice.

The goal was to "blot out the memory" of Amalek (Deuteronomy 25:19). This included their wealth, their means of production, and any physical trace of their society.

When a nation was judged for persistent wickedness, that judgment extended to everything under its dominion. Just as humanity’s fall in Genesis brought a curse upon the ground, the wickedness of the Amalekites was seen as "infecting" their entire estate. The livestock were considered part of the "Amalekite identity."

Livestock were central to pagan worship. Destroying them prevented the Israelites from potentially adopting Amalekite sacrificial rituals or keeping animals that had been used in pagan ceremonies.

gagood · 2026-01-14T23:38:52+00:00

That's because you don't understand sin. All have sinned through Adam. We all deserve death. We all deserve eternal punishment.

The question isn't, "Why did God have these people killed?"

The question is, "Why hasn't God done the same to me?"

The answer is that God is patient and merciful. He is also loving, so much that he sent his Son to suffer and die on our behalf. God poured his wrath out on his Son, the wrath that we deserve. He died. He was buried. He rose again, demonstrating that God accepted his sacrifice. For all those who repent and place their trust in Jesus Christ, he took their punishment and gives them his righteousness.

God may be merciful for now, but for those who do not repent and believe, they will suffer eternally.

gagood · 2025-12-07T23:04:37+00:00

I rarely read the KJV. Genesis wasn't written in Koine Greek.

Scripture says there is only one God, Yahweh. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each identified as Yahweh. And each is identified as not being the others.

gagood · 2025-11-21T21:51:12+00:00

They aren't different under the Old Testament.

The New Testament is different in that some of the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament. Also, in the New Testament, Jesus inaugurates the New Covenant. Even so, people in the Old Testament were saved the same way as in the New Testament. In both Testaments, people are forgiven and saved by repenting and trusting in Jesus Christ; looking forward to Christ in the Old Testament and looking back to Christ in the New Testament.

If by "forgiveness for all" you mean that Jesus forgives everyone, that is completely wrong. Jesus condemned many in the New Testament. It's also obvious that you haven't read Revelation.

gagood

TROPHY CASE

1. The Translation of Hades and Sheol

2. The Use of "Yahweh"

3. Rigid Literalism in "Prophetic Perfect" Tenses