blackbird

Again, the modern version removed "God was manifest in the flesh" and change it to "he who was revealed in the flesh". So God is removed from the verse. This is a very important verse in the Bible that has been changed and corrupted by modern versions. Removing the word God is a clear attack on the word of God.

In fact the NASV denies his deity by changing it from Son of God to son of man. A son of man does not show his deity. This should be quite obvious. Every man is a son of man. Only God is a Son of God as in the KJV.

No, I gave you a number of places and verses that show the corruption. Clearly the NASV change in John 9:35 from "Son of God" to "Son of man" in the NASV is a major change. It is obviously a denial that Christ is the Son of God which shows his deity. What other verses say does not change the fact that this is a major corruption.

8. The NASV denies that Christ is "Lord". 9. The NASV attacks our Lord's incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16. God was manifest in the flesh. This is an important verse to prove Jesus is God corrupted in modern versions like the NASV. It is an important verse when dealing with cults like the JWs. 10. The NASV attacks the total inspiration of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16. 11. The NASV attacks our Lord's ascension in Luke 24:51. Conclusion The NASV entertains serious doubts about or Lord's divine Sonship of God, His incarnation and Lordship, His Divine goodness and His bodily resurrection. The NASV attacks the doctrine that salvation is exclusive to Christ alone. The NASV is a CORRUPT VERSION. - from the book Beyond Versions

This is the honest truth. I will try to give a brief summary of the problems. If you want the details, you will have to make a little effort yourself. 1. The NASV attacks the eternal preexistence of Christ by tampering with Micah 5:2 2. The NASV weakens the assertion of our Lord's virgin birth. 3. The NASV attack our Lord's divine goodness by deleting the word "good" from Matthew 19:16-17. 4. The NASV attacks our Lord's bodily resurrection in Luke 24:40. This important testimony to our Lord's physical resurrection is removed from the text and dismissed to the margin in some editions, and put in parenthesis in others, showing doubt of its authenticity. 5. The NASV attacks the salvation exclusive to Christ, in John 6:47 6. The NASV attacks Christ's sonship of God in John 6:69. 7. The NASV denies Christ's title "Son of God" in John 9:35. These are a few corruptions. There are more.

I am simply trying to help you. Honestly, I tried to copy so I could paste it, but it doesn't copy to the clipboard. It is some kind of pdf file that doesn't copy. I could get the book out (which is out of print and likely quite valuable) and sit here and try to type every letter and word from those pages. But why would you want to make it so difficult to show you when all you have to do is click on the link and read the pages I said? You have to be a little flexible and help yourself to. I went to the trouble of finding the link and posting it. But you want me to spend an hour typing out each word for you instead of you just clicking on it. That doesn't make much sense. Maybe you don't want to know. Beyond+Versions.pdf

Good question. You would be amazed when you find out. Check this out: Beyond+Versions.pdf If you want to know a little, go to chapter 8 page 73 in the book Beyond Versions. I'm not playing games my friend. It is very simple to go to the link and read it for yourself. Go to the pdf file and read pages 78 to 81 which gives clear examples from the New American Standard Version. I tried to copy it with the computer but it won't copy it. It is part of a pdf file that won't allow copying. It would be very difficult to try to read and write all the information letter by letter. Much easier if you could simply click on the link and read it. What is the problem with doing that? If you really want to know the truth just click on it and read it. Only takes a couple minutes.

Very much so. Here is a good place to start your investigation. The Calvary Pandan Bible Presbyterian Church has a website with books you can download and read on your smart phone or computer whenever you wish. Go to this link and download the book "Beyond Versions". Excellent book and good place to start. Books

You would be surprised how much I have learned over the past 40 years on the subject of the version. This has been my obsession for a long time. As for the NIV and the NASB, they are very corrupt versions. I am able to to point you in the direction that will be a real revelation. God is able to help us if we let him.

One of the consequences of believing in evolution instead of the Biblical account of creation in Genesis is that in programs one's mind to question the whole Bible. There can be no salvation if one does not have faith in Jesus Christ as the Bible describes him. Jesus performed many miracles and died for the sins of mankind and was raised from the dead. The problem is if one rejects the account in Genesis of creation in six days, how can they then say they believe the miracles in the gospels that Jesus performed and his resurrection from the dead. Both creation and the resurrection of Jesus were miracles that God did. One should accept the whole Bible because God inspired men to write it and there is nothing that God cannot do. It is not man's business to cherry pick what they will believe in the Bible. We might not understand all of it, but we should accept it all as true. I am referring to the King James Bible or Authorized Version, not the modern versions which are corrupt or counterfeit.

I don't think so. I know you don't believe much of what I tell you. But all you have to do is Google the subjects and do a little reading of articles on the subjects. They will tell you. In the introductory post I posted an article with a list of things that show how leftist secular humanism is the total opposite of what the Bible teaches. It is very clear. But you either didn't read it or your mind is locked in some other way of thinking and you just can't see it. I will pray that God opens your mind to the truth. But I don't think it is useful to go on with silly debates and meaningless one liners. Happy new year.

Jesus did not get involved in politics and political ideologies. Progressivism is a word that refers to secular humanist ideology. The Bible very clearly opposes that. "• The biblical view is that the human being has free will. The left-wing view — again, the view of all secular outlooks — is that human beings have no free will. Everything we do is determined by environment, genes, and the matter of which we are composed. Firing neurons, not free will, explain both murders and kindness." Left wing secular or progressivism ideology believes the above bold sentence. That is not what Jesus taught. People often try to put their own spin on what the Bible teaches and it is fairly easy to cherry pick a verse or two to support unbiblical ideologies.

Progressivism is a broad political philosophy. Nothing to do with what Jesus said "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you". You are mixing apples and oranges.

Can you give some examples of what he said?

Where did you get that idea? The definition of progressivism is: "Progressivism is a left-leaning political philosophy and reform movement that seeks to advance the human condition through social reform – primarily based on purported advancements in social organization, science, and technology." Jesus did not come to earth to be involved in or promote some kind of political agenda. He said clearly his kingdom is not of this world. The phrase "kingdom of God" is mentioned more than 80 times in the New Testament. "Ron Rhodes, Theology Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, offers this bite-sized definition of the Kingdom of God: “God’s present spiritual reign over His people (Colossians 1:13) and Jesus’ future reign in the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20)." Jesus ministry on earth was not about politics or "progressivism". He came to earth to preach about the Kingdom of God. The gospel of John makes it clear to be part of Jesus' kingdom required faith in Jesus as the Savior. Progressivism is a left-leaning political ideology to do with this world's social system. Nothing to do with what Jesus talked about.

Read the article I posted. "What about Jesus’ healing ministry? While Jesus surely had compassion on the sick, His miracles had a bigger purpose than just helping the destitute and needy. They were intended to reveal His identity and confirm His message." Your language demonstrates your warped thinking.

Here is another article explaining Jesus was not a social justice warrior (or leftist). I know there are some churches or denominations that believe their mission is social justice but this is not the real purpose of a church. These churches misinterpret the Bible by taking one verse here or there and using them to support their view. This is often done by many cults and false teachers. " Jesus was no social justice warrior Posted by Jason Dulle under Historical Jesus, Social Jesus’ foremost mission was the salvation of sinners, not social justice. While the marginalized and oppressed tended to be the most receptive to Jesus’ message, his message was for all people because all people need to be saved. What about Jesus’ healing ministry? While Jesus surely had compassion on the sick, His miracles had a bigger purpose than just helping the destitute and needy. They were intended to reveal His identity and confirm His message. Jesus never raised money for the poor or went on a campaign to liberate the oppressed. If those things could be done, great, but that was not Jesus’ mission, and it’s not the church’s mission either. Our primary mission is to preach the gospel and call sinners to repentance. If we can help their lot in life along the way, all the better, but we must keep the Great Commission the central mission of the church. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason recently wrote an article related to this topic. He debunks the idea the myth that Jesus was a social justice warrior championing the cause of the poor and oppressed. Check it out." Jesus was no social justice warrior | Thinking to Believe

No, Jesus was not a leftist. Yes he believed in helping the sick, poor and needy. That does not make him a leftist. A leftist is an entirely different kind of person. quote Was Jesus a social justice warrior? There there, little woke Christian. I know. It’s getting rough out there. Come on in, grab a pew, and take a few moments to catch your breath. Here’s a juice box and some string cheese to fortify yourself before heading back out into the big bad world. There. Feeling better? Good. I know…it’s hard to be perpetually offended by what the world wants you to be offended by and still project an image of being a faithful Christ-follower. I get it. The pressure to agree with whatever the world sends down the pike is immense, so much so that it’s much easier to compromise the truth of the Gospel rather than risk being labeled a racist, or a homophobe, or anti-love, or even, God forbid, a ‘Karen’. I know. It’s a tough act to juggle, but rest assured, I’m here fo…what? What’s that, you say? Jesus was a social justice warrior too? Really? Now, I’m sure you’ve heard well-meaning friends say so, maybe even a minister or two, but are you sure about that? Have you studied the scriptures out to make certain that’s true and not just taken their words at face value? Because, you see, anyone can pull scriptures out to justify what they want to justify. To know what Jesus stood for you need to take a look at the whole thing, the entire Gospel, not just a few well-chosen verses that appear to prop up a worldly viewpoint that has no roots in the Gospel of Christ. No. Jesus wasn’t a social justice warrior. Jesus stood for justice, not social justice. There is a difference between the two. Ah, I see you’re having trouble with this, but hey, no worries, we can compare the two… Justice is the pursuit of what is right according to an absolute, impartial standard. It’s guided by what’s morally acceptable, unbiased, and concerns itself with matters that will impact anyone and everyone. Basically, justice hangs on what God says is right, period. Social justice, however, is directly opposite. Its focus is on what is perceived as lacking for some when compared to what someone else has. It’s biased, driven by what’s socially acceptable, and only involves itself in matters that are believed to affect specific groups. Basically, social justice hangs on what the people say is right. So what does this mean? Well, it means that yes, a Christian can, and should, involve themselves in helping the poor, the oppressed, and fighting against the evil of the world, but do you honestly believe that Jesus would stand next to someone hurling a brick through a window in the name of ‘social justice’ and cheer them on? Do you think that Jesus would call some of His children racists simply because of the color of their skin? Do you really believe that Jesus would condemn an entire group of people because some people who lived hundreds of years ago committed sin? Do you truly believe that Jesus would be that shallow, that selfish, that worldly to support an organization whose leader recently said that if they don’t get what they want they’ll burn the system down? The Jews of His time period wanted a social justice warrior, someone who would free them from their oppressors, but not once did Jesus give in to their expectations. Instead, he told them to ‘render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s (Matt. 22:21)’. Not once did Jesus pick up a sign, or hurl bottles at the soldiers, or spit in people’s faces, or curse or loot a store or take entire city blocks hostage until His demands were met. No. He didn’t. Because that wasn’t the justice He came for. His purpose, His mission, was this… “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Luke 19:10) Everything Jesus did had one goal in mind, to bring sinners to repentance so they could find eternal salvation from sin and freedom from the injustices of the world. His message was one of peace, not rioting. As a Christ-follower, shouldn’t that be our goal too? There is a right way to fight for justice, and a wrong way. There is either God’s way, or the world’s way, you can’t do both. unquote Was Jesus a Social Justice Warrior? The Answer May Surprise You. – KathyWereb.com Jesus also did not support policies, laws, and practices that leftists advocate. The O.P. at the beginning of this article points that out. Jesus would also not support Socialism which is confiscating the wealth of those that have it and re-distributing to others. The commandment "thou shalt not steal" should make that clear. Socialists oppose the right to private property. The Bible clearly defends it. The big thing that Jesus would oppose is the leftist's anti-Bible and anti-Christian ideology.

Name calling demonstrates a lack of ability to engage in intelligent meaningful debate. It is an admission of failure.

The fact is this is evident from their views, policies, and many laws and policies they support. The more left, the more anti-Bible or anti-Christian their beliefs. All of this can be easily proven by examining and comparing their beliefs with the Bible. You might say why does this matter? The answer is it matters big time to a nation because our political leaders are supposed to also be leaders in how society should think and function. There are basically two directions to go; either toward God and building a God-fearing Christian society or opposing God and building a decadent, crumbling society. Which way would you choose to go? quote Why the Left Mocks the Bible The Bible tells of a greater source of truth than human reasoning. The Left can’t handle that. At PragerU, we have released about 400 videos on virtually every subject outside of the natural sciences and math. Along with 2 billion views, the videos have gotten tens of thousands of comments. So we have a pretty good handle on what people most love and most hate. For example, any video defending America or Israel inevitably receives many negative responses. But no videos elicit the amount of contempt and mockery that videos defending religion, explaining the Bible, or arguing for God do. Why is that? There is a good reason. The Bible and the Left (not liberalism, leftism) are as opposed as any two worldviews can be. While there are people who claim to hold both a Bible-based worldview and left-wing views, these people are few in number. Moreover, what they do is take left-wing positions and wrap them in a few Bible verses. But on virtually every important value in life, the Left and the Bible are diametrically opposed. Here are a few examples: • The biblical view is that people are not basically good. Evil therefore comes from within human nature. For the Left, human nature is not the source of evil. Capitalism, patriarchy, poverty, religion, nationalism, or some other external cause is the source of evil. • The biblical view is that nature was created for man. The left-wing view is that man is just another part of nature. • The biblical view is that man is created in the image of God and, therefore, formed with a transcendent, immaterial soul. The left-wing view — indeed, the view of all secular ideologies — is that man is purely material, another assemblage of stellar dust. • The biblical view is that the human being has free will. The left-wing view — again, the view of all secular outlooks — is that human beings have no free will. Everything we do is determined by environment, genes, and the matter of which we are composed. Firing neurons, not free will, explain both murders and kindness. • The biblical view is that while reason alone can lead a person to conclude that murder is wrong, murder is ultimately and objectively wrong only because there is a transcendent source of right and wrong — God — who deems murder evil. • The biblical view is that God made order out of chaos. Order is defined by distinctions. One such example is male and female — the only inherent human distinction that matters to God. There are no racial or ethnic distinctions in God’s order; there is only the human sex distinction. The Left loathes this concept of a divine order. That is the primary driver of its current attempt to obliterate the male-female distinction. • The biblical view is that the nuclear family is the basic unit of society — a married father and mother and their children. This is the biblical ideal. All good people of faith recognize that the reality of this world is such that many people do not or cannot live that ideal. And such people often merit our support. But that does not change the fact that the nuclear family is the one best suited to create thriving individuals and a healthy society, and we who take the Bible seriously must continue to advocate the ideal family structure as the Bible defines it. And for that, perhaps more than anything, we are mocked. • The biblical view holds that wisdom begins with acknowledging God. The secular view is that God is unnecessary for wisdom, and the left-wing view is that God is destructive to wisdom. But if you want to know which view is more accurate, look at the most godless and Bible-less institution in our society: the universities. They are, without competition, the most foolish institutions in our society. For nearly all of American history, the Bible was the most important book in America. It is no longer. This is a moral and intellectual catastrophe. If you want to understand why, consider reading The Rational Bible, my commentary on the first five books of the Bible. The second volume of The Rational Bible, Genesis, is published today. unquote Bible & the Left -- Why the Left Mocks the Bible's Truth | National Review

Stockwell Day was a cabinet minister in PM Stephen Harper's government. In spite of left wing, liberal criticism of Stephen Harper, he was one of better PMs in Canada's history He served nine years. No PM is perfect and no PM can satisfy everyone, especially the opposition Liberals and NDP (and Bloc) who are always opposed to everything the conservatives do. Here is short summary of PM Harper's time as PM. There is a long history of his life on Wikipedia. "Stephen Harper, Canada's longest-serving Conservative prime minister, led the country through a decade of complex geopolitical, economic, and security challenges2. Under his leadership, Canada reduced federal taxes, created new jobs, balanced the budget, and made critical investments in health care and infrastructure1. He also helped found the Reform Party and served as head of the National Citizens Coalition and leader of the Canadian Alliance Party3. In addition to his political accomplishments, Harper is an accomplished musician and has written a book on the early days of professional ice hockey in Canada4.

You are correct. Stockwell Day served as a cabinet minister in the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, who was a good PM. Stockwell was also a Bible-believing Christian which went against the grain of some conservative MPs and they worked to have him removed as leader of the Reformed or Canadian Alliance party. However, after that, he took it honourably and was still given a cabinet post in the Harper government later when they defeated the Liberals back around 2005. What we need are more people of faith in Canada and in politics. Since you dislike Liberalism, Socialism, and Marxism, you might be a good candidate to become a man of faith, i.e. a Bible-believing Christian. The way to do that is to get yourself a King James Bible and start studying it. A good place to start would be the New Testament and the gospel of John. If you would believe the gospel and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you would be doing yourself a great favour. A careful study will show that Jesus Christ performed dozens of miracles and was indeed raised from the dead three days after he was crucified. All this proving he is God as he said. Studying the Bible daily would help to build a shield of armor to protect yourself from the evils of this world. If you are converted, you would be a new man with God on your side. You would be on the winning side which is a total transformation. That would mean happiness and life forever.

This article clearly exposes the nonsensical comments who are trying to downplay this subject. quote FIRST READING: Scotland scandalized by trans sex offenders in women's prisons as Canada ignores it Unbeknownst to many Canadians, such a policy is already standard practice in Canada ever since it was introduced by the Trudeau government in 2018 — and has indeed resulted in criminals with lengthy histories of sexual violence against women being housed alongside female inmates. The government of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is facing down a major scandal over revelations that her government OK-ed the ability for transgender inmates to transfer to women’s prisons. The policy soon resulted in several high-profile examples of women’s prison transfers being requested by transgender inmates incarcerated for sexual violence against women. Most notably, this included Isla Bryson, a convicted rapist who attacked two women under the name Adam Graham before changing gender in prison. “The last few days have exposed Nicola Sturgeon as being completely out of touch with public opinion,” Russell Findlay, Scotland’s shadow community safety minister, said this week. And so, in a dramatic about-face this week, Sturgeon announced that transgender criminals with “any history” of violence against women could no longer transfer from a men’s to a women’s prison based on their gender self-identification. unquote Canada ignores scandal of trans sex offenders in women's prisons | National Post

Simplest fact is the leaders of the three opposition parties now say they do not have confidence in the government. That means when a vote is held, the government will be defeated in a non-confidence motion. However, since the three parties now have no confidence in the government, the fact remains that the government no longer has the confidence of Parliament because they are a minority and the three parties are the majority. The government should do the decent thing and face it by recalling Parliament and accepting the outcome.

The fact is many Canadians feel Trudeau has done everything possible to wreck Canada. Some may go so far as to want to sound like they agree with Trump because they know Trump really opposes the woke Trudeau gang. As far as traitors go, Trudeau and the Liberals did little to nothing to support the Canadian armed forces in their time and never came close to meeting their 2% NATO commitment. Commitments apparently are just a piece of paper with them. Then there is the Chinese interference scandal and what actually happened between the Liberals and China that Canadians are not being told. Or was China actually working to help elect Liberals and oppose the Conservatives in the past two elections? The documents for the Winnipeg lab scandal have never been released. "Canada is now more divided than ever and has taken on more debt than ever. It has become a joke on the world stage, with many Canadians losing pride in the country." YOU SAID IT: Liberal brand toxic Can anyone really blame some for feeling antagonistic toward Trudeau and the Liberals? I would be so quick to throw around the word "traitors". People have a right to disagree on how Canada should be governed without being called ridiculous names. Perhaps traitors is too strong of a word. I wouldn't be so quick to call Danielle Smith an opponent of Canada. That is foolish. If anything Trudeau and the Liberals have been working to destroy the Alberta energy industry. Danielle Smith is just working to protect Alberta and should be commended. She sees diplomacy with the Trump team as the best approach for Alberta in the face of threatened 25% tariffs.