Only ONE archangel

[JoeMo]

If I take scripture as a fact, there would be a 0%chance of those things happening.  If I scripture lied, there could be a finite chance of those things happening.  I don't think scripture lied.

[Geoarrge]

The best way to think about it is that the possibility of Christ's failure was never a real possibility, but at certain points it came down to a pure question of His character rather than any ongoing divine intervention.  If you treat His character as an unknown quantity, then there seems to be a chance of failure.

[8thdaypriest]

On 3/10/2017 at 7:54 PM, Gustave said:

Answer me this then if you would be so kind.

 

What percentage chance do you estimate that the Messiah:

- would have been born by a married woman who had already borne children?

- would have been born in Greece?

- would have had his ribs, legs and shoulders broken at the crucifixion? 

Seriously, what percentage chance do you estimate that any of the above could have happened to Christ ? 

Gustave,

What WOULD BE did not come about because God Himself MADE IT come about.  Foreknowledge is NOT manipulation to make things turn out as He predicted.  Our God is NOT a manipulator.  That would mean humans do not have FREE WILL.  FREE WILL means that Jesus could have chosen to sin.  Foreknowledge means God knew that Jesus would not choose to sin. 

You are teaching predestination - that my salvation (or not) has already been determined by God who has willed it.  Islam teaches this too, that it is impossible to resist the will of God, and God has already willed the individuals who will go to paradise and those who will go to Hell. 

You are saying that God had already willed the victory of His Son, and Christ could not resist the will of God. 

[8thdaypriest]

10 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave,

What WOULD BE did not come about because God Himself MADE IT come about.  Foreknowledge is NOT manipulation to make things turn out as He predicted.  Our God is NOT a manipulator.  That would mean humans do not have FREE WILL.  FREE WILL means that Jesus could have chosen to sin.  Foreknowledge means God knew that Jesus would not choose to sin. 

You are teaching predestination - that my salvation (or not) has already been determined by God who has willed it.  Islam teaches this too, that it is impossible to resist the will of God, and God has already willed the individuals who will go to paradise and those who will go to Hell. 

You are saying that God had already willed the victory of His Son, and Christ could not resist the will of God. 

And don't say that Christ's WILL was the same as God's will.  There were two separate WILLs operating - two individuals.

Jesus prayed, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." (Luke 22:42 NIV)

 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave,

What WOULD BE did not come about because God Himself MADE IT come about.  Foreknowledge is NOT manipulation to make things turn out as He predicted.  Our God is NOT a manipulator.  That would mean humans do not have FREE WILL.  FREE WILL means that Jesus could have chosen to sin.  Foreknowledge means God knew that Jesus would not choose to sin. 

You are teaching predestination - that my salvation (or not) has already been determined by God who has willed it.  Islam teaches this too, that it is impossible to resist the will of God, and God has already willed the individuals who will go to paradise and those who will go to Hell. 

You are saying that God had already willed the victory of His Son, and Christ could not resist the will of God. 

It's simply God telling you how it's going to end up - before it ended up.

I.E. God isn't going to sin.

You either believe that OR go with what Ellen claimed her "spirit advisor" said about the matter.

 

 

[stinsonmarri]

As I listen in read some of the comments it makes me realize how caught up in mysticism we have become! EGW did not said she was shown many archangel. This is the problem with our church taking what EGW spoke herself over the Bible. Claiming her to be a prophet when she said she was not. Did EGW make errors of course she did. She came out of the Methodist Church, who believe more like the Catholic the the Baptist and others. But they all came from the Catholic beliefs and they all hung to many of this church beliefs.

EGW stated clearly she was shown that words had been changed in the Bible. EW p. 220. 221 The in Testimony to the Ministers and Gospel Workers p. 105 she said that when we come to error no matter who it is take the Bible! But no one talks about this! We now want to discuss and say that the archangel is not YAHSHUA when the Bible says it is. Then because HE had to confront Satan, we say because it took four days, THE ARCHANGEL was weak. No Cyrus a man had to make up his mind. The Bible says clearly we war with our mind daily. Somethings we give in quickly others take for days and the mind listen to THE HOLY SPIRIT and wins! MICHAEL means one like ELOHIYM and this plural word only stand for THE THREE INDIVIDUAL SPIRITUAL BEINGS who are ALMIGHTY. THE FATHER and THE SON are judges, and magistrate. But never have the Bible ever indicated that this word mean angels. The word for angels is actually messengers. The Bible does state clearly in Ex 23:20-23 that and ANGEL would go with Israel but it read clearly this was YAHSHUA.

When you disobey the Commands that deal with THE MOST HIGH, HIS NAME, and not to draw, or carve, make anything to look like THEM then we have fallen short of HIS GLORY and it is so easy to believe in lies! I have seen this church retract so much in these last days it is sickening! The anti trinity battling with the trinity folks! Who both believe in this one body that have three or two persons? Persons are you kidding me? THEY are person with one body???? If this do not sound like Hinduism then I don't know what! LET US make man in OUR RESEMBLANCE and LIKENESS! The Hebrew word one that Adam us also means to work together in unity! Not so now we have adopted the Aryan religion of this monotheistic being with three persons or two. Person means human beings and you wonder why we are now discussing about THE ARCHANGEL!!!!!!

Blessings!

[phkrause]

On 3/1/2017 at 7:34 PM, phkrause said:

Here's an interesting article I came across: The 7 Archangels and Their Meanings

http://www.beliefnet.com/inspiration/angels/galleries/the-7-archangels-and-their-meanings.aspx?

I'm curious as to where they got all these names from? The only one's I know are Michael and Gabriel!! The others I'm not sure about! I looked them up in the SDABC, but couldn't find anything!

Here's what Pastor Batchelor has to say about the Archangel Michael. You need to go to about the 7:50 mark, give or take about a few seconds!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hWYTAMt4qI

 

So here is another archangel!! Absolutely no Biblical text to backup this "archangel!!" And it looks like we can pray to him also!!

[Gustave]

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 4:48 PM, stinsonmarri said:

As I listen in read some of the comments it makes me realize how caught up in mysticism we have become! EGW did not said she was shown many archangel. This is the problem with our church taking what EGW spoke herself over the Bible. Claiming her to be a prophet when she said she was not. Did EGW make errors of course she did. She came out of the Methodist Church, who believe more like the Catholic the the Baptist and others. But they all came from the Catholic beliefs and they all hung to many of this church beliefs.

EGW stated clearly she was shown that words had been changed in the Bible. EW p. 220. 221 The in Testimony to the Ministers and Gospel Workers p. 105 she said that when we come to error no matter who it is take the Bible! But no one talks about this! We now want to discuss and say that the archangel is not YAHSHUA when the Bible says it is. Then because HE had to confront Satan, we say because it took four days, THE ARCHANGEL was weak. No Cyrus a man had to make up his mind. The Bible says clearly we war with our mind daily. Somethings we give in quickly others take for days and the mind listen to THE HOLY SPIRIT and wins! MICHAEL means one like ELOHIYM and this plural word only stand for THE THREE INDIVIDUAL SPIRITUAL BEINGS who are ALMIGHTY. THE FATHER and THE SON are judges, and magistrate. But never have the Bible ever indicated that this word mean angels. The word for angels is actually messengers. The Bible does state clearly in Ex 23:20-23 that and ANGEL would go with Israel but it read clearly this was YAHSHUA.

When you disobey the Commands that deal with THE MOST HIGH, HIS NAME, and not to draw, or carve, make anything to look like THEM then we have fallen short of HIS GLORY and it is so easy to believe in lies! I have seen this church retract so much in these last days it is sickening! The anti trinity battling with the trinity folks! Who both believe in this one body that have three or two persons? Persons are you kidding me? THEY are person with one body???? If this do not sound like Hinduism then I don't know what! LET US make man in OUR RESEMBLANCE and LIKENESS! The Hebrew word one that Adam us also means to work together in unity! Not so now we have adopted the Aryan religion of this monotheistic being with three persons or two. Person means human beings and you wonder why we are now discussing about THE ARCHANGEL!!!!!!

Blessings!

Ellen was an Arian and taught with velocity that Christ "could have" sinned and lost His Salvation...

...It's salient that Scripture states repeatedly that Christ WOULD NOT SIN, period.

I'm afraid that Ellen claimed she was shown Lucifer WAS an archangel.

I'm sorry stinsonmarri, Ellen was an Arian of the general variety.

 

Ellen White, Seventh Day Adventist Signs of the Times Sept 14 1882
Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God's purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. His complaints against God's government

Ellen White, Review and Herald, Jan 14, 1909
We are to be partakers of knowledge. As I have seen pictures representing Satan coming to Christ in the wilderness of temptation in the form of a hideous monster, I have thought, How little the artists knew of the Bible! Before his fall, Satan was, next to Christ, the highest ANGEL in heaven

Ellen White
The Lord has shown me that Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Jesus Christ. His countenance was mild, expressive of happiness like the other angels.

Ellen White, Review and Herald, Jan 14, 1909
We are to be partakers of knowledge. As I have seen pictures representing Satan coming to Christ in the wilderness of temptation in the form of a hideous monster, I have thought, How little the artists knew of the Bible! Before his fall, Satan was, next to Christ, the highest ANGEL in heaven

 

 

[stinsonmarri]

On 5/27/2017 at 0:57 AM, Gustave said:

The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. His complaints against God's government

How shall we search the Scriptures in order to understand what they teach? We should come to the investigation of ELOHIYM'S Word with a contrite heart, a teachable and prayerful spirit. We are not to think, as did the Jews, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the papists, are that certain individuals the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men have no right to search the Scriptures for themselves, but must accept the explanations given by the fathers of the church. We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what ELOHIM has said.  Some have feared that if in even a single point they acknowledge themselves in error; other minds would be led to doubt the whole theory of truth.

Therefore they have felt that investigation should not be permitted, that it would tend to dissension and disunion. But if such is to be the result of investigation, the sooner it comes the better. If there are those whose faith in ELOHIM'S Word will not stand the test of an investigation of the Scriptures, the sooner they are revealed the better; for then the way will be opened to show them their error. We cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstances, to be relinquished. There is but One who is infallible--He who is the way, the truth, and the life.

Those who allow prejudice to bar the mind against the reception of truth cannot receive the divine enlightenment. Yet, when a view of Scripture is presented, many do not ask, Is it true--in harmony with ELOHIM'S word? but, By whom is it advocated? and unless it comes through the very channel that pleases them, they do not accept it. So thoroughly satisfied are they with their own ideas that they will not examine the Scripture evidence with a desire to learn, but refuse to be interested, merely because of their prejudices.

THE MASTER often works where we least expect Him; He surprises us by revealing His power through instruments of His own choice, while He passes by the men to whom we have looked as those through whom light should come. ELOHIM desires us to receive the truth upon its own merits--because it is truth.

The Bible must not be interpreted to suit the ideas of men, however long they may have held these ideas to be true. We are not to accept the opinion of commentators as the voice of ELOHIM; they were erring mortals like ourselves. ELOHIM has given reasoning powers to us as well as to them. We should make the Bible its own expositor. TM 105, 106

I gave this to you to let you know that I take the Bible. EGW did not say she saw this or was told this by YAHWEH! She was in error because she thought this as a Methodist. There is only ONE who is called an ARCHANGEL and HE is called MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL!

Then the only other Scripture with this word says:

For YAHSHUA HIMSELF shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with THE VOICE of THE ARCHANGEL, and with THE TRUMP of ELOHIYM: and the dead in THE MESSIAH shall rise first: 1Th 4:16 

Satan was the highest angel but he was never THE ARCHANGEL and Gabriel took his place. He was known as the as the anointed covering cherub! Eze 28:14 He was created and also was call the son of the morning or light. This was his problem and part of his downfall because of the stones built in his chest plate, would gather in the power of THE FATHER'S GLORY, that was collected by those various precious stones.

The Bible tell of only YAHSHUA also known as MICHAEL being "ONE of THE CHIEF PRINCES!" Let make sure you know what chief means. The Hebrew word is "rishon,"  and it means first in place time or rank, elder, beginning, before time! Princes in Hebrew is "sar," which means a head person, captain that had rule, master, steward! Then we have MICHAEL which means ONE LIKE ELOHIYM! The King James should had made put in place of PRINCES, ONE of THE CHIEF RULERS or MASTERS. Even CAPTAIN of THE HOST, Joshua 5:14 all would have been understood. HE was ONE of THE ALMIGHTY ONES. You will never find in the Bible that Satan ever had this position at all. So as I stated earlier there is only ONE ARCHANGEL-YAHSHUA!

Yes, EGW was an Aryan but she left many of the paganism ideology and served and became a messenger for YAHSHUA! YAHSHUA did not reveal everything to her. She made that clear in her writing that we all must study and allow THE HOLY SET A PART ONE to lead us into all truth. She called THE HOLY SET A PART ONE a ghost. It was not reveal to her that RUACH means LIFE or SET A PART ONE! The word spirit is so misuse, planted this misconception by Satan. Spirit mean spiritual bodies like we have fleshly bodies. THE FATHER, SON and HOLY RUACH and the angels are spiritual beings. EGW was shown in vision that words were changed in the Bible to mystified it. Saying our mind are spiritual, and ghost are as well. There are no ghost, when you die your thoughts perish. Eccl 9:5, 6 THE HOLY RUACH, HE is not wind, breath, ghost, tongues of fire! HE can appear to be wind, or a dove, tongues of fire. HE gives us gifts they are not spiritual that what men changed in the Bible. Hebrew 1:7 state clear that angels are spirits and John 4:24 tell you that THE FATHER is a SPIRIT! 

Satan is the father of paganism and the Aryan people gods had one body but many faces. This is Satan he is a spiritual being that has four faces: Ox he loves to use this one with a pitch fork and his the sole of his feet are like a calf the Bible says! Satan eagle is the one that Zecharia Sitchin had his  believers to think that the Sumer were alien beings that created men. The Aliens is seen on the History Chanel and there are drawings of eagles like birds with long wings found in Sumer and Assyria. The next face is a lion and Babylon had drawings of lions with wings. Satan also had a face like man which what most see even of the holy angels. This is where the trinity comes from because THE ALMIGHTY ONE are INDIVIDUAL SPIRIT BEINGS just like each angels are individual spirit beings. One means union or THEY work together, and THEY this used this same concept when creating marriage. That is why we call marriage a union. THE ALMIGHTY ONE are not person that is what we are and THEY have THEIR OWN BODIES separately from EACH OTHER! Satan has deceive the world including SDA who now embrace him through the trinity-he is one with four faces. This thought came through the Vedic Sanskrit. 

Here are some of the many historical writings for proof as well:

Brahma is the source, the seed and the creator of all beings in this world. He is called svayambhu because in reality none created him. He created himself. . . He has many other names such as Hiranyagarbha (the cosmic germ), Viraj, prajapati (the lord of people), Pitamaha (the father of fathers), Vidhi (the ordainer), lokesa (ruler of the world), dhatr (sustainer), and Visvakarma (architect of the universe).. . Brahma is the Creator, one of the Three who form the great Puranic Trinity. . . In the images Brahma appears like an old man, with four bearded faces, that look in four different directions. The beard on each face is suggestive of his old age and wisdom. He is shown in a meditative mood, lost in his thoughts, with eyes half closed, suggestive of his spiritual bent of mind and his preoccupation with the process of creation. His four faces symbolically represent the four directions, the four vedas, the four Maha Yugas and the fourfold social order. . . The vehicle of Brahma is swan, a beautiful and graceful bird, which symbolically represents the Buddhi or the discriminating intelligence, which is responsible for our discretionary and decision making abilities. In some images he is shown as riding not one but seven swans. In this regard he reminds us of Varuna, the Indo Iranian Aryan god who is the upholder of laws, the knower of all, and the seer, who travels across the heavens seated on a chariot drawn by the seven swans. Gods of Hinduism Brahma, the Creator by Jayaram V

You may find it surprising that much of Christianity originated from India. Indeed, over the centuries, numerous historians and sages have pointed out that not only has Hinduism had a predominant influence on Christianity but that many of the Christian rites could be directly borrowed from Hindu (Vedic) India. . .

There are many other similarities between Hinduism and Christianity, including the use of incense, sacred bread (prasadam), the different altars around churches (which recall the manifold deities in their niches inside Hindu temples), reciting prayers on the rosary (Vedic japamala), the Christian Trinity (the ancient Vedic trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as the creator, maintainer and destroyer respectively, as well as Lord Krishna as the Supreme Lord, the all-pervading Brahman as the holy ghost, and Paramatma as the expansion or son of the Lord), Christian processions, and the use of the sign of the cross (anganyasa), and so many others. Religion & Spirituality: Christianity's Similarities with Hinduism; by Stephen Knapp

Please don't take my word and do not become angry search like the Bereans to see if these things are so! SDA wake up who are you worshiping!!!!

Blessings!

[Gustave]

18 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

How shall we search the Scriptures in order to understand what they teach? We should come to the investigation of ELOHIYM'S Word with a contrite heart, a teachable and prayerful spirit. We are not to think, as did the Jews, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the papists, are that certain individuals the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men have no right to search the Scriptures for themselves, but must accept the explanations given by the fathers of the church. We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what ELOHIM has said.  Some have feared that if in even a single point they acknowledge themselves in error; other minds would be led to doubt the whole theory of truth.

Therefore they have felt that investigation should not be permitted, that it would tend to dissension and disunion. But if such is to be the result of investigation, the sooner it comes the better. If there are those whose faith in ELOHIM'S Word will not stand the test of an investigation of the Scriptures, the sooner they are revealed the better; for then the way will be opened to show them their error. We cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstances, to be relinquished. There is but One who is infallible--He who is the way, the truth, and the life.

Those who allow prejudice to bar the mind against the reception of truth cannot receive the divine enlightenment. Yet, when a view of Scripture is presented, many do not ask, Is it true--in harmony with ELOHIM'S word? but, By whom is it advocated? and unless it comes through the very channel that pleases them, they do not accept it. So thoroughly satisfied are they with their own ideas that they will not examine the Scripture evidence with a desire to learn, but refuse to be interested, merely because of their prejudices.

 

Satan was the highest angel but he was never THE ARCHANGEL and Gabriel took his place. He was known as the as the anointed covering cherub! Eze 28:14 He was created and also was call the son of the morning or light. This was his problem and part of his downfall because of the stones built in his chest plate, would gather in the power of THE FATHER'S GLORY, that was collected by those various precious stones.

The Bible tell of only YAHSHUA also known as MICHAEL being "ONE of THE CHIEF PRINCES!" Let make sure you know what chief means. The Hebrew word is "rishon,"  and it means first in place time or rank, elder, beginning, before time! Princes in Hebrew is "sar," which means a head person, captain that had rule, master, steward! Then we have MICHAEL which means ONE LIKE ELOHIYM! The King James should had made put in place of PRINCES, ONE of THE CHIEF RULERS or MASTERS. Even CAPTAIN of THE HOST, Joshua 5:14 all would have been understood. HE was ONE of THE ALMIGHTY ONES. You will never find in the Bible that Satan ever had this position at all. So as I stated earlier there is only ONE ARCHANGEL-YAHSHUA!

Yes, EGW was an Aryan but she left many of the paganism ideology and served and became a messenger for YAHSHUA! YAHSHUA did not reveal everything to her. She made that clear in her writing that we all must study and allow THE HOLY SET A PART ONE to lead us into all truth. She called THE HOLY SET A PART ONE a ghost. It was not reveal to her that RUACH means LIFE or SET A PART ONE! The word spirit is so misuse, planted this misconception by Satan. Spirit mean spiritual bodies like we have fleshly bodies. THE FATHER, SON and HOLY RUACH and the angels are spiritual beings. EGW was shown in vision that words were changed in the Bible to mystified it. Saying our mind are spiritual, and ghost are as well. There are no ghost, when you die your thoughts perish. Eccl 9:5, 6 THE HOLY RUACH, HE is not wind, breath, ghost, tongues of fire! HE can appear to be wind, or a dove, tongues of fire. HE gives us gifts they are not spiritual that what men changed in the Bible. Hebrew 1:7 state clear that angels are spirits and John 4:24 tell you that THE FATHER is a SPIRIT! 

 

Stinsonmarri,

EGW adopted the Arian view subsequent to her theological departure from the Methodist Creed ( which her husband and other founding SDA's took great issue with ).

Ellen categorically stated Lucifer was an "archangel" along with Michael - she proceeded to affirm that there were multiple archangels ( which I happen to agree with the caveat that Jesus was NOT ever Michael ).

You said:

"The Bible tell of only YAHSHUA also known as MICHAEL being "one of the CHEIF PRINCES......

Here is my question to you.

Is God the Father a "CHIEF PRINCE"?

Is God the Holy Spirit a "CHIEF PRINCE"?

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 6/20/2017 at 3:10 PM, Gustave said:

Stinsonmarri,

EGW adopted the Arian view subsequent to her theological departure from the Methodist Creed ( which her husband and other founding SDA's took great issue with ).

Ellen categorically stated Lucifer was an "archangel" along with Michael - she proceeded to affirm that there were multiple archangels ( which I happen to agree with the caveat that Jesus was NOT ever Michael ).

You said:

"The Bible tell of only YAHSHUA also known as MICHAEL being "one of the CHEIF PRINCES......

Here is my question to you.

Is God the Father a "CHIEF PRINCE"?

Is God the Holy Spirit a "CHIEF PRINCE"?

 

 

Gustave,

Could you give us the quotation, and give us the reference, where EGW stated that Lucifer was an "archangel"?  I don't remember reading that one.

Could you give us the quotation, and give us the reference, where EGW affirmed "there are multiple archangels"  I don't remember reading that.

Could you quote something to show that James White "took great issue with" his wife's adoption of the Arian view?  From my reading, I always understood James to be opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity.  He called it a "Romish doctrine".

There is no phrase in the Bible worded, "God the Holy Spirit".  There is no command and no example, that we should worship the Holy Spirit.

 

[stinsonmarri]

 

 On 6/20/2017 at 4:10 PM, Gustave said:

Stinsonmarri,

EGW adopted the Arian view subsequent to her theological departure from the Methodist Creed ( which her husband and other founding SDA's took great issue with ).

Ellen categorically stated Lucifer was an "archangel" along with Michael - she proceeded to affirm that there were multiple archangels ( which I happen to agree with the caveat that Jesus was NOT ever Michael ).

You said:

"The Bible tell of only YAHSHUA also known as MICHAEL being "one of the CHEIF PRINCES......

Here is my question to you.

Is God the Father a "CHIEF PRINCE"?

Is God the Holy Spirit a "CHIEF PRINCE"?

 

Gustave: I give first EGW statement on what we should take:

I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of [. . . edited by GM . . ] as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged.—Early Writings, p. 78.

The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but [. . . edited by GM. . .] Word is infallible.—SM, bk. 1, p. 416

little heed is given to the Bible, and [. . . edited by GM. . .] has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. Review and Herald, January 20, 1903

The Bible and the Bible alone, is our rule of faith. Review and Herald, 1938

[. . . edited by GM . . .] will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The Great Controversy p. 595

We must not for a moment think that there is no more light, no more truth, to be given us. We are in danger of becoming careless by our indifference losing the sanctifying power of truth and composing ourselves with the thought, ‘I am rich, and increased with goods and have need of nothing’ Rev. 3:17. While we must hold fast to the truths which we have already received, we must not look with suspicion upon any new light that [. . . edited by GM . . .] may send. Gospel Workers, p. 310

We must not think, ‘Well we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our faith, and we may rest on this knowledge.’ The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light. . .Some have asked me if I thought there was any more light for the people of [. . . edited by GM . . .]. Our minds have become so narrow that we do not seem to understand that [. . . edited by GM. . .] has a mighty work to do for us. Increasing light is to shine upon us; for the ‘path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. Councils to Writers and Editors, pp. 33-35

Not to Take the Place of the Word—[. . . edited by GM . . . ] desires you to study your Bibles. HE has not given any additional light to take the place of HIS Word. This light is to bring confused minds to HIS Word, which, if eaten and digested, is as the lifeblood of the soul. Then good works will be seen as light shining in darkness.—Letter 130, 1901

The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but [. . . edited by GM . . . ]Word is INFALLIBLE. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt [. . . edited by GM . . . ]. Let us meet all opposition as did our MASTER, saying, “It is written.” Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.—The Review and Herald, December 15, 1885

Now here is the way the matter [is] represented; but when there is “I do not care,” and going right contrary to the light that [. . . edited by GM . . .] has given in HIS Word—I do not ask you to take my word; I do not ask you to do it; lay Sister White right to one side; you lay her right to one side. Do you not—never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that, make that your food, your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character—when you can do that, then you will know better how to receive some counsel from [. . . edited by GM . . .] . But here the Word, the precious Word, I exalt it before you today; and do not go and repeat any more what Sister White said—“Sister White said this,” and “Sister White said that,” and “Sister White said the other thing;” you say, “What saith [. . . edited by GM . . .]  of Israel? I do the works of MY FATHER; the works that I see HIM do, I do. Messenger of [. . . edited by GM . . .]  (the Lord), p. 418

It appears to me you don't want to believe the Bible. 

Behold, I send AN ANGEL before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of HIM, and obey HIS VOICE, provoke HIM not; for HE WILL not pardon your transgressions: for MY NAME is in HIM.  But if thou shalt indeed obey HIS VOICE, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.  For MINE ANGEL shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off. Ex 23:20-3 

And at that time shall MICHAEL stand up, THE GREAT PRINCE which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. Dan 12:1 

And I saw in THE RIGHT HAND of HIM that sat on the Throne a Book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven SPIRITS of . ... . [edited by GM . . .] sent forth into all the earth. And HE came and took the Book out of THE RIGHT HAND of HIM that sat upon the Throne. And when HE had taken the Book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before THE LAMB, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. Rev 5:1, 6-8 

The Bible does not state that only THE ARCHANGEL is connected to [. . . edited by GM . . .]! I know you gave that writing EGW was suppose to have written. I believe that was something someone put into her book. No where else does she make that statement. You may believe all you want that their are other archangels, the Bible gives only ONE who is [. . . edited by GM . . .]!!!!

You stated to me: "Here is my question to you."

Is God the Father a "CHIEF PRINCE"? No the Bible call HIM THE MOST HIGH:Gen 14:18-22; Num 24:16; Deut 32:8;  2 Sam 22:14;  Psa 7:17; 21:7; 46:4;  47:2; 50:14; 73:11; 77:10; 78:17; 78:56 ; 82:6; 83:18; 91:1, 9; 92:1; 107:11; Isa 14:14;  Lam 3:35, 38;  Dan 3:26;  4:17, 24, 25, 32, 34; 5:18,  21; 7:18, 22, 25; Hos 7:16;  11:7; Mark 5:7;  Act 7:48;  16:17; Heb 7:1   

Is God the Holy Spirit a "CHIEF PRINCE"? THE HOLY RUACH or SET APART ONE is call THE COMFORTER:  Lam 1:16; John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 

The Bible also refer to MICHAEL/[. . . edited by GM . . . ] THE TITLES: For unto us A CHILD is born, unto us A SON is given: and the government shall be upon HIS SHOULDER: and HIS NAME shall be called WONDERFUL, COUNSELOR, THE (AL) MIGHTY  [. . . edited by GM . . .], THE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE of PEACE. Isa 9:6 

There as I stated only ONE ARCHANGEL and HE IS [. . . edited by GM . . .] end of story!

EGW still did know all the errors but she warn that there were many still in the church and now they are been stated!

Blessings!

[NOTE:  In the quotations above, Stinsonmarri has changed the wording to reflect her theological understanding.  Ellen White has not used words such as Elohiym and Yahshua.  Those words have been inserted into what EGW actually wrote.   I am asking the author of this text to stop doing this and to quote EGW accurately.  In addition, I have removed from the post above those words that she has inserted into what EGW actually wrote.  I have not replaced them with what EGW actually wrote.  You-all can check the passages for yourselves, if you want to do so---GM.]

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri, when one quotes another person, one must be accurate in their quoting and not make changes to what that person actually said.  I am concerned over a habit that you have of quoting either a  Biblical verse or a passage from the writings of EGW  in which you change the actual wording to fit your desired wording.  to be specific, I am concerned over you inserting words such as:  Elohim and Yahshua.  In the past I have left these mis-quotes alone as I assumed that people reading here were well enough aquainted with Ellen White to know that she did not use such words.  but, I now no longer believe that to be true.  WE hve plenty of guests reading yoru posts who probably do not know that you have inserted your own words into her cited text.  Therefore, I ask you to stop doing that.  IOf you are unable to stop doing that I shall feel obligated to remove such words as I have done in the post you made above this one.

Also, while I have not edited out every change that you have made in what EGW & the Bible actually wrote, pleace be more careful in other areas s uch as capitalization to quote accurately.

 

 

 

[stinsonmarri]

Dear Chaplain Matthews. It greatly sadden's me that we do not have the freedom of choice. I have done anything wrong but uphold to my conviction. Yes I do insert THE TRUE NAME of THE MOST HIGH. No one seem to say anything outlandish against what I done. If you would go back to my original writings, I made it known clearly that I believe in THE NAMES YAHWEH, YAHSHUA, now THE HOLY RUACH. There are Bible versions that use THE HOLY SACRED NAMES. We say we believe in the Bible, but my question to you is do we? 

And ELOHIYM said to Moses, EHYAH ASHER EHYAH (I AM THAT I AM); and HE said, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, EHYAH (I AM) has sent me to you. Ex 3:14 Hebraic Root Bible Version

And ELOHIYM said unto Moshe, EH-HEH-YEH ASHAIR EHHEH - YEH (I AM WHO I AM); and HE said, Thus shalt thou say unto the Bnei Yisroel, EHHEH-YEH (I AM) hath sent me unto you. Ex 3:14 Orthodox Jewish Version

You shall not misuse THE NAME of YAHWEH your ELOHIYM; for YAHWEH will punish anyone who misuses HIS NAME. Ex 20:7 Hebraic Root Bible Version/ Contemporary English Versions

Surely I am more brutish than anyone, and I do not have the understanding of a man. I have not learned wisdom, but I do know the knowledge of HOLINESS. Who has gone up to Heaven, and come down? Who has gathered the wind in HIS FIST? Who has bound the waters in HIS Garments? Who has made all the ends of the earth to rise? What is HIS NAME, and what is HIS SON’S NAME? Surely you know. Every Word of ELOHIYM is refined, HE is a shield to those who seek refuge in HIM. Do not add to His Words, that He not reprove you, and you be found a liar. Prob 30:2-6

I am come in MY FATHER’S NAME, and ye receive ME not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. John 5:43 

The English word God continues the Old English God (guþ, gudis in Gothic, gud in modern Scandinavian, God in Dutch, and Gott in modern German), which is derived from Proto-Germanic *ǥuđán. . . In 19th century scholarship, there were a number of alternative etymologies suggested. Morgan Kavanagh in The Origin of Language and Myths claimed that the word god was taken from the Buddha's patriarchal name of Gotama. Henry Scadding, and Henry Le Mesurier in his book Mer-cur-ius, or The Word Maker, also connected Lombard Guodan to Gotama Buddha.[2] The connection of Gwydion with Wotan (but not with god) is due to Jacob Grimm. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Word origin:  God - Our word god goes back via Germanic to Indo-European, in which a corresponding ancestor form meant “invoked one.”  The word’s only surviving non-Germanic relative is Sanskrit hu, invoke the gods, a form which appears in the Rig Veda, most ancient of Hindu scriptures:  puru-hutas,  “much invoked,” epithet of the rain-and-thunder god Indra.  (From READER’S DIGEST, Family Word Finder, page 351) (Originally published by The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., Pleasantville New York,    Montreal;   Copyright   (C)  1975)

Since our English language has it’s origin from Indo-European influence, our understanding of the meaning of the word for “God” (from the Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages) is obviously different.

 When the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) was translated in  A.D. 1611, the translators used the words common to European people.  Instead of translating a word properly, by using the Hebrew or Greek meaning, the translators replaced the true meaning of the Scriptural words with words common to their London English vernacular.

 For example, we will first examine the words, LORD, Lord, and lord.  By providing the true meaning of the use of these words, it is easy to see how the early Bible translations were in error:

 LORD  - LORD. The rendering of several Hebrew and Greek words, which have different meanings:

 1. LORD; GOD = Jehovah (YAHWEH; Hebrew YHWH, third person singular noun from the root word, “EHYEH” meaning literally, “SELF-EXISTENT”).  This is used as a proper name of God and should have been retained in that form by the translators.  The LORD (YAHWEH) should read in the KJV and other versions as, “HE IS” or “HE EXISTS”.

2. Lord or lord = (Hebrew ‘Adon’), an early word denoting ownership; hence, absolute control. It is not properly a divine title, being used of the owner of slaves (Genesis 24:14,27; 39:2,7, rendered “master”), of kings, such as the lords of their subjects (Isaiah 26:13, “master”), of a husband as lord of the wife (Genesis 18:12).  It is applied to God as the owner and governor of the whole earth <Ps. 114:7>.  It is sometimes used as a term of respect (like our sir) but with a pronoun attached (“my lord”).  It often occurs in the plural.

 3. Lord = Adonai (Hebrew ‘adonay’), emphatic, “the Lord”; many regard it as the plural of number two (above; Adon).  It is used chiefly in the Pentateuch-- always where God is submissively and reverently addressed (Exodus 4:10,13; Joshua 7:8) and also when God is spoken of (1 Kings 13:9; 22:6).  The Jews, out of a superstitious reverence for the name Jehovah, always pronounce “Adonai” where “Yahweh” is written.  The similar form, with the suffix, is also used of men, as of Potiphar (Genesis 39:2, “master”) and of Joseph (Genesis 42:30, 33).

4. Lord, Master = (Greek ‘kurios,’ meaning, “supreme”); referencing he to whom a person or thing belongs, the master, the one having disposition of men or property, as the “owner of the vineyard” (Matthew 20:8; 21:40; Mark 12:9; Luke 20:15); the “Lord of the harvest” (Matthew 9:38; Luke 10:2); the “master of the house” (Mark 13:35); “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5), as having the power to determine what is suitable to the Sabbath, and of releasing himself and others from its obligation. 

The term is also a title of honor sometimes rendered “sir” and is expressive of the respect and reverence with which servants salute their master (Matthew 13:27; Luke 13:8; 14:22);  employed by a son in addressing his father (Matthew 21:29); by citizens toward magistrates (Matthew 27:63); by anyone wishing to honor a man of distinction (Matthew 8:2,6,8; 15:27; Mark 7:28; Luke 5:12); by the disciples in saluting Jesus, their teacher and master (Matthew 8:25; 16:22; Luke 9:54; John 11:12).  This title is given to God, the ruler of the universe, both with the article ‘ho kurios’ (Matthew 1:22; 5:33; Mark 5:19; Acts 7:33; 2 Timothy 1:16,18) and without the article (Matthew 21:9; 27:10; Mark 13:20; Luke 2:9,23, 26; Hebrews 7:21).  The title is also applied to Jesus as the Messiah, since by His death He acquired a special ownership of mankind and after His resurrection was exalted by a partnership in the divine administration (Acts 10:36; Romans 14:8; 1 Corinthians 7:22; 8:6; Philippians 2:9-11).         

5. Master, master, lord = Baal (Heb. ba`al, “master”), applied only to heathen deities, or to the man as husband, and so on, or to one especially skilled in a trade or profession.  See Baal.           

6. Other and less important words in the original are rendered “Lord,” such as mare', “master” (Acts 2:47), an official title, and seren, a Philistine term found in Joshua, Judges, and 1 Samuel, where “the lords of the Philistines” are mentioned.  

*Bibliography: E. Lohmeyer, Kyrios Christos (1928); W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1935). (From New Unger's Bible Dictionary) (originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois.  Copyright (C) 1988.)

 According to New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, the word, “LORD” seen in the OT is “YAHWEH.”  Unger’s says of the word YAHWEH:

 This is used as a proper name of God and should have been retained in that form by the translators.”  Since we know that most translators have mistranslated THE NAME of THE ALMIGHTY, by calling HIM, “LORD,” instead of, “YAHWEH,” we will now research the word “God.”  Perhaps there are similar translator errors here as well. The Origin of the English Word for God; Part One; By Craig Bluemel

You know what's amazing to me! Preachers are known to quote from the Greek or the Hebrew to make their points in service. Here we have an open forum where we all can be heard. Many here are totally against certain principles upheld on how this Church started. No one tells them what they should or should not say on their discussions. It is fine because that's how we are able to make our own choices. Why me and the word I have come to believe is not the word to used. I have never said to anyone you must say the correct words or else! Have I presented my views, yes I have. Yes you have disagreed with me and that is your right. Using YAHWEH, YAHSHUA, ELOHIYM is NOT taking away from what EGW said. I used the correct NAMES and EGW said that she is not infallible YAHWEH IS. THE SACRED NAME did not change the thought what you injected did because it made it confusing. YAHWEH is not the author of confusing, neither am I. Since most know me I stop scratching out the god, jesus, christ etc. But I guess I will go back to that out of respect to you, however I feel you have not respected me. You could have contacted me, why didn't you?

You know I feel like you are trying to take equality from me. I am a Biblical Historian and I do very intensive research before expressing my concerns. I feel for the first time, that you have a problem with me, why? Even the Bible says, when you have ought with someone go to them but instead without any warning you did this. How sad! If you feel that I am saying or disrespecting you, please show how. I will always take the Bible.

And ELOHIYM said to Moses again, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, YAHWEH, THE ELOHE of your fathers, THE ELOHE of Abraham, THE ELOHE of Isaac, and THE ELOHE of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is MY NAME Forever, and this is how I should be remembered from generation (ages) to generation (ages). Ex 3:15  Hebraic Restoration Version

Finally, will you please read Early Writings p. 220-221; where she said ELOHIYM has shown her that words has been changed in the Bible! The Bible says choose who will obey, I choose to research the facts and take the Bible.

Be Bless and have a Happy Sabbath!

[stinsonmarri]

I forgot certain things and click off. Here is the rest of why I need to provide:

. . . The most common words used on the OT for God, are “elohim ELOHIYM,” and “el.”  Both Hebrew words indicate, “might, strength, MOST EXCELLENT’; of THE HIGHEST ORDER; GREATEST; SUPERIOR or SIUPREME, MAGNIFICENT; PRE-EMINENT; FOREMOST; UNSURPASSED; UNEQUALED.”  

Since the OT words used for the Supreme deity have the basic meaning of, “strength,” why did the King James and other English translators used the word “God” instead?  The translators could have translated the word “elohim ELOHIYM” as “ of *mighty ones,” or “THE STRONGES ONE(S).”

 In like manner, Bible translators could have translated the Hebrew word “EL” as “one with strength” or “the Strong one.”  Rather than be true to the Hebrew meanings, for some unknown reason, the King James and subsequent translators have used the Anglo-Saxon word “God,” which means “the invoked one.”

Today, our word ‘theology’ (meaning the study of God) comes from “theoó,” the root word of “theos.”  It would be difficult to call THE ALMIGHTY, “the Deity,” particularly in our culture.  People will most likely always call THE CREATOR by the term “God,” even though this word is in no manner associated with Scripture.  

At the very least, earnest Christians with a reverence for the Scriptures would begin to refer to God as, ”THE ALMIGHTY,” or “*the Mighty One,” or “MY STRENGTH.”  These words denote HIS true nature and characteristics, whereas the generic word, “God” tells us nothing about the One we love and serve.  (Plus the whole world uses this pagan name so who are you referring to? So the Catholic say god to as all religions that are not Protestants!!!!!) * I disagree here Satan is the mighty one THE THREE INDIVIDUAL BEINGS are ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!

It is my prayer that Christians from all walks of life study the scripture, in order that they may know their Creator more intimately and with more knowledge.  The King James translators used a pagan Anglo-Saxon word “god” from the Germanic “gad.”  No one has ever really challenged this widespread use of this Indo-European word. The Origin of the English Word for God; Part One; By Craig Bluemel

The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Strong's Number: 430   Original Word Word Origin ~YHLA plural of (0433) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry 'ELOHIYM TWOT - 93c Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech el-o-heem'  Noun Masculine

 

Happy Sabbath and be bless!

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri:  While I may disagree with you, you do have freedom of choice.  I have not argued with you as to your preference in using the names of God.  You are free to continue on doing so.

What I do ask, is that you quote accurately.  There are Bible versions that use the same names of God that you have chosen to use.  Continue to use them as you wish.

What  I object to, and is wrong, is for you to quote from Ellen White and to change the words that she used by inserting your own preferred word into your quote from her.

In the future, when you quote from Ellen White, please do not change her wording to reflect your preferred wording.   That is not acceptable.  If you disagree with the words that Ellen White used, your are free to tell us so and to argue against her.  But, you are not free to make your own changes in her wording.

Yes, I know that some Bible versions use the words that you prefer to use.  Feel free to use them.  However, if you quote from a version that does not use your preferred words, please quote accurately and do not change.

Your freedom to express your thoughts does not extend to changing the words that another writer used to reflect what you think that the other writer should have used.

 

 

[stinsonmarri]

Chaplain Matthew you said:What  I object to, and is wrong, is for you to quote from Ellen White and to change the words that she used by inserting your own preferred word into your quote from her.

I have not change her thought by using the correct word as she herself indicated. I am convicted not to add or to take away from the Bible which you were provided it has. When Israel came out of Babylonia exile rabbis, pharisees, were formed who told the people that to use say YAHWEH'S NAME was a sin and it was not. You are doing the same as well, HE said this is MY NAME Forever, apparently not according to your view. EGW said when it come to her and the Bible take the Bible, I have! EGW was accuse of plagiarism, during her time she did not know that this would cause such a problem. It so sad because she said more than once, she was not a prophet and clarified it clearly that YAHSHUA told her she was to be HIS messenger. However this church have misquoted her words, which were clear and call her a prophet, when John was the last prophet. The facts are there he was given what would take place in the latter days. He saw everything including the New Jerusalem and the earth made new, Satan, his angels, the wicked all be destroyed after the saints and YAHSHUA return. EGW was given visions of what was in the Bible a better understanding. What she stated being more than a prophet is she was allowed to see in more then one people's personal lives and to give then warnings. The Testimony's books she wrote were a very special gift. She emphasized that these visions were given to her by ELOHIYM and she obeyed. How many prophets have you read in the Bible had this unique gift? I read of only two Samuel and Nathan and they did not have as many visions as she did for this particular gift!

All I have done is use THE FATHER, SON and HOLY RUACH in correct Paleo Hebrew HOLY SACRED NAMES. Why does this bother you so much it did not take away anything that she was saying at all but gave the THE HOLY NAMES, which is my right. Again that takes away my right because I respect EGW that she too wanted us to continue to study. If I had change her complete thought that I would understand. I see we are living in the last days and every thing that could bring those who choose closer to the truth, the devil starts confusion. Chaplain this is not right as I indicated I will leave the pagan names in and scratch over them and will put in parenthesis ELOHIYM'S HOLY SACRED NAMES! I feel I am being persecuted because of truth. People use the pagan names in cursing words, jokes etc. because they are not holy and never will be. Just like the world cannot make Sunday holy, neither can you or anyone make the pagan names holy, the proof are how they use in everyday life. YAHWEH held back HIS HOLY NAMES from this because retribution would come even faster. YAHWEH is not a jealous ELOHIYM, HE is a zealous ELOHE! I present to you and all who reads what I write on this forum. It is through THE POWER of THE HOLY RUACH that lead those who are willing into all truth!

Finally, you know what is amazing, you look over the facts how god had nothing to do with the Scriptures from historian fact. It is of an Indo-European origin. We are here to openly discuss not just our views but the facts. You show me in the Scriptures where YAHWEH said to use any name for HIS NAME?  It is not what you and I beliefs are Chaplain, it is facts and history that proves over and over the validity of the Bible. How would you like if your name was changed? Both YAHWEH and ELOHIM are transliterated, you know that is different from translation. Scholars today know for a fact the Paleo Hebrew was a dialect of the Phoenicians language and script. The findings at Ebla proves that as well, but the Phoenicians are black, yes I said it! Semitic comes under Afroasiatic languages today and there are more to that story too!!!! People down throughout the ages have through trade adopted one language as the international language. Aramaic, Greek and today English were the major ones. But the most popular ones is the Phoenicians whose language, script have changed the world today! Their symbols were adopted by the Semitic people, the Greeks and even us today. The word phonetic is a part of their grouping of words. But do they get the recognition no they don't. Neither to THE ALMIGHTY who is so much to be HONOR! I stand for truth with facts that's my motto!

Have a bless and happy Sabbath day!

[Gregory Matthews]

stinsonmarri:  You have raised many issues which could be debated and would be good, perhaps, for a discussion here in this forum.  But, none of them apply to the subject that I have raised.

It is wrong for you to quote another author and attribute to them words which you have inserted into their writing to replace the words that they used.  So, I am telling you not to do that.

If you quote from the Bible, do not change the wording of the version that you quote.  As you have stated, versions exist that use the words that you prefer.  It is fine for you to use those versions.  I have no problem with you doing such.  Just, please cite the actual reference to the version that you used.

If you quote from Ellen G. White, quote her accurately, as she wrote.  Do not replace her actual written words with words of your own, that you wish she had used, but did not.  

If you wish to do so, you may quote her and then tell us how you would have said it better than she did.  We may respond to you, if you do such, and argue with you on this point.  But, you can do this, if you wish.

My request to you is to take seriously my advice (warning) that in the future, you are to quote EGW accurately and you are not to replace the words that she used with your own preferred words.

Thank you,

GM

 

[stinsonmarri]

Chaplain as I stated I will quote the pagan name and put in parenthesis the correct Paleo Hebrew SACRED NAMES that has been misused falsely. Quoting the ORIGINAL NAME is not misquoting, it is making it correct. The Guidelines do not states what your are demanding me to do. It does say to be nice to the moderate and that is correct we all should be nice to each other. Even though you have disrespected me I will not do it to you! By the way there are King James Versions of the Bible that also uses the SACRED NAMES. The Holy Name Bible; The Holy Name Bible, Restoration Study Bible just to name a few. We are living near the Time of Trouble and YAHWEH is providing the truth according to HIS SACRED HOLY NAMES. It will not be stopped because the Gospel Truth will stand for all to make a choice. My prayers out to you Chaplain.

May you be bless!

[Gregory Matthews]

I have entered into private conversation with stinsonmarri.

For now I am gong to lock this thread.  This is intended to be a temporary situation and I expect to open it up again tomorrow.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

We have had a private conversation.  I believe that stimsonmarri is attempting to comply with what I asked, even if I am not certain that we fully understand each other.  Therefore, due to what I see as an attempt to comply, I am unlocking this thread.

But, if further action is needed, it will be taken.