All graphics and images are copyright of A True Church
Last updated 1-28-08
From: "Tim Vrazo" firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 4:32 PM
Subject: And I Have a Theological Eye-opener for you
I read with interest some of your website's content. There are some similarites between my journey to find the truth and Darwin Fish's. I was raised Baptist, and tried many different churches and denominations, before finally coming to the same point as Darwin Fish describes in his article, "Who is Darwin Fish" - namely, Darwin's statement in paragraph eight of that article, that, "I was very skeptical. I was determined not to follow any way that I did not know for certain was the truth. If I had any doubt, I was not going to make any commitment."
I have always dismissed criticisms made by cynics, skeptics, humanists, atheists, agnostics and general libertines of Christianity & the New Testament, mainly because they did not accept the authority of the God of the Bible. Without this presupposition (or revelation of God's authority which one receives as a result of believing the truth), it is like trying to construct a syllogism with only one of the two required (A&B) statements; you end up with erroneous (C) conclusions because you lack certain required information.
For example, these critics would attempt to point out what they perceive as the contradictions or impossibilities contained in the New Testament, without considering that it was God who wrote them; from a non-supernaturalist, humanistic point-of-view these seemingly troublesome texts are impossible to resolve.
However, what if the New Testament could be shown - not by a cynic, skeptic, athest, or the like - but by a true Old Testament scholar and believer, to be not necessarily self-contradictory; but contradictory to the Old Testament, which it (the NT) purports to be the fulfillment of, both of the Law and the prophesied messianic Kingdom? What if it could be shown that the NT writers so manipulated, misinterpreted, misquoted, and, in some cases, even changed, the OT scriptures to such an extent that it left no doubt that the New Testament could not possibly have been inspired by God? "God is not a man, that He should lie."
You may have heard about this website, but I will provide the link, in case you have not:
This is the work of Rabbi Tovia Singer, who heads an outreach intended to un-convert Jews who have become Christians. However, his materials have become widely used by Christians who are questioning (much like you did) what they're being taught in church.
Personally, I have not really settled yet on where to commit myself - much like your comment I earlier quoted, "If I had any doubt, I was not going to make any commitment." However, I have found R. Singer's writings to be so compelling, and so troubling, that I have not attended church for about 5 years now.
I would be interested to hear what you have to say about any of this, but particularly what you think about the Q&A writings found at R. Singer's website.
Mount Clemens, Michigan
To: "Tim Vrazo" email@example.com
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: And I Have a Theological Eye-opener for you
You wrote, "However, what if the New Testament could be shown - not by a cynic, skeptic, athest, or the like - but by a true Old Testament scholar and believer." In the context you write, it does not matter who is saying what. The issue is, is it true? This argument indicates a trust in man (trusting by whom things are said). With this kind of "discernment," you will discern nothing, because with this kind of thinking, nothing but a curse will be upon you (Jeremiah 17:5).
I know this man, Tovia Singer, is NOT a true believer in the Old Testament, but rather a deceiver and one who rejects God's word.
For example, he writes, "The Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the Bible." (www.outreachjudaism.org/psalm110.html)
This is a lie, and it is foundational to his argument. Joshua uses that exact word for God in Joshua 5:14 (note verse 15, the same command is given as in Exodus 3:5 for being in the presence of God Himself).
Moreover, adonee is simply the word for "lord" or "master," as he notes, but what he fails to mention, which is very key, is that adonee is "lord" or "master" with the pronominal suffix "my" added to it. Without this suffix, it is pronounced in Hebrew adon (long o) which is simply "lord" or "master." This (adon) is undeniably used for God in Exodus 23:17; 34:23; Psalm 114:7; Isaiah 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33; 19:4.
Also, immediately after the above quote, Tovia writes, "It is only used for the profane, never the sacred."
Not only is this a denial of the above verses, but apparently Tovia believes messengers from God are "profane," for this same exact word (adonee) is used for them in Daniel 10:16-17, 19; 12:8; Zechariah 1:9; 4:4-5, 13; 6:4.
Another example of lies is found @ www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html. There he argues that in Genesis 1:26 the "Us," "Our," and "Our," refers to God talking majestically to His angels. Yet, this goes directly against the Hebrew Scripture that says, "Do not add to His words" (Proverbs 30:6). That's exactly what Tovia does.
First, there are no angels in the chapter. Tovia adds them (Proverbs 30:6). Second, the very next verse says to whom the "Us," "Our," and "Our," refer: "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him" (verse 27). This lets us know who God was talking to (i.e. Himself), and in whose image man was created.
The nearest "angels" are in Chapter 3, and these are in an entirely different context. Also, those "angels" are cherubim (verse 24), which, if someone were to argue the "Us" in Genesis 1:26 includes these, they look nothing like man, except for one of the four faces (see Ezekiel 1 for a detailed description).
Another lie and rejection of the Old Testament can be found @ www.outreachjudaism.org/original.htm. In this article Tovia argues for an unbiblical free will. He writes, "Over and over again the Torah loudly dismisses the notion that man has lost his divinely endowed capacity to freely choose good over evil, life over death."
The truth is, he never had it. God spoke everything into being before it ever happened (Isaiah 46:10). That includes Adam's and Eves' sin, as it is written,
"Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating bad, I the LORD do all these." (Isaiah 45:7, a more literal translation from the Hebrew, see also KJV; see also Isaiah 63:17).
Jeremiah explicitely states: "O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps." (NKJV)
Likewise, Proverbs 16:9 says, "A man's heart plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps."
Likewise, Proverbs 20:24 says, "A man's steps are of the LORD, how then can a man understand his own way?"
Tovia quotes out of Deuteronomy, yet this same book reveals man has no such free will. In Deuteronomy 29:4 Moses reveals to the Israelites, "Yet, the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear to this very day." There is no free will apart from God controlling it and declaring it to be from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).
Consistant with the above, Tovia argues in this same article, "Moses declares that it is man alone who can and must merit his own salvation."
King David speaks directly against this, stating, "My goodness is nothing apart from you" (Psalm 16:2). Goodness includes salvation, as David also said, "The LORD is my light and my salvation" (Psalm 27:1; see also Psalm 38:22; 62:2, 6-7), and said the LORD was "the strength" of his salvation (Psalm 140:7). He also said, "From Him [God] comes my salvation" (Psalm 62:1); and "the salvation of the righteous is from the LORD" (Psalm 37:39). Also, salvation must be "granted" (i.e. given, e.g. Psalm 85:7). It is from God, not man.
Tovia thinks, "that it is man alone who can and must merit his own salvation." So, Tovia does as the Israelites of old who, "did not believe in God, and did not trust in His salvation" (Psalm 78:22). Tovia must merit his own. And so, if he continues, he also will not enter His rest (Psalm 96:11), but will lie down in torment (Isaiah 50:11), with his fire and his worm (Isaiah 66:24).
Tim, you have been listening to a liar. You are certainly headed for eternal fire yourself (Isaiah 66:24). You had better literally forever get terrified of God (Ecclesiastes 8:12; 12:13-14; please see www.atruechurch.info/fearofgod.html; www.atruechurch.info/hell.html) before it's too late (Proverbs 2:1-12).
Someone wrote and asked about the NIV translation of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. So, here is a note on that:
The NIV translation of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 is terribly perverted. The NIV translates gamizôn (or ekgamizôn) in verse 38 twice as "marry," but the word for marry here would be gamôn (as e.g. in Luke 16:18), if it were truly the word for marry. The word gamizôn (or ekgamizôn) is the word for being given in marriage, as in Matthew 24:38 and Mark 12:25. In fact, both of these passages have both words (to marry and be given in marriage), so the difference between the two words can be seen in Matthew 24:38 & in Mark 12:25.
Also, the NIV takes great liberty (Proverbs 30:5-6) in verse 36 by adding "he is engaged to." Those words are not there in the Greek, and that is why you don't find them in the KJV, NKJV, or NAS (three far better translations than the NIV).
Likewise, in verse 36 "he ought to marry" is not there either. Likewise, in verse 37 "not to marry" is not there either, but what is there is "keep his virgin." The Greek word for "keep" (têrein) is used. It is not the word for marry, as the NIV indicates.
Therefore, in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 the NIV teaches it is better to defraud (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8). To give the promise of marriage (betrothal) and then not to consummate (i.e. not get married) is a serious case of defrauding (anticipation of sex, but then there is none) and breaking one's word (Psalm 15:4).
An exception to this would be if someone came to faith while engaged, and their fiance continued to be an unbeliever. In this case, 2 Corinthians 6:14 would have to be applied, and the betrothal dissolved.
Peter G. Habegger sent Darwin the book, The Journey from Texts to Translations, by Paul D. Wegner. The following is Darwin's email (edited) to Mr. Habegger after receiving the book.
To: Peter G. Habegger
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: THe Holy Scriptures
Thank you again for the book. I enjoyed reading it. Sadly, it is evident the author is a false teacher caught in the prevailing false Christian world (www.atruechurch.info/savednot.html), but it was interesting nonetheless.
On page 101, speaking of the OT Wegner writes,
"The books that were later placed into the Old Testament canon were of a self-authenticating nature and did not derive their authority from a person or an ecclesiastical decree."
Similiarly, on page 147 speaking in the context of the New Testament Wegner writes,
"It is important to remember that the Christian church did not canonize any book. Canonization was determined by God."
That is true.
Scripture is self-evident, since Scripture is God Himself (John 1:1, 14; Galatians 3:8; Hebrews 4:12-13; Revelation 19:13). As God is self-evident in creation (Romans 1:18-20), so He is self-evident in His word. It does not take a church counsel or two or three to know God's word is God's word, it takes the Spirit of God working in a man (John 7:17; 8:47; 1 Corinthians 2:14-15) to know. Otherwise, men are left to the darkness and blindness of their own hearts (Ephesians 2:1; 4:18) held captive by Satan (2 Timothy 2:26) and the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4). The confusion and debate over what is Scripture discussed by Wegner well illustrates the darkened mind of man.
It is immaterial what the false church (yes, false church, Catholic, etc., as the book discusses) has done. Even God's chosen people (the Jews) were corrupt, yet they were keepers of His Holy Word (Jeremiah 2:8). So, whether God used unholy men or not to preserve His word is immaterial. He nevertheless has perserved His word, and it is only by the Spirit of God any man will ever know it is His word and respond to it properly. It is not via Church counsels. It is via the Spirit of God.
Two sentences after the above quote Wegner writes,
"The little we know regarding this process . . . " [that is, of canonization] (p. 147)
Throughout the book Wegner uses the terms "seems," "probably," "appears," "suggest," etc.. That well sums up the sandy ground of history. It is not solid ground (Eccesiastes 1:11), especially when it comes to ones eternal soul. No trust should be placed there, as it is trust in man and his writings (Jeremiah 17:5).
So, we know the Bible is God's word, not because of history or what man has done with it, but because of the Spirit of God that gives light to every man who comes into the world (John 1:9).
In fact, this is something Mr. Wegner denies, that is, that God's word, the very gospel and message that saves (James 1:21), is given to every man, apart from any in hand physical written text. Wegner quotes (in agreement with) the Westminster Confession of Faith, stating,
"Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable [Rom. 1:17-20; 2:14]; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation [John 17:3; 1 Cor. 1:21; 2:13-14]:" (p. 27)
That is lie. Nowhere does the Bible teach it is not sufficient. In fact, the very text Wegner cites speaks of the knowledge of God men know, but reject (Romans 1:18-20), and another passage notes that it is the knowledge of God that is eternal life (John 17:3). Men reject the very knowledge that would save them (Romans 1:28; Proverbs 1:24-29).
Moreover, Paul explicitly declares that the gospel is preached in creation (Romans 10:18/Psalm 19:1-4), and the Bible exemplifies men being saved with no mention of any written text (e.g. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, etc. See Psalm 147:19-20 & Acts 10:35).
You stated in your first email,
"If you believe that the early church leaders, whose writings God used to help establish the New Testament canon, were false teachers, and were unsaved according to the Bible, then how then can you trust the New Testament Canon? You cannot."
Yes we can, because the New Testament is God's word, regardless of what wicked men have done.
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:26 PM
Subject: I disagree with your statement that women do not have God's image
Dear ministry friend,
Your article on Mormonism is good, except I take issues with your statement that women were not created in God's image. If this were so, how do you reconcile this with Colossians 3:10
"and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him"
Does this mean that women cannot put on the "new self" that is renewed in God's image because they were not created in God's image in the first place, so they don't possess His image to be "renewed"?? OR is this passage teaching that in the case of women, it would not be "renewed" because they never had it, but once they get saved, they would get that image??? Your argument doesn't match with Scripture on this point.
1 Cor 11's statements about the women being the glory of man is talking about how women are the pintacle of the glory of mankind--i.e., the crown of creation as far as beauty. Nowhere in that passage is their any indication that women as the "glory of man[kind]" are not in God's image.
Another problem with teaching women do not have God's image is that this demotes women to a lesser nature than that of man. Now it would be ok for women babies to be killed just like we kill animal babies for food. Because women do not have God's image like men--so they are not as special by design as man--big moral problem here!
Also, note the verse in Genesis says "in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them"--It goes on to explain that He created "them" "male and female" --thus male AND female both possess God's nature.
Hope this input helps.
In Loving Concern,
Your Christian Sister,
Christy - Born in the image of God and reborn into a "renewed" image of God at salvation
Be sure to read the following email after this. It is Darwin's correction of his error in this email.
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: I disagree with your statement that women do not have God's image
Thank you for the email.
The problem with the use of Colossians 3:10 to prove women were created in the image of God is this, it is written in the masculine gender. No doubt, in kind, it appears it would be true of women. But, for example, the same book writes something that would also appear to be applicable to women except for one small problem - it's impossible. Colossians 2:13 states, "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, . . .". Women have no such situation. Only men were dead in the uncircumcision of their flesh.
I would be glad to write and promote that the Scriptures teach that women were created in the image of God, and I thank you for your attempt at correction, but Colossians 3:10 just doesn't prove it.
A good time for Scripture to teach this would be 1 Corinthians 11:7, but there Paul makes a distinction between men and women, explicitly stating men were created in the image of God (as Genesis 1:27 says, "in the image of God He created him"), and then saying no such thing for the women, but saying, "BUT woman is the glory of man." Granted, there is indeed similitude there, since man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man. But, I don't want to go to the left or the right of the word of God (Proverbs 4:27), so I can't say what Scripture does not teach. I must be convinced from Scripture, not a good sounding argument.
You wrote, "Another problem with teaching women do not have God's image is that this demotes women to a lesser nature than that of man."
Women are already "demoted" (if you will) to a lesser nature in 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Read the reason Paul says woman are not to teach. It is because the first woman was deceived (verse 14). The man was not. This gives some insight between the difference between men and women (for more differences, see our article on divorce).
You wrote, "Now it would be ok for women babies to be killed just like we kill animal babies for food."
That's taking it way too wickedly far.
"Because women do not have God's image like men--so they are not as special by design as man--big moral problem here!"
Who says men are special, let alone women (Isaiah 40:17)?
I can see from your website that you are caught in the deceit of this age and do not know Christ. On your website you have for FAQ #9,
"Witnesses for Jesus, Inc is an evangelical, counter-cult ministry that comes alongside and supports the world-wide body of Christian believers who have been saved by placing their trust in the all-sufficient, redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Because one becomes a part of the Christian association of believers through spiritual adoption into God's family (regardless of one's personal attendance in a denominational or non-denominational church or congregation), Witnesses for Jesus, Inc is not affiliated with any specific church or denomination but rather partners with Christian believers of all walks of life throughout the world."
These words reveal you are caught in the ecumenical mindset of the false Christianity we expose @ www.atruechurch.info/savednot.html
Be warned. If you don't repent, you will spend forever in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). May the Lord have mercy on you and save you from the deceit of this age (Proverbs 2:1-12).
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:18 PM
Subject: Women and God's Image
Back in June of 2007 you wrote us (firstname.lastname@example.org) regarding our statement in our article on Mormonism (www.atruechurch.info/mormonism.html) in which I wrote, "Nowhere does Scripture teach that woman was created in God's image." You said, "I disagree with your statement that women do not have God's image" and you used Colossians 3:10 to prove women do indeed have God's image. At the time, I did not agree that women were created in God's image. Please forgive me. I was wrong.
I recently came to this conclusion based on a look at Genesis 5:2. There it says, "He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created." The Hebrew word here translated "Mankind" is אָדָם ('âdâm). It is the same exact word for the first man's name, "Adam" (e.g. Genesis 4:25). It is also the same exact Hebrew word translated "man" in Genesis 1:26. When Genesis 5:2 says the Lord called them Mankind, it is saying He called them "man" (or "Adam"), that is, both the male and the female.
Moreover, Genesis 5:2 says He called them man [אָדָם ('âdâm)] "in the day they were created." Genesis 1:26 bears witness to this as it says, "Let Us make man [אָדָם ('âdâm)] in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them . . . ". Here Genesis 1:26 records on that day He created both the male and the female how He called "them" both "man," because He says, "Let Us make man . . ., let them." The only "them" in the context is the "male and female" of the next verse (verse 27). Clearly, God is calling both the man and the woman "man," and therefore, they both (man) were made in His image. Thus, indeed, Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 are true and applicable to both male and female.
Finally, speaking of 1 Corinthians 11, you wrote in your email, "Nowhere in that passage is their any indication that women as the 'glory of man[kind]' are not in God's image." You were/are correct. This is true. Yet, there is nonetheless a distinction made in 1 Corinthians 11 between men and women. Man there is explicitly called the image and glory of God, whereas the woman is called "the glory of man" (1 Corinthians 11:7). This, nevertheless does not take away the fact (as you well pointed out) that women also are indeed made in His image as well.
Please forgive me for this error.
From: Dan Barnes (PastorBarnes@aol.com)
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 1:17 PM
Hey, do me a favor - if you are what a Christian is - a scorning, hateful, fault-finding individual - then add me to your list of people you hate.
The above email is from:
PASTOR DAN BARNES
LIGHTHOUSE BAPTIST CHURCH
105 SHUN PIKE
NICHOLASVILLE KY 40356
From: Dave Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:52 AM
Subject: I stumbled across your website...
Dear Mr. Fish,
Wow! You are an amazing individual with an enormous ego! You have slandered many Godly servants through your website. While I don't agree with the theological positions of all of the pastor/teachers listed on your website most of them are men who know (believe) and love the Lord and have committed their lives to serving Him. Have you confronted any of these men in person as Matthew 18 instructs? If not, then you are completely out of line to be posting the accusations you are. The saddest part of all this is that you have actually found fifty people to follow you.
Associate Pastor of Worship Ministries
Grace Baptist Church
To: Dave Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: I stumbled across your website...
"Have you confronted any of these men in person as Matthew 18 instructs?"
Yes and no. Yes, I foolishly did years ago against the wisdom of God and found out the hard way the truth of Matthew 7:6. Since then, no, because Matthew 18 does not instruct Jesus' sheep to personally confront Satan's wolves.
Now we expose them publically (Ephesians 5:11), for the sake of the followers, knowing the false teachers themselves have no hope of repentance (2 Peter 2:12, 17; Jude 4).
Dave Schmidt's church is found at www.gbcsalem.org
From: Dave Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: I stumbled across your website...
You may want to read the verses the five verses that precede Matthew 7:6. I've got to be honest I almost laughed...OK, I did.
From: Tymesha Jenkins
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:46 PM
I have a question and was wondering if you can help me. Is Micah Armstrong, accurate in his assessment that individuals who do any of the following are damned to hell?
Having a Tattoo
Girls Showing Their Knees
Girls Showing Their Elbows
Girls Wearing Tight Pants
Girls Wearing Miniskirts
Kissing on the Mouth before Marriage
Holding Hands before Marriage
Having Premarital Sex
Having Anal Sex
Having Oral Sex
Judging People (He wasn't though, he was being honest)
Associating With Hollywood
Listening to "Gangsta Rap", Techno, Christian Bands, and Rock and Roll
Believing in Evolution
Being a Woman
Being In a Sorority or Fraternity
Owning a Pet
To: Tymesha Jenkins
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 12:04 AM
Yes, means if they practice it and never repent and turn to the truth, then yes they will end up in hell. No, means such a standard is not found in the word of God, but is a doctrine of men (Matthew 15:8-9).
Pot Smoking - yes (Romans 13:1-2)
Cigarette Smoking - see www.atruechurch.info/smoking.html
Alcohol Drinking - see www.atruechurch.info/alcohol.html
Guitar Playing - no (Psalm 150:4)
Having a Tattoo - no (Leviticus 19:28; Romans 10:4; 1 Corinthians 6:12; Hebrews 9:10)
Showing Cleavage - This is a typical characteristic of a woman who doesn't know God. Modesty is addressed in Scripture (1 Timothy 2:9), but not so specifically named. Therefore, the godly standard is not to be offensive to anyone by what one wears (1 Corinthians 10:32-33).
Showing Bellybuttons - Modesty is addressed in Scripture (1 Timothy 2:9), but not so specifically named.
Girls Showing Their Knees - no
Girls Showing Their Elbows - no
Girls Wearing Tight Pants - Modesty is addressed in Scripture (1 Timothy 2:9), but not so specifically named.
Girls Wearing Miniskirts - Modesty is addressed in Scripture (1 Timothy 2:9), but not so specifically named.
Being Blonde - no
Being Fat - not in and of itself. If it is a result of Philippians 3:18-19, then yes.
Cursing - yes (Proverbs 6:12)
Kissing on the Mouth before Marriage - not in and of itself, but see 1 Corinthians 7:1 & 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8.
Holding Hands before Marriage - not in and of itself, but see 1 Corinthians 7:1 & 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8.
Having Premarital Sex - yes (Revelation 21:8)
Masturbation - see www.atruechurch.info/masturbation.html
Having Anal Sex - homosexuals go to hell
Having Oral Sex - no (in marriage, see Song of Solomon)
Being Homosexual - yes (Jude 7)
Judging People (He wasn't though, he was being honest) - wrongly, yes (Matthew 7:1-2; Luke 6:37); rightly, no (John 7:24; 1 Corinthians 2:15)
Being Selfish - yes (Romans 2:8)
Playing Sports - no (1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Timothy 4:8; Titus 1:15)
Women Working - not in and of itself (e.g. Ruth), unless it is a rejection of Titus 2:5.
Watching BET - typically, people who spend much time watching this are on their way to hell, because they love the world and the things in it (1 John 2:15-17).
Watching MTV - typically, people who spend much time watching this are on their way to hell, because they love the world and the things in it (1 John 2:15-17).
Watching VH1 - typically, people who spend much time watching this are on their way to hell, because they love the world and the things in it (1 John 2:15-17).
Watching TNT - typically, people who spend much time watching this are on their way to hell, because they love the world and the things in it (1 John 2:15-17).
Associating With Hollywood - yes, if it's tight (Psalm 15:4); no if it's not (1 Corinthians 5:9-10).
Listening to "Gangsta Rap", Techno, Christian Bands, and Rock and Roll - typically, people who spend much time listening to these are on their way to hell, because they love the world and the things in it (1 John 2:15-17).
Believing in Evolution - yes (Psalm 14:1)
Being Catholic - yes (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
Being Jewish - yes, for a false Jew; no for a real Jew (Romans 2:28-29; Galatians 3:7)
Being Buddhist - yes (Revelation 21:8; 22:15)
Being Methodist - yes (Revelation 21:8; 22:15)
Being Protestant - yes (Revelation 21:8; 22:15)
Being Mormon - yes (Revelation 21:8; 22:15)
Being Muslim - yes (Revelation 21:8; 22:15)
Being Hindu - yes (Revelation 21:8; 22:15)
Being Agnostic - yes (Psalm 14:1)
Being Atheist - yes (Psalm 53:1)
Being a Woman - no (Proverbs 31:30)
Being In a Sorority or Fraternity - not in and of itself, but it could certainly lead to hell (1 Corinthians 15:33).
Owning a Pet - no (Proverbs 12:10)
Because of what we write about head coverings in our article on women, someone wrote regarding two Greek words used in 1 Corinthians 11, katakalupto (vs. 6-7 "covered," "cover") and peribaiou (vs. 15 "covering"). The following is some info on them.
Katakalupto is a compound verb. Kata is a preposition used for "against" (e.g. Matthew 5:11, 23), "down" (e.g. Matthew 8:32), "throughout" (e.g. Acts 9:42), "by" or "according to" (e.g. Matthew 26:63; Luke 2:39), "toward" (e.g. Acts 8:26), "at" (e.g. Romans 9:9), etc.. As is the case with prepositions, context ditates its usage.
Kalupto is a verb that is used in the NT in Matthew 8:24; 10:26 ("covered"); Luke 8:16 ("covers"); 23:30 ("cover"); 2 Corinthians 4:3 (2x, "veiled"); James 5:20; 1 Peter 4:8 ("cover").
Katakalupto is only found in the NT in 1 Corinthians 11. Yet, in the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), katakalupto is found in Isaiah 6:2 twice (translated "covered") where the seraphim cover their face and feet with their wings.
Peribolaiou is likewise a compound word. Peri is a preposition used for "concerning" (e.g. Matthew 18:19; John 8:26), "about" (e.g. Matthew 22:42; Luke 3:15), "for" (e.g. Mark 4:19; Colossians 1:3), "around" (e.g. Matthew 3:4; Mark 9:42; Luke 13:8; Jude 7), "near" (e.g. Acts 22:6; ), "with" (e.g. Acts 19:25), etc..
Bolaiou is not a word found in the NT or LXX (to my knowledge), and peribolaiou is only found one other place in the NT, Hebrews 1:12 ("cloak," peribolaion). This similar statement is found in the LXX with this same Greek word in Psalm 102:26.
In the use of both words in 1 Corinthians 11, it's dealing with the same exact area - the head.
If someone wants to argue about the "down" (kata) and "around" (peri), it is a futile argument (1 Timothy 6:4). If something is down upon the head, it is around the head as well (being there is no qualifier of being only down on part of the head). If something is around the head, it is down upon the head as well (being there is no qualifier of being only around part of the head).
Sadly, you need to be careful when you read about Greek and Hebrew words and their meanings. I have seen errors even in Lexicons. Also, some of the Greek word studies are influenced by how the "early church fathers" (Catholics, www.atruechurch.info/earlychurchfathers.html) used them, and they were false teachers (1 Corinthians 15:33). The safest way to study a particular word is to study its usage soley within the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). There you are safe from deception (Proverbs 1:12; 18:10).
Finally, as should be evident in the word studies above, Paul uses these two words (katakalupto and peribolaiou) in a synonymous way, both meaning "cover," ones a verb (katakalupto) the other a noun (peribolaiou). Note also Paul's words in verse 5 regarding a woman who has her head uncovered when she prays or prophesies: "that is one and the same as if her head were shaved." In other words, a shaved head equals an uncovered head.
From: "Dave" email@example.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: Hmmm....
So, according to FAQ 11, someone having bad doctrine means they are lost, or "not saved and do not believe in Jesus". But, I noticed somewhere on your site that you have a number of corrections from past publications. So, I guess what I'm really wondering is...Were you "not saved" at the point when you had not yet corrected those bad doctrine issues? And if so, how do you know that you do not have any bad doctrine now? And if you end up having bad doctrinal issues, and dying before you repent of them, can or will God save you from your own bad doctrine?
Thanks for your time and the conversation,
To: "Dave" firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: Hmmm....
"Were you 'not saved' at the point when you had not yet corrected those bad doctrine issues?"
It matters what the issues were, as FAQ #11 described. That is, there are certain issues that are condemning in and of themselves. If it is of that nature, then indeed there was no salvation. Otherwise, if the issues were not of this nature and they were addressed and the Scriptures where not heeded, then that proves a lost condition (1 Timothy 6:3-5). If the Word was heeded, then that points to a saved condition (Proverbs 6:23; 9:9).
"how do you know that you do not have any bad doctrine now?"
FAQ #8 addresses this question.
"And if you end up having bad doctrinal issues, and dying before you repent of them, can or will God save you from your own bad doctrine?"
My answer above to your first question answers this.
Chuk Pratt (email@example.com) forwarded links from chick.com which argued for the KJV version. One of the links had a statement by David W. Daniels in which he claims,
"The Greek . . . behind the NKJV are the same as for the modern perversions." (www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjvtext.asp?FROM=biblecenter)
That is simply a lie, a big lie. Over and again the NKJV follows the same Greek text as the KJV, the Received Text, and does not follow the Greek Critical Text ("The Greek . . . behind . . . the modern perversions").
For example, Matthew 20:16 in the NKJV has, "For many are called, but few chosen," because it follows the same Greek text as the KJV, the Received Text. The NAS & NIV ("modern perversions") do not have these words, because they follow the Critical Text ("The Greek . . . behind . . . the modern perversions"). Likewise, in Matthew 27:35 the NKJV has, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: 'They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots,'" because it follows the same Greek text as the KJV. The NAS & NIV do not have these words, because they follow the Critical Text. Likewise, in Like 23:38 the NKJV has, "in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew," because it follows the same Greek text as the KJV. The NAS & NIV do not have these words, because they follow the Critical Text. Likewise, in John 1:18 the NKJV has "only begotten Son," because it follows the same Greek text as the KJV. For this verse (John 1:18), the NAS has "the only begotten God;" the NIV has, "God the One and Only," because they both follow the Critical Text. Likewise, in John 3:13 the NKJV has, "who is in heaven," because it follows the same Greek text as the KJV. The NAS & NIV do not have these words, because they follow the Critical Text. Likewise, in Acts 9:6 the NKJV has "Lord, what do you want me to do?," because it follows the same Greek text as the KJV. The NAS & NIV do not have these words, because they follow the Critical Text. Likewise, in 1 Timothy 3:16 the NKJV has, "God," because it follows the same Greek text as the KJV. The NAS & NIV have, "He," because they follow the Critical Text. Likewise, in 1 John 5:7-8 the NKJV has, "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth:". The NAS & NIV ("modern perversions") do not have these words. Etc.
When "David W. Daniels, author of the King James Bible Companion," says, "The Greek . . . behind the NKJV are the same as for the modern perversions" he lies.