Wednesday, September 14, 2022

Making Claims on the Bible's Behalf

If there's one thing that I've noticed while testing everything, it's the fact that the Church makes claims about what the Bible says about itself that, quite frankly, the Bible never makes!  These claims are made by the Church on behalf of the Bible, and if you dare to question whether the Bible makes these claims (or even claim that the Bible does not make them), then you are "undermining the authority of the word of God" (or something along those lines).  Responses like these are how the Church protects their doctrine from Biblical scrutiny.  Here are two of the claims that the Church makes about the Bible on the Bible's behalf:

  1. The Bible claims to be the word of God.
  2. The Bible claims to be inerrant.

Let's first take a look at the evidence that the Church provides to prove these claims about the Bible.  For the assertion that the Bible claims to be the word of God, some quote this passage:

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. [1 Thessalonians 2:13; NKJV]

And that is how we get 100% proof that the Bible claims to be the word of God!  Never-mind the fact that Paul was referring to what he spoke to the Thessalonians when he was physically with them!  So what was Paul referring to?  Probably the Law of God and the writings of the prophets in order to prove that Yeshua is the Messiah, and also the Gospel of Yeshua the Messiah.

After reviewing all of the instances in the New Testament where the phrase "word of God" appears (71 times according to Bible Gateway), I have to conclude that every single one of those appearances is referring to the "Old Testament" or specific portions of the "Old Testament", such as the Law of God and the writings of the Prophets.  There is no evidence that the phrase "word of God" is used to refer to any of the "New Testament" writings.  And in fact, if you look at the book of Revelations, you will find that the "word of God" is actually distinguished from the "testimony of Jesus [the] Christ" (that is, the Gospel message of Jesus the Messiah).

On a side note:  While none of the "New Testament" writings claim to be the word of God, Yeshua did claim to be God and he proved his claims to be true.  This makes all of Yeshua's teachings the word of God by definition, even though the writers of the Gospels never claimed that their writings were the word of God.

In the so-called "Old Testament", we see the phrase "word of Yahweh" many, many times.  Each time, it refers specifically to something that God has spoken through his prophets, or sometimes the law of God.  And in the case of the writings of the prophets, the phrase "word of Yahweh" is used many times specifically to claim that what is being said (or is about to be said) is indeed the word of God.  But the phrase "word of God" in the "Old Testament" usually just refers to the Law of God.

Does the fact that these prophetic writings claim to be the word of God mean that the whole Bible is claiming to be the word of God?  Not at all.

By the way, some within the KJV only cult will use Proverbs 30:5 to prove that the KJV is the word of God.  The line of logic behind that claim is this:  "The KJV says every word of God is pure, therefore the KJV (and only the KJV) is the word of God."  With that line of logic, you might as well use every single appearance of the phrase "word of God" as proof that the Bible itself is claiming to be the word of God.

Another passage often used as proof that the Bible itself claims to be the word of God is this verse:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness [2 Timothy 3:16; NKJV]

What's the line of logic here?  The line of logic is that since the Bible is also called Scripture, this verse is the Bible itself claiming to be the word of God.  By the way, the word (singular) translated as "given by inspiration of God", literally means "God-breathed".  This fact is used to claim that God dictated every word that is in the Bible and that the Bible is therefore claiming to be inerrant.  But that's not what this passage is saying!  By the way, since we're on the topic of taking the Greek text literally, the word translated as "scripture" is the Greek word "graphe", which literally means "writing" or "document".  Have fun trying to explain that one away!

Actually, the "New Testament" outright tells us what it is referring to when it uses "graphe":

44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures [graphe]. [Luke 24:44-45; NKJV]

The "Scriptures" refer to the law of Yahweh, the writings of his prophets, and the Psalms.  Usually, when the word "graphe" ("writing") is used, it's referring either to the law of Yahweh or the writings of the prophets, but not the Psalms.  This passage is one of only a few exceptions to this rule.  In other words, the "New Testament" used the generic word for "writing" to refer only to the writings which were widely regarded as having a great deal of authority.  And we can see this usage clearly in 2 Peter 3:16.

Now, about the "God-breathed" part:  It does not necessarily mean that Yahweh dictated every word that's in the writings that Paul is referring to.  In fact, it is highly unlikely that this is the case at all.  While the parts that claim to be quoting Yahweh directly are this way (and probably a significant portion that is not claiming to be quoting Yahweh directly), there is no reason why this cannot simply refer to Yahweh guiding the process, or motivating those who seek truth to write what they have written.  Of course, there are places where Yahweh dictated what these documents should say.  And nothing that comes directly from the mouth of Yahweh is ever in error.  But the Bible never claims to be without error.

Now, is the Bible even capable of making claims about itself?  No.  Why?  Because the Bible is a book that was compiled from 66 individual books.  It has no content of its own and is therefore not able to make any claims about itself.  Instead, what we see is some of the books in the Bible claim to be the word of God.  And some claim that other books (which are also in the Bible) are the word of God.  But the Bible itself makes no claims about itself whatsoever.  In fact, even when all of the 66 documents which are now contained within the Bible were completed, the Bible still didn't exist until these documents were compiled into a single book.  Ironically, this compilation was done by the Catholic Church, which is pretty much the only work of the Catholic Church that has any instructional value on how to carry-out the will of Yahweh, as Yeshua warned.  Though the 66 documents that are in the Bible were widely accepted as having a high level of authority long before that happened.

Wednesday, August 31, 2022

Butchering the Name of God

Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know? [Proverbs 30:4; NKJV]

It would be interesting to see how many verses the "Old Testament" state that Yahweh has a son.  If we take the phrase "image of God" as literally as possible, then that too would be an allusion to the fact that God has a son, though there's only so much that can be gleaned from that phrase before things start to break down.  But that's not the point of this post.  Today, we're going to focus on the questions "what is his name" and "what is his son's name", or more accurately, we're going to focus on what they are not.

You might be thinking that the Sacred Names movement is responsible for the trend of butchering God's name (and his son's name).  And you would be partially correct.  But the first historical instance actually comes from the Hebrew scribes themselves.  When vowel points were created for the Hebrew alphabet (called the "alef-bet"), and the scribes started making copies of the Bible that had these points on them, whenever they reached the name of God, they would deliberately put the wrong vowel points on that name.  The vowel points used caused the name to be pronounced "Yehovah" (English equivalent is "Jehovah"), and these deliberately incorrect markings were to remind the reader to never pronounce God's name.  Instead, they say "adonai", which is Hebrew for "lord".  "Adonai" is God's title, not his name.  And because God's people (including Christians) follow human rules rather than God's rules, the completely pagan law forbidding the name of God from ever being pronounced is followed in spite of the law of Yahweh!

Today, we have the Sacred Names movement and other movements butchering God's name to some degree other another.  Some are not as bad as others.  The one's that can be abbreviated "YHWH" in its transliteration, and contain three syllables at most are the least egregious of these butcherings.  As for the rest (as far as I'm concerned), it's a different name, and therefore, a different god.  One that masquerades as the God of the Bible!  This deception is so much worse than the fake faith healers.  Because one killed by a fake faith healer may still be raised to eternal life if their faith is ultimately in Yeshua instead of the "faith healers", but those who put their faith in these demons disguised as God will perish in the lake of fire!

21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" [Matthew 7:21-23; NKJV]

Again, different name, different god!  And while we technically do not know with 100% certainty what God's name is thanks to the above-mentioned scribes (I believe it's "Yahweh"), we do know with 100% certainty what our Messiah's name is!  It is "Yeshua" in Hebrew.  Of course, that won't stop people from saying that it's really "Yahshua" because that means "God saves".  This ignores the fact that (a) those who speak the language (rather than merely studying it to better understand Scripture) pronounce it "Yeshua", and (b) not every name that contains the "YH" is pronounced "Yah".  Some names ("Benyamin" for example) are pronounced with "yah" instead of "ye".

And, just like with the name of God, changing that one syllable simply because of a lack of understanding of the Hebrew language is the least egregious of these mutilations of the Lord's name.  And like with the first, I dare to say for the rest, different name means it's a different god!  A different savior!  The only exception to this rule would be if someone used "Yehoshua", but only because "Yeshua" is the contracted for of "Yehoshua", which literally means "God is salvation".

Sunday, August 7, 2022

Scripture is Not a Script

Have you ever heard the claim that the Bible is a script?  As in, like a script for a movie or play?  The reasoning for this claim has to do with the fact that the Bible is also called "scripture".  And "scripture" minus "ure" is "script".  Those making the claim either (a) didn't do their research into the origin of the word "scripture" or (b) are deliberately making false claims in order to discredit the Bible.  Because the word "scripture" is derived from the Latin word "scriptura", which literally means "writing".  The word "scripture" has nothing to do with scripts.

There is a globalist plot to replace Christianity with Atheism, so we can't be so naive to say that these people simply didn't do their research.  And this type of claim has all of the signatures of being a coordinated deception campaign or a part of a larger coordinated deception campaign.  Such campaigns by the way, are why the scientifically bankrupt fairy tale of evolutionism is still taught as scientific fact, among other things.  Such campaigns are also much, much older than the Biden admin.  Biden just made it obvious that it exists.

So anyone with internet can look up the origins of words for themselves and see that the word "scripture" comes from the Latin word for "writing".  But what if we actually read the Bible and use our God-given critical thinking skills to see what the Bible actually is?  A careful readthrough of just Genesis will reveal that the Bible is a historical account.  Genesis itself starts with a historical account of the origins of the Earth, and everything in, on, and around it; and the origin of all living things including mankind.  In fact, Genesis through 2nd Chronicles is all historical documentation.  And Matthew through Acts is also historical documentation.  There are also other books in the Bible that are historical in nature, such as Jonah and Esther.

We will also find songs and poetry in the Bible in various books.  The most notable place for these is in the book of Psalms.  There's also numerous books containing wisdom, such as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the epistles of the Apostles.  There are also the books of the prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah (Jonah counts too, but is more historical in nature).  These prophecies have a 100% fulfillment rate, which is unmatched by any other document.  All prophecies in the Bible (often made hundreds or thousands of years before their fulfillment) have been fulfilled at their appointed time exactly as they have been prophesied!

The globalists don't want you reading the Bible, so they will make up anything to discourage you from reading it.  This includes the claim that the Bible is a script.  If you read the Bible, you will find all the above things that I mentioned to be true, and more.  Because the Bible is also the written record of what Yahweh, the creator of all things, has said.

Tuesday, August 2, 2022

The Indefensibility of the King James Only Doctrine

You will come across many untestable doctrines among Christians.  One of the most prominent of which is the one that claims that only the King James Version of the Bible is the written word of God, and is perfect, while all other translations are corrupt.  But all of the arguments used to support this doctrine assume that the KJV is perfect.  Remember this as we explore some common arguments used to support King James Onlyism:  All arguments start with the assumption that the KJV is perfect, rather than proving that the KJV is perfect.

Manuscript Conflicts

Some within the KJV only crowed will assert that the Textus Receptus, which is the Greek manuscript used to make the KJV translation, is perfect while the Alexandrian texts are corrupt.  This hides the assumption that the KJV is perfect, but the assumption is still there.  Because the Textus Receptus was used to write the KJV, they also assume that the Textus Receptus is perfect.  And since the Alexandrian texts do not perfectly match the Textus Receptus, they assume that those texts must be corrupt.  By the way, the Alexandrian texts come from Alexandria, Egypt.

For a moment, let's assume that the Textus Receptus is perfect.  The KJV does not perfectly reflect what the Textus Receptus says.  In fact, someone is making a list of every translation error of the KJV using the same texts used by the KJV.  I'm not going to take the time to count every item on that list.  But it's probably easily in the thousands range.

What about the conflict over the manuscripts?  Well, the Textus Receptus predates the KJV by less than 100 years!  It is derived from the Byzantine texts among others.  These manuscripts date back to the 5th century AD.  The other major line of manuscripts, the Alexandrian texts.  Many of these manuscripts date back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.  There are older manuscripts which date back to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.  By the way, this is just taking into account the manuscripts of the New Testament.

The Byzantine manuscripts (from which the Textus Receptus came) are considered to have pagan influence by today's scholars, and hold little weight when trying to determine what the original text says (we don't have the originals).  The Alexandrian texts however, are considered to be largely free of pagan influence.  That combined with the fact that they're much closer to the timing of New Testament events means that they carry a lot of weight when trying to determine what the original text said.

One of the manuscripts that the Textus Receptus is derived from is the Latin Vulgate.  If we take a look at the NIV's footnote for 1 John 5:7-8, we'll notice that late editions of the Vulgate add to the text.  So early texts say:

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. [NIV]

But the later texts (14th Century onwards), including Textus Receptus, say:

7 For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. [NIV footnote]

One argument used by the KJV only crowed is that the Alexandrian texts were changed and therefore corrupted.  If we apply the same logic to the line that the Textus Receptus came from, then we see that these manuscripts, and by extension, the Textus Receptus and the KJV, are also corrupt.  And this isn't the only place where newer editions of manuscripts added or changed something from the older editions.

Not-So-Divine Inspiration

The author of the Textus Receptus (literally "received text") believes that he was inspired by "some god" (that should tell you everything you need to know).  And the KJV only crowed believes that the translators for the KJV was inspired by God.  A view not shared by those who wrote the KJV.  Divine inspiration is nearly always conflated with divine guidance, and it is argued that God "would not inspire error".  That is to say, God would not guide people into error (which I agree with).  Note that I will distinguish divine inspiration from divine guidance, with inspire always meaning "to motivate" (so that we have a consistent definition), and having nothing to do with guidance.

So the KJV only crowed believes the translators for the KJV were guided by God to create a perfect translation of the word of God.  As mentioned earlier, this view is a view that even the authors of the KJV did not hold.  Both the preface and the marginal notes of the KJV prove that the the authors did not believe they were guided by God in any way.

Now let's take a look at who or what actually motivated the KJV.  As I said in my post exposing the conflation of inspiration with guidance, when God motivates someone to write something, he only motivates the one who wants the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  He will not motivate those who seek to push an agenda.  And the KJV is definitely politically-motivated.  For example:  When he gave instructions on how to translate the Bible, he stacked the deck against the Puritans, who were his political opponents.  And that's just scratching the surface of the political motivations behind the KJV.  Do I have to mention the fact that King Jame's Bible was the only translation allowed to be read in the Church of England?

Then there's the motivation of ego.  The name of one of Yeshua's disciples was Jacob.  But you won't know that from reading the KJV, which translates the Greek word "iakobos" as James instead of Jacob.  This word is the same as "iakob", which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word of "Ya`akov", which is Hebrew for Jacob.  The sad thing is that modern translations have not done anything to fix this deliberate modification of the Bible.  The same thing is probably true for the name of Yeshua's mother, which is Meriam.  The Greek word "Maria" is a transliteration of this Hebrew name.

Languages Change Over Time

Let's assume for a moment that the KJV is a perfect translation of a perfect manuscript.  What we now have is a translation that can be understood by those who read and speak 17th-century English.  But English has changed over the last 400 years.  Some words have drastically changed in meaning while others have been dropped from the English vocabulary altogether.  Even some of the English idioms that the KJV uses are no longer in use.  And if you do not understand certain words in the KJV, then the speaker has to tell you what those words mean.

Because Humans Say So

Many within the KJV only crowed don't even attempt to prove that the KJV is the "perfect word of God".  They expect you to believe it is because they say it is, or because teachers that came before them say that it is.  They also expect you to believe that all other English translations are corrupt and therefore not the word of God.  The proof that they are corrupt is the fact that they do not exactly match the KJV.  Some go so far as to claim that the manuscripts are corrupt, simply because they do not perfectly match the KJV.  They go even further and say that if you do not believe that the KJV is the perfect word of God, then you do not believe God's promise to preserve his word.

This type of argumentation is outright heretical!  For God never required us to believe anything without evidence.  Take a look at Deuteronomy 13 and Deuteronomy 18 for example.  God required people to test the prophets.  These tests are really quite simple:  Any teacher that speaks in the name of another god, or teaches those to walk in disobedience to God's Law, or who's predictions do not come true, are to be put to death.  In other words:  The prophets are to be believed based on evidence.  The same thing happened when Moses went to the elders of Israel after Yahweh sent him to bring Israel out of Egypt.  The elders were provided with evidence!  And let's not forget all of the things that Yeshua himself did to prove that he was the Messiah, and that his enemies tried to destroy the evidence!

Real faith requires evidence.  There is no such thing as blind faith.  And making KJV onlyism a "matter of faith" is nothing more than a cop-out to avoid having to prove that which you believe.  Such people do not have faith in the KJV.  They have merely blind belief in an unprovable doctrine.

Double Standards

One of the ways to "prove" that all English translations other that the KJV are corrupt is by applying different standards to these other translations than what they apply to the KJV.  One example is for when a translation uses the phrase "Jesus the Christ" instead of "Jesus Christ".  It's okay if the KJV uses the former, but if a different translation uses it, then it's proof that the other translation is "corrupted".

By the way, the phrase "Jesus Christ" implies that "Christ" is the last name of our Lord, which it's not.  "Christ" is a title, just like how "king" or "lord" is a title.  So the phrase "Jesus Christ" is always incorrect.  The phrases "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus the Christ" are correct.  The former because the title comes before the name, and the latter because the word "the" designates that the word that follows is not part of his name.  There is nobody in the Bible with the last name of "Christ".  And the same thing applies to the word "Messiah".  The difference between "Christ" and "Messiah" is that the former is derived from the Greek while the latter is derived from the Hebrew.

Another instance of hypocrisy among the KJV only crowed concerns their accusation that the translators of some of the modern Bibles (eg: the NIV) are sodomites.  Some make this accusation and use that as the sole basis for rejecting all modern translations.  Yet they do not use the same logic for King James (who is also accused of being a sodomite) and his Bible.  I have not yet seen any evidence that modern translators are sodomites (though it wouldn't surprise me if some of them are).  And there is only circumstantial evidence that King James was a sodomite (though it wouldn't surprise me if he was).  Either way, what makes a translation good or bad is how accurate the translation is, not whether the translators are accused of sexual immorality (or any other sin).

Degrading the Word of God

Many will claim that passages like Matthew 24:35 is a promise from God to preserve his word.  And they will use this in their assertion that you do not believe in God's promise if you do not believe that the KJV (and only the KJV) is the preserved word of God.  By the way, Matthew 24:35 is where Yeshua says "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."  What they fail to realize is how degrading this alleged promise is to the word of God!  Many who do not hold to the KJV only doctrine fall for the same trap for the Bible in general.

Yeshua said that Heaven and Earth will pass away, but his words will not.  By interpreting this passage as a promise from God to "preserve his word", then it inadvertently reduces the word of God to something that must be written onto material objects in order to exist.  Whatever God speaks is, by definition, the word of God.  The existence of the word of God is not dependent on whether these words are written down onto material things, or dependent on how accurately they are written down, or dependent on the continued existence of these material things which they are written on.  In fact, when Heaven and Earth pass away, these material things that we refer to as "the word of God" will pass away with the Earth.  Yet the word of God itself will not pass away.

It is convenient, and even accurate, to call the written record of what Yahweh has said "the word of God".  And it is accurate to call such writings "the written word of God".  And it is very clear that Yahweh always intended for the things he has said to be written down so that we may know what he has said.  But the word of God itself is immaterial, and exists independently of any material thing that records it.

Another thing to consider is this:  Even if passages like Matthew 24:35 is a promise to perfectly preserve the written record of what Yahweh had said, why would Yahweh preserve this record in a language that he did not speak his word in?  And only in this language that he did not speak in when his word was being recorded?  Why would he not have it preserved in the original language that he spoke to the people in?  Why would the people he chose to be a light to the nations not have his written word preserved in their native language?  Why would Yahweh wait 3,100 years to preserve his words in a language that didn't even exist when he was speaking to the Israelites?  The answer is simple:  He wouldn't.  His words would be written in whatever language he spoke them in, and it would be these writings which would be preserved.

Authorized by a Man

One point that the KJV only crowed brings up is the fact that it's the only "authorized" English translation of the Bible.  Guess who authorized it:  King James.  And as we've seen earlier, he had some political motivations for his Bible.  And it wouldn't matter anyways for several reasons.  The primary reason is that authorization by a human king is not the same as authorization by Yahweh.  And to the best of my knowledge, Yahweh has not said anything concerning which translation most accurately represents his word.  Also, the authorization only applies to the land of England, and possibly to territories controlled by England.  Finally, what happens if a future king of England writes a new English translation, and deauthorizes the KJV?  Will they say that we should only be reading from this new translation?  Or will they continue to stick with the KJV?

Lying for King James

Remember earlier when I pointed-out that the KJV only crowed assumes what they're trying to prove?  Well, using the KJV as the de-facto standard for what an English translation is supposed to say, the KJV only crowed will compare modern translations to the KJV and use the differences as proof that these translations are corrupted.  But the way they go about it is downright deceitful.

Have you ever heard of the "missing verses" of the NIV or other modern translations?  What the KJV only crowed doesn't tell you is that these "missing verses" are actually found in the footnotes, which explain that they are not found in the earliest available manuscripts, or that they are not found in some of the earliest available manuscripts.  In other words, the verses aren't "missing" at all.  In fact, not only are these verses still present in the footnotes, but these so-called "missing verses" are likely additions to the text made during copying.

So what's the reasoning for these modern translations not putting these "missing verses" in the text?  The reasoning is simple:  The earlier manuscripts have more weight than the later manuscripts.  And where multiple manuscripts carry the most weight, it is believed that people are more likely to add to the text than to subtract from it.  Of course, this doesn't matter to the KJV only crowed.  They want you to believe that all translations other than the KJV are part of a New Age plot to subtly introduce corrupted doctrines into the Body of the Messiah just because these translations are not the KJV.

In addition, some will make the KJV only doctrine a matter of salvation.  They will say that if you do not get your doctrines only from the KJV, then you are not saved because you are believing in a "corrupted" gospel.  Nevermind the fact that the KJV says that salvation is through faith in Yeshua ("Yeshua" is Hebrew for "Jesus" in case anyone gets any ideas).  So they make salvation a matter of believing in the KJV Bible rather than in Yeshua.

Meaning of Words

Here's one instance where I am partially going to side with the KJV only crowed.  Key word "partially".  That is on the point that if you change the words, you change the meaning of the text.  I say "partially", because this works both ways, and the KJV is not always the correct translation.  There are indeed many places where modern translations have a slightly different wording than the KJV which results in drastically different meanings.  But these changes make up for a very, very small percentage of the entirety of the Bible.

Different translations will have different places where these changes occur.  In probably the majority of cases, it's the KJV that is correct.  But there are some cases where the KJV is wrong.  For example, the word translated as "converted" in Acts 3:19 is "epistrepho", which means to "turn back" or "return".  There are many other cases where the change in meaning is inevitable due to how the English language itself has changed over time.  For example, the singular and plural forms of the word "you" is no longer in common use.  Another example is how certain words (eg: the word "suffer") change their meaning over time.  Suffer used to mean "to allow".  It doesn't mean that anymore.  In cases like these, the modern translations preserve the meaning of the passage.

Sunday, July 17, 2022

The Dangers of Fake Faith Healers

In the previous post, I exposed how some false prophets/teachers use certain verses to protect their dangerous teachings from Biblical scrutiny.  In that post, I mentioned that some of these false teachers also claim to bring healing for those who need it, nevermind the physical injuries that may result from the other things that they do.  I thought it would be good to expose these self-proclaimed "faith healers" for what they really are:  Frauds!

The faith healing is actually one of the things that these people would have gotten right if they were going by what the Bible says.  For Yeshua gave his disciples the authority to heal in his name (Matthew 10).  And there are numerous places where he made it very clear that healing comes by faith.  For instance, Luke 8:48.  Too bad they're serving a false god with a counterfeit of the Holy Spirit.  Deuteronomy 13 definitely comes into play here.  And remember:  the Deuteronomy 13 Test is not just us testing the teachers.  It's also Yahweh testing us to see if we will keep his commandments or follow other gods.  So even when the healings are real, that doesn't mean that what the healers are doing is Biblical.  In fact, there's no guarantee that it's even from Yahweh.  For most of these "faith healers" are part of the New Age cult, which is 100% witchcraft.

I saw a video on YouTube once where a girl with one leg shorter than the other went to a "faith healer" for the shorter leg to grow to be the same length as the other leg.  Actually, this video was exposing the fraud of the faith healer.  One thing that stuck out to me though was how the preacher was saying this very lengthy prayer for the healing to happen, which for some reason included a description of the process of the shorter leg growing to the same length as the other leg.  Matthew 6:5-7 comes to mind here.  But instead of the prayer being lengthy because the preacher thinks that Yahweh will hear him.  The prayer is lengthy to distract from the fact that the healing is being faked right in front of everyone's eyes!  The preacher was making it look like the girl was being healed when in reality he was slowly pulling the shoe that was on her shorter leg to match the position of the shoe on the longer leg.  The girl's faith, along with the faith of her parents, was probably shattered by this fake healing.  But the audience believed that it happened and praised God.

In another instance that I saw, the preacher proclaimed a healing of a lame man in the name of Jesus and the man stood up in the isle with the attention of everyone in the Church.  The preacher then proceeded to throw the man's cane away.  There's just one problem with the whole thing:  The man that was allegedly healed wasn't lame in the first place and the cane was not his!  It belonged to the woman next to him, who was still lame after the service.  After the service was over, someone interviewed the man who was allegedly healed and he stated exactly that during the interview, but said nothing during the service.  Neither did the man next to him, who was probably too heart-broken to be able to say anything.  Oh, and these are instances where nobody was injured or killed from these healings.

By the way, I think I found one of the videos I was referring to.  This is a video of an investigation conducted by ABC in the early 1990s.

In one instance that I heard about, the preacher proclaimed healing to a person with epilepsy, and who was on medication to prevent epileptic attacks.  I do not remember if it was a man or a woman, but the person believed they were healed and stopped taking the medication.  Some time later, this person drowned in a pool after having an epileptic attack while swimming.

In another instance I heard about, a woman diagnosed with cancer was punched in the stomach by the preacher, with the preacher proclaiming "you are healed" in front of the congregation.  The woman fell to the ground as expected by the crowed (see last post).  After a few minutes, she got up with her and the whole crowed believing she was healed.  She died a few days later, and it is believed that the punch to the stomach is what finished her off.

Now, go read the Bible very carefully.  Also, take note of Matthew 11:20-24 about the purpose of all of the healings and miracles that Yeshua did.  All these things were intended to bring the people to repentance.  But the slightest bit of research will reveal that these "faith healers" just want to make a name for themselves, and use their fraudulent healings and ministries to get rich!  Glory to Yahweh comes second to these wicked people.  And there is no bringing people to repentance.  Neither is there any preaching of the Good News of salvation through faith in Yeshua!

By the way.  If you do have a medical condition that is healed, make sure to go to your doctor to get that healing on your official medical record. so you can provide proof to anyone who asks, and as a testimony to your doctor, so that he or she may believe in Yeshua and be saved.  And also so that if you ended up getting conned by the minister, then you will know it before your medical condition can threaten your life.

I myself have witnessed some faith healings.  At one Messianic congregation I used to go to, the preacher was a huge Todd Bentley fan, and towards the end of one of the services, people were going up to get healed.  I don't recall anyone falling over, though this was a long time ago, but I do remember there was one man who required an oxygen tank to breathe.  He went up for healing and a few seconds later, let his oxygen equipment fall to the floor.  This must have scared half the congregation because next week, the preacher addressed the congregation about how the doctors found that this man's oxygen levels were normal.  The man continued to attend after that as long as I can remember, but I never saw the oxygen tank again.  Also, unlike the video above, nobody was called up by name, and the prayers for healing was not blasted through the speakers.  In fact, I think the microphones were turned off and the speakers were playing some music.  Back then, I didn't know about the Deuteronomy 13 Test.  But after that healing service, the congregation went off the deep end and I never heard of any more healings from there again.  Then Todd Bentley got found out.

At another Messianic congregation I attended (this one referred to Todd Bentley condescendingly as "the angel worshiper"), there was an obese woman who was allegedly healed of some sort of knee condition.  And while I wasn't there to see her alleged healing, I was well aware of the alleged healing but didn't really know who it was.  Then one day I came into the building to see her collapsed on the floor with about 2 or 3 people standing around her, praying for her.  Later, I found out that she was the one with the alleged healing.  This congregation also went off the deep end, but more slowly than the first.  And I don't know of any real healings from that congregation, though there may be a very few that I do not know about.

So what's going on at these two congregations?  And I doubt that these are the only two congregations that this has happened to.  What I think is happening is that they recognize that there should be healings happening all over the place, as the Bible says.  And for a short time, healings do happen.  But let's think about what inspired these places to have the faith that results in these healings.  It was from the New Age movement, and these congregations didn't have the discernment necessary to distinguish between the Biblical and unbiblical teachings.  And the New Age movement uses Biblical teachings as part of it's deception.  So rather than staying true to Biblical doctrine once these healings start happening, they adopt the Biblical sounding heresies of the New Age movement and the healings stop.  Then nobody can figure out why the healings stopped because everyone believes that the heresies that they have adopted are Biblical.  As Hosea said in Hosea 4:6, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."  Also, these two congregations, while I was there, seemed to have no knowledge of the Deuteronomy 13 Test.  And neither did I while I was attending them.

Making Claims on the Bible's Behalf

If there's one thing that I've noticed while testing everything , it's the fact that the Church makes claims about what the Bibl...