Charlie Kirk Murdered

On Wednesday, September 10, 2025, during a public debate at the Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, a sniper shot and killed Charlie Kirk.  First off, my condolences to the wife and children of Charlie Kirk, who should not be going through what they are having to go through.  May Yahweh give them the financial, emotional, and spiritual support to push through this difficult time.  Also, since the first person that was apprehended by the police was not the murderer, may Yahweh protect him from further harm and bring to light those who are actually guilty of this crime.

What we witnessed on Wednesday was not just some random psycho taking a shot at Charlie, like what happened to Iryna Zarutska on August 22, 2025.  It was a well-planned, public execution of Charlie Kirk, just like what they tried to do to Donald Trump during a Pennsylvania rally on July 13, 2024.  And it was done for the same reason:  Charlie Kirk stood in the way of the Globalist agenda simply by bringing to light the violence being perpetrated by liberals, and promoted by politicians and mainstream media outlets.  Violence that is explicitly against those who disagree with the leftist ideologies agenda.  The purpose of these public executions is to provoke a civil war.  But thank God that the people are simply not falling into that trap.  There is no excuse for promoting or perpetrating violence against those who simply disagree with your views or say things that you don't like, no matter how strong the disagreement is.  None!

Charlie Kirk was also very vocal about his faith in Jesus.  And I have no doubt that this is one of the reasons why he was targeted for assassination.  But for those who truly take up their cross and follow Yeshua (Jesus), our hope is not in this life which is here today and gone tomorrow.  Our hope is in the resurrection to eternal life.  And at the resurrection of the righteous, Yeshua will certainly not neglect to give the reward he promised to those who are killed on account of him (Matthew 5:10-12).  It is also important to remember that all things work together for good for those who love the Lord (Romans 8:28).  So while the murder itself is a bad thing, and the murderer should get the death penalty, good things will come about as a direct result of this murder, as God will see to it that it happens.  And in fact, we are already seeing this play out.  What the Globalists intended for evil, God is using for good.

As believers in the Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah, one of the most important things we can do is pray for Charlie Kirk's family.  And if that's the only thing you can do to help, then that is all that is asked of you.  Remember:  The prayers of the righteous are powerful and effective (James 5:16)  But if you are in a position to help in other ways, then you should do that in addition to praying.  Also, while this may not sound appealing, you absolutely should be praying for those who perpetrated this crime, and for those who promote and celebrate violence, that such people may be brought to repentance.  For Yeshua commanded us to do such things (Matthew 5:43-48).  And for those who aren't a believer in Yeshua, now is the time, before you die, to start believing in him.  Upon doing so, God will forgive you of your sins, and spare you from perishing in the Lake of Fire on Judgement Day.  For God accepts all who repent and wills everyone to live and not die (John 3:16).

Theistic Evolutionists vs Deuteronomy 13

I have used the phrase "Deuteronomy 13 Test" 9 times in previous posts so far, and have made at least one reference to 22 times in one way or another.  It is the number one most important test for detecting false teachers.  If you fail this test, then nothing else matters!  Why?  The premise of the Deuteronomy 13 Test is quite simple:  Obedience to Torah (aka: God's Law, aka: the Law of Moses) is the definition of loving and serving God and listening to his voice, while the rejection of his Law is the definition of idolatry (aka: following other gods).  Here, read Deuteronomy 13 for yourself!

Did you also catch that Deuteronomy 13 is as much God testing his people as it is his people testing the teachers/prophets?  If not, go read it again!  As those who love God and keep his commandments (the one who does not keep his commandments by definition does not love God), we are tested with false teachers and false prophets to see if we love God with all of our hearts.  If we listen to the false teacher or prophet, then we have failed the test.  And here are the most commonly-known ways for a false teacher or prophet to fail this test.

1. Openly lead people to serve other gods.
2. Teach people to reject keeping God's Law.

There are a couple of other ways that people are led to follow other gods that actually fall under the category of failing the Deuteronomy 13 test.  (Remember, Deuteronomy 18 is about when a prophet gets things wrong while speaking in the name of Yahweh, or prophecies in the name of another god.  For the Deuteronomy 13 Test, the prophet does not have to speak in the name of another god.)  One of which is to speak in the name of another god while simultaneously saying that it's Yahweh, but by a different name.  Either by butchering God's name, or by using the actual name of a false god as if it's one of God's names.  New-Agers are good at failing it that way, but that's a topic for another post.

The other way to fail the Deuteronomy 13 Test that's overlooked is to discredit God's Law by discrediting Genesis.  How does this fail the Deuteronomy 13 Test?  By causing people to not trust Genesis, you also cause them to not trust the rest of Torah (and also the rest of the Bible)?  And this is exactly what theistic evolutionists do.  And most probably know exactly what they are doing (in terms of getting people to not trust the Bible as a whole).  Remember:  Satan's goal is to keep people away from God and keep them from receiving the promise of eternal life (and to wipe-out humanity, which he cannot do directly, so he has fools in high places knowingly try to do that for him).  Part of keeping people away from God is to keep them from following God's Law.  The other part is by keeping people away from Jesus, which theistic evolution does quite nicely.  Keeping people from receiving God's promise of eternal life is accomplished by keeping people from having a Biblical faith in Jesus, which includes believing that Jesus, and the one who sent him are trustworthy, and which lease to obedience to the one whom they believe in.

Would it surprise you if I said that the "New Testament" is worthless if Genesis is not the historical account it claims to be or is not in any way an accurate historical account?  Well, the "New Testament" is indeed worthless if Genesis is not the historical account that it claims to be.  In fact, the "New Testament" is worthless unless Genesis is (a) the historical account it claims to be, and (b) is an accurate account of the beginnings of Creation.

Guess what:  The "New Testament" is also worthless if the rest of Torah is not to be trusted.  Most conservative denominations teach distrust of God's Law through the typical "Jesus fulfilled the law so we don't have to" type of claims, but theistic evolutionists do this by deceiving people into not trusting Genesis.  If we cannot trust Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as containing the eternal commands of God, then all of the moral teachings in the "New Testament" completely collapse, for these teachings come directly from the Law of God.  And the Law of God (which includes Genesis) is completely dependent on Genesis being the truthful account of the origins of Creation.  By the way, Torah alone is the sole authority on right and wrong.  Every instruction in the Bible that comes after Torah ultimately either (a) comes from God's Law or (b) provides the correct interpretation of Torah.

To close, here's how you can identify the theistic evolutionists who know exactly what they are doing:  Anyone who says "we should reinterpret Scripture to fit the science", then goes about doing exactly that knows exactly what they are doing.  But do not assume that those who do not say that are ignorant of the issue at hand.  More than likely, they too know what they are doing.

5 Inconsistencies in Church Doctrine

When it comes to doctrine, a lot of what the Church teaches (at least concerning conservative and fundamentalist churches and ministries) is perfectly consistent with other teachings by the Church.  And many of these teachings I actually agree with, even if a lot of my posts do spend a lot of time criticizing the Church for a lot of its teachings.  But I've also found, over the years, many teachings that are inconsistent with other teachings.  We will take a look at five of these inconsistencies and look to Scripture for the resolution.  This list is in no particular order, and there will be overlaps!

1. Obedience to God's Commandments

Most mainstream ministries will teach that because we have Yeshua, there is no need to keep God's Law.  They will often label this the "Old Testament Law" to further cement this point.  However, there are many commandments within the Law of God that the Church expects you to keep.  For example, "do not lie", "do not commit adultery", "do not covet", and "do not worship idols".

One "resolution" to this inconsistency is to assert that we only need to keep the commands that were reiterated in the "New Testament".  But those who make such claims fail to realize that if the Law no longer needs to be kept, then whether they are reiterated in the "New Testament" is irrelevant.  This rationalization however, proves that they know that there is a need to keep at least some of God's Law.  Bit it is still inconsistent with the doctrine that we don't need to keep his Law.

Another rationalization is to divide the commandments within the Law into three laws:  The "moral" law.  The "civil" law.  And the "ceremonial" law.  The claim is that the "moral" law applies to everyone, the "civil" law applies only to the land of Israel, and the "ceremonial" law only applied before Yeshua's work on the cross and that it's this law that we don't need to keep.  But this too conflicts with the core teaching that the body of the Messiah does not need to keep the Law of God.

Some will say that we only need to keep the Ten Commandments.  But every Christmas they put up a nativity with an image of Jesus in direct violation of the Second Commandment, which forbids the creation of an image of anything, anywhere!  Whoever sets up an image of Jesus is worshiping the image, not Jesus.  They also change the Sabbath (Fourth Commandment) from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday), which is literally named after the sun in the sky.  Whoever observes the first day of the week as the Sabbath worships a ball of plasma!  And changing God's Law is rebellion, not obedience!  And once again, if the Law is no longer needed, then neither are the Ten Commandments

In order to resolve the inconsistencies in the first two doctrines, the have made three additional teachings which also conflict with the first.  As I mentioned earlier, Christians know in their heart that that there are some laws that must be kept, proving false the doctrine that we don't need to keep God's Law.  So it's the heart and mind of man that testifies against this doctrine.  But we're going to look into Scripture to see for sure what we are supposed to do.  And just to prove the point, I will only use "New Testament" passages to prove just how false this doctrine really is.

Jesus himself said in Matthew 4:4 that man is to live on every word that comes from the mouth of God.  And in Matthew 5:17-20, he made such obedience mandatory for membership in God's Kingdom.  Note in verse 17 how "destroying the Law" and "fulfilling the Law" are framed as being mutually-exclusive.  If he didn't come to do away with it, then he must have come to teach it (I'm ignoring the Hebrew idiom here).  He also said in Matthew 19:17 that keeping the commandments is a requirement for "entering life".  And you can find numerous places where Jesus called-out the Pharisees for nullifying the Law of God for the sake of their traditions.  For example, Mark 7:5-13.  So according to Yeshua himself, we are to keep the Law of God.

What about Paul, whom the Church practically worships (funny how it's not Jesus who is treated as the ultimate authority of the Christian)?  In Romans 2:13, Paul says that it's those who keep the Law who will be justified before God.  In Romans 3:20 and 7:7, he says that the Law defines sin.  And in Romans 3:31, he states that we who believe in Jesus uphold the Law of God.  So much for Paul teaching against God's Law.

Let's see what James says.  In James 1:22-25, he says we should look into the perfect Law of liberty with the intent of obeying it.  And that if we do, we will be blessed in all that we do.  James 2:12 says we should act as if we will be judged by this law.  So James also teaches obedience to the Law.  Of course, if Jesus and the Apostles were teaching from the Law with the expectation for us to obey it, then we should expect to find many of the commandments being reiterated throughout the "New Testament".  And if the Law did not have to be followed (or should not be followed), then they would not be reiterating any of the commandments.

2. Biblical Inerrancy

One of the most blatant inconsistencies between two doctrines has to do with the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.  Which doctrine runs afoul of Biblical Inerrancy?  The doctrine that forbidding the consumption of certain meats (eg: pork) is a "doctrine of demons."  God's Law forbids us from eating pigs or even touching the dead bodies of pigs (Leviticus 11:7-8).  And Isaiah prophecies against such people in Isaiah 65:4 and 66:17, declaring that they will perish.  Yet because Paul wrote about those who forbid "certain foods" in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 (among other passages that are twisted by the Church), the Church insists that anyone who says we shouldn't eat pork (or other animals that God said to not eat) is teaching a doctrine of demons.

Think about it:  If the command not to eat certain animals is really a doctrine of demons, then it means that the Bible is in error about the origins of such commands, and the prophecies against those who break such commands.  If there is even one error in Scripture, then the Bible is by definition, not inerrant, and the inerrancy doctrine is therefore wrong.

On a related note, if 1 Timothy 4:1-5 means what the Church claims, then Paul is going against his own teachings that we should keep the Law of God.  We already went over this in the previous section.  It would also mean that if the Law and the Prophets are correct about the origin of the commandment and prophecies against those who break it, then Paul is the one who is wrong, and the Bible is not inerrant.  And if Paul is teaching both obedience to the Law and rebellion against it, one of those teachings is wrong by definition and the Bible is also not inerrant.  And it also lends credence to those who claim that Paul was a deceiver.  And if Paul was a deceiver, then the Bible is definitely not inerrant.

Peter warns us in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul is hard to understand, and that uneducated people twist his words to their own destruction.  So the solution is an interpretation that is hard to see just by reading the passage, but is consistent with Paul's teaching of obedience to God's Law.  We'll start with the definition of "food".  Since Paul taught obedience to the Law of God and the Law of God tells us what is and is not food for us, the definition of food that Paul (and the other Apostles, and Jesus) is using is that which God's Law defines as food.  And guess what:  The Law explicitly states that pigs are not food.

Now that we know the definition of food that Paul is using, we can see that the "creatures of God" refers to the clean animals that God gave for us as food.  Although God made all animals, both the clean and the unclean, only the clean animals are referred to here as the "creatures of God".  Finally, we see that these animals are set apart by the word of God and by prayer.  If everything is set apart, then nothing is set apart.  The words "sanctified" and "holy" lose all of their meaning if everything is said to be set apart.  And the word of God (which is referring specifically to God's Law in this instance) did not set apart pigs as food.  What Paul is actually teaching against are teachings about food that are contrary to God's Law.

3. The Shame of Nakedness

I've covered the topic of nakedness a lot on this blog.  And a search through my posts will reveal that quite quickly.  But what about the shame of nakedness?  The Church teaches that before there was sin, there was no shame in being naked.  In fact, we read in Genesis 1 and 2 that mankind was designed to always be naked and that this nakedness was very good.  But in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve sinned, became ashamed of their nakedness, and after they failed to provide adequate clothing for themselves, God himself provided them with clothing.  The Church teaches that ever since then, there has been a universal shame of nakedness.  So where's the inconsistency:  Well, Jesus took away our sins by his blood, wiping-out the record of our transgressions.  Since our sins have been taken away, so has the source of our shame of being naked.  And the Bible says in numerous places that those who believe in him shall by no means be put to shame (1 Peter 2:6).  And in Romans 8:35, Paul says that nakedness is incapable of keeping us from God's love.

While I have been teaching for a long time on this blog that there is no requirement in Scripture to be clothed (except for the priests when they are performing their duties), I still didn't realize the inconsistency about the shame of nakedness before finding this article on the topic, which also inspired me to write this post on 5 of the Church's doctrinal inconsistencies.  If sin truly is the only source of the shame of nakedness as the Church teaches it is, then those who have had their sins taken away should not be ashamed of such a thing.  But the Church still teaches us to be ashamed of being naked because of sin.  The very sin that the Church rightly says is taken away by the blood of Jesus just by believing in him!  In my post on Genesis 3, I proved that it was the serpent who told Adam and Eve that they were naked.  That, by extension, means that the source of the shame of nakedness came from the serpent, not from the sin that they had just committed.

Just like with the first inconsistency I pointed-out, for this one, I'm only going to use the "New Testament" to expose the magnitude of this inconsistency.  And I'm also going to do it using the view that sin is the only source of the shame of nakedness.

When Yeshua came to Jerusalem on a donkey, many in the crowd took off their garments and laid them on the road before Jesus.  This is recorded in Matthew 21:8, Mark 11:7 (the Disciples put their garments on the donkey for Jesus to sit on), and Mark 11:8.  Many of these only had a single garment, yet took it off for Jesus, and Jesus accepted it.  This of course, is perfectly consistent with the teaching that the shame of nakedness comes from sin, because they were not actively sinning when they greeted their Savior and our Savior at the gates of Jerusalem.

In John 13:4, Jesus himself set aside his garments in front of the Twelve and proceeded to wash the feet of his Disciples.  This too is consistent with the doctrine that sin is the source of the shame of nakedness because Jesus never sinned and therefore had nothing to bring him shame.

In John 21:7 (after the resurrection of the Lord), Peter is fishing with his friends naked (go read the context).  This was actually common place back then, for a laborer to work without clothing.  And this may have also been the reason why Mary mistook Jesus for the gardener in John 20:15, for Yeshua left all of his grave clothes behind when he rose from the dead (Luke 24:12, John 20:6-7).  This of course is perfectly consistent with the doctrine that sin is the source of the shame of nakedness.

4. Avoiding Salvation by Works

It is often said that anyone who keeps God's Law is by definition, trying to work for his or her salvation.  And whoever teaches obedience to God's Law is by definition, teaching works-based salvation.  For some reason, the Church absolutely hates the idea of keeping God's Law and actively teaches that such things are not only not necessary, but also evil.  Now this overlaps with the first inconsistency listed in this post, because the Church actually teaches obedience to some of the commandments in God's Law (chiefly, the Ten Commandments) along with most, if not all, of Leviticus 18, among some other commands also found in God's Law.

Interestingly enough, nobody says that obedience to Yeshua's commandments is salvation by works, even though his commandments seem more difficult to keep than the Law of God.  For example, as pointed-out in my post on what Jesus meant by "but I say", Jesus linked coveting your neighbor's wife with committing adultery with her.  He also linked bearing a grudge against your neighbor with committing murder.

Now, when writing this post, I realized I made a mistake on the post I just linked.  I accidentally wrote:

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding adultery.

But I meant to say this:

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding divorce.

I'm going to be leaving that mistake in because I have a policy that once a blog post is published, it does not get any edits done to it for any reason.

Speaking of divorce:  As mentioned in that post right after the mistake, I mentioned that the intent of Deuteronomy 24:1 is being ignored.  The intent of the verse is to give provision to terminate a marriage in very specific situations (eg: a woman hiding any premarital indiscretions from her husband).  The Pharisees twisted it to allow for divorce for any reason.

So not only is Jesus teaching obedience to the Law, he's linking commandments together that are usually considered separately, making the Law harder to follow simply by keeping Jesus's commands.  But Jesus didn't make the Law harder to follow.  He simply exposed the intent of the Law and gave the correct interpretation of the Law, which is harder to follow simply because of human nature.  So if keeping our flawed understanding of God's Law is "salvation by works", then so is keeping Yeshua's commands.

But how exactly do with solve this inconsistency of obedience being salvation by works?  Simple:  There is absolutely zero Biblical support for the assertion that obedience to the Law of God is by definition, works-based salvation.  None!  In fact, those who make such assertions prove that they do not know God, and are lying when they claim to know him (1 John 2:3-4).  The Bible also says that keeping God's Law is by definition, loving God (1 John 5:2-3).  There's also the passages referenced for inconsistency #1.  And James 2:14-26 explains in detail how faith is made complete by our works and how works prove our faith.  It also refutes the "faith alone" doctrine, which is used to justify rebellion against God.  So we keep God's commands because we love God, not to somehow earn our salvation.  And this keeping of God's Law proves our faith.

5. To Sin or Not to Sin

One common objection to the teaching that Christians should keep God's Law is that we allegedly cannot keep it, so we shouldn't even try.  This overlaps with inconsistencies 1 and 4 quite a bit.  You might have heard the phrase, "you will sin every day in thought or deed", which I covered in a previous post.  Often, this saying will have a context that implies, "you're going to sin anyways, so don't even try to not sin".  These same people will also rightfully say that we should not lie, steal, murder, or commit adultery, for example.  Other examples of things that they will tell us not to do include "lusting" after a woman, becoming drunk, or judging others.  In some cases, they have many additional rules in place to try to avoid sinning, which are themselves considered sinful to break.

On one hand, they teach that we shouldn't try not to sin, because will will sin anyways, or because trying not to sin is "salvation by works".  And on the other hand, not only say that we should not sin, but that we should any situation where we could potentially sin at all costs.  But what does the Bible say?

Jesus said "sin no more" [John 5:14] and Paul said "do not sin" [1 Corinthians 15:34].  In John 9:21, we read that God does not listen to the sinner.  That explains the lack of healings in the Church.  And in Romans 6, we are told not to allow sin to have any power over us because we have been freed from sin.  In fact, he states that sin does not have any power over those who believe in the Lord Yeshua.  And 1 John 5:8 says that whoever is born of God does not sin.  Now who is it that says "you will sin every day in thought or deed"?  Oh right, the one who's mind is driven by the flesh instead of the spirit.  Such a person is unable to submit to God's commandments [Romans 8:7].  And that explains why conservative Christians have so many heretical rules to try to avoid sin.  They're treating the symptom instead of the cause.  The one who is delivered from will naturally keep God's Law and be able to avoid sinning.  And even when such a person does stumble (which is contrary to that person's nature), that person has an advocate with the Father [1 John 2:1].

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.

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.

Resurrection Contradiction?

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" [John 11:25-26; NKJV]

The above passage is one of several passages where Yeshua references the resurrection and promises eternal life.  The reason I bring up this passage is the apparent contradiction between Yeshua saying, "the one who believes in me shall live even though he dies" and him also saying, "the one who believes in me shall never die".  So how is this alleged contradiction resolved?  First, the passage is in the context of the resurrection.  Yeshua even states that much right before he said what he did.  Therefore, the rest of the passage shall be interpreted as if it is a statement of what will happen at the resurrection of the righteous.  Note that the one who does not believe in Yeshua will perish.

If the one who believes in Yeshua shall live even though he dies, then that is clearly a promise that the believer who dies shall be raised back to life.  I used to interpret verse 26 to mean that the soul leaves the body just before death, I have since learned (through some people pointing it out) that (a) souls are something that we are (Genesis 2:7), not something that we have.  And (b) the dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)!  So that interpretation is ruled-out.  But again, Yeshua made it clear that what he is saying concerns the resurrection of the righteous, those who believe in him.  So the correct interpretation is that once you are raised at the resurrection of the righteous, you will never die again.

One interesting thing to note is that Yeshua counted the living among the dead and the dead among the living.  For example, in Mathew 8:22, he spoke of living people as if they were already dead.  And in Matthew 22:32, he spoke of dead people as if they were still living.  Matthew 22:32 is another passage who's context concerns the resurrection.  There are probably other passages like this.  So what's the idea behind counting the living as being dead and the dead as being alive?  If you answer the following question, you will have your answer:  What is the end result?  Those who are raised at the resurrection of the righteous will live forever.  Those who are not raised at the resurrection of the righteous will perish!

But there is not one resurrection, but two!  The resurrection of the righteous, which is the one that happens first (1 Thessalonians 4:16), and the resurrection of the wicked, which happens later.  At the second resurrection, there will be many people who will wish that they were not raised because of what will happen to them!

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and [the Grave] delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and [the Grave] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. [Revelation 22:11-15; NKJV] [see note at end of post]

This is what will happen at the second resurrection, the resurrection of the wicked.  They will be required to give an account of everything that they have done.  And because they do not have any atonement for their sins, they themselves will pay the penalty for their sins by burning up in the lake of fire!  All who transgress the Law of Yahweh and have not had their sins atoned for by the blood of Yeshua will perish in the lake of fire as punishment for their innumerable transgressions.  The same will happen to anyone who uses this atonement as a license to sin, and willfully do that which they know is contrary to the commands of Yahweh.  The atonement for sin comes from the blood of Yeshua by believing in Yeshua, the one who died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

Note:
The Greek word "Hades" is a substitute for the Hebrew word "sheol", which literally means "grave".  The definition of the Hebrew equivalent is prioritized, because the New Testament (with the exception of Hebrews) was written in Hebrew.  One of the definitions of "Hades" is also "grave", but usually refers to either a false god or the realm of said false god which has the same name.  This pagan association is also why I'm prioritizing the definition of the Hebrew equivalent.

Misunderstanding the Doctrine of Obedience

Have you ever heard the claim that "obedience to God's Law is by definition, salvation by works"?  Well, that's a lie!  According to Deuteronomy 13, those that love Yahweh obey his Law.  And those that rebel against his Law by definition, practice idolatry!  Is it possible that someone will keep Yahweh's Law as a means of salvation?  Yes.  But there are other reasons to keep the Law of Yahweh.  For example, to prove that you love Yahweh.  Or to prove that they believe in Yeshua.  Yeshua said that those who love him will keep his commandments (John 14:21).  And Yeshua commanded us to live on every word of Yahweh (Matthew 4:4).  You are not living on every word of Yahweh if you are rebelling against his Law!

This misunderstanding concerning obedience is understandable.  Simply put, the teaching that, "one cannot be saved so long is one is living in rebellion", can be easily misinterpreted as saying that it's the obedience that saves you, rather than faith in Yeshua.  For example, Hebrews 10:26 makes it clear that those living in rebellion have no atonement.  But it is also clear from other passages, such as Romans 3:19-20, make it clear that, even if one were to stop rebelling against Yahweh's Law, they would still not be saved!  And Yeshua said, "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men [Matthew 12:31; NKJV]."  So the one who stops their rebellion will be forgiven of their rebellion.

While this may look like salvation by works, it's not.  It only looks that way because living in rebellion will prevent you from being saved.  If someone stops rebelling against Yahweh's commandments, that does not automatically mean they are saved.  It just means they can be saved.  Salvation still comes from believing in Yeshua.  All this can be summed-up by the following saying:  "Obedience cannot save you, but rebellion will condemn you."  You might have also heard this saying:  "We do not keep the Law to be saved.  We keep the Law because we're saved."

There are some things that need to be addressed.  The ultimate reason that this misunderstanding exists is because Satan wants to keep us away from Yahweh.  And he does that by deceiving us into believing that the Law is bad, and that keeping it is bad.  Yeshua warned against this tactic when he said, "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.  And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men [Matthew 15:8-9; NKJV]."  Their hearts are far from Yahweh because they do not keep his commandments.  So now you know that drawing close to Yahweh starts with keeping his Law.

There are of course human motivations for believing that obedience is salvation by works:  People do not like change!  They want to continue in their ways and their hearts deceive them into making excuses for continuing in what they now know is sinful.  This is an excellent example of the mind being governed by the flesh not being able to submit to Yahweh's Law, as Paul warned about in Romans 8:7.  For teachers, there is even more motivation to teach this:  Money and/or power!  Or rather, the love of money and/or power.  People generally have itching ears and will not tolerate anyone who does not tell them exactly what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4)!  And guess what:  You can't maintain a Church building if nobody is there to give their "tithe" to the Church.  Then there are the wolves!  These teachers know the truth, and teach the opposite.  It is their job to make sure that you perish in the Lake of Fire!  By the way, the more people realize that God expects us to keep his Law, the more wolves will make themselves known.

What Does Believing Moses Really Mean?

A common (and 100% correct) argument used to refute theistic evolution is the fact that those who don't believe Moses will not believe Jesus.  When Young Earth Creationists (which I am one) make this argument, they are quoting Jesus directly, from John 5:46.  Again, this is 100% correct, but not just for the reasons that creationists give.

Most of the time, when a creationist invokes John 5:46, they're talking exclusively about believing what Moses wrote concerning the origin of everything.  And while they are right that you need to believe what Moses wrote concerning the origin of everything in order to believe Jesus, where they go wrong is the exclusion of the rest of what Moses wrote.

Some will point to Genesis 3:14-15 as being where Moses wrote about Jesus.  This is indeed a prophesy about Jesus written by Moses, but there is so much more that Moses wrote than a single prophesy in a single book.  In fact, Genesis as a whole is a mirror image of the Messiah (both literally and figuratively).  The literal part because of the fact that Hebrew scrolls are striped (to guide the scribes on where to write) and pierced (to bind the different scroll pieces together to make a single scroll) just as Jesus was striped (by whips) and pierced (by thorns and nails).  The figurative part because many of the lives of those who are recorded in Torah mirror the life of Jesus.

Here are some examples of people who's lives mirrored that of Jesus:

• Noah's Ark saving Noah and his family, and two of every kind of animal from God's judgement is a mirror of Jesus saving us from God's coming judgement.
• Noah's Ark being the only means of salvation from God's judgement is a mirror of Jesus being the only means of salvation from God's coming judgement.
• Isaac being born by the Spirit of God is a mirror of Jesus also being born by the Spirit of God.
• Isaac nearly being sacrificed is a mirror of Jesus actually being sacrificed.
• Joseph being betrayed by his brothers is a mirror of Jesus being betrayed by a close friend.
• God using the treason against Joseph to save the world is a mirror of God using the treason against Jesus to save the world.
• Joseph is never recorded to have sinned even once, mirroring Jesus never sinning once.

In addition to that, many of the things which are found in Moses' writings point directly to Jesus, including:

• Jesus is the Passover Lamb that caused God's wrath to pass over us (the Passover meal).
• Jesus is the Unleavened Bread, leaven representing sin (Feast of Unleavened Bread).
• Jesus is the First Fruits from the dead (Feast of First Fruits).
• Jesus is the Sabbath (seventh day) rest.
• Jesus is the Atonement for our sins (Day of Atonement).

There is quite a bit more in Torah that points directly to Jesus than what I've listed here.  Go search for yourself!  As you can see from this sample, Genesis is only a small part of what it means to "believe Moses".  If you believe Moses concerning Genesis, but not the rest of what he wrote, then you really don't believe him.  For nearly everything recorded in Torah is a picture of Jesus our Lord and savior!  In fact, according to the biblical definition of faith, merely believing what Moses said is not good enough.  You must also obey him!

Again, believing Moses about Genesis, but not the rest of what he wrote is not believing Moses.  Believing Moses only starts with believing Genesis.  And believing all of what Moses wrote without obeying him is also not believing Moses.  For Moses told us how to live holy (set apart) lives dedicated to God.  Obeying him shows that you believe he was truthful concerning holiness, while disobedience shows that you believe he was mistaking or lying about holiness.  And Jesus obeyed Moses!  Isn't it interesting that those who do not obey Moses (who wrote exactly what God commanded him to write [Exodus 24:4]) also do not obey Jesus?  And that those who cherry-pick Moses' teachings also cherry-pick Jesus' teachings?

Can the Church be Reformed?

Churches more and more are falling away to Universalism and New Age mysticism.  This falling away is not happening by the individual congregation, but by the denomination.  There is a desperate need to reform the Church.  But, can the Church even be reformed?

To answer that question, we just need to take a look at history, when a Catholic Priest by the name of Martin Luther tried to reform the Catholic Church with his 95 thesis.  Little did Martin Luther know at the time that the Catholic Church is run by those who are not hungry for the Word, but by corruption up to the highest levels in the Church (yes, he did have some idea of the Church's corruption, but only a small portion of it).  The resulting movement was not a reformation of the Catholic Church, but a break-away from the Catholic Church and its many, many heresies.

Also, note that the Catholic Church is not Christian by any stretch of the imagination.  It is but one branch of a satanic cult bent on ruling the world.  Those that run the Catholic Church (both in the past and in the present) do unimaginable acts of wickedness in secret.  And the wickedness that they do in public, and teach their members to do in the name of Jesus, is just the tip of the iceberg.  The Catholic Church, as Martin Luther found out the hard way, cannot be reformed.

Martin Luther's movement resulted in many people abandoning some of the Catholic Church's practices.  But this move to return to God's commandments would be greatly incomplete and short-lived, as most who are in the Church are governed by the flesh.  This is also why the Puritan's move to outlaw the counterfeit holidays of Christmas and Easter ultimately failed.  Those who are governed by the flesh worship God their own way, rather than God's way.

Over the past several decades, the Church has been infiltrated by the same, satanic cult that runs the Catholic Church.  But this time, that which was previously done in private is more and more being done in public for all to see.  And the means of deception have only gotten better, so that those who would otherwise be convinced of the intolerable nature of these acts are instead committing them themselves!  And by the way, we're still talking about the tip of the iceberg!

The teachings of these abominations have to do with gratification in this life, or hope only for this life.  Sin is rarely, if ever discussed, and the message of salvation and the promise of eternal life is reduced to allegory.  And there is absolutely no concept of being held accountable to God on Judgement Day.  Their teaching is ultimately one of hopelessness with the "perk" of no accountability or condemnation on Judgement Day.  In other words, their teachings add up to this:  This is the only life you have and when it's over, it's over for good, with no hope of eternal life, and no accountability for what you have done.

Contrast that with the numerous warnings in Scripture given by both Jesus and his disciples:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. [Matthew 7:21-23; KJV]

But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. [Matthew 12:36; NIV]

Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, [Hebrews 9:27; NIV]

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. [Romans 3:19]

The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. [Matthew 3:10; NIV]

His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire. [Matthew 3:12; NIV]

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [Matthew 7:19; NIV]

As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. [Matthew 13:40; NIV]

That's just a small sample of the numerous warnings about what will happen to the wicked.  Get the picture?  The one who does not have their sins atoned for will be BUNRED! UP! on Judgement Day!  Those who trust in Jesus for this life only instead of for the remission of sins and his promise of eternal life will BURN! UP! on Judgement Day!  Once this life is over, you will be raised from the dead to face God's Judgement!  The righteous will inherit eternal life, but the wicked will perish in the lake of fire!

14 Then death and [the Grave] were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. [Revelation 20:14-15]

It would seem that the mission of these wicked pastors is to make sure that people are blind to the danger of the impending judgement.  Any Church run by such people cannot be reformed until all those who teach against the Judgement by not mentioning it are removed from said Church.  Even then, as we've learned from history, most of those who call themselves "Christian" are governed by the flesh, which compels them to worship God their own way instead of God's way.  Even those who are supposed to be teaching people how to live by God's Word are instead governed by the flesh.  So the Church as a whole cannot be reformed.  And the extremely few congregations that may reform will incur a great financial loss.

Your best option is to leave a Church as soon as you recognize that it's falling away, and form your own Bible study group.  And to study the Bible for yourself and to obey it!  And to test everything against it.  Also, any Church that refuses to learn to obey the front of the book will eventually stop obeying what little of the back of the book that they are currently obeying.