Jerry

In the midst of the throne is a phrase that without looking it up seems to indicate Jesus is in the middle of the throne (which is how I basically took some of those passages in the past) - but looking up a couple of dictionary definitions (in the middle, surrounded by), and seeing what else was in the midst of the throne (the beasts), I can see it also indicating the idea of being around or by something. Revelation 4:6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. The point about sharing the authority of the throne, rather than physically sharing the throne makes a lot of sense. Yes, I can see that.

Wow, it is soooo nice to get what I believe was my God-guided research affirmed today. This is what I posted to a few friends: Someone recently passed on the link to this video. It took me awhile to get into it, but I started watching some of his shorter videos and doing research on the speaker, Spencer Smith. He is solid, KJVonly, IFB. His videos expose the corruption in modern Christendom. This video is interesting, because he exposes how modern Christendom is getting caught up in the divine feminism, and it is influencing so many today. AND, at 3:35 (3 hours, 35 minutes) he gets into how Shekinah (aka the supposed feminine form of God, the Holy Spirit - the view that comes from gnosticism/the Kaballah) fits into this. Hm, maybe I was onto something a few months back. https://youtu.be/8XoSWb9esXQ

No, I did not feel attacked at all. I also agree that there are many literal events and things described in the book of Revelation - often something literal going on with perhaps some symbolism to describe certain aspects of it. Like chapter 1, John literally saw the Lord Jesus Christ walking in the midst of the churches, but the description of Him contains many symbols that are traced throughout the Bible. Chapter four and five are literal about the person on the throne being worshipped by the elders and the living beasts, and then giving the scroll to the Lamb that was worthy to take it, and the Holy Spirit being before the throne - some of the descriptions are symbolic (example, seven Spirits being symbolic of the sevenfold Holy Spirit that we see referred to in Isaiah 11). Yes, I didn't agree with McGee's comment about the three members of the Trinity being on the throne - the Bible only ever referred to the Father and the Son on the throne. In regards to the Son being on the throne in Revelation 22, is He not reigning on the throne during the events of the Tribulation (which had not yet unfolded in chapters 4-5) and the Millennium to come? I found another reference to the throne in chapter 3: Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Though I admit, here it sounds like different thrones - one He reigns with His Father (which it already sounds like He is currently reigning on, going by the wording, as this is written to the churches/occuring during the church age), and the throne we will share will Christ. This verse I need to study out more.

Some of my thoughts the last couple of days as I have been digging deeper and meditating on the book of Revelation. Yes, Scott, you are considering some of the possible meanings of the various colours now, but originally you questioned if or why they necessarily signified anything, and this verse comes to mind in that regard: Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Several dictionaries, including Webster's 1828, state that to signify means to declare by signs (expressing in my own words). That in itself doesn't mean a particular person has the right meaning, just that to believe they DO symbolize something is in accordance with the phrase the above verse uses. Second yes, I do agree 100% that it is the Father on the throne in chapters 4-5. Don't know how I missed that or did not specifically focus on it 17 years ago when I actually wrote out this explanation of that type. However, these verses come to mind: Revelation 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: There is ONE throne the Father and the Son share throughout eternity (it does not say throneS, but throne). I agree that it is the Father on the throne in chapters four and five, and that according to various commentators the Old Testament shows these colours and stones represent various things about the Lord God (in Exodus and Ezekiel especially). But because this is also the throne that the Son will share after that point in the book of Revelation, I think that it is possible and even likely that those colours and stones also represent various things about the Son, as various commentators have pointed out by looking at the stones and colours on the breastplate of the high priest in the book of Exodus and the birth order of the children of Israel. And for the sake of clarification, that also makes more sense as a type - as a type is looking at something in the Bible and bringing out a further picture or meaning, usually about the Messiah who would appear on the scene later (consider Abraham killing the ram in the place of his son and all the furniture and material of the tabernacle picturing the coming Messiah). A type is not the original person or event, it is something pictured by that person, place or thing. There are things about David and other Bible characters that picture the Messiah, but they are not the Messiah. To me, there are things about chapter four that picture the Son of God who would shortly after that point sit on that throne with God the Father. (This last paragraph above were my thoughts now as I am typing this post out. If I have expressed myself in an unclear way or you think my attempted possible explanation is bad here, I won't be offended. It makes sense to me as I am typing it out - but maybe I am out to lunch or need to ponder it a little bit more. This is overall a small study/idea I have passed on to a few people years ago and was just reminded of recently. If others don't agree, so be it. I have come to realize it is God the Father on the throne here - regardless of what I might have thought years ago by perhaps not fully considering the context of the next chapter too. Maybe I won't use this "study" in the future after our interaction here, or at least not without editing or clarifying what I wrote. I appreciate the interaction in this thread - and yes, I did create this thread because I personally realized something was off about at least one part of my conclusion when I was reading a commentary recently. If I cannot use these ideas without confusion or major clarification, then maybe I won't use these ideas - not sure yet. I will ask Jesus when I get to heaven if I was off on the general idea or picture presented or not.) ?

John Gill also mentions the sons of Israel as well. Yes, it is the Father in chapter four - but we know that Christ will rule from that throne shortly - the scene is being set in those chapters (4-5). Could the colours represent things about the Father AND the Son? Ie. a twofold purpose or picture? Not in order, but multiple commentators refer to the glory, majesty, justice, mercy, etc. of the Lord God being pictured by those colours/stones. Could they also represent the person who is soon to sit and rule from that throne once the events of the Tribulation are set in motion? Yes, the Father is on the throne in ch 4, but shortly the Son will be ruling from that throne - so to me it seems possible to have a twofold purpose for what is pictured. There are multiple commentators that mention these colours represent (not in order) the deity and humanity of Christ, His blood shed, His purity, etc. Both sides of these symbols (ie. representing the Lord God in general or the Father and representing the Son) are presented throughout the Bible. It is not unreasonable to think they would be represented here as well.

I am doing my best now to be diligent and check all the resources I have available to see which ones may offer further insight into this passage, specifically the stones or the colours. Both Warren Wiersbe and J. Vernon McGee also relate the stones to the breastplate of the high priest and mention the three sons of Israel that I also pointed out. It is interesting that the first mention of each of those three specific stones in Scripture is in Exodus 28. Now this does not mean my position is right, it does mean others connected them and their symbolism in some way to the stones on the breastplate. J. Vernon Mcgee stated this in his Thru The Bible Commentary. I bolded a part I thought was relevant and interesting - though I have never heard anyone connect all three members of the Trinity to God's rule over the earth/mankind (only the Father and the Son). All that we see here is color, beautiful color like precious stones. We do not get a picture of God at all—He never has been photographed. Our attention is directed to the One who is seated on the throne. Although He is God the Father, we should understand this to be the throne of the triune God. Nevertheless, the three persons of the Trinity are distinguished: (1) God the Holy Spirit in verses 2 and 5; (2) God the Father here in verse 3; and (3) God the Son in verse 5 of chapter 5. What we have before us here is the Trinity upon the throne. John could distinguish no form of a person on the throne, only the brilliance and brightness of precious stones. “And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper.” The jasper stone was the last stone identified in the breastplate of the high priest (see Exod. 28:20). It was first in the foundation of the New Jerusalem and also the first seen in the wall of the New Jerusalem (see Rev. 21:18–19). It was a many-colored stone with purple predominating. Some identify it with a diamond. It was in the breastplate of the high priest of Israel, representing little Benjamin whom Jacob called “the son of my right hand.” Perhaps this speaks of Christ as He ascended and took His place at the right hand of the Father. The “sardine stone” is the sixth stone in the foundation of the New Jerusalem (see Rev. 21:20). Pliny says it was discovered in Sardis from which it derived its name. In color it was a fiery red. The sardine stone was the first stone in the breastplate of the high priest, representing the tribe of Reuben, the first-born of Jacob. And Christ is the Son of God, the firstborn from the dead.

To answer one question you asked, here is where it indicates the order of the stones was according to their birth order: Exodus 28:9-10 And thou shalt take two onyx stones, and grave on them the names of the children of Israel: Six of their names on one stone, and the other six names of the rest on the other stone, according to their birth. Exodus 39:10-14 And they set in it four rows of stones: the first row was a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this was the first row. And the second row, an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond. And the third row, a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. And the fourth row, a beryl, an onyx, and a jasper: they were inclosed in ouches of gold in their inclosings. And the stones were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet, every one with his name, according to the twelve tribes. Question #4, why the order was reversed. The following is from Greene's book, linked above, pages 5-6: In the fourth chapter of Revelation, Jesus is described as a Jasper and a Sardine stone. The Jasper stone was clear - clear as crystal. The Sardine (or Sardius) was blood-red . . . the Bloody stone. In Exodus 28, we read of these stones on the breastplate of the high priest. The Sardius. (the blood-red) stone having to do with Reuben is mentioned first, and the Jasper stone last. Revelation 4 speaks first of the Jasper stone - the clear white stone of Benjamin. This is not to be taken lightly. There is a definite reason for reversing of the stones, putting the first last, and the last first. The Sardius was blood-red, speaking of the sacrifice of blood, pointing to the Cross and the first coming of Jesus to shed His blood for the remission of sin. The name is derived from two Hebrew words meaning “behold the Son.” It pointed to the Person of whom John the Baptist said, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). It also tells us that He (the Lord Jesus) was the first born of every creature, and the first begotten - the ONLY begotten - Son of God (John 3:16). The Jasper, the last stone in the Old Testament breastplate, represented Benjamin. This was a clear stone, speaking of total victory. On the Jasper stone Was Benjamin’s name, which is a combination of two Hebrew words (ben and jamin), so scholars tell us, meaning “the son of my right hand” . . . or, as one authority puts it, “the son of my power.” The first and the last stones pointed forward to the first and second coming of the Great High Priest - none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. However, here in Revelation 4, the order of the stones is reversed. John the Beloved sees Him (Jesus) first as the Jasper, and second as the Sardius. The reason is clear: In the Old Testament the saints looked forward to the day when the Lamb would come. They looked forward to the cross, and therefore saw the Sardius . . . the Blood-red stone . . . first. They looked beyond that and saw the Jasper, the clear white stone representing His power and His rule at His second coming to set up the kingdom. However, when John had the experience we are now studying, he was on this side of Calvary and the Rapture, and was looking back. John saw, first of all, the Jasper stone, the clear one - and then the red stone, the Cross and sacrifice. Yes, hence part of the reason for this thread. I have already established how they picture Christ, even if you don't agree that applies in chapter four. If the symbolism in chapter four is not intended to picture Christ, yes, how does it picture the Father? I don't know and I welcome any input - though one thing I will disagree with: the symbolism is there, whether it pictures the Father in some way or only the Son is to be determined, but I cannot agree that there is no attempted symbolism or picture here.

Agreed - but what about the symbolism of the stones? They very clearly present a type of Christ. It could indicate that the throne was shared by Christ. If that is not what it indicates, what is its significance? All the symbolism in the book of Revelation comes from other parts of the Bible. The symbolism of the stones is from Exodus 28, and represents the 12 tribes of Israel. If it does not symbolically represent the Lord Jesus Christ in His first and second comings (if it did not represent Him, why did God use those specific stones that point to Christ), what does it picture or represent? All the symbolism in Revelation has a meaning that can be traced through the Bible. If I (and Ironside and Greene, and perhaps some other commentators) got that part wrong, what is the true/Biblical definition of those stones as used in chapter four of Revelation?

Thank you. The friend that passed this on to me was someone that follows some hyper-dispensationalist preachers on youtube, so I am always wary of any video links he sends me. It is nice to find a sound preacher on Youtube that is worth listening to and passing on.

Thanks. He has a video on his channel where he is interviewing Clarence Sexton, one of my favourite contemporary IFB preachers. In it Spencer stated he graduated from Crown College (started by Sexton).

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine sent me a link to a youtube video by Spencer Smith. It was 4 and 1/2 hours so I didn't watch that much of it yet, but because it was in my history I started getting suggestions for other videos from that youtube channel. The titles seem sensationalistic and a couple of the videos seemed he was trying to entertain people - but as time is going on, it seems like he may be a decent source for exposing some of the garbage in "Christendom." Just checked out his doctrinal statement on his website and it seems good, sound doctrinal positions, KJV, Independant Baptist (if I remember that part correct, I was skimming through the page). http://www.missionaryspencersmith.com I am not promoting him, but want to know if anyone is familiar with him? If he is sound, then he might be a decent discernment ministry, regardless of my initial impressions and how his videos and titles seem to come off. If he has some quirks or there are things about him that you feel others should know as a word of caution, please post that here as well. I don't want to reject him because of his style - his videos (that I have seem) have been worthwhile, Biblical and informative - but I don't want to waste my time if he is not solid or trustworthy either. Thanks for any input you may have on him.

This is probably the commentary I read in 2005, as I was reading a lot of material from this website (well, the previous website Virgil had with the same name before the current site) and was working with Virgil to proofread and add more material. Oliver B. Greene's commentary on Revelation - here is the link to chapter 4, where I very probably got the original ideas for my study from: http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=JS8owq42kLg%3d&tabid=239&mid=783 He does make an interesting point in his commentary on chapter five, where he says "In verse 7 of our present chapter, we see the Lamb taking the book out of the hand of the One sitting on the throne with Him - the Lord God." I guess it is easy to think of a throne having one occupant, hence the confusion and my attempt at asking for clarification - but the throne of the universe is ruled by both the Father and the Son - it doesn't have to involve two separate thrones. In Daniel 5, Belshazzar ruled with his father Nebuchadnezzar. They both therefore occupied the same throne (though when the events of chapter 5 happened, Nebuchadnezzar was not present), not two different thrones - so technically the same thing could be possible here.

I don't remember which commentator I was reading all those years ago that commented on the stones (or colours of the stones) in chapter four, but I just read this in H. A. Ironside's commentary on Revelation: Remembering that many of the first readers of the Revelation were converted Jews, we might ask, What would these stones suggest to them? Surely every instructed Hebrew would instantly recall that they were the first and last stones in the breastplate of the high priest (Exod. 28:17-20). As these stones bore the names of the tribes of Israel, arranged according to the births of the twelve patriarchs, the one would suggest at once the name Reuben, "Behold a Son," and the other Benjamin, "Son of my right hand." It is Christ enthroned, the Son about to reign in power who is before the Seer's vision. Round about the throne a rainbow, like an emerald, the stone of Judah ("praise") is seen, suggesting the perpetuity of the Noahic covenant, and God's unchanging goodness, despite all of man's failure, folly, and wickedness. That last part is a great reminder and something to think about, whether we are referring to the Father or the Son.

There are two reasons for me posting this today: 1. To share what I think is a neat type of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. To get some feedback. Reading a couple commentaries this morning, the authors stated this was God the Father on the throne because He is seen giving the Lamb the scroll in chapter 5. If it is the Father, why the symbolism from the Old Testament that perfectly fits the type of Christ? This is nothing taken out of context, but shown that these stones specifically represent things about Christ because of how they represented the 12 patriarchs of Israel (the 12 tribes on the High Priest's breastplate). Could this symbolism represent both the Father and Son in some sense, OR because this is the throne that Christ rules from, represent the Son in chapter 4? Ie. in a picture showing Christ ruling from that throne in Heaven, but also that He has His authority from the Father by the picture in chapter 5? In chapter 1, the Father is mentioned in verse 4 by the name "Him which is, and which was, and which is to come" (referring to several passages about the Lord God in Isaiah), but then Jesus is also called by that name later in the chapter in verse 8, "...saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come," proving that Jesus is also the Jehovah/Lord God of the Old Testament. The context of these verses show the Trinity and that Jesus is of the same nature or essence as the Father. I think this is a good type, but I also want to be true to the Scriptures and not wrestle anything out of place. I have passed on that type for 16 years, but now a couple of things I read made me want to scrutinize it more carefully. So I truly am asking for sound input. Thank you.

Jacob had 12 sons. They are listed in the order of their birth, from Genesis 29 on. The first was Reuben - whose name means "Behold, a son." The fourth was Judah, which means "Praise, or Praise of Jehovah (the LORD)." We know this was the line the Messiah came through - the kingly line. The last (12th) son was named Ben-oni ("Son of my sorrow"), but was changed to Benjamin ("Son of my right hand"). All the others are listed in Genesis as well, and it is easy to determine their meanings from Strong's. But that is not essential to where I am going with this. Next, let's go to Exodus 28. Here we have the High Priest and his garments. The Breastplate, which was worn over the chest, had 12 stones over his heart - one for each tribe of Israel - according to the order of their birth. See verses 15-21 and 29. So look up the first, fourth, and twelfth ones. Got that? Now, let's go to Revelation 4 and see a type which I have only ever seen explained in one particular commentary. Remember chapters 4 and 5 are what is seen in Heaven in between the Rapture of the church (4:1 - after these things, the church period - chapters 1-3. see also Revelation 1:19) and before the Tribulation period where the judgements of God are poured out upon the earth (chapter 6-19). Revelations 4:2-3 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. And He that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. Who sat upon the throne? Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords. Notice the rainbow (signifying mercy in judgement) completely circling the throne. Even in this end-time period of worldwide judgement, the Lord God will have mercy on those who repent and turn to Him during those seven years. Habakkuk 3:2 O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy. Now look at the stones mentioned. Which sons do they represent? Which one is mentioned first? The Sardius stone, which Benjamin is represented by - The Son of my sorrow. This was what Jesus was known by when He was on earth (a Man of Sorrows). Though now He is exalted and is at the right hand of the Father - The Son of My Right Hand. The Jasper stone is mentioned next. This represents Reuben and refers to Christ's second coming - "Behold, a Son." For unto us a child is born (Christ's first coming), Unto us a Son is given (His second coming). What color is the rainbow around the throne - around the King? Emerald, the fourth stone - representing Judah, "the praise of the Lord." Just a neat little known type - that reinforces what is taught in other passages, and shows that everything in the Bible is in there for a purpose, even if we don't always know why ourselves. January 20th/05 Jerry Bouey

Just adding a comment to bring it to the front page for others to read. Some of the old formatting/punctuation (the ?'s) in the first part make it a little hard to read, but for an old poem/post, it's worth reading.

I have been sharing some of my poems this last year during the Sunday services. Here is one of mine that is worth thinking about. What is important to you? What do you boast about? Boasting In The Lord So many will boast of their status and wealth – For too many that is all that’s worth living; I’d rather boast in my spiritual health – I’ll rejoice that I am saved and forgiven! So many will boast in who and what they know – Their connections are the things they do treasure; I would rather boast in the Lord Jesus Christ – His Word is my only sure guide and measure! So many will boast in the things they have made – As if this life was the end of the story; But I would rather boast in the world to come – Heaven above is in what I will glory. So many will boast that they have now arrived – Trusting in themselves – a sad situation! But I’d rather boast in what Jesus has done – Singing aloud of His wondrous salvation! So many will boast of things under the Sun – Things that will one day be shaken and scattered; I will boast in my Father’s, “My child, well done” – In eternity, that’s all that will matter! January 9th, 2011 Jerry Bouey Jeremiah 9:23-24 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovindkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. 1 Corinthians 1:29-31 That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 2:15-16 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. Colossians 3:1-2 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Hebrews 12:26-28 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifying the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. Matthew 25:21 His Lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord. What will you be boasting about this year?

I have asthma too. I quit my job in August 2020 for medical reasons (no medical insurance and did not know why my left arm had gone numb - nerve damage). The time off was for me to focus on getting my insurance and trying to determine what was going on with my left arm. Anyways, got the answers I needed (though nothing changed in my medical situation), but I have not gone back to work because I cannot wear a mask for more than a few minutes without getting out of breath or feel like I am choking. There is no way I can work anywhere when I need to wear a mask for 8-10 hours!

No matter what virus risks people think they are facing, it is unhealthy to wear a mask that restricts your breathing while you are exerting yourself through sports or running/jogging, etc. You are breathing in your own co2 over and over. There are laws that restrict diesel vehicles from parking with their engines running in schools zones because the gas emissions from the vehicles can affect young lungs while they are developing - yet they somehow think if they rebreathe their own gas emissions from their bodies, they will develop healthy, wealthy and wise children.

This is interesting: Jerusalem was a tough proposition for any army, however seasoned. It could be approached only from the north; on the east, south, and west it was surrounded by deep valleys, some of them steep and precipitous. The towering walls of the city added even greater height, so any attack of Jerusalem from these directions presented significant problems. Jerusalem crowned the highest tableland in the country. It was indeed a mountain city. John Phillips Exploring The Psalms

Talking to/responding to God IS praying - though the term "sinner's prayer" is usually used to refer to a set prayer, set words that a sinner needs to pray. It is not specific words that save someone but a heart that believes. Also, true faith KEEPS believing - many times the Bible says "believETH" (ie. present tense, ongoing, believing). It is not, Well, I said a prayer 20 years ago so I am saved - but I trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ to save me when I was younger (whenever it was), and He IS my Saviour (ie. I still believe in Him today). John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I just learned today that the word Shekinah (that supposedly means glory - though often they say it like Shekinah glory) that I have heard tons of writers and preachers used throughout the years is not from the Bible at all, but from the Jewish Talmud, the unbelieving Rabbinical commentary on the OT Scriptures (and commentary on their commentary - not joking). The two main words in the Bible for glory are: for the OT is kabowd, and for the NT is doxa. There are a couple of other words, but shekinah is NOT in the Bible at all It is not like using a non-Biblical word to describe an actual Biblical doctrine, like Trinity, rapture, incarnation - but actually is using a word that means different (ie. pagan) things, when there are perfectly good Bible words that do mean glory. Strange that people adopt something like this and then pass it on as truth. Funny, when I posted this on Messenger to some Christians from my old church, one of the old preacher boys said he knew that, but defended it. Why use a word with pagan and kabbalistic meanings when we can use the words God gave (either the English word, or the Greek and Hebrew words actually from the Bible)? Sad.

This was written for/about a friend I sometimes think about at this time of year. The Hope Of Christmas In the midst of my sorrows, troubles and tears, I sought the Lord and He saved me from my fears. In this time when you are overwhelmed by loss, Remember the Saviour who died on the cross – That’s my hope this Christmas. Struggling to overcome my dark addictions, And learning to make some braver decisions; You broke through all those chains that held me so tight, You scattered my darkness because You’re my Light – That’s my hope this Christmas. This Christmas, I know you’re not celebrating, But our reunion’s worth anticipating. My struggling heart’s not the end of the story; Eternity awaits in realms of glory – That’s my hope this Christmas. Jesus came to this earth to show us the way; He paid for sin’s debt – one we could never pay. Salvation’s His gift offered to us by grace, Receiving eternal life with Him by faith – That’s the hope of Christmas. December 3rd, 2010 Jerry Bouey Psalm 34:4-6 I sought the LORD, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears. They looked unto him, and were lightened: and their faces were not ashamed. This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles. (Dedicated to Lindsay Guenther) Lindsay was a friend to many at the Gospel Mission where I work. She trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation about two years ago (ie. two years before the date of this poem), and was making many wise choices to separate from harmful influences in her life and from friends that would only drag her down spiritually and by tempting her back into her addictions. Unfortunately, her house became an unsafe place for her, and Lindsay was truly seeking to find new housing where she would not be exposed to those addictions. She cleaned up, she spent many hours volunteering at the mission, and was such a help and a blessing. She met regularly with the chaplain at the Mission to work on overcoming those addictions and learn more from God’s Word. We only know part of what happened on November 28th, 2010. Tragically, she overdosed through the influence of one of those bad “friends.” Even though we are saddened by her sudden loss – her story ends in glory. Her hope this Christmas was the Saviour that came to give her life – that same Saviour that took her home, away from all her struggles and fears – to be with Him. This poem is an attempt to see things from Lindsay’s perspective. The title of the poem is a line that I had going through my mind all afternoon before writing this poem.

BrotherTony asked me to show where some modern versions remove or change passages about the deity of Christ, hence this thread. Robert Bratcher who "translated" the Good News Bible did not believe Jesus was good, so his translation was done in such a way as to present his doctrinal stance. Here are some examples: Acts 20:28 So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the blood of his Son. Does not declare God shed His own blood - therefore ruining a verse teaching Christ is both God and man, and that it was His blood that purchased our salvation. 1 Timothy 3:16 No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form, was shown to be right by the Spirit, and was seen by angels. He was preached among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, and was taken up to heaven. HE appeared in human form - so did all of us! That doesn't mean it was God that was being referred to here. 1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Christ gave his life for us. We too, then, ought to give our lives for others! The KJV says, Hereby we perceive the love of God, because HE laid down His life. Our Saviour is God. Rev 1:8 “I am the first and the last,” says the Lord God Almighty, who is, who was, and who is to come. Completely removes the reference to all three members of the Trinity, therefore showing Jesus' deity and equality with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Romans 9:5 they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen. The KJV says "...Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." Isaiah 7:14 Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’ Messing with the virgin birth in a passage that states He is Immanuel, God With Us. Micah 5:2 The Lord says, “Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are one of the smallest towns in Judah, but out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times.” Removes the reference to the eternality of the Messiah (and isn't actually talking about Him going back to ancient times, but His family line) - and only God is eternal. This is a good place to start. I do not have all my modern versions at hand that I marked all the changes in so am using an online Bible site. I cannot remember all the major (ie. obvious, glaring) changes offhand. The site I used for the GNT (or TEV) is: https://www.biblegateway.com/ Feel free to suggest other passages.

I was curious if any on these boards thought lying to save someone was justified, was merely overlooked by the Lord, was still wrong but allowed by the Lord anyway. Please give Biblical reasons for your conclusions on this subject. Two main passages come to mind, and I want to look at a third type of related incidence. Yes, I believe lying is wrong in all cases, especially for the New Testament believer today - however, I am wondering why God allowed or possibly overlooked these two cases in the Bible and how that applies to people hiding Jews and others whose lives were at peril during the Second World War. And no, don't get the idea that I am condemning or judging someone because they did so to save others and to protect themselves. Was it the best way to go about it? What would I do if I was faced with the same situation today? 1) The midwives in Egypt: Exodus 1:15-21 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. It is very possible that the midwives did not lie at all. They could have taught the Israelites what to do when a mother is about to give birth and delayed their arrival until just after each child was born. And we know from the NT, Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. We can obey the Lord and reject the commandments of men when they contradict God without necessarily doing wrong ourselves. We can choose silence when asked to speak, we can take the consequences of our rebellion after we protected those we chose to protect, we can hide from the authorities as well and perhaps not be forced to give them an account of what we did. Just some possibilities. Not saying these are the only options or that I would look down on someone else for their different choices when put in those difficult situations - but what would I do if I believed (which I do) that lying and deception is unjustified in any situation? For example, I would not dress men as women or women as men to disguise them as God says it is an abomination to Him when men and women wear clothing that is particularly specified for the opposite gender. 2) Rahab hiding the Israelite spies: Joshua 2:1-7 And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there. And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to search out the country. And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country. And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were: And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went I wot not: pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof. And the men pursued after them the way to Jordan unto the fords: and as soon as they which pursued after them were gone out, they shut the gate. As the historical events go on to show, the Lord rescued her and her family for risking her life to protect the spies. And we get this wonderful passage and type in the same chapter: Joshua 2:21 And she said, According unto your words, so be it. And she sent them away, and they departed: and she bound the scarlet line in the window. Bible believers often talk about the scarlet thread of redemption that runs all throughout Scripture. This passage about Rahab is where it comes from. And to me, one of the neatest things I have thought about in the last few years is the story of Ruth and her marriage to the godly man, Boaz. Boaz is Rahab's son - which means Rahab 100% turned her life around and raised her son in the knowledge of the Lord. Rahab, Boaz and Ruth are all in the line of Christ in Matthew 1. Back to Rahab. It is possible that God overlooked her sin of lying because she was literally a brand new believer who did not know the Law of Moses or the nation's history, but chose to place her faith in the true God and risk her life to save His people. The Bible does say there are things that God overlooked until Christ went to the cross, and things that will be judged when He returns: Acts 17:30-31 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Just some food for thought. What are your Bible-based convictions and ideas on this?