God, Girls, and Game Design

God the Maintainer

2023-03-02T08:15:00.002-08:00

Isaiah 45:7 King James Version
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

People debate whether or not "evil" here is legitimate. For that subject, "evil" until modern times did not mean wickedness but calamity or disaster. A man that brings disaster is an evil man is the correct way to read any instance of "evil" in the Bible. Evil is not necessarily sin. But that's not what I care about now about the verse.

Rather, notice for the bad things, darkness and evil, are created instantly by God,

While light and peace are made and formed by God, a slower, deliberate process.

When God created the heavens and the earth instantly in Genesis 1:1 and the earth was without form and void, it was darkness. It took God saying and forming the words "Let there be light" in order to bring light. Good things come from a slow process.

I'm bad at maintaining things. I'm a set-it-and-forget-it kind of guy. I aim to do everything perfect for that one big impact and splash, and then just go on with my life and never checking up on things after that, and then I get surprised when things go downhill.

In these recent years, I have grown to appreciate God being a Father that maintains things and is very active today as He was in the ages when the Bible was written and before that.

My biological dad is the opposite of me. He is a great maintainer of things. He's always repairing, always doing preventative maintenance of cars, house, relationships, and so on, while I actively avoid doing that.

Many people expect God to be a set-it-and-forget-it type God, a deistic God. Deism says that God wound up the universe like a clock in the very beginning, and never intervenes anymore, never maintains things. This is often called "practical atheism", God exists, but we live like He doesn't do anything.

Many Christians would deny that they are deists, and maybe in some aspects they aren't, but that belief shows up in how they treat, say, God's word today, thinking God no more has anything to do with its transmission, or the miraculous workings of God, or how awry current events, politics, and rumors of wars, and assume God isn't working at all today.

God is a Father and He maintains in the present, a slow process, like a husbandman growing fruit, vines, and trees.

KJVO Solution To Matthew And Luke Jesus's Birth Date Contradiction

2021-06-23T09:24:00.003-07:00

Original Post:

Many of you didn’t get the last post and couldn’t reconcile an obvious contradiction in the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke. Some danced around it. Some dismissed it offhand. Yet none actually addressed it with any semblance of a cogent response.

So, I will isolate the most glaring contradiction in its own post.

The account in Matthew places the birth of Jesus (Yeshua) during the reign of king Herod the Great (Mat 2:1 cp. v. 22) (7-6 BCE).

The account in Luke places the birth of Jesus during the rule of legate Quirinius (Luk 2:2) (6 CE).

Background:

In the 2nd cen BCE, Judaea was under the control of the Seleucid Empire and Antiochus IV. The Jews, under the leadership of the Maccabees, rebelled against the Greeks. Simon Thassi, brother of Judas Maccabee, setup the independent Jewish state, called the Hasmonean dynasty, with recognition from Rome.

In 63 BCE, Rome invaded Judaea and after a few battles, the king Aristobulus II surrendered. Judaea became a client state of Rome, still under Hasmonean rule, under Hyrcanus II (brother of Aristobulus II).

In 40 BCE, the Parthians invaded Syria and installed Antigonus (son of Aristobulus II) as king of Judaea.

In 37 BCE, Rome reconquered Judaea with the help of the Idumean Herod the Great. Rome installed Herod as king of Judaea. Judaea was once again a client state of Rome under the Herodian dynasty.

In 4 BCE, Herod the Great died. His kingdom was divided in three between his sons: Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas and Philip the Tetrarch.

In 6 CE, due to the extreme authoritarian rulership of Herod Archelaus and appeal from Judaea, Rome deposed Herod Archelaus and incorporated the region as a Roman province. This is the first time Judaea came under direct rule by Rome.

Quirinius was installed as the legate of Syria and given authority over Judaea. His first act was the census, as mentioned in Luk 2:2. This census led to the revolt of Judas the Galilean (mentioned in Act 5:37) and the founding of the Zealots. Simon (Mat 10:4) was a member of the Zealots, as was Barabbas and the two “robbers” crucified with Jesus.

Herod Antipas ruled as Tetrarch of Galilee until 39 CE. Philip ruled Batanaea until 34 CE. Philip was married to Herodias. After Philip died, Herod Antipas divorced his current wife (the daughter of Aretas) and married Herodias in 35 CE. This is the marriage that John the Baptist condemned and was subsequently arrested and beheaded.

This places the baptism around 34-35 CE and the crucifixion around 36 CE. This aligns with the birth of Jesus in 6 CE, during the time of the census, as Jesus was almost 30 when he was baptized.

If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, then he would be around 40 when he was crucified. Trying to place an earlier date on the crucifixion would misalign with the dates given in Josephus and other Roman historical records. John could not be arrested for condemning the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias before the actual marriage.

Conclusion:

There is a glaring contradiction between the two accounts that cannot be reconciled. Attempts to place Quirinius earlier is a fruitless endeavor. Judaea was under the control of Herod the Great. Judaea did not become an official Roman province until 6 CE and Quirinius didn’t became legate until 6 CE.

As such, most Christian scholars I’ve read say that Luke was mistaken. I disagree. The account in Luke lines up with history. It is the account in Matthew that’s in error. With the preponderance of evidence against the whole nativity account in Matthew, it is my position that it should be disregarded as an interpolation. Matthew originally began at the baptism, like Mark.

Counterargument:Here's another issue:

[1] And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
[2] (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
[3] And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
[4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
[5] To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

There is NO record Caesar Augustus made a decree to tax all the world. It wasn't from Quirinius originally. It says it was from Augustus. So to focus on Quirinius is in error here.

So, the fact that verse 2 is in parenthesis is telling. It is not meant to be part of the main passage context.

It can be interpreted as:
Caesar Augustus made the decree to tax and everyone went to their city

BUT
No actual taxation actually came about until Cyrenius came, somewhere somewhen the taxation administration of Augustus failed. And it only materialized when Cyrenius was appointed much later on.

Hence SHOULD. NOT WOULD. Should is potentiality.

Hence, it is reasonable that why the taxation decree by Augustus was NOT recorded, is because it failed. It achieved making everyone go home, but not actually succeeding in registering or taxing or whatever.

The wording also seems to imply that the census would take years to do. Even in today's modern society, the census takes months to do. Our 2020 census took a year starting from 2019. And we see hints that Joseph and Mary were staying Bethlehem for years.

Once you have worked in any sort of administration or bureaucracy or logistics, this is commonplace.

The Law of Church and State Balance

2020-10-29T06:56:00.001-07:00

The Law of Church and State Balance:
Where the Church fails, the State appropriates for itself. And vice versa.

When the Church fails to feed the poor, the State appropriates that.

When the Church fails to provide healthcare (most hospitals were started by churches which is why hospitals have Baptist, Methodist, etc in their names) the State appropriates that.

When the Church fails to be unselfishly united materially like in Acts, the State appropriates socialism and communism.

But also this works the other way throughout history.

What Stuff Make Up The Spirit And The Spiritual Are: An Assertion

2020-07-09T09:39:00.000-07:00

I've been developing this thought quite a bit, and hinted it here before, but this my assertion:

There is no distinction between the spiritual and other categories of immaterial (words, abstraction, math, logic, laws, but not limited to those)

Or to put it in another way:

The same stuff that makes words, abstraction, math, logic, laws, etc. immaterial is the same stuff spirit is made out of.

Or to put it in another way:

Spirit = words, abstraction, math, logic, laws

What about where spirit seems to interact with physical?

 Well, all physical stuff have an abstract structure, so a physical manifestation of a spirit is simply molding that abstract structure to its physical equivalent. 

What is a spirit, then?

A spirit is a personality/person in hidden in abstraction. (The devil in the details)

We can see this in fiction a lot, for example, Death is personified as a Grim Reaper, while we all know death doesn't really look like that, because death is abstract.... or does he?

We know death manifests as a being in Revelation, so an abstract concept personified.

Etc. You can make your own logical conclusions/questions with it.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Inaugurated Eschatology VS Dispensationalism (Quick, Unformatted Take)

2020-07-02T08:26:00.000-07:00

About 'INAUGURATED ESCHATOLOGY':

(contrasted with Dispensationalism, and Covenant Theology)

1. It emphasises that the COMPLETION of Israel's national-story has now been inaugurated - in Jesus - in two phases: 1st coming/2nd coming - already/not yet - inauguration/consummation - salvation now/Day of Salvation future - Messiah's resurrection/our resurrection - new creation begun/new creation completed)

In Old Testament times national-Israel were granted a glimpse of a story of hope, resurrection, regathering, removal of sin, judgment of evil-tyranny, salvation, redemption, putting creation to rights, 'new creation' and God's presence.

The gospel was the announcement that that hoped-for plan had now been inaugurated - in Israel, and for Israel, first of all - for the benefit of the whole world - in a new and real sense, although its final rollout still awaits Messiah's second coming.

(While Dispensationalism sees a discontinuity between the gospel and Israel's hope; and Covenant Theology struggles to define ancient Israel ethnically).

2. Meanwhile, tribulation and persecution is ever-present. But Christ will come!

(While Dispensationalism emphasises a period of special Tribulation immediately before a Third Coming.)

3. Israel's promise and vocation was carried out by the Holy One of Israel, son of David, Abraham and Jacob - in Israel, for Israel first, and for the benefit of the whole world: but only Israelites who were 'in the Messiah' by faith received the promise, then also Greeks - and together they are called 'Messiah's body' - 'the Church' (the 'church' which, at its inception was in Jerusalem and was all-Jewish) - and all this is the exact scenario foreseen in the Old Testament.

(While Dispensationalism separates Israel from the Messiah's Body, the Church; and Covenant Theology minimises the ethnic and geographical historical order in which God's purpose unfolded.)

4. There is One (triune) God - one way of salvation - one people of God - one future

(While Dispensationalism sees two distinct peoples of God; and Covenant Theology minimises the custodial role played by national-Israel until the promise came.)

5. A Historical-critical 'storied-worldview' hermeneutic is used, as demonstrated in the New Testament writings.

(While Dispensationalism touts an always-literal hermeneutic but actually doesn't adhere to it especially in statements made in prose in the New Testament; and Covenant Theology can tend to over-spiritualise everything without acknowledging the role that ethnic/national Israel had as custodians of the coming-blessing.)

6. The Old Testament vision of a Temple and river was intended in part to inspire the building of the second temple - and there was a carrying-out of that commandment in a measure at the return from captivity - but there was also a transcending heavenly, spiritual, Christ-centred, gospel-shaped, new-creation, eternal reality prefigured by all of that, which has now been fulfilled as intended, in Jesus, in two phases: kingdom now/not yet.

Jesus, John, Paul and Peter each spoke of the temple and/or river in a Christ-centred, gospel-shaped, body-of Christ/Church way, and both made the statement that a physical temple and pilgrimages to Jerusalem are no longer required. And Paul stated that animal-sacrifices aren't the future.

(Dispensationalism insists on two future temples, and animal sacrifices, but inconsistently to their own hermeneutic claim that it will be for a memorial not for sin as Ezekiel had foreseen.)

Debunking:

Okay, finally someone explains what this is. So thus I will debunk it from a position of Dispensationalism.

1. "While Dispensationalism sees a discontinuity between the gospel and Israel's hope"

The discontinuity is not from the gospels, but PAULINE EPISTLES. Romans 11 talks about Israel as a separate entity.

The idea of already/not yet is not unique to inaugurated eschatology, however, Dispensationalism determines that the “already” is a type and a shadow, and that the “not yet” is the absolute.

2. Dispensationalism does not deny there are tribulations today. It just emphasizes there is a GREAT tribulation, correct. But the Bible describes it that way as a FUTURE EVENT.

Matthew 24:21

“For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”

3. The problem with this is that Messiah CANNOT be Israel's body. Why?

Because it says Israel is the WIFE of God the Father, and the Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ, the Son.

The types conflict. That's literally saying Jesus will marry the equivalent of His mother (Revelation 12). Many types in the Bible show the Church to be Gentile, Song of Solomon Shulamite, Moses' Ethiopian wives, Joseph's Gentile wife, etc.

No one denies Jesus went to the Jews first. But He clearly states He will go to the Gentiles the same way Jonah went to Nineveh, Solomon went to the Queen of Sheba, and Elijah to Namaan - NONE of those Gentiles joined Israel. So thus, the Church.

Inaugurated Eschatology breaks the types set forth in the Bible.

4. The divisions are stated right here:

1 Corinthians 10:32

“Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:”

Abraham is the father of MANY nations. So putting everyone in Israel defeats that, plus the Church is called a separate nation from Israel by Paul in Romans

The desire to just have one people of God is against Scripture. God seeks to have unity in division, like a Trinity. God's unity does not mean abolishing division, but divisions working together.

The divisions are also important in eternity, New Jerusalem is given to the Church (Jerusalem was first Gentile before David took it over), the Earth is given to Israel as priests (Hosea), and the stars are given to the Gentile nations (Deuteronomy).

5. Sure, dispensationalists are sometimes inconsistent with the literal hermeneutic, but consistently applied, it is the only theological system to make correct prophetic predictions, such as Israel being a nation in 1945. And if you show examples, I will debunk them (or correct a previous dispensationalist who was too afraid to take it to its logical conclusion).

6. Only inconsistent mainstream dispensationalists claim it will be for a memorial. So not really a jab at dispensationalism, but inconsistent dispensationalists.

As for two temples, that was already present in the gospels. Jesus was the TEMPLE OF HIS BODY standing in front of ISRAEL's TEMPLE.

John 2:19-21

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Ghosts Are Real, Spirits of the Dead, And They're Not (Just) Devils/Demons

2020-06-13T18:46:00.001-07:00

Hot take:
Ghosts are real, as in spirits of the dead, and not (just) devils/demons.

Reasoning:

#1

First, we must dissuade the idea that earth and hell are separate and don't overlap. Why?

We know there are three heavens, sky, space, and the abode of God.

Similarly, there are three hells, sheol/hades, gehenna, tartarus.

We know the first heaven, the sky, intersects earth, so what prevents the first hell from intersecting with earth?

Nothing. We get a clue on what the first hell is, sheol, grave. GRAVE. Graves intersect with earth.

This takes care of man appointed once, the judgment. If hell intersects with earth, then the dead are in judgment.

#2

Bible commands against divination of the dead.

Why would the Bible command against something that doesn't exist, and not say that is the actual reason why not to do it?

It doesn't say divination of the dead is not allowed because it is impossible or that they don't exist. (In fact, the reasoning is the same for commands against horoscope, it says not to look at the stars because the heathen are dismayed at them, not that it doesn't exist)

Also, don't twist this as me saying we should contact ghosts or whatever. Yeah, don't.

#3

The encounter with my namesake Samuel the prophet by Saul and the witch of Endor.

Nowhere in the passage does it actually say it was impossible for Samuel to come up. The reasoning is often convoluted to try to explain away the encounter, like saying it was God who did it (God is not present in the text), or it was a devil impostor (except it gave a prophecy that came true).

#4

Jesus appearing as a resurrected in front of the disciples and them mistaking Him for a spirit, He did not say, "lol, dead spirits don't walk the earth, guys", He said, a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Why didn't' He settle it once and for all?

#5

The testimonies of atheists and other unbelievers in the deathbed. Many instances of atheists and others crying out they are in hell just before death. That is an example of intersection of hell and earth, even if just spiritual.

#6

The reports of ghosts themselves. Ghosts are often reported to be in a loop of suffering. This would make sense if they are in hell while also on earth.

This does not prevent the fact that the devils/demons can disguise themselves as ghosts, they can. But I highly doubt most reported instances are all devils/demons.

The Spirit Case: Cambridge Edition KJV vs PCE 1900 KJV (Matthew Verschuur, Bible Protector)

2020-01-11T18:46:00.004-08:00

Which edition of the KJV is correct? I checked most Cambridge edition KJV I could get my hands on, and every one has the word recommendations of Matthew Verschuur EXCEPT these following two verses.

A Standard Pure Cambridge Edition KJV:

Spirit capitalized.

And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Acts 11:28 KJV

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:8 KJV

Pure Cambridge Edition 1900 (Bible Protector/Matthew Verschuur) KJV:

Spirit now lowercase.

And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Acts 11:28 KJV

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:8 KJV

Reasoning given for the change:

http://bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90&sid=d475d5aba668e1060a2b01991c0515de

"1 John 5:6 is talking about two earthly elements, water and blood. The “Spirit” is clearly the Holy Ghost. Thus, the Holy Ghost’s witness in verse 6 about Christ, His record in Heaven in verse 7, must be understood to also link to His outworking in the heart of man (called “spirit”) in verses 8 and 9."

I have to disagree with the above reasoning.

Verse 7 is about the Persons of the Trinity acting as people. Verse 8 are all things, and does not exclude the Spirit capitalized as verse 6 is calls the Holy Spirit an "IT", a THING.

As an additional fact, Holy Ghost is never referred to as an it, only the Spirit. Holy Ghost is referred as "he".

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And IT is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1 John 5:6 KJV

Verse 9 states it is the witness of God being greater.

Acts 11, I'm not so sure of. But the PCE 1900 defender is very Pentecostal, so it must be cautioned that they may be rationalizing the text to fit their beliefs.

One possible Acts 11:28 Spirit is capitalized is that all mentions of "by" with "Spirit" in the New Testament are all capitalized, except for the following verse:

That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2 Thessalonians 2:2 KJV

This spirit seems to be a false spirit, as it troubled.

Acts 11:28 did come to pass, it says there on the verse:

"which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar."

So it was a true prophecy, unlike the troublemaking II Thess. 2 spirit.

The deity of certain words is always a main point of contention in many translation debates.

I'm not say Mr. Verschuur made his own revision, but rather, that this edition is one that fits his beliefs, and thus needs to be contested.

Edit:

I have since changed my beliefs regarding this, and I am more in favor with the lower "s" case for spirit. May or may do an updated blog post. However, some of the reasoning still stands, especially with the Pentecostal belief part.

Edit 2:

My case for the lowercase spirit relies more on the fact that the witness of men verse means these are all parts of man, water (flesh), blood (soul), and spirit. Another is understanding that lowercase spirit refers to the Son when compared to the Father and Holy Ghost. Jesus's spirit being on earth fits the verse.

https://www.purecambridgetext.com/post/2017/09/07/the-seven-spirits-of-carnal-man

" I John 5:8 is not dealing with the Holy Spirit or an inward working of God as verse 6 is in the same passage. It is not dealing with the Holy Ghost, the third person of the trinity as verse 7 is. It is discussing the personal spirit of Jesus Christ that was yielded up from an earthen vessel of flesh at the same time that that flesh yielded water and blood. When the centurion saw those things he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God", Mark 15:39. The Apostle John had just given a trinity of proofs that Jesus is the Son of God. It is proven in the inward parts of believers, Verse 6, it is proven in heavenly witness, verse 7, and it is proven by the earthly witnesses. Scrivener emasculated the whole passage.

Every time the personal spirit of Jesus Christ is referred to in the gospels it is a small "s" spirit, Mark 2:8, Mark 8:12, Luke 2:40, Luke 10:21, Luke 23:46, John 11:33, John 13:21. That is the spirit of I John 5:8 until Scrivener's lead is followed. The next proof text for the modern day correctors is the Oxford Text. Oxford is wrong in every other place it differs from the Cambridge. Look at Joshua 19:2, Nahum 3:16 or Mark 1:12. Why don't they follow Oxford's lead there?"

However, I must admit, verse 6 having "Spirit" does shake often when one reads the passage again with fresh eyes with the change in mind.

The Playground Game of Charge

2019-12-20T10:52:00.001-08:00

This is basically a rock-paper-scissors type game but with different rules and moves. We played it all the time as a child in elementary school. I'm pretty sure we invented it.

The Basic Game:

You move your fist like when you do rock-paper-scissors, and then do a move. However, the moves are different. Moves consists of Charge moves, Attack moves, and Defense moves. You also say the name of the move when doing said move. You win when an attack move "hits" an vulnerable opponent, usually Charging. Same moves usually cancel out each other. If no one wins, repeat until one wins.

Basic Moves:

Charge: Charge. Say "Charge!". Put your arms in a muscle flexing position. This gives you a charge to be able to Shoot a Fireball. You use up one Charge per Fireball, and use three Charges per Teleport. You may bank on Charges as long you can keep count of them. If both do Fireball, both cancel out.

Shield: Defense. Say "Shield!". Cross your arms in front of you like an X to block a Shot (Fireball). This renders the Shot ineffective. You do not need a Charge to use the Shield. But it is not advisable to Shield infinitely as allowing your opponent to get 3 Charges and Teleport behind you will kill you.

Shot: Attack. You must have a previous unused Charge to use Shot. Say "Shoot!". "Fireball" also works. Put your palms together and extend them out as if making a dragon breathing out a fireball from your hands. A Fireball kills someone who is in Charge. A Fireball is blocked by Shield. A Fireball does not hit someone who has Teleported behind you. This uses up your previous Charge.

Teleport: Attack. If you have 3 or more Charges, you may use Teleport. Say "Teleport!". Put your index and middle finger like a gun and put it on your forehead. Teleport kills opponents in Charge, Shield, and Shot (as it Teleports behind you). If both Teleport, nothing happens as it is canceled out. This uses up 3 Charges.

The Teleport ensures the game will not go on indefinitely unless both opponents do infinite Shields.

Optional Rules:

Three Lives or Health.

Maximum of 3 (or so) Charges.

Add more House Rules as you wish.

Optional Moves:

Shieldbreaker: Attack move that uses 2 Charges. Yell "Shieldbreaker"! Kills Shield as well as Charge, but not Teleport. You may do a sword slash move. Two Shieldbreakers cancel out. A Shieldbreaker and Fireball cancel out.

Backstab: Attack move that uses 1 Charge. Defeats only Teleport, but is vulnerable to all other Attack moves, and does not do anything to other Defense and Charge moves. Backstab cancels out Backstab.

Absorb: Defense and Charge move that uses up 3 Charges and absorbs opponent Attack move Charges. A Fireball gives 1 Charge, Teleport 3 Charges, etc. If there are no opponent Attack moves, 3 Charges are drained. (This allows an attack to the next turn).

Super Shield: Like Shield but cancels out Shieldbreaker, and uses up a Charge.

Make up new moves as you wish. Make sure they are balanced.

Why Frank Lodgson's Statement on the NASB is Valid

2019-11-24T11:52:00.002-08:00

"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"

- Frank Logsdon

Audio Recording: https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/logsdon-repudiates-nasb.html

https://www.defendproclaimthefaith.org/dr_frank_logsdon.html

Lockman Foundation Statement:

The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late 1950’s following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman’s death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered “co-founder” of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions — once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an “inspirational thought.”

Mr. Logsdon last wrote to Mr. Lockman in fall of 1973 that he was moving to Florida. Mr. Lockman replied that he was surprised and saddened by his decision to leave the area. Mr. Lockman passed away in January of 1974, and no further correspondence was exchanged between Frank Logsdon and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago.

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8 (NASB)

The assumption here is that Lodgson's statements have no validity as he was not part of the board of directors, which means he had no official capacity at all.

But as someone who is very used to not working with "official capacity", I find this statement ridiculous. A lot of times there are influencers and leaders who for some reason or another are not part of the official list of people involved, sometimes because they want no credit or other valid reasons, but sometimes with sinister agendas, yet wield massive influence, even sometimes the most influence, over a project. An unofficial or undocumented capacity does not mean no capacity at all.

Notice the Lockman Foundation does not directly contradict Lodgson's statements of interviewing translators, rather he just did not have the official capacity to hire or incur expenses.

Now, I find it interesting the statement does not say he did not write the preface, just the forward. The preface is signed "Editorial Board, The Lockman Foundation". Who wrote it then? And could have Mr. Lodgson ghost written it?

My aim at this post is not to prove Lodgson's statement true, just valid, even in light of the Lockman foundation statement. And it is valid.

Science Fiction And Fantasy "Tropes" In The Bible

2019-08-12T09:29:00.004-07:00

These are not meant to be exact identical references of the trope, though some arguably are, but rather the essence of each trope.

Advanced Ancient Precursor Race:
Pre-Flood world

Artificial Intelligence and Super AI:
Revelation 13:15
“And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.”

Singularity and Hive Mind:
Revelation 17:13
"12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast."

We could take this literally to an extent that one mind here is talking about a singular hive mind.

We know the churches are of to be of one mind:

1 Corinthians 2:16
"16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ."

Philippians 2:2

"2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind."

1Corinthians 12

"24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."

Since today our churches are not of one mind perfectly except when the Spirit intervenes, a more perfect one mindedness will come in the future.

Omega Point (Universe Singularity):
1 Corinthians 15:28
"28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

Apocalypse and Post-Apocalypse:
Revelation, duh?

Ascension to Energy Beings:
The Rapture
1 Corinthians 15
"50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

Human-Alien Hybrids:
Nephilim

Genesis 6:2-4
"2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Human-Animal Hybrids (Mermaids, Centaurs, etc.):
Genesis 6:11-12
"11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth."

Jude
"6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Implying all flesh, not just humans, were subject to angelic reproduction. And hence why Noah had to get an Ark for animals.

Insectoid Invaders (Starship Troopers, Zerg, Tyrranid):
Revelation 9:7-10
"7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months."

Metallic Megapolis:
New Jerusalem
Revelation 21

Reincarnation:
Luke 1:17
“And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

Matthew 17:12-13
“12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.”

If we are body, soul, spirit, and John the Baptist is in the spirit of Elias/Elijah, then that can be reincarnation to some degree.

Space Travel:
Obadiah 4 "Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord."

A possible reference to Apollo 11 ("The Eagle Has Landed"). And a reason why space colonization before the end is not realized by humanity, God is literally against it.

Space Empires and Space Colonization:
New Jerusalem
Revelation 21
"2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

Revelation 22
"2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

Deuteronomy 4:19 “And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.”
God has divided all the stars for each of the Gentiles nations, implying there will be a space empire.

Holy Terra:
Hosea 2:23
“And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.”
Deuteronomy 32:8 “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Israel will become a planetary priesthood.

Space War:
Revelation 12:7
"7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,"

Star Gods:

Job 38:7

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Revelation 12:4

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Supersoldiers/Superheroes:
Joel 2 (whole chapter)
"4 The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
5 Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
6 Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
7 They shall run like mighty men; they shall climb the wall like men of war; and they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks:
8 Neither shall one thrust another; they shall walk every one in his path: and when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded.
9 They shall run to and fro in the city; they shall run upon the wall, they shall climb up upon the houses; they shall enter in at the windows like a thief."

Context is Tribulation.

Revelation 19:14 "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean."

Implying that the saints of God will perform feats of superheroism at the end of time.

Teleportation:
Acts 8
"39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea."

Time Travel:
Revelation 1:10
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,"

Notice the same mode of transportation, the Spirit, is used in Acts 8 for the Teleportation trope.

UFOs and Alien Encounters:
Ezekiel 1 (whole chapter)
"16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
17 When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went."

This is one of the reasons that Christianity believes that UFOs and alien encounters are demonic in nature, as the Bible records a similar angelic encounter.

Zombies and Immortality Science Gone Wrong:
Revelation 9:6 “And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.”

Not counting resurrections as they do not fit the zombie archetype of the undead, such as Lazarus or Jesus Christ.

Wormholes:
2 Samuel 22:10-12
"10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet.
11 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind.
12 And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies."

What Comparing English Translations To Original Languages Actually Means

2019-08-12T07:16:00.001-07:00

When people say they compare English translations to original languages:
1. They still have to depend on uninspired Hebrew/Greek to English lexicons and dictionaries by someone else, and they all contradict
2. A translation is literally someone else who already has compared the original languages to its current language, like, are you sure you're knowledgeable enough than those people who already have done it?
3. In the end, comparing basically just results in your personal translation of the text

The LXX Septuagint Doesn't Exist, But The Greek Pentateuch Does

2019-08-03T10:28:00.001-07:00

A quick rundown of LXX Septuagint "evidence":

Here are all actual evidence we have of the Septuagint, in a neat timeline:
Aristobulus, assumed to be a high priest, but actually a Jewish Greek philosopher 110 BC
Philo of Alexandria 50 AD inspired by Aristobolus only says 5 books were translated
Josephus 93AD recounts the translation by Philo's words
Origen 250 AD
Eusebius 260AD apparently quotes Aristobulus, but only mentions that only 5 first books of the Bible was translated to Greek
Oldest copies we have of Letter of Aristeas in its modern form 11th-15th century AD name drops Aristobolus, and it is not clear that it mentions only 5 books, but it is a known forgery and hoax as it messes up historical events.

So what we see is while the Septuagint does not exist, the first five books of Moses probably were.

What Is Free Will According To Scripture?

2019-07-24T20:17:00.003-07:00

People seem to be confused what free will actually is.

People also claim that "free will" does not appear in scripture. But "free" and "will" do appear in the same verse, and also "freewill".

So using those verses, we will construct what free will actually is.

1. Free will is a choice, but not an ability.
Romans 9:16
16 So then it is not of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Here, we see a verse making a difference between "willing" something and "running" something.
What Calvinists ignore in this passage is that it doesn't say man doesn't have will (We'll get into compatiblist, that is, limited, free will in a bit, and why that does not exist). It does say man has a will, it just that God trumps whatever the will does.

Point is, people thing that free will means "unlimited ability to execute unlimited choices", when it just means "unlimited choices". Free will is not omnipotence.
So what's the difference? Choosing something does not guarantee you getting what you chose. It depends on your ability to get what you chose, or someone else putting forth their ability.

2. Free will is a desire separate from the action.
Revelation 22:17
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever WILL, let him take the water of life FREELY.
Notice that the will is separate from the action. Willing came before taking.

3. Free will is planning, but not the execution.
James 4
13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we WILL go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord WILL, we shall live, and do this, or that.
Planning is free will, the execution and result's are God's. But it cannot be denied that free will came first before God corrects.

4. Free will is of the mouth.
Psalm 119:108
108 Accept, I beseech thee, the FREEWILL offerings of my MOUTH, O Lord, and teach me thy judgments.
Romans 10:10
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

So what does that mean?
1. When people confuse free will with unlimited ability, and we get things like, "Well, did Lazarus raise himself from the dead? (an ability) So why do you believe you have free will to choose salvation, huehuehuehue? (a choice)".

2. A good rule of thumb based on the prior verses above is, if the mouth (as in voice, not the teeth and all that) can do it, free will can do it. If a mouth can't do it, free will can't do it.
For example, as it states above, by the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. So, a mouth can confess, free will can confess. A mouth can put forth plans. A mouth can make a choice ("Would you like fries with that?", "Yes"). A mouth can put forth desires.
So using the Calvinist strawman above, Lazarus did not raise himself from the dead. He believed in Jesus, a mental act free will can do. Or in salvation, asking Jesus Christ to save you is an act of free will, as, the mouth can do that. Lazarus asking is not the same as raising himself from the dead.
But Calvinists think that someone asking God to save them is equal to someone raising himself from death and taking salvation from force.

3. Now what about compatiblists, ie, man does have free will, but it's limited and can't choose God?
There are no verses that state the will of man is sinful. The heart of man is sinful, the flesh of man is sin is sinful, but nowhere does it state that the will itself is sinful. And nowhere does it state that the will is a slave of heart and flesh. This is just a Calvinist presupposition.
Now, does the heart and flesh have influence on the will? Probably.
But there's more to it than that. The Calvinist assumes that belief in God is an inherently righteous thing, which it is not.

James 2:19
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

So if belief in God is not inherently righteous, then it is under free will. In fact, God honors belief as righteousness only in specific circumstances afterwards, not before.

Galatians 3:6
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

It being counted means it isn't inherently righteous, God had to make it righteous after the act.
Why? Because faith is not works. Righteous acts are works. Faith is not a righteous act until God counts it as such. Which is why the devils' faith does not save them (on top of them not believing Jesus is the Son in the flesh 1 John 4:1-2). if faith is righteous, it makes it a work and thus not anymore grace through faith.

So if free will is simply a choice and not an ability
If faith is neutral, mental act and not a righteous work
Then free will has the power to choose God.

Romans 1 and Anderson's Reprobate Doctrine

2019-07-19T18:45:00.001-07:00

Regarding "reprobate" doctrine of Steven Anderson. Specifically Romans 1.

Ever notice that the context of Romans 1 is not unsaved people, but saved people?

How? It says they that know God are the ones that are reprobated.

Romans 1
21 Because that, when THEY KNEW GOD, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that THEY MIGHT KNOW thee the only true GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

It says here they are covenantbreakers:

Roman's 1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Proverbs 2:16-17
16 To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words;
17 Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the COVENANT OF HER GOD.

But the clincher here is in the next chapter:

Romans 2
1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Paul literally says you, whoever was reading, as a saved person, are guilty of the same things.

Reprobation has more to do with the saved rejecting God, than the unsaved rejecting God.

1 Corinthians 5:5
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Ideas of Perfection and Originals in the Bible

2018-12-11T07:22:00.000-08:00

Some very high level concepts and observations.

Perfection in the Bible:

In heaven, it is instant. (God Himself, the only Perfect One)

In earth, it is a process. (seven day Creation and Jesus having to grow up instead of being instantly grown)

Originals in the Bible:

In heaven, it is perfect. (God Himself, the only Original One)

In earth, since perfection is a process, only the things after the original can be perfect, and the original is more of a blank slate. Innocence of an original is not perfection. (Adam vs Second Adam, or Bondwoman of the Law vs Freewoman of Grace in Galatians)

The heavenly vs earthly contrast can also be seen as Greek/Western ideas versus Hebrew/Eastern ideas, but both are true, just different in operation depending on location.

Tithing In The New Testament

2018-04-17T18:55:00.000-07:00

When people say tithing is not in the New Testament:

The Storehouse of the Church:
I Corinthians 16:2
Upon the FIRST DAY (Sunday) of the week let every one of you lay by him in STORE, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Tithes Go To The Storehouse:
Malachi 3:10
Bring ye all the TITHES into the STOREHOUSE, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Children of Abraham, a Gentile, Tithed Before the Jewish Law Was Established:
Hebrews 7
7 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Gentile Christians are Children of Abraham:
Galatians 3:7
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM.

Unity or Division: Two Opposing Ways To Interpret The Bible

2018-04-09T17:05:00.000-07:00

There are two opposing main philosophies of interpreting the Bible:

Unity

Division

Unity says that different words in the Bible that are similar are identical. This philosophy is also called Inductive Logic or Covenantalism/Covenant Theology as a system. This is favors a figurative and subjective view of the Bible.

Division says different words in the Bible that are similar are distinct. This philosophy is also called Deductive Logic or Dispensationalism as a system. This favors a literalist and objective view of the Bible.

To further understand the differences, let's look how someone using Unity or Division interprets the same passage.

Luke 1

46 And Mary said, My SOUL doth magnify the Lord,

47 And my SPIRIT hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Here we have to words: SOUL and SPIRIT, that are different but seemingly similar.

The Unity interpreter will assume since soul and spirit are doing similar things in this passage, and since both soul and spirit are both immaterial, apparently, both are identical. In other words, the Unity interpreter will combine soul and spirit into one thing and have the words as synonyms for each other.

The Division interpreter on the other hand, will be more critical. Because similar words are different are distinct, he concludes that since the Bible uses different words, no mater how similar, they are separate and distinct. And technically, magnifying and rejoicing are two different things, too. In other words, soul and spirit are separate and distinct and not the same, even though they are closely related. (We know the Division interpreter is correct here because of 1 Thess. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12)

Okay, so why is this important? Because how you read your Bible will determine what you believe. The list of the following word collections are very important theologically, whether they are distinct or not:

Soul vs Spirit

Mercy vs Grace

Israel vs Church (and related words such as Elect and Sheep)

Kingdom of God vs Kingdom of Heaven

the different Gospels (Gospel of the Kingdom, Paul's Gospel, the Eternal Gospel, etc.)

the different Baptisms (John's Baptism, Baptism of Fire, Baptism of the Spirit, etc.)

Book of Life vs Lamb's Book of Life

Things That *Sound* Like Salvation (adoption, creating a new heart, repentance, etc.)

Things That *Sound* Like A Loss of Salvation (apostasy, falling away, backsliding, etc.)

Etc.

Calvinists, for example, heavily use Unity interpretation on Romans 9 by equating Israel to the Church and then applying the whole chapter to salvation, when the words salvation and the church and related words do not even appear in the passage at all. A Division reading takes the passage at face value of it speaking about the nation of Israel. Yes, even the verses where it says there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ have a different Unity and Division interpretations (A Unity would think that passage wipes away all identity, Division only limits the identity changed as salvation identity, because, for example, the same passage also mentions neither male nor female and people who become saved do not become a third gender).

Those who believe in loss of salvation for example take everything bad in the Bible that sounds like punishment and make it mean a loss of salvation. For example, verses on backsliding is taken to meant sliding into hell by those who believe in loss of salvation. That is a Unity interpretation.

Now, a Division interpretation does not discount figurative language in the Bible. For example, when the Bible uses the words "like" or "as", to literally interpret those signal words means the figurative language is in the literal grammar.

So which is correct? Well, if it isn't obvious, it's the Division interpretation.

2 Timothy 2:15

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Hebrews 4:12

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Comprehensive KJV Only Guide

2018-04-06T20:39:00.001-07:00

This will be a long, long post. Whatever points you bring up will probably be at least alluded to in the post.
The Severity of the Why the Topic of Bible Transmission/KJV Only is Essential:
The Bible, if you are a Christian, is where we get all of our beliefs from. If you get the Bible wrong, you get most, if not all, your theology wrong. If you do not have a perfect Bible today in your hands, you cannot have a perfect belief, because faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now some may argue that isn’t a literal reading or it applies only to Revelation or whatever. It doesn’t discount the fact that the Bible at the very least holds its own words (or Revelation’s) very important, and at the most, threatens hell or an equivalent for those who add or subtract words.
We do see the same words in in Deuteronomy, and thus since it is a cross reference, it covers the whole Bible from Old to New (or at the very least, Deuteronomy and Revelation).
The point is, handling the Bible’s words is a severe thing, whatever way you look at it.
Categories of KJV Only:
First understand not every KJV Only adherent believe the exact same things about the KJV.

Preference KJV Only
The person only prefers to read the KJV for its language, prose, or some other non-important reason that has no or little bearing whether it is the Word of God or not. May feel comfortable with other versions.
Best Manuscripts KJV Only
The line of Antioch and Majority Manuscripts used throughout church history where the KJV is translated form versus the corrupt Alexandrian and Minority Manuscripts rejected by church history where most newer versions are based of. This one may be comfortable with NKJV and other Majority text derivative translations.
Best Translation KJV Only
Comparisons between the KJV and other versions are often a thing with this category. Very closely related to Best Manuscripts, and may use some Supernatural/Prophetic KJV Only arguments. Prefers the KJV as it is the best English translation and version due to the KJV translators exceptional translation skills and other humanistic considerations. They may believe however that a KJV equivalent can exist or can be achievable in otherm non-English langauges as equal to the Word of God.
Supernatural/Prophetic KJV Only
Based on the belief that God is supernaturally active in Bible transmission and translation and publishing and language spread today, and is based on prophetic readings of the Word of God about the Word of God that the KJV seems to fulfill. The KJV is the final and only perfect Word of God for today, and that excludes other language translations as well. So-called Ruckmanites, “double inspiration”, “KJV Superior” also falls in this camp but is not exclusive to them. This category seeks out to strip all humanistic reasoning of Bible transmission and replace them with Biblically-based supernatural reasoning.

Reasons why someone can be KJV Only:

Reasons for Perfection
Objective Truth versus Subjective Truth
Either there is an objective truth apart from myself or a subjective truth of myself.
Subjective truth deals with trying to judge interpretation, meanings, intentions, emotions, feeling, figurative, all personal things, when it affects me.
(For example, it is subjective when someone says this Bible passage says to me, and sees the same meaning in a different wording.)
Objective truth however deals with trying to judge ideas, words, literalness by their own merit apart from myself.
(For example, focusing on the differences of the wording because the wording is different in each version, even though they sound the same to me. Each version stands on its own in objectivity. They may mean the same in subjectivity, however, each subjectivity is different.)
An argument where the object, in this case, the Bible, is not fixed or stable, but is wholly reliant on meaning, is a subjective philosophy.
Subjective philosophy is inherently sinful, because self is inherently sinful. Any truth must be apart from selves.
Reasons for a Perfect Bible
The Bible claims to be Truth itself, along with the Son of God and the Spirit of God.

The Scripture of God is Truth

John 17:17
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

The Son of God is Truth

John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The Spirit of God is Truth

John 16:13
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

So if we have many valid Bibles, we have many truths. Right?
But as we note on other things called truth, they are exclusive.
There is one true Christ, and many false Christs

Matthew 24:24
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

There is one true Spirit, and many false spirits

1 John 4
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

And in that case,
There is one true Bible, and many false Bibles

2 Corinthians 2:17
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

This passage is speaking about the many forgeries of Paul’s and other apostle’s letters already spreading in Paul’s time. Things like Gnostic gospels and so on. They had a Bible version problem back then. It isn’t just a modern phenomenon.

Reasons for a Perfectly Worded Bible
The Bible promises objective words preserved, not subjective meanings.

Isaiah 28:10
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Matthew 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
A jot is the dot on an “i” and a tittle is the line across a “t”.

Matthew 24:35
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Nowhere in the Bible do we see the same emphasis at all at so-called “core meanings” like the Bible does with individual words.
The power of individual words are often very understated.
If you add a single word “not” in Genesis 1:1, you will reverse the whole meaning of the Bible.
Here, we see the Bible put great credence on the differences between similar words:

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
This verse is how we know that the soul and spirit are separate as a joint and marrow are distinct. Those who hold to a figurative interpretation often confuse soul and spirit as one thing.

And we see the hermeneutics principle of the Bible: division, not unity, when it comes to the Bible. In other words, words that seem the same but are different… are different more than they are the same. (For example, Israel and the Church are related, and both are people of God, but are ultimately distinct and divided from each other, not unified. Or faith, hope, love are all good traits, but are different from each other. Or grace and mercy are very similar, but are actually opposite in definition, and must not be confused as one thing.)

2 Timothy 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Why is this important? Each individual word is important in the Bible. If each objective word is important, then subjective meaning is secondary.

Reasons for a Perfectly Worded and Translated Bible
So in this case, is the original point (Perfection) broken by this? If an original needs to be translated to be perfect, then the original wasn’t perfect? The original is the objective object, right?

We look at this more below in the assumptions of perfection. The mistake of thinking that is thinking perfection is static, not dynamic. The idea of objectivity is not broken. Adaptation does not always break objectivity. Wrong adaptation does, however.
The Bible has been translated even in Hebrew and Greek times. In fact, we see Jesus quote from an Aramaic translation of Isaiah, not Hebrew Isaiah. The apostles translated Old Testament references in the Greek New Testament. So we have a basis on how to translate the Bible.

Reasons for the KJV being that Perfectly Worded and Translated Bible
Only the KJV has pure manuscripts, a Spirit power-filled history even in modernity, and it is the only Bible that fulfills prophecies about the Bible itself. I expound on why below under Basics of KJV Only, but first, let me destroy your assumptions with counter-intuition.

Addressing Assumptions:

Assumptions about God

God inspired the originals once and that’s it or in other words (Or)
God creates everything perfectly once and leaves it alone (Deistic God)
False. God does not leave even His perfect creations alone, much less the Bible.
God is not active in the Bible transmission process of inspiration, preservation, and translation (Deistic God)
Again, as noted, false. God is involved with everything, and especially the Bible transmission process.

Assumptions about Perfection and Concepts
Perfection is an instant process, which is why the originals were perfect!
False. There is more than one type of perfection. What you propose is a deistic, instant perfection which is not found in the Bible.
Static perfection versus dynamic perfection. Anything on Earth and not in Heaven needs a dynamic perfection. Perfect Adam was innocent, but not perfect, Biblically. Since the Bible came down from Heaven, it needs a dynamic perfection, not a static one.

Patience is not instant and is one of the few times we see the word “perfect” in the Bible

James 1
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

A perfect Jesus needed to grow in wisdom, and stature, and favour. He did not come down as a static perfect angel, but a dynamically perfect Son of Man that grows.

Luke 2:52
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

In that same sense, the Bible needed to “increase” to perfection, in this case seven times

Psalm 12:6
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
We cover the prophecy in this verse below.

Assumptions about Languages
Hebrew and Greek are “holy” languages! God can only work through them!
False. All languages were created by God at Babel

There were many versions of Hebrew/Greek/other Bibles like we do with English
False. Only one for each language at a time. There was one Hebrew Bible in the time of early Israel. No other competing Bibles, whether Hebrew or another language. There was one Aramaic Bible in time of the exile. No other competing Bibles whether in Aramaic or another language. There was one Greek Bible for the apostolic era, then one Syriac Bible for the era after that, then one Latin Bible for the Dark Ages (not the Roman Catholic New Vulgate, but the Old Vulgate), then one German Bible for Reformation (from Luther), then, finally, one English Bible for today.
We also see that the main Bible of an era is always in the main language of the people of God in that era. Since the Gentile Church is the major force of the people of God today, it is English (along with other reasons).

Assumptions about Originals and Bible Transmission
The originals are the originals
False. The true originals reside in heaven forever. Since the ones on Earth are thus earthly originals, they have to go through a purification process.

Psalm 119:89
89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.

Only the originals given to the Bible writers are/could be perfect
They were perfect, but only for their time. They were incomplete as time went on.
Only the originals were inspired (Or)
Inspiration is a static, one-time thing!
False. Scripture is given by inspiration, and scripture by definition means copies (script-, writing -ture, repeated), not originals. We know it is speaking about copies because the same word are used to talk about the manuscripts of the Old Testament that Paul had, which are definitely copies, not original autographs.
Inspiration only happens with Bibles
Humanity, too, is inspired the same way. Adam the original human was inspired by God the same way He inspired the originals. The Bible uses the same word of inspiration and breathing for both instances.
Thus with that, we can make direct analogies from humanity’s transmission to the line of Bible transmission.

Assumptions about Manuscripts
The older a manuscript is, the better and more accurate, right?
False. The more numerous a manuscript is, the better. because God is involved in the Bible transmission, it follows that the majority of the Bibles the Church uses in its history would be correctly preserved. The fact we have older manuscripts that differ from the majority means those were reject copies, rejected by the Church at large in history. This is the same reasoning why we don’t accept the extra gospels to the canon is because they weren’t accepted by the church at large.

Also, rejected older manuscripts can only be found if they are preserved, which means they weren’t used at all. The ones the church actually uses, broke down, of course, and so new copies had to be made. This is why we have so many copies of the Majority Text but so little of the Minority Text: the church trusted it, and so they made more copies of it, and the older copies wore out quick, which is why we don’t see older Majority manuscripts.

Assumptions about Translations
Translations can never be holy or supernatural! ( Or We never see translation in the Bible!)
False. Translation is in the Bible, both the spiritual act, essence, and process.
First, we see God translating Enoch. And as I note, humanity is inspired the same way as Bibles were inspired and took the same supernatural act, thus we can note that this translation also applies to correct Bible translation.

Second, we see in the Gospels Jesus reading an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Isaiah, not the Hebrew Isaiah. Hence we know translation of the original can be valid.
Third, we see how the apostles translated Old Testament passages to New Testament references. For example, we see how the apostles translated the Isaiah passage Jesus quotes from to the Greek New Testament. This process is very close to how the KJV translators translated to English and is very different from the scholarly translation process we see today.
Translation is a human/secular/scholarly thing apart from Bible transmission!
False. As noted, Inspiration and Translation are both parts of the same human transmission, and hence there is no reason to conclude translation is apart from divine Bible transmission
Translations were never done in Bible times
Look above for the answer.
Translations can never be better than the originals
False. As I have shown, Enoch the translated is superior to Adam the original.

Assumptions about Word-to-Word Equivalency and Accuracy
This Bible version has a better word-to-word equivalency rating than the KJV!
This is often said about comparing ESV, NASB, etc. to the KJV. However, the basis of the accusation is faulty at best.

The root assumption of a better word-to-word equivalency comes from uninspired Hebrew and Greek to English lexicons. No, dictionaries are not inspired, but the Bible is.
Also, another assumption is that word-to-word equivalency is a valid standard. It isn’t. We see how the Bible translates Old Testament passages it references in the New Testament. For example, the Hebrew Tetragrammatron, God’s name spelled out, is translated by the apostles into Greek Kyrios, which just means Lord. And you can technically spell it out in Greek, but the apostles in inspiration of the Holy Spirit “reduces” it to mere Kyrios.

Assumptions concerning Updates and Relevancy

Covered more under Archaic Words in the Bible below.
Basics of KJV Only:

Manuscript Evidence

The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, the Minority Manuscripts, often said as older, were found in the equivalent of church trash cans and with recent research considered possible forgeries

Translation Evidence
It is no secret the exceptional pedigree of the King James translators. Their work was double checked and triple checked and debated in different languages.

Their translator’s methodology is also very transparent, documented in the Preface and elsewhere. Often, they are accused of Anglicanism, or colluding with the king, but we have their documents to show what they were thinking in translating whichever word or not. In character and spiritual matters, too, they were off the charts. Modern translator methodology however is very centralized, usually with an editor-in-chief.
We also see the King James translators consistently translate the Bible how the apostles themselves translated Old Testament passages references to the New Testament, and took that methodology and applied it to English.

Historical Evidence
We see the KJV behind both of the nationwide Revivals (such as the Welsh revival), Great Awakenings, the Missionary Movements, which is considered the Philadelphia Church Age. We see the founding of the first “Christian” nation, America and its subsequent rise to superpower. (while the term “Christian nation” is controversial, compared to other governments’ founding documents and such, it definitely is, and that’s all that matters, and besides, all mentions of “Christian” in the Bible talks about outward appearance, not salvation). No other version can boast of being part of those movements in any significant manner.
Prophetic Evidence
Only the KJV can fulfill Psalms 12:6

Psalm 12:6
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
English is the seventh language the Bible was translated in.
The King James is the seventh English translation.
The 7th edition of the KJV is the world’s best selling book. Yes, this includes all other Bibles and KJV editions.

Isaiah canon of 66 explained below in Miscellany.
Jeremiah prophecy of an evil king creating a perfect Bible explained below in Miscellany.

Versions Comparison Evidence
Perhaps the most common evidence. This includes comparing the KJV with the NIV, ESV, etc. where the modern versions remove key words, phrases, and entire verses. Or sub in a fotnote that casts doubt upon truth such as “this chapter is not present in the oldest manuscript” blahblah.

There is no space for that, Google is your friend for comparisons.

Modern Evidence
English as the fastest growing international Gentile language
The KJV is the best selling book and Bible of all time
The 7th edition of the KJV is the best selling book of all time
The KJV is also the one read most by Christians

The great success of the KJV means it does have fruit.

Acts 5
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Even in the flood of modern versions we have today, the KJV reigns supreme. Compared to KJV’s 85% superiority, the closest we see is NIV at 11%.
Miscellany:
Evil King creates a Perfect Bible in the Bible
How about the person of King James (or Anglicanism or something)?
Accusation of the influence of the king on translation is overblown.
But more importantly, we see in the Bible that God creates a perfect rendition of Jeremiah’s books along with other books of the Bible under an evil king’s command in Jeremiah 30. To accuse King James of being evil is actually fulfilling Bible prophecy and pattern.
Archaic Words in the Bible
Should archaic words be updated to synonyms?
The Bible actually does speak about archaic words.

I Samuel 9
9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was.
11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?

Here we see the Bible acknowledging that seer is an archaic word in comparison to the word prophet. Yet in the next passage, it continues to use seer instead of prophet. Just simply put, an archaic synonym of a word is still preferred if it is more accurate.
Since the Bible is our guide, we should follow
The Bible Canon (66) in the Bible
Did we get the canon through historical or scholarly or otherwise humanistic reasons? Yes, they were trusted by the churches and whatnot.
However, supernaturally, the current 66 book canon (and the 39 and 27 Testament division) we have is largely based on Isaiah’s 66 chapters which is also divided into 39 and 27. Each chapter of Isaiah corresponds to a book by theme in order. Coincidence? If one believes in the hand of God, no.
Before anyone says that chapters do not show up in original manuscripts, they actually do in Isaiah, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah Aleph having the same 66 and 39/27 divisions we have today.
Verses and Chapters in the Bible
The claim is made that chapters and verses do not appear in originals manuscript, and that makes them a bad thing.
However, chapters do appear in older manuscripts for some books. As I already said, Isaiah does. Psalms does, too, you can see the divisions.
However, chapters and verses are actually improvements. It makes it easier to find passages. And since Jesus was often quoting passages by themselves, having a divided Bible is not wrong (and as I show, the Bible says to divide it, not unify it)
Lack of copyright of the KJV
The King James Bible lack a copyright. A copyright on a Bible signifies someone else other than God owns that version. A copyright also signifies that it must be at least 30% different from any other material for it to be legally sold. So whenever a new version comes out, it must be 30% different from the NIV, the ESV, etc. for it to be legal. And as I note, since the Bible places a huge importance on words, a 30% is way over threshold for it to be safe.
Why KJV Onlyists are often/usually Young Creationist, Dispensational, Fundamentalist, Baptist, etc. (Not all the time, but enough to warrant a point)? Since we take the Word of God literally when it says “every word”, as in every literal word, we tend to beliefs that depend on literal interpretations. Young Creationist comes from interpreting Genesis 1 literally, for example. Dispensationalist comes from interpreting Israel and Church as totally separate entities. Things like that.
Having multiple versions destroys literalist beliefs based on objectivity of the Bible. Which is why most who do not hold the above beliefs often will not have a KJV.
Conclusion:
This is a massive evidence dump. Yes, you can probably nitpick some of the “weaker” points (really only mostly I haven’t developed them here for lack of time and space), but taken as a whole, no version of the Bible can claim all the evidences at once.
For example, you can bring up other Bibles without a copyright. Or other Bibles translated from the Majority Text. Fine and all. But no other copyright-less or Majority Text Bibles have the same history and prophetic and power and spread. Thus all the evidences must be taken holistically as a whole, not just one or two things.
If you are intent in holding on your Bible version, it doesn’t matter anyways, as I don’t really aim to change your mind. My only aim is that we do have a comprehensive case, and that this doctrines about Bible transmission and translations, are essential.
FAQ:
What about the Apocrypha in the early copies of the KJV? Why do you have an uninspired map in the back of your Bible? I guarantee you that map mistakes where Mt. Sinai truly is. The Apocrypha was never considered to be part of the Bible proper. It is the same as a map in the back of your Bible, useful for history and reference. The translators noted as such, and since I believe in a purification ideology, it being removed is further evidence of purification.
So people who do not use the KJV are unsaved? No, that’s a strawman. Usage of Bible versions have nothing to do if someone is unsaved or not. All Bible versions have enough salvation information in them for salvation’s sake. But also does a gospel tract. At any rate, salvation passages alone do not make a perfect Bible.
If you are talking about the Revelation 22 passage, we have ample evidence the passage is talking about the actual Bible translators and scribes who do intend to remove or add words to the Bible. The book of life, which is for physical life, is not the Lamb’s book of life, which is for salvation.
How about people in the past (Adam, Jesus, Paul, etc.), did they have a perfect Bible?
Yes and no. This goes back to the dynamic perfection part. The Bible they had back then was perfect for their time. But not today’s time. Why? Well, the Jews had the Old Testament, but lacked the New Testament. That makes the Bible they had back then incomplete. But it was perfect for their time. Even in the New Testament, the epistles have not been gathered into one place, making the Bible splintered. We now have the full 66 book canon in our hands in our own language.
As I put in the question, why didn’t God give Adam a whole Bible? This problem still plagues those who believe the originals are the only true Bibles. If the originals are the only true Bibles, then the true Bible was only available back then. Not before they were given, not way after they were given. So in this KJV Onlyism beats the originals philosophy.
How about people who do not have English as their language? Can they have a perfect Bible in their own language?
( Or What makes English special?)
As a holder of the supernatural and prophetic KJV Only category: Accurate, yes. Perfect? No. English seems poised to dominate all languages. Yes, the Chinese language may be spoken by more people numerically, but English is spoken by more nations, if not all nations. English is taught in virtually all countries actively while as many as 2000 languages die each year.
This is a speculation, but since modern statistics do support it: In conjunction to having the perfect Word of God in English, English will become the language of the End Times to reflect the fulness of the Gentiles when Christ raptures the Gentile Church and the Antichrist comes.
This word in the KJV is better rendered as this other word in this other Bible translation, etc. The root assumption here is that the Hebrew or Greek Interlinear Lexicon or Dictionary you use to prove this is inspired. Which they are not, and cannot be inspired. With translations, it is possible they or at least one is inspired.
Also, most so-called word problems are easily solved by context reading, careful literal reading, and/or cross referencing. For example, Easter in the KJV is correct instead of Passover because it is in the context of a pagan king’s festival, the feast of unleavened bread, which the Passover is, already passed, when one reads the passage in question. Virtually all word rendition problems are solved that way.
What about different KJV editions? There are differing reasons about the editions. The first reason is the reason by comparison: changes between KJV editions is minor, spelling and punctuation most of the time, and whole words some of the time. Differing editions would be at least 10x smaller scale changes compared to modern revisions.
The second reason is what I tend to believe, and that the editions are part of the purification process. The editions were perfect for their time. But the final one, which is the most prominent and best selling book of all time (yes, that specific edition) is the perfect Word of God we have today.
Despite all this, I will stick with my version. What’s the worse that can happen? Well, you won’t lose your salvation if you’re not KJV Only, as I note. However, it does bear noting what errant philosophies you may hold in regards to the Bible, God, and whatnot. First, the erring philosophy of subjectivity, which means you will hold passages that are literal to be not literal. Second, an assumption that God may be deistic (at least in Bible transmission). Thirdly, you will not have a perfect belief.

Romans 10:17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Some other question not in this post? I’ll update this thread as needed.

Considerations in Designing Side Scrolling/Platform Strategy Games

2018-02-22T11:14:00.002-08:00

The hybrid of a side scrolling strategy or platform strategy game is rare, but not unheard of. Worms is probably the most popular turn-based example. Awesomenauts is a popular 2D sidescroller MOBA. Here are some considerations in designing a hybrid of both sidescrolling/platforming and strategy.

Sidescrolling Consideration:
Y-Axis: Movement and positioning in the Y-Axis. Top down and other games have an equal positioning advantage as the X-Axis, but in sidescrollers, the Y-Axis is special.

A game that does not or does little to utilize the Y-Axis most of the time eventually becomes boring unless by design that is prevented with other considerations such as spacing and formation.

Terrain: Related to the Y-Axis, however, has to do with if terrain affects the sidescrolling gameplay. terrain can be platforms or flat or destructible (like Worms) or a combination. Terrain also may offer gameplay advantages, especially with gravity enabled.
Gravity: Also related to the Y-Axis. If gravity has an effect, then it will affect movement in the Y-Axis.
Spacing: Spacing refers to the fact whether or not objects can overlap with each other or displace each other or a combination (allies can overlap but enemies can't, for example)

Platforming Considerations:
There's not much difference in considerations with sidescrollers, however, platformers have a more focused with physics, so things like gravity is a given with a platformer.

Platforms: The consideration is not about the actual platforms themselves, but the mechanics of the platforms. Platforms here are more in line with dynamic terrain, such as moving platforms, spikes, and the like.
Physics: Just simple or more complicated ragdoll physics? More complicated physics may lead to unpredictability.
Jumping and other Movement Mechanics: Platformers have mechanics such as jumping, dashing, walljumps, crouching, climbing, and other acrobatics.

Strategy Considerations:
Formation: Will a formation of units be more effective or will a doomstack of units be more effective? For example, having archers in the back while having spearmen in the front and has to do with Spacing.
Positioning and Cover: Y-Axis and Terrain placements (ie having archers on higher ground) and also has to do with Gravity and Spacing.Will terrain prevent weapons from hitting?
Timing: Will timing be necessary for any of the strategy?
Pathfinding: Since strategy is about sending units with orders usually, how to handle pathfinding over weird platforms or terrain.
Construction: Will structures be constructed and how to aid a strategic effort? Will they be on terrain or platforms?
Time: Will it be real time or turn based?

True Bible Reasons Why Church Is On Sunday Not Saturday

2018-01-27T12:03:00.002-08:00

We go to church on Sunday, but the Jews held Sabbath on the last day. Why?

Often, people will use verses on Jesus being resurrected on the first day, or that the observance of Sabbath and days must be fully convinced in his own mind, but a deeper study of those actually either is incomplete or misguided.

And that is not even to say that the Jews didn't use the solar Gregorian calendar, but the Hebrew calendar which is based on the lunar cycle. Which means the last day of the week in the Hebrew calendar is not always Saturday, but could be Wednesday then Thursday the next month. At least according to Google.

The Sabbath. Is it on Saturday or Sunday?

People miss the point. It isn't about the Sabbath. Going to church isn't the Sabbath. They are two totally different things.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Sunday or the first day of the week has replaced the Sabbath, but that doesn't mean people are wrong in gathering to worship on the first day

But where does it say we are to meet in church for the Sabbath? Nowhere, either. The Sabbath is to be holy, yes, but people make a logical leap and assumption that means "go to church".

In fact, the first day and last day are both important and holy in the Bible. They are both important today, as well. Those days are when schools are off, and many, if not most, jobs are off.

So before I lose you with this reasoning seemingly without a point, I will make this assertion so you know where I stand: Saturday is still the Sabbath and a day of rest, however, Sunday is the day of assembly primarily for New Testament believers.

Notice I didn't say worship. We must worship God every day.

Let me substantiate this claim Biblically.

What is the Sabbath?

Exodus 20:8-11
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Where in these passages say that we are to gather together and worship on the Sabbath? Nowhere. To keep it holy, yes, but do not make the assumption and logic leap that "keeping it holy" is equal to "going to church". It may mean that, but not necessarily.

What it does say is that the Sabbath is mainly for rest, and it is in the seventh day.

Schools and many jobs have Saturdays off. It is already considered a day of rest.

So:
Sabbath = last/seventh day of the week
Sabbath = rest
Saturday = off day from school and/or work
rest = off day from school and/or work
Saturday = last/seventh day of the week
Sabbath = Saturday

But what about keep holy, then, if it doesn't mean go to church? Keeping it holy means keeping it apart as its own day. The word holy means "sanctified, or set apart". The passages explain it, six days man shall labor, and on the seventh, man will rest, making it a special day apart. It doesn't mean go to church.

Now, we have established that the Sabbath is the last day and is about rest. What about the first day?

The First Days In The Bible

The first mention we have of the first day is in Genesis 1, like we do about the last day. God uses the Creation week as the reason why the last day is the Sabbath. Without getting too convoluted, I would surmise it is obvious why the first day is on the surface important in the Creation week, for it being the beginning. It is also important because Jesus rose again on the first day. But that is just the shallow end of reasoning if we want to prove why we assemble on the first day and hence why we will just pass over those reasons, no pun intended.

We know in Acts that the disciples gathered on the first day.

Acts 20:7
7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Here we see clearly that the disciples came together on the first day.

Notice the phrase break bread. I believe this is referring to the communion (for obvious reasons). This will be important later on.

We also use this verse to justify all day meetings and also Sunday evening services, even if we don't always go till midnight.

Now, where does it say the first day replaced the Sabbath? Nowhere. Where does it say that the disciples gathering together means Sabbath? Nowhere. Where does it say preaching only happens in the Sabbath? Nowhere.

Now certain people would do some mental gymnastics and claim that since in Jewish time, days began in sunset or nightfall or whatever, and thus it was technically the last day, not the first day.

Which makes no sense because if they considered the first day as that time, it was the first day, and the day before the last day.

1 Corinthians 16:2
2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Here we see a command to the church to lay in store on the first day of the week. We understand this to be tithes and offerings. Where do we see it commanded that we are to collect offerings on the Sabbath?

Even in the Old Testament do we even find the first day holy for worship in some contexts.

Nehemiah 8:2
And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

Nehemiah 8:18
Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.

These passages show it isn't out of the ordinary to hold services on the first day or any other day of the week, even if it went from first to last day. Notice, too, on the eighth day, which is the first day repeating again, a solemn assembly was held.

Exodus 12:16-17

16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

This is in the context of the Passover. So why is it relevant to the debate?

Jesus told us to observe the communion as oft as we will:

1 Corinthians 11:24-25
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Remember breaking bread when the disciples were gathered together in Acts? They were observing the communion.

The communion is our equivalent Passover as Christ fulfilled the Passover. We have unleavened bread to remember Christ our Lord, hence we need to observe it on the first day as does the feast of Unleavened Bread, not the last day.

Notice it doesn't say that the Passover observance on the first day replaces the Sabbath last day, doesn't it?

Lastly, we are to assemble as much as we see the day approaching:

Hebrews 10:25
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Now whether one chooses to assemble Saturday or Sunday or any other day of the week, we should assemble. And there's no Biblical law against assembling on Sunday. We should assemble more, in any day, not less. We have the liberty to.

So:
First day = Passover
Passover = communion
First day = disciples gathered + preaching
Disciples gathered = communion/Passover
First day = store tithes and offerings
Disciples gathered = assembling
Assembling + preaching + store tithes and offerings = go to church
Sunday = first day
Sunday = go to church

In Conclusion

We assemble with the church to worship God on Sunday
NOT because it is the Sabbath
NOT because it replaced the Sabbath
BUT
BECAUSE the disciples did so
BECAUSE it is commanded to store our tithes and offerings on the first day
BECAUSE the first day is still important even though it isn't the Sabbath
BECAUSE we are to observe communion as oft as we will, which is connected to the Passover, which happens in the first day of the week
BECAUSE we are to assemble any time as the day comes
HENCE
We may observe BOTH the last day of rest of Saturday and first day of assembly of Sunday.

Two weekend days sound nice, don't you think?

Counter-Intuition: Assumptions About Bible Translations That Are Just Isn't So

2018-01-17T08:34:00.000-08:00

Assumption: Bibles are the same if they have the same meaning
Root assumption: Specific words are unimportant as long they get the meaning across
Counter: The Bible says God preserved the words, not meaning or ideas
Counter: Changing just one word in any text can drastically even completely reverse the meaning of said text. (Adding a "not" in Genesis 1:1 will completely destroy the meaning of the whole Bible)

Assumption: Only original languages are holy
Root assumption: God made the original languages only
Counter: God made all languages at the Tower of Babel

Assumption: Bible translations can never be inspired, inerrant, preserved, etc.
Root assumption: Bible translations are removed from the divine process
Counter: The Bible's original languages already has been translated en route. The Bible in Jesus' day was a translation of Aramaic, not the Hebrew. The New Testament uses Greek translated Old Testament references. All of these translations were inspired.

Assumption: Jesus/Paul/etc. didn't use the KJV/a translation
Root assumption: There was no translation before the Bible was completed
Counter: Jesus read from an Aramaic translation (of Isaiah) of the Hebrew Bible in the Gospels. We also see the apostles mention Aramaic words in OT quotes, not Hebrew.
Counter: So if Jesus used a translation, He doesn't need to use the KJV, point is, translations were used.

Assumption: There is no proper way to translate the Bible so scholars have to do so
Root assumption: Bible translations has never been done in Bible times.
Counter: Bible translation has been done in Bible times, and we can pattern the our Bible translation after them. For example, we know how the apostles translated the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament references to Greek in the New Testament

Assumption: Bible translations can never be better than the original
Root assumption: Originals are always better
Root assumption: Translations are never mentioned in the Bible
Counter: Adam the original and Enoch the translated. The Bible uses the same words for inspiration of humanity as the same inspiration for the Word of God and hence we can make the leap that the translation of Enoch is in the same vein as inspiration and translation for text.

Assumption: Only the originals are perfect
Root assumption: The originals were perfect
Counter: The originals were not perfect, or rather, they were perfect for their time and time only.
Counter: God destroys the original writings in Jeremiah, and many like words were added.
Counter: The Bible says that patience has her perfect work. Nowhere do we see anything in the Bible instantly completely perfect (perfect as in both in form and maturity) without a time period of testing, trial, and purification. Jesus was born a baby, and had to grow in favor with God and man first, before going into ministry.

Assumption: No Bible translation can be the perfect Word of God because that means people before its translation didn't have the perfect Word of God
Root assumption: There can't be a progression because it is monolithic
Counter: There is a progression. God didn't give the whole original Bible at once, either. Revelation didn't come with Genesis. The Old Testament books were enough for the Jews for their time. The New Testament was added because it was enough for the Church for their time. It was collected all in one even long after he apostles' death in one place.
Root assumption: If there was no perfect Word of God back then, then the Bibles they had back then didn't do much
Counter: The Bibles they had were enough for them in their time period for what God wanted it to do
Counter: Jesus the perfect Word didn't come until many thousands of years later. Why didn't He come earlier to save?

Assumption: Bible translation beyond the original languages reduces the meaning of the originals
Root assumption: Reducing meaning is bad
Counter: Reducing meaning is good as it makes the language more specific.
Counter: (see below)

Assumption: Bible translations need to have word-for-word equivalency
Root assumption: Languages have only one word-to-word equivalency
Counter: They don't. However, translating always niches down to the correct specific word needed to be used. For example, we see the apostles translate Hebrew to Greek in more specific, specialized words or to more generic words but with less synonyms. For example, Hebrew Elohim can refer to God, gods, kings, angels, judges. Greek translates some to God, some to others, according to context. Hence translations should niche down to specific wording, instead of wider meaning.

Assumption: Bible translations lose the force of the original languages
Root assumption: The force of the original languages is necessary (Contradicting the updated relevancy assumption)
Counter: Bible translations need the full force of the translated language, not the original language.

Assumption: Bible translations need to be relevant and updated to the modern speaker
Root assumption: Bible translations need to be updated for relevancy, not accuracy
Counter: The Bible in fact acknowledges archaic language even in light of modern words in I Samuel (seer versus prophet, where the book says prophet is the modern word, but continues to use archaic seer). There are times when archaic words are more accurate than modern words.
Counter: The main Bible versions have always been translated into the earliest, most basic form of languages. For example, early form Hebrew for OT, early form Aramaic for Daniel and translation, and koine Greek for New Testament, a Greek 400 years older from the apostles' time. And in that same vein, the English of 1611 is a language 400 years removed from us today, and even earlier.

Assumption: There can be more than one Bible version in any language and it still be the Word of God
Root assumption: There were multiple versions of other languages accepted as God's Word
Counter: There is only one version of Hebrew accepted. There is only one version of Aramaic translation of that Hebrew accepted. There is only one version of Greek translation of that Hebrew and Aramaic accepted. Hence it follows that there can only be one version for one language.

InDev: Conveyor RTS

2018-01-09T21:43:00.000-08:00

Conveyor RTS is an RTS based on Command and Conquer 4 Crawler system + Factorio style construction/crafting + Warrior Kings faction system + Warzone open world. Resources are limited and players must always be on the move.

Did Jesus Burn In Hell for 3 Days and 3 Nights?

2017-11-10T07:49:00.000-08:00

Q: Did Jesus burn in Hell for 3 days and 3 nights?

A: Jesus descended into Paradise in Hell, but did not burn in Hell.

Psalms 16:10
Old Testament saints' souls went down after death, not up.
No contradiction to Ecclesiastes 3:21 as spirits, not soul, go up.
Acts 2:27 applies this to the death of Christ.

Luke 16:19-31
Story of rich man, and Lazarus
Abraham's bosom/Paradise of the Old Testament saints, fiery hell was across it in a gulf and thus separate, but both hell + paradise as one were considered hell.
Ephesians 4:8-10
Jesus descending, but never says He went to the part that was burning.
The captives here are the Old Testament saints.

Luke 23:43
Jesus says to the thief he will be with Him in Paradise.
This is not heaven because He did not ascend to the Father yet according to John 20:17, hence this means He descended to Paradise next to hell.

I Peter 3:18-20

What Jesus did underneath the Earth along with taking captivity captive is preaching to the spirits in prison who were disobedient before the Flood.

2 Corinthians 12:4 + Revelation 2:7 Paradise from below now transported to Heaven above then New Jerusalem of Heaven transported to the Earth

Problems With Video Game Sequels (The Dawn of War Trilemma)

2017-10-20T16:42:00.002-07:00

So often, we play an original video game and expect a sequel. And we expect that sequel to live up to our expectations. Unfortunately, while sequels are often better on paper, with better graphics or technology or added gameplay mechanics or a storyline, our expectations are often shattered.

Gamers have a feeling of gameplay that is very unique for each game. A balancing, if you will. There's a rhythm to a game. A high then a low, a push and a pull.

Unfortunately, game feel, as vague as it is, is a very important, if not the most important thing to a player. Violate that with a sequel, you as a game designer will be the subject of ridicule. A player buys a game for more of the same thing.

If you violate a player's balancing and rhythm, you will pay.

He will not listen to your cries of innovation or your logical reasons for such-and-such addition. He will go to Steam, to the reviews, to the internet and attack.

Game feel is so important that many games market themselves as recapturing the game feel of a previous game. Many indie RTSes since Command and Conquer's downfall market themselves as having Comand and Conquer gameplay. Critics of the recent spate of "Dark Souls of..." game reviews are missing the point. A game feel of Dark Souls was subjectively captured by a reviewer who played... say.. Cuphead, for instance. Ignore the difference of genres and graphics and sound and whatnot. It's the feeling that's important, and Cuphead delivered on the boss pattern studying feeling of Dark Souls. At least to some people.

Speaking of Command and Conquer, its fourth installment greatly violated their audience's game feel expectations. Now it is dead. Even if justified by lore, even if it works as a standalone strategy game, it just doesn't work as a game in the series. It should have gone to the way of its Free-To-Play C&C online game Tiberium Alliances and should have been its own thing, rather than the 4th installment. It would be received better, or if not, as least it would have not tanked the franchise as much. (No pun intended)

Dawn of War is in a unique position where all titles in the series have very different gameplay from each other. The first one was the most traditional RTS of the three, having base building. The second one focused on more micromanaged units, squads, and tactics system that removed base building. The recent third is being accused of having too much MOBA elements. Each has a very distinct feeling to them.

A solution I propose is if a company wants to make games set in the same universe as the original game with whole new gameplay is not include the game in a numbering sequence and have the main series name as the subtitle. For example, Red Alert is technically part of the Command and Conquer series, but Red Alert is the main and standalone title. A more obvious example is The Bureau: XCOM Declassified. Fans hated when the FPS was just called XCOM, but now it has a more positive welcome when the name was changed to The Bureau as shown by positive Steam reviews.

Sequels that are well received are often "remasters" and minor improvements of the same game. Not remasters in the traditional sense, but rather, having the same exact game, just with better graphics, audio, more story, and more maps. No gameplay features are subtracted or added. The Call of Duty series is a great example of this: the more futuristic its sequels were, the more it was derided. Gamers wanted a "boots on the ground" experience. The "boots on the ground" was a game feel that couldn't be violated. Infinite Warfare shattered that game feel, ultimately. World At War, Modern Warfare, and Black Ops didn't stray too far from the original game feel that they were well received as sequels.

The XCOM series in general usually has a great naming convention for its spinoffs, except for the aforementioned snafu with Bureau. Its FPS and flight simulator spinoffs were made clearly different from the other games in the series. Even XCOM: Enemy Unknown is a whole new different naming convention from the original XCOM.

The problem with game designers is that they often have new ideas for new game mechanics, especially from playing other games in the genre, or from studying the problems of previous games in the series and correcting those problems wrongly. Optimizing game mechanics for a sequel is fine. Adding new mechanics carefully to a sequel is fine. Adding new mechanics to a game set in the same universe but is marketed as its own things is fine. Adding new mechanics that change the game feel for a sequel is not fine.

In theory and on paper, the Dawn of War III developers had good reasons for doing what they wanted to do, from their experience with the previous Dawn of Wars and Company of Heroes, as evidenced by their interviews. but they ignored the game feel in adding and subtracting game mechanics. They removed cover and retreating systems, which was a big part of the gameplay. They added a whole new victory condition, which was a big part of the gameplay. The stuff about commanders and customizations were mostly fluff. Those could have been added as it doesn't affect game feel.

A better transition for game feel is the Dark Souls and Bloodborne differences. Bloodborne doesn't greatly change its mechanics. It simply removes shields from the game and adds parrying, making the player more aggressive. But even then, it is not technically part of Dark Souls, so that's a win for marketing as well. Dark Souls 3 apparently incorporates this new playstyle to great effect. However, at no time did Dark Souls nor Bloodborne game feel of a well-timed, boss pattern gameplay was ever violated.

So, just because a game sequel is better on paper, doesn't mean it should be a sequel. If it is drastically different, it should stand as its own thing and marketed as such.

Game designers, learn how to optimize game mechanics without changing the game feel drastically for a sequel. And if you do change the game feel drastically, consider marketing the new game as its standalone thing, not a sequel.

Age of Accountability

2017-09-16T06:29:00.001-07:00

What is the "age of accountability"? Do babies go to heaven?

Points to consider:

1. Little ones have no knowledge of good or evil

Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

2, The law is the knowledge of sin

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

3. Where there is no law, there is no transgression

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Note: changed point from no sin to no transgression. Transgression God counts, yet every is imperfect and commit sins.

4. There is a category of people whom God will not impute sin

Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.