Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tampered With!!

[Hekuran]

Yes, they are vital. Let me name one right off the bat. Ephesians 1:11.

KJV
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will...

NIV
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

You really look at the difference here.

First of all, we are predestined to obtain an inheritance, not be saved. We have to choose of our own free will to obey. Secondly, we are not "chosen having been predestined". That is clearly a false doctrine of "Unconditional Election" in the NIV.

As it has been noted before,
"Westcott and Hort refused to accept the Received Text and sought to modify it. In 1881 they published their Greek text, changing the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places that included almost 10,000 words."

These vital changes were not because they happened upon some "better" information. Especially since this information is so vital to salvation that it indeed matters. Like I said before, it flies in the face of scripture I previously placed before you.

And so for the third time:
what your suggesting, is that pieces of Gods word went missing or were misunderstood for a while until Westcott and Hort uncovered it. Pieces of information vital to salvation and the whole complete word of God. You are trying to tell me, with the belief, that important key phrases and words vital to salvation were missing or misunderstood for 1,780 years, take or give. Then somehow Westscott and Hort discovered a better way.

Do you think God would hide his words, vital to salvation, from whole entire generations until the 1880's (especially in light of what scripture specifically says see post 29)?



I hope I am not lumped into this category. I have placed commentaries, scripture, and other facts along with the Konie Greek. All you have done is place conjecture (at least with me).

That being said, I did also state that the KJV is not perfect, it does not take or add false doctrines to the mix like the modern translations.

The difference you've pointed out here has nothing to do with textual variants. Again, the differences in the ancient texts are minor and no doctrinal dispute hangs on them.

 

[Sue D.]

the inheritance being talked about IS our salvation which is kept secure by the Holy Spirit's indwelling us.

 

[LostButTrying]

It's pointless trying to compare the KJV and the NIV directly. You have to compare them both with the ancient Greek. Even then, not just simplistic dictionary definitions of the Greek words either, but a scholarly understanding of how those Greek words were used at the time they were written down, and in the context of how those Greek words were used idiomatically in sentences at that time. Also taking into account the writing style of the individual authors.
You should then contemplate and pray for guidance about the meaning.

 

[Enxu]

Sure. It's unfortunate that it started by flinging lies and half-truths around recklessly, though.

Well I don’t know too deeply about the origins of each translation version but I do know there are writings mentioned in the OT that were not found in the modern bibles. 14 books are now missing from the original 80 books in early KJV bibles.

As for why I believe that RCC removed the 14 books, some sources said they did. RCC is known for many questionable and unbiblical practices. It would not surprise me if members of the clergy would do such a thing as tampering the Scriptures and even removing entire books in order to hide important truths from the body of Christ.

 

[Hekuran]

Well I don’t know too deeply about the origins of each translation version but I do know there are writings mentioned in the OT that were not found in the modern bibles. 14 books are now missing from the original 80 books in early KJV bibles.

As for why I believe that RCC removed the 14 books, some sources said they did. RCC is known for many questionable and unbiblical practices. It would not surprise me if members of the clergy would do such a thing as tampering the Scriptures and even removing entire books in order to hide important truths from the body of Christ.

To this day Catholic editions of the Bible retain the apocryphal books. If you are to make accusations, please, please, please make sure they are grounded in fact, not speculation.

 

[Enxu]

To this day Catholic editions of the Bible retain the apocryphal books. If you are to make accusations, please, please, please make sure they are grounded in fact, not speculation.

What Catholic editions are you referring to?

 

[Hekuran]

The Bible I use most is the NRSV, which I find has the right balance of accuracy to the original texts and elegance in modern English.

There are several versions of the NRSV. The Catholic edition includes the deuterocanonical - apocryphal - books.

I dont usually use wikipedia as a source, but I know that this one is accurate.

New Revised Standard Version - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The same is true of other versions.

I believe that debate about whether to include these in the canon of scripture goes way, way back before the time of the Reformation.

 

[Acts2:38]

The difference you've pointed out here has nothing to do with textual variants. Again, the differences in the ancient texts are minor and no doctrinal dispute hangs on them.

Well, from what I see, that is a huge difference considering that NIV pulls from the Alexandrian (Westscott and Hort) and KJV pull from the received text. The NIV slighted some words (considering that scripture I put down) to conform to Calvinist, etc, belief systems.

Huge differences are made with the slighting of words and can change the whole meaning. The serpent just put in one simple word to change the whole meaning when speaking to Eve. The NIV did the same in that verse placed before you. And the NIV takes its information from the Alexandrian (Westscott and Hort)

If one isnt careful reading the NIV, they can slump into false doctrines. More evidence below (Quoted from Jeffery W. Hamilton). These prove doctrinal dispute. But as I continue to say, its not that the KJV is perfect, which it is not, but it is better than the NIV. That is what I have been maintaining this entire time with evidence.

Total Depravity
“It mistranslated Psalms 51:5 to teach the false theory of Total Depravity.”

KJV: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

NAS: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

NKJ: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

NIV: Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

It doesn’t take a biblical scholar to tell that there is a major difference in meaning between the NIV and the other cited passages. Why did the translators of the NIV change the meaning so much? I believe they were trying to justify their strongly held belief that people are born guilty of the sin of Adam. They attempted to provide proof where none existed.

Original Sin
“It changes ‘flesh’ in Romans 8 to ‘sinful nature’ teaching the false theory of original sin.”

The word being debated is the Greek word sarx which means “flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties [physical or mortal] and passions), or (specifically) a human being.”

The English word “flesh” carries a similar meaning as it too can refer to the edible parts of an animal or to the physical being of a man. However, “nature” means the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing. By changing the wording from “flesh” to “nature” the translators shifted the meaning from an emphasis on the physical make up of man to the character or spiritual make up of man.

In addition, the word “sinful” is adjoined to “nature” even when the original Greek does not mention sinfulness.

The Deity of Christ
“It denies the deity of Christ by removing ‘begotten’ from every text referring to Jesus Christ (cf., John 3:16)”

The NIV refuses to reflect the Greek New Testament statements that Jesus was born of God. Instead they use phrases such as “the One and Only” or “I have made you my son.” Consider the difference in translation shown in John 1:14.

ASV: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

NKJ: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

NIV: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Greek word being translated is monogenes. It is a compound word meaning “the only one of a race” or “the only born.” In literature it is used to refer an only child and it can be seen translated as such in Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; and Hebrews 11:17. In the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament it is used in describing Isaac (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16) and Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11:34). Isaac was technically not an only child, but he was the unique child of promise to Abraham. Just as an only child is treasured by his parents, the Greek word monogenes also carries the connotation of someone beloved.

The NIV emphasizes the uniqueness of Christ while de-emphasizing the kinship of Christ to God the Father.

A more clear altering is seen in Psalms 2:7, Acts 13:33, and Hebrews 1:5. Consider the following:

NKJ: God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'

NAS: that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'You are My son; today I have begotten You.'

NIV: he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "'You are my Son; today I have become your Father. '

The Greek word gennao and the Hebrew word yalad refers to conceiving and giving birth to a child. The argument for de-emphasizing the birth is that some have argued that these verses mean Jesus had a beginning. The NIV’s wording avoids that conclusion, but at the expense of changing what the text actually says. While there are plenty of verses which demonstrate that Jesus is eternal, these verses carry the idea that Jesus is of the lineage of God – in other words, his deity, which is the point of Hebrews 1:5. That point is softened by the NIV’s translation which leaves the impression that anyone could have become God’s Son, God just happened to select Jesus. The literal reading fits well with the virgin birth of Jesus and that God was literally his father.

The Eunuch’s Baptism
“It deletes both the statement of Philip on the condition of baptism and the eunuch’s answer (cf. Acts 8:37).”

This is due to the manipulated Greek text that the translation was based upon. If it is any consolation, most copies of the NIV do include verse 37 in the footnotes.

Salvation at the Point of Hearing
“It falsely teaches that sinners are ‘included in Christ’ at the point of hearing (Ephesians 1:13).”

NKJ: In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

ASV: in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

NIV: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Nothing in the Greek indicates the idea of being included in Christ, especially at the point of hearing the Gospel.

Salvation at the Point of Faith
“It tampers with the plan of salvation in Romans 10:10, teaching that justification is reached at the point of faith. The same verse teaches that salvation is reached at the point of confession (Romans 10:10).”

NKJ: For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

ASV: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

NIV: For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

The Greek behind the phrase “unto righteousness” indicates a leading up to the point of the justification of character or leading up to the point of righteousness. However, the NIV leads the reader to believe the justification has already taken place, which contradicts other verses that teach that salvation is based on more than just belief. See Acts 11:18 and Mark 16:16.

A similar alteration is made in John 3:16.

NKJ: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

ASV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

NIV: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Notice the subtle change from the idea that a believer should not perish to the idea that a believer shall not perish. “Should” indicates that the believer has no excuse in perishing. “Shall” indicates that a believer cannot perish.

Testimony
“It changes I Corinthians 1:6 from ‘the testimony of Christ’ (the gospel) to ‘our testimony of Christ’ (testimonialist).”

The Greek word marturion is a neuter word meaning something evidential, in other words in the general sense, evidence given or in the specific sense something like the Decalogue (in the sacred Tabernacle). Changing the “the” or “our” removes the neuter sense of the testimony, making it something that was personally done. While the Apostles did testify of Christ, Paul is not speaking of just his personal testimony in this verse, but of all the evidence that God has delivered concerning Christ.

Salvation Before Baptism
“It makes Peter teach that baptism is ‘the pledge of a good conscience toward God’ advancing the false theory of faith alone (I Peter 3:21).”

The Greek word eperotema, means “an inquiry.” However, the word “pledge” used in the NIV means a promise made to God and not a response to God’s request.

As you can see, the New International Version is not the best version to use if you are interested in accuracy of translation. I still like it for easy reading, but for serious study I prefer to use more precise translations, such as the New King James Version, the American Standard Version, or the New American Standard Version.

 

[Acts2:38]

The King James Version was written in the English that was being used/ spoken at that time in history. The language has change someone over the years. The more modern versions are simply reflecting those changes in the language.

The same thing would be happening when translating into Spanish or French or Russian , etc.

the important thing is that it Is God's Word. The Holy Spirit works in our hearts through His Word.

Back in the day of the KJV -- the king had to authorize the printing of Any literature. He authorized the committees that put the KJV together from various sources. It was not inspired by King James. It Has been inspired by God through the Holy Spirit speaking to the various men that God picked.

People tend to pick the Bible to pieces - at times -- because it Is very convicting and people -- society don't Like being convicted.

and there Have been those who pick apart the original languages and try to get That to say that which it doesn't really say. And that maybe a translation is a Bad one into the English.

It is hard for people to read the KJV, thus I imagine is why the NKJV came out. I agree that the more modern ones try to reflect the language today, yet some versions completely change the meaning (see post #48 comparisons made by Jeffrey W. Hamilton). They reflect false ideas and that is dangerous. When it comes to any serious study, the NIV is as good as a paper weight at the bottom of a trash can.

If they cant stand reading the KJV, then there is the NKJV. Or maybe the NASB. Much better ones than the NIV.

That's all I have been maintaining this whole time, is that the KJV is much better. Not that its perfect, but better than the NIV. Also, that the NIV has dangerous ideas installed that could lead people to think something that the bible really is not conveying at all.

If people cant stand the KJV, and they are thinking of what version to get, I would highly recommend the NKJV or NASB, but just not the NIV.

 

[Hekuran]

Sure. My preferred version is not the NIV either. But this thread starts with very unhelpful terms 'tampered', 'corrupt', 'counterfeit'. The NIV is a long way from being perfect, but it remains an incredible accessible gift to millions of faithful Christians worldwide.

I grew up on it and remain very grateful for it.

 

[Enxu]

Sure. My preferred version is not the NIV either. But this thread starts with very unhelpful terms 'tampered', 'corrupt', 'counterfeit'. The NIV is a long way from being perfect, but it remains an incredible accessible gift to millions of faithful Christians worldwide.

I grew up on it and remain very grateful for it.

Acts in his post showed clearly what was different in the NIV versions even to the point of hiding the truth that Jesus was the begotten Son, ie how He was in fact divine Word in the beginning. If that is not a sign of corruption of Scriptures, I don’t know what is?

That said, I don’t see how saying that a text is corrupted affects our faith in any way - if that is the reason you’re protesting using words like tampering, counterfeit and corrupted. God is able to show us the truth anyhow if we truly seek Him. The very first few generations of men never had written scrolls and yet that didn’t stop them from following God, Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that is enough. Even if all the Bibles in the world are forcibly changed by the governments today that should not affect our faith. In fact, such tampering is already happening here in China.

 

[PloughBoy]

I really love this group! Hungry for Word of God, Hungry for the Truth, search for “The Truth” you have superseded the “Bereans”. Talking about the text, comparing translations, Mentioning, the codex Alexandrinus, codex Sinaiticus, codex Vaticanus, Textus Receptus, Apocrypha,, the non-canonical books and Pseudepigraphical. I just kinda wonder why no one so far has not mention the “Geneva Bible 1560” or the name “William Tyndale”? I’m just thrilled. I am not complaining. If you talk about (KJV) we have to talk about “Geneva Bible 1560”

 

[spiriteddove05]

Well I don’t know too deeply about the origins of each translation version but I do know there are writings mentioned in the OT that were not found in the modern bibles. 14 books are now missing from the original 80 books in early KJV bibles.

As for why I believe that RCC removed the 14 books, some sources said they did. RCC is known for many questionable and unbiblical practices. It would not surprise me if members of the clergy would do such a thing as tampering the Scriptures and even removing entire books in order to hide important truths from the body of Christ.

they have their own canon, it was from one of the councils they had, not sure of the name of it? 1 of the 3 main councils I think, I think it was the 3rd one!!

 

[Sue D.]

Yes, there Have been many books left out of the Canon of Scripture we now have. They have been found to not meet the criteria for being In it.

The Gnostic gospels are some as are the Aprocrophal books. They all contain material that did not agree with the central theme Of Scripture. And the Gnostic gospels might be included in the Apocrophal books.

There is the book of Jasher and another one that are mentioned but not included. But that does not mean that society has been robbed of essential Scripture. No important truths have been hidden from anyone. It was more to keep Non-truths Out of God's Word. And books were accepted over a period of years. And, yes, I'm thinking it was the Counsil of Niceene that it was decided to take certain books Out. The RCC Bible Does contain all of them and there was a big disagreement about that.

 

[Acts2:38]

I really love this group! Hungry for Word of God, Hungry for the Truth, search for “The Truth” you have superseded the “Bereans”. Talking about the text, comparing translations, Mentioning, the codex Alexandrinus, codex Sinaiticus, codex Vaticanus, Textus Receptus, Apocrypha,, the non-canonical books and Pseudepigraphical. I just kinda wonder why no one so far has not mention the “Geneva Bible 1560” or the name “William Tyndale”? I’m just thrilled. I am not complaining. If you talk about (KJV) we have to talk about “Geneva Bible 1560”❤

Not sure if you were aware already, but here is a small snip from Ethan R. Longhenry. Thought it would be interesting to jot down here for informational purposes.

"The KJV owes its birth to the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, the meeting of the newly crowned James I of England with the authorities of the Church of England and the Puritan dissidents. James desired to have a unified church in England and was distressed at the polarity he entered. The Geneva Bible was by far the most popular Bible in England in 1604, and while the translation was excellent the notes in it were fiercely Calvinist and anti-monarchical. The Bibles sanctioned by the Anglican authorities left much to be desired, but they at least did not contain seditious notes. One of the Puritans suggested to the King that he should establish one Bible for use throughout the land; James took this idea and from it came the decision to make a new translation (McGrath, 161-162). We can see, therefore, that there was no burning spiritual desire to have a new translation, but only the need for a political compromise between the seditious Geneva Bible and the inadequate Anglican versions."

 

[PloughBoy]

I am well aware what took place in the making of the (AV) and why. The notes of Calvin, which took power from the King and the Roman Catholic Church. Calvin pointed out that “ that the true people of God , were a kingdom of Priest and Kings. And we did not have to go the Pope or pray to a mother Mary, The word Bishops is not in Holy Scripture. Notes stresses we have a personal savior, a true shepherd of the sheep. My sheep hears my voice and they will follow no other. The story why the KJV came into play is public knowledge. Transferring the power from “Holy Scripture” to King James and the Roman Catholic Church and Pastors. The Puritans had to go along with it. They change the Word “congregation” to the word “church”. Later on they change the transliterated Greek word “ecclesia” to mean church. It which the word church originally in the book of Acts meant cicle a house of worship for pagan Gods. I say, dig deeper, you are going to find out how deep Satan deception really is. God is a rewarded to those who diligently seek Him. I ‘m not talking about rewarding earthly things that parish away either. The Spirit of God will guide you in all “Truth”. The Devil is powerful creature in deception. He is the perfect deceiver , why, because God made him. Why, to help shape you , train you into the image of God’s design of you. Always remember, a sheep is no match for wolves! “Behold I send you as a sheep among wolves”. You got to have a “Shepherd” and not a hireling, because when wolf comes the hireling will run, why, because he is just a hireling, the true Shepherd will lay down his life. “John Calvin” also said that John Calvin also said :trust no man, trust the LORD GOD with all your soul and mind, and the Word of God be light unto your path and a guide unto your feet. Public knowledge. Read institute of the Christian religion. By John Calvin. Let us 1st hear the man then judge. Not what someone else says about him. I fell into that trap too! That Devil is some thing else! And the Devil loves the institutional Church!

 

[Acts2:38]

The story why the KJV came into play is public knowledge. Transferring the power from “Holy Scripture” to King James and the Roman Catholic Church and Pastors.

Knowing the history of the KJV and the undertaking to produce the version, I disagree with this statement.

The RCC never wanted bibles in the hands of common folk. The KJV was a kinda "in your face" to Catholicism.

factual quotes:

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”
Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”
Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

public knowledge:

King James Version (KJV) | Bible, History, & Background

King James Version, English translation of the Bible, published in 1611 under King James I of England. The translation had a marked influence on English literary style and was generally accepted as the standard English Bible from the mid-17th to the early 20th century.

www.britannica.com

“John Calvin” also said that John Calvin also said :trust no man, trust the LORD GOD with all your soul and mind, and the Word of God be light unto your path and a guide unto your feet. Public knowledge. Read institute of the Christian religion. By John Calvin. ❤ Let us 1st hear the man then judge. Not what someone else says about him. I fell into that trap too!

There are points that Calvin does speak truth from scripture, however, there are also concepts that he is very wrong and twists scripture. A whole false doctrine created by man not found in scripture called "Calvinists". I dont judge him, but the words found in scripture do, and everyone honest to what scripture says knows it. Things like "tulip" are easily refutable. One reason they sought to replace the Geneva Bible's heavy laden notes conforming to Calvinist view points.

Im sure the Geneva Bible would have survived better without the Calvinistic material. Though, I do still see notes in bibles even today that make me wonder, I personally feel that they should do away with notes. The "less motivated" to "seek diligently" can rely on some misleading notes to come to conclusions not found in scripture.

 

[PloughBoy]

Yes, I do understand, that is why they have councils. So many councils, so many creeds, so many denominations, so many copies of the original manuscripts, so many translations, and finally so many translations with notes! It looks like we have a “John Calvin” in every tree! And since we have the internet we have “John Calvin’s” methods Surfing the air waves. You talking about a new “Reformation” if some people don’t wake up, “Rip Van Winkle” types are going to be walking around with that dumb look on their faces.

 

[Sue D.]

Personally I have no use for either Calvinism or Armenianism. They were both just men who's thoughts really caught on.

The various denominations came as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Those who activily Protested what the RCC was teaching. Weslyan Methodists , Martin Luteranism , not sure about the Presbyterians. The Baptist church developed over many years through various stages.

Maybe you're giving too much credit To the influence Of John Calvin. His supports Are very vocal -- but are they really that great in number?!

There was a video on FB page recently regarding the RCC. Seems they are trying to get people to not worry about doctrine cause it causes divisiveness and we Should be sharing God's Love and Unify. Well -- salvation / the Holy Spirit unifies.

And, Bible doctrine // God's teaching is Vital.

 

[Acts2:38]

Yes, I do understand, that is why they have councils. So many councils, so many creeds, so many denominations, so many copies of the original manuscripts, so many translations, and finally so many translations with notes! It looks like we have a “John Calvin” in every tree! And since we have the internet we have “John Calvin’s” methods Surfing the air waves. You talking about a new “Reformation” if some people don’t wake up, “Rip Van Winkle” types are going to be walking around with that dumb look on their faces.❤

Very true. And its not just the Calvinist doctrine either. There are many. Like you said, so many denominations. Basically "denomination" is a division from the whole. And we ALL know that our Lord through Paul, and even Jesus, taught unity as a whole in mind, etc. Obviously, we see there are thousands upon thousands of different beliefs, regardless if they are almost similar, they are still different.

I wouldn't urge anyone to "reform". As reforming, all you are doing is making some changes to improve something. Yet they still keep the base idea, only improve upon it. Reformation has begat split after split after split (ie many different baptist denominations) because they are all based off already false doctrines. And so each one makes changes (reforms) to what they had split away from instead of just "going back to the drawing board" so to speak. Restoring.

I would "restore". Take away all the added garbage of man made doctrines that the scriptures do not convey. To return back to what scripture has actually laid out for us like the 1st century christians were taught.