A list of video clips related to Bible prophecy book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwYttdMleMs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cntCcMQIZfg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwGBA7x1bo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3ipdp97L0c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1M4e26vkd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sykxcBMlxZ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk51d3pmPqU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJacEAaFxEA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYl36-_5NpM
What is the Church Restitution?
Download a booklet on the subject here: http://www.bibleprotector.com/prophecy
Here is the direct link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTPFUQzI-Aw
Smith Wigglesworth, the British “Apostle of Faith” that brought Pentecostalism around the world in the early 20th century spoke of a “Word and Spirit Movement”.
A booklet about Wigglesworth, and also related material about Bible prophecy, is available at http://www.bibleprotector.com/prophecy
I was invited to join a new “Hillsong Exposed” style group on facebook. I declined.
One thing that these folks accuse Hillsong of is preaching a “Corrupt health and wealth prosperity gospel”.
The problem is that these detractors of Hillsong do not discern the difference between a corrupt message and the true message. In fact, they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on these matters.
So, I declined to join the group because the same person who invited me to join also admits to rejecting the doctrine of tithing, who teaches that “giftings, callings, and anointings are non existent.” This fellow also has changed the KJB, and promotes a new Textus Receptus English translation.
But even worse, the same guy who wants to attack Hillsong, said this about the following video, “I agree with much of what he says about the focus upon Muslims.” That indicates a real lack of discernment, that he is willing to justify the position of the Muslim man being interviewed, a man who was actually attempting to justify our enemies!
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4103227.htm
When your enemies talk of their plans in English, then you know that God has given English the victory.
Note the opening map of the Russian/Arabic worlds joined, and conquering all the way to England, etc.
Note the two speakers: Aleksandr Dugin and Imran Hosein.
Note the first thing that is being discussed in this video: the return of Jesus Christ and eschatological matters.
Ian Paisley rightly stood for the Bible, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the blood of Christ and the resurrection. Now to talk about the man and his message, it must first be said that he was right to call the Pope “antichrist”. He was right to lift up the example of Oliver Cromwell. He was right to plea for the old King James Bible. He was right to study the Book of Romans while he was imprisoned for standing for the truth.
The old Protestant message is still being taught.
Why compromise with Rome is deadly preached by Matthew Verschuur, on the 2nd of September, 2014 at Victory Faith Centre. MP3 (13.3 MB), 38:54. http://www.bibleprotector.com/2-9-14-compromise-with-rome-deadly-mv.mp3
Some folks who attack the King James Bible claim to do so on historical grounds. For example, they might say that various translations were made in the Reformation, that the Westminster Confession of Faith spoke about the importance of Hebrew and Greek, or that the KJB translators were not infallible.
But this is a deception if the person arguing against the KJB is taking a modernistic position, in favour of modern versions like the ESV, etc. This is for two reasons:
1. The historical position would at least be friendly toward the KJB, and at least connect to the Textus Receptus or Traditional Text positions, or, at worst, the Majority Text position.
2. The historical position could not embrace the thoughts and processes from the Higher Critics or men like Westcott and Hort.
The most consistent and best historical position, as is highlighted by both internal and external (providential) factors, is to be King James Bible only.
However, a genuine believer should not be a modern versionist, supporting or using the likes of the NASV, the ESV, NIV or anything else like them, let alone the NLT, the Message and so on.
Modern versionists are struggling to defend and maintain the doctrine of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scripture.
By the 1970s, they were making all kinds of compromises, in three areas:
1. In claiming only the original autographs were perfect, implying that it was impossible to have God’s words exactly today in one form.
2. Modernist hermeneutics (Bible interpretation methods) which explained away relevance of the Bible to today.
3. Upholding the Infidel-based idea of human rights.
All three of these above listed ideas are found in the three “Chicago Statements”, while the first two are found in teachings of men such as John MacArthur.
Bill Combs blogged that churches should abandon the KJB (http://dbts.edu/blog/should-churches-abandon-the-king-james-version/) and that churches should use modern versions (http://dbts.edu/blog/churches-should-adopt-a-modern-version-of-the-bible/).
His reason for abandoning the KJB is simple: the KJB was made a long time ago, and more information has been discovered since that time.
This is potentially a fallacy because more information does not necessarily mean that what was done must now be abandoned.
But looking from a Biblical and a divine aspect, when it can be shown that the sufficient amount of data was available for the KJB men, then all newer discoveries are not in any way counteracting what was done, because to do so would be to say that:
1. Christians did not have the Word of God while all the discoveries of new manuscripts had not occurred, and
2. Christians do not have the Word of God because all discoveries have not taken place, or that human knowledge is yet limited.
Continue reading