BRIDE OF CHRIST, REFERS TO BOTH O.T. SAINTS AND N.T. SAINTS

Thank you, but still some major translations of the Bible like NKJV, NIV, ASV including he WEB has "church of the firstborn" which literally Christ being the firstborn is in harmony with the scriptural teaching of Colosians 1:18

Colosians 1:18 And he is the head ofthe body, thechurch: who is thebeginning, thefirstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Christ is the firstborn, so that the general assembly are the OT. saints as the word "assembly" were almost used in the OT especially of Israel.

Thanks

The term church of the firstborn may mean the assembly of those whose inheritance rights are already won (since under the OT Law the "firstborn" was the primary heir. They have already gone on to the heavenly regions where the angels are.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty.

I pointed out CHURCH is and OBVIOUS MISTRANSLATION, and the Translators admitted in the 1611 KJV Preface that the team used Earlier Translations with known errors in translation, to produce a better Version of the English Bible correcting the known errors, and that is the origin of the 1611 KJV. Where I come from that is NOT a TRANSLATION from the original Languages, it is a Paraphrase. THEY MISSED ONE, hence the KJV paraphrase is not perfect.

Thanks, but I know very well the trinity. There is such a thing as three in one.

1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

I"m guessing this verse is not even in your Bible.

NOW LOOK AT IT IN YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION:

1 John 5:8 (YLT)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] and three are who are testifying in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

1 John 5:6-8 (NASB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For there are three that testify:
[SUP]8 [/SUP] the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

1 John 5:6-8 (HCSB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] Jesus Christ—He is the One who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and by blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For there are three that testify:
[SUP]8 [/SUP] the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.

1 John 5:6-8 (NRSV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] There are three that testify:
[SUP]8 [/SUP] the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

1 John 5:6-8 (ASV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.


Shall I show you all of them? As I told you before, the KJV translation team, admitted they were trying to make the even OLDER Versions, with known errors, updated into the English Language of King James day. Once AGAIN, they admitted the KJV was paraphrase of Older English Versions. What you are looking at is yet another mistranslation that they failed to pick up on. HERE, look at it for yourself:

You really NEED to READ the Original Preface of the 1611 KJV, they admitted that they paraphrased lots of it from earlier English Versions. I think you will find you have put the KJV on WAY TOO HIGH ON A PEDISTAL. Here, I have pulled some excerpts out for you:


The Translators To The Reader

Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing our selves, or revising that which hath bene laboured by others, . . .
. . .
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? . . . so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. . .
. . .
Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and greene age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their owne turne, and therefore bearing witnesse to themselves, their witnesse not to be regarded. This may be supposed to bee some cause, why the Translation of the Seventie was allowed to passe for currant. . . . he holdeth the Authours thereof not onely for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperour enjoyning the Jewes his subjects to use specially the Translation of the Seventie, rendreth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlighted with propheticall grace. . . .
. . .
(and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventie were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to adde to the Originall, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sence thereof according to the trueth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greeke Translations of the old Testament. . . .
. . .
There were also within a few hundreth yeeres after CHRIST, translations many into the Latine tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countreys of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latine, being made Provinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine Translations were too many to be all good, . . . Now the Church of Rome . . . Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confesse, that wee forced them to translate it into English against their wills. . . .
. . .
And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have beene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance. . . .
. . .
Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, doe endevour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade our selves, if they were alive, would thanke us. . . .
. . .
to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to passe, that whatsoever is sound alreadie (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours farre better then their autentike vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may bee corrected, and the trueth set in place. . . .
. . .
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest{ poorest } translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. . . .
. . .
Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. { The very same thing you do to MODERN Translations. } For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? . . .
. . .
But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at us: But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in briefe what wee proposed to our selves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survay of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke. . . . { That makes it a PARAPHRASE and not an actual Translation from the original languages. }

http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

Here also citation in the NT that the firstborn may also refers to Christ which is a more accurate idea in my opinion since in Hebrews 12:24, speaks of Jesus speaketh better things that of Abel (OT saint). If this firstborn refers to the OT saints who are enrolled in heaven as the NASB says therefore this contradict the teachings that OT saints who went to Paradise as the abode of the dead OT saints until Christ brought them to heaven (Luke 23:43).

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Colosians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

God bless

I pointed out CHURCH is and OBVIOUS MISTRANSLATION, and the Translators admitted in the 1611 KJV Preface that the team used Earlier Translations with known errors in translation, to produce a better Version of the English Bible correcting the known errors, and that is the origin of the 1611 KJV. Where I come from that is NOT a TRANSLATION from the original Languages, it is a Paraphrase. THEY MISSED ONE, hence the KJV paraphrase is not perfect.

There was a time in Israel's history when Jehovah God stood in with them as like a human husband to a human wife, the time came for God to end that relationship through divorce of Israel. The prophets made it clear the next and final relationship would have to come through the Messiah.

Israel was of the olive tree/vine concept of upper branches all sharing the same root. By their unbelief, most were pruned off their branches, like a vineyard husbandman would have to do to keep the vine healthy, removing dead/diseased parts. The bad part is cut back to a lively section of branch, then a healthy known fruit producing twig can be grafted on.

Another way God wants us to think of our relationship with Him is as a single body with many parts, the head likened to be representing Jesus. So the body we would belong in is declared to have the very mind of Christ. Seeing we now know there are trillions of living cells in a human body, with each cell being like a very complex industrial center having countless electric and chemical processes, so those God has drawn to himself should behave as one single body, each part thankful for the other parts.

There is no straightforward Bible teaching that the body of Christ (assembly, congregation, church, temple of the Holy Spirit, etc.) is a literal bride for Jesus, Dogmatic zealots have taken many verses out of context for centuries, then recombining them conveniently to produce that concept of out relationship to God.

One of Jesus' favorite ways of explaining it is through use of the "sheepcote/sheepfold" analogy. Let's keep in mind the problem of relating a beautiful human bride being presented to Jesus, that supposed bride also described as a makeshift pen of branches, thorny vines, and probably a covered hut to house the guardian shepherd, in the minds of the hearers of those lessons. The ground inside the pen is a thick mat of phosphate rock formed by decaying sheep dung. If a shepherd could find a cave in the winter, he would lead his sheep inside.

Shepherds who knew each other would readily share available space with others in one pen or cave, or for common safety would congregated to where multiple sheepfolds were clustered. That way most could sleep blocking sheepfold entrances, while a few took turns staying awake on watch.

The concept of some sheep not being of another fold is how Jesus taught the Gentiles were spiritually grafted into the true vine, branches vacated by once eligible Jews, Even so could an ancient shepherd acquire ownership of another sheepfold of another shepherd's sheep, making the two sheepfolds one in ownership. His first sheep might have been inherited, the new sheep bought from an owner, guarded by a shepherd, often a teenage boy or young man who would possibly become a servant to the new owner.

There is one body, one household of faith, put together by Jesus with parts the Father gave and still gives him.

He looks at this body with wonder and great love like a man beholding his wonderful bride. However, there is no clear teaching of Jesus marrying his apostles. He said he wouldn't call them servants, but from that point in time his friends, never his bride. My left thumb is not my right thumb, but both as of one household of life, each thumb of one fold.

The apostle John was shown heaven in his vision. He saw the indescribably beautiful city called "New Jerusalem", that city presented to Jesus like a human bride presented by her father to a bridegroom. She typically wore the family treasure of fine linen, gold and jewels, some given by friends, to be presented as the best possible family gift to the household of the bridegroom. That's why that vision elaborated over gold and other precious things. The finally assembled body of Christ will inhabit that wonderful city with Jesus, all in one great sheepfold, our Shepherd Jesus the Son of God, with us his "co-heirs".

Would not the old testament saints be already with God after Jesus descended and released the captives that were in Abrahams bosom?
They were the ones that believed in the coming of messiah? Just a thought.

There was a time in Israel's history when Jehovah God stood in with them as like a human husband to a human wife, the time came for God to end that relationship through divorce of Israel. The prophets made it clear the next and final relationship would have to come through the Messiah.

There was a time in Israel's history when Jehovah God stood in with them as like a human husband to a human wife, the time came for God to end that relationship through divorce of Israel. The prophets made it clear the next and final relationship would have to come through the Messiah.

. . .

There was a time in Israel's history when Jehovah God stood in with them as like a human husband to a human wife, the time came for God to end that relationship through divorce of Israel. The prophets made it clear the next and final relationship would have to come through the Messiah.

. . .

The location of paradise was Abraham's bosom before Christ translated it to heaven. It's current position is the third heaven.

The location of paradise was Abraham's bosom before Christ translated it to heaven. It's current position is the third heaven.

Chapter and Verse Please. I do not find any such verse, but I find these:



Malachi 3:6 (NASB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] "For I, the LORD, do not change;
therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

Isaiah 62:5 (ASV)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Psalm 79:5 (GW)
[SUP]5 [/SUP] How long, O LORD? Will you remain angry forever? Will your fury continue to burn like fire?

Psalm 103:8-10 (NIV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever;
[SUP]10 [/SUP] he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.

Jeremiah 3:12 (HCSB)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Go, proclaim these words to the north, and say: Return, unfaithful Israel. ⌊This is⌋ the LORD’s declaration. I will not look on you with anger, for I am unfailing in My love. ⌊This is⌋ the LORD’s declaration. I will not be angry forever.

Any version you trust 100%? Do we have the word of God?

Are you 100% sure of this information you posted? Hence the KJV you said has already corrected the "known errors" then the product (KJV) is already purified and basically no more errors. That's the king's men did.