The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.

From my understanding on Heisler’s view here, he believes that the “sons of God” are divine beings as a part of some kind of divine council mentioned in Genesis 1 (who govern things in the universe — although they do not create things in our reality like God has done). Yet, Heisler believes that the word “angel“ and it morphological variations refer to a job title instead of a class of beings that is different from the “sons of God.” The problem with this view is that King Nebuchadnezzar referred to this fourth being in the fire as both a “son of God” and an “angel” according to Daniel 3 (in the KJV). Even the Hebrew words are different here and would be a reference to the same being. So King Nebuchadnezzar simply thought this was an angel, when in reality we know it to be Jesus Christ. Besides, it is highly unlikely Nebuchadnezzar was even aware of the overly complex differences in angelogy that Heisler is proposing here. The king was not a Hebrew believer by any means to know such detailed nuances that are not so straight forward. Again, your interpetation here is forced and doesn’t make any sense in light of what we read in Daniel 3. The king thought this was an angel and used two terms to refer to angels (When in reality the reader who is in the know, would understand this to be Jesus Christ). Your overcomplicating things that are plainly written and does not fit the context. If your interpretation was true, there would have been a fifth being in the fire referred to by another name. So again, this is a huge fail on your part here to convince me or other readers here of what your selling.

….

The NKJV is a transition Trojan horse Bible. It is the first popular Modern Bible that attempts to sway KJV believers to switch to a Critical Text Modern bible. It has used stealth and deceptive tactics and marketing to pull this off. They make the reader believe the NKJV is based on the same underlying texts as the KJV precisely, but this is not the case. There are a small number of TR readings that are not present in the NKJV. The Hebrew text is also different, as well. Translation choices are different at times, too. These favor the Critical Text Bibles, and not the KJV. Then there are the doubt-producing footnotes in the NKJV that point to the Critical Text and not the TR. So again, the NKJV is trying to transition you subtly to favor all the Modern Bibles.

The KJ 2000 is more of an unknown KJV update created by one man. He changes things like "dragons" (KJV) to "jackals" among other problems. Do jackals live in wells? Well, according to KJ 2000 they do. However, the KJ 2000 is a bit of a nothing burger or obscure translation that does not have that great of a following. The NKJV is a lot more popular. Hence, why it is more of a concern if you believe the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament and the KJV are the purest forms of God's Word today that we possess currently. Most today are liberal with God's Word and they have no problem in following a shapeshifter Critical Text and or conflicting Modern Bibles that keep changing every few years. Most are not really concerned with having the absolute truth or the precise words of God. This fits perfectly with the fact that we are living in the last days.


....

but KJV is unreadable for me and KJ 2000 is not on the bible APP.
I toggle between NKJV and NIV

The soul of Jesus preexisted the incarnation. His soul was the soul of the Lord God of Israel.
Keep in mind, Jesus made it clear that God is 'spirit,' not soul.

This appears to be a contradiction to me.

Please, explain why that is,...

You said, "The soul of Jesus preexisted the incarnation. His soul was the soul of the Lord God of Israel.
Keep in mind, Jesus made it clear that God is 'spirit,' not soul."

You refer to "the soul of the Lord God of Israel", then state "God is . . . not soul".

You have not been aware that the Lord God of Israel was always being two natures in union?
With the Incarnation, we often refer to it as the hypostatic union.

Jesus is both God and Humanity in a unique union which is eternal.
The only thing that changed in the Incarnation is that the Lord God took upon Himself a human body.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifice and offering
you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me'" Heb 10:5

Hebrews 10:5 tells us that a body was prepared for the Lord, so He could make Himself become as a man.
And, Philippians 2:6-8 tells us that though he existed as God prior to the Incarnation, that He refused to be
as God, and with His soul made himself become as a man. He did not cease being God.



To become as a man he willingly ceased to function in the powers of His Deity to become fully as a man with his soul and sinless body. His Deity remained Deity. He simply refused to be enabled by what Deity would enable him to be beyond being as a man in his function.

If he did not make himselfr to be as a man in function?
He could not have died for all mankind as the sinless sacrificial man.

In Christ ..........

Sometimes,
The scriptures ARE a secret code that needs to be deciphered.

When Jesus said "My flesh is real meat and my blood real drink" he did not and was not suggesting cannibalism. Although the Jews believed that this was precisely what he meant. And today this is the Catholic tradition of transubstantiation.

So....
There are the words said versus the meaning intended which are not necessarily understood by a flat reading of the scriptures.

The code is cracked only when a person 1) has the Spirit of God living in his heart, and 2) when he learns from the Spirit the hidden things of the Bible that He teaches them from the depths of their own heart.

Not exactly.
There's only one time recorded as someone being given talents that were not worked to obtain and even then it's kinda "iffy" at best.

You can claim that the desire to obtain those talents were a gift from God....but otherwise it's always the old fashioned way by working. And work (Despite the complaining) is a gift from God.

What a normal person or even a worldly person could glean is that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about something. The what He was referring to specifically is not readily understandable. And of course it's debated by various denominations.
Catholics are the only denomination that claim a hermeneutic of flat reading. No others.

Not exactly.
There's only one time recorded as someone being given talents that were not worked to obtain and even then it's kinda "iffy" at best.

You can claim that the desire to obtain those talents were a gift from God....but otherwise it's always the old fashioned way by working. And work (Despite the complaining) is a gift from God.

What a normal person or even a worldly person could glean is that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about something. The what He was referring to specifically is not readily understandable. And of course it's debated by various denominations.
Catholics are the only denomination that claim a hermeneutic of flat reading. No others.

I think I agree with you on all that you are saying, I just believe that part of His “man in function” was in the womb.

I was not specifically referring to Jesus' "eat my flesh" comment, but to your statement that "Sometimes, the scriptures ARE a secret code that needs to be deciphered."

I see the truth behind your statement in the verses that I quoted...


I am not sure what you are objecting to. Maybe you can explain.

What I am saying is that receiving is different from understanding. There are various methodologies for understanding what was said.
The Axiom of; The New Testament is explained by the Old Testament and the New Testament reveals the Old Testament is true. You need to understand the Old Testament to understand the New Testament...and the New Testament reveals what the Old Testament left us kinda guessing about. .

But the searching of these things requires dedication. And that dedication requires desire. and that Desire comes from God.

Your tone is dismissive, which tells me that you really aren’t interested in discussion at all, but rather only in “selling” your preferred translation.

Nebuchadnezzar would not have known that the fourth person was Jesus. He would have said something like, “a son of the gods” and not “the Son of God”. The KJV is wrong. That’s it, that’s all.

I’m out.

but KJV is unreadable for me and KJ 2000 is not on the bible APP.
I toggle between NKJV and NIV

So the argument is to play the dumb card and not learn anything in life that is too hard for us to understand at first glance?
Sorry, that is not a good argument. A person can be educated and learn despite the difficulty of the subject. Countless people through history have learned things that were difficult for them to understand.

I am also not against the use of Modern Bibles to help aid in your understanding of the 1600s English in the KJV. What I am against is using Modern Bibles as if they are on the same level of trustworthiness as the KJV. The Modern Bibles simply are not trustworthy because they teach false doctrines in many places. I have discovered 50 plus changed doctrines in Modern Bibles that are very serious. The Modern Bibles all disagree with each other and they keep shape shifting and changing every few years. They do not agree with each other. There is no settled text that you can be held accountable to. So then you become a "Pick and Choose Your Own Adventure Bible Christian." You fall right into the philosophy of what Manly P. Hall (an occultist) was pushing back in 1942 long before the popular Modern Bibles had even showed up.

....