COMMENTARY: “Diyos ng INC nagsisinungaling?”

Ayon sa INC, Kaya daw ng dios magsinungaling dahil kaya niya lahat ng bagay. Una, kaya bang gawing ng dios lahat ng bagay? Kaya ba niyang magsuicide kahit na immortal siya? Natural hinde. So mali na kaya ng dios lahat ng bagay.
Pangalawa, sabi ng bible: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO LIE.

Hebrews 6:18
[18]That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

So paanong makakaya niyang magsinungaling e imposible nga siyang makapagsinungaling. Sabi ng INC DEFENDERS, KAYA NIYA PERO HINDE NIYA GAGAWIN.

Pero tanong: paano niya makakaya e walang paraan para makaya niya dahil imposible nga siyang magsinungaling?



Knowledge, foremost, has to be progressive until it reaches perfection. Meaning, knowledge has to be flexible or changing til it reaches its final state wherein knowledge is fixed. While it is necessary true that truth is inerrant, it doesnt necessarily imply that preachers are likewise, too. Fact is even apostles erred in doctrine when they had at one time adhered to the law of moses as effectual doctrine when during these times, it was an invalid law, as it say:

Acts 21:18-24
[18]And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
[19]And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
[20]And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21]And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
[22]What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
[23]Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
[24]Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

As it testified, The apostles requested paul to falsify the accusation that he apparently teaches people to refrain from Moses and its customs to prove that indeed it was the opposite, as it say:

[24]Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

By saying:

and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing

It implies, the apostles wanted a guarantee that paul never rejected Moses and its customs as he was accused of:

And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

They required him to keep the law of moses:

but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

By this, it logically implied the apostles adherance to the law of Moses, which if we are to note was earlier invalidated by jesus as it say:

Luke 16:16

The law and the prophets were until john…

Paul then went on in correcting their false stand as he wrote:

Hebrews 7:12
[12]For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Clearly, it testified that the apostles was indeed in error. Faulty, it implied a state of spiritual imperfection. Yes, perfection is not yet realized in the church but as notably, was an aspiration.

Hebrews 6:1-4
[1]Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Corinthians 13:9
[9]For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection.

New truth therefore would emerge to complement the concept of progressive and flexible knowledge until such a time that we reach perfection as it say:

Isaiah 29:24
[24]They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

Perfection would come after impurities such as doctrinal errors are purged like silver or gold is purged. Look at how the church should progress. It needs a purging stage as it say:

Zechariah 13:8-9
[8]And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
[9]And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.

We made doctrinal errors. Thats a fact. Its bec we havent reach yet perfection. It needs to be purged like gold or silver. Faulty, are we then wicked? No, we were blind and being that, we were sinless as it say:

John 9:41
[41]Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

It was so as reflected by bro eli’s confirmation:

So if you are offended bec at some instances bro eli made errors, you shouldn’t be. The apostles made errors, how much so bro eli?


Certainly, Peter was the author. Doubts arise from academic scholars who through their theoretical views implanted confusion but in matters of biblical context relative to reality, there is undeniable proof to this conclusion, that without ambiguity, peter wrote the books.

Firstly, their is a signature that confirmed the author as it say:

1 Peter 1:1
[1]Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Internal evidence confirms it further:

1 Peter 5:1
[1]The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

The author confirmed firstly that he is apostle peter through identification. Secondly, he was a witness of christ’s suffering which further the thought that indeed this is apostle peter. But is this sufficient as validation? It may be insufficient thus let us explore the biblical context as material evidence to the authenticity of the books.

God promised this:

Psalms 102:12,18
[12]But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations.
[18]This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.

It say, the remembrance of god lives on unto all generation through a specific manuscript or writing material. Through it people will praise God.

Question: As far as history goes, which manuscript have been extant as a religious material instrumental to the remembrance of god?

The bible, right? Since its inception, say 4th century AD, it is the only religious material in biblical context that was meant for the remembrance of God. Furthermore, it indicated its uniqueness as stated:

Isaiah 34:16
[16]Seek ye out of the SEPHER (MANUSCRIPT) of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her REUTH (ADDITIONAL ONE) for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

The distinct characteristic of this manuscript of god is firstly, it dont need additional religious materials. Secondly, it is described in its historical fulfillment as “gathered”. Nothing of such sort have been a reality than biblical manuscripts. Historically, there is only one considered as manuscript of god gathered as one collective truth that dont need additional religious materials than the bible. It was described as written for the remembrance of god unto all generation. Therefore the bible in its correct text, was the promised manuscript meant for the remembrance of god unto all generation. First of all, it dont speak of the old testament manuscripts as it still needs the gospel. Only the complete bible fulfills what is termed as “dont need additional one”.

Coincidentally, nothing in history provides factual reality in this sense, to have god remembered and praised unto all generation than through the bible. So logically, the bible is the fulfillment of the promise that a manuscript that dont need additional religious materials was written for the remembrance of god unto all generation. Therefore, being the fulfillment of the prophecy, then the bible is the manuscript of god, and being that, then it is truthful.

The books of peter was included in the bible listing, therefore by critical analysis, it could be nothing other than truthful. The books of peter is therefore truthful being a manuscript of god. It is therefore Peter speaking in these manuscripts.

Relatively, peter confirmed paul’s words that he is a true apostle therefore making paul indeed a true apostle by virtue of peter’s attestation.

2 Peter 3:15-16
[15]And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
[16]As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Read the attached document first:


Dearest sister, im writing you this letter out of brotherly love to clarify on matters of misunderstanding that have been exposed sometime ago in twitter which based upon, you utilize to further your personal rejection of me as a brother. Indeed, you need to moved on from archaic matters wherein bro eli accused me of the following:
Utilizing this, as invocation for your personal decision to reject me as a brother, it is rather farfetched, misunderstood and misleading seeing that youre already a dignitary of the church and influential whereas you may provoke a voluminous action from brethren in like manner as your rejection. I dont want you to mislead people with your apparently jump to conclusion remedy. I say, its jump to conclusion, as nothing in bro eli’s words impart the thought that im a fake brother. He simply said: impostor. To what context it was said was unclear. Does he indeed meant me as an impostor brother or just merely an impostor teacher having at the time the tendency for me to preach my own adverse teaching. We were polar opposite in some instances wherein i debated him for reason, logic and truth to be exposed and through it i may learn. Sometimes, i posted in his account adversarial points with the purpose of elucidating myself through his answers, to be refuted in return thereby through it i may learn. It was all for learning process, my way of educating myself. It was not ill motivated yet now i guess its a wrong move thus presently, i reformed my religious approach.
Now once and for all, i wanted things to be clarified with finality whether brother eli indeed rejected me as a brother or not, thus it is with concern that i request for you to clarify this matter. Did bro eli indeed called me impostor brother or he meant impostor in other terms, such as impostor teacher? Without clarity, it is of utmost concern for me, how you would influence others to be in like mentality with you–to possibly, be in error. So if possible, please clarify. What did bro eli meant when he said that im an impostor? Bec at face value, it is unclear.
The recurring doubt is, if bro eli indeed rejected me as a brother, why didnt he excommunicated me? Maybe bec he meant impostor in other terms than fake brother.

Without resolution on this matter, i would always be at the cesspool of suspicion wherein doubt on my credibility as a brother would always be dominant–and much so, lingering.


Note: please send this to sis jane.


Meron akong nasagap na info na ika merong nawawalang pondo na ibinibintang kay Bro Eli. Hinde ko alam kung totoo ito, partially totoo o buong katotohanan. But its better to face ang ganitong paninira. Eto screenshot, please take time to read:

Ang sabi, merong 69 milyong piso na unaccounted for sa account ng samahan ni Bro Eli at napagalamang itoy imbes na sa account ng iglesia nakapangalan e transferred ito sa account ni bro eli. Ngayon, ang tanong nila: Hinde ba labag ito sa rules ng SEC dahil bago ipangalan sa isang individual ang sinasabing ari-arian ay dapat pinagtibay ito ng majority ng mga kaanib?

Para sa mas klarong pangungusap, ilatag ko muna ang batas na tinawag na Religious congregations and societies act:


6 (1) The members of every such congregation may(a) meet when they think proper;(b) at any such meeting by the votes of the majority of the members present, make and put in execution such regulations, not being contrary to the laws of this Province or to any rule or regulation embodied in the deed under which the congregation or society is constituted, as the majority deems necessary for the government of the congregation;(c) change such regulations as they think proper.

Constitution and by-laws and officers

(2) Such society or congregation, at any such meeting or any subsequent meeting called in the same manner, may by a majority of votes adopt such permanent constitution and by-laws not inconsistent with the laws of this Province as it considers necessary, and may appoint trustees and such other office-bearers as it sees fit, and define their powers and duties, and may regulate the terms of membership in the society or congregation.Vesting of property(3) The real and personal property of the society or congregation are vested in such persons as are duly appointed trustees thereof by resolution of any such meeting, during their continuance in office, and any such resolution shall be recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose.Powers of officers and trustees(4) The officers and trustees appointed from time to time by any such congregation or society are invested with all such powers for the holding and transfer of the property and management of the business of the congregation or society as are conferred upon them by the constitution and by-laws so adopted.

Ang sabi, ang pagtatalaga ng mga trustees o officers is by a majority of votes ng mga present sa meeting. And by these majority, e magtatalaga sila ng sariling constitution and by laws. Ang mga officers and trustees na itinalaga ng majority votes e me kapangyarihan para hawakan at ilipat ang mga ari-arian ng samahan kasama dito ang pamamahala nito ayon sa pinagtibay na constitution and by-laws. In short, nakapangalan sa piniling officer/s ang property ng samahan by virtue of a majority vote.

So naturally, hinde problema kung nakapangalan kay bro eli yang sinasabing 69 milyon na pondo. Ang problema is, was it by due process?

So ngayon, kayo magpatunay. Una, aling bahagi ng accusation ang totoo? Pangalawa, wala bang congregational meeting na nagtalaga kay bro eli bilang officer in charge para hawakan ang ari arian ng iglesia?

Kung wala man, bakit hinde kinasuhan si bro eli gayong me karapatan kayong magkaso?

4 (1) Such trustees, in all matters concerning the real and personal property of the congregation, may sue and be sued by their name of office.

Dahil hinde kinasuhan, edi walang ilegal na nangyari. Pangatlo, kung lumabag man siya sa batas at kusang ipinangalan niya sa sarili niya ang property ng iglesia, is it a big deal? Does it constitutes an ill intention to have it for his own profit?

So the issue is, maaaring nagkamali lang siya sa hakbang na yon na ipinangalan sa sarili niya ang properties ng samahan na hinde kasangayon ng batas pero hinde ibig sabihin e mayroon siyang intention ng katiwalian. Maaaring lumabag sa batas pero walang intention ng katiwalian, di ba posible yon? So the problem is, maaaring lumabag siya sa batas, which if sufficient reason as probable cause para makasuhan, bakit hinde kinasuhan? Bakit ang isang lider ng relihiyon ba hinde pwedeng magkamali kung lumabag nga sa batas? At di ba, nangako siyang ibabalik sa iglesia, so its not actually a big deal. But what if, nakapangalan yon talaga sa kanya through due process? Paano kung me majority votes siya to be officer in charge of the properties? So tama lang yon, di ba? Tama lang na siya hahawak sa alleged 69milyon na pondo, di ba?

The problem now is, everything of these accusation must yet have to be FULLY validated. Kung hinde, wala kayong argumento.


I posted in my facebook wall the idea that god was imperfect. He was perfected. To say that he was perfected means that at one time he was imperfect. How come? He felt human feelings and emotions. He thirsted. He hungered. He felt anguish. Thus he was imperfect. Fact is, he was perfected:

Luke 13:32
[32]And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Hebrews 5:8-9
[8]Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
[9]And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

And yes as i reiterated, he felt lust as it say:

Hebrews 4:15
[15]For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus felt our infirmities. He too, was infirm. And he was tempted in all points of infirmity. Understandably, that includes lust. How come? It say, tempted in all points. How come he was imperfect?Bec he is a god inside a human host. In short, he was a natural man–partly in his dual nature, that is, god and man. And being, natural like his brethren, then logically, he must have felt lust.

Hebrews 2:17-18
[17]Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
[18]For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

And being natural, like his brethren, he felt lust. The question is, is lust natural?

Yes as these sources implied:

Allan Schwartz, LCSW, Ph.D. said:

Furthermore, objection would be quite allusive to the verse which say:

2 Timothy 2:22
[22]Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

1 Thessalonians 4:4-5
[4]That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
[5]Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

In context, lust by itself is not sin. It only brings people to sin as it say:

James 1:14-15
[14]But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.all
[15]Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Therefore, having sexual lust is not sin. By saying, lust brings forth sin, then that by itself, makes lust not a sin. It only brings forth sin. Fact is its natural. So when it say, flee from youthful lust it must be taken in context. That is speaking of lust we must flee from if it brings us to sin. In short, if it pushes us for lewd thoughts and lascivousness–then flee from lust.

Matthew 5:28
[28]But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

But sexual lust per se is not bad. Firstly, its natural. Secondly, its not sin. Thirdly, jesus felt lust as i would like to reiterate:

Hebrews 4:15
[15]For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.


Lamsa version is a bible translation from the Aramaic Peshitta. It translated Acts 20:28 this way: the church of Christ which he purchased with his own blood. First of all, what is the purpose of purchasing the church with his blood? That is to make gentiles and Israelites one called as one new man, as it say:

EPH2:11-15 ye being in time past GENTILES in the flesh…that at that time ye were without christ being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel…without god in this world BUT NOW IN CHRIST JESUS YE WHO ARE SOMETIME AFAR OFF ARE MADE NIGH BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST


Secondly, from which did he purchase the church: sin or god? It cannot be purchased from sin as the church purchased was already saved as it say:




As you can see, prior to the purchase of the church through blood, the early church initially Jewish was already saved–they have eternal life. Thus the purchase was not to redeem them from sin bec they were already saved. As i said, it was to make gentiles and israelites a one new man. But objection might come through these:



They might say, the church being purchased was to redeem us from sin bec all are sinners and that without shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of us all, who generally are sinners. Without blood, noone will be forgiven including the church thus the necessity of blood to redeem us from sin. That is a possible argument.

First of all, I have to clarify that when it say all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god…none righteous its not speaking of all people but to some particular people bec fact is the blind are sinless as it say:

JOHN 9:41 IF YE WERE BLIND YE SHOULD HAVE NO SIN but now ye say, you see then your sin remain…

Besides, none righteous is false.


Therefore, when it say without shedding of blood there is no remission it was not speaking in general terms bec as I elaborated, the early church was already saved–they have eternal life–prior to shedding of blood which means to say, they were forgiven without shedding of blood. Fact is, not all things are purged by blood as it say:


So was the church purchased from sin?

Absolutely not. They have already eternal life prior to the purchase–and shedding of blood.

It say, the church was purchased by christ. Meaning, the church was not his property but now, buying it makes him co-owner with God.


John 17:9-10

[9]I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

[10]And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

If the church was his property prior to the purchase, did he buy what already was his property?
Ridiculous. It only suggests one thing, the church was not his property prior to the purchase.

If the church was already church of Christ prior to the purchase, do you buy what you already own?

Obviously not, thus church of Christ is wrong. Joe Ventilation implied: if it is church of god, the church would have been named after the purchaser, in this case, it would be God bec it is church of god. He then asked, does god have blood?

Joe said:

Kung ang tamang salin ng Gawa 20:28 ay “IGLESIA NI CRISTO,” bakit nagkaroon ng salin na ito ay “Iglesia ng Diyos”? Hindi ba alam ni Dr. Lamsa na may mga manuscripts na “Iglesia ng Diyos” ang nasa Gawa 20:28? Si Dr. Lamsa ang muli nating pasagutin sa kaniyang aklat na “NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN” p. 93

The Eastern text reads, ‘The Church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.’ During the apostolic age, Jesus was called ‘Our Lord, or Christ.’ The apostles being Semites, could not have thought of God as having blood.

Ang mga apostol ay hindi maaaring nagkaroon ng paniniwala na ang Diyos ay may dugo. Sino ang may dugo na ipinangtubos sa Iglesia? Si Cristo, ayon sa 1 Pedro 1:18-19:”

He intend to mean that the name of the church that Christ bought was Church of Christ and not Church of God bec it was under Christ’s name being the purchaser–the new owner. He forgot to find an analogy why, it was church of god.

For example: John bought Peter’s house. So what did John buy? Peter’s house and not John’s house. Much so saying, Jesus bought God’s house (church). Does it mean it was God who bought it bec its called church of God? No! Jesus bought the house of God so naturally, it must be jesus to pay–through his blood. So what did he buy? The church of God. Why was it still called under the name of god and not under the new owner? Bec god is still the owner–

1 Corinthians 3:20-23
[20]And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
[21]Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
[22]Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
[23]And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

And jesus by buying it makes himself co-owner.

John 17:9-10

[9]I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

[10]And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

Moreover Joe said:

Ayon kay Dr. Bruce Metzger, isang textual critic sa United States, ay pinalitan ng ilang mga tagakopya ang mga termino sa Gawa 20:28:

It is possible, therefore, that a scribe, finding theou in his exemplar, was influenced by Old Testament usage and altered it to kuriou. On the other hand, it is also possible that a scribe, influenced by Pauline usage, changed kuriou of his exemplar to theou (Metzger, Bruce, The Text of the New Testament, 3rd Enlarged Edition, Oxford University Press, New York (1992), p. 235).

As you can see, nothing is strong in his argument that there was an alteration thus it became church of god. As you can see, it is merely a possibility. In short, a theory–a weak argument! But look at how he compromised himself:
It is possible, therefore, that a scribe, finding theou in his exemplar, was influenced by Old Testament usage and altered it to kuriou.

Joe unmindfully, did not noticed how theou was original for the verse in question to mean ekklesian tou theou–or the church of god.

For the question: is lamsa’s church of christ correct?
A big no. Firstly, the book of acts was written in greek as it was being written for a greek person, Theophilus. And in Greek, it was written as ekklesian tou theou or the church of god. Lamsa was based from Aramaic so its rather farfetched.

Secondly, God himself sanctioned that his people are called by his name–


That is, after god himself as confirmed by Paul. The church must be named after god as it say:

EPH3:14-15 for this cause i bow my knees UNTO THE FATHER…


The church being named after God must necessarily be called church of God. Fact is, Paul called the early church he persecuted as church of god.

Galatians 1:22-23

[22]And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

[23]But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.


Paul called the persecuted church as the church of god. It cannot be denied that that was speaking of the one collective church back then as it is in singular form in reference to the plural and locale churches of judea then. It means, it was descriptive of the integral church as one collective church of god. In essence, is the formal and proper name of the church. By these, we can say the lamsa version is erroneous.

I would like to reiterate that the church must be named after God thus necessarily, it must be church of god.

EPH3:14-15 for this cause i bow my knees UNTO THE FATHER…


Notably, Joe Ventilacion, a Greek scholar and frontman debater of INC loves to utilize scholars in affirmation to his stand yet he neglect scholars in adverse point than his such as New Testament scholar and translator Daniel B. Wallace. In an interview Wallace confirms the reliability of the King James version and NET Bible as it say:

CP: Which translations do you prefer for personal Bible study?

Wallace: It depends. I think that English speakers should have more than one translation. If we have in our background a history of Christian thought in the Western world, especially in the English-speaking world, it’s part of our tradition and it’s important to own a lot more than one translation. I do recommend that every English-speaking Christian have a King James Bible. There’s nothing that compares to it in terms of its elegance and its cadence and the beauty of its language. … But it’s not the most accurate anymore. So it’s elegant, it’s easy to memorize out of even though the language is archaic, but it’s not always real clear and it’s not always real accurate. So I also recommend a study Bible that is following the Greek and Hebrew texts pretty closely. There are two that I especially recommend — the NET Bible, of course. One of the reasons the NET is valuable is because it has more footnotes than any other Bible in any other language in history — over 60,000 footnotes. …

The ESV is the other one that I recommended as a really good study Bible. It’s got some nice cadence to it. Leland Ryken, who’s professor of English literature at Wheaton College, worked on it as a stylist making sure that its kind of understated elegance, it’s memorable. For the 21st century, it comes about as close to duplicating the elegance of the King James Bible as can be done today. I think it’s also an accurate translation. I think the Old Testament especially is very good, but the New Testament also is a good translation. Those are the ones I’d recommend for study Bibles.


That clearly weakens Joe’s rhetorics of using scholars as you can see scholars are individually minded–or rather opinionated. Are they inspired speakers anyway? In the NET bible and ESV that this scholar required to has church of god in its Acts 20:28 rendition.

Other scholars that use church of god:
trinitarian NT scholar and translator William Barclay rendered Acts 20:28:

“… the Church of God which he has rescued through the blood of his own One.”

Note the the even more certain conclusion of trinitarian scholar, Murray J. Harris, after an extensive analysis of this passage:

“I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read [THN EKKLHSIAN TOU THEOU HN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU AIUATOS TOU IDIOU] and that the most appropriate translation of these words is ‘the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own one’ or ‘the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son’ (NJB), with [HO IDIOS] construed as a christological title. According to this view, [HO THEOS] refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.

Moreover, i have shown that god and jesus own the church. Now, we know that god is greater than jesus in terms of hierarchy. Would it be logical that the church would be named to someone lesser than him even with the fact that both of them are co-owners?

Of course, it would be named after the one in greater rank–god! Thus properly, its church of god.