Who Else (Non-KJVO) Does Not Believe There Will Be An Antichrist?

You are full of presumptions.

I know all there is to know about the SDA - It's an antichrist date setting false prophet / preaches & teaches a false Jesus & false Trinity and is leading millions of people to hell - with some holding on to false prophetess Ellen's original teachings while still wresting the scriptures of the KJV, and so forth. There are no good Seventh Day Adventists and/or S.D.A. Churches. Jesus made is perfectly clear in Matthew 7:13-27 that no false prophet can bear good fruit. Walter Martin was deceived and deceiving and he deceived millions into becoming unequally yoked with this false prophet, while his protégé Ravi Zacharias, whom also worked for Walter Martin Ministries did the same concerning the Mormons; All in unholy defiance of what Jesus said in both Matthew 7:13-27 & Matthew 24 in The King James Bible.

Why would you ever make such a claim. "All there is to know" about anything is self delusion.

By the way, I would very much appreciate it if you would answer as to your position if you agree or disagree with Unbound68's position that there will not be an Antichrist.

If you are asking if I believe the Dispensational teaching of a tribulation period wherein a "antichrist" rules humanity....... the answer is I don't know. I tend to believe God has this "under control". I don't believe anyone can really "know" exactly what will happen. I've often contemplated just what Paul told the believers he preached to......

2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

We don't know everything he taught. You don't either.

Last, but not least, it has yet to register with you that The King James Bible is our source for correct Bible doctrines.

I've heard pitifully sinful men say such things a very large portion of my life. I don't believe you. I don't believe them. I don't believe such silly claims. King James was a tyrant. Are you a British citizen? Did you know that British Royalty still owns the KJV edition?

We cast of the tyranny of King James and King George. We rightfully recognized their tyranny that lead to the "Church of England" imposing their beliefs on their subjects in similarity to what you preach about Rome. There is really no difference.

Do you recognize that King James was the head of the Church the vast territories he ruled? I don't really believe you've given any of this nonsense you believe much thought. You're just repeating what you've heard. You're a slave to men.

The SDA did NOT write the KJV.

The KJV translators shared beliefs with many different denominations. Do you know they believe in the "spiritual" presence of Christ in the Eucharist? I bet you didn't. How do you feel about them now?

and they have a rich history of wresting the scriptures to preach and teach the opposite of what is actually written in it. ALL Christian Churches had and used the KJV. Public Schools also taught from and using the KJV. The KJV was kicked out of Public Schools, and today, there is Drag Queen Story Hour and Satan's Club in some Elementary Schools. That's right, they kicked God and the KJV out so they could let Satan/Lucifer and his children of darkness in.

They have kicked many different versions of the Bible out of Public schools. You're have a very warped sense of reality. Your English superiority is on full display.....
 
You should fire your public relations specialist.
That’s rich, coming from the guy who came in here accusing at least two of us of being heretics, SDAs, JWs, etc.

Not to mention giving us the names of how many religious denominations that you deem devil worshippers.
 
Last edited:
Last, but not least, it has yet to register with you that The King James Bible is our source for correct Bible doctrines.
Says you.

Are you even aware of the numerous doctrines on which KJVOs differ amongst themselves?

Or do you just have no idea?
 
Then WHY did you make the comment that you made in this forum? It is directly KJV related. People have a right to know WHO is attacking the King James Bible. and know where they doctrinally stand. I am one of those people, and I want to know who you people are! False Prophet Groups - most especially the Watchtower absolutely hate The King James Bible.
No one is attacking the KJV. You also give falsewitnesses. For one the watchtower used to use the KJV. Wherefore the lies? You seem to be a false accuser, who uses false witness and lies. The KJV does not need lies and falsewitnesse to support it.
 
Like a Seventh Day Adventist or a JW, it appears that you are now beginning to back peddle away from the heresy of stating that the future coming of the Antichrist is a fable? Are you now saying that you now believe there is a future coming of the Antichrist? Or is this just for show to save face for being called out for being a heretick?
Truly you are a false accuser. Stop that please.
 
By the way, [SDAs] are not KJVO
Why don't you have a look at:

Modern Bible Translations Unmasked

by...........


wait for it.....




Russel and Colin Standish. (SDAs)

Just a sampling:

But the appearance of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible in the second half of the twentieth century, followed by a plethora of new translations, saw the scheme of the Jesuits finally implemented. Today most Protestants have discarded the trusted King James Version and now cheerfully use Bibles which are based upon Catholic manuscripts. (pg. 6)


And then read a book by Benjamin Wilkinson (also SDA). You know the one.


I could produce many, many more quotes from the Standishes and Wilkinson. Their books read exactly like standard KJVO literature. And there are other SDAs I could quote as well. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
That’s rich, coming from the guy who came in here accusing at least two of us of being heretics, SDAs, JWs, etc.

Not to mention giving us the names of how many religious denominations that you deem devil worshippers.
You have yet to give a clear position about if you regard the SDA's, JWs, R.C.C., & Mormons as being legitimate? I can put all of your posts together and help you out with that. I stated it very clearly that each of those groups are operated by Devil worshippers. I didn't stutter either. By giving heed to them, you are giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, of which is made evident in the O.P. and that is what makes you a heretick. The denial of the future coming of the Antichrist is a doctrine of devils and as I mentioned before, it originates with the SDA & JWs most specifically, and you admit to have a horde of the SDA books.
 
Why don't you have a look at:

Modern Bible Translations Unmasked

by...........


wait for it.....




Russel and Colin Standish. (SDAs)

Just a sampling:

But the appearance of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible in the second half of the twentieth century, followed by a plethora of new translations, saw the scheme of the Jesuits finally implemented. Today most Protestants have discarded the trusted King James Version and now cheerfully use Bibles which are based upon Catholic manuscripts. (pg. 6)


And then read a book by Benjamin Wilkinson (also SDA). You know the one.


I could produce many, many more quotes from the Standishes and Wilkinson. Their books read exactly like standard KJVO literature. And there are other SDAs I could quote as well. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
This is a moot point about the SDA. I had already addressed this issue in a previous post. I will add, however, that people that have discarded the KJV have been duped by a plethora of lies.
 
No one is attacking the KJV. You also give falsewitnesses. For one the watchtower used to use the KJV. Wherefore the lies? You seem to be a false accuser, who uses false witness and lies. The KJV does not need lies and falsewitnesse to support it.
I did not bear any false witness whatsoever at all. That's all in your head. All of the false prophets, be it the Watchtower, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists, along with the H.W. Armstrong Church of God, got their start with the KJV, and from their inception, they wrested the scriptures to teach the opposite of what is actually written.

Conan, do you disagree that these mentioned groups are false prophets? Do you deem them to be legitimate Christian Denominations, as well as the Roman Catholic Church?

Moreover, Conan, do you agree with Unbound68's assertion that there will be no future coming of the Antichrist and also deem that to be a fable?
 
Last edited:
You have yet to give a clear position
Because this isn't the forum for your ridiculous topic.

about if you regard the SDA's, JWs, R.C.C., & Mormons as being legitimate?
Legitimate what? Christian denominations? Are you saying there isn't a single Christian to be found within any of them? Perhaps I could argue that the denomination to which you belong isn't legitimate?

See, you're operating on 2 assumptions:

1) that you've interpreted the scriptures correctly in every instance,
2) that 100% of your beliefs are supported by scripture.

I say you've failed miserably on several of your key doctrines. So who is right?

I can put all of your posts together and help you out with that.
How arrogant of you.

I stated it very clearly that each of those groups are operated by Devil worshippers.
I say you don't know what you're talking about.

I didn't stutter either.
Didn't say you did. You have a forum etiquette problem, not a speech impediment.

By giving heed to them, you are giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,
Never said what denominations I've "heeded." Your arrogant presumptions know no bounds. And again, your interpretations of scripture are not the gauge by which true doctrine is determined.

of which is made evident in the O.P.
What has been made evident from the OP is that you have a reading comprehension problem, a poor (more likely, non-existent) understanding of the various schemes of interpreting the Apocalypse, a poor or non-existent understanding of the history of prophetic interpretation, a poor or non-existent understanding of the origins and hypocritical arguments found within KJVOism, a poor or non-existent understanding of the history of the transmission of the text that led to the KJV, etc., etc.

and that is what makes you a heretick.
Define the word. But be very careful....some of your fellow KJVOs might just end up in the same camp to which you've assigned me.

The denial of the future coming of the Antichrist is a doctrine of devils and as I mentioned before,
No it isn't. You don't have a clue.

it originates with the SDA & JWs most specifically,
Nope. Ignorance is strong in this one, Obi-wan.

and you admit to have a horde of the SDA books.
So what? I have a horde of books from many denominations. My eschatological beliefs did not come from any of the groups that have collectively become your boogey-man.
 
Last edited:
Why would you ever make such a claim. "All there is to know" about anything is self delusion.
I do know all there is to know about Seventh Day Adventists. That fact is not "self delusion".
If you are asking if I believe the Dispensational teaching of a tribulation period wherein a "antichrist" rules humanity....... the answer is I don't know. I tend to believe God has this "under control". I don't believe anyone can really "know" exactly what will happen. I've often contemplated just what Paul told the believers he preached to......
Thank you for answering the question. I really do appreciate that. Christians can know the fullness of truth, provided that they don't quench The Holy Ghost and implicitly trust, by FAITH, what is written in The King James Bible 1611 with fervent prayers to the Lord for the gifts of understanding, knowledge, wisdom, and discernment, that only come from Him.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

We don't know everything he taught. You don't either.
Speak for yourself. My mind is not beguiled; I completely believe and trust God and what is written in The King James Bible.
I've heard pitifully sinful men say such things a very large portion of my life. I don't believe you. I don't believe them. I don't believe such silly claims. King James was a tyrant. Are you a British citizen? Did you know that British Royalty still owns the KJV edition?
Have you forgotten what is written in 1Timothy? Do you know where the verse is where Apostle Paul wrote, by inspiration of The Holy Ghost, that this is a faithful saying that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, wherein Apostle Paul identified himself as being the Chief of sinners? God saves sinners and uses them! He is the One that calls whosoever He will to be a Pastor, Deacon, Elder, Teacher, and so forth.
We cast of the tyranny of King James and King George. We rightfully recognized their tyranny that lead to the "Church of England" imposing their beliefs on their subjects in similarity to what you preach about Rome. There is really no difference.

Do you recognize that King James was the head of the Church the vast territories he ruled? I don't really believe you've given any of this nonsense you believe much thought. You're just repeating what you've heard. You're a slave to men.
There is a lot of slander, out there, against King James. I don't believe any of those lies.
The KJV translators shared beliefs with many different denominations. Do you know they believe in the "spiritual" presence of Christ in the Eucharist? I bet you didn't. How do you feel about them now?
That's more hocus pocus nonsense.
They have kicked many different versions of the Bible out of Public schools. You're have a very warped sense of reality. Your English superiority is on full display.....
No they did not, because they USED The King James Bible. Aside from that, the very vast majority of REWRITTEN Bibles didn't come into existence until after that event.
 
Last edited:
Because this isn't the forum for your ridiculous topic.
You made the topic when you wrote the post. It's ok that you refuse to give a straight forward answer to my legitimate questions. You have already made your position known as to where you stand concerning the Great Whore and her harlots.
 
Moreover, Conan, do you agree with Unbound68's assertion that there will be no future coming of the Antichrist and also deem that to be a fable?
How can there be a future coming of antichrist, when antichrist has already come?

1Jo 4:3

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

I think you confound antichrist with the man of sin in 2Th 2:3?

For all we know, the man of sin may purport to confess Christ.
 
How can there be a future coming of antichrist, when antichrist has already come?

1Jo 4:3

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

I think you confound antichrist with the man of sin in 2Th 2:3?

For all we know, the man of sin may purport to confess Christ.
I have not confounded anything. The Antichrist is the Man of Sin; also known as the Son of Perdition.

This is a verse that has been missed, more than once, in this thread: Notice the different between the singularity of antichrist to that of the plurality of antichrists, as Apostle John, by inspiration of The Holy Ghost, distinguished these for us.

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

There have been a great number of antichrists through Biblical history, as we do indeed live in a Biblical world, and there are many antichrists today, including but not limited to the R.C.C., JWs, SDA, and Mormons. However, the prophetic event of the arrival of the coming of the Antichrist (Man of Sin) has yet to take place. The Man of Sin, the Antichrist will not confess Christ, but true to what is written in 2Thessalonians 2, will sit down in the throne of God and claim to be God.

It appears to me, that Christians, such as Baptists on American Family Radio, as well as Christian Television understand this long held Christian Biblical doctrine, except for those that are confused and/or professing or pretending in this forum.
 
I have not confounded anything. The Antichrist is the Man of Sin; also known as the Son of Perdition.
It's your personal decision to refer to the Man of Sin as "antichrist."
This is a verse that has been missed, more than once, in this thread: Notice the different between the singularity of antichrist to that of the plurality of antichrists, as Apostle John, by inspiration of The Holy Ghost, distinguished these for us
True, there are many antichrists, but there is only one spirit of antichrist, 1 John 4:3, which is why it's confusing to talk about the man of sin as antichrist, although I allow he may be possessed by ( the spirit of) antichrist, as all antichrists.

For "the antichrist" is properly speaking a spirit, not a man.

.

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

There have been a great number of antichrists through Biblical history, as we do indeed live in a Biblical world, and there are many antichrists today, including but not limited to the R.C.C., JWs, SDA, and Mormons.
Adoptionists are antichrists by definition, because they don't accept that Jesus came in the flesh, but that only that the Spirit of Christ came into the flesh; but otherwise most denominations, even heretical ones, concur that Christ came in the flesh.

However, the prophetic event of the arrival of the coming of the Antichrist (Man of Sin) has yet to take place. The Man of Sin, the Antichrist will not confess Christ, but true to what is written in 2Thessalonians 2, will sit down in the throne of God and claim to be God.
I think you mean the temple of God, not the throne of God, per 2 Thess 2:4. But what is the temple of God? Is it not the church? Doesn't this denote the subversion of the church by a new religion of some kind, whereby the religion taught by Christ is trampled on? A bit like what is going on with Anglican and Episcopalian Bishops who seems to have subverted wholesale the teachings of Christ in order to make themselves de facto God of a new morality. But they still purport to confess Christ.

It appears to me, that Christians, such as Baptists on American Family Radio, as well as Christian Television understand this long held Christian Biblical doctrine, except for those that are confused and/or professing or pretending in this forum.
I'm not clear that anyone on this forum rejects the man-of-sin doctrine in 2 Thess 2:3. Do you have any evidence of it?
 
It's your personal decision to refer to the Man of Sin as "antichrist."
No, that is Biblical doctrine and has been and is still held by Christians. It is your person decision to teach otherwise.
True, there are many antichrists, but there is only one spirit of antichrist, 1 John 4:3, which is why it's confusing to talk about the man of sin as antichrist, although I allow he may be possessed by ( the spirit of) antichrist, as all antichrists.

For "the antichrist" is properly speaking a spirit, not a man.
The verse that I shared gave you the correction, and you could grasp that even more by prayerfully reading the full context, but you have opted to ignore and reject it. Too bad.
Adoptionists are antichrists by definition, because they don't accept that Jesus came in the flesh, but that only that the Spirit of Christ came into the flesh; but otherwise most denominations, even heretical ones, concur that Christ came in the flesh.


I think you mean the temple of God, not the throne of God, per 2 Thess 2:4. But what is the temple of God? Is it not the church? Doesn't this denote the subversion of the church by a new religion of some kind, whereby the religion taught by Christ is trampled on? A bit like what is going on with Anglican and Episcopalian Bishops who seems to have subverted wholesale the teachings of Christ in order to make themselves de facto God of a new morality. But they still purport to confess Christ.


I'm not clear that anyone on this forum rejects the man-of-sin doctrine in 2 Thess 2:3. Do you have any evidence of it?
We might can discuss the topic of the Antichrist, much more in-depth, in the Theological section. Feel free to go start a thread there if you like and post the link here. :)
 
This is a moot point about the SDA. I had already addressed this issue in a previous post. I will add, however, that people that have discarded the KJV have been duped by a plethora of lies.
It most certainly is NOT a moot point. And you didn’t address the contradiction in your argument at all.

You stated categorically -- more than once -- that SDAs are NOT KJVO.

I showed above that they ARE, in fact, KJVO.

But since the works of Standish and Wilkinson were published in 1997 and earlier, and lest you think things are different with SDAs now, how about we add to Standish and Wilkinson, a work by a man named Vance Ferrell -- published in 2003 -- entitled, The King James Bible and the Modern Versions.

Explain to us exactly how SDAs who write KJVO books are not KJVO.
 
Last edited:
And then there's the 2012 work by Rick Streight, who wrote a book entitled In Defense of the King James Bible.

What's particularly interesting about this Seventh Day Adventist KJVO book, is that there was an edition published a year earlier in 2011 that readily quoted Ellen G. White and mentioned the SDA church many times. In my 2012 edition, however, those references were scrubbed.


One example among many:

2011 -- "This book is not an attack on godly Christians in other churches who are not Seventh Day Adventists"

was changed to:

2012 -- "This book is not an attack on godly Christians."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top