I am going to pretend You care. OK?

Does that make me crazy?

I have discovered why a scribe might have changed "provoke" to "become provoked".

He was using corresponding power.  I shall assume he wasn't alone so from henceforth I shall refer to it as they.  If I have to.

They were using human reasoning for corresponding scripture to scripture.  In case they found it reading "provoke" they would decide to change it to become "be provoked" to correspond to another witness which said,  "let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works".

As they were considering the danger of changing the meaning of Hebrews 10:24, they were disregarding the danger of changing the meaning of so much more.

Like what?

The first one to come to mind is the reaction of Jesus against the money changers.  He was provoked. Modern publishing companies might have agreed with me that he was provoked so they have added "easily" to scripture.  So now "does not become provoked" is changed to "does not easily become provoked".

Then there is The God of Israel saying that HE was provoked.  (Deuteronomy 32:16; 1 Kings 14:22)

Moses was provoked and Paul was provoked.

So who are all these people and gods who say we MUST love one another?  Love is not provoked says The Bible.  But God, Jesus, Moses and Paul were.  Tell me please.  Is the Bible saying love is not possible?

They see "love not provoke" and they see "let us provoke to love" and it didn't match.

Why does it appear not to match?

Because The Father provokes to love.  It is not a person's OWN job to provoke to love.  God is love.
So Hebrews 10:24 is about allowing God to provoke to love through us, but we must not provoke to love BY us.  1 Cor 13:5 is a scripture warning us not to take matters into our own hands.  And Hebrews 10:24 is a scripture allowing us the privilege to be God's fellow workers in Christ for love.

Let God provoke the people.  But let us not be provoking our neighbor. Hebrews 10:24;1 Cor 13:5

Another thing.  The meaning of provoke has taken on a negative meaning.  But what it means is "to be stirred up".  Positive and negative emotions can be stirred up.  Love can be stirred up and anger can be stirred up.  The Bible saying "love is not provoked [or stirred up]" is proving true.  Isn't it?
It is not true.  Anyone (everybody) having a part in making it true that love is not being stirred up, as scripture says it should not be, is on the liars side.

The Bible is on the liars side.  And by your silence you are all agreeing that it is where it should be.

Am I crazy?

I can't even imagine

How the wall of disdain is even possible.

They say

They say that knowing what words were written originally is not possible.  Those are people of FAITH who say it.

But against The Will of God people did changed it to what it doesn't say.

Now people say that to change it WITH God's blessing isn't possible.

And those are the people who would convince YOU to believe in God.

At the very least it is funny.

Do you really and truly not understand?

I do not say The Bible needs to be changed.  I am saying it needs to be UNCHANGED Restored.

At the writing of it something (good I believe) was intended.  OK, now think about that.

If someone after its writing changed it, which is possible because voila! you are afraid of that, then the INTENT is now missing.

Is it so hard to understand?

The dragon

The dragon is a mythical figure which protects his treasure with fire.
In the Bible, fire is a symbol of purification and total destruction.
Them believing that God protects God's word from corruption is them worshipping the dragon.
For only a dragon would put his treasure above everything else.

They fear judgement

I am not being puffed up to say that I have convincing scriptural evidence that some ideas in The Bible have been changed.  For instance 1 Corinthians 13:5.

The command of God is to love (John 13:34) and to be holy (Leviticus 11:45).

But the Bible says "Love does not become provoked".  Some Bibles add the word "easily" which is a compromise.  Though Holy does not compromise which is the very definition of holiness.

There is no creature that has ever existed that has not become provoked.  It is even written that Jesus became provoked at the money changers in the temple.

So?  Why won't they change it to say what was written (I believe) which is "love does not provoke"?

It is because they are afraid of God Almighty and also because they believe that God gave us The Bible just as it should be.  Their god protects it to keep it holy. God does not protect PEOPLE to keep them holy.  He does not protect children from calamity.  But those words in that Bible are all right and will always be all right, according to everyone actually.  Except me.

This is the interesting part of it.  I have observed that believers in God would have everyone fearing God to please God with their righteous acts.  Then the judgement will go well.  But those who are fearing God's judgement are the believers because they have proved incapable of considering their Bible might be wrong. They won't change it because God might not care for the change.  If God does not care for the change God might not care for the changer.

So you see (if you can see) that the wrong people are fearing God's judgement.  

What is the difference?

There is a difference between these two.

"God, make my way work for me".

and

"God, please lead me in the right way, which works for me".

What is it?