Romans 8:1-2, is conditional

[know1]

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

It should be understood that the law of the Spirit of life that makes one free from condemnation and from the law of sin and death, HAS A CONDITION ATTACHED TO IT.
That condition being, those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Those who walk after the flesh are referred to as, carnally minded, and the carnally minded look to and trust in the carnal or natural things of this world for the things they want.
The spiritually minded keep the word of God in their hearts and before their eyes, and look to God in faith through the promises of His word for the things they want.
It is written, "And the just shall live by faith", but when it comes to not only sickness, but many other things in life, many walk after the flesh for help, by seeking or looking to the natural and not after or to the Spirit.
Why is that?
Because most have not kept the word of God in their heart.
And when the floods and the storms of life come, and they will come, those who built their house on the sand (the word of doctors, or trusting in medications, treatments, or any person or thing in the natural world), will fall.
But if it is built on the word of God, it will stand. And not only will you weather the storms of life, with the floods, but the word you kept will bare fruit. And if it was for healing, then after the will of God is accomplished, you or your loved one will be healed.
If one doesn't have the faith for healing or whatever it might be for God to do for that person, then they are subject to the limits of what the natural can provide. And if that is what is necessary for that person to find relief or to survive, then that person should seek and pursue the natural, but should still do so in faith. To most, that is a blessing of God. And it is, because most don't live by the faith of God.

Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man drawback, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

It is written, the only way to please God is through faith. Yet if we shrink back in fear from declaring the word of God in faith, or in confident assurance that what the word of God says shall come to pass, in the face of the situation, regardless of what it may be, we are no longer walking after the Spirit, but after the flesh.
The words, draw back, mean to, shrink back in fear.
In many places around the world, declaring one's salvation does not present any threat to that person's life. No need for fear there. But what if we were to declare our healing publicly, according to the word of God, before we had any physical manifestation, and the public knew it?
Would that cause you to shrink back in fear?
Wouldn't you fear being made a fool of?
Well, what if God doesn't do anything.
Oh, the shame of it.
Isn't that what many would think? At least, that is what those who don't live by faith might think.
In most cases, sickness and disease are a result of the curse of the law of sin.
If you were not condemned, in most cases, no sickness or disease should come on you.
For it is written, Pro 26:2 As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come.
There are of course exceptions.
One being for the word's sake, which would be for the purpose of causing you to fall away from believing the word of God. One of those things the word of God deals with is about our healing through the work of the cross.
The cross not only provided a way for our salvation through faith, but among other things, for our healing and deliverance as well.
For if we are saved by grace through faith, then we are also healed and delivered by grace through this same said faith. For the word saved also means, healed, delivered or protected, preserved, or made whole.
If you had kept the word of God and not fallen away, then you would still believe this.

2 Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight)

But those who walk by sight, the testimonies of others, from personal experience or history, or that of others, and look to and live according to the dictates of the natural, are not living or walking in or after the Spirit, nor by faith.
Therefore, I believe most Christians live in condemnation and are not free in Christ Jesus from the curse of the law of sin, because they walk after the flesh and not after the Spirit in many areas in life. In particular, concerning that of healing from sicknesses and diseases.

One last note.
IT IS THE WILL OF GOD FOR YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES TO BE HEALED, HEALTHY, WHOLE, AND PROSPEROUS.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

To be carnally minded is death
The wage of sin is death
If you live after the flesh you shall die.

 

[Grace777x70]

Yes...if we live according to the flesh we will die before our time on this earth...sometimes it comes quicker then others while we are in this earth.

Take up shooting heroin in your arms today and you will be dead soon enough.

Now malice and slander and "things like these" as Gal 5:21 says - these show up in a different way in death. But in all this - the Christian is never not "in the Spirit". They are deceived or just not taught the true gospel of the grace of Christ as only grace teaches us how to live godly in this present world Titus 2:11-12.

That's why we should be teaching the true grace of Christ which only comes by total dependence on Christ by grace through faith. - not by works. The good works will manifest as the grace of Christ is brought to us.

1 Peter 1:13
[SUP]13 [/SUP] Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace being brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Only the grace of God will give us in this life on earth part of our inheritance that is ours because we are in Christ.

Acts 20:32 (NASB)
[SUP]32 [/SUP] "And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Good works do not "produce grace". Grace produces "good works" as a fruit of our union with Christ as the Holy Spirit transforms us outwardly to reflect our true nature which is already in us in our new creation in Christ - created in righteousness and holiness.

 

[Gr8grace]

OUR FOREVER POSITION:
NO CONDEMNATION IN CHRIST​

Related Resource -- Hymns with words "no condemnation" at CyberhymnalRo 4:7 “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 4:8 “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”Romans 8 beautifully begins with "no condemnation," and it marvelously ends with no separation (seeRomans 8:39- note) for those who are in Christ Jesus. One of the key words of Romans 8 is "Spirit" (especially in the first 27 verses) occurring some 20 times not including numerous pronouns ("Who").Is eternal security an issue that troubles you dear reader? Then let the word of Christ in Romans 8 richly dwell within you and you will come to appreciate and appropriate that "in Christ Jesus" you are safe and secure now and forever!If you are reading Romans 8:1 in the KJV (translated from the Greek Textus Receptus) you will note the added phrase "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."The Nestle-Aland and Westcott and Hort Greek texts do not consider this phrase as legitimate. It is probable that a copyist inadvertently picked up the phrase from Romans 8:4 which has the identical wording.Can you see how this additional phrase leads to a slightly different interpretation of "no condemnation"? Paul is not basing his declaration of no condemnation upon our conduct, but upon our position (in Christ). While it is true that those who are in Christ should not and do not consistently walk according to the flesh, this is not a condition for their status of "no condemnation" and for that we are thank our merciful Father for the wisdom and perfection of His plan of salvation.The Net Bible also adds this note: "The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts have no additional words for v1. Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are completely compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were obviously motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v4), for otherwise Paul’s gospel smelled too much of grace."!Dr Harry Ironside has an interesting thought on the variation in translations remarking that "Careful students of the original text discover that the last part of Romans 8:1 in the King James version is an interpolation properly belonging to verse 4 [Romans 8:4]. The magnificent statement that opens Romans 8 - "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" - requires no qualifying clause. Our justification does not depend on our walk. Freedom from condemnation is given to all who are in Christ, and to be in Him means to be of the new creation. A glance at the Revised version or any critical translation will show that what I am pointing out is sustained by all the editors. It was man's innate aversion to sovereign grace, I am certain, that brought these qualifying words into the text of the King James version. It seemed too much to believe that freedom from condemnation depended solely on being in Christ Jesus and not on our walking after the Spirit. So it was easy to lift the words from verse 4 [Romans 8:4-note ] into verse 1 [Romans 8:1 ]. But in verse 4 [Romans 8:4 ] they have their proper place for there Paul was writing of the state of the believer. In verse 1 [Romans 8:1 ] it is the question of standing that is under consideration. (Romans Expository Commentary)

Romans 8:1 Commentary | Precept Austin

 

[Grace777x70]

Paul was saying that those in Corinth were acting like mere men and men of flesh - in other words not being spiritually minded.

1 Corinthians 3:1-4 (NASB)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.

[SUP]2 [/SUP] I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,

[SUP]3 [/SUP] for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?

[SUP]4 [/SUP] For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?


I noticed that in verse 1 Paul says that they are "babes in Christ".

- not that you are going to hell because you are sinning. Or that because they were sinning - that they are not born of God.

 

[eph610]

who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Certain version including the KJV added this to the end.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Certain version including the KJV added this to the end.

Right.

for what it's worth, I believe the condition is in Christ Jesus.

 

[JGIG]

Certain version including the KJV added this to the end.

Dr Harry Ironside has an interesting thought on the variation in translations remarking that "Careful students of the original text discover that the last part of Romans 8:1 in the King James version is an interpolation properly belonging to verse 4 [Romans 8:4]. The magnificent statement that opens Romans 8 - "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" - requires no qualifying clause. Our justification does not depend on our walk. Freedom from condemnation is given to all who are in Christ, and to be in Him means to be of the new creation. A glance at the Revised version or any critical translation will show that what I am pointing out is sustained by all the editors. It was man's innate aversion to sovereign grace, I am certain, that brought these qualifying words into the text of the King James version. It seemed too much to believe that freedom from condemnation depended solely on being in Christ Jesus and not on our walking after the Spirit. So it was easy to lift the words from verse 4 [Romans 8:4-note ] into verse 1 [Romans 8:1 ]. But in verse 4 [Romans 8:4 ] they have their proper place for there Paul was writing of the state of the believer. In verse 1 [Romans 8:1 ] it is the question of standing that is under consideration. (Romans Expository Commentary)​

 

[seed_time_harvest]

We walk by faith not by sight.

 

[valiant]

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

It has no CONDITION attached. It is an EXPLANATION. It explains that there is no condemnation on the believer, and explains partly why, because he walks after the Spirit. A man who walks after the flesh is a natural man, an unbeliever, who has turned his back on the Spirit. But even the 'fleshly Christian' of 1 Cor 3 walks after the Spirit'. He is born again of the Spirit.;

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

That sums is up, the principle of the Spirit of life has made him free from the law of sin and of death. He has been born of the Spirit.

It should be understood that the law of the Spirit of life that makes one free from condemnation and from the law of sin and death, HAS A CONDITION ATTACHED TO IT.
That condition being, those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

It simply says that the one who is justified (Rom 3.21-5.21) is also born again (Rom 6.3).

Those who walk after the flesh are referred to as, carnally minded, and the carnally minded look to and trust in the carnal or natural things of this world for the things they want.

Those who walk after the flesh are unbelievers. They have none of the Spirit. A believer may have fleshly tendencies, but he never wholly 'walks after the flesh'

The spiritually minded keep the word of God in their hearts and before their eyes, and look to God

in faith through the promises of His word for the things they want.

Those who are walking after the Spirit do so because they are born again. Even the carnally minded Christian is 'walking after the Spirit'.

It is written, "And the just shall live by faith", but when it comes to not only sickness, but many other things in life, many walk after the flesh for help, by seeking or looking to the natural and not after or to the Spirit.

'The righteous shall live by faith' is speaking of those who have received Christ's imputed righteousness by faith (Rom 1.16-17)

You are totally mixed up about the meaning of Romans because you do not read it in its whole context.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

But even the 'fleshly Christian' of 1 Cor 3 walks after the Spirit'. He is born again of the Spirit.

While it is true the fleshly Christian of 1 Cor 3 is born again of the Spirit, it is not true that the fleshly Christian of 1 Cor 3 is walking after the Spirit.

Go back to Rom 7 and we find the born again one who continues to walk after the flesh.

Romans 7:

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.


The believer who walks after the flesh knows he/she wants to do what is rght in the sight of God. But he/she finds him/herself falling short.


Romans 7:

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


In vs 25, we are told that it is through Christ Jesus our Lord that we are delivered from the body of this death.


Now go to Rom 8:1

There is therefrore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,


As the believer continues in Christ Jesus there is no condemnation.

If the believer turns from the Lord Jesus Christ and lives according to the flesh, he/she is again subjected to what we see in Rom 7 ... For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I (Rom 7:15).

And it is as the believer walks in the flesh that see him/her living as shown in 1 Cor 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

 

[hornetguy]

One last note.
IT IS THE WILL OF GOD FOR YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES TO BE HEALED, HEALTHY, WHOLE, AND PROSPEROUS.

Patently false gospel.

Jesus never told us we would be physically whole, or prosperous, (remember the advice to the young ruler?).... why was the apostle Paul not healed of his affliction? Not enough faith?

In fact, we are told that if we follow Jesus, we should EXPECT trials and persecutions...

You are spreading the false doctrine of "prosperity"... trying to BRIBE people into following Jesus.

 

[know1]

OUR FOREVER POSITION:
NO CONDEMNATION IN CHRIST​

Related Resource -- Hymns with words "no condemnation" at CyberhymnalRo 4:7 “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 4:8 “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”Romans 8 beautifully begins with "no condemnation," and it marvelously ends with no separation (seeRomans 8:39- note) for those who are in Christ Jesus. One of the key words of Romans 8 is "Spirit" (especially in the first 27 verses) occurring some 20 times not including numerous pronouns ("Who").Is eternal security an issue that troubles you dear reader? Then let the word of Christ in Romans 8 richly dwell within you and you will come to appreciate and appropriate that "in Christ Jesus" you are safe and secure now and forever!If you are reading Romans 8:1 in the KJV (translated from the Greek Textus Receptus) you will note the added phrase "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."The Nestle-Aland and Westcott and Hort Greek texts do not consider this phrase as legitimate. It is probable that a copyist inadvertently picked up the phrase from Romans 8:4 which has the identical wording.Can you see how this additional phrase leads to a slightly different interpretation of "no condemnation"? Paul is not basing his declaration of no condemnation upon our conduct, but upon our position (in Christ). While it is true that those who are in Christ should not and do not consistently walk according to the flesh, this is not a condition for their status of "no condemnation" and for that we are thank our merciful Father for the wisdom and perfection of His plan of salvation.The Net Bible also adds this note: "The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts have no additional words for v1. Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are completely compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were obviously motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v4), for otherwise Paul’s gospel smelled too much of grace."!Dr Harry Ironside has an interesting thought on the variation in translations remarking that "Careful students of the original text discover that the last part of Romans 8:1 in the King James version is an interpolation properly belonging to verse 4 [Romans 8:4]. The magnificent statement that opens Romans 8 - "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" - requires no qualifying clause. Our justification does not depend on our walk. Freedom from condemnation is given to all who are in Christ, and to be in Him means to be of the new creation. A glance at the Revised version or any critical translation will show that what I am pointing out is sustained by all the editors. It was man's innate aversion to sovereign grace, I am certain, that brought these qualifying words into the text of the King James version. It seemed too much to believe that freedom from condemnation depended solely on being in Christ Jesus and not on our walking after the Spirit. So it was easy to lift the words from verse 4 [Romans 8:4-note ] into verse 1 [Romans 8:1 ]. But in verse 4 [Romans 8:4 ] they have their proper place for there Paul was writing of the state of the believer. In verse 1 [Romans 8:1 ] it is the question of standing that is under consideration. (Romans Expository Commentary)

Romans 8:1 Commentary | Precept Austin

It would be nice if no condemnation was the truth.
Try telling that to the Corinthians.

1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.


It would also hold some weight if the so called "oldest and most reliable" transcripts weren't so corrupt.
The codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are both corrupt copies of the bible.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="width: 580"]

Where Did the King James Bible Come From?​

[SIZE=-1]Adapted from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.[/SIZE]
There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:
Accurate Copies
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.
They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
Corrupted Copies
These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.
There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.
The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.
That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.
Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?
There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.
These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="width: 580"]

Where Did the King James Bible Come From?​

[SIZE=-1]Adapted from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.[/SIZE]
There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:
Accurate Copies
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.
They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
Corrupted Copies
These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.
There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.
The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.
That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.
Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?
There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.
These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree?

More in the next post.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[know1]

It would be nice if no condemnation was the truth.
Try telling that to the Corinthians.

1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.


It would also hold some weight if the so called "oldest and most reliable" transcripts weren't so corrupt.
The codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are both corrupt copies of the bible.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]

Where Did the King James Bible Come From?​

[SIZE=-1]Adapted from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.[/SIZE]
There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:
Accurate Copies
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.
They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
Corrupted Copies
These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.
There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.
The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.
That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.
Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?
There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.
These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree?[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]

Where Did the King James Bible Come From?​

[SIZE=-1]Adapted from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.[/SIZE]
There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:
Accurate Copies
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.
They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
Corrupted Copies
These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.
There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.
The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.
That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.
Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?
There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.
These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree?

More in the next post.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Facts About the Sinaiticus
The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas" to the New Testament.
The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:
"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.
Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament."
That's not all!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.
Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:
"From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."
Facts About the Sinaiticus
The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas" to the New Testament.
The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:
"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.
Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament."
That's not all!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.
Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:
"From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."

 

[know1]

Certain version including the KJV added this to the end.

Please read posts 13 and 14. It should explain why it was REMOVED from the corrupt versions, and not added as you assume.

 

[know1]

Right.

for what it's worth, I believe the condition is in Christ Jesus.

The condition to the law of life in Christ Jesus is not walking in the Spirit.
When a child of God sins, they are not walking in the Spirit, but in the flesh.
Would you say, just because they sinned that they are no longer in Christ?
I believe a son or daughter of God can sin, but still remain in Christ.

 

[know1]

You are totally mixed up about the meaning of Romans because you do not read it in its whole context.

Funny, after reading your post, I was thinking the same about you.
And it would be a waste of my time to try to disprove the mess you are propagating.

 

[know1]

Patently false gospel.

Jesus never told us we would be physically whole, or prosperous, (remember the advice to the young ruler?).... why was the apostle Paul not healed of his affliction? Not enough faith?

In fact, we are told that if we follow Jesus, we should EXPECT trials and persecutions...

You are spreading the false doctrine of "prosperity"... trying to BRIBE people into following Jesus.

Sir, you are spouting off about something you know very little about.
3Jn 1:2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

If John said it, then God said it. Which makes it the will of God.

Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Is it God's will for you to suffer lack, be in want, or be sick in heaven? Then neither is it His will for His children to suffer such things here in this world.


I just gave two witnesses, therefore the testimony is true.
As for Paul, God gave him the answer to his dilemma. He didn't tell him, no, but how to get delivered.
Was God's grace sufficient for Paul's salvation?
Wasn't God's power perfected when Paul accepted Christ's work on the cross in faith, because of His inability to save himself?
If God's grace was sufficient for Paul's salvation, then the same said grace is sufficient to take care of a messenger of the devil, if he uses the same faith that he got saved with.

 

[know1]

Patently false gospel.

Jesus never told us we would be physically whole, or prosperous, (remember the advice to the young ruler?).... why was the apostle Paul not healed of his affliction? Not enough faith?

In fact, we are told that if we follow Jesus, we should EXPECT trials and persecutions...

You are spreading the false doctrine of "prosperity"... trying to BRIBE people into following Jesus.

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
As for sicknesses and diseases, Christ was made a curse to redeem us from the curse of the law of sin and death.
Sickness and disease is a result of the curse of the law of sin.
Therefore it is the will of God for His children to be health, healed, delivered, and whole.
Christ didn't just suffer for your salvation, but for your healing as well.

 

[Gr8grace]

It would be nice if no condemnation was the truth.
Try telling that to the Corinthians.

1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.


It would also hold some weight if the so called "oldest and most reliable" transcripts weren't so corrupt.
The codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are both corrupt copies of the bible.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]

Where Did the King James Bible Come From?​

[SIZE=-1]Adapted from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.[/SIZE]
There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:
Accurate Copies
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.
They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
Corrupted Copies
These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.
There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.
The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.
That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.
Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?
There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.
These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree?[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]

Where Did the King James Bible Come From?​

[SIZE=-1]Adapted from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.[/SIZE]
There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:
Accurate Copies
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.
They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
Corrupted Copies
These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.
There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.
The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.
That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.
Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?
There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.
These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree?

More in the next post.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The KJV translators themselves~~~~

[FONT=&quot]Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.[/FONT]