-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I understand how. It takes work to learn Greek & Hebrew. It takes study to show self approved. Laziness would indicate to grab hold of a translation.
Also, I understand how some have a sort of magical view of religion, like soccer fans who think they must sit in the seat exactly some say so their team will win, or a baseball player may always kick dirt with right foot & grab left ear lobe before batting -- superstitious rituals. It is not the understanding which is then important, but repeating a ritual. This is like the old RCC repeating mass in Latin.
And also, I understand that satan & demons do not want men to understand God's Word. So by promoting an obtuse Elizabethan translation, men can be both discouraged & have the truth obfuscated. It obscures the gospel. It is akin to the old RCC adherence to the Latin vulgate.
KJVism is a perverse heresy by exalting a human translation (a tradition) over God's actual word.
Also, I understand how some have a sort of magical view of religion, like soccer fans who think they must sit in the seat exactly some say so their team will win, or a baseball player may always kick dirt with right foot & grab left ear lobe before batting -- superstitious rituals. It is not the understanding which is then important, but repeating a ritual. This is like the old RCC repeating mass in Latin.
And also, I understand that satan & demons do not want men to understand God's Word. So by promoting an obtuse Elizabethan translation, men can be both discouraged & have the truth obfuscated. It obscures the gospel. It is akin to the old RCC adherence to the Latin vulgate.
KJVism is a perverse heresy by exalting a human translation (a tradition) over God's actual word.
Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!
Do you know about the Lord Jesus? It is a person who must be trusted for salvation.
"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish."
Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.
Anyone who has demoted the Lord Jesus from Savior to mere chance-giver, is urged to repent now & trust Him as his Savior.
Faithful is He who called you, Who also will do it.
Do you know about the Lord Jesus? It is a person who must be trusted for salvation.
"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish."
Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.
Anyone who has demoted the Lord Jesus from Savior to mere chance-giver, is urged to repent now & trust Him as his Savior.
Faithful is He who called you, Who also will do it.
What leads you to suppose that most theists endorse 5:7?
How do you know that 5:7 belongs in the Bible?
How do you know that it is not a late forgery in Greek?
How do you know that it is the only verse that actually clarifies the Trinity?
How can you connect the KJV to the Bible God breathed out, since the KJV did not exist in AD 100? How could all the people trust that their Bibles were not forgeries before 1611? How can people who don't speak English trust their Bibles?
How can you exalt a human translation above God's Word?
How do you know that 5:7 belongs in the Bible?
How do you know that it is not a late forgery in Greek?
How do you know that it is the only verse that actually clarifies the Trinity?
How can you connect the KJV to the Bible God breathed out, since the KJV did not exist in AD 100? How could all the people trust that their Bibles were not forgeries before 1611? How can people who don't speak English trust their Bibles?
How can you exalt a human translation above God's Word?
How do you know that 5:7 belongs in the Bible?
How do you know that it is not a late forgery in Greek?
How do you know that it is the only verse that actually clarifies the Trinity?
How do you know that you know your Bible? Have you marked all the references to the Trinity in the Bible? How many times have your read it through? Are you familiar with Isaiah?
How do you know that it is not a late forgery in Greek?
How do you know that it is the only verse that actually clarifies the Trinity?
How do you know that you know your Bible? Have you marked all the references to the Trinity in the Bible? How many times have your read it through? Are you familiar with Isaiah?
P
1. Do you believe that a warning from God, is by itself, sufficient to prevent us from disobeying? God warns against sinning, yet we still sin, don't we? So clearly a warning points out that there is also a consequence of our actions, but it is not, by itself, sufficient to stop us from disobeying. So when God gave us a warning in Revelation 22:19, it was telling us what would happen when we did it. Yes, it can and has been done.
2. I have said, and I still maintain, there are no doctrinal errors in the KJV, but it does have errors. The word easter in Acts 12:4 is a corruption. In 2 Kings 10:34 it tells us that Chronicles relates the further exploits of Jehu. They aren't there.
That is the only two I have noted personally, and there very well may be more, but again, they aren't doctrinal.
2. I have said, and I still maintain, there are no doctrinal errors in the KJV, but it does have errors. The word easter in Acts 12:4 is a corruption. In 2 Kings 10:34 it tells us that Chronicles relates the further exploits of Jehu. They aren't there.
That is the only two I have noted personally, and there very well may be more, but again, they aren't doctrinal.
K
here it is
This is notes taken from a speech given in 1969 by Dr. Richard Day and you should read the whole thing. I have always been leery of new bible translations and this is why.
BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS...THE OLD RELIGIONS WILL HAVE TO GO Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. And he said, "Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals - so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down,the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it. Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They will realize that they don't need it.
CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF KEY WORDS In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word - and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually that word replaced with another word." I don't know if I'm making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."
"THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US!" Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, "Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand for this," andhe went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will not prevail against it." So .. yes, some people in the Churches might help. And in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.
This is taken from a speech given in 1969, If you read a modrern day translation. Please refer it back to the King James.
resources
New Order of Barbarians - transcript of tapes I-III | 100777.com
NWO Plans Exposed By Insider In 1969
New Order of Barbarians
NWO Plans Exposed by Insider (1969) Dr. Richard Day relayed by Lawrence Dunnegan 6 Part YT Videos | Planet Infowars
Richard Day speech | The Life Force Blog
This is notes taken from a speech given in 1969 by Dr. Richard Day and you should read the whole thing. I have always been leery of new bible translations and this is why.
BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS...THE OLD RELIGIONS WILL HAVE TO GO Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. And he said, "Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals - so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down,the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it. Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They will realize that they don't need it.
CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF KEY WORDS In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word - and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually that word replaced with another word." I don't know if I'm making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."
"THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US!" Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, "Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand for this," andhe went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will not prevail against it." So .. yes, some people in the Churches might help. And in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.
This is taken from a speech given in 1969, If you read a modrern day translation. Please refer it back to the King James.
resources
New Order of Barbarians - transcript of tapes I-III | 100777.com
NWO Plans Exposed By Insider In 1969
New Order of Barbarians
NWO Plans Exposed by Insider (1969) Dr. Richard Day relayed by Lawrence Dunnegan 6 Part YT Videos | Planet Infowars
Richard Day speech | The Life Force Blog
The only doctrinal difference I am aware of is that the KJV supports fasting as against the better Greek manuscripts. Check out your proof texts on fasting.
After the Lord Jesus came down from the Mt of Transfiguration, he encountered the apostles with a boy that they had been unable to cure. The Lord Jesus told them that this kind goes out only by prayer -- so I take it the apostles had not prayed. But the KJV says that this kind goes out only by prayer & fasting -- it adds fasting. Yet the Lord Jesus proceeded to heal the boy at once, without any fasting. If "fasting" were the correct reading, one would expect that it said something like: "And having told them this truth about fasting, the Lord fasted 3 days for the boy & then he was healed. In fact we know that the Lord Jesus did not want the apostles to fast & explained how it was not appropriate be fasting while He was there.
I take this myself as a point of departure on textual criticism. This gives some indication of the best manuscripts, namely the ones that do not have "fasting" added in. I suppose that "fasting" got in there by a marginal comment. Ascetism became popular in Christendom later, what with things like wearing wool shirts itchy side in (not just a little piece of wool like today). Ascetic severity to the body was promoted, though it is against the Bible -- living in caves or the like.
After the Lord Jesus came down from the Mt of Transfiguration, he encountered the apostles with a boy that they had been unable to cure. The Lord Jesus told them that this kind goes out only by prayer -- so I take it the apostles had not prayed. But the KJV says that this kind goes out only by prayer & fasting -- it adds fasting. Yet the Lord Jesus proceeded to heal the boy at once, without any fasting. If "fasting" were the correct reading, one would expect that it said something like: "And having told them this truth about fasting, the Lord fasted 3 days for the boy & then he was healed. In fact we know that the Lord Jesus did not want the apostles to fast & explained how it was not appropriate be fasting while He was there.
I take this myself as a point of departure on textual criticism. This gives some indication of the best manuscripts, namely the ones that do not have "fasting" added in. I suppose that "fasting" got in there by a marginal comment. Ascetism became popular in Christendom later, what with things like wearing wool shirts itchy side in (not just a little piece of wool like today). Ascetic severity to the body was promoted, though it is against the Bible -- living in caves or the like.
Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!
Believing the KJV is divinely inspired and is perfect has nothing to do with whether one knows the gospel. It also has nothing to do with OSAS, either. I believe people who don't know the KJV is inspired can still know the gospel and be saved. Also, I studied extensively on the topic of Soteriology (Which I believe was by the Spirit) and I am strongly against OSAS, my friend.
Believing the KJV is divinely inspired and is perfect has nothing to do with whether one knows the gospel. It also has nothing to do with OSAS, either. I believe people who don't know the KJV is inspired can still know the gospel and be saved. Also, I studied extensively on the topic of Soteriology (Which I believe was by the Spirit) and I am strongly against OSAS, my friend.
Last edited: