-
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.
Yes I do, now you answer me this. Do you believe ACTS 9:40 should be in the bible?
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber. [SUP]38 [/SUP]And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.
[SUP]40 [/SUP]But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.
Last edited:
yeah, count 1 : failure to observe county zoning regulations with respect to Dinosaur Adventure Land.[SUP][39][/SUP] Despite arguments that the owners did not need a permit due to the nature of the building
(What a monster!!)
The next 3 counts were over a 50$ building permit...
After a 5-year misdemeanor court battle over the $50 building permit, on June 5, 2006, Hovind pled nolo contendere as charged to three counts: constructing a building without a permit, refusing to sign a citation
Creation Science Evangelism is not listed as a tax-exempt organization by the Internal Revenue Service
(whether you agree or not- not an evil man) personally I agree that creation science evangelism is work for God.
He doesn't believe that income tax is constitutional? i agree.
Regardless of what you want to believe about his stance on God, government and taxes Kent Hovind has brought countless people to Jesus Christ and protected countless more children from false information in the science classrooms. Don't judge him. He has done more work for God than most.
THis post belongs in conspiracy.
There are plenty of people who stand against the government and schools and nothings happened to them. 10 years is lenient for fruad, if they really wanted him out the way and punish him, he would have had longer sentance, or met with a fatal accident.
Hovind only has himself to blame. If we start down the road of letting people off because they are Christians who done great things with many people, then it will not end well.
There are plenty of people who stand against the government and schools and nothings happened to them. 10 years is lenient for fruad, if they really wanted him out the way and punish him, he would have had longer sentance, or met with a fatal accident.
Hovind only has himself to blame. If we start down the road of letting people off because they are Christians who done great things with many people, then it will not end well.
Crocodiles and sharks both existed exactly as they are in larger form... They were here since the beginning according to archaeology. Dino's and humans did co-exist because Man was made in the beginning with the rest of God's creation (according to the bible) and again, this man has brought more people to Jesus than just about anyone I could name.
Jason, I made a very simple point, to which most of what you posted here is a sideshow. Do you, or do you not, acknowledge that there are differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus, as John Burgon himself noted over 100 years ago?
I am utterly disinterested at this point in comparing the Critical Texts and the TR - we can come to that later. I'm simply dealing with the point that YOU replied to asking me to prove. So let's not change the subject.
I am utterly disinterested at this point in comparing the Critical Texts and the TR - we can come to that later. I'm simply dealing with the point that YOU replied to asking me to prove. So let's not change the subject.
While I agree with all these things, it's irrelevant to what the Majority Text and the TR/KJ say comparatively to each other. I don't have to have faith in the word of God to compare the Majority Text and the TR. I just need to look at the text.
Second, what you're defending is not inerrancy. You're defending your own idiosyncratic brand of inerrancy not held by most Christians, not held by most utterly faithful textual scholars, and not held historically. So, in my perspective, this part of your post is even more irrelevant.
Great.
So you will now, of course, agree with me that the TR/KJV is not the Majority Text, and there are real and tangible differences. ?
Ah, no. The words 'raised from the dead', "raise the dead", or any other similar words do not appear in Matthew 10:8. At all. The majority of manuscripts do not contain those words. I don't kow what this transliteration you're talking about is, but it's not in that verse. Secondly, W&H did not use the a compiled Majority Text in their work, and they did not for the most part rely on later manuscripts at all. You may have got your wires crossed. But I don't particularly care about W&H. I care about modern scholarship. In any case, I will point out most, if not all, modern translations contain those three words, in agreement with the KJV and in disagreement with the Majority Text
The words raised the dead don't appear, the words "raise the dead" do. in both the TR and Westcott and Horts 1881 edition, as they also do in later critical texts As a side note, you can read online versions of the BMT online, I think there are a couple of iterations up there, including one by Robinson and Pierpoint, who are the biggest Majority Text supporters at the moment.
You can still buy TRs, and I believe Dr James White, who is an anti-KJV-Onlyist, has a TR from, I think, the original Stephanus print run. So I simply don't understand what you mean by saying the TR is lost to the public. The text also exists online in full.
But you acknowledge that the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus have differences, yes? That's all I'm really asking at this point.
Second, what you're defending is not inerrancy. You're defending your own idiosyncratic brand of inerrancy not held by most Christians, not held by most utterly faithful textual scholars, and not held historically. So, in my perspective, this part of your post is even more irrelevant.
Great.
So you will now, of course, agree with me that the TR/KJV is not the Majority Text, and there are real and tangible differences. ?Ah, no. The words 'raised from the dead', "raise the dead", or any other similar words do not appear in Matthew 10:8. At all. The majority of manuscripts do not contain those words. I don't kow what this transliteration you're talking about is, but it's not in that verse. Secondly, W&H did not use the a compiled Majority Text in their work, and they did not for the most part rely on later manuscripts at all. You may have got your wires crossed. But I don't particularly care about W&H. I care about modern scholarship. In any case, I will point out most, if not all, modern translations contain those three words, in agreement with the KJV and in disagreement with the Majority Text
The words raised the dead don't appear, the words "raise the dead" do. in both the TR and Westcott and Horts 1881 edition, as they also do in later critical texts As a side note, you can read online versions of the BMT online, I think there are a couple of iterations up there, including one by Robinson and Pierpoint, who are the biggest Majority Text supporters at the moment.
You can still buy TRs, and I believe Dr James White, who is an anti-KJV-Onlyist, has a TR from, I think, the original Stephanus print run. So I simply don't understand what you mean by saying the TR is lost to the public. The text also exists online in full.
But you acknowledge that the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus have differences, yes? That's all I'm really asking at this point.
I do believe that verse should be in the Bible - it's one of those many verses about which there is no textual disagreement. But Acts 9:40 is not relevant to the point I brought up.
By your answer, I assume you agree with me that there are differences between the Majority Text and the TR/KJV?
By your answer, I assume you agree with me that there are differences between the Majority Text and the TR/KJV?
Last edited:
I have debated this topic more times than I can count. There is no real way you can know what documents in history are true or not unless you test the text in the here and now (i.e. observable evidences). Meaning, you need to show that the text was divinely inspired in some way. That no human could have written them because they are without error. But you don't believe that. There is no perfect Word of God for you. I believe God's Word is perfect not because of what some scholar said or what some document in history says but because the Bible actually states that. This is called "faith." For without it, you will not be able to see (with your unseen spiritual eyes).
For I really can't prove Historical Science (Which would involvve a maze of finding which document is true or not). We have no way of knowing for sure unless we had a time machine. What I can do is prove what exists in the here and now by testing the observeable evidences of the Word of God that is available to me.
For I know the KJV is a divinely inspired book. First, every word has given me a deep spiritual and rich understanding of what the Lord wanted to show me by the Spirit. Yes, other translations have been helpful, but they also have their problems, though. I never ran into a problem that I could not explain with the KJV. In fact, those folks who have pointed out supposed contradictions in the KJV were easily refuted if one were to simply compare Scripture with Scripture. Second, it appears most other translations appear to attack the goodness that is found in the KJV. Also, in Modern Translations, the devil's name is all over them. Third, Biblical numerics is another thing that confirms the KJV as well as the original Greek. Fourth, the KJV comes under more attack than any other translation as it being the Word. Hateful accusations are thrown at KJV-onlyists most of the time and pointing to such and such documents (When I have no way of really knowing) is the basis for the argument. Word of God? Can that be a defense for the argument maybe? See, you can't prove your position according to the Bible (Unlike I can). See, we are talking about a spiritual matter here; And the Word of God should be able to give us the answer.
For I really can't prove Historical Science (Which would involvve a maze of finding which document is true or not). We have no way of knowing for sure unless we had a time machine. What I can do is prove what exists in the here and now by testing the observeable evidences of the Word of God that is available to me.
For I know the KJV is a divinely inspired book. First, every word has given me a deep spiritual and rich understanding of what the Lord wanted to show me by the Spirit. Yes, other translations have been helpful, but they also have their problems, though. I never ran into a problem that I could not explain with the KJV. In fact, those folks who have pointed out supposed contradictions in the KJV were easily refuted if one were to simply compare Scripture with Scripture. Second, it appears most other translations appear to attack the goodness that is found in the KJV. Also, in Modern Translations, the devil's name is all over them. Third, Biblical numerics is another thing that confirms the KJV as well as the original Greek. Fourth, the KJV comes under more attack than any other translation as it being the Word. Hateful accusations are thrown at KJV-onlyists most of the time and pointing to such and such documents (When I have no way of really knowing) is the basis for the argument. Word of God? Can that be a defense for the argument maybe? See, you can't prove your position according to the Bible (Unlike I can). See, we are talking about a spiritual matter here; And the Word of God should be able to give us the answer.
I can say that you are focused more on Creation and not Jesus Christ by pointing out the fact that your "User Name" says "The Creation Tutor." But I am not going to make that wrong assumption, though. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that Jesus is the focus of your life and not Creationism by what you say and do here.
So I would thank you if you were to not to imply that all KJV-onlyists here are actually worshiping a book. I respect and revere God's Word but I do not worship it as if it is God Himself. God is Spirit. In other words, I look at God's Word as a love letter that I would have written to my fiance. When my fiance receives the letter, she is not going to think the letter is actually the entirety of me. She is not going to take my letter out on a date or marry it. Yet, the words in the letter convey my heart and thoughts about how I feel about her. It's the same with the Word of God. God loves us and He has conveyed His love within His Word so as to guide us spiritually into a loving relationship with Him.
So I would thank you if you were to not to imply that all KJV-onlyists here are actually worshiping a book. I respect and revere God's Word but I do not worship it as if it is God Himself. God is Spirit. In other words, I look at God's Word as a love letter that I would have written to my fiance. When my fiance receives the letter, she is not going to think the letter is actually the entirety of me. She is not going to take my letter out on a date or marry it. Yet, the words in the letter convey my heart and thoughts about how I feel about her. It's the same with the Word of God. God loves us and He has conveyed His love within His Word so as to guide us spiritually into a loving relationship with Him.
Last edited:
That's fine, Jason. I'm long since past the point where I believe it's fruitful to discuss the KJV directly with you. I was simply raising the point that the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Majority Text in a number of places, a point that has been agreed to by Critical Text and Majority Text proponents since the 19th century, including several scholars commonly invoked by KJVO proponents. If you don't want to reply to me on that point and instead argue along faith lines, that's fine. We can go that route, as we have done before. But at least acknowledge my basic point so we can move on. There is nothing that poisons discussion more than raising points in argument that have nothing to do with the point in question, but pretending as if they're relevant.
In the interests, of clarity, I will ask it simply again, and then we can move on:
Do you acknowledge there are differences between the Majority Text and the Received Text, and by extension the King James? If your position rests on 'faith', as you refer to it, instead of the sources of the texts we have, then you should have no trouble agreeing. To you, it shouldn't matter what text is used, as long as it is the one you accept as inspired.
In the interests, of clarity, I will ask it simply again, and then we can move on:
Do you acknowledge there are differences between the Majority Text and the Received Text, and by extension the King James? If your position rests on 'faith', as you refer to it, instead of the sources of the texts we have, then you should have no trouble agreeing. To you, it shouldn't matter what text is used, as long as it is the one you accept as inspired.
Last edited:
Yes there are translational issues. The reality of my decision to go KJV is not in regards to translation. It's transcription. I only trust the thousands of manuscripts that agree with eachother. The majority texts, which of course is where the Textus Receptus comes from. The advantage to the KJV over other majority text translations is that the translational errors are well documented, so there aren't really any translational surprises yet. Again though, keyword Transcription.
I am not talking translation. I am talking textual differences. There should not be a single difference between the Majority Text, NA28 or the TR on the basis of translation, because they are all Greek texts. But there are clear TEXTUAL differences between the majority text and the TR. I'll ask you the same question I asked Jason.
Do you think the words 'raise the dead' should be in Matthew 10:8, even though they do not appear in the majority of manuscripts, and John Burgon himself said:
Do you think the words 'raise the dead' should be in Matthew 10:8, even though they do not appear in the majority of manuscripts, and John Burgon himself said:
There is a difference between Historical Science and Observable Science. One you can test and repeat in the present (or the here and now easily). The other you cannot. Your argument about some documents in the past cannot be verified unless we actually can look at them and test them in the present to see if they are true (Or unless we can see these documents being passed down thru time with a time machine are true or not). For I have no way of knowing if some guy with a false agenda is pushing such and such history about their own corrupted manuscripts for their own wrong ends (i.e. having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof).
I stick with Scripture. All spiritual matters should be defended with Scripture. You can't do that. Your approach is worldly and carnal and not faith based or focused on the Word of God. It is man based. Men had written history about these documents or had translated passed down copies (of which we believe to be the Word). However, the proof is in the pudding. If God's Word is true (And it is) then it will reflect the perfection and goodness of our God simply today for our world. God doesn't make mistakes. Especially not in His Word. God is also not going to make be in doubt of His Word, either. For I believe in the Holy Bible; And not the holey Bible, my friend.
I stick with Scripture. All spiritual matters should be defended with Scripture. You can't do that. Your approach is worldly and carnal and not faith based or focused on the Word of God. It is man based. Men had written history about these documents or had translated passed down copies (of which we believe to be the Word). However, the proof is in the pudding. If God's Word is true (And it is) then it will reflect the perfection and goodness of our God simply today for our world. God doesn't make mistakes. Especially not in His Word. God is also not going to make be in doubt of His Word, either. For I believe in the Holy Bible; And not the holey Bible, my friend.
In other words, I believe certain believers cannot see this issue because they have not received God's Word on this matter. I am not talking about salvation. Anyone can be saved by hearing a couple of verses in the Bible from most any translation. I am talking about a topic that is spiritual that has to do with trusting God's Word. Not just some of it. All of it. For if I can't trust one Word in the Holy Scriptures, what makes me trust the rest of it? History? What some scholar said? No way. I trust in God's Word by faith. For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
In fact, this relates to a recent discussion I am having about John 8:41. In that chapter Jesus says to the Pharisees that they do not understand because they did not hear His Word. His Word is the Holy Scriptures and the very words He spoke. For Jesus said the volume of the book speaks of Him. His Word. Are you receiving the matter on this topic according to His Word? Don't you think all spiritual matters are talked about within His Word?
In fact, this relates to a recent discussion I am having about John 8:41. In that chapter Jesus says to the Pharisees that they do not understand because they did not hear His Word. His Word is the Holy Scriptures and the very words He spoke. For Jesus said the volume of the book speaks of Him. His Word. Are you receiving the matter on this topic according to His Word? Don't you think all spiritual matters are talked about within His Word?