My KJV Debate with Jeffrey Dollar
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- Start date
-
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.
Do you have access to the word of God? Instead of casting insults, please answer.
Would you consider the Thessalonians to be in a cult?
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Would you consider the Thessalonians to be in a cult?
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
I don't recall seeing that previously, but I looked at it now. It doesn't adequately address the issue. An artist's painting IS corruptible, so the comparison doesn't hold. Either the word of God is incorruptible (that means "cannot be corrupted") and therefore W&H could not corrupt it, or it is corruptible, and the KJV translators are potentially guilty of doing so. Simple logic permits no other options.
Again, Peter simply does not say that the word of God is incorruptible. He doesn't say anything about it in that verse. What he does say is that the seed is incorruptible. If you had done your homework, you would know that the word "corruptible" in that context does not mean "cannot be manipulated and changed", but rather, "will not rot or degrade".
Yes, 2:2 is talking about the communicated word of God, but that says nothing about 1:23. Meanwhile, 1:3-4 says,
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
That's a much better rhetorical basis for the statement in 1:23.
That's not what Hebrews 5:13-14 says.
This discussion is not about "Modern Bibles"; it's about the KJV. Don't try to change the subject.
Again, Peter simply does not say that the word of God is incorruptible. He doesn't say anything about it in that verse. What he does say is that the seed is incorruptible. If you had done your homework, you would know that the word "corruptible" in that context does not mean "cannot be manipulated and changed", but rather, "will not rot or degrade".
Yes, 2:2 is talking about the communicated word of God, but that says nothing about 1:23. Meanwhile, 1:3-4 says,
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
That's a much better rhetorical basis for the statement in 1:23.
That's not what Hebrews 5:13-14 says.
This discussion is not about "Modern Bibles"; it's about the KJV. Don't try to change the subject.
I believe a Christian can be saved by the gospel message from a Modern Bible. However, Modern Bibles can lead you astray into false doctrines (e.g., Jesus sinned, the Word was not eternal before becoming flesh, divorce is permitted later in marriage or for lying, you must marry the one who raped you, or you should wish castration upon some people). They can also cause you to fall for Modern Textual Criticism, leading to either altering God’s Word (facing God’s judgment in Revelation 22:18-19) or denying Jesus Christ (apostasy), as seen with Bart Ehrman and Rick Beckman. I believe a Christian can be saved by the gospel message from a Modern Bible. However, Modern Bibles can lead you astray into false doctrines (e.g., Jesus sinned, the Word was not eternal before becoming flesh, divorce is permitted later in marriage or for lying, you must marry the one who raped you, or you should wish castration upon some people). They can also cause you to fall for Modern Textual Criticism, leading to either altering God’s Word (facing God’s judgment in Revelation 22:18-19) or denying Jesus Christ (apostasy), as seen with Bart Ehrman and Rick Beckman.
As for the TLB or Living Bible:
No Hebrew or Greek was even consulted by Kenneth Taylor. The Living Bible was a paraphrase from the 1901 ASV.
So if you are for the Hebrew or Greek, this is the worst Bible to praise as getting you saved from.
While God can use such means to give you the saving gospel message, you should be warning others to stay away from the Living Bible because of the many problems that it contains, my friend.
As for your desire that if you can choose only one standard, it is the original languages:
So if you are for the original languages as your one standard, which Hebrew and Greek original languages? The Critical Text? That is constantly shape-shifting and it technically is an artificial text that did not exist until 1881 when Westcott and Hort made their own never-before-seen Greek text by trying to smash together Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. The church never used Westcott and Hort's artificial Greek text. Besides, Codex Sinaiticus contains an additional passage in Matthew 27:49 that says that Jesus was pierced with a spear before his death on the cross. Of course, Modern English Bibles do not follow this ridiclous reading. So, clearly it is not the best manuscript as scholars are claiming it is. Most of your Modern English Bibles are based to some large degree on the corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.
...
....
As for the TLB or Living Bible:
No Hebrew or Greek was even consulted by Kenneth Taylor. The Living Bible was a paraphrase from the 1901 ASV.
So if you are for the Hebrew or Greek, this is the worst Bible to praise as getting you saved from.
While God can use such means to give you the saving gospel message, you should be warning others to stay away from the Living Bible because of the many problems that it contains, my friend.
As for your desire that if you can choose only one standard, it is the original languages:
So if you are for the original languages as your one standard, which Hebrew and Greek original languages? The Critical Text? That is constantly shape-shifting and it technically is an artificial text that did not exist until 1881 when Westcott and Hort made their own never-before-seen Greek text by trying to smash together Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. The church never used Westcott and Hort's artificial Greek text. Besides, Codex Sinaiticus contains an additional passage in Matthew 27:49 that says that Jesus was pierced with a spear before his death on the cross. Of course, Modern English Bibles do not follow this ridiclous reading. So, clearly it is not the best manuscript as scholars are claiming it is. Most of your Modern English Bibles are based to some large degree on the corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.
...
....
I would argue that unless your reading it in the original languages it was written then one can be lead astray but the word of God is the word of God translation doesn't matter because the spirit of God will lead one to all truths what bible you use doesn't matter because that is why we have the mediator the holy spirit.
lots is lost in translations from the original language and not even the king hames does it justice. I would becareful discounting the word just because of translation
lots is lost in translations from the original language and not even the king hames does it justice. I would becareful discounting the word just because of translation
You assume it means all translations...
So let's see... If God breathed all translations... John 7:8 and 10 in those new perversions say....
NASB
NIV
ESV
CSB
RSV
Look at that each and everyone, Jesus says He will NOT go.... Then He goes... So Jesus lied!
Let's see what the word of God said.
Notice the word YET there.
If someone asks "hey are you coming to the movies with us"
And you respond "I am not going"... Are you going? NO!
Now if they ask "hey are you coming to the movies with us"
and you respond "I am not going yet" Are you going? YES! Just not with them.
Funny how one little word yet is such a HUGE change.
So, you say those translations are breathed out by God.... Why does your god lie?
My God did not make those translations... John 8:44 explains who made them...
it still says the same thing he says he will not go but ends up going the message is the same and no I am not assuming anything if the word of God says all scripture is God breathed then I take it as truth I don't add or take away from what is said any interpretation is not there you can take it as truth or try to make it say something it isn't but the fact is the scripture is plain and simple so yes even though some words are lost like I said before if the word of God says something I believe it.
Hi if I may, this what I believe in the text of 1 Peter 1:23, that being born again is the work of the Holy Spirit using the word of God which according to Peter lives and abides for ever. That is meant when the scripture used the word "by" being an instrument or means and best described to be active and eternal. The word "incorruptible" which is " not of corruptible" means eternal. Actually, the KJB gives the exact definition of the word " incorruptible" that which abides for ever or eternal, hence the one being referred to the text is the word of God.
Now, the question is if the word of God is eternal can it be changed or can it be corrupted by W_H? In essence its a Yes and No. Yes, W-H demonstrably they did and scripture says even during the time of the Apostles tgat there are people who corrup the word of God 2 Cor. 2:17
2 Corinthians 2:17 KJV — For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
No. In the sense, we still hold in our hands the pure Bible, the KJb.
Blessings!
Now, the question is if the word of God is eternal can it be changed or can it be corrupted by W_H? In essence its a Yes and No. Yes, W-H demonstrably they did and scripture says even during the time of the Apostles tgat there are people who corrup the word of God 2 Cor. 2:17
2 Corinthians 2:17 KJV — For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
No. In the sense, we still hold in our hands the pure Bible, the KJb.
Blessings!