-
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.
Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!
History and a logical deduction with God's Word. For example there is Jesus Christ and an Anti-Christ. There is a true vine and the vine of Sodom. Two trees in the Garden. One good and one bad. In other words, the devil tries to be like the most high in any way shape or form.
History and a logical deduction with God's Word. For example there is Jesus Christ and an Anti-Christ. There is a true vine and the vine of Sodom. Two trees in the Garden. One good and one bad. In other words, the devil tries to be like the most high in any way shape or form.
Just to clear things up:
Paul didn't try to convince them with his intellect, he tried to convince them by the gospel, and the life, death, resurrection of the Lord Jesus. His reference to their culture was simply a way to win a hearing. Certainly, there's nothing in the text to suggest the Areopagus speech was a failure - if you think it is such, that's simply because you've read that into the text.
A church was planted in Athens, but possibly existed before Paul. In any case, his Areopagus speech hardly failed, as Acts 17 records people were converted on the spot. If I recall correctly, one of those mentioned by name, Dionysius, is held by the Orthodox church to be the second bishop of Athens.
And to suggest that Paul did not teach doctrine, did not give an opinion, did not mention the OT to the Corinthians is plainly wrong. 1 Corinthians is full of allusions to the OT, and full of 'doctrine' and views. What he means by knowing nothing other than Christ crucified is a matter of posture - he did not come as a towering intellect (which he wasn't in Athens anyway) but instead rested on the message of Christ crucified, both rhetorically and it seems in temperament as well.
Paul didn't try to convince them with his intellect, he tried to convince them by the gospel, and the life, death, resurrection of the Lord Jesus. His reference to their culture was simply a way to win a hearing. Certainly, there's nothing in the text to suggest the Areopagus speech was a failure - if you think it is such, that's simply because you've read that into the text.
A church was planted in Athens, but possibly existed before Paul. In any case, his Areopagus speech hardly failed, as Acts 17 records people were converted on the spot. If I recall correctly, one of those mentioned by name, Dionysius, is held by the Orthodox church to be the second bishop of Athens.
And to suggest that Paul did not teach doctrine, did not give an opinion, did not mention the OT to the Corinthians is plainly wrong. 1 Corinthians is full of allusions to the OT, and full of 'doctrine' and views. What he means by knowing nothing other than Christ crucified is a matter of posture - he did not come as a towering intellect (which he wasn't in Athens anyway) but instead rested on the message of Christ crucified, both rhetorically and it seems in temperament as well.
Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!
I strive to say focused more on the Word of God and not so much on general History. Got it. 1885. The date is inconsequential. Okay. So now I believe in the 1885 (1611) King James then as when the KJV was likened unto the one we have today. I believe that is when we had a perfect Word for our world language for today. Before that time, it was the Latin Bible that was the perfect Word. Unless you can think of another reason why the 1885 KJV is different than the one we have now.
Side Note:
I am a bit skeptical when it comes to secular History. There is no way for me to really confirm or deny if those events are true unless I had a time machine. That's why I don't consider the date important.
I strive to say focused more on the Word of God and not so much on general History. Got it. 1885. The date is inconsequential. Okay. So now I believe in the 1885 (1611) King James then as when the KJV was likened unto the one we have today. I believe that is when we had a perfect Word for our world language for today. Before that time, it was the Latin Bible that was the perfect Word. Unless you can think of another reason why the 1885 KJV is different than the one we have now.
Side Note:
I am a bit skeptical when it comes to secular History. There is no way for me to really confirm or deny if those events are true unless I had a time machine. That's why I don't consider the date important.
Last edited:
Yet, when I was reading up on the 1769 (1611), Wikipedia says that it did remove the Apocrypha.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Standard_text_of_1769
Which is confirmed by others.
What is the King James Version (KJV)?
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/kj1769.php
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Standard_text_of_1769
Which is confirmed by others.
What is the King James Version (KJV)?
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/kj1769.php
Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!
Also, in regards to two Latin Vulgates (With one of them being a counterfeit), please read these articles here:
How did God preserve His words to this day?
Are the Hebrew and Greek behind the New King James the same as that for the King James Bible?
Also, in regards to two Latin Vulgates (With one of them being a counterfeit), please read these articles here:
How did God preserve His words to this day?
Are the Hebrew and Greek behind the New King James the same as that for the King James Bible?
How many of you guys believed the Ahaziah age discrepancy lie?
How many of you went to the bible to understand the discrepancy?
Why is it even considered an "error"?
The same people that tell you Ahaziah's age is an error are the same people that are telling you the inerrant word of God doesn't exist today. These people (bible scholars etc.) made an error in saying Ahaziah's age is an error. If they made this so obvious to see misrepresentation of the truth then why on earth would you believe them when they tell you the inerrant word of God doesn't exist today.
When they say translations can't be inspired, do you believe that lie also? How many lies have to be proven lies before you will accept that the KJV is the inerrant word of God?
How many of you went to the bible to understand the discrepancy?
Why is it even considered an "error"?
The same people that tell you Ahaziah's age is an error are the same people that are telling you the inerrant word of God doesn't exist today. These people (bible scholars etc.) made an error in saying Ahaziah's age is an error. If they made this so obvious to see misrepresentation of the truth then why on earth would you believe them when they tell you the inerrant word of God doesn't exist today.
When they say translations can't be inspired, do you believe that lie also? How many lies have to be proven lies before you will accept that the KJV is the inerrant word of God?
The thing is that God can easily help each and every one of us here if we keep asking the Lord and if we keep seeking the Scriptures until we have that "Ah ha" moment concerning "Ahaziah." There is no doubt in my mind that this is true. For the Lord has helped me to have the spiritual understanding on other supposed contradictions many times before. In other words, it's like trying to explain to someone how you got saved according to the Scriptures. You have that "Ah ha" spiritual moment with God according to His Word. The thing is, do you want to continue to have more of these "Ah ha" moments or no?
Last edited:
The thing about Ahaziah is not an ah ha moment. It is an I'm reading the wrong bible moment. If anyone takes the time to read the story from the KJV, it is obvious beyond the shadow of a doubt that there are 2 Ahaziah's.
The KJV reveals the truth about Ahaziah, the NASB corrupted the pure word of God.
KJV
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
NASB
2 Ahaziah was [b]twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the [c]granddaughter of Omri.
Even that's probably not the real reason why people have accepted the lie about Ahaziah's. I think the real reason is that most people don't read the bible, they read OTHER PEOPLES commentary about the bible. There's no need to go to a website to determine if God's word is true or not. Just go to the inerrant word and read about it... study to show thyself approved.
The KJV reveals the truth about Ahaziah, the NASB corrupted the pure word of God.
KJV
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
NASB
2 Ahaziah was [b]twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the [c]granddaughter of Omri.
Even that's probably not the real reason why people have accepted the lie about Ahaziah's. I think the real reason is that most people don't read the bible, they read OTHER PEOPLES commentary about the bible. There's no need to go to a website to determine if God's word is true or not. Just go to the inerrant word and read about it... study to show thyself approved.
I disagree. The KJV-only Postion (or seeing errors within it) is a spiritual matter that can be resolved with Scripture if somebody wants to simply trust God and His Word by faith. For I believe when somebody does not understand the Word of God it is because either:
(a) They have not been converted (spiritually).
Mark 4:12
"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, ..."
(b) They are still yet carnal.
1 Corinthians 3:1-3
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereasthere is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"
(c) They simply do not believe (or have a lack of faith in God's Word).
Luke 24:25-27
"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."
For note what Jesus does here in the above verse. He shows them the Scriptures. Why? Because faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Not just having the words go in one ear and out the other, but in actually listening or hearing to what is being said.
For understanding any portion of Scripture will give someone an "Ah ha" moment. The world might think an "Ah ha" moment is playing "Take on Me" by "Ah ha" the music group. But to the Christian who is born again, a true "Ah ha" moment is when you read and listened to a passage a dozen times and then one day God just opens your understanding to it with a ton of other passages that are related to it (i.e. cross references).
Yes, many people do not study to show themselves approved unto God. My Christian fiance tells me balance in all things is a good thing to have in one's life. I believe this to be a Biblical princiiple, as well. In fact, I see that this is a problem in a lot of people's thinking on doctrine and how they study or approach God's Word, too. What am I talking about? Well, the Bereans were more noble not just because they compared Scripture with Scripture to see whether those things be so or not, but also because they had an open mind to check those things (With Scripture). They did not shoot down something they were unfamilar with trying to protect some idea that they know everything. Also, seeking out commentaries is a Biblical practice. How so? Well, do you remember the Ethiopian Enuch? He listened to the Biblical live (in person) audio commentary from Philip from Isaiah. But do people just read commentaries without checking the Word of God? Yes, absolutely. But reading Biblical commentaries is not the problem in and of itself. It is in having a balanced approach to studying the Word. Praying, comparing Scripture with Scripture (i.e. cross references), looking at the immediate context, and seeking out Biblical commentaries from other seasoned believers is the balanced approach to God's Word.
But I partially see where you are coming from.
Most people just read and accept whatever is written or spoken by other believers they respect and love without studying the Word to see whether those things be so or not. In fact, many them will just read a passage in the Bible and if it does not make sense to them, they just write it off as an error. This is wrong.
Anyways, I say this as an ally and with love.
May you please be well.
And may God bless you greatly today, my friend.
...
(a) They have not been converted (spiritually).
Mark 4:12
"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, ..."
(b) They are still yet carnal.
1 Corinthians 3:1-3
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereasthere is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"
(c) They simply do not believe (or have a lack of faith in God's Word).
Luke 24:25-27
"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."
For note what Jesus does here in the above verse. He shows them the Scriptures. Why? Because faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Not just having the words go in one ear and out the other, but in actually listening or hearing to what is being said.
For understanding any portion of Scripture will give someone an "Ah ha" moment. The world might think an "Ah ha" moment is playing "Take on Me" by "Ah ha" the music group. But to the Christian who is born again, a true "Ah ha" moment is when you read and listened to a passage a dozen times and then one day God just opens your understanding to it with a ton of other passages that are related to it (i.e. cross references).
Yes, many people do not study to show themselves approved unto God. My Christian fiance tells me balance in all things is a good thing to have in one's life. I believe this to be a Biblical princiiple, as well. In fact, I see that this is a problem in a lot of people's thinking on doctrine and how they study or approach God's Word, too. What am I talking about? Well, the Bereans were more noble not just because they compared Scripture with Scripture to see whether those things be so or not, but also because they had an open mind to check those things (With Scripture). They did not shoot down something they were unfamilar with trying to protect some idea that they know everything. Also, seeking out commentaries is a Biblical practice. How so? Well, do you remember the Ethiopian Enuch? He listened to the Biblical live (in person) audio commentary from Philip from Isaiah. But do people just read commentaries without checking the Word of God? Yes, absolutely. But reading Biblical commentaries is not the problem in and of itself. It is in having a balanced approach to studying the Word. Praying, comparing Scripture with Scripture (i.e. cross references), looking at the immediate context, and seeking out Biblical commentaries from other seasoned believers is the balanced approach to God's Word.
But I partially see where you are coming from.
Most people just read and accept whatever is written or spoken by other believers they respect and love without studying the Word to see whether those things be so or not. In fact, many them will just read a passage in the Bible and if it does not make sense to them, they just write it off as an error. This is wrong.
Anyways, I say this as an ally and with love.
May you please be well.
And may God bless you greatly today, my friend.
...
Last edited:
Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!
Well, technically so far it would not be another reason. For I pointed out in my subsequent post in my reply to you here that the 1769 King James did in fact remove the Apocrypha (According to Wikipedia, Gotquestions, etc.). Although I have not done a deep investigation into it, 1885 was probably the date they removed the Apocrypha from all other KJV editions later on.
Again, this date was not actually inserted into the text or sentence itself as it was a part of divine Scripture. For if you ever read a study Bible before, you would realize that the added study notes within it, are not authorative as the text itself. Granted, I think God's Word should have little to no notes (not even marginal notes), but this in no way effects the actual Word of God being perfect. Oh, and who knows. Maybe the marginal note on the proposed date of creation is true. But that's not really the point. Like I said, no true believer ever quoted the 4004 date as it being a part of any actual verse. People are just not that dumb. Well, maybe some are. But God loves them anyways; As do I.
I mean, how far do you take it?
Should one think the England copyright on the KJV is inspired, too?
How about the chapter and verse numbers?
No, most certainly not. People realize that there are things in the Word of God that are just not a part of the actual text itself.
...
Well, technically so far it would not be another reason. For I pointed out in my subsequent post in my reply to you here that the 1769 King James did in fact remove the Apocrypha (According to Wikipedia, Gotquestions, etc.). Although I have not done a deep investigation into it, 1885 was probably the date they removed the Apocrypha from all other KJV editions later on.
Again, this date was not actually inserted into the text or sentence itself as it was a part of divine Scripture. For if you ever read a study Bible before, you would realize that the added study notes within it, are not authorative as the text itself. Granted, I think God's Word should have little to no notes (not even marginal notes), but this in no way effects the actual Word of God being perfect. Oh, and who knows. Maybe the marginal note on the proposed date of creation is true. But that's not really the point. Like I said, no true believer ever quoted the 4004 date as it being a part of any actual verse. People are just not that dumb. Well, maybe some are. But God loves them anyways; As do I.
I mean, how far do you take it?
Should one think the England copyright on the KJV is inspired, too?
How about the chapter and verse numbers?
No, most certainly not. People realize that there are things in the Word of God that are just not a part of the actual text itself.
...
Last edited:
PSALM 103
BLESS*the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. 2 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
These are the middle two verses of the King James Bible. Both verses start with "Bless the LORD, O my soul". Verse 1 continues - and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Verse 2 concludes with - and forget not all his benefits. These are powerful words coming from the two center verses of the Book. Now let's count the words in these two middle verses. There are twenty-eight. That's seven quadrupled (7 times 4) instead of seven doubled (7 times 2.) Here we have seven compounded twice as much. Any one that knows their Bible knows that God loves the number seven. Now let's see if we can find some middle words in the center of God's middle verses. Yes, I see four*(bless*his holy name.)* There are twelve words on one side of this phrase and twelve words on the other side. So the King James Bible has*bless*his holy name*right in the center of the two middle verses!* This phrase also has exactly twice as many words (12) on each side of it. God loves the number twelve also.* Next to the number seven, it is his favorite number. He uses it a lot in his word. For example there were twelve apostles and twelve tribes of Israel. There are twelve manner of fruits bared by the tree of life. It is the number of authority and power. What else would you expect in the center of God's Holy Bible? Bless his holy name. In conclusion to all this middle of the King James Bible stuff consider this verse of scripture, PSALM 138:2...I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast*magnified thy word*above all thy name. We see here God thinks quite a bit about his holy name and his word has been magnified above it! So if the Bible is the word of God, and it is, and the King James Bible is the Bible, and it is, then how do you think we should treat it? The answer should be obvious: with honour and respect.
Source:
*King James Bible Statistics
BLESS*the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. 2 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
These are the middle two verses of the King James Bible. Both verses start with "Bless the LORD, O my soul". Verse 1 continues - and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Verse 2 concludes with - and forget not all his benefits. These are powerful words coming from the two center verses of the Book. Now let's count the words in these two middle verses. There are twenty-eight. That's seven quadrupled (7 times 4) instead of seven doubled (7 times 2.) Here we have seven compounded twice as much. Any one that knows their Bible knows that God loves the number seven. Now let's see if we can find some middle words in the center of God's middle verses. Yes, I see four*(bless*his holy name.)* There are twelve words on one side of this phrase and twelve words on the other side. So the King James Bible has*bless*his holy name*right in the center of the two middle verses!* This phrase also has exactly twice as many words (12) on each side of it. God loves the number twelve also.* Next to the number seven, it is his favorite number. He uses it a lot in his word. For example there were twelve apostles and twelve tribes of Israel. There are twelve manner of fruits bared by the tree of life. It is the number of authority and power. What else would you expect in the center of God's Holy Bible? Bless his holy name. In conclusion to all this middle of the King James Bible stuff consider this verse of scripture, PSALM 138:2...I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast*magnified thy word*above all thy name. We see here God thinks quite a bit about his holy name and his word has been magnified above it! So if the Bible is the word of God, and it is, and the King James Bible is the Bible, and it is, then how do you think we should treat it? The answer should be obvious: with honour and respect.
Source:
*King James Bible Statistics
Last edited: