The attack of the KJV

Timeline · Aug 5, 2014

What does it mean by: [SUP]34 [/SUP]He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

I am surprised that you don't think its a Lion in this verse.

Why would it say "king over the children of pride" if it is talking about a dragon?...because only the proud would try to slay him?

Atwood · Aug 5, 2014

Beware of the Attack of the Dinosaur KJV

The Killer KJV will get you!

Beware the Jabberwock, my son,
The jaws that snap, the jaws that bite!

Atwood · Aug 5, 2014

Jason0047 said:

It is a tragic thing for anyone to reject the Word of God, disbelieve it, and exalt a man-made Elizabethan translation to the Status of the Very Word of God.

Jason0047 · Aug 5, 2014

Nick01 said:

I do not place the same faith in History that you do because I don't have a time machine to verify those things on whether they are actually true or not. You are looking at documents that could be faked or that was being pushed by a false religious group back then or by Christians who were temporarily misled.

I believe 1 John 5:7 based on the observable evidence that God's Word (KJV) is divinely inspired (Of which I already shown previously within another KJV thread).

No, Job 38-41 is an unbroken line of a description of things within His creation. Just because you don't have faith to believe in God's Word does change what is written.

It breathes fire. It has very menacing looking teeth and scales. He beholdeth all high things (i.e. he flies). How is that not a dragon? Besides, the word "dragon" means dinosaur. The word dinosaur was invented in 1841 after the 1611 KJV.

Jason0047 · Aug 5, 2014

In fact, what on Earth is a "jackal well"?

Do jackals live in wells?

No. Dragons would live in wells or caves.

Just look at this verse. It also speaks of fire, too.

Nehemiah 2:13

Timeline · Aug 5, 2014

Jason0047 said:

Wikipedia

Although the word jackal has often been used historically to refer to many small- to medium-sized species of the wolf genus of mammals

Although, I don't know if this is what the bible is referring to, the bible does mention "wolf" multiple times throughout scripture.

Of course, the KJV and the NASB both say "Dragon", but NASB uses "Refuse" instead of "Dung"

And I don't think that the "Dragon" described in Job would live in a well.

But I also don't think that it is describing a dragon.

Timeline · Aug 5, 2014

I guess that I should just be happy that you don't think its a crocodile - like many commentaries suggest.

Jason0047 · Aug 5, 2014

Timeline said:

Think. Deep dark underground cavern with lots of water. Jackals or wolves do not live in underground caverns full of water. Also, if you were to look at the passage, it also mentions fire. Hmmm.... I wonder what creature breathes fire? Just read Job 41 to find out.

Kerry · Aug 5, 2014

Prior to the American Revolution, the only English Bibles in the colonies were imported either from Europe or England. Publication of the Bible was regulated by the British government, and required a special license. Robert Aitken's Bible was the first known English-language Bible to be printed in America, and also the only Bible to receive Congressional approval. Aitken's Bible, sometimes referred to as "The Bible of the Revolution," is one of the rarest books in the world, with few copies still in existence today.
[TABLE="width: 400, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[HR][/HR]

History of the Aitken Bible

On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a "memorial" [petition] to Congress offering to print "a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools." This is the text of that memorial:

To the Honourable The Congress
of the United States of America
The Memorial of Robert Aitken
of the City of Philadelphia, Printer

Humbly Sheweth

That in every well regulated Government in Christendom The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the Sovereign Powers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith might suffer from the Spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but this work is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings. Under this persuasion your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honours would take this important matter into serious consideration & would be pleased to appoint one Member or Members of your Honourable Body to inspect his work so that the same may be published under the Authority of Congress. And further, your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States, provided the same be in all things perfectly consonant to the Scriptures as heretofore Established and received amongst us.

[HR][/HR]

After appointing a committee to study the project, Congress acted on September 12, 1782, by "highly approv[ing of] the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken." The endorsement by Congress was printed in the Aitken Bible:

[TABLE="width: 400, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[SIZE=-2]The endorsement was signed by Charles Thomson, who was Secretary of the Continental Congress. Thomson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, is also famous for "Thomson's Bible," the first American translation of the Greek Septuagint, published in 1808 (Thomson was an accomplished theologian, publishing such works as "A Regular History of the Conception, Birth, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ.")[/SIZE]
[HR][/HR]

Robert Aitken printed three documents in the front of his Bible, the report of the committee established to review his memorial; the report of the Congressional Chaplains; and Congresses endorsement. Below is the text of these documents:

B[SIZE=-2]Y THE[/SIZE] UNITED STATES [SIZE=-2]IN[/SIZE] CONGRESS [SIZE=-2]ASSEMBLED[/SIZE]:

September 12th, 1782.

THE Committee to whom was referred a Memorial of Robert Aitken, printer, dated 21st January, 1781, respecting an edition of the Holy Scriptures, report, "That Mr. Aitken has, at a great expense, now finished an American edition of the Holy Scriptures in English; that the Committee have from time to time attended to his progress in the work; that they also recommended it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution, who have accordingly reported thereon; the recommendation and report being as follows:

"Philadelphia, 1st September, 1782.

"Reverend Gentlemen,
"Our knowledge of our piety and public spirit leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the edition of the Holy Scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitken. He undertook this expensive work at a time when, from the circumstances of the war, and English edition of the Bible could not be imported, nor any opinion formed how long the obstruction might continue. On this account particularly he deserves applause and encouragement. We therefore wish you, Reverend Gentlemen, to examine the execution of the work, and if approved, to give the sanction of our judgment, and the weigh of your recommendation.

We are, with very great respect,
Your most obedient humble servants.
(Sign'd) JAMES DUANE, Chairman in behalf
of a Committee of Congress on Mr. Atken's Memorial.

Reverend Doct. White and Revd. Mr. Duffield,
Chaplains of the United States in Congress assembled.

Report.

Gentlemen,
AGREEABLY to your desire we have paid attention to Mr. Robert Aitken's impression of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude. Being ourselves witnesses of the demand for this invaluable book, we rejoice in the present prospect of a supply; hoping that it will prove as advantageous as it is honorable to the Gentleman, who has exerted himself to furnish it, at the evident risk of private fortune. We are, Gentlemen,
Your very respectful and humble servants,

(Sign'd) WILLIAM WHITE,
GEORGE DUFFIELD.

Philadelphia, September 10th, 1782.

Honble James Duane, Esq. Chairman, and the other
Honble Gentlemen of the Committee of Congress on
Mr. Aitken's Memorial."
Whereupon,
RESOLVED,
THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.

CHA. THOMSON, Sec'ry.

[HR][/HR]

In 1968, the American Bible Society reprinted the Aitken Bible, this is the title page of that reprint:

[TABLE="width: 400, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Nick01 · Aug 5, 2014

Jason0047 said:

Actually, the Leviathan of Job 41 is clearly a sea creature. Do you believe dragons are actually sea creatures? If so, then we're not talking about what most people consider to be a 'dragon' anyway, so the whole discussion is moot.

Nick01 · Aug 5, 2014

Jason0047 said:

I'll be bothered watching the video and then making a detailed rebuttal when you can be bothered making a written summary of the argument and show that you yourself have actually analysed the arguments, instead of lazily posting links to videos. You've already shown an unwillingness to check your sources given the discussion we had on the Johannine Comma.

No, I'm not turning the Scriptures in fables. I'm arguing against your circular logic that the KJV is the only version of God's word, it says dragons are real, someone found a dragon skeleton, therefore the KJV is accurate. In other words, I dispute that the modern conception of the word 'dragon' is NOT what the Scriptures are talking about, therefore it's an utter straw man to make belief in dragons the litmus test of the accurate word of God.

I don't believe Jonah is simply a metaphor. You're straw manning again.

Are you suggesting that dragons carry lighters around with them to set their breath on fire? Really?

And bombadier beetles don't breath fire. They shoot burning chemicals out of their butt. Very different things.

No, they're disputing the isistence by KJV-Onlyists on the reading back of modern concepts onto the words used by the KJV, and on the argument that the KJV is the only word of God.

Straw man. I don't see how you could confused the discussion about what is meant by drakonta to the reams and reams of text about Jesus.

Now you're just hysterical. Disputing whether the KJV is talking about what we think of as dragons is not going to cause any apostasy. People's sin, rebellion against God, and a lack of faith in the work of the cross is what causes apostasy.

If by 'God's Word' you mean 'KJV-Onlyism', then my answer is 'When it causes you to see clearly what God is saying and what he wants us to do.'

Jason0047 · Aug 5, 2014

Nick01 said:

No, there are dragons of myth and legend that hang out near water. Besides, the fact that this fire breathing creature with scales (that has been alluded to flying) changes nothing but our perception of what dragons are like.

Nick01 · Aug 5, 2014

Jason0047 said:

It's the hypocrisy that gets me. Again, you were all to willing to post links to supposed 'history' before as a criticism of my position and proof as yours, but then the moment I actually engaged with your argument from history (and I can only conclude, the moment at which my argument seemed convincing and carried some wait), you revert to the 'history can't be trusted' stance.

The only reasonable conclusion is that you're happy to appeal to history when it suits you, but when it actually argues against you, you call it worthless, and say that it was probably faked or heretical (claims made utterly with out evidence, and usually against evidence to the contrary) That's a very dangerous and arbitrary position to take, because you're essentially arguing that the only worthwhile evidence in a discussion is evidence that a priori agrees with your position. At that point, there's not really a discussion worth having, because no evidence will convince you.

Please, repost them. I believe some of it we've discussed before, but I couldn't find it, so f you could repost or link, that's a discussion worth having.

Sorry, this is a complete non sequiter, and doesn't really answer anything I posted. I don't dispute Job 38-41 is talking about things God has created. Your second sentence is so irrelevant and so ad hominem it doesn't merit a reply. I will repost again, in the genuine hope you might engage with me on this point:

I'm more than happy to keep an open mind about the creature of Job 41, although it's not beyond the nature of the text to believe that Leviathan is a creature being described through poetic hyperbole in order to make a point about God's might, in the same sort of way as locusts are elsewhere poetically described as vicious soldiers. My point is simply that a skeleton of a 3m long creature whose name sounds a little bit like dragon is not proof that the KJV is the single and only Word of God.

How does beholdeth all things mean he flies? Clearly the point of the verse is merely that Leviathan is supreme over all things, it doesn't at all suggest that he literally flies. Indeed, this further supports why the LXX uses drakon at this point - drakon comes from a root in the Greek meaning 'seeing one' - the idea being of a creature that has exceptional eye sight. Not to mention that the beginning of Job 41 (not to mention later verses) all but explicitly states that Leviathan is a creature of the sea, not the air.

Says who? Certainly the words δεινός , σαῦρος and δράκοντα share no clear semantic or etymological link. You believe the two terms to be interchangeable, then?

Nick01 · Aug 5, 2014

Jason0047 said:

It doesn't live near the water, it lives IN the water.

Jason0047 · Aug 5, 2014

Nick01 said:

So if some are reported of having lived near water, that might mean they are distant cousins of the Leviathan who can live in the water.

Nick01 · Aug 6, 2014

Jason0047 said:

Hypothetically, that is a possibility, if you could otherwise demonstrate mythological dragons existed and are actually related to Leviathan. But I assume by your post, then, that you otherwise agree that Leviathan in Job 41 is not actually speaking of a dragon, as we understand it.

Also worth noting, that saying the existence of Leviathan (if we conclude that Job 41 is to be read wholly literally and not at least partially as a poetic description in the same vein as locusts=soldiers), and the possibility of its relation to mythical dragons, is proof that said dragons existed, is about the same as saying that because the Bible talks of lions, that in itself is proof that mythical chimera existed.

Jason0047 · Aug 6, 2014

Nick01 said:

There is no sense in me repeating what I have already said. And you fail to realize that I do not consider Historical documents on the same level of trust worthiness as observational evidences such as the Word of God and what we can see in our world today. Historical documents can be faked, etc. So there is no use in me countering an argument that is based on what could posssibly be nothing but a forged lie. For we cannot prove Historical evidences. Maybe you swallow that kind of thing hook, line, and sinker. But I don't. For I believe only observable evidence (mixed with some minor historical evidences) is true.. For I believe observable evidences to be our true source of finding out the truth; And I already listed 3 major reasons in Scripture already that is directly observable here in the present.

Then there are all the reports of dragon encounters, drawings, artifacts, cave renderings, etc. But let's just ignore all that. But what you fail to understand is that I need no reports, or no evidence to tell me that dragons once existed because the Bible clearly tells me that they did once exist.

I never said that you did think Jonah was a metaphor. But some do believe his story was metaphorical because they can't explain it and or they think the story is too far fetched to be believable. That is what I believe you are doing with the mention of the Leviathan and the word "dragons" in the Bible. For some reason, the existence of such a creature is a threat to your belief system in some way so you write it off as fiction and say it is metaphorical. People do this with Jesus, too.

No. Your missing the point. The fact that an insect can shoot super heated chemicals from it's body means it is possible that a dragon can shoot super heated chemicals that could ignite in some natural way. Literally, the bug should burn up. But it doesn't. So your effort to define what is possible does not mean it is not possible just because you can't understand it. By all logic, the bombardier beetle seems a little unbelievable (Until you see it). There are lot of creatures in God's creaetion that seem a little unbelievable at first glance.

Although I am commanded to love them, the problem I have with Anti-KJV-onlyists is that they promote that is okay that God's Word has errors and or could say something different between one translation and another. That nothing is completly nailed down and certain. The Bible is in large part prophetic as well as instructive. So seeing this is true, Peter says in 2 Peter 1:18, we have a more sure word of prophecy. Peter then continues to say that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. Yet, I see many Anti-KJV-onlyists putting their own spin on Scripture of what they think the text says based on some multiple choice Greek defintion (that they prefer), rather than just letting the text speak plainly and by looking at the context in English. For will the poor man in another country be condemned for not having the internet to gain access to a Lexicon?

Each word has weight and value no matter what it is talking about and or how many times it appears.

I disagree. I have debated against OSAS proponents who will quote Romans 8:1 using a Modern Translation. For they do not like the words, "walk after the Spirit" in relation to the "Condemnation."

Anti-Trinitarians will have power over the Anti-KJV-only proponent because they really do not have any power behind believing 1 John 5:7. It is just some copy note that is not God-breathed. So you really can't use it to defend the faith. This neutters one's spiritual battle.

The thing is you really can't know what God's Word is saying. For nobody speaks or writes Biblical Greek as their native languaage. Oh, sure. I am not denying there are many words we can know. But most of the time from my experience with those who defend their false doctrines, hide behind some false interpretation of the Greek. Nobody is the wiser, because they can't really prove them wrong because nobody truly knows the language. For even Greek scholars disagree with each other. But with the English language. That is a bit tougher to pull a fast one on somebody. Because people can read it for themselves with the understanding easily.

GaryA · Aug 6, 2014

KJV1611 said:

dcontroversal said:

"Both of you are wrong on this one..."

another

Galations 1:6 -> 2087

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Galations 1:7 -> 243

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

2087

het-er-os; of uncert. affin.; (an-, the) other or different:-altered, else, next (day), one, (an-) other, some, strange.

243

al-los; a prim. word; "else," i.e. different (in many applications):-more, one (another), (an-,some an-) other (-s, -wise).

The two verses together are merely saying --- "another gospel - but that is not actually another gospel - but is a perversion of the [ same ] gospel of Christ"...

( And, an understanding of the KJV English - without the Koine Greek - is sufficient to arrive at this conclusion. )

Nick01 · Aug 6, 2014

Jason0047 said:

So then why are you posting links to videos that rely on historical evidence to make their case? You're surely not denying that most of what is in that video is based not on observations of dragons, but on what various cultures had to see about serpentine like creatures?

I'm confused. Are historical documents trustworthy or not? Because you seem to be using them as evidence in one breath, and then denying them whenever I appeal to them. Which is it?

My argument about the meaning of drakonta or tammin is not one from believability. It is one first and foremost from what the words refer to, secondly from what the nature of the text of Job 41 requires me to believe, and lastly from what other corroborating evidence there is in history. I believe dead guys come back to life - fire breathing dragons aren't really any more unbelievable. But the reality is that I believe neither the text, nor the context, nor history neccesitates belief in large flying fire breathing dragons.

Shooting burning chemicals out of your rear is a very different proposition to shooting literal fire out of your mouth. That's like saying that because people poop out of their butts, that they should also poop out of their mouths. They are to very differnent organs, used for two very different purposes.

But there's still no evidence for fire breathing dragons. Bombadier Beetles are several steps removed from the kind of physiological apparatus required to believe in flying fire breathing dragons.

You believe that two. You believe all other translations are in contradiction to the KJV, even earlier English ones, because the text reads differently. That nothing is completly nailed down and certain. The Bible is in large part prophetic as well as instructive. So seeing this is true, Peter says in 2 Peter 1:18, we have a more sure word of prophecy. Peter then continues to say that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. Yet, I see many Anti-KJV-onlyists putting their own spin on Scripture of what they think the text says based on some multiple choice Greek defintion (that they prefer), rather than just letting the text speak plainly and by looking at the context in English. For will the poor man in another country be condemned for not having the internet to gain access to a Lexicon?[/quote]

Again, this is a straw man argument - because people misues the Greek doesn't mean the Greek is wrong, or that any given modern translation is wrong. KJV1611 here believes the KJV contained new revelation that clarified the Scriptures, bringing a clarity to the text that was not available even in the original autographs. I saw you arguing with him on some of these points in the other thread - does how he use the KJV mean that I should tar you with the same brush?

But, again, your argument begs the question. You assume that the KJV is the only clear translation, and that the others are errant. But why not say, by way of example, that the ESV is the correct version, and everyone should get behind that. We could all agree right now that the ESV is the one true word, and everything would be nailed down! But, of course, the problem is NOT that everything is nailed down. The objective is not to have agreement for the sake of agreement.What is important is that we have the word of God. And that is precisely what those who work on many of the modern translations are trying to do - to look at the MSS and work out what the original texts said. It's surely not in question in this thread that copyists made (often quite benign) changes to manuscripts from even a very early date. So I hope you agree that it is important to work out what the apostles and co originally wrote.

So you are arguing that belief in flying firebreathing dragons is necessary for salvation? If not, what is your point?

Romans 8 defines Christians as those who walk in the Spirit. If you are saved, you walk in the Spirit, but you do not walk in the Spirit in order to be justified before God. As a side note, I'm curious as to what you think walk in the spirit means?

I haven't argued with these OSAS people you appeal to, so I can't otherwise comment. But again, what others do with the text is irrelevant. What they say about modern translations is as binding on me as what KJV1611 says about the KJV is on you. What matters is what the text originally said.

Nope. I've happily argued against Anti-Trinitarians without appeal to the Comma. It does not 'neuter' anything. It's a bit like a kid saying to another kid that because they ride a bike with training wheels, that their friend will be 'neutered' by trying to ride without them. Your experience of arguing with anti-trinitarians is not prescriptive of mine.

A lot of Greek scholars are rolling on the floor laughing right now. First of all, if you have such scepticism about understanding the Greek, how on earth can you expect the KJV to get it right? Or is it actually your belief that it doesn't matter what the Greek or Hebrew originally said.

Second of all, we can have quite a good idea of what the Greek says because not only is Koine Greek related to contemporary languages relatively closely, not only do we have a vast library of Koine Greek texts to draw upon to understand the use of words, but we also have a large library of works translated from Koine Greek into other languages, such as Syriac, Latin, Arabic, German, most of the Romance languages, and others, from recent languages and languages contemporary to Koine Greek, that we can cross compare and contrast to check our understanding.

Your own personal lack of understanding does not mean everyone else should not be able to understand either. But the point of course is not that people should read in Greek. The point is that there is enough understanding that people were sufficiently capable of understanding it to translate it, all the way from the Latin through to English, not only in the KJV, but in the modern translations as well.

Atwood · Aug 6, 2014

Nick01 said:

I don't know any passage that speaks of "walk in the Spirit." No, Romans 8 does not define Christians as those who "walk in the Spirit." You are confusing are in & walk after & making a hybrid "walk in."
There is a difference between "are in the Spirit" and "walk according to (after) the Spirit." Brethren (Christians) who are in the Spirit may nonetheless walk/live after the flesh (be carnal).

Rom. 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: 7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be: 8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Rom. 8:12
So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: 13 for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: 17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

Rom. 8:18
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth? 25 But if we hope for that which we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Rom. 8:26
And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; 27 and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: 30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Rom. 8:31
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth; 34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Even as it is written,
For thy sake we are killed all the day long;
We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Rom. 8:37
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The attack of the KJV

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Kerry

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

GaryA

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member