-
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.
Oh please. YOU were the one who came in calling people brainwashed cultists, comparing them to atheists. What POSSIBLE useful purpose could that serve? No-one, because of such a post, is suddenly going to go "Aw man, all this time I've been brainwashed. Oh, what a fool I've been!" And I would certainly call that elevating yourself above others. If you're going to accuse me of taking some sort of high ground, you're sitting right up there with me. 
But whatever. I made my appeal, mate. You do what you will with it.
But whatever. I made my appeal, mate. You do what you will with it.
Yes. But your argument about Judas is not comparable to the discussion about MSS from the same text type and of the same text. I mean, the Apocrypha is all older than the New Testament, but that doesn't make it more 'true', of course. But each book in the apocrypha is a different text, and each book in the NT is a seperate text. That's a totally different scenario to MSS of, say, John.
Seeing as we're talking about proof, what's your proof that the Greek texts used in the Critical Text are corrupted, and none of the texts used in the TR/KJV were? Because, there certainly ARE texts that exist that are missing the Johannine Comma, and these HAVE been dated earlier than others that do have it.
It's certainly possible. But simply on a matter of principle, it is much more likely that later MSS were more open to such corruption than earlier ones. The fewer steps removed from the original, the more likely edits were made.
But again, I want to reiterate, the Gospel of Judas is a very different scenario to edits of orthodox documents. I think it's telling that almost all attempts at heresy in history, from the Gnostics to Marcion to Arius, all involved one or both of two avenues of attack - either reject the orthodox documents wholesale, and/or write your own documents to be placed in competition with them. If you look at Jason's list of the most important doctrines that are allegedly 'changed' in the modern translations, none of these come close to any of those three heresies, which included such doozies as saying God is actually evil, that Jesus is not God, that Jesus was not human and the complete rejection of the Hebrew OT. The closest Jason's list (which I will deal with in my next post) to any of those heresies is a lack of a clear affirmation of Trinitarian theology. Of course, I reject the notion that 1 John 5:7 is at all integral or necessary for a Trinitarian understanding of God, and that you can make a clear case for Trinity from the original writings.
All that remains to be commented on is this - the reason heresys were conducted in this way was because the orthodox documents were widely circulated and used, particularly by the church Fathers. The further on you go, the further you are removed from people who had first hand contact with apostles, and the further afield the written works must travel, therefore the more copyists were required. Thus, as a simple matter of principle, the later a manuscript is (and especially if it is not in the original Greek), the more likely it is to have been edited, especially if it has been added to. Historically speaking, later changes to texts are much more likely to involved additions rather than subtractions, for the simple reason that is very easy to disrupt the flow of a text and to flag potential corruption by taking things out than by leaving things in. Also, a great many copyists were benign, and most changes are actually orthodox - therefore, copyists made additions to clarify the text, and were disinclined to actually remove anything.
But again, I want to reiterate, the Gospel of Judas is a very different scenario to edits of orthodox documents. I think it's telling that almost all attempts at heresy in history, from the Gnostics to Marcion to Arius, all involved one or both of two avenues of attack - either reject the orthodox documents wholesale, and/or write your own documents to be placed in competition with them. If you look at Jason's list of the most important doctrines that are allegedly 'changed' in the modern translations, none of these come close to any of those three heresies, which included such doozies as saying God is actually evil, that Jesus is not God, that Jesus was not human and the complete rejection of the Hebrew OT. The closest Jason's list (which I will deal with in my next post) to any of those heresies is a lack of a clear affirmation of Trinitarian theology. Of course, I reject the notion that 1 John 5:7 is at all integral or necessary for a Trinitarian understanding of God, and that you can make a clear case for Trinity from the original writings.
All that remains to be commented on is this - the reason heresys were conducted in this way was because the orthodox documents were widely circulated and used, particularly by the church Fathers. The further on you go, the further you are removed from people who had first hand contact with apostles, and the further afield the written works must travel, therefore the more copyists were required. Thus, as a simple matter of principle, the later a manuscript is (and especially if it is not in the original Greek), the more likely it is to have been edited, especially if it has been added to. Historically speaking, later changes to texts are much more likely to involved additions rather than subtractions, for the simple reason that is very easy to disrupt the flow of a text and to flag potential corruption by taking things out than by leaving things in. Also, a great many copyists were benign, and most changes are actually orthodox - therefore, copyists made additions to clarify the text, and were disinclined to actually remove anything.
Out have curiosity, have you tried casting out a demon with just prayer, and then tried with prayer and fasting, and found it only worked the second time?
But my point is there has never been any written about the topic, no one references those passages until you hit some Orthodox fathers in the 15th century or so. You'd think if it was that big a deal, and if there were conflicting documents that were widespread, someone would have noted it before then.
What's your point? The problem is that you are saying your decision is based on the 'word of God', but you have a very particular view that the KJV is the only World of God. In other words, you are basing your view that the KJV is the only word of God on your belief that the KJV is the only word of God. Does that make sense to you?
Also worth pointing out that while there are some different manuscripts available to modern translations that weren't available or weren't referenced in the 17th C, we still have access to the MSS used to compile the TR. Those are used and referenced in modern translation work, but there place is different because they are no the only MSS available.
You're missing my point. I'll spell it out more clearly. The case for the addition of praying and fasting to 1 Corinthians 7:5 is pretty clear cut - it exists in a handful of manuscripts, most of them late, and exists in Sinaiticus only as a 7th century modification by a non-original Scribe. Many, many other manuscripts from various text types lack the words "and fasting" there. So, you have a very good case from that verse that scribes were prepared to add comments about fasting to Scripture (mostly as support for ascetic monastism as it grew in popularity heading into the Middle Ages), one which bolsters the already good case for these also being additions in Matthew and Luke. Not saying fasting is bad, plenty of other places recommend fasting - it is just unlikely on the face of the evidence that the original Matthew and Luke quoted Jesus as saying fasting was a method to be used in exorcism. I'm not using 1 Cor to argue doctrinally against the KJV's reading of Matthew and Luke.
Except 1 Peter has nothing to do with fasting. Fasting COULD be a good way to avoid temptation by increasing reliance on God, sure. But that's not what Peter is talking about, because that is not, fundamentally, the suffering of Christ that he is referring to.
Oh please. If you can't read the rest of the NT without concluding that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all divine, and yet are one, then you have a bigger problem than no Comma in 1 John 5:7. How could you possibly know why I believe what I believe? For all you know, I could have studied the Scriptures in depth to discern if Trinity was true. This isn't an argument, it's speculation.
Alas, your ability to just link to other websites without actually stating your own case, with said website itself barely taking the time to make a case for the asserted quotations in the church Fathers, is not history either.. Most of the alleged quotations in the fathers are at best allusions, and at worst are referring to other Trinitarian texts in John and in M\atthew.
For instance, Tertuallian:
This is the passage in Tertullian most often pointed at two invoke 1 John 5:7. However, it should be noted that the specific language of 1 John 5 is not invoked. Tertallian describes them as three in essence, not person, but where does he go to prove his language? Does he go to the Johannine Comma, which uses the language of 'one substance'. not only of the Father and Son, but the Spirit? Does he use the clearest possible passage with which to demonstrate his point, in no less than a discussion of the place of the Holy Spirit in the Triune Godhead? No, he goes to John 10 - "three in essence, not person, as it is said, "I and my Father are one.""
It completely beggars belief to think that Tertullian would not quote 1 John 5:7 at this point if he knew of it. He certainly knew of 1 John.
I'm happy to deal with the rest of these (although obviously the returns diminish the later the references are), but I'd appreciate it if you actually read the page, tell me which patristic writer you would like me to discuss, and then perhaps actually post a link to the text in question in full on the internet. Saves time, and it means I've not just posting a wall of text in a single post
Again, I don't see how it's possible to read 1 Timothy as supporting fellowship with any such person or to pay attention to what they say, with or without that clause. But that's mostly irrelevant, because what matters is what the text originally said.
And neither were you.
Right back at ya, buddy.
Two things:
You can't appeal to the Word of God for the basis of your belief in the KJV as the only version of the Word of God because it doesn't say the KJV is the only word of God, and the question of whether or not the KJV is the only inspired word of God is precisely what we are discussing. Your logic is running in circles.
Your idea of what is worse and what is better is based on what you think should be in the word of God, which you believe to the word of God. Again, circular reasoning. Let me again illustrate:
The KJV is the true word of God
Fasting gets rid of demons, according to KJV.
Therefore, fasting to get rid of demons is a good and essential thing.
Fasting to get rid of demons is not in the modern translations.
Therefore, the modern translations are wrong.
Bad things are in the modern translations, only good things are in the KJV
Therefore, the KJV is the true word of God.
That is your argument.
I believe the millennium is now, so I feel like the question is irrelevant But, again, the end of Revelation 21 is in the end future state with a new heaven and new earth, where no impure thing will be permitted into the presence of God. Therefore, the passage in question is not in what most people consider the Millenium.
I don't understand how you can possibly argue Paul is discussing something completely different in v.4 to what he is discussing in vv.1-3. Did he have a brain snap or something? v4 is tied into the entire thought process of chs.7-8. And I'm not at all sure what point you're making with the appeal to John 10.
What? YOU believe that God's word can be lost or corrupted - that's what you believe the modern translations to be, right? You're surely not arguing that ever since the second century at least, there have existed versions of the Scriptures that differ in text?
Christians are those who are in Christ, who walk in the Spirit. If you are not in Christ, and/or if you do not walk in the Spirit, you are not a Christian. I don't need to read v.1 for that, it's right there in v.4, let alone most of Romans, the Pauline epistles, the NT, the Bible, where we are reminded that we are new creations in Christ, and we cannot walk the way we used to walk, but have been recreated to walk in the works God has called us to, which he prepared in advance. This is nothing more than hypersensitive prooftexting.
But my point is there has never been any written about the topic, no one references those passages until you hit some Orthodox fathers in the 15th century or so. You'd think if it was that big a deal, and if there were conflicting documents that were widespread, someone would have noted it before then.
What's your point? The problem is that you are saying your decision is based on the 'word of God', but you have a very particular view that the KJV is the only World of God. In other words, you are basing your view that the KJV is the only word of God on your belief that the KJV is the only word of God. Does that make sense to you?
Also worth pointing out that while there are some different manuscripts available to modern translations that weren't available or weren't referenced in the 17th C, we still have access to the MSS used to compile the TR. Those are used and referenced in modern translation work, but there place is different because they are no the only MSS available.
You're missing my point. I'll spell it out more clearly. The case for the addition of praying and fasting to 1 Corinthians 7:5 is pretty clear cut - it exists in a handful of manuscripts, most of them late, and exists in Sinaiticus only as a 7th century modification by a non-original Scribe. Many, many other manuscripts from various text types lack the words "and fasting" there. So, you have a very good case from that verse that scribes were prepared to add comments about fasting to Scripture (mostly as support for ascetic monastism as it grew in popularity heading into the Middle Ages), one which bolsters the already good case for these also being additions in Matthew and Luke. Not saying fasting is bad, plenty of other places recommend fasting - it is just unlikely on the face of the evidence that the original Matthew and Luke quoted Jesus as saying fasting was a method to be used in exorcism. I'm not using 1 Cor to argue doctrinally against the KJV's reading of Matthew and Luke.
Except 1 Peter has nothing to do with fasting. Fasting COULD be a good way to avoid temptation by increasing reliance on God, sure. But that's not what Peter is talking about, because that is not, fundamentally, the suffering of Christ that he is referring to.
Oh please. If you can't read the rest of the NT without concluding that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all divine, and yet are one, then you have a bigger problem than no Comma in 1 John 5:7. How could you possibly know why I believe what I believe? For all you know, I could have studied the Scriptures in depth to discern if Trinity was true. This isn't an argument, it's speculation.
Alas, your ability to just link to other websites without actually stating your own case, with said website itself barely taking the time to make a case for the asserted quotations in the church Fathers, is not history either.. Most of the alleged quotations in the fathers are at best allusions, and at worst are referring to other Trinitarian texts in John and in M\atthew.
For instance, Tertuallian:
This is the passage in Tertullian most often pointed at two invoke 1 John 5:7. However, it should be noted that the specific language of 1 John 5 is not invoked. Tertallian describes them as three in essence, not person, but where does he go to prove his language? Does he go to the Johannine Comma, which uses the language of 'one substance'. not only of the Father and Son, but the Spirit? Does he use the clearest possible passage with which to demonstrate his point, in no less than a discussion of the place of the Holy Spirit in the Triune Godhead? No, he goes to John 10 - "three in essence, not person, as it is said, "I and my Father are one.""
It completely beggars belief to think that Tertullian would not quote 1 John 5:7 at this point if he knew of it. He certainly knew of 1 John.
I'm happy to deal with the rest of these (although obviously the returns diminish the later the references are), but I'd appreciate it if you actually read the page, tell me which patristic writer you would like me to discuss, and then perhaps actually post a link to the text in question in full on the internet. Saves time, and it means I've not just posting a wall of text in a single post
Again, I don't see how it's possible to read 1 Timothy as supporting fellowship with any such person or to pay attention to what they say, with or without that clause. But that's mostly irrelevant, because what matters is what the text originally said.
And neither were you.
Right back at ya, buddy.
Two things:
You can't appeal to the Word of God for the basis of your belief in the KJV as the only version of the Word of God because it doesn't say the KJV is the only word of God, and the question of whether or not the KJV is the only inspired word of God is precisely what we are discussing. Your logic is running in circles.
Your idea of what is worse and what is better is based on what you think should be in the word of God, which you believe to the word of God. Again, circular reasoning. Let me again illustrate:
The KJV is the true word of God
Fasting gets rid of demons, according to KJV.
Therefore, fasting to get rid of demons is a good and essential thing.
Fasting to get rid of demons is not in the modern translations.
Therefore, the modern translations are wrong.
Bad things are in the modern translations, only good things are in the KJV
Therefore, the KJV is the true word of God.
That is your argument.
I believe the millennium is now, so I feel like the question is irrelevant
But, again, the end of Revelation 21 is in the end future state with a new heaven and new earth, where no impure thing will be permitted into the presence of God. Therefore, the passage in question is not in what most people consider the Millenium.I don't understand how you can possibly argue Paul is discussing something completely different in v.4 to what he is discussing in vv.1-3. Did he have a brain snap or something? v4 is tied into the entire thought process of chs.7-8. And I'm not at all sure what point you're making with the appeal to John 10.
What? YOU believe that God's word can be lost or corrupted - that's what you believe the modern translations to be, right? You're surely not arguing that ever since the second century at least, there have existed versions of the Scriptures that differ in text?
Christians are those who are in Christ, who walk in the Spirit. If you are not in Christ, and/or if you do not walk in the Spirit, you are not a Christian. I don't need to read v.1 for that, it's right there in v.4, let alone most of Romans, the Pauline epistles, the NT, the Bible, where we are reminded that we are new creations in Christ, and we cannot walk the way we used to walk, but have been recreated to walk in the works God has called us to, which he prepared in advance. This is nothing more than hypersensitive prooftexting.
Last edited:
2
king james vs the rest is fanatacism
the devil inspires that argument
all bibles are inspired and all bibles have translation errors
in kjv easter is a translation ERROR
the word should have been passover
the Bible is fine the translators had a bad day
all other versions have one or two words not correct also
The false premise that you have to throw the whole bible out if there is one verse error is stupid
stupid people teach that
and there is no cure for stupid
comparing translations is the best way to show translation errors
the devil inspires that argument
all bibles are inspired and all bibles have translation errors
in kjv easter is a translation ERROR
the word should have been passover
the Bible is fine the translators had a bad day
all other versions have one or two words not correct also
The false premise that you have to throw the whole bible out if there is one verse error is stupid
stupid people teach that
and there is no cure for stupid
comparing translations is the best way to show translation errors
2
I refuse to throw out my ing james bible becasue they MADE A SINGLE MISTAKE in using EASTER
that is stupid
and saying the KJV is without error is even more stupid
translators dont make it right all the time
but the most stupid doctrine is
"if you can show one error in a bible throw it out"
that is
ultra stupid
get away from me satan
I will KEEP my king james Bible and use it to show that we by Jesus blood are saved from sinning.
You recieve a copy of the Bible in the mail your mother sent you
she miswrote a word
so you throw her whole letter out
that is plain
stupid
the devils premise that if there is one mitake you have to throw it out is not of christ
we are human
and he wants us to study
to dig
why?
because truths have been hidden.
it isnt stupid to check what the words really mean
it is what Jesus told us to do.
Look up ALL THE VERSES with that menaing and you will get it right.
that is stupid
and saying the KJV is without error is even more stupid
translators dont make it right all the time
but the most stupid doctrine is
"if you can show one error in a bible throw it out"
that is
ultra stupid
get away from me satan
I will KEEP my king james Bible and use it to show that we by Jesus blood are saved from sinning.
You recieve a copy of the Bible in the mail your mother sent you
she miswrote a word
so you throw her whole letter out
that is plain
stupid
the devils premise that if there is one mitake you have to throw it out is not of christ
we are human
and he wants us to study
to dig
why?
because truths have been hidden.
it isnt stupid to check what the words really mean
it is what Jesus told us to do.
Look up ALL THE VERSES with that menaing and you will get it right.
Last edited by a moderator:
2
tranlsators are not God
and we do not worhip
them
the KJV only fanatics say that the tranlators are GOD and can make no mistakes
that is rediculous.
w dont worship men
or idols
everyone makes mistakes
Paul made mistakes and he was Gods messenger.
just look up all the writings on a topic and you have it
for instance
look up what divorce means
in the old testament the king james people chose a rediculous term called PUT AWAY for divorce
they used it in the old testament and the new
so if they use it in the old testament in the old testament to mean DIVORCE then that is what it means in the new testament ok?
simple.
dont be stupid in bible study
look up the words and see what they mean
and we do not worhip
them
the KJV only fanatics say that the tranlators are GOD and can make no mistakes
that is rediculous.
w dont worship men
or idols
everyone makes mistakes
Paul made mistakes and he was Gods messenger.
just look up all the writings on a topic and you have it
for instance
look up what divorce means
in the old testament the king james people chose a rediculous term called PUT AWAY for divorce
they used it in the old testament and the new
so if they use it in the old testament in the old testament to mean DIVORCE then that is what it means in the new testament ok?
simple.
dont be stupid in bible study
look up the words and see what they mean
2
picking flaws with the bibles bring coubt and unbelief is from the enemy
people say the king james is perfect
well
it isnt
neither is any other
and when you show them they cry
ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!
My mentor once said
You cant cure stupid.
"A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this." -Psalms 92:6.
"The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall." -Proverbs 10:8.
"He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." -Proverbs 10:18.
"It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom." -Proverbs 10:23.
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." -Proverbs 12:15.
"Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly." -Proverbs 13:16.
"A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident." -Proverbs 14:16.
"A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent." -Proverbs 15:5.
"A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool." -Proverbs 17:10.
"Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?" -Proverbs 17:16.
"He that begetteth a fool doeth it to his sorrow: and the father of a fool hath no joy." -Proverbs 17:21.
"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." -Proverbs 17:28.
"A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself." -Proverbs 18:2.
"It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling." -Proverbs 20:3.
"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words." -Proverbs 23:9.
"Wisdom is too high for a fool: he openeth not his mouth in the gate." -Proverbs 24:7.
"As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool." -Proverbs 26:1.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." -Proverbs 26:4.
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." -Proverbs 26:5.
"He that sendeth a message by the hand of a fool cutteth off the feet, and drinketh damage." -Proverbs 26:6.
"As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool." -Proverbs 26:8.
"The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors." -Proverbs 26:10.
"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." -Proverbs 26:11.
"Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." -Proverbs 26:12.
"Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him." -Proverbs 27:22.
"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." -Proverbs 28:26.
"A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards." -Proverbs 29:11.
"Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him." -Proverbs 29:20.
"For a servant when he reigneth; and a fool when he is filled with meat;" -Proverbs 30:22.
people say the king james is perfect
well
it isnt
neither is any other
and when you show them they cry
ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!
My mentor once said
You cant cure stupid.
"A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this." -Psalms 92:6.
"The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall." -Proverbs 10:8.
"He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." -Proverbs 10:18.
"It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom." -Proverbs 10:23.
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." -Proverbs 12:15.
"Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly." -Proverbs 13:16.
"A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident." -Proverbs 14:16.
"A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent." -Proverbs 15:5.
"A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool." -Proverbs 17:10.
"Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?" -Proverbs 17:16.
"He that begetteth a fool doeth it to his sorrow: and the father of a fool hath no joy." -Proverbs 17:21.
"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." -Proverbs 17:28.
"A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself." -Proverbs 18:2.
"It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling." -Proverbs 20:3.
"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words." -Proverbs 23:9.
"Wisdom is too high for a fool: he openeth not his mouth in the gate." -Proverbs 24:7.
"As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool." -Proverbs 26:1.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." -Proverbs 26:4.
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." -Proverbs 26:5.
"He that sendeth a message by the hand of a fool cutteth off the feet, and drinketh damage." -Proverbs 26:6.
"As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool." -Proverbs 26:8.
"The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors." -Proverbs 26:10.
"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." -Proverbs 26:11.
"Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." -Proverbs 26:12.
"Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him." -Proverbs 27:22.
"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." -Proverbs 28:26.
"A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards." -Proverbs 29:11.
"Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him." -Proverbs 29:20.
"For a servant when he reigneth; and a fool when he is filled with meat;" -Proverbs 30:22.
Last edited by a moderator:
What is one of the major things in the Bible that it teaches? Faith. For without faith it is impossible to please Him. For faith is the evidence of things not seen. For by it we know how the world was created. In other words, I don't have to experience something to know it to be true in the Bible because I have faith. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Hearing the words of God (Christ).
No. I believe the Word of God was preserved perfectly thru 4 major languages thru out time (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English). That doesn't mean that some OT portions of it was written in Aramaic or that the Spanish Bible had recently came out with a translation in 2010 that follows the KJV. That does not mean, I am writing off any or all possibility that God preserved His Word perfectly in other languages thru out time.
What you don't understand is that God's Word said it would be preserved for all generations and that it is perfect (Psalm 12:6-7). In this generation, the world (international) language is English.
Your missing the point, my friend. Faith. You have faith in the wrong thing. You have placed your faith in men's documents but you have not placed your entire faith in the Word of God because you believe it has errors within it. You are correcting God's Word when you should let it correct you. See, you don't have a time machine to verify these documents and to follow them thru out time to see if they are true or not. It takes faith on your part to believe them; And you are favoring them over the Word of God.
Take for example, the topic of dragons in the Bible. In 2004 (Which was not too long ago), they discovered the Dracorex fossil that closely resembles a dragon. But before that time, there was only reports, rumors, writings, drawings, and artifacts of dragons. Nothing as concrete as an actual fossil. So before 2004, what would you need to have if you were really skeptical about the existence of dragons? Faith. Faith that God's Word is true.
As for the passages in the Gospels and the one in Peter: This is a generalized topical study and not a direct cross reference. Sort of like if you did a general topical study on love in the Bible. In this case, the topic would be: "Suffering in the flesh (As Christ had suffered in the flesh) so as to have victory"
No. I believe the Word of God was preserved perfectly thru 4 major languages thru out time (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English). That doesn't mean that some OT portions of it was written in Aramaic or that the Spanish Bible had recently came out with a translation in 2010 that follows the KJV. That does not mean, I am writing off any or all possibility that God preserved His Word perfectly in other languages thru out time.
What you don't understand is that God's Word said it would be preserved for all generations and that it is perfect (Psalm 12:6-7). In this generation, the world (international) language is English.
Your missing the point, my friend. Faith. You have faith in the wrong thing. You have placed your faith in men's documents but you have not placed your entire faith in the Word of God because you believe it has errors within it. You are correcting God's Word when you should let it correct you. See, you don't have a time machine to verify these documents and to follow them thru out time to see if they are true or not. It takes faith on your part to believe them; And you are favoring them over the Word of God.
Take for example, the topic of dragons in the Bible. In 2004 (Which was not too long ago), they discovered the Dracorex fossil that closely resembles a dragon. But before that time, there was only reports, rumors, writings, drawings, and artifacts of dragons. Nothing as concrete as an actual fossil. So before 2004, what would you need to have if you were really skeptical about the existence of dragons? Faith. Faith that God's Word is true.
As for the passages in the Gospels and the one in Peter: This is a generalized topical study and not a direct cross reference. Sort of like if you did a general topical study on love in the Bible. In this case, the topic would be: "Suffering in the flesh (As Christ had suffered in the flesh) so as to have victory"
Last edited:
Look, if you want to throw the faith thing around, fine. Faith is trusting in things that are not seen. But what is the basis of the gospel proclamation in the NT? It is on the reality and the witness of the risen Jesus. The proclamation was made based on it being witnessed, and then the mark of the Spirit among Israel and the nations. The words of Peter were vindicated by the risen Jesus. When Paul combats false teaching and sloppy discipleship in 1 Corinthians, to what does he appeal?
So forgive me if I simply don't take your word for your position.
But you acknowledge that there are obviously variant readings in the Greek texts, yes? So how do you know that the KJV matches the 'preserved' Greek text? How do you know which one is the preserved Greek text? And what is the basis for the belief that God preserved the text perfectly in those particular languages?
I could just as easily accuse you of the same thing - that you have placed so much trust in the translation work of a group of men in a particular time and language, and have become blind to what it is that God would have you focus on. You are so busy correcting God's word in everyone else but yourself.
But let me ask you a question, just so I'm sure of where you stand: are the originals the authoritative text, and thus an 'inspired' translation is a translation that is as faithful to the original as possible, or do you believe that it is possible for a translation to have it's own level of authority and inspiration APART FROM the original autographs?
Really? This guy?
That guy is a 3m long herbivore with no wings that definitely didn't breath fire. Not a dragon, unless you reckon komodo dragons count as well. Don't let the Latin confuse you...
So forgive me if I simply don't take your word for your position.
But you acknowledge that there are obviously variant readings in the Greek texts, yes? So how do you know that the KJV matches the 'preserved' Greek text? How do you know which one is the preserved Greek text? And what is the basis for the belief that God preserved the text perfectly in those particular languages?
I could just as easily accuse you of the same thing - that you have placed so much trust in the translation work of a group of men in a particular time and language, and have become blind to what it is that God would have you focus on. You are so busy correcting God's word in everyone else but yourself.
But let me ask you a question, just so I'm sure of where you stand: are the originals the authoritative text, and thus an 'inspired' translation is a translation that is as faithful to the original as possible, or do you believe that it is possible for a translation to have it's own level of authority and inspiration APART FROM the original autographs?
Really? This guy?
That guy is a 3m long herbivore with no wings that definitely didn't breath fire. Not a dragon, unless you reckon komodo dragons count as well. Don't let the Latin confuse you...
Is it not a well known fact that the oldest translation is usually more accurate then translations that come hundreds of years later? This is why many view the Greek and Hebrew versions to be the most accurate, because they are written in a period that is closest to the actual events that occurred. But God does not, nor ever desired that one become LEARNED in order to learn His Truths. He made it that even children can grasp the Truth. He does not expect English speaking people to learn Hebrew and Greek, nor does He expect people to rely on men to teach His Truths. Men can be persuaded, manipulated, and cohersed by satan. He wanted a simplicity. The KJV was written for the English speaking people of the World. God was there when it was being translated into English, it is His Word and His Name is on it, He made sure it was what He wanted. Thousand of our brothers and sisters of our Lord were killed for protecting and preserving and even reading the KJV. Another reason it is the Word of God, is because how hard satan tried to get rid of the KJV when it came out, satan has always tried to get rid of that particular version, this should be a sign that if satan is trying to get rid of it, it must be from God.
So then God was there when the KJV was being made, to make sure it was right, what God would not do that? Its His Word. So do you think God was there to re-interpret the KJV into another english version? So was God there each and every time a New version of the English Bible came out to make sure it was correct and accurate? lol. it is only the last day generation that decided the KJV needed to be interpreted, that it was too confusing, not correct, not accurate, outdated, or whatever other reason they can come up with in order to re-interpret what God has already done. Hundreds of versions of the English Bible exist today, do you think that is of God, or is it a tool satan uses to cause confusion, doubt, disbelief? if you truly knew your enemy you would know that satan works with subtlety, slowly. The first version would only have a few errors in it, the next a little bit more, the next version even more, until we now have versions that are nowhere close to the Word of God. The KJV is the Bible God ordained, protected, preserved, and it is still around today, despite hundreds of other versions of the Bible this generation can choose from that will fit their own beliefs. If they get a version that conflicts with what they believe to the Truth, merely find another version that agrees. There is only ONE Truth, and that is the KJV for the English speaking people of this World. All others are tainted, some little, some much.
i know because God told me, think i am crazy, think what you will, but if i said differently than i would be lying, and Rev 21:8 plainly teaches that all LIARS will burn in the lake of fire and brimstone. my proof that satan uses original language study as a tool to misguide is myself. When i studied the original languages and compared them to the KJV i was able to change what the verses plainly said into something that i believed which is contrary to what it plainly said. If you ever studied the original languages then you would know that a particular Hebrew word or a particular Greek word could indeed have several meanings to each of the words. So then a person who is studying the original languages could indeed CHANGE what the KJV teaches by merely choosing a different meaning of the Hebrew word than what was chose when the KJV was being made. So then by using the original languages i could (and did, at that time) take a verse in the KJV that i did not agree with what it said, i would break it down into the original language and CHANGE it by using the original language to fit my own thinking and understanding of the Truth. God told me how wrong i was.
i note as well, that you have used no Scriptures to prove me otherwise. If i say something is True, then why not do what the Scriptures teach to do, when they, the Early Christians, heard some Truth, they themselves would seek in the Word of God to see if those things that were being said were True or not. This generation that is before God today, does not do this, they would rather pass the buck and tell the one who is teaching the Truth to prove what they are saying, instead of searching the Word themselves and finding out if it is True. You see if they actually do search to see if what is being said is True according to Scriptures, one of two things will happen. They will 1) find Scriptures that disproves what was being said, or 2) find Scriptures that prove that what was being said is True. NOT this generation, this generation believes they KNOW the Truth, and therefore the proof of burden is on anyone that teaches things contrary to what they personally believe is the Truth. Blind leading the blind. How can a person come to the Truth unless they search out the Scriptures to see if they are True or not.
i challenge anyone, if anything that i teach, which i plainly tell you is from God, is not Scriptural, then please show that Scripture, else it is only what you believe to be the Truth that contradicts with the Truth that i speak, which comes from God.
^i^
Last edited:
NO they totally made huge errors like add and subtracting things in the bible like Gods name add words to scriptures to aid their doctrine, and so forth and Also we don't speak old English anymore
NEW KING JAMES and THE OLD KING JAMES ARE NOT TRANSLATED IN OUR DIALECT OR OUR MAINSTREAM
so get with the Times before your time gets you
NEW KING JAMES and THE OLD KING JAMES ARE NOT TRANSLATED IN OUR DIALECT OR OUR MAINSTREAM
so get with the Times before your time gets you
Is the 1611 version of the Bible is what we have today? No it is not, apparently the 1611 version was in some error, because God did not allow the 1611 version to be the version for the English speaking people of the world. The KJV is the one that God endorsed and preserved, and is the version that so many of our Christian Brothers and Sisters have died defending, protecting, and preserving. It is the last days generation that says the KJV needs to be done away with, Why? i would guess because the KJV has SAVED thousands of souls in the past, and that must be stopped.
^i^
^i^