The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Here's one case:
2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
Compared with
2 Chronicles 22:2 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.
Same man, same context, different ages. I suspect that the translators didn't bother to cross-references these two passages. Several people have offered "reconciliations" for this, but hypocritically reject similar reconciliations for comparable issues in other translations.
Here's another case:
Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Isaiah 6:6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
"Seraphim" is a plural Hebrew word. The translators, though they knew Hebrew, transliterated the word and added an English pluralization to an already-plural word. The result is simply silly.
The presence of even a single error (and there are listings of thousands) makes it ridiculous to assert that "God inspired the KJV", or that "He had His hand on it in a special way" or any of the other hogwash that people claim. If people want to use the KJV, fine with me. I don't.
2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
Compared with
2 Chronicles 22:2 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.
Same man, same context, different ages. I suspect that the translators didn't bother to cross-references these two passages. Several people have offered "reconciliations" for this, but hypocritically reject similar reconciliations for comparable issues in other translations.
Here's another case:
Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Isaiah 6:6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
"Seraphim" is a plural Hebrew word. The translators, though they knew Hebrew, transliterated the word and added an English pluralization to an already-plural word. The result is simply silly.
The presence of even a single error (and there are listings of thousands) makes it ridiculous to assert that "God inspired the KJV", or that "He had His hand on it in a special way" or any of the other hogwash that people claim. If people want to use the KJV, fine with me. I don't.
-
1
- Show all
Wow, this is really a sad way to begin the new year, eh?:
So, you are telling us that there are no Pure Words Where we can trust those
Words and, in turn trust in The Pure and Holy God, Who Inspired Those Words,
for 'Profitability', In Order to live a holy life unto a Holy God?:
And, Even Worse, on Judgment Day, Are we going to stand In Front Of Him,
and say we Believed Him?:
1)
2)
Him?: "Thy Word Is Very Pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."
Satan: thy word is very IMPERFECT?
3)
Him?: "Every Word Of God Is PURE: He is a Shield unto them that
Satan: Every word of God is IMPERFECT?
Conclusion: Believing God and His Pure Word would be 'living holy'.
but believing Satan would be "living UNholy," would it not?
Might behoove us to "seek and TO FIND" God's PURE And HOLY Words, eh?
Amen.
So, you are telling us that there are no Pure Words Where we can trust those
Words and, in turn trust in The Pure and Holy God, Who Inspired Those Words,
for 'Profitability', In Order to live a holy life unto a Holy God?:
And, Even Worse, on Judgment Day, Are we going to stand In Front Of Him,
and say we Believed Him?:
1)
"The Words of The LORD Are Pure Words: as silver tried in
a furnace of earth, Purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6)
Or Satan? the words of the lord are IMPERFECT words?2)
Him?: "Thy Word Is Very Pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."
(Psalms 119:40)
Satan: thy word is very IMPERFECT?
3)
Him?: "Every Word Of God Is PURE: He is a Shield unto them that
put their trust In Him." (Proverbs 30:5)
Satan: Every word of God is IMPERFECT?
Conclusion: Believing God and His Pure Word would be 'living holy'.
but believing Satan would be "living UNholy," would it not?
Might behoove us to "seek and TO FIND" God's PURE And HOLY Words, eh?
Amen.
-
1
- Show all
When you get a chance after the holidays. Watch the video.
God’s Word says His words are in a book (singular) (See: Deuteronomy 17:18, Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 34:16, Jeremiah 30:2, Job 19:23-24, Luke 4:20, Hebrews 10:7). In fact, not only are His words in a book but we are told to seek out this book and read from it (Isaiah 34:16). Furthermore, Isaiah 34:16 is a prophecy of the “End Times.”This prophecy talks about how we would have the Bible (i.e., the Book of the LORD) during the Tribulation period mentioned in Revelation. Seeing we are currently living in the last days and we are drawing closer to the Tribulation period by each passing day, logic dictates that we would be able to hold in our hands the very “Book of the LORD” today (See again Brandon Peterson’s video here to learn more). In other words, God’s words are not in thousands of manuscript copies of the original languages, but they are in a book, as Scripture says.
See my write up here on why I believe the gift of tongues most likely have ceased.
Are you Charismatic or Pentecostal?
In either case, I don’t want to get side tracked with discussing Cessationism.
I only brought it up as a brief point because it could be yet another possibility in defending our faith in a perfect Word.
Isaiah 28:11 uses the English word “tongue” in the KJB. In 1 Corinthians 14:21, it refers to tongues.
Like “man” can refer to all people (both men and women - Matthew 4:4), the word “tongue” could potentially be either singular or plural in it’s use. This has to be the case because Isaiah 28:11 is singular and 1 Corinthians 14:21 is plural in referring to tongues. Yet, we know the two verses tie together. Granted, I am sure you can just chock this up to another error in the KJB, but you would only be having a lack of faith again in what God’s Word says.
Yeah. What you believe is silly to me. I actually think your belief runs contrary to sound logic, and the Bible. Proponents of Textual Criticism or those who advocate for relying solely on the original texts (which do not exist) cannot identify any single Bible as the unequivocal, inerrant, and inspired word of God, as they don't believe such a book exists. They believe in a “phantom Bible” or a Bible that only exists in their own mind. While Textual Critics engage in rigorous scholarship, and analysis, their pursuit in reconstructing the nonexistent original manuscripts of the Bible represents more of a philosophical pursuit rather than a tangible reality, giving rise to the paradox of competing "phantom Bibles" that only exist in the minds of these scholars, each unique and shaped by their own distinct perspectives that differ from one another. In other words, “…every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25). In contrast, King James Bible believers can claim to hold in their hands the very perfect, inerrant, inspired Word of God. In other words, they can point to an actual book and say these are the very words of the LORD.
Faith. If you could perfectly trace the line of manuscripts all the way back to the apostles perfectly, it would eliminate faith in God’s Word in the doctrine’s purity and preservation as taught within His own Word. Your belief then would not exist or it would be a lot smaller group than it is today. Remember, Hebrews 11:1? Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.
Jesus said…. WORDS. Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words will not pass away is what Jesus said.
I have already demonstrated that words are different between the KJB and the Modern Bibles in the fact that they teach false doctrines.
In Modern Bibles, there are missing words of Jesus.
Removal of the words “You know not what spirit you-all are of.” (Luke 9:55).
Removal of the words “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.” (Luke 9:56).
The words in Acts 9:5 that say, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” is removed.
The words on fasting (in context to casting out persistent demons) in Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29 are removed.
The words of Jesus are potentially eliminated by the footnote that casts doubt on Mark 6:9-20 in Modern Translations.
The words of Jesus are potentially erased by the footnote that casts doubt on John 7:53 through John 8:11.
There are umlauts (double dots) next to 1 John 5:7 in the Vaticanus manuscript.
I provided a screen capture of this within the thread. This clearly means there was a variant that existed. So the Vaticanus is not the oldest and best that would have proceeded the readings in the Textus Receptus.
Modern Bibles also make Jesus appear to sin, as well. So not sure why you think your position is better.
God’s Word says His words are in a book (singular) (See: Deuteronomy 17:18, Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 34:16, Jeremiah 30:2, Job 19:23-24, Luke 4:20, Hebrews 10:7). In fact, not only are His words in a book but we are told to seek out this book and read from it (Isaiah 34:16). Furthermore, Isaiah 34:16 is a prophecy of the “End Times.”This prophecy talks about how we would have the Bible (i.e., the Book of the LORD) during the Tribulation period mentioned in Revelation. Seeing we are currently living in the last days and we are drawing closer to the Tribulation period by each passing day, logic dictates that we would be able to hold in our hands the very “Book of the LORD” today (See again Brandon Peterson’s video here to learn more). In other words, God’s words are not in thousands of manuscript copies of the original languages, but they are in a book, as Scripture says.
See my write up here on why I believe the gift of tongues most likely have ceased.
Are you Charismatic or Pentecostal?
In either case, I don’t want to get side tracked with discussing Cessationism.
I only brought it up as a brief point because it could be yet another possibility in defending our faith in a perfect Word.
Isaiah 28:11 uses the English word “tongue” in the KJB. In 1 Corinthians 14:21, it refers to tongues.
Like “man” can refer to all people (both men and women - Matthew 4:4), the word “tongue” could potentially be either singular or plural in it’s use. This has to be the case because Isaiah 28:11 is singular and 1 Corinthians 14:21 is plural in referring to tongues. Yet, we know the two verses tie together. Granted, I am sure you can just chock this up to another error in the KJB, but you would only be having a lack of faith again in what God’s Word says.
Yeah. What you believe is silly to me. I actually think your belief runs contrary to sound logic, and the Bible. Proponents of Textual Criticism or those who advocate for relying solely on the original texts (which do not exist) cannot identify any single Bible as the unequivocal, inerrant, and inspired word of God, as they don't believe such a book exists. They believe in a “phantom Bible” or a Bible that only exists in their own mind. While Textual Critics engage in rigorous scholarship, and analysis, their pursuit in reconstructing the nonexistent original manuscripts of the Bible represents more of a philosophical pursuit rather than a tangible reality, giving rise to the paradox of competing "phantom Bibles" that only exist in the minds of these scholars, each unique and shaped by their own distinct perspectives that differ from one another. In other words, “…every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25). In contrast, King James Bible believers can claim to hold in their hands the very perfect, inerrant, inspired Word of God. In other words, they can point to an actual book and say these are the very words of the LORD.
Faith. If you could perfectly trace the line of manuscripts all the way back to the apostles perfectly, it would eliminate faith in God’s Word in the doctrine’s purity and preservation as taught within His own Word. Your belief then would not exist or it would be a lot smaller group than it is today. Remember, Hebrews 11:1? Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.
Jesus said…. WORDS. Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words will not pass away is what Jesus said.
I have already demonstrated that words are different between the KJB and the Modern Bibles in the fact that they teach false doctrines.
In Modern Bibles, there are missing words of Jesus.
Removal of the words “You know not what spirit you-all are of.” (Luke 9:55).
Removal of the words “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.” (Luke 9:56).
The words in Acts 9:5 that say, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” is removed.
The words on fasting (in context to casting out persistent demons) in Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29 are removed.
The words of Jesus are potentially eliminated by the footnote that casts doubt on Mark 6:9-20 in Modern Translations.
The words of Jesus are potentially erased by the footnote that casts doubt on John 7:53 through John 8:11.
There are umlauts (double dots) next to 1 John 5:7 in the Vaticanus manuscript.
I provided a screen capture of this within the thread. This clearly means there was a variant that existed. So the Vaticanus is not the oldest and best that would have proceeded the readings in the Textus Receptus.
Modern Bibles also make Jesus appear to sin, as well. So not sure why you think your position is better.
Uh, no. That’s silly. It’s actually called believing the Bible.
God’s Word says Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35); It is: “incorruptible...the word of God...” (1 Peter 1:23).
Atheists say the Bible has problems with it. Do you always agree with them? Surely not.
So people see errors because that is what they desire to see.
The atheist desires to see errors in the Bible because they don’t want to accept Jesus as their Savior and follow Him.
Obviously if you are not believing the Bible on the doctrines of purity and preservation, I am sure you have your own personal reasons that God does not agree with.
Surely if you ever read the Bible before, you will know that not all truths are in one place. Not all details of Christ’s ministry are in one place in the Old Testament.
Again. No. It is called believing the Bible’s teaching on the doctrines of Purity and Preservation, which you do not believe.
Proverbs 30:5-6
5 ”Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
In order to add unto God’s words, one would have to have a perfect set of His words in order to say one is adding to them.
In your case, you don’t really believe you have a perfect set of God’s words and so you are trying to piece together what God said. Therefore, in your view: You cannot truly add to His words. Variants or alternate readings could be true or false. You don’t know. So if you went with a reading that was false in making your own translation you would be adding to God’s words.
God’s Word says His words will be preserved forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:23-25) (Also compare John 17:17 with Psalms 100:5 and Psalms 117:2). In fact, scrolls of Scripture were written on either vellum (flesh/animal skins) or papyri (i.e., grass). The scribes knew they had to keep making copies to preserve God’s words because the scrolls of the Scriptures would get old and decay and perish. So the flesh of the animal skins and the grass used to write Scripture would eventually pass away. Peter says, “For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever…” (1 Peter 1:24-25). So even though old copies would die out, new ones would replace them, preserving the words of the Lord forever. In fact, Jesus says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35).
The thing that is dumb about your belief is that if you lived during the 1600s-1700s in England, you would have no other choice but to believe in the King James Bible. Or if you lived in America in the 1700s, the same would be true, as well. It was the dominant translation or Bible and was regarded as the Bible at one time. There was no real Textual Criticism yet. You would just either believe the Bible (the KJB) at that time or you wouldn’t believe it.
KJB Onlyism was not needed until the 1800s with Pre-Westcott and Hort texts coming on to the scene and concern over their taking the place of the established Bible (the KJB). In fact, here in America, the KJB was dominant as THE Bible from the 1700s all the way to the early 1960s (Note: The early 1960s was also the time when the KJB was taken out of public schools, as well). Your belief is more recent in time and it is tied primarily to two heretics named Westcott and Hort.
God’s Word says Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35); It is: “incorruptible...the word of God...” (1 Peter 1:23).
Atheists say the Bible has problems with it. Do you always agree with them? Surely not.
So people see errors because that is what they desire to see.
The atheist desires to see errors in the Bible because they don’t want to accept Jesus as their Savior and follow Him.
Obviously if you are not believing the Bible on the doctrines of purity and preservation, I am sure you have your own personal reasons that God does not agree with.
Surely if you ever read the Bible before, you will know that not all truths are in one place. Not all details of Christ’s ministry are in one place in the Old Testament.
Again. No. It is called believing the Bible’s teaching on the doctrines of Purity and Preservation, which you do not believe.
Proverbs 30:5-6
5 ”Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
In order to add unto God’s words, one would have to have a perfect set of His words in order to say one is adding to them.
In your case, you don’t really believe you have a perfect set of God’s words and so you are trying to piece together what God said. Therefore, in your view: You cannot truly add to His words. Variants or alternate readings could be true or false. You don’t know. So if you went with a reading that was false in making your own translation you would be adding to God’s words.
God’s Word says His words will be preserved forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:23-25) (Also compare John 17:17 with Psalms 100:5 and Psalms 117:2). In fact, scrolls of Scripture were written on either vellum (flesh/animal skins) or papyri (i.e., grass). The scribes knew they had to keep making copies to preserve God’s words because the scrolls of the Scriptures would get old and decay and perish. So the flesh of the animal skins and the grass used to write Scripture would eventually pass away. Peter says, “For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever…” (1 Peter 1:24-25). So even though old copies would die out, new ones would replace them, preserving the words of the Lord forever. In fact, Jesus says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35).
The thing that is dumb about your belief is that if you lived during the 1600s-1700s in England, you would have no other choice but to believe in the King James Bible. Or if you lived in America in the 1700s, the same would be true, as well. It was the dominant translation or Bible and was regarded as the Bible at one time. There was no real Textual Criticism yet. You would just either believe the Bible (the KJB) at that time or you wouldn’t believe it.
KJB Onlyism was not needed until the 1800s with Pre-Westcott and Hort texts coming on to the scene and concern over their taking the place of the established Bible (the KJB). In fact, here in America, the KJB was dominant as THE Bible from the 1700s all the way to the early 1960s (Note: The early 1960s was also the time when the KJB was taken out of public schools, as well). Your belief is more recent in time and it is tied primarily to two heretics named Westcott and Hort.
My statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea of me being the Holy Spirit.
You misunderstood.
What I am saying is that [the] "angry" reactions result from being "poked" by the cattle prod. Otherwise, what-you-are-experiencing is the Holy Spirit trying to get your attention.
The whole point of that statement is - the Holy Spirit is trying to get your attention - He is speaking to you - but you are not listening.
You misunderstood.
What I am saying is that [the] "angry" reactions result from being "poked" by the cattle prod. Otherwise, what-you-are-experiencing is the Holy Spirit trying to get your attention.
The whole point of that statement is - the Holy Spirit is trying to get your attention - He is speaking to you - but you are not listening.
I don't find it sad. I suppose it's an unfortunate linguistic fact that any translation detracts from the original -- but it's also positive that each language is unique and conveys information differently.
I think those verses don't contradict my point; God's word is pure -- but his word is separate from the actual translated Bible. God's word is the meaning behind the words spoken by the prophets and later written into ancient texts. It is the principles and truth that underlie and are imperfectly represented by human language.
It's similar to how a written word is separate from the spoken word that (in most languages) it represents, and that spoken word in turn is different from the actual meaning. I consider the Bible to be trustworthy and reliable; doing so doesn't require me to believe that every word in my English Bible is an exact rendering of the original Hebrew or Greek text.
I think those verses don't contradict my point; God's word is pure -- but his word is separate from the actual translated Bible. God's word is the meaning behind the words spoken by the prophets and later written into ancient texts. It is the principles and truth that underlie and are imperfectly represented by human language.
It's similar to how a written word is separate from the spoken word that (in most languages) it represents, and that spoken word in turn is different from the actual meaning. I consider the Bible to be trustworthy and reliable; doing so doesn't require me to believe that every word in my English Bible is an exact rendering of the original Hebrew or Greek text.
How do you know they did not do so?
2 Kings 8:26 has this in the Hebrew text: עֶשְׂרִ֨ים ‘eś-rîm (twenty) וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם ū-šə-ta-yim (and two).
2 Chron 22:2 has this in the Hebrew text: אַרְבָּעִ֨ים,’ ar-bā-‘îm (forty) וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם ū-šə-ta-yim (and two)
The King James translators -- unlike modern text critics --were not going to revise what was actually in the Hebrew. They faithful translated exactly what was there. And this was evidently a Hebrew scribe's error. So don't falsely blame the KJV translators.
Therefore all your attempts to denigrate the KJB are BOGUS.
2 Kings 8:26 has this in the Hebrew text: עֶשְׂרִ֨ים ‘eś-rîm (twenty) וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם ū-šə-ta-yim (and two).
2 Chron 22:2 has this in the Hebrew text: אַרְבָּעִ֨ים,’ ar-bā-‘îm (forty) וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם ū-šə-ta-yim (and two)
The King James translators -- unlike modern text critics --were not going to revise what was actually in the Hebrew. They faithful translated exactly what was there. And this was evidently a Hebrew scribe's error. So don't falsely blame the KJV translators.
Therefore all your attempts to denigrate the KJB are BOGUS.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
God’s Word teaches us that God translates languages. At Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2: Certain Jewish men each spoke in their own tongue, and yet God translated their language so that they could understand each other with no problems (See: Acts 2:5-13). This is a pure translation done by God. Can a translation of God’s Word (Scripture) be divinely inspired and or perfect? Well, we learn in the Old Testament: Joseph had spoken Egyptian, and yet these words that record this very fact are written in Hebrew (Genesis 42:23). In the New Testament, we learn: Paul had spoken to the Jews in Hebrew and yet these words were recorded in the Greek within the Scriptures (See: Acts 21:40, and Acts 22:1-2). Again, this is a perfect translation unless you doubt God’s Word. In addition, at the cross: The words on a sign said, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.” These words were written in different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) that were translated for us (John 19:19-20). In addition, Jesus said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). In other words, if God indeed divinely granted us the translation of the King James Bible (as I believe He has), it would align perfectly with the consistency of other translations of God we read about in Scripture. Were these all uninspired translations?
-
1
- Show all
History has been re-written to make you believe the founders and particular US presidents were not Christian. Yes, some founders were not Christian. Many US presidents were not Christian. This is true. But not all of them. Hidden Facts of the Founding Era is one book you should start with.
https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Facts-Founding-Bill-Fortenberry/dp/1490927867
Also, check out, the Rewriting of America’s History:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0889650926/
If not, folks believe whatever they like. At a certain point in history, there was a change on the facts here in America. Certain books were even being removed from the Library of Congress involving how this nation was founded upon Christianity and the BIble. Folks need to look at the other side of the story.
https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Facts-Founding-Bill-Fortenberry/dp/1490927867
Also, check out, the Rewriting of America’s History:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0889650926/
If not, folks believe whatever they like. At a certain point in history, there was a change on the facts here in America. Certain books were even being removed from the Library of Congress involving how this nation was founded upon Christianity and the BIble. Folks need to look at the other side of the story.
None the less... satan is deceiving women everywhere to take authority over the man's role in society
Just because you have seen a few women not doing doesn't mean this is not happening.
It's out of God's order for women to be in authority over men and it's another one of satan's tricks to upend society in order to bring forth more deception.
This is why the Lord has never anointed any women to be pastors, teachers, or church leaders. They are helpers (help mate) to man
Sadly many Christians are all good with this not knowing it's a trick of the devil
Just because you have seen a few women not doing doesn't mean this is not happening.
It's out of God's order for women to be in authority over men and it's another one of satan's tricks to upend society in order to bring forth more deception.
This is why the Lord has never anointed any women to be pastors, teachers, or church leaders. They are helpers (help mate) to man
Sadly many Christians are all good with this not knowing it's a trick of the devil
Actually, this is the result of the brainwashing by the world system.
It’s not natural for woman to want to do that.
That is why the ESV is in error.
Their desire is to please their husband as the KJB correctly says.
It is a part of what God hardwired them to do because of what happened at the Fall.
Meaning, the man is to be the head of the household.
Besides, the ESV is heretical in many other ways.
#1. Fornication means sex before marriage. This word “fornication” is removed entirely in popular Modern Translations (such as the NIV, ESV, and NET). Note: “Fornication” is watered down in other Modern Bibles. No wonder today’s Modern Christian thinks sex before marriage is not a problem. This was not generally the thought of Christians in the 1950s when the King James Bible was still dominant.
#2. The ESV attacks the eternal nature of Christ in Micah 5:2. It says that He is from ancient of days and not from everlasting.
#3. Modern Bibles in Philippians 2:7 change doctrine by denying the power of Jesus Christ during His Earthly ministry. For instance: Modern bibles falsely say Jesus emptied himself (ESV), or gave up his divine privileges (NLT). This is a false teaching!
Jesus had power as God:
(during his earthly ministry):
(1). Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to raise the dead (John 5:21).
(2). Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins.
(3). Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
(4). Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
(5). Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
(6). Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
(7). Jesus can make His home or abode inside of us if we keep His commandments (John 14:15). This is a part of His divine power and or abilities as God. Humans born to two parents cannot make their homes inside other people.
(8). “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” (John 2:11). This was a direct statement. Meaning, Christ’s miracle at the wedding of Cana manifested His glory. This was his first miracle done by Jesus, and it was a part of His showing forth His deity as God. The apostle John did not say that the Lord Jesus manifested the Holy Spirit’s glory, but His own glory.
(9). ”And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:13-14). This was said by Jesus before the cross, and answering prayers is definitely a divine act of God. Please pay close attention to what Jesus said. He said, “I will do it“ in reference to answering prayer. So if a person prays for a healing in His name, he will do it. He will be the One who will heal them and do it.
(10). John 5:17 (NKJV) “But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” If you were to read a little before verse 17, we learn that this is in context to the Jews being upset because of Christ healing a man on the Sabbath. So Jesus is taking ownership of this healing because He said He has been working (Just as the Father). John 5:19 says, “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
It’s not natural for woman to want to do that.
That is why the ESV is in error.
Their desire is to please their husband as the KJB correctly says.
It is a part of what God hardwired them to do because of what happened at the Fall.
Meaning, the man is to be the head of the household.
Besides, the ESV is heretical in many other ways.
#1. Fornication means sex before marriage. This word “fornication” is removed entirely in popular Modern Translations (such as the NIV, ESV, and NET). Note: “Fornication” is watered down in other Modern Bibles. No wonder today’s Modern Christian thinks sex before marriage is not a problem. This was not generally the thought of Christians in the 1950s when the King James Bible was still dominant.
#2. The ESV attacks the eternal nature of Christ in Micah 5:2. It says that He is from ancient of days and not from everlasting.
#3. Modern Bibles in Philippians 2:7 change doctrine by denying the power of Jesus Christ during His Earthly ministry. For instance: Modern bibles falsely say Jesus emptied himself (ESV), or gave up his divine privileges (NLT). This is a false teaching!
Jesus had power as God:
(during his earthly ministry):
(1). Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to raise the dead (John 5:21).
(2). Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins.
(3). Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
(4). Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
(5). Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
(6). Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
(7). Jesus can make His home or abode inside of us if we keep His commandments (John 14:15). This is a part of His divine power and or abilities as God. Humans born to two parents cannot make their homes inside other people.
(8). “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” (John 2:11). This was a direct statement. Meaning, Christ’s miracle at the wedding of Cana manifested His glory. This was his first miracle done by Jesus, and it was a part of His showing forth His deity as God. The apostle John did not say that the Lord Jesus manifested the Holy Spirit’s glory, but His own glory.
(9). ”And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:13-14). This was said by Jesus before the cross, and answering prayers is definitely a divine act of God. Please pay close attention to what Jesus said. He said, “I will do it“ in reference to answering prayer. So if a person prays for a healing in His name, he will do it. He will be the One who will heal them and do it.
(10). John 5:17 (NKJV) “But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” If you were to read a little before verse 17, we learn that this is in context to the Jews being upset because of Christ healing a man on the Sabbath. So Jesus is taking ownership of this healing because He said He has been working (Just as the Father). John 5:19 says, “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
-
1
- Show all