The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.
- Thread starter Brasspen
- 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.
Actually, many Christians have fell away from the faith when they learned of the false Science of Textual Criticism in Bible colleges.
This is silly. Theology is the study of the things of God. This would be connected to the Bible. Jesus said to the Father in John 17:17 that His Word is truth. This would be the Bible for us today. The Bible is truth, and it gives us Theology.
The Spirit is given to those who obey Him (Acts 5:32). I believe we are living in the last days, and many who say they are Christian are not real truth seekers, and or they do not care to truly follow Jesus but their own path or way. Granted, I am not saying all Christians are like this, but it has just been my experience so far with many.
This would be James 1:5. But is it Christian or Christ like to attack other believers for believing the promises of God in that He preserved His words perfectly? We have become almost like enemies because we know where all the words of God are at.
...
This is silly. Theology is the study of the things of God. This would be connected to the Bible. Jesus said to the Father in John 17:17 that His Word is truth. This would be the Bible for us today. The Bible is truth, and it gives us Theology.
The Spirit is given to those who obey Him (Acts 5:32). I believe we are living in the last days, and many who say they are Christian are not real truth seekers, and or they do not care to truly follow Jesus but their own path or way. Granted, I am not saying all Christians are like this, but it has just been my experience so far with many.
This would be James 1:5. But is it Christian or Christ like to attack other believers for believing the promises of God in that He preserved His words perfectly? We have become almost like enemies because we know where all the words of God are at.
...
Would you be open to seeing the 15 Biblical Reasons I have for believing in a perfect (singular) preserved Word of God for today?
Seems like you got cut off here. What are you trying to say?
What gig? Believing in the KJV is not like working at a temporary free lance job.
It is simply believing the Bible and trusting God.
Actually, you have things backwards (as usual). The Modern Bibles align with the false JW Bible.
....
Seems like you got cut off here. What are you trying to say?
What gig? Believing in the KJV is not like working at a temporary free lance job.
It is simply believing the Bible and trusting God.
Actually, you have things backwards (as usual). The Modern Bibles align with the false JW Bible.
....
If you really had it, you would not be acting like you do.
Instead, you have created an idol. An idol to put on your altar to worship, while neglecting to settle down and humble yourself to be taught by those few whom God raised up for teaching those who really want to learn the Word of God. To actually learn the Word, not to defend merely concepts pertaining to the written Word.
.........
!
Instead, you have created an idol. An idol to put on your altar to worship, while neglecting to settle down and humble yourself to be taught by those few whom God raised up for teaching those who really want to learn the Word of God. To actually learn the Word, not to defend merely concepts pertaining to the written Word.
.........
! 
Here are reasons why the modernist view may have been incorrectly taught.
As for backgrounders, the context of verses 6-11 may refer to Christ’s humiliation and exaltation, which is part of one of the greatest assertions of Christ's deity. It talks about emptying and receiving divine glory. The passages deal with the fact that a 100% man is also 100% God in the hypostatic union. That Christ in his earthly ministry holds his deity for eternity as against his divine glory in his heavenly estate. Christ's prayer in John 17:5 is to seek his Father to glorify him as he was with him in heaven.
Now,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/robbery
Robbery - the crime of stealing from somewhere or someone:
The 1828 Webster Dictionary
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Robbery
ROB'BERY, noun
1. In law, the forcible and felonious taking from the person of another any money or goods, putting him in fear, that is, by violence or by menaces of death or personal injury. robbery differs from theft, as it is a violent felonious taking from the person or presence of another; whereas theft is a felonious taking of goods privately from the person, dwelling, etc. of another. These words should not be confounded.
2. A plundering; a pillaging; a taking away by violence, wrong or oppression.
The Oxford English Dictionary
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Robbery
robbery, n.
The action or practice of unlawfully taking property belonging to another, esp. by force or the threat of force. In early use also: †plundering…
To summarize these dictionaries gave their meaning of robbery to have one single thought of taking unlawfully, violently, forcibly, or done wrongly. It was stated negatively but not affirmatively.
The precise rendering of the KJB is that :
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” is firmly established in understanding the English word.
The form of God is not about his nature or essence but rather his glory, which is the thing he had before(John 17:5), and the thing his Father will give (Phil. 2:9-11). Christ in the form of God will never think to rob anything of his Father just to be equal with him and that is certainly correct in KJB which does not violate his very nature or essence.
The language of robbery as man robs God is biblically supported. Malachi wrote that the Israelites robbed God of tithes and offerings.
Now, Christ was made flesh in what we call kenosis. Even in a hypostatic union as 100% fully man never thinks of robbing his Father e of his glory or essence. Yes, Christ cannot rob of anything not his own.
So to answer your question of how this could be a robbery
Well, indeed, the given text is not about Christ's doing such a thing as robbing. He never even thinks of it. which is quite correct. Here 'robbery' in this translation of G'eek counterpart harpagmos is indeed the literal meaning and fits the text while to seize or to snatch will not fit the context as explained.
As for backgrounders, the context of verses 6-11 may refer to Christ’s humiliation and exaltation, which is part of one of the greatest assertions of Christ's deity. It talks about emptying and receiving divine glory. The passages deal with the fact that a 100% man is also 100% God in the hypostatic union. That Christ in his earthly ministry holds his deity for eternity as against his divine glory in his heavenly estate. Christ's prayer in John 17:5 is to seek his Father to glorify him as he was with him in heaven.
Now,
- According to the statement “{Christ}, though He eternally existed in the essence of God, He did not think equalities with God a gain to be seized {means to violently take} and held.’
- This modernist view using the English word “seized” is ambiguous since it uses the other definitions of being ‘legally taken’, such as police serving a warrant of arrest, which makes no sense in the texts.
- For Christ's eternal, never think of reclaiming legally what he already possessed, which you have said. His ESSENCE makes equality of God often misunderstood as in the ‘FORM of God’. The ‘form of God’ refers to his heavenly existence or his glory. So that it could not be that way, that he eternally existed in the essence of God and yet he did not consider thinking he was God. This is contradictory to his Divine nature. Christ never thought of inequalities to his Father even during his earthly ministry, he even said that he and his Father are one John 10:30. Again, what sets aside is his divine glory being in the ‘form of God’ but not his divine nature.
- You said ‘He did not consider to violently snatch it back in the process. (no robbery). To have a modern view of something Christ will snatch back is also ambiguous. Snatch has a double meaning taken negatively and positively. I have to agree, however, that in this sense, Christ will never think of snatching back as in robbery. In a positive sense, Christ will never snatch anything that he legally possessed being in the essence of God as per your statement. Put in a negative sense, Christ cannot violently snatch back, for he would violate his very nature or essence which is indeed contradictory.
- Now you asked, ‘how could he consider it robbery?
- Before answering your question, what is robbery? Here are what leading dictionaries shed light on the word in contention.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/robbery
Robbery - the crime of stealing from somewhere or someone:
The 1828 Webster Dictionary
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Robbery
ROB'BERY, noun
1. In law, the forcible and felonious taking from the person of another any money or goods, putting him in fear, that is, by violence or by menaces of death or personal injury. robbery differs from theft, as it is a violent felonious taking from the person or presence of another; whereas theft is a felonious taking of goods privately from the person, dwelling, etc. of another. These words should not be confounded.
2. A plundering; a pillaging; a taking away by violence, wrong or oppression.
The Oxford English Dictionary
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Robbery
robbery, n.
The action or practice of unlawfully taking property belonging to another, esp. by force or the threat of force. In early use also: †plundering…
To summarize these dictionaries gave their meaning of robbery to have one single thought of taking unlawfully, violently, forcibly, or done wrongly. It was stated negatively but not affirmatively.
The precise rendering of the KJB is that :
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” is firmly established in understanding the English word.
The form of God is not about his nature or essence but rather his glory, which is the thing he had before(John 17:5), and the thing his Father will give (Phil. 2:9-11). Christ in the form of God will never think to rob anything of his Father just to be equal with him and that is certainly correct in KJB which does not violate his very nature or essence.
The language of robbery as man robs God is biblically supported. Malachi wrote that the Israelites robbed God of tithes and offerings.
Now, Christ was made flesh in what we call kenosis. Even in a hypostatic union as 100% fully man never thinks of robbing his Father e of his glory or essence. Yes, Christ cannot rob of anything not his own.
So to answer your question of how this could be a robbery
Well, indeed, the given text is not about Christ's doing such a thing as robbing. He never even thinks of it. which is quite correct. Here 'robbery' in this translation of G'eek counterpart harpagmos is indeed the literal meaning and fits the text while to seize or to snatch will not fit the context as explained.
There are times when you just don't get it.
Westcott and Hort happened almost 200 years ago, dude! That's hardly "new". The Bishop's and Geneva were about 50 years old and Tyndale almost 100 when the KJV was first released. It was "the new kid on the block" back then.
In other words, your accusatory assertion means absolutely nothing at all. It has NO evidentiary weight whatsoever.
Westcott and Hort happened almost 200 years ago, dude! That's hardly "new". The Bishop's and Geneva were about 50 years old and Tyndale almost 100 when the KJV was first released. It was "the new kid on the block" back then.
In other words, your accusatory assertion means absolutely nothing at all. It has NO evidentiary weight whatsoever.
Bible agnostic is not meant to be a mindless pitchfork mob insult. I do care for you in Christ. The term is merely an accurate description to let others know of the dangers of the Modern Bible Movement (or the Westcott and Hort Movement).
Agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. The term has come to be equated in popular parlance with skepticism about religious questions in general and in particular with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought.
Source:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism
"I know the term "bible agnostic" is accurate though confrontational. I use it because I want people to realize that that is in fact what they are - Bible Agnostics. They do not know what the Bible is or where to get one. In fact, I found out later that the "great" Bruce Metzger himself put out a Textual Criticism book in which one of his contributors used this word. In his book titled, New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, a collection of essays by various textual critics. In an essay on the textual variants concerning the doxology in Romans, and the writer concluded with these words: "In short, THE SITUATION CALLS FOR A SCHOLARLY 'AGNOSTICISM' AND CONTINUING RESEARCH." (p. 199). This comes straight from the mouth of a textual critic." ~ Quote by: Will Kinney (Source)
Agnostic = One who does not know for sure.
A Bible Agnostic is a person who simply does not know which texts are the correct ones, and has no complete, inspired, and infallible Bible to offer anyone.
....
Agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. The term has come to be equated in popular parlance with skepticism about religious questions in general and in particular with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought.
Source:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism
"I know the term "bible agnostic" is accurate though confrontational. I use it because I want people to realize that that is in fact what they are - Bible Agnostics. They do not know what the Bible is or where to get one. In fact, I found out later that the "great" Bruce Metzger himself put out a Textual Criticism book in which one of his contributors used this word. In his book titled, New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, a collection of essays by various textual critics. In an essay on the textual variants concerning the doxology in Romans, and the writer concluded with these words: "In short, THE SITUATION CALLS FOR A SCHOLARLY 'AGNOSTICISM' AND CONTINUING RESEARCH." (p. 199). This comes straight from the mouth of a textual critic." ~ Quote by: Will Kinney (Source)
Agnostic = One who does not know for sure.
A Bible Agnostic is a person who simply does not know which texts are the correct ones, and has no complete, inspired, and infallible Bible to offer anyone.
....
Whining and lying aren't the marks of a mature believer in Christ.
Firstly, you aren't being attacked at all, and certainly not "for believing the promises of God...". Don't be ridiculous! You stuck your head in here to defend the KJV, and have made claims about it. Your claims are merely ideas, and ideas are fair game for criticism and even ridicule, should they warrant it... which many of yours do.
Secondly, you have dished out far more in the way of direct and implied insults than you have received. If anyone has a moral right to complain about being attacked, it certainly is not you. Grow a thicker skin and stop being such a rampant hypocrite!
Or, as a friend likes to say, if you can't handle the heat, stay out of the Bible Discussion forum!
Firstly, you aren't being attacked at all, and certainly not "for believing the promises of God...". Don't be ridiculous! You stuck your head in here to defend the KJV, and have made claims about it. Your claims are merely ideas, and ideas are fair game for criticism and even ridicule, should they warrant it... which many of yours do.
Secondly, you have dished out far more in the way of direct and implied insults than you have received. If anyone has a moral right to complain about being attacked, it certainly is not you. Grow a thicker skin and stop being such a rampant hypocrite!
Or, as a friend likes to say, if you can't handle the heat, stay out of the Bible Discussion forum!
I know quite well what an agnostic is, thanks, and "Bible agnostic" is yet another in a long line of insults you have thrown at me. That is inconsistent with your claim to care for me.
You think that because I reject the idea that the KJV is perfect that I believe all sorts of other things which I have not claimed to believe. You don't like it when people disagree with you about your preferred translation, so you call them names. How is your behaviour even remotely Christ-like?
You think that because I reject the idea that the KJV is perfect that I believe all sorts of other things which I have not claimed to believe. You don't like it when people disagree with you about your preferred translation, so you call them names. How is your behaviour even remotely Christ-like?
Well, that does not line up with the facts or evidence I have researched.
As you may know, Bruce Metzger is probably the most influential textual critic.
Note: Both Brooks, and F.F. Bruce are in favor of the Critical Text, and Modern Textual Criticism.
In 1962 Kenneth Clark observed:
(Clark, “Today’s Problems with the Critical Text of the New Testament,” Transitions in Biblical Scholarship, edited by J.C.R. Rylaarsdam, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, pp. 158-160).
In 1964, Jacob Greenlee stated,
(Ernest Cadman Colwell, “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, New York: Abingdon Press, 1965, p. 370).
Granted, some may protest and say that Westcott and Hort’s text is not the same as the “Nestle and Aland.” However, Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp states that the Nestle and Aland text barely differs from the Westcott and Hort text. Here is a quote from Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp:
You can find out Eldon Jay Epp’s compilation study or findings here.
....
As you may know, Bruce Metzger is probably the most influential textual critic.
“The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY IN GIVING ATTENTION TO BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSIDERATION” (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, "Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century," (1999) Author: F.F. Bruce., p. 264).
Note: Both Brooks, and F.F. Bruce are in favor of the Critical Text, and Modern Textual Criticism.
Brooks further states, “There is nothing unique about Metzger’s theory of textual criticism. It is simply a refinement of Westcott and Hort’s theory in the New Testament in the Original Greek (1881)...." (Ibid.).
In 1962 Kenneth Clark observed:
“...the Westcott-Hort text has become today our textus receptus."
(Clark, “Today’s Problems with the Critical Text of the New Testament,” Transitions in Biblical Scholarship, edited by J.C.R. Rylaarsdam, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, pp. 158-160).
In 1964, Jacob Greenlee stated,
“THE TEXTUAL THEORY OF W-H UNDERLIES VIRTUALLY ALL SUBSEQUENT WORK IN NT TEXTUAL CRITICISM” (
Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964, p. 76).“THE DEAD HAND OF FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT LIES HEAVY UPON US. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort’s work as a failure, though a glorious one. But HORT DID NOT FAIL TO REACH HIS MAJOR GOAL. HE DETHRONED THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS. ... Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped—AND STILL SHAPES—the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the NT through the English language” (emphasis added)
(Ernest Cadman Colwell, “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, New York: Abingdon Press, 1965, p. 370).
Granted, some may protest and say that Westcott and Hort’s text is not the same as the “Nestle and Aland.” However, Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp states that the Nestle and Aland text barely differs from the Westcott and Hort text. Here is a quote from Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp:
“The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece. To offer up-to-date evidence of this point, I have made a fresh comparison of the 1881 compilation and the current edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation….” ~ Quote by: Eldon Jay Epp.
You can find out Eldon Jay Epp’s compilation study or findings here.
....
-
1
- Show all
None of that is relevant to the topic at hand. You made the accusation that the modern Bibles are the new kids on the block, as though that is some terrible thing. I countered that the KJV was once the new kid. Instead of acknowledging that and retracting your accusatory remark, you have attempted to change the subject three times now.
It ain't gonna fly.
It ain't gonna fly.