Search results

If you are going to object to me looking at the underlying original languages in order to bring out a deeper meaning in Scripture, then you would also need to object to Lancelot Andrewes, one of the translators of the King James Bible. In one of his sermons, while preaching on Hebrews 2:16...

It's funny you brought up the word "prevent." I have argued endlessly with a fellow KJV defender named Bill Fortenberry on Facebook on the meaning of that word. Bill Fortenberry’s Odd Stated Position on the word Prevent: Bill is not saying that “prevent” means “pure obstruction” detached from...

My position on this topic is that I am for: (a) Knowing & teaching the meaning or understanding of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek copies we have from older lexicons, early church writers, reformation writers, etcetera and not from the Modern scholarship. (b) Defending the Traditional Text...

I already explained this and it works fine from my perspective. So, this is a “nothing burger.” ….

Also most modern scholars and or modern Bible believers say that the KjV has errors like all translations. I am not saying that. I believe the KJV is accurate and without error. I believe modern scholarship is corrupted. I don’t look to modern lexicons or listen to modern scholars. I look...

You already know from my previous post that I believe the KJV is God’s word in English, an accurate, providential translation without error. I also believe that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek underlying the KJV are the fully inspired words of God. But there is another important part of my...

I also want to thank you for your post. It made me reflect more on my position and in light of what Scripture says. After meditating on it, I believe I may have come to a slightly more nuanced understanding here. So the way I understand "inspiration" is that it is "God-breathed," and it is not...

Believing God’s word by faith and defending it against corruptions is a subject that interests me greatly, although I am not out to endlessly convince the close-minded doubters or the “Yea, hath God said?” society. Why? Because they are never going to see it, no matter what evidence you show...

Concerning my reference to “KJV conspiracy theories,” that statement did not arise out of nowhere, nor was it merely an attempt to poison the well. It was a response to your own previous explanation. You previously suggested that Bible translators may have misapplied ἡσυχία because “they wanted...

Thank you for clarifying your argument. I now see more precisely where our disagreement lies. However, you are combining two distinct definitions found in the Middle English Dictionary. You are concentrating on definition 2(c): “in silence, without speaking, silently; also, in a calm manner.”...

I am talking about the Textus Receptus/KJV vs. the Critical Text/Modern Bibles. I am for the Received Text and the King James Bible as the words of God for today. Modern Bibles teach false doctrines and contain corruptions. Yes, this is not news to me, brother. I have used that example many...

Acts 14:12 is a perfect example that illustrates the importance of the original languages that underlie the KJV. A normal English reader would have no reason to automatically know that “Jupiter” and “Mercurius” in Acts 14:12 are actually the Roman equivalents of the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes...

My position is best stated as, "KJV + Its Underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek." The KJV is an accurate translation of the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I see it as a translation without error and it is God's word today in 1600s English. I believe we have the inspired Hebrew, and...

Do you see Catholicism as bad? If so, then seeing Catholic ideas in Modern Bibles is bad, right? Do you see a Bible translation telling a woman to marry her rapist as bad? If so, then seeing that a Modern Bible teaches that is bad, right? Do you see new age ideas and concepts as bad? If so...

Please know that if you write any kind of future refutation, it is not something I probably will respond to directly here. If you do so, I would simply use that to sharpen my own write-up maybe. In other words, if I answered every person who wanted to refute every clear bad doctrine in Modern...

I do not consider inserted Calvinistic ideas as some kind of secondary thing. If one is Calvinist, then I can understand maybe a little. But it still would be a change not found in the actual Greek and it is pushing a new idea that favors a particular wrong belief that is somewhat popular...

That's a step in the right direction. But that does not mean a believer who rejects the Critical Text would be completely out of the woods. There are still many who love to be their own textual critics and create a Bible to their own imagining (picking this reading here and choosing that other...

I believe a person can accept Jesus as their Savior and be born again without knowledge of the Trinity, but once that truth is revealed to them, especially with Scripture, they cannot reject that truth because then they would be rejecting how God is revealed in the Bible. One cannot reject the...

One historical example worth mentioning at the outset is Unitarianism, which is one form of anti-Trinitarianism. Historically, Unitarianism became strongly associated with theological liberalism, particularly during and after the Enlightenment. A Cambridge University Press article notes: “While...

Historically, belief in the Trinity was not regarded as some minor or optional Christian doctrine. Early Christian writers and Protestant Reformers, including non-Calvinist Reformers, treated rejection of the Trinity or the deity of Christ as heresy or serious doctrinal error. Scripture also...