I looked at his website you gave me. I looked at 60 of his teachings. The word "faith" wasn't used once in any title.
Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- 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.
I looked at his website you gave me. I looked at 60 of his teachings. The word "faith" wasn't used once in any title.
A few things need to be addressed.
(1) You changed the wording of 1 Corinthians 5:3. The KJV does not say "as present in spirit" in the second clause. It says "as though I were present." The Greek in Beza 1598 is:
Ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἀπὼν τῷ σώματι, παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι, ἤδη κέκρικα ὡς παρὼν
The second ὡς παρών has no τῷ πνεύματι attached to it. Paul already said he was "present in spirit." The second phrase adds something different: he judged as though he were present, meaning bodily present, which is the very thing he said he was not. To make your reading work, you had to add "in spirit" to a clause that does not contain it.
This isn't a matter of which Greek text you prefer, either. The second clause reads the same in the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine text, and the Nestle-Aland text: ἤδη κέκρικα ὡς παρών, with nothing after παρών. I'm not aware of any Greek edition that reads "as present in spirit" there.
The only major English version I found that leans toward your reading is the NIV, which says "As one who is present with you in this way." Notice that the words "in this way" are not in the Greek. The NIV had to supply them to turn ὡς παρών into a real spiritual presence, which is the same move you made. Nearly every other major English version reads it the other way: "as though I were present" (KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB), "as if present" (ESV), "just as if I were present" (BSB), "as though I were present with you" (ISV), and "just as though I were present" (NET). Translators from different textual and translation camps agree that Paul judged as though he were present, not that he was present in a second, separate sense.
(2) Your "while" reading of ὡς does not fit this construction. Temporal ὡς ("when, while, as soon as") normally goes with a finite verb, as in Luke 1:23. Here ὡς goes with a participle referring to the subject, which is the category LSJ gives under C.I: "as if, as." If you read the second clause as "while present," Paul contradicts himself, since he just said he was absent in body. The only way out is to supply "in spirit," which brings us back to point (1).
If your "while" comes from a Strong's-style definition, keep in mind that Strong's lists every way the KJV renders ὡς anywhere in the Bible. "When" and "while" are on that list, but so are "about," "like," "even as," and many others. A list of possible glosses doesn't tell us which one fits this verse. The grammar of the sentence does.
(3) You're right that I didn't quote verses 4 and 5. I did not see them as relevant to helping your case. However, let me address them. Verse 4 joins together "my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul's spirit takes part in the judgment of one congregation, and Christ's power is what makes it effective. That fits what I said, that Paul participated through his apostolic judgment. Paul never claims to be in the midst of every gathering everywhere. Jesus does. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" applies to any gathering, in any place, at the same time. No creature can keep that promise. Paul's statement concerns one church at Corinth. Jesus' statement concerns all of them. They are not the same kind of claim.
(4) Verse 5 doesn't help your case either. It tells us what the judgment was, delivering the man unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh. It says nothing about Paul's spirit traveling to Corinth or being present in any literal way. The only verses that speak to Paul's presence are 3 and 4, and verse 3 qualifies it with "as though I were present."
(5) Ephesians 2:6 does not help your case. We are seated in heavenly places "in Christ Jesus," meaning our position depends on our union with Him. That union exists because He dwells in us: "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27). Jesus said, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (John 14:23). The Son promises to dwell with every believer who loves Him, wherever they are. That is the very presence I am pointing to, and it is not something Paul ever claimed for himself.
(6) Saying Matthew 18:20 describes a future condition does not change the argument. The question is not when the promise applies but what kind of presence it describes. If it applies after the ascension, then the risen Christ, bodily in heaven, is in the midst of believers gathered all over the earth at once. That makes the point stronger, not weaker. Jesus also said, "lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:20).
(7) On John 3:13, the text itself shows these are Jesus' words. Verse 12 is Jesus speaking: "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" Verse 13 continues with καί and explains why He can speak of heavenly things. Verse 14 then says, "even so must the Son of man be lifted up." In John 12:34 the crowd answers Jesus by quoting His own saying back to Him: "how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up?" The Greek there, δεῖ ὑψωθῆναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, matches John 3:14. The crowd attributes this saying to Jesus, not to John. "Son of man" is also Jesus' own way of referring to Himself throughout the Gospels.
(8) John 20:17 concerns His bodily ascension after the resurrection. The phrase ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ("which is in heaven") is a present participle describing what the Son of man is, not a trip He took. John uses the same construction in John 1:18: ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, "which is in the bosom of the Father." While walking the earth in the flesh, the Son was never absent from the Father. Even if you insist verse 13 is John's commentary, it still says the Son of man came down from heaven and is in heaven, which you would still have to account for.
....
Well, your approach to the Bible is overly simplistic to the point of distorting the biblical text. I am not the person who refuses to look at information that may challenge my own position; Especially when it deals with moral issues that should be obvious if your moral compass is even working at even low power. You cannot even see the moral problem I present. So carry on in not looking at information (like Scripture) that may correct your belief. By all means, go ahead believe dumb and immoral things. That's your choice. Don't say I didn't warn you.
I mean, you wouldn't be the first self professing Christian who I have ran into who thinks in such irrational way.
....
And this is why you have no spiritual discernment. You cannot see the heretics, the false doctrines, the false lies in the Modern Bible Movement you are involved in. It all just means nothing or does not matter. Just give it that hand wave. Say, "Nothing to see here." all while fireworks and explosions go off behind you. I am sure the Lord Jesus will be very happy that you ignore such problems when they are very serious. Believers in your movement have lost their faith in Jesus because of the inherent false teachings from within it. But you can just say that does not mean anything, either. You can just act like that does not happen, when it does.
....
Just heard him teach recently and exegete the word used for faith.
He does not teach isolated word studies.
He taught passages and books in the Bible, line upon line.
When 'faith' appears in a verse, when needed, he would give a breakdown and even a history of the word's usage.
Call the phone number and request what you are looking for.
They may help you find what you are looking for.
Telephone
(713) 621-3740
Monday–Friday
8:00am–3:00pm (Central)
Being taught by the one who set the bar for 38 years, concerning faith i don't seek understanding, i seek to see if others understand, that it might lead to a unity with the true body of christ. That understanding of faith tells everything.
You have never taken the time to study what he taught.
When I was in Bible college, the professor of ancient languages one night at church service recommended R.B. Thieme Jr. to me before I knew who he was.
Later, I discovered this is real...
Keep in mind, Jesus Christ is the Word of God. John 1:1.
In that sense...
We now have what we can know of Jesus Christ in writing.
The mind of Christ!
I want you to know how hard I am contending for you and for those at Laodicea,
and for all who have not met me personally.
My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they
may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know
the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge. Colossians 2:1-3
Someone qualified has to dig it out for us. Grace and peace....
Your His fruit Genez,
I've been shouting from the roof tops what true NT faith and faithing is for months, I don't see you joining in. Nothing!
There is no causal relationship between my post and your insult.
More insults that expose your dark heart.
I was not reading your words back then.
Give me a link and let me see what you are getting at.
There is a difference between a carnal and fleshy insult (with no care or love for the other person), and a rebuke or correction to lead a person to accept the truth of God's word (so as to better their life with the Lord).
Jesus surely rebuked others that may have come off as insulting to the carnally minded people of our day:
Luke 12:56: "Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?"
Matthew 15:14: "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
Matthew 22:29: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."
Matthew 23:16-17: "Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?"
Luke 24:25-27: "Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."
The apostle Paul could be said to just be insulting but obviously it was done to correct them:Galatians 3:1: "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?"
2 Corinthians 11:3: "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
Notice that in every one of these, the rebuke was tied to a failure to see the truth of God's word. Jesus didn't call the two disciples on the road to Emmaus fools to belittle them. He said it, and then He opened the Scriptures to them. That's what I'm trying to do here.So the real question isn't whether my words felt like an insult. The real question is whether they were true.
You say the words "Holy Bible" on the cover mean nothing. I'd say they mean a great deal. "Holy" means set apart, pure, belonging to God. When a publisher prints "Holy Bible" on the cover, they're making a claim about what's inside: that these are God's own words. Yet the very same Bibles carry footnotes telling the reader that verses are doubtful, that "some manuscripts" read differently, or that whole passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 probably don't belong. The scholars behind the text underneath them are still revising it edition after edition. So the cover says "Holy Bible," while the inside says "we're not sure what God said here." Both can't be true. The cover is making a claim the contents won't stand behind, and that should bother anyone who loves God's word. The fact that it doesn't bother you is my point.
Think about what happens anywhere else in life when a label doesn't match what's inside. A person with a severe peanut allergy buys a box of cookies marked "peanut free" on the front, but the factory changed the recipe and never updated the box. That person eats one and ends up in the emergency room, or worse. Nobody would shrug and say, "Well, the words on the box don't mean anything. They should have checked the contents themselves." We'd call that negligent, and the law would agree. Mislabeled food gets pulled off the shelves because people's lives depend on the label telling the truth.
If we expect that much honesty from a box of cookies, how much more should we expect it from a book that says "Holy Bible" on the front? Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). A wrong label on food can cost someone their physical life. A wrong label on God's word deals with something far more important than that. When the cover promises God's holy words and the inside tells the reader that verses are doubtful or don't belong, the label isn't matching the contents. That isn't a small thing, and shrugging it off as "meaning nothing" is exactly the problem I've been pointing out.
Now let's look at the contents themselves. I know the usual answer to changed verses is that the same truth is taught elsewhere. That answer doesn't work for these two.
John 1:18
KJV: "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father"
NASB 95: "the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father"
This isn't a missing truth that can be found somewhere else. It's something added. A begotten Son describes the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. A begotten God places the begetting on deity itself, which describes a God produced by another God. That's language that fits two gods, one unbegotten and one derived, and Arius himself used this kind of expression in his own writings. Even the ESV and NIV had to paraphrase around it ("the only God" and "the one and only Son, who is himself God"), which tells you the translators knew the literal reading was a problem. You can't fix that by pointing to another verse, because the issue is what this verse now says.
1 John 5:7
KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is the only verse in the Bible that states outright that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are one. Matthew 28:19 is a great verse, and it shows three persons sharing one name, but it still takes a step of reasoning to arrive at "these three are one." 1 John 5:7 simply says it.
Before you tell me it's a late addition, Cyprian of Carthage, around AD 250, wrote that it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." Tertullian, even earlier, used language that echoes it. That's well over a thousand years before Erasmus.
Picture it this way:
The Modern Bibles remove the one verse that states it directly and left the reader to assemble the Trinity based on inference. Put a man on an island with nothing but a Bible. With the KJV, he reads 1 John 5:7 and has it stated plainly. With a Modern Bible, he has to piece it together from several passages, and meanwhile John 1:18 tells him Jesus is a "begotten God," which sounds a lot more like a second, lesser god than the eternal Son. Which Bible is going to lead him to the truth more clearly?
If these changes really mean nothing, then explain why. If all you can do is call my arguments stupid and my rebuke an insult, then you haven't answered the problem. You've only shown me you'd rather not look at it.
I don't say any of this to win an online argument. Believers have lost confidence in God's word one footnote at a time, and some have walked away from the faith entirely. If I'm wrong, I'll answer to the Lord for it. If I'm right, I would rather risk offending you now than stay quiet when it mattered.
Obviously my words are not meant to just harm you or to insult with no rhyme or reason. That's not how I roll. I honestly want everyone to love and obey the truth of God's word and to be in the proper faith. I have a dim view of mindless bullies because I have encountered their injustice over the course of my own life. However, sometimes a cold splash of water is necessary for a person to wake up and that was my hope or intent of my words. If you cannot honestly see the problem in false doctrines, or outside false labels/covers, or heretics I cannot help you. Only the Lord can. So call unto Him. Let Him open your eyes to see what I see. Talk to him about these things and see what He says. Truly talk to Him. Don't hand wave it.
....
Here are some odd and false teachings by R.B. Thieme Jr.
- Christ "died twice" (two deaths on the cross). His own doctrinal notes on the blood split Christ's death into two kinds. He wrote that since the symbolism of the blood is death, two categories of death experienced by Christ on the cross will be examined. He then assigned the literal blood to Christ's physical ("somatic") death and the "blood of Christ" phrase to His spiritual death, which he treated as the saving death.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1639464/posts - Christ did not take His blood to heaven. Wikipedia's article on this doctrine notes that Thieme strongly criticized the view that Jesus took his blood to heaven as a part of his atoning work, calling it mysticism carried over from the Dark Ages. It also records that one Dallas Seminary figure who agreed with him on that point still rejected the view of Thieme that Jesus' bleeding was not a part of the atonement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_Presentation_of_Christ's_Blood - Hebrews 9:22 and the shedding of blood. In the same notes he routes the Old Testament shedding of blood entirely through the animal sacrifices, concluding that the shedding of animal blood represented the efficacious, saving work of Christ on the cross. His seminary president, John Walvoord, pushed back that Christ had to shed his blood to fulfill scriptures such as 1 Peter 1:18-19 and Hebrews 9:22.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1639464/posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Thieme
- Unconditional eternal security. His own Bible Doctrine Dictionary teaches that the "helmet of salvation" refers to the believer's assurance of eternal security and warns against anything that undermines confidence in this irrevocable status ("armor of God" entry). His Wikipedia biography summarizes his teaching that no believer can ever lose salvation, even one who never grows spiritually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Thieme - Free grace salvation with no repentance from sin. He taught that faith is a non-meritorious system of perception wherein the merit lies with the object of faith, and that the only sin that results in eternal condemnation is to die without having personally believed in Jesus Christ as Savior. Combined with his rejection of repentance from sin as part of salvation, this puts him squarely in the free grace camp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Thieme
He also of course rejected the TR/KJV as any kind of settled standard, too.
Personally, I would not trust some Pastor or teacher at a church alone (whether alive or dead) to give me the understanding of Hebrew and Greek. I would go with pre-1611 lexicons and look to the early church writers and compare Scripture with Scripture and pray to the Lord to send His Spirit to guide me into all truth with His word. I would also consult professors who lived in Greece and whose native tongue is Greek, as well. Just leeching off one guy (whether alive or dead) can be extremely dangerous. We have to be good Bereans and check everything with Scripture.
Also, if he is for the Critical Text, which it seems like he was, how is able to help you all the new changes in UBS6 and NA 29?
He is no longer around anymore. One of these changes (I am aware of) by the ECM changing the Critical Text is heretical. It says in a particular verse in Revelation that Jesus becomes the I AM.
....
That that's the only thing that interests me and all the text about it . I Don't anything about the guy professor what have you . But I like to know what scripture or what made whoever wrote that Jesus became that I am.
And heard it say in Acts? I Am Jesus KJV
Adam died twice.
Died when he ate the fruit, as God told him he would.
But? Adam was still physically alive, as shown with his putting on fig leaves.
Adam died when he ate.
He died spiritually!
And, as a result?
His physical body finally died later after about 900 years.
Likewise...
When our sins made contact with Jesus as he hung on the Cross?
Jesus died spiritually.
That is why he could not cry out, "Father! Father! why have you forsaken me?
Instead of "Father?" ...
Which would have revealed him being in spiritual relationship?
He could only use the generic term, "My God!" My God!" while He was being being forsaken for our sins.
Later...
Only after he knew all sins were finally paid for? When we hear the words...
"It is finished!"
Finished, because there were no more sins to be poured on Him to cause Him spiritual death.
After His spiritual death with the Father was finished?
That was when he returned to being in spiritual relationship with the Father.
Then he resumed using the term "Father," showing that He was back in spiritual relationship as his Son.
Notice? No more " My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me!"
He returned to calling God "Father."
Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”
When he had said this, he breathed his last.
Luke 23:46
The UBS6 already has the reading in its Greek text and this is now translated into English in Wilbur Pickering's Family 35 New Testament (F35).
Revelation 21:6 (F35) says,
"Then He said to me: “I have become the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End."
This is truly heretical.
Source:
,,,,