[video=youtube;9SeqBfLiVlA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SeqBfLiVlA[/video]
[video=youtube;9SeqBfLiVlA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SeqBfLiVlA[/video]
Deadtosin, what if I told you that the KJV differs from the Majority Text in several hundred places?
Nelson NKJV Study Bible on Ecclesiastes 9:7: "God meant for all His gifts to be enjoyed. The image of bread and wine is frequently used in Scripture as a symbol of the fact that God gives comfort and cheer to people. (Gen. 14:18, 1 Sam 16:20; 25:18, Neh 5:15; Lam. 2:12)."
Now, I think this is a credible source, being a commentary in a reliable Bible translation. As opposed to you using an article by a Seventh-day Adventist who himself uses Ellen G. White as a source. I'm sure you can see the difference.
I know someone probably had posted this title before. Just to inform that I had 4 other bibles beside I add the King James version. Should I burn the rest of the 4 because I read on the internet as well youtube that our faith to our Lord will dwindled for using the wrong bibles unless we used the King James version.
I first came to Christ as an atheist. I began to read the NIV, I read it for several years and never learned anything, in fact the things I thought I knew were wrong. Then I began to read the KJV and the scales were lifted off my eyes... the scriptures came to life, I began to actually know God through his word. I began to understand scripture that never made any sense before.I prefer the King James of all Bibles, esteem the Geneva and NASB, also, as a mature Christian, but here is something to think about, those of you who suffer, as if, some paranoia that any other translation than yours is a trap laid by the devil.
I first came to Christ in earnest when very young, reading a Good News Bible, learned all the gospel truth required to understand and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord. I came to actually use other translations, primary the KJV, for study, while maturing. But only an ignorant fool could tell me that Good News Bible was not a mighty blessing, that it did not do its work to plainly reveal the gospel that made me respond to Jesus Christ, as I know this the case. I also receive many blessings of understanding from an Amplified Bible when younger.
This is just something to think about, you that hurl stones about that all things that don't line up with your personal view are evil, from the devil. This is also the exact thinking of many cults, whose members specialize more in arrogant, trollish bickering, than edifying other Christians.
yo Jason, why don't you just go ahead and say that anything that I or my denomination disagree with is wrong and sinful. I or we have got it right so if you do not do it my or our way you are wrong. because this is what you are really saying.
I don't know what your denomination or beliefs are. And even if they were wrong, I would not try to attack you personally or not love you. I strive to attack the false doctrine and or false belief and not the person.
The first three posts at the top of this page reference Kent Hovind.
What are your views on his interpretations of Scripture?
Oh, Kent Hovind.
Isn't he the guy who had the dinosaur ranch where you could ride the dinosaurs that coexist with man?
So you are a big Kent Hovind fan, are you?
Do you visit him at the federal prison in Atlanta where he is incarcerated?
our faith to our Lord will dwindled for using the wrong bibles unless we used the King James version.
Dinosaurs were here, we know that. God created man in the beginning of creation (the bible says that) the idea dinosaurs didn't co exist with man would be unbiblical. I am a big Kent Hovind fan and what does being incarcerated have to do with his christianity? history is chalk full of christians being persecuted for numbers of different reasons. I could argue if you aren't being persecuted you aren't doing it right lol. Watchmen Nee was persecuted. Love that guy too.
I know someone probably had posted this title before. Just to inform that I had 4 other bibles beside I add the King James version. Should I burn the rest of the 4 because I read on the internet as well youtube that our faith to our Lord will dwindled for using the wrong bibles unless we used the King James version.
Saying it and proving it are entirely two different things.
"I am not defending the 'Textus Receptus'; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text. (emphasis added)"
"First, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew's Gospel alone. What we maintain is the TRADITIONAL TEXT. (emphasis original)"
Jason, you should know me better than that. I don't say things flippantly
First, let me share these quotes from relevant scholars:
and
Who said these things? Was it Kurt Aland? Daniel Wallace? FJA Hort? Why, no.
The first quote is from John Burgon, former Dean of Chichester Cathedral in England and an Anglican priest, known as the figurehead of the KJVO group the Dean Burgon Society. The second quote was from his close colleague and the man Burgon entrusted with his unfinished work 'The traditional text of the Holy Gospels vindicated and established' ahead of his death, Edward Miller. They both spent most of their careers railing against the likes of Westcott and Hort in the 19th century, and 'Traditinal Text' was essentially an anti W&H polemic (which is still aimed against modern text critics, even though many of the same arguments don't really apply). They both acknowledge that the TR is not synonymous the Traditional (i.e original or authoritative) Text, mostly on the basis that it doesn't align with the majority of manuscripts, although they argue the TR is as good a basis as any to try and revise toward that aim (certainly better than the editions formulated by W&H at the time).
I could post a list of such differences, but at this point I think it would be most helpful to deal with individual examples. Go and find your KJV and read Matthew 10:8. In that verse, you should find the words "raise the dead". I want to ask you two questions, that seem similar, but they can actually be answered differently, depending on what you think. Genuinely interested in your answer.
Do you think those three words belong in that verse in the KJV?
Do you think those three words belong in that verse in the Majority Text?