User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/21/2017 4:48:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am fully aware of how we obtained the current in use King James Bible. How does that change anything I posted? I am willing to bet I am more aware of the path the Bible took to get where it is then almost anyone in this thread. Why are you trying to get me to loose faith? What is your goal? Why not question anyone else in this thread using bibles that were translated from corrupted text, by non believers, and LGBTBBQ, or that use bibles copyrighted by the same people that produce porn. Why target a reader of the King James? How does my trusting in the Veracity of the King James, and how God has used it to completely turn my life away form the direction I was going, that would have lead to my destruction, but put me on a path where I have a great life serving him to the best of my ability, How does that hurt you so much where you feel the need to target me and my faith? OR is having a strong unshakable faith a problem for you? Oh And I don't speak Hebrew or Greek? /shrugs I grew up with the NKJV, but switched to the ESV years back as that is what the church family I belong to uses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2017 7:51:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems you have a faith in a translation, rather than a faith in God's Word. /shrugs I grew up with the NKJV, but switched to the ESV years back as that is what the church family I belong to uses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am fully aware of how we obtained the current in use King James Bible. How does that change anything I posted? I am willing to bet I am more aware of the path the Bible took to get where it is then almost anyone in this thread. Why are you trying to get me to loose faith? What is your goal? Why not question anyone else in this thread using bibles that were translated from corrupted text, by non believers, and LGBTBBQ, or that use bibles copyrighted by the same people that produce porn. Why target a reader of the King James? How does my trusting in the Veracity of the King James, and how God has used it to completely turn my life away form the direction I was going, that would have lead to my destruction, but put me on a path where I have a great life serving him to the best of my ability, How does that hurt you so much where you feel the need to target me and my faith? OR is having a strong unshakable faith a problem for you? Oh And I don't speak Hebrew or Greek? /shrugs I grew up with the NKJV, but switched to the ESV years back as that is what the church family I belong to uses. But thank you for another cheap shot at someones faith. Again another one who only questions someones stand on the King James but does not address any of the multiple issues with other versions. Strange. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2017 7:56:33 PM EDT
[#3]
New King James Version for me as it seems to be much easier to read compared to some of the other versions that are in old English versus a more modern style. I'm relatively new in my renewed commitment to Jesus Christ as my personal savior, but the NKJV along with the YouVersion bible app have been extremely helpful.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2017 11:08:36 PM EDT
[#4]
I at one time only used the NIV. However the more I read about the editorial board, the more I started looking at other versions. It is enlightening to compare the NIV and KJV side by side.
I encounter a lot of people that use "The Message" as their devotional Bible. It is of course a paraphrase but it is dangerous as it strays from the Word. I now use the ESV and the KJV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 12:47:06 AM EDT
[#5]
I don't know all the issues with who wrote what and what other things they support.
I've been using the NLT for around twenty years now and really enjoy it. I read it and I can concentrate on the message that God has for me. I've did studies about it translation and there is always some who will have issues with one or two translation in any Bible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 4:34:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
KJV. Got some time to kill? Are the Sinaiticus and BC Septuagint Fake? Notwithstanding his SDA beliefs, Walter Veith has two excellent videos about the supremacy of the received text.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWZ5WpBUGs8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_yAU9_0x3A |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 10:44:29 AM EDT
[#7]
KJV simply because I've found the meaning changes when reading other translations. Once I became saved, the KJV scriptures became much easier for me to read and comprehend, most likely because of the newly acquired focus generated by interest.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 3:33:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Primarily, King James, essentially for the amount of work that has been based out of it by EW Bullinger, Strongs, Youngs, etc.
Secondarily, Amplified Bible can be great to just sit down and read. There's also an older version of the American Standard that goes well with the two without having a whole bunch of added in stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2017 4:21:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Older doesn't mean better. The other manuscripts (other than the TR) are corrupted versions of manuscripts that have a dubious history at best.
You can take any Bible, in any language and as long as it is taken from the TR will all read the same. Not so with the other MSS. The margin references in the new translations try to make the reader think older is better. A cursory reading of history will show nothing good came out of Alexandria except witchcraft and paganism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2017 4:23:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Wescott and Hort are really criminals. Two of the most despicable men in modern history.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 4:37:19 AM EDT
[#11]
A variety of translations to include the NKJV, the NASB, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot and some of the updates to the KJV (KJ 2016 is a good one).
I'm not KJVO on principle - we shouldn't guilt people to use a Bible they can't understand. To me it's putting a yoke of bondage on them that's unnecessary. Also, you have all these people claiming "KJV 1611!!!" when their Bible is an updated one from 1769 - meaning that with all the hype on how the 1611 KJV was translated, it needed some errors fixed. That said, I have found issues with modern Bibles too - namely the use of "practice" in 1 John 3:4-9 and John 8:34 when the Greek says "do"...then "practice" is sometimes translated as "do" in Romans 7:19. Also, "obey" and "disobey" such as in John 3:36, in the NASB and ESV in Greek are words that literally mean "persuaded/believe" or "refuse to be persuaded/not believe". I think these are important distinctions with theological implications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 12:47:07 PM EDT
[#12]
If studying I use the NET version online. It is a word for word translation and has pop up bubbles where if there was a disagreement between translators on wording they explain why they chose what they did.
I also use the NRSV, ESV and NIV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 1:00:23 PM EDT
[#13]
I like to read NIV, and study NASB.
I don't really like KJV, mainly because I speak and understand modern english. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 1:04:07 PM EDT
[#14]
The CSB, primarily, though I also use the LEB and check others.
I see that I didn't beat the KJVO crew in here. KJV was a great achievement. But even it's translators knew that improvements would be made. As far as the TR, as soon as someone can explain how a verse that doesn't appear in any Greek manuscripts until the 1500s makes the cut, maybe I'll reconsider it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 1:12:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A cursory reading of history will show nothing good came out of Alexandria except witchcraft and paganism. Of course, you have Athanasius, too. A pretty stout example of orthodoxy. Sure, you'll bring up Origen or some others, but the thing about the early church fathers, is if you dig long enough, you can find heterodox in all of their writings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 10:19:55 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Older doesn't mean better. The other manuscripts (other than the TR) are corrupted versions of manuscripts that have a dubious history at best. You can take any Bible, in any language and as long as it is taken from the TR will all read the same. Not so with the other MSS. The margin references in the new translations try to make the reader think older is better. A cursory reading of history will show nothing good came out of Alexandria except witchcraft and paganism.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 10:22:51 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wescott and Hort are really criminals. Two of the most despicable men in modern history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 10:26:18 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A variety of translations to include the NKJV, the NASB, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot and some of the updates to the KJV (KJ 2016 is a good one). I'm not KJVO on principle - we shouldn't guilt people to use a Bible they can't understand. To me it's putting a yoke of bondage on them that's unnecessary. Also, you have all these people claiming "KJV 1611!!!" when their Bible is an updated one from 1769 - meaning that with all the hype on how the 1611 KJV was translated, it needed some errors fixed. That said, I have found issues with modern Bibles too - namely the use of "practice" in 1 John 3:4-9 and John 8:34 when the Greek says "do"...then "practice" is sometimes translated as "do" in Romans 7:19. Also, "obey" and "disobey" such as in John 3:36, in the NASB and ESV in Greek are words that literally mean "persuaded/believe" or "refuse to be persuaded/not believe". I think these are important distinctions with theological implications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 11:05:57 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The King James is Gods Word, I have Faith that the Bible I Hold in my hands to read is Gods Word. I read a few of the other versions, they did nothing for me. Sat under a few preachers preaching from them, again it did nothing for me. Reading and sitting under the preaching from men using the King James Bible did everything for me. But thank you for another cheap shot at someones faith. Again another one who only questions someones stand on the King James but does not address any of the multiple issues with other versions. Strange. Stopped at Southern Baptist churches most of the time. Now I belong to a now Independant Baptist church [KJV 1611 only]. I don't study as much as I should but , we never miss a bible study class. We have learned more in the few years at this church than we have learned in a life time at other churches. There are many booklets that point out the differences in the bible versions being sold today. They place the JKV 1611 next to the NIV,NASB,NKJV,ESV,HCSB,NRSV,NAB,NET,CEV,GNB,CEB, Living, New Jerusalem etc. It should become plain that many verses have been changed , some removed. GOD says don't change his word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 11:11:41 AM EDT
[#20]
Geneva. It's the earliest translation into English (precedes King James) and contains commentary from the leading intellectuals of the Reformation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 11:11:50 AM EDT
[#21]
If you can get G.A. Riplinger's book, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 11:51:56 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can get G.A. Riplinger's book, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS. James White, a leading apologist, has put to bed most of her arguments. https://bible.org/article/why-respond-gail-riplinger |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 12:21:53 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The CSB, primarily, though I also use the LEB and check others. I see that I didn't beat the KJVO crew in here. KJV was a great achievement. But even it's translators knew that improvements would be made. As far as the TR, as soon as someone can explain how a verse that doesn't appear in any Greek manuscripts until the 1500s makes the cut, maybe I'll reconsider it. There are really only two streams of documents that comprise the texts for translation. I will never consider as legit documents that are "found" in a Vatican garbage can and a nasty, dirty monastary in the Middle East. That's where most of the second stream of documents come from. FWIW, there is an old copy of the book of Isaiah in a museum in London IIRC. If you have the translator read it to you it read exactly the same as a KJV of the Bible. The Reformation was based on the KJV of the Bible. The Catholics not only wrote their own Bible to counter the Reformation and its Bible, the KJV, they also started a pseudo paramilitary organization called the Jesuits to counter the reformation. No other version of the Bible can claim any of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 12:38:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What verse are you talking about? There are really only two streams of documents that comprise the texts for translation. I will never consider as legit documents that are "found" in a Vatican garbage can and a nasty, dirty monastary in the Middle East. That's where most of the second stream of documents come from. FWIW, there is an old copy of the book of Isaiah in a museum in London IIRC. If you have the translator read it to you it read exactly the same as a KJV of the Bible. The Reformation was based on the KJV of the Bible. The Catholics not only wrote their own Bible to counter the Reformation and its Bible, the KJV, they also started a pseudo paramilitary organization called the Jesuits to counter the reformation. No other version of the Bible can claim any of that. As for the KJV being the Bible of the reformation, that is laughable. Did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, et al use the KJV? Nope. A Bible completed in 1611 was a relative latecomer, considering the Reformation started 94 years earlier. Even in English, the Geneva Bible was probably a bigger influence to the Reformation in the British Isles, though I don't know how one would calculate that. Preferring the TR or Majority Text is all fine and dandy. Many scholars who I respect prefer things other than the Critical Text or Alexandrian textform. Besmirching other translations, especially by spouting off falsehoods, is not what one should be doing. And if you're going to reference texts, at least list their name. What text of Isaiah are you talking about? There's really not much between the DSS and the Leningrad Codex. Almost all of the variant readings are in the New Testament. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 12:44:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Authorized Kings James Version and the New Living Translation. I was resistant to anything but the KJV for a long time. Started at a different church with a girl I was seeing and the Pastor there used it. NLT is Thought for Thought from the original sources that the KJV is word for word from. I think Billy Graham was involved with the translation or something. It's a good help if there is something you don't understand in the KJV.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 8:56:35 PM EDT
[#26]
I'm using the ESV Journaling Bible, but not for the ESV side of it, but for the very wide margin for notes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2017 9:49:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bible says study to show thy self approved. You need to work at the word to understand it. Those who spend a lifetime studding the bible with tell you they are always learning new things from the word. God opens up more things to us the more we study his word. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A variety of translations to include the NKJV, the NASB, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot and some of the updates to the KJV (KJ 2016 is a good one). I'm not KJVO on principle - we shouldn't guilt people to use a Bible they can't understand. To me it's putting a yoke of bondage on them that's unnecessary. Also, you have all these people claiming "KJV 1611!!!" when their Bible is an updated one from 1769 - meaning that with all the hype on how the 1611 KJV was translated, it needed some errors fixed. That said, I have found issues with modern Bibles too - namely the use of "practice" in 1 John 3:4-9 and John 8:34 when the Greek says "do"...then "practice" is sometimes translated as "do" in Romans 7:19. Also, "obey" and "disobey" such as in John 3:36, in the NASB and ESV in Greek are words that literally mean "persuaded/believe" or "refuse to be persuaded/not believe". I think these are important distinctions with theological implications. It's really not that hard to understand at all. Believe the Gospel, and read it through that lens. BTW, "study" is a old English term in the KJV that has a different meaning today, which proves my point. It's not actually talking about reading the Bible at all. Modern Bibles are correct when they say "be diligent" in 2 Timothy 2:15. It also is talking about witness to the world, not about reading the Bible everyday or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2017 11:03:05 AM EDT
[#28]
If you don't know what the bible says about salvation, how can you witness to others. We fight the flesh daily. Studying Gods word.feeds us,and helps us fight the flesh. I stated New Age Bible Versions was a 6 year work on different new bible versions by G.A. Riplinger. The author of the book was attacked by a Dr. James White. I have the book The Christian Liar's Library by the late Dr Peter S. Ruckman. Book may be obtained at the Bible Baptist Bookstore, Pensacola, FL [850] 477-8812. It is quite lengthy, Dr. Ruckman explanation of who and why they made his list. But, Dr, James White made the list. He is classified as a destructive author and critic.As the church continues to decline, some of these false teachers must take some of the blame. I am sure someone will say something about the late Dr. Ruckman's stand on the KJV 1611 only. Won't effect me at all. Dr. Ruckman and others sold me on the KJV some time back. My local thrift store had a big day when I turned in all my other Bibles, commentaries, and other study helps that were not JKV. Collected over 40 years. If you try to keep up with what is going on now with progressive spinn, false flags, fake news, open satanic worship, and the Russians did it. I am sure you will like the new and improved bible versions. What did the late Dr. Adrian Rodgers call the NIV? Oh yea, the Nearly Inspired Version.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2017 12:04:59 PM EDT
[#29]
The list of scholars who support the Byzantine textform is ample: David Alan Black, Maurice Robinson, Zane Hodges, Daniel Wallace. They manage to make their case without slandering fellow Christians and making a translation some sort of litmus test.
I'll take the words of the KJV translators themselves over Ruckman or Riplinger. Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2017 12:14:05 PM EDT
[#30]
Of course Luther didn't use a KJV Bible but he wasn't all the Reformation was about. Let's not forget, if not for Jon Huss there would have been no Luther.
The BULK of the work of the Reformation was done long after Luther. As I said, show me anything close to a Reformation with any other Bible. You won't. Show me any other version that is as hated. You can't. Show me another version that had an entire cult (Catholicism) write its own version to try and refute any other version. You can't. Show me another version that an entire paramilitary organization was established to undo what one version of the Bible did. You can't. I don't know what scholars you follow, but my money is on these scholars you love are nothing more that followers of Wescott and Hort, two of the most filthy men in history. As for the verse of 1John 5 take it out of you don't like it. What does it change? Nothing. Not a damn thing. I believe it was added to the MSS long before the KJV, just like you said, right at the time of the beginning of the Reformation. My best understanding it was added to propagate the despicable pagan doctrine of the Trinity. So take those verses out. It won't change a thing. That's why the Bible doesn't ever mention a trinity, because by definition, there never was a trinity, nor will there ever be a trinity. It's called the Godhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2017 12:29:58 PM EDT
[#31]
So the Puritan favored Geneva Bible counts for nothing, and the Church of England sanctioned KJV gets all the credit? Seems unfair.
Do the sins of Lancelot Andrewes corrupt the KJV? The man who abandoned his city parish for the countryside when the plague hit London? The man who visited Henry Barrow in Fleet Prison before his death just to taunt him? Sounds like a great guy. If you don't mind Tpro, what denomination are you? I'm a Baptist myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2017 11:42:55 PM EDT
[#32]
The Geneva doesn't have the history of the KJV. Again, what Bible was used not only for MOST of the Reformation, but was there for the close of the Reformation? What other version is as hated as the KJV? As I posted earlier, what other version was banned by the Catholic Church, was despised by two hideous knaves named Wescott and Hort?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2017 6:38:28 AM EDT
[#33]
Cast your accusations at Nestle, Aland, or Metzger. Westcott and Hort are old news. The UBS5 is my preferred Greek text. (But have you ever wondered why the Dean Burgon Society quit selling Riplinger's trash? You should investigate that on your own.)
And again, what is your proof that a Bible translation completed 94 years after the Reformation is the Bible of the Reformation? The Reformation in England was largely complete by the 1580s. The focus was then on Puritans vs the Church of England. So by 1611, the KJV was the Bible of Anglican supremacy, and you don't strike me as Episcopalian. (And for others reading my post, I believe the KJV is a great translation, and you should keep using it if you like it. Heck, it's what my pastor preaches from. But our church also doesn't stoop to denigrating others for favoring different translations. ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2017 11:59:39 AM EDT
[#34]
There is more to the Reformation than what happened in England. You don't think the United States is part of the Reformation?
I mention Wescott and Hort because they were two so called Protestants who hated blood sacrafice so bad, they wrote their own Bible, based on the MSS you claim to love because they are old. The RV was the first Bible that started to undo the Reformation in the United States. I dare say there is barely a Portestant left in the country. As a percentage, it's less than 1 percent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2017 12:49:48 PM EDT
[#35]
So what Bible did the Pilgrims and Puritans bring over? Oh, that's right, the Geneva.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2017 3:45:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Not after about 1630. By then the KJV of the Bible was what they all used.
Seems like you hate the KJV yourself. I've seen it before. For you, there is always something new, better, fresh. I won't hold my breath while waiting for another version to actually reform the English speaking world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2017 4:50:15 PM EDT
[#37]
False accusations from the KJVO crowd? Sadly typical.
Read my posts. The KJV is a fine translation, and I encourage any who like it to keep on using it. My pastor uses it. The private school I send my kids to uses it. But I guess if you don't want to address the issues, it's easy to revert to attacking someone's character. And you have some interesting views on the Reformation. My texts all say it ended in 1648, and it was pretty much finished in England before James took the throne. Your claim that it reformed the world comes what, exactly? It's proliferation after the fact? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2017 8:15:28 PM EDT
[#38]
You don't believe in and call the Trinity pagan?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course Luther didn't use a KJV Bible but he wasn't all the Reformation was about. Let's not forget, if not for Jon Huss there would have been no Luther. The BULK of the work of the Reformation was done long after Luther. As I said, show me anything close to a Reformation with any other Bible. You won't. Show me any other version that is as hated. You can't. Show me another version that had an entire cult (Catholicism) write its own version to try and refute any other version. You can't. Show me another version that an entire paramilitary organization was established to undo what one version of the Bible did. You can't. I don't know what scholars you follow, but my money is on these scholars you love are nothing more that followers of Wescott and Hort, two of the most filthy men in history. As for the verse of 1John 5 take it out of you don't like it. What does it change? Nothing. Not a damn thing. I believe it was added to the MSS long before the KJV, just like you said, right at the time of the beginning of the Reformation. My best understanding it was added to propagate the despicable pagan doctrine of the Trinity. So take those verses out. It won't change a thing. That's why the Bible doesn't ever mention a trinity, because by definition, there never was a trinity, nor will there ever be a trinity. It's called the Godhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2017 8:51:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Yes. If there was a trinity, which by definition is three co-eternal, co-existent beings since before creation, then the Bible is a lie, because the trinity denies that Christ was given a literal human body. That is the definition of divinity.
The pagan trinity doctrine can be traced all the way back to the flood. The KJV does not teach a trinity. Even if you leave 1 John 5 in there, you can't make a trinity out of it. The Catholics call it father, mother, son. BTW, most of the time you see Mary she is in a cave. Look very close and you'll see it. Paganism. You can put religion on anything and call it religion. Doesn't make it true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2017 8:53:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Again, why does England matter?
The reformation didn't end until all the time prophecies were fulfilled. Whatever you are reading that say the reformation ended 1648 or whatever you posted is wrong. Just wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2017 9:12:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. If there was a trinity, which by definition is three co-eternal, co-existent beings since before creation, then the Bible is a lie, because the trinity denies that Christ was given a literal human body. That is the definition of divinity. The pagan trinity doctrine can be traced all the way back to the flood. The KJV does not teach a trinity. Even if you leave 1 John 5 in there, you can't make a trinity out of it. The Catholics call it father, mother, son. BTW, most of the time you see Mary she is in a cave. Look very close and you'll see it. Paganism. You can put religion on anything and call it religion. Doesn't makne it true. I haven't a clue what you are talking about. @twire Care to interpret? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 8:49:53 AM EDT
[#42]
Dude be drunk. The entire first half of 1 John 5 speaks of the trinity
Or maybe he/she/it is just horribly misinformed. If this thread doesn't demonstrate the temporary but devastating victory achieved by satan himself thru the Protestant reformation, then nothing ever will. Do you realize how utterly stupid and divisive every other sentence here sounds? Everyone comes off like ...'I'm a real Christian because this one verse in my Bible is correct, yours is not.' A microcosm of 26,000 denominations arguing over who is correct. Its almost as if Jesus should have instituted a single Church with overriding authority to promote unity of thought and given them the power to provide an imprimatur for written works....oh, wait... I think most in this forum are aware of my thoughts on that subject Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 10:34:24 AM EDT
[#43]
I really don't see it like that. I would bet that less than 3% of people who own Bibles use only one because they think all the others are corrupt. Most enjoy more than one. In my opinion It would sort of be like someone saying that the Vulgate is only good in origional Latin. And all English translations are corrupt. That's not an exact comparison, but sort of close.
If the 1611 KJV is the Only inspired version, then I suppose God wants everyone to read English? Because when it is translated to another language, it isn't inspired anymore? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 11:31:20 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really don't see it like that. I would bet that less than 3% of people who own Bibles use only one because they think all the others are corrupt. Most enjoy more than one. In my opinion It would sort of be like someone saying that the Vulgate is only good in origional Latin. And all English translations are corrupt. That's not an exact comparison, but sort of close. If the 1611 KJV is the Only inspired version, then I suppose God wants everyone to read English? Because when it is translated to another language, it isn't inspired anymore? Some of the specific translation fan pages on facebook are enlightening. One of the admins on the CSB page is Catholic, which I admit surprised me. But we all manage to discuss the translation and encourage each other in our reading, like brothers and sisters should. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 12:13:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Who said the KJV was the only inspired version? It's the MSS that were inspired.
If you actually take a KJV and then compare it to a NASB, RV, NIV (which was written entirely to bring Protestants back to the Catholic Church), NLV and the Jehovah Witness Bible you can see the changes and omissions. They both can't be correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 12:17:44 PM EDT
[#46]
I'm not drunk.
Explain how there were 3 persons in the Godhead at creation, and then how there are still 3 in the Godhead after divinity was clothed with humanity (that would be Christ) and who was taken to heaven bodily. Go ahead. Explain it. There would now be 4 in the Godhead and 4 is NOT a trinity. If you deny Christ is God in human flesh then you make the incarnation a falsehood. I'm not a polytheist. You can't get to 3 in the Godhead if you start with 3. Seems like simple math, but I understand the hold paganism has on the population in general. It's not different in the churches either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 12:46:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Hypostatic union
I still don't follow your math. Are you saying there is no trinity because Jesus was cloned as a human and now there are 4 in the Godhead? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 1:27:10 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who said the KJV was the only inspired version? It's the MSS that were inspired. If you actually take a KJV and then compare it to a NASB, RV, NIV (which was written entirely to bring Protestants back to the Catholic Church), NLV and the Jehovah Witness Bible you can see the changes and omissions. They both can't be correct. The autographs are quite likely lost to us. We have copies in the original Greek. And we have translations. So thankfullywe have God's word. There are idioms to deal with, and nuances...if a translation decides that "all who pisseth against the wall" (KJV) should be explained as "all males, free and slave," the point gets across. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 3:06:43 PM EDT
[#49]
No, it's hard to explain without typing a really long post and I'd have to copy and paste a bunch of verses.Most Protestants before the 19th century did not believe in a trinity, which is 3 co-eternal, co-existent beings in the Godhead. That was because the KJV (and the Geneva translation) do not support 3 beings in the Godhead prior to the incarnation of Christ. The trinity is straight out of paganism. There can be no real question on this. It has been historically proven many times over. Just like many other beliefs that a disputed dogmatically, there is no Biblical basis for them, other than they came right out of paganism and were welcomed into the church almost from the beginning. As in as soon as the Apostles started dying off.That's how I can say you can't find any evidence of a third person in the OT and it aligns perfectly with the passage in 1 John that everyone claims as a verse to confirm the trinity.Since you can't kill divinity, or change it, when Christ was incarnate (look up the definition in an older dictionary as I've found some newer ones have changed the meaning a bit) and we can scripturally prove that Jesus had a literal, physical body after the resurrection, if you started with 3 in the Godhead, how do you not end up with 4 in the Godhead after the incarnation? You can't.The only way it lines up, Biblically is if you understand there were only TWO in the Godhead BEFORE the incarnation. Then you can have 3 in the Godhead after the incarnation. And 1 John 5:8 is still correct. There are three in heaven the bear record after the incarnation.I was a trinitarian for most of my life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 3:07:53 PM EDT
[#50]
I tried to type out more, but I hit my 2000 character limit. The point is if you study it out, you will see you can't have 3 at the beginning and have 3 after the incarnation.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
