So, the person that baptized you said "in the name of Jesus" as you were in the water to be immersed immediately thereafter?Of course, why do you think school prohibits that?
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So, the person that baptized you said "in the name of Jesus" as you were in the water to be immersed immediately thereafter?Of course, why do you think school prohibits that?
You just revealed yourself and your CNN compadres.Well, there's a revealing comment. I will say one thing about this off-topic claim. Trump is a proven liar!
If you compare yourself to Trump I have nothing but pity for you! Now, back to the subject of the thread...
I was baptized way before school so how is this even relevant? Oh wait, it's not.So, the person that baptized you said "in the name of Jesus" as you were in the water to be immersed immediately thereafter?
You just revealed yourself and your CNN compadres.
Of course you don't expect me to see it. Matthew 15:14, "If someone who is blind leads another who is blind, both will fall into a pit.” I worship God; you worship a book.
Ok, show me one place where a modern English translation CHANGES any doctrine found in the KJV. It does not exist.Modern bibles teach false doctrines
The simple fact is, that there are older example of texts now, then there were available during the time that the KJV was translated.
It goes so much deeper than Vaticanus.Thing is, that is NOT a simple fact.
The claim that the Codex Vaticanus manuscript is older has NOT... been established. Even scholars on the committee with Wescott and Hort like Dean Burgon remarked about lack of historical proof and was suspicious about such a claim.
The Codex Vaticanus, the main... Greek manuscript which supposedly supports textual criticism, and one of the main manuscripts which Wescott and Hort's theory rested upon, was discovered in the Vatican in 1475, and no earlier history has ever proven how it got there nor its origins. It was presented to Erasmus by the Vatican's librarian in the 16th century, but Erasmus rejected it because he believed it had somehow been altered after the Council of Florence in 1435. It was put away for centuries until Napoleon discovered it and took it to Paris in 1809, in which it was returned to the Vatican in 1815. In Paris, the Roman Catholic scholar Johann Leonard Hug examined it and dated it to the 4th century (On the Antiquity of Codex Vaticanus, by J.L. Hug, 1810).
Oh, and the study of paleographical analysis (dating of ancient manuscripts) didn't begin until the Counter-Reformation, and was started by the Catholic Church!
Not true. The words of Matthew 17:21 can be read at Mark 9:29.
Why is it "lazy" to want to just read the Bible, without having a dictionary or lexicon in one's hand at the same time? When the KJV was first published, people didn't need a lexicon in order to understand it. Were they lazy?
You know when the Bible was written, which, this may be news to you, was way before 1611, it was written in the common language of that time. So why should we not translate it into the common language of our time, which, again, is not Elizabethan English?Read and understand what God said to the rebellious leaders of Jerusalem in Isaiah 28, and maybe... you'll understand GOD's WAY He showed how to study His Word. Those leaders in Jerusalem mocked God's way...
Isa 28:13
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
KJV
The above is what Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 2:15 is actually pointing to with the idea of "rightly dividing the word of truth." The Bible student can't study His Word like reading a novel. It must be "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little".
You're being funny. Matthew and Mark are TWO SEPARATE BOOKS in The New Testament.
The NIV is MISSING that verse in the Book of Matthew, while it is in BOTH Matthew and Mark in the 1611 KJV Bible!
Whatever has a door-to-door salesman got to do with my bible of choice. i bought my first one direct from the Bible Society. And I am very happy with it. You are doing what you just accused a door-to-door salesman of doing - pushing a certain version at me. Just think about it. Anf FYI a bible is not 'gadgetry'.
Read and understand what God said to the rebellious leaders of Jerusalem in Isaiah 28, and maybe... you'll understand GOD's WAY He showed how to study His Word. Those leaders in Jerusalem mocked God's way...
Isa 28:13
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
KJV
The above is what Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 2:15 is actually pointing to with the idea of "rightly dividing the word of truth." The Bible student can't study His Word like reading a novel. It must be "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little".
I'm English so don't know those you call door to door salesmen. The only people I ever had calling door to door to sell was a lady from a company called Bettaware who sold kitchen items. Your references are rather obscure.Wescott and Hort were 'door-to-door salesmen', and I mean that in a derogatory manner, like carpetbaggers and such that try to sell junk. Even they in their discovered letters to each other admitted if the world ever found out about their disbelief of many basic Biblical Christian doctrines, that their presenting of a new Greek text revision using the Vaticanus and Alexnadrinus manuscripts would immediately be rejected.
Of course any language that the bible is translated into is not the KJV unless it is English so how about foreign language bibles? Have you ever read the introductions in the front of some of these modern translations that you so despise? If not you should educate yourself by spending some time finding our what they say about the work of the translators.Of course the early "readers" were almost entirely illiterate. They heard the "Bible" read to them. They didn't study it and come to erroneous conclusions based on an translation in a language that they didn't use.
It goes so much deeper than Vaticanus.
You know when the Bible was written, which, this may be news to you, was way before 1611, it was written in the common language of that time. So why should we not translate it into the common language of our time, which, again, is not Elizabethan English?
Actually there is historical proof that the TR has passages taht are not original.Sure does. Same lack of proofs exist with the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. Wescott and Hort claimed those manuscripts were shorter than the Majority texts BECAUSE of additions to the Majority texts, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD NO HISTORICAL PROOF OF SUCH A CLAIM.
You don't use the 1611 so quit calling it that. You use an edited KJV.Today's 1611 KJV Bible is NO LONGER in OLD ENGLISH. It HAS been updated making it easier to read. Didn't you see my post #109? Thus your attempt... to use that old hat just doesn't get it, and simply exposes your agenda... against the Majority texts used for the 1611 KJV New Testament.