And yet it wasThis article admits part of Codex Sinaiticus was found in the trash. What are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? | GotQuestions.org
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!
And yet it wasThis article admits part of Codex Sinaiticus was found in the trash. What are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? | GotQuestions.org
The proof of your idolatry is in repeatedly not answering my question.
There would be no hesitation among readers of other translations that the answer is not to foist their preferred translation on people over bringing people to Christ. I don't think you'd know what idolatry is if it came up and bit you on your KJV/NKJV preferring behind.
In your many attempts to discredit other translations, you have revealed your profound ignorance of the Bible and the God of the Bible, e.g., God does kill children and babies when it suits him. This notion of doctrinal supremacy over the actual word of God is common among KJV idolators.
You confessed you used to be KJV only. I let you know the shadow of that remains. See above points. There is a rabid Atheist on these boards. Like you, he denies is true nature. He claims to really be merely a skeptic, an agnostic. Clearly, he had recognized it is easy to defend "I don't know" than " X is true." But God taught us it is not what people say that matters. It is by their fruit you shall know them. If this offends you, well, bless your heart.
They false . wescott and hort were men of satan and did his bidding .
Here’s a balanced article Who were Westcott and Hort, and what did they have to do with the text of the Bible? | GotQuestions.orgYou were asked for proof. Do you have said proof?
I like the NKJV and the NET full notes edition. I have nothing against the KJV. Everyone should know about this controversy but it’s really a waste of time to argue about it. There is no perfect Bible and the modern versions are good Bibles too,I've read that before. Not very convincing.
I think I have said before, maybe not in this thread, but that I cannot read the KJV. It is distracting to me with the thees and the thous. It's just not the English that I speak or write today. So, I stay away from it. I have an NKJV, and I like it, but I prefer the NRSV Catholic Edition. As an Episcopalian, it just works better with the daily office readings. I also have an NIV Men's Devotional Bible that my ex-wife gave me when we were together as it was my first Bible. So, it has sentimental value.
Not saying the KJV is a bad version, just that it's not for me. I failed Shakespeare in High School because I couldn't read it.
I got a copy of the 1st edition 1611 KJV too, from Nelson Publishers in Nashville. Of course it's hard to read, its characters are in Old English.Lol.
I have a copy of the 1611 edition and it is way harder to read than the old English archaic version I use.
One thing folks seem to forget or run over is the FACT that the Holy Spirit of God is our teacher. HE ALONE MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF GOD AND HIS TRUTH !
It has little to do with HOW we hear the word, which is another FACT, that we must respond to it in repentance, belief, confession and trusting God completely. To be hearers and to be doers of his word we must walk in the Spirit of God as he leads.
Will God's Spirit lead us into error, or deception ?
Will the Spirit let us walk in confusion and chaos ?
Just bc folks MOUTH they have , walk and are led of God's Spirit DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE !
We know God's children by the Spirit of God that bears witness with his Spirit in us!
NOT BY THE WORDS THAT COME FROM THEIR PROFESSION OF SUCH !
I got a copy of the 1st edition 1611 KJV too, from Nelson Publishers in Nashville. Of course it's hard to read, its characters are in Old English.
But what makes you think that I'm advocating that FIRST EDITION KJV?
The KJV I use is NOT a 1st Edition in Old English, so those who TRY to argue that the KJV is still in Old English are pushing a LIE.
Tischendorf is who discovered the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript in 1850's Greece, in a monastery. He is the one who claimed its antiquity WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTED PROOF. By un-documented means no OTHER manuscripts of that sort, nor historical quotes by the early Church fathers, etc.Undocumented Greek text? Why do you say that? Please explain.
Lol, here is my last comment to you and your forked tongue and attitude; I would not KNOW as I am NOT a gentleman.Not a comment by a gentleman.
That's funny!For the footnotes
Oh really... now that's trying to use a 'revolutionist' type position with suggesting those familiar with the modern Bible version hoax are going to stop all usage of later Bible versions! Quite funny!I use the King James version bible myself a Thompson chain reference that has been used for 50 years.
It has a lot of my own praises, thoughts, connections and encouragement I have found through the Spirit.
I thank my God that I am still free to use the bible of my choice.
Your attitude stinks so I'll not smell, hear, nor see you anymore !Oh really... now that's trying to use a 'revolutionist' type position with suggesting those familiar with the modern Bible version hoax are going to stop all usage of later Bible versions! Quite funny!
YOU are NOT to be TRUSTED WITH GOD'S WRITTEN WORD.Lol, here is my last comment to you and your forked tongue and attitude; I would not KNOW as I am NOT a gentleman.
Lol lol lol lol But I'd say you AIN'T A GENTLEMAN EITHER!
Yes, you are confusedThat's funny!
Just because there's footnotes in the NKJV pointing to the NU (Critical text having also been used), he thinks that means it is NOT in the actual body of the NKJV text??? What confusion!