Please explain this.

[Grailhunter]

The atheist once proudly said, "I found it! The Bible says, "there is no God."

To which the believer replied, "you have taken that out of context. It says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.""



And if the person does not want to serve the Lord, he will take the wrong message from that scripture passage and run with it...



Wealth is in italics. It could just as well be translated well-being. There is no word for it in the original Greek.



Excuse me, every last one of us was conceived in sin (Psalms 51:5). All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:10); babies are not exempt from these scriptures. They declare the word "mine!" very early on.



It does not confirm that at all. What it confirms is that Jacob and Esau didn't commit any sins while they were in their mother's womb.



I would share what the heresy is with all of you...except for the fact that it stumbled me in my faith for a very long time, and I do not wish the same experience on any of you. Call it a cop-out if you wish...you can take my word for it or call me a liar until you stumble on the same heresy in your own reading of the NASB (it is also in the NIV and who knows what other version; but not in the kjv).



Now where did I ever say that Elizabethan English is the only way to salvation? I am saying that other translations are watered-down and lack the potency of the fullness of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. That it is written in Elizabethan English is a side-point that has no relevance to the issue. Truth is, the kjv is the only version that has the form of sound words that we are commanded to hold fast to in 2 Timothy 1:13. It is the only translation that preserves every jot and tittle that Jesus said will never pass away from the true word of God (Matthew 5:18)

copied from my Facebook page: The fact that there is a controversy (concerning kjv-only) means we should examine the validity of the claims of both sides. On the kjv-only side, there is Matthew 7:13-14 and Matthew 5:18. Jot and tittle have been taken away in other versions; and they are also based on different manuscript sources. You have to really seek the Holy Spirit's answer on which ones are right (see Jeremiah 29:13). Personally, I feel that other versions are watered-down and that people go to them because they have itching ears (2 Timothy 4:1-5). Not everyone; some started with the NIV or NASB thinking they were valid translations. In my own life I began with the kjv and someone suggested that I "try another version". I did, and my walk with Christ then proceeded to go downhill until I returned to the kjv. Just a testimony (see Revelation 12:10-11).



But suppose that I have the whole truth, even being right 100% of the time? How would you know that unless you were also right 100% of the time and also knew it? If you don't have the whole truth and are not right 100% of the time, then you would be in disagreement at least some of the time with anyone who has it 100% of the time.

Now of course I am being somewhat facetious. I have posted elsewhere that I believe that I can be wrong at any time and that I need to keep a humble and flexible attitude so that if anyone can prove me wrong, I would be willing to change my pov. However, I also posted in the same breath that we ought to read the Bible in such a way as to find the truth; and that when we find it, we need to hold it as truth unless someone can show us biblically that we are wrong.

If you could just put away your "he" pride for a minute, these ladies might be able to get through that thick noggin of yours and you might just learn something.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Excuse me, every last one of us was conceived in sin (Psalms 51:5). All have sinned and come short of the glory of God; babies are not exempt from this scripture. They declare the word "mine!" very early on.

*sigh* This is so very tiresome. Babies do NOT commit sins. They are born into a sinful world and will, no doubt, learn to sin soon enough. This is the meaning of Psalm 51:5. Why don't you quote 51:6 where it is clear that the Psalmist, David is making just that point.

It does not confirm that at all. What it confirms is that Jacob and Esau didn't commit any sins while they were in their mother's womb.

Does that mean that premature babies are let off the hook, since they SHOULD have been in the womb a bit longer? This is just so silly, I don't know why I feel compelled to answer you.

I would share what the heresy is with all of you...except for the fact that it stumbled me in my faith for a very long time, and I do not wish the same experience on any of you. Call it a cop-out if you wish...you can take my word for it or call me a liar until you stumble on the same heresy in your own reading of the NASB (it is also in the NIV and who knows what other version; but not in the kjv).

That answer is woefully inadequate. You made the accusation--now back it up.

I am saying that other translations are watered-down and lack the potency of the fullness of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. That it is written in Elizabethan English is a side-point that has no relevance to the issue. Truth is, the kjv is the only version that has the form of sound words that we are commanded to hold fast to in 2 Timothy 1:13. It is the only translation that preserves every jot and tittle that Jesus said will never pass away from the true word of God (Matthew 5:18)

Balderdash--(that's as close as I can get to KJV language--it's first known use was in 1674). What on earth does "has the form of sound words that we are commanded to hold fast to" even mean? What is a "sound word"? Jesus was referring to the OT Hebrew! (And by the way, if you are going to be correct you should render it in the Hebrew, jod or yod.) A tittle is a diacritic mark and I doubt that we are meant to focus on it. We are supposed to focus on the message of Christ's words--that every bit of the Law of God would stand until heaven and earth pass away and until the purpose of the Law is achieved.

copied from my Facebook page:

The fact that there is a controversy (concerning kjv-only) means we should examine the validity of the claims of both sides. On the kjv-only side, there is Matthew 7:13-14 and Matthew 5:18. Jot and tittle have been taken away in other versions; and they are also based on different manuscript sources. You have to really seek the Holy Spirit's answer on which ones are right (see Jeremiah 29:13). Personally, I feel that other versions are watered-down and that people go to them because they have itching ears (2 Timothy 4:1-5). Not everyone; some started with the NIV or NASB thinking they were valid translations. In my own life I began with the kjv and someone suggested that I "try another version". I did, and my walk with Christ then proceeded to go downhill until I returned to the kjv. Just a testimony (see Revelation 12:10-11).

Doesn't it strike you as a bit pompous to quote yourself? If you were granted eternal life through the use of the KJV, shouldn't that have kept you (since you say that you believe in TOPS) regardless of the translation? I was raised on the KJV and I was clueless as to what it was even talking about. I was pursued by the hounds of heaven until I finally surrendered and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I know it was genuine because I was directed to read Scripture and I read it ALL--NIV, NASB, KJV and NLT. It finally made sense to me in ALL versions. Satan hates when any humans read the word of God--he only fights against it. When you insist that only the KJV has the truth, you are denying others of that for which William Tyndale was martyred--reading the truth in their own language. You are engaging in a bit of KJV-mysticism.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I told you I was being facetious, did I not?

As a matter of fact I was speaking hypothetically.

And it is also possible that any one of us, who studies to shew himself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, might have 100% of the truth; even while they keep the humble attitude that they could be wrong on anything and have the willingness to change their position if it should turn out that they are proven wrong.

I think that the Bible is the ultimate authority on this.

There is about A 20%-70% chance that I am right and that the kjv is the final authority as the ultimate Bible.

This chance increases drastically when you begin to find damnable heresies in bibles other than the kjv.

Yet, you refuse to provide those "damnable heresies" for us to examine.

 

[Grailhunter]

I told you I was being facetious, did I not?

As a matter of fact I was speaking hypothetically.

And it is also possible that any one of us, who studies to shew himself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, might have 100% of the truth; even while they keep the humble attitude that they could be wrong on anything and have the willingness to change their position if it should turn out that they are proven wrong.

I think that the Bible is the ultimate authority on this.

There is about A 20%-70% chance that I am right and that the kjv is the final authority as the ultimate Bible.

This chance increases drastically when you begin to find damnable heresies in bibles other than the kjv.

As far at this debate over the KJV is concerned, it makes no sense. If you do not believe that the ocean is wet, go there and dive in. I like the KJV, love it for it’s poetic verses…not the most accurate. All you have to do is care enough to look into the history of the KJV to find out it has been the most error ridden Bible ever printed. When it was translated the resources for it were limited…not to any fault of theirs. Beyond that there were certain religious beliefs of the time period that were read into the translation.

 

[Grailhunter]

I told you I was being facetious, did I not?

As a matter of fact I was speaking hypothetically.

And it is also possible that any one of us, who studies to shew himself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, might have 100% of the truth; even while they keep the humble attitude that they could be wrong on anything and have the willingness to change their position if it should turn out that they are proven wrong.

I think that the Bible is the ultimate authority on this.

There is about A 20%-70% chance that I am right and that the kjv is the final authority as the ultimate Bible.

This chance increases drastically when you begin to find damnable heresies in bibles other than the kjv.

List of scriptures that do not appear in the oldest texts, that appear in the KJV

The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to, originated as a common literary explanation or formula for the Trinity. It first appeared in the 3rd century in some of the literature which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. Even though this formula would become very popular, at the time, very few Church Fathers agreed with it.

At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the Bibles that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the 6th century, the Byzantines begain to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament. At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a retranslation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a popular theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable.

The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:7&8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)

“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition. Verses 7 and 8 are the added lines.

6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

As one can see there is no chance that these are simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula or description of it.

(1) Matthew 17:21
KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Reason: The verse closely resembles Mark 9:29, but it is lacking in Matthew in א (original handwriting), B, θ, some Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Ethiopic mss. It is, however, found in this place in some Greek mss not quite so ancient – C, D, K, L – as well as some other mss of the ancient versions. It is believed to have been assimilated from Mark.[15]

(2) Matthew 18:11
KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

(3) Matthew 23:14
KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

(4) Mark 7:16
KJV: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Reason: This verse is nearly identical with verses 4:9 and 4:23. This verse here is lacking in א,B,L,Δ (original handwriting), some Coptic mss. It is included in mss only slightly less ancient, A,D,K,W,ƒ1,ƒ13, Italic mss, the Vulgate, some other ancient versions. As it is missing in the very oldest resources and yet is identical to verses that remain, many editors seem confident in omitting its appearance here.

(5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46
KJV: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. .. (Both verses identical to each other, and to 9:48, which is still in the main text)

(7) Mark 11:26
KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Reason: This verse is very similar to Matthew 6:15. This verse appeared in the Complutensian Polyglot and most Textus Receptus editions but Erasmus noted that it was missing from 'most' Greek manuscripts.[19] The UBS edition gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of A.

(8) Mark 15:28
KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, "And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Reasons: This verse is similar to Luke 22:37. It does not appear in any New Testament ms prior to the end of the 6th century.[20]

(9) Luke 17:36
KJV: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

(10) John 5:3–4
Main article: John 5 § Interpolation (verses 3b-4)

KJV: 3 . . . waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an Angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

(Note: not only is verse 4 omitted, but also the tail end of verse 3.)

Reason: These words clearly were not in the original text of the Gospel.
(11) Acts 8:3
Main article: Acts 8 § Verse 37

KJV: And Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." And he [the Eunuch] answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Modern versions: Either sidelined to a footnote (e.g., RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, Hodges & Farstad Majority Text), or omitted altogether (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Robinson & Pierpont Majority Text).

Reason: The earliest Greek manuscript (Ea/E2) of the New Testament to include this verse dates from the late sixth or early seventh century

(12) Acts 15:34
KJV: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Reason: Although this verse, or something similar to it, is quite old, it does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, and the manuscripts that do contain it are inconsistent about its text.

(13) Acts 24:6–8
KJV: 6 Who also hath gone about to profane the Temple, whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.
7 But the chief captain, Lysias, came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee, by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him. (Note above that not only is verse 7 omitted, but also the end of verse 6 and beginning of verse 8.)

To clarify, only the emphasized words are omitted, removing all of verse 7, but leaving the beginning of verse 6 and most of verse 8. The resulting text looks like this (from the Revised Version):

RV: 6 Who moreover assayed to profane the temple; on whom we also laid hold;
8 from whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

Reason: These words are not found in the oldest sources

(14) Acts 28:29
KJV: And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning [arguing] among themselves.

RV: (verse omitted from main text, in footnote with comment, "Some ancient authorities insert verse 29")

Reason: This verse is lacking in the oldest sources –

(15) Romans 16:24
KJV: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

RV: (omitted from main text, in footnote)

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

List of scriptures that do not appear in the oldest texts, that appear in the KJV

The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to, originated as a common literary explanation or formula for the Trinity. It first appeared in the 3rd century in some of the literature which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. Even though this formula would become very popular, at the time, very few Church Fathers agreed with it.

At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the Bibles that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the 6th century, the Byzantines begain to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament. At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a retranslation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a popular theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable.

The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:7&8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)

“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition. Verses 7 and 8 are the added lines.

6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

As one can see there is no chance that these are simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula or description of it.

(1) Matthew 17:21
KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Reason: The verse closely resembles Mark 9:29, but it is lacking in Matthew in א (original handwriting), B, θ, some Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Ethiopic mss. It is, however, found in this place in some Greek mss not quite so ancient – C, D, K, L – as well as some other mss of the ancient versions. It is believed to have been assimilated from Mark.[15]

(2) Matthew 18:11
KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

(3) Matthew 23:14
KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

(4) Mark 7:16
KJV: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Reason: This verse is nearly identical with verses 4:9 and 4:23. This verse here is lacking in א,B,L,Δ (original handwriting), some Coptic mss. It is included in mss only slightly less ancient, A,D,K,W,ƒ1,ƒ13, Italic mss, the Vulgate, some other ancient versions. As it is missing in the very oldest resources and yet is identical to verses that remain, many editors seem confident in omitting its appearance here.

(5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46
KJV: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. .. (Both verses identical to each other, and to 9:48, which is still in the main text)

(7) Mark 11:26
KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Reason: This verse is very similar to Matthew 6:15. This verse appeared in the Complutensian Polyglot and most Textus Receptus editions but Erasmus noted that it was missing from 'most' Greek manuscripts.[19] The UBS edition gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of A.

(8) Mark 15:28
KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, "And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Reasons: This verse is similar to Luke 22:37. It does not appear in any New Testament ms prior to the end of the 6th century.[20]

(9) Luke 17:36
KJV: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

(10) John 5:3–4
Main article: John 5 § Interpolation (verses 3b-4)

KJV: 3 . . . waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an Angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

(Note: not only is verse 4 omitted, but also the tail end of verse 3.)

Reason: These words clearly were not in the original text of the Gospel.
(11) Acts 8:3
Main article: Acts 8 § Verse 37

KJV: And Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." And he [the Eunuch] answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Modern versions: Either sidelined to a footnote (e.g., RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, Hodges & Farstad Majority Text), or omitted altogether (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Robinson & Pierpont Majority Text).

Reason: The earliest Greek manuscript (Ea/E2) of the New Testament to include this verse dates from the late sixth or early seventh century

(12) Acts 15:34
KJV: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Reason: Although this verse, or something similar to it, is quite old, it does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, and the manuscripts that do contain it are inconsistent about its text.

(13) Acts 24:6–8
KJV: 6 Who also hath gone about to profane the Temple, whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.
7 But the chief captain, Lysias, came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee, by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him. (Note above that not only is verse 7 omitted, but also the end of verse 6 and beginning of verse 8.)

To clarify, only the emphasized words are omitted, removing all of verse 7, but leaving the beginning of verse 6 and most of verse 8. The resulting text looks like this (from the Revised Version):

RV: 6 Who moreover assayed to profane the temple; on whom we also laid hold;
8 from whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

Reason: These words are not found in the oldest sources

(14) Acts 28:29
KJV: And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning [arguing] among themselves.

RV: (verse omitted from main text, in footnote with comment, "Some ancient authorities insert verse 29")

Reason: This verse is lacking in the oldest sources –

(15) Romans 16:24
KJV: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

RV: (omitted from main text, in footnote)

But after all of this, the message has not been altered from that which can be understood by a child of 9 or 10. No matter which translation you choose, you can trust them to bring the power of the gospel into a life. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" and "For it is by grace through faith that you were saved and not by works that any man should boast."

 

[Nancy]

I told you I was being facetious, did I not?

As a matter of fact I was speaking hypothetically.

And it is also possible that any one of us, who studies to shew himself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, might have 100% of the truth; even while they keep the humble attitude that they could be wrong on anything and have the willingness to change their position if it should turn out that they are proven wrong.

I think that the Bible is the ultimate authority on this.

There is about A 20%-70% chance that I am right and that the kjv is the final authority as the ultimate Bible.

This chance increases drastically when you begin to find damnable heresies in bibles other than the kjv.

"I told you I was being facetious, did I not?"
Yes you did, sry, my bad.

I also see the bible as the final authority the only problem is that, many Christians who filter everything through scripture, seem to have their (me too!) own interpretation...

 

[Grailhunter]

But after all of this, the message has not been altered from that which can be understood by a child of 9 or 10. No matter which translation you choose, you can trust them to bring the power of the gospel into a life. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" and "For it is by grace through faith that you were saved and not by works that any man should boast."

For years I told people I could put all that was needed to be saved on a 4X6 card and someone on a deserted Island could read it and be saved. Christianity is a very simple religion....its the details that confuse some....as proven by history.

 

[atpollard]

Wealth is in italics. It could just as well be translated well-being. There is no word for it in the original Greek.

Yes it is and yes it could, but the KJV chose the word “wealth” and most Christians (old or new) reading that will probably not correctly understand it.

How about this one instead:

"And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou?" (Judges 1:14)

or this:

"Yea, my reins shall rejoice, when thy lips speak right things." (Pro. 23:16)

 

[bbyrd009]

You have evidence to think either that I exist, or that there is some sort of fraud being perpetrated. I have that evidence also that God exists, this Someone who both knows me and makes known that they know me. And if this is fraudulent, well, it would be comparable to the bank robber busting into the vault to donate money to the bank.

on the contrary, i believe i am reasonably able to establish the means by which i could verify that you fit the defintion of existence, whereas you have no evidence whatsoever for that for God, which is why we call it"belief," yeh? It is a belief bc it cannot be established as, in fact, existing.

I reply to you directly, in a relevant way (hopefully!).

hope springs eternal i guess, marks, yeh

He does so with me.

ah, so.





well there is a term for what you ae doing there marks, and really if you are not going to state a truth from Scripture in here anywhere i mean seems like a perfect opp to demo your belief in the kjv or wth ever but whatever i'd justusoon talk about cats ok seen um "eff this frog" yet? its hilarious

I don't even really think in terms of what it would take to convince me otherwise,

ah, so, yes marks i think i am picking up whatyou are laying down, ok, i dint really expect that you would be thinking in those terms wadr

...as this evidence seems so compelling! What I read in the Bible and what I experience in my life has convinced me.

But the visuals . . . well, we do not hope for what we already have . . . our walk is by faith not sight.

Much love!

we all get a measure of faith, sure

 

[aspen]

i have to witness for marks there, dont think there are any mistakes at all
the supposed differences in eyewitness testimony, the unexpalinable root changes, syntax changes in spots, all have meaning.

how many women were under the cross? 2? 3?
I know that the wolves will rush in as soon as I leave, not sparing the flock

 

[aspen]

Since sanctification is the work that God performs in us of making us like Christ, it is not accomplished in us through any works of righteousness that we can do. It is entirely a work of the Holy Spirit.

Those who are made like Christ will operate in good works as the result. But this (operating in good works) is to be distinguished from the work that the Holy Spirit does in us of making us holy.

I may give to the poor as the result of being sanctified; but I am not sanctified by the act of giving to the poor. I am sanctified by faith and by keeping my eyes on the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18).

Yes, we’re transformed. But we are transformed by God through our faith in the relationship and our practice loving God and neighbor. We cannot phone in our sanctification. We are saved by Grace, but transformed by God through faith and participation in our relationship with God

 

[aspen]

"I told you I was being facetious, did I not?"
Yes you did, sry, my bad.

I also see the bible as the final authority the only problem is that, many Christians who filter everything through scripture, seem to have their (me too!) own interpretation...

It’s because it is impossible not to

 

[GodsGrace]

i have to witness for marks there, dont think there are any mistakes at all
the supposed differences in eyewitness testimony, the unexpalinable root changes, syntax changes in spots, all have meaning.

how many women were under the cross? 2? 3?
I know that the wolves will rush in as soon as I leave, not sparing the flock

All is good re witnessing and coming up with differences in what person saw.
I'm not talking about this. It doesn't matter how many women were under the cross...but I think 3.

The difference though are important because they show
1. That the Apostles and other writers did not coordinate.
2. Luke was not an eye witness and neither was Mark and I believe MAYBE only Jon was.
3. It also shows that MAYBE we don't know Jesus' EXACT words?

 

[GodsGrace]

That is what the Calvinists teach. Calvin got it from Augustine--in fact, so close was Calvin's theology to Augustine's that theologians initially referred to Calvinism as "Calvinistic Augustinianism". The RCC went to infant baptism under Augustine (the early church only baptized believers) as a sop to all the parents who worried about the eternal life of their infants who had died. Somewhere along the way, for the RCC, "Limbo" emerged as an answer for what happens to infants who die. Augustine, though he was called a "Doctor of the Church" has fallen somewhat out of favor in the RCC. The Eastern Orthodox have never believed in the necessity of baptism as a means to remove "Original Sin" and other Protestants don't believe in infant baptism either. Babies and young children are incapable of understanding what sin is because they have no comprehension of God's law, nor do they even understand the concept of right and wrong. On this issue, I prefer to rely on the words of Jesus who said that the "angels" of babies and young children were ever before the throne of God. Also, since babies and young children cannot sin, what could they possibly be condemned to hell for? Romans 9:11 confirms that without conscious awareness of sin, an infant does not sin.

Right on!
So refreshing to meet up with someone that knows history!
Just two comments:
1. Limbo was formulated by the laity...not the church, which would be the Magesteriium. The problem is that the church never corrected this incorrect concept and just allowed people to believe it.

It has now stated that limbo never existed.

2. I dislike Augustine because of his changes. I believe he was a respected doctor of the church at this time because he was very effective in combatting hereises. Not everyone was as "strong" as he was.

3. He did, however, say:
If one stands, he stands with God.
If one falls, he falls alone. (God doesn't make us fall)

Also, he stated that man DOES have free will.
Don't ask at what point in his life because I won't remember...I think in the 3rd phase. I just got thru learning about him a little with a Catholic teacher (a monk)
and he explained that Augustine did believe in predestination..but not double predestination.

Welcome to the wonderful world of arguing with Calvinists! There's an old joke that applies: It seems that there was a fellow who died and went to heaven. There, St. Peter admits him and offers to take the man on a tour of heaven. They walk past various groups. St. Peter points to one group and says, "There are the Pentecostals over there." He points to another group and says, "And over there, are the Baptists." As they walk along, St. Peter continues to name such groups. Finally, they come to a group who is enclosed in a tent-like structure and St. Peter whispers to the man, "Could I ask you to take off your shoes and whisper here?" The man thinking it must be a group who are extra-holy whispers back, "Okay--but who are they?" St. Peter says, "Oh, those are the Calvinists who believe they are the only ones here--and out of kindness, we allow them to think that." ;)

Very good. The tent had a title over it perhaps?:
The Elect
LOL

There is NOTHING at all heretical about the NASB--I have no idea where he gets that. I have a Greek Cypriot friend who reads the NT in the original Koine Greek and she says that the NASB reads the MOST like the language in which the NT was written. The phrasing tends to be a bit awkward because it is a word-for-word translation and that is why I like the NLT (New Living Translation) for teaching new Christians. It is what is called a "dynamic translation"--one which flows the way we would speak. It is not a paraphrase, such as The Message (which I would stay away from as it alters the meaning of the text substantially). In the years I have been using the NLT, I have never found any passage which has been changed substantially from ANY other translation (including the KJV except for the 1John 5:7-9). Here is an exhaustive study of the controversy by an eminent professor of Greek New Testament from Dallas Theological Seminary (arguably, one of the most conservative seminaries of biblical scholarship in the world). He comes down decidedly against the KJV and tells why. It is pretty dry reading :The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org

Agreed. I'd say that the ESV is also a very good translation.

Indeed. If JBF believes that Elizabethan English is the only way to salvation, I would ask him why we don't force everyone to learn Koine Greek? William Tyndale went to the stake for daring to translate the Scriptures into what was then, contemporary English. It is to tread on his blood when KJV zealots insist that the Holy Spirit only speaks through the KJV. Think about it, He spoke in MANY languages at Pentecost--and now we are presumptuous enough to demand that He only speak with Elizabethan English when speaking to English-speakers? What is even more laughable is that they are so zealous that they have even translated the KJV into other languages! That must be amusing to watch someone in another land try to read THAT mess!

Of course!
Agreed on all.
Good observation on Tyndale.
Good observation re Pentecost.

I was at a U2 concert about 4 years ago.
THE BEST CONCERT I'VE EVER BEEN TOO!
At one point pages started falling from the sky.
It was torn pages from The Message. It's in street language.
I mean, I wouldn't recommend it,,,but for some it's just the ticket.
When I got saved I had never even read a bible....so there!
God can work thru anything.

 

[GodsGrace]

And what a slam that is in my opinion!

I do believe in POTS, but most of the other tenets in TULIP I hold to about 1/2 of each letter as being doctrinally correct.

What does the above highlighted mean?

How could you agree with 1/2 of each "letter"?

 

[bbyrd009]

That's part of the fun with posting when you haven't read the latest responses because we're all writing at the same time!

LOL!

Just that I don't see that I convince anyone of anything, I only share what I have, and the Holy Spirit will do the convincing if there is convincing to be done.

But let's play!

True, or not true:

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

And absolute truth from Scripture. If you do not believe that God exists, you cannot please Him.

Do you believe?

Much love!

ok, maybe you werent changing the subject, sorry.
unfortunately "that He exists" or even "that He is" have been added in by scribes there, marks, so try again ok,
Hebrews 11:6 Lexicon: And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

which i know that even says "that He is" there in English, but clicking the link will clarify all that ok

plus i guess we need to define "absolute truth" here, hopefully it is obvious that a "belief"--"he who comes to God must believe..." is a belief, and cannot be proven, right.

without faith it is impossible to please, for he who comes to theou must have faith one who pays wages those who seek.

 

[bbyrd009]

so, theou and have faith and wages there, dont really wanna get into the v right now but "theou" is a pretty common word to be using for "God" isnt it? And arent wages paid for works? Anyway no YHWH in there anywhere, right

see you are just reading what some two eyed scribe wrote, bc he wanted to have absolute truth too i guess? Not saying i disagree or anything with the belief--which should be "have faith" anyway right--but just to speed things up a little there is no "God exists" anywhere in Scripture ok, I AM is not a statement about existence, which we even have other passages that make plain that "God" cannot be defined by us at all, "I am not in your..." etcetc?

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Right on!
So refreshing to meet up with someone that knows history!
Just two comments:
1. Limbo was formulated by the laity...not the church, which would be the Magesteriium. The problem is that the church never corrected this incorrect concept and just allowed people to believe it.

It has now stated that limbo never existed.

2. I dislike Augustine because of his changes. I believe he was a respected doctor of the church at this time because he was very effective in combatting hereises. Not everyone was as "strong" as he was.

3. He did, however, say:
If one stands, he stands with God.
If one falls, he falls alone. (God doesn't make us fall)

Also, he stated that man DOES have free will.
Don't ask at what point in his life because I won't remember...I think in the 3rd phase. I just got thru learning about him a little with a Catholic teacher (a monk)
and he explained that Augustine did believe in predestination..but not double predestination.


Very good. The tent had a title over it perhaps?:
The Elect
LOL



Agreed. I'd say that the ESV is also a very good translation.



Of course!
Agreed on all.
Good observation on Tyndale.
Good observation re Pentecost.

I was at a U2 concert about 4 years ago.
THE BEST CONCERT I'VE EVER BEEN TOO!
At one point pages started falling from the sky.
It was torn pages from The Message. It's in street language.
I mean, I wouldn't recommend it,,,but for some it's just the ticket.
When I got saved I had never even read a bible....so there!
God can work thru anything.

Yes. What started me on the journey of faith was The Late Great Planet Earth. Go figure. It wasn't until I got saved at a Pentecostal ladies' Bible study that I began to read voraciously from the Bible. I started with the NIV (the old one--I don't like the more recent edition), moved through the NASB and then the KJV and finally, the NLT. I like the NIV for the OT and the NLT and NASB for the NT. The KJV is good for memorizing passages. Because of the peculiar language, and the verse form, it flows off the tongue more easily than standard English. I still remember the passages in the KJV that our Sunday school teachers had us memorize--we recited key passages aloud, over and over. I didn't have a clue about what most of the passages meant until I was saved (except for John 3:16). I thank God for His patience with me.

 

[bbyrd009]

until you were saved, and learned to testify of yourself, right? Same way i was taught, ok, not meaning to single you out. But this is clear twice the sons of hell you are stuff ok LC. Wadr none of those vv you memorized say any of the things you even currently believe they say, ok, no offense meant. Pick your fave and ask Lex, and be the one to bring it here and point out the diff in what you memo'ed and the truth, if you will?


Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round squares

@marks