Search results

The solution presented by Prism is best you'll find and it's not at all a stretch. Two people reporting on the same event will inevitably emphasize, include or exclude aspects the other does not and vice versa. As for errors. . . The originals as penned by the Biblical authors would have been...

Which emendation of the KJV do you believe needs no "improvement?" The original 1611, which almost no one possesses any more, or a subsequent edition, such as the 1769 Blaney revision, which is the basis for the KJV that most have today?

Here's a helpful article from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. I've highlighted two prtions below that pertain directly to a couple of your questions. Angel ān´jel (מלאך, mal'ākh; Septuagint and New Testament, ἄγγελος, ággelos): I. Definition and Scripture Terms II...

The phrase "in the name of Christ" basically means "through the mediation of Christ" or "by Christ's authority." We cannot approach God based on our own merits. However, we can approach God based on Christ's merits. In other words, we can only approach God as we are united to Christ by faith...

Yes, you certainly are full of assumptions and presuppositions. Unfortunately, none of them are Biblical. God's revelation to us in Scripture is that Christ became man in order to die and he did so without the taint of sin. You would do well to embrace this revelation. Heb 2:9 But we see...

More qualified than the man responsible for the text under consideration? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure Kurt Aland knows how his text was constructed.

You need to elaborate on this. I have no idea as to what you're asking.

No it's not. I provided the very words of Kurt Aland who convinced his committee to abandon the textual critical theories of WH. Aland also relates in one of those quotes that the "new text", unlike that of WH, utilized an eclectic battery of textual sources. I think Kurt Aland knows better than...

What a desperate remark. It's this kind of juvenile nonsense that makes it impossible to take you seriously. I already answered you on this. Christ was made like those he came to save, but he was never corrupted by sin. I explained this in my previous post. Your feigned confusion at this...

Prentis is referring to Hebrews 10:14. Again we meet there with the KJV's occasional mishandling of the Greek present tense. Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. KJV Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are...

We've been through this already. WH are not the basis for modern New Testaments. And no, the NA text is not based predominately on the Alexandrian text type like WH. I already pointed out the NA text is 'eclectic.' It draws on a wide range of source material. The vast major of scholars follows...

Those who espouse theistic evolution realize that it's incompatible with Genesis as real history. They posit that the personages and events described in the opening chapters are not real, but merely symbolic of some greater reality that's being conveyed to mankind. This simply won't work for the...

Requiring the exact wording "God became man" is simply asinine. Once again you demonstrate the complete bankruptcy of your position and how baseless your objections. There is more than one way to express a concept and Scripture does just that. Any way you slice it, Scripture is clear. Joh 1:1...

Consulting the works of 3 Koine Greek experts on the meaning of an important Greek word is the proper method of exegesis for the examination of any text. That's how it's done Insight. If you want to know the meaning of a word, you look it up. Your constant mockery of everyone participating in...

This is an article I wrote over a year ago. It's still timely as special creation is still under attack. When it comes to Bible believing Christians, evolution, even the theistic variety, is simply untenable. http://www.warranted...he-righteous-do

I didn't say Strong's is wrong and I didn't say that the KJV is wrong. I said that the KJV is ambiguous in it's translation of the Greek present tense in 1 John 3:9. You're the 4th person this week to put words in my mouth that I never said. More importantly, you didn't answer my question. Here...

Really? Let's look again using your precious KJV: 1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. So John...

I've said no such thing. As a matter of fact I made it perfectly clear in my first post here today that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. I also said that works are the fruit of salvation, not the cause thereof. How did you miss all of this? Once again, John...

This has nothing to do with the debate over translations. But it is a fact that some are better than others. One of the problems suffered by the KJV is that its translation of some Greek verbs is too ambiguous. 1 Jn. 3:9 is case in point. Like I said, this a fact and beyond dispute, your...

Then you'll stick with your error.