Observer wrote: The strategy of the liberals whether in politics or religion is clear: #1. Assert a lie, even an outlandish one to get attention. #2. If challenged, ignore the challenge, but back the first lie with any dubious argument and then assert a second lie. #3. Now we all know that to assert a lie is easy. Those seeking to challenge it have to unearth all the facts and arguments. So they have to work hard to displace the lie. In the meantime if you can multiply their work by multiplying the number of lies they have to deal with then the hope is that in the end they'll just tire and walk away. In the meantime you can hold the high ground and the stance of arrogance because you don't have to substantiate anything. So again if challenged allude to any dubious argument (doesn't even have to be relevant) and then assert a third lie and mock their attempts to date. A bit of baiting is good for an evil soul. #4. Rinse and repeat #5. Make sure to keep your composure because you know that they will tire. Devilish in the extreme! Obama uses this!!
Thanks bro, most helpful. We can see this going on right before our eyes.
Thanks for that. So Thayer was a W & H man, eh? And a Unitarian.
It reminds me of when I was a young Christian. There were all these "Bible Helps" out there, all claiming to assist in studying the Bible. Good so far.
But I bought a book called "Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words". I thought that might be helpful. But at that time I did not know anything about W & H, and I did not know that Vine was a W & H man. So his dictionary was heavily biased against the Received Texts.
I must say that after all the research that I've done, my confidence in the King James Bible is much stronger. This is important, because the Lord expects us to appropriate his promises as found in his word; and if there are any doubts, it will severely hamper the Christian life.
Dave wrote: Christopher, John right there with ya, But I just couldn't stand the unknown "tongues" mmHg head was forced down I was held on the chair and this dude starts chopping at my throat,tearing "demons" out of me and when I tried to stop this demonic type of worship this preacher dude tried to restrain me (cos the demons were trying to get me out of there according to preacher man). Well I did something I'm not proud of, I wrestled his hands of me pushed them away and had to just about knock the preacher Out to get outta there. Now I've been around the traps,drugs,crime etc and it takes a.bit to scare me, but these charismatic,Pentecostals shook me up, So yeah pretty freaky stuff,
Well, I think you did the right thing, Dave. And it made exciting reading, thank you. You should have shouted out, "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"
Wayfairer pilgrim wrote: Thank you John and good Sunday to you.
You're welcome, Pilgrim. The TBS is the most sensible position to hold IMO. They check out each new major translation and find it wanting. It's good they've only published one Bible in English and focussed on other countries, to get the word to them also.
"While perfection is not claimed for the Authorised Version (known in some countries as the King James Version), or for any other version, it is known that the translators of the Authorised Version acknowledged the Divine inspiration, authority and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures; the fruitful use of their translation for more than 400 years is evidence of the Lord's blessing upon their work. It is the most accurate and trustworthy translation into English available and is the only English version published by the Society. In common with other major Bible publishers, the Society publishes the standard text of the Authorised (King James) Version, that of the fourth and last official revision, the Blayney edition of 1769."
"As the guiding principle of its work and witness, the Society acknowledges the whole Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God, the sole, supreme, and infallible rule of faith and practice, providentially preserved by God and able to make men wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus." http://www.tbsbibles.org/basis/societys-principles
Just caught your post before turning in, Wayfairer. So their position is that currently the KJV is the most accurate Bible in English.
Tim Hortons wrote: Thanks, John UK, and others for your opinions! I've heard that drums originated in Africa with the tribes worshiping their pagan gods. I don't think the Good Book says anything about worshiping with drums, though lyres are in there. Heard any lyres in your church? I haven't. I guess we don't pay much attention to those kind of details anymore, do we?
Tim, you could always try the "high sounding cymbals" of Psalm 150.
It is a fact that there are books on the market written by liberal unbelievers, with titles like "100 mistakes in the Bible". The ungodly love books like that.
I hate the devil.
And if Jim seriously wants "his" questions answered, maybe he should show willing and begin answering the big backlog of ignored questions.
But if Jim is going to ignorantly ignore our questions, then we shall do the same with him. We've been on this merry-go-round before, and we know what he's like. He's not interested in truth, just promotion of an agenda. And that agenda is NOT to help anyone believe we have the word of God in the Bible we carry under the arm.
Observer wrote: Jim, let us all know when you're ready to discard the bib and able to feed yourself.
Duke Lasconian wrote: Hey UK John, only problem with people quoting verses is that the devil can do the same thing. He did it with Jesus back in the day.
The devil is most clever. He began his attack on God's words when he said to Eve, "Yea, hath God said?"
The devil is still attacking God's word, even on this forum.
I hate the devil.
It won't be long before Jim comes clean and confesses that he believes that the Bible in your hand (no matter what translation it is) is not the word of God, but that it "contains the word of God". This is dangerous talk, and we should all come against it, with great zeal and passion for the glory of God, and the edification of the saints.
And BTW, he is mostly chasing after KJV-Onlyist cultists, rather than dealing with those of us who hold the TBS position on biblical matters. He thinks it makes him look good, but the truth is he makes himself look ridiculous and totally unlearned.
Converted wrote: When I read sincere prayers for the wayward, my heart is moved in such a way that I weep for their repentance & I pray that they will see the love of God & what He is willing to do & what He has done.
I have recently become a Catholic because I feel loved.
This is not a good reason to become Catholic.
But if you stick it out, you will find in time that not only your weeping is effectual in saving sinners, but also your suffering will enhance the redemption of Christ. You will, yourself, become a redeemer of souls.
It will not be long before Mary herself is accepted by the RCC as co-redeemer with Christ. Personally I find this most distasteful at best and blasphemous at worst.
However, I wish you well on your spiritual journey, and hope that one day soon you will see the need to believe in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation, without works, and that his righteousness is put to your account freely through faith in him alone.
penny wrote: in order to ascertain that thousands of original century texts are not accurate for one reason or another, one would have to be a scholar in Greek and history, no? we are dealing with texts that go back to just years from Christ. this is truly exciting. another is in the works right now, amazing closeness to the time of Jesus. there is a testimony to the world in this. they say the Word of God was changed. It wasn't. Reminds me of the discussion on 1Cor15, the first Christian creed. Secularists demanded it was a late text, but later even secular scholars found it was an early text, shows that we are not in a morphed religion, but rather, Christ is the foundation from the beginning. (even the beginning of time)
With regard to the "most ancient mss" which were written (copied) closer to the time of the autographs, you can logically expect them all to be very similar, indeed, extremely similar.
But every single biblical scholar in the world agrees that the two major mss, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ in so many places, that the only conclusion anyone could come to is that either one is corrupt, or both are corrupt. There are no other alternatives.
Mike wrote: I would not have much problem believing if the Vatican had a genuine manuscript, it would be in their best interest to see it hidden. Why would they want any copies to be made?
I think I see your point Mike. If the Vatican held the only true copy of the original autographs, and this copy spelt out that justification was by faith alone in Christ alone, they might want to keep it hidden from the world, so that no-one got saved. Is that what you mean?
So why did they make it available?
Now it is not for any of us here to make an indepth literary study of Vaticanus, but even a glimpse or two of this ancient document is enough to cause me to steer well clear of it.
The usual mantra we hear today from those who promote the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. is that they are based on "the oldest and best manuscripts" and that the King James Bible (along with all Reformation Bibles in all languages) "added to the words of God from late manuscripts." The facts are that these so called "oldest and best" are among the most corrupt and contradictory of manuscripts out there. They not only disagree with the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts, but also with each other. A far more logical and consistent explanation for their old age is due to the fact that they were recognized as being hopelessly corrupt and therefore were not used. That is why they didn't wear out. For an excellent and well documented article on the so called â€śoldest and best manuscriptsâ€ť and their true character, see so called older&best mss
Huge article, helpful to those who want to know the truth, and are willing to study.
One of the KJV links after the article is good for those of us in the Reformed Tradition:
Observer wrote: It would appear that there's no cure for stupid!
Good morning bro. Alas, it seems that way.
When you look at it both logically and spiritually, it is obvious that a mere handful of mss should never be used as the basis for a Bible translation, no matter how old they are. And the simple fact that these handful disagree with each other sooooooo much, should ring warning bells to any observant believer.
Should we try asking Jim the questions put to him, all over again? Especially as some of the questions are yes/no answers?
Anyway, hope you are somewhat improved brother, and still rejoicing in that righteousness which is by faith, even the righteousness of God unto all and upon all, them that believe.
The salvation of God is majestic, and it is fitting that the words through which we come to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ should be majestic also.