âNow Connor, it is easy for all to see that your gracious introduction and desire for a peaceable debate was nothing of the sort;â
Sir, Iâm sorry that you canât see that is my heartâs desire. Iâm afraid that youâre indirectly saying that you know my heart.,
âyou actually want a fight. If not, why are you fighting, with all your might?â
Sir, I donât want a fight, Iâm not sure how you can say that. And sir, Iâm not âfighting with all my might, I donât know why you think Iâm fighting. This is what I meant that it never goes well.
âConnor, you do realise that no-one can prove anything about the Bible, don't you? Without the autographs, you have various options.â
Sir, 2,000+ years ago, when Jesus was teaching the OT, are you seriously suggesting that He could not prove the OT? And not only Jesus, but the apostles as well?
So by fulfilling the OT He could not prove the OT? Because they didnât have the originals. Sir, your viewpoint means we could never know what any person actually said until modern times where we have original autographs, youâre suggesting that we canât do any meaningful historical research on what people like Josephus actually said.
You are taking a Bart Ehrman type of approach to the scriptures. Furthermore you have failed to respond to my rebuttals.
@John Uk, I have to clarify something because I think you misunderstood me. Those questions were part and parasol to my previous question in respect to the differences in the Oxford and Cambridge. In other words, my last post was directly related to a previous post, thus it was not âoddâ as you say.
Also, you talk about a âbase modelâ this is not logical nor biblical because in that framework we cannot examine the KJV in light of the Greek. Thus the Greek is almost, if not, irrelevant.
You seem to think that Iâm arguing the same case (in essence but differing in content) but Iâm not. And sir, if I may point out, you are arguing like a Mormon missionary. They pray and ask if the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and they believe that it is due to their prayer. So thatâs not a consistent argument, and your argument is not valid because someone can ask God if the NASB is the word of God, and they believe that it is, that makes the NASB the word of God.
Your whole post is based on misunderstanding, inconsistent reasoning, a faulty and unsupported framework, unsubstantiated assertions, and a sort of subjective epistemology. Iâm sorry that you fail to recognize (or donât see) the flaws of your argumentation.
@John Uk, the KJV is based on Greek manuscripts. And my question is a question on which KJV translated it correctly, if there are differences, which is right? And which KJV do we say "is the word of God" and by what standard & authority do we decide? That's the question.
@Dr. Tim, that's a very pragmatic view, and we've discussed this before doc, you're setting up the KJV as the standard, that's not how it works.
Again guys, I don't mind disagreeing with you guys, you're my brothers in Christ, I've prayed for you both before, that God would continue to use you guys to advance his kingdom.
I've seen where this topic leads, it leads to no where. I wish that this topic could one day be discussed calmly and respectfully, but it never seems to be the case. I'm done with this thread.
I was a bit hesitant to even get in the KJV discussion, because every time it is addressed it seems to go nowhere, I tried to raise issues in a respectful way, it was a simple question,
but then it hopped from endorsing various versions for starting a fire; & Benjamin, I must say that you are not showing respect towards Dr. Tim, even though you disagree with him & for what he says, that doesnât give you the right to mock or ridicule Dr. Tim. We all need to work on being respectful.
Dr. Tim, you & I have discussed the KJV topic many times, and we have our disagreements, and I suppose thatâs fine, and I respect you for your evangelistic zeal and for your concern of the authority of scripture and the purity of the scriptures.
But Doc...I am young in the faith, but I caution you on what you call some of the versions, because if indeed the NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc are the words of God, you will give an account to God on why you called His word inferior, a peashooter, and recommending that they be used for doorstops and for starting a fire.
Steven Anderson burned NIVs, pouring lighter fluid on them and then throwing a match on them... I truly hope you donât endorse that, that would very much grieve me.
Furthermore, he slanders and misrepresents pastors and ministers such as Pastor John MacArthur, Paul Washer, Jeff Durbin, James White, the late R.C. Sproul, calling them false prophets.
He butchers logic and reason in the below link, and he denies that God sends hurricanes, famines, and plagues because he doesnât believe that God is sovereign, he seemingly doesnât see that God uses anthropomorphic language to communicate a truth,
and it seems as if he has never read the book of Genesis, Exodus, Daniel, Malachi, and pretty much the whole Bible, because it was Godâs will to send a famine to Egypt, send 10 plagues to Egypt, to have the Babylonian captivity, etc.
âPastorâ Anderson believes that repentance is not part of the gospel even though the Bible teaches that repentance is part of the gospel message. He says repentance is a meritorious work and therefore not the gospel because the gospel is through faith alone;
Yes the gospel is through faith alone, thatâs why you forsake the world and flee to Christ, so repentance is not a work it is part of your faith.
He teaches that Jesus went to Hell (very blasphemous), he said in a sermon, âGod destroyed Sodom and Gamorah with fire and brimstone as we wish God would destroy this filthy gay parade in Phoenixâ
That is against the teaching of scripture in respect to wishing that God would kill certain unsaved people. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FP0mZ6C8b8I)
So to summarize, he preached a false gospel, he teaches that Jesus went to Hell for 3 days, he teaches that homosexuals should be killed, yet he is a solid Bible teacher?
The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity â marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression â is, on the whole, harmful,â
The double standard is amazing, canât we label them as being masculinephobic? Why are they anti-masculine? And as far as being a stoic, that means suppressing emotion, if anyone wants to see a stoic, watch Startrek, Spock is a stoic (well, heâs a half breed so at times he shows emotion)
And furthermore, they have just condemned Jesus and the apostles because they were masculine, and they said homosexuality was sinful, therefore they were homophobic. đ
This, I suppose, shows the truth of Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 1, and the fact that people sear their conscience with a hot iron, and exchange the truth of God for a lie. It seems as if people have a double dose of depravity. đ
@JAG, good point. I might also add that some jobs are necessary for you to go to university, and to get a Masterâs or Doctorates degree, I personally would not want someone, who has been taught by professionals, to do open heart surgery on me.
The obstacle (of many) is (and I speak generally) is:
1. They donât know what to do. 2. They go with the flow. 3. They think a degree is necessary. 4. A degree will help their chances of getting a job. 5. Etc
Perhaps we can add on the list that the kids arenât taught to think in advance about these things and parents donât really nurture kids to think about these important decisions. However the kids are without excuse for their lack of thought.