Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You proved my point again. You didn't READ my post. Your stuck in your dogma. The EARL of Suffolk WAS IN KING JAMES' court. He wrote his letter in 1611 while the king was alive.
The letter was purported to have been written during his reign but the content of the letter was known when?
Quote:
Facts are never are problem for those who want to avoid them---as you are doing
You mean like saying that King James was controlling the translators and yet the KJV still have those verses as signifying homosexuality as an abomination still?
Quote:
In addition, you dismiss the numerous problems with KJV that I posted in #59
because you felt there was mockery--not that you didn't believe there were any
valid points you can address. Once more, you are stuck in your dogma.
When your "dogma" begins ludicrously as if KJV only was about God's word was only written in English; then how in the world do you expect any one to keep reading?
Revise your "dogma" to really address the problems of the KJV Bible and not all the slander perpetuating on the internet as anti KJV dogma.
Quote:
Your quote of Leviticus is another irony that God has visited upon pharisaical
religion practiced by dogmatists. They pound on the table about the evil of
homosexuality, but God chose a homosexual to bring about the largest to date
printing of all English bibles. Because of that you refuse to believe
contemporary sources regarding King James including the fact that he is buried
between two of his male lovers--because that, in your opinion, demeans the book
you are glorifying.
Your arguing from the standpoint that the allegation of King James being gay is true.
Quote:
As stated before, all English translations have serious problems. But the KJV remains the worst of the worst--and you are trying to build a faith on an idol that has been torn down by modern archaeological discoveries. The book isn't inerrant. It isn't infallible. And neither are you or I.
Is Jesus Christ your personal Good Shepherd or not? He is the One that has shown me why I should only rely on the KJV because ALL modern Bibles have changed the message by declining from the testimony of the Son. In other words, the modern Bibles are all lying that can cause a believer to be a disciple of serving something else in His name in seeking that glory instead of the Son in seeking His glory and by Him, the glory of God the Father.
Romans 8:26-27 in all modern Bibles as is, do not line up with the other truths in the scripture period, but only Jesus can show you that and how modern Bibles are supporting the falling awat from the faith today.
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth....26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
I shall pray for you, brother, as He is leading me in the fight in keeping the faith as discerning false teachings and false spirits require having the actual message of His words in the KJV to see the truth today.
They shouldn't be. The KJV has enough problems that any James may have had are immaterial.
With His help, go compare Romans 8:26-27 of the KJV at Bible Gateway with all modern Bibles before you say that. May you find whatever problems you have with the KJV is hardly the same as changing the truths in His words as the modern Bibles have done that are supporting apostasy today.
And if you cannot see it, then pray because you cannot be blind in how all modern Bibles are not agreeing with who that "he" is in verse 27. Is it the Spirit as some say or is it the Father as a few say? Or neither because only the Son can intercede for the saints which is why "itself" was used with the Son knowing the mind of the Spirit to give the Spirit's intercessions for Him since they are "unspeakable".
Once you see the truth as maintained in the KJV, then the Lord will help you to see how Matthew 7:13-27 & 1 Timothy 4:1-2 is happening because they are ignoring the commandment of His invitation on the only way to approach God the Father in prayer, fellowship, or worship which is by the only way of the Son.
The letter was purported to have been written during his reign but the content of the letter was known when?
Is this kind of like the New Testament Septuagint being used by the KJV translators being written in the first century but no copies existing at the time of the KJV being written until the tenth century? Kind of "guessing" that the content may have been first century?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
You mean like saying that King James was controlling the translators and yet the KJV still have those verses as signifying homosexuality as an abomination still?
He underwrote the translation. It doesn't mean he controlled the translation. And it signifies that the overall view of homosexuality was different in the time of King James.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
When your "dogma" begins ludicrously as if KJV only was about God's word was only written in English; then how in the world do you expect any one to keep reading?
Revise your "dogma" to really address the problems of the KJV Bible and not all the slander perpetuating on the internet as anti KJV dogma.
I don't have any bible dogmas. I read from four different versions including the KJV, mostly because as an English major I have appreciation not for the translation which is crappy, but for the poetic flow of Elizabethan English.
And, sorry, when the head of the New Testament Department of one of the most conservative seminaries in America, Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, considers the KJV to be the weakest of all translations, you know you are on thin ice defending it.
Quote:
First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.
Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge.
So perhaps you have verses of Scripture that state the KJV is the "only" translation that God blesses? You could enlighten a professor of over thirty years, with several degrees and a background in Greek translation.
Incidentally, there is little Dan Wallace and I would agree on scripturally, but I have to give him credit for an ultra-conservative----he is not a complete idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
Your arguing from the standpoint that the allegation of King James being gay is true.
It is true, whether you wish to believe it or not. There are groups of people that believe the holocaust was fabricated, that JFK was assassinated by well-trained conspirators, and that the U.S. never landed an astronaut on the moon. If you don't wish to believe the historical evidence, then you fit right in with those groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
Is Jesus Christ your personal Good Shepherd or not? He is the One that has shown me why I should only rely on the KJV because ALL modern Bibles have changed the message by declining from the testimony of the Son. In other words, the modern Bibles are all lying that can cause a believer to be a disciple of serving something else in His name in seeking that glory instead of the Son in seeking His glory and by Him, the glory of God the Father.
Well your faith is misplaced. God reveals Himself in many ways, not just through the Bible. I've stood on top of Pike's Peak and looked across the plains for fifty miles and felt as close to God as through any verse of scripture I've ever read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
Romans 8:26-27 in all modern Bibles as is, do not line up with the other truths in the scripture period, but only Jesus can show you that and how modern Bibles are supporting the falling awat from the faith today.
Jesus certainly hasn't revealed anything to you if you're still stuck in the pages of a book. The Word of God is written on the fleshy tablets of my heart. The bible, if studied in various English translations and understood only within context of the time in which it was written, can give one a glimpse of the faith of other men at other times. But when the Word became flesh, it did not become the Bible. It became Jesus. That is the only Word that matters to the man or woman of faith. Those who must rely on the Bible as an idol haven't had a Damascus road experience with the Living God.
My theology grows out from Christ, is based on Christ, and focuses on Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth....26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Then please refrain from misguiding people to believing God appears in only one fashion---and that not even in the fashion of the earliest manuscripts available, nor in the fashion of the manuscripts with the fewest "additions" to the original writings, but rather with "latter day" saints translations along with all their non-original additions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
I shall pray for you, brother, as He is leading me in the fight in keeping the faith as discerning false teachings and false spirits require having the actual message of His words in the KJV to see the truth today.
Well I certainly need the prayers and it appears you need the practice. Keep at it, God may yet enlighten you to view scripture with an eye to discerning how frequently it was miscopied, misapplied, and always misunderstood. And it takes hard work, really hard scholastic work, to even get to first base in the study of the texts. Once you make it to first base, you discover second base is twice as far.
The count for total discrepancies in the extant New Testament stands at somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000. Most are minor, but there are some glaring additions to scripture as translated by the KJV translators that provide some major additions that were never in the original writings that we now have.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 01-16-2015 at 10:10 PM..
Is this kind of like the New Testament Septuagint being used by the KJV translators being written in the first century but no copies existing at the time of the KJV being written until the tenth century? Kind of "guessing" that the content may have been first century?
More like your quotes from your previous post regarding King James being gay is lacking even the proper link to those references. That link Www.GreatSites.com in that reply #166 of yours doesn't even take you there to see your claim.
But getting back to the quote above in this post; it is about the source documents and where they orginate from; the KJV's was from Antioch where the disciples first called christians had studied the word there; see Acts 11:26. The source documents for the modern Bibles originated from Alexandria where poetic licensing and gnosticism has been known to exists. So guess which one I'll go with?
Quote:
He underwrote the translation. It doesn't mean he controlled the translation.
And it signifies that the overall view of homosexuality was different in the
time of King James.
Let's recap:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Finally, I still find it ironic that people who speak most fervently in favor of the King James Bible are unaware that King James himself was a homosexual. I personally have no problem with that, but inerrantists tend to be classical evangelicals who see every word written or translated as "holy," never realizing that the good King James may have been flirting with the translators themselves!
Again, the practicality of your argument falls flat when scripture remains in condemning the act of homosexuality as an abomination.
Quote:
I don't have any bible dogmas. I read from four different versions including the KJV, mostly because as an English major I have appreciation not for the translation which is crappy, but for the poetic flow of Elizabethan English.
And, sorry, when the head of the New Testament Department of one of the most conservative seminaries in America, Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, considers the KJV to be the weakest of all translations, you know you are on thin ice defending it.
So perhaps you have verses of Scripture that state the KJV is the "only" translation that God blesses? You could enlighten a professor of over thirty years, with several degrees and a background in Greek translation.
Incidentally, there is little Dan Wallace and I would agree on scripturally, but I have to give him credit for an ultra-conservative----he is not a complete idiot.
Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.
That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James.
While this verse is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, it is found in a minority (10 total, out of about 500 that contain I John 5)
The Greek texts include 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelfth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century)
Why the limited amount? History shows a heresy battle going on in the two main church hemisphere. The western one almost lost the heresy battle which explains why the reintroduction of the disputed verses in Latin and hints as to why 1 John 5:7 was left out in further Greek copies for the eastern one to battle another. Granted, it is hard to prove such a battle had existed in the two hemisphere that would "prove" they had messed with the originals, but the battles of the heresy can be found.
So as a detective; where would you look? For proof that 1 John 5:7 was referenced as written as it was in the original in the earlier part of history.
Quote:
250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost IT IS WRITTEN: "And the THREE are ONE" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians.
Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "it is written, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question.This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he get it?
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
"and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." - PRISCILLIAN (380AD)
And...
Quote:
415 AD Council of Carthage. The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox." It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It was quoted as "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus".
".....and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is PROVED by the EVANGELIST JOHN, for HE SAYS, 'there are THREE which BEAR TESTIMONY in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the HOLY SPIRIT, and THESE THREE ARE ONE" - Eugenius said at the Council of Carthage
There are plenty more outside christian references that verified that 1 John 5:7 belongs there.
And if you lean on Jesus as your Good Shepherd, He may show you that if you remove 1 John 5:7 from the verses, then where is the witness from heaven as cited in 1 John 5:9? Even scripture confirms that at least two other witnesses is require to establish a word and thus a testimony.
And so beiung grounded in the scripture alone would prove that 1 John 5:7 belongs there.
The God commanded it in the OT.
Deuteronomy 19:15One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Jesus as God commanded it in the NT.
Matthew 18:16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And Paul practised it in the NT.
2 Corinthians 13:1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established
And so 1 John 5:7 belongs for the witness from heaven to be valid in according to His words in 1 John 5:9.
Quote:
It is true, whether you wish to believe it or not. There are groups of people that believe the holocaust was fabricated, that JFK was assassinated by well-trained conspirators, and that the U.S. never landed an astronaut on the moon. If you don't wish to believe the historical evidence, then you fit right in with those groups.
How's that working for you now? You would be arguing against scripture & not just valid and verified historical references.
More like your quotes from your previous post regarding King James being gay is lacking even the proper link to those references. That link Www.GreatSites.com in that reply #166 of yours doesn't even take you there to see your claim.
Again you prove your inability to research adequately. In my original quote of that site I indicated one had to use the site itself to look up KJV bibles and the link to King James is on the lower right side. I have not figured out how to directly get to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
But getting back to the quote above in this post; it is about the source documents and where they orginate from; the KJV's was from Antioch where the disciples first called christians had studied the word there; see Acts 11:26. The source documents for the modern Bibles originated from Alexandria where poetic licensing and gnosticism has been known to exists. So guess which one I'll go with?
Seem strange that God would allow the older copies of scripture in Alexandria to survive but not allow the "truly" inspired older scriptures to survive. Virtually every textual critic out there holds with the view that the older a copy is the closer to the original it is. The newer the copy, the more editing has occurred. It proves that way with every other kind of ancient literature, why would the Bible be any different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
Again, the practicality of your argument falls flat when scripture remains in condemning the act of homosexuality as an abomination.
And, like on the several closed threads concerning homosexuality, the verses in Leviticus also condemn the cutting of hair, the touching of pigskins (that makes football an abomination), condones slavery, and in other scripture calls for the execution of people caught in adultery and that of witches as well. Do you follow ALL the scripture or do you just select those that are pleasing in your own eye.?
Why the limited amount? History shows a heresy battle going on in the two main church hemisphere. The western one almost lost the heresy battle which explains why the reintroduction of the disputed verses in Latin and hints as to why 1 John 5:7 was left out in further Greek copies for the eastern one to battle another. Granted, it is hard to prove such a battle had existed in the two hemisphere that would "prove" they had messed with the originals, but the battles of the heresy can be found.
So as a detective; where would you look? For proof that 1 John 5:7 was referenced as written as it was in the original in the earlier part of history.
And...
There are plenty more outside christian references that verified that 1 John 5:7 belongs there.
And if you lean on Jesus as your Good Shepherd, He may show you that if you remove 1 John 5:7 from the verses, then where is the witness from heaven as cited in 1 John 5:9? Even scripture confirms that at least two other witnesses is require to establish a word and thus a testimony.
And so beiung grounded in the scripture alone would prove that 1 John 5:7 belongs there.
The God commanded it in the OT.
Deuteronomy 19:15One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Jesus as God commanded it in the NT.
Matthew 18:16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And Paul practised it in the NT.
2 Corinthians 13:1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established
And so 1 John 5:7 belongs for the witness from heaven to be valid in according to His words in 1 John 5:9.
How's that working for you now? You would be arguing against scripture & not just valid and verified historical references.
Using scripture to "verify" scripture is a circular argument. I do believe that there was a huge dispute about which books of the Bible were to be canonized and which were not. The losers were driven out of power by Roman authorities. It does not mean they didn't have a message. It means the winners rewrote history which is always the case. It also proves my point that ALL scripture should be subject to doubt by worshippers of Jesus-even the books in the "protestant" canonized version which cut out apocryphal books that Catholics accepted as canon.
You begin with a premise that you "know." I begin from a premise of, "I want to learn." Your "knowledge" precludes further spiritual growth. You are mired in the past. Mine leaves me open to the continuing revelation of God which has grown throughout history.
An excellent example is the book of Jeremiah which is incorrect as found in all English Bibles. The one we have now is much longer than the original which was discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was shorter and contained prophecies that did not come true. The one we have now (several hundred years younger than the original) has a tremendous amount of redaction--added material--with the incorrect prophecies taken out.
You look for a "perfect" bible, so you cannot possibly accept it wasn't always the same. I look to see what people believed for at different times so that I can discover how God worked in men's hearts over the centuries. There is no perfect bible.
Where scripture does not reflect Jesus--whether in the NT or the OT---it should be understood in an historical context or even as the prejudices of men being reflected. The real question is, did the words of Jesus get recorded correctly? Mostly, I think they have, but there is even scriptural evidence that the oral traditions of His words were conveyed somewhat differently from one gospel to another. And that, in and of itself, proves God wasn't whispering in anyone's ear when they wrote their texts.
Where scripture does not reflect Jesus--whether in the NT or the OT---it should be understood in an historical context or even as the prejudices of men being reflected. The real question is, did the words of Jesus get recorded correctly? Mostly, I think they have, but there is even scriptural evidence that the oral traditions of His words were conveyed somewhat differently from one gospel to another. And that, in and of itself, proves God wasn't whispering in anyone's ear when they wrote their texts.
Had not thought of that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
