Splitting Hairs?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Not laughing at you, Franklin.

 

Hello EdSutton

Sorry to mess up your lunch.

But my statement........

Is an accurate statement, and is in no way a secret.

As you can see in Post #76, that C4K fully agrees with me.
--------------------------------------------------
Might I ask, how you see the Spiritual state of today’s local Churches?

 

I thought that this was a particularly good post, Keith.

 

Stilllearning, Amen! Preach it!

 

See the blue above -- How sad!! Why please people?

 

If one verse teaches the doctrine, do you deny the difference on this verse? If one verse is inspired, preserved by God, do you deny the difference on this verse? If one verse is doctrinal, do you deny the difference on this verse?

Daniel 3:25 spoke of the Son of God. Is this verse doctrinal? If so, WHY does NASB change from God the Son to the gods the son? No difference? You are absolutely wrong!

Luke 2:33 spoke of Joseph and Jesus’ mother. Does this verse teach the doctrine of Jesus’ deity? If so, WHY did many MVs change from “Joseph” to his father? No difference? You are absolutely wrong!

Many verses in the Bible are DOCTRINAL. They taught the doctrines of the Bible including Jesus Christ, Salvation and others. God’s Words are DOCTRINAL.

 

That statement is hilarious! :laugh: :laugh:

 

I believe under Jewish laws, Joseph was deemed to be Jesus' earthly father. I don't have a problem with that, anymore than I with "young maiden" in Isa 7:14.

Still much ado about nothing!

Cheers,

Jim

 

I wonder how much I could get for my old 1945 KJV with all the notations and corrections over the years?

Hmmm

Cheers,

Jim

 

No, this is an opinion, at best, and I suggest it is an extremely poor example of pigeonholing, at that.

It is still an attack on all Christians (And I still ask the Moderators to snip your uncalled for, undeserved, and unwarranted attack.), regardless of how godly they may or may not be, and attempts to blame your characterization on the version many use, if it is different from the 1769 KJV, which I suspect you do not even use, yourself, but rather a mutilated part of that version. At least, I'm not aware of many, if any, Baptists who will claim the Apocrypha is a part of God's written Word, and I believe you do claim to be a Baptist.

Are you even aware that the 1769 (which you have suggested is the ultimate, and final edition of the) KJV also has the Apocrypha contained as a part of it? Who gives you or another the right to claim adherence to a version, after chopping out more than 10 books?

I see no such thing, and you are entirely misreading the question C4K posed here, IMO. You were the one who claimed that this alleged decline coincided with the appearance of the OT RSV, although you did not say this directly, in 1952. FTR, the RSV NT appeared in 1946, not 1952.

C4K posted this.

That is not supporting what you are claiming, but does the very opposit.

That you may. I see them in the same state they have been since the days of the early church - ranging from among the 'best' to among the 'worst' such as typified by the seven representative churches of Revelation 2 & 3, or admixtures of more than one of them. A given local church is probably not even the same as it was a year ago, for that matter. I'm certain my own church is not what it was of even a year ago, for members change over time.

But I do know this. Overall, we are doing far more for the cause of Christ, reaching people and ministering in our area and other areas, than we have done at some other times, in my lifetime, and also probably may be doing some less, overall, than at some other times in our history, as well. We have been around for more than 225 years, which makes us only 6 years younger than the Declaration of Independence, and the United States, and some 5 years older than the US Constitution, and we are the third oldest extant Baptist Church "West of the Alleghenies", being constituted in 1782.

Could one make the argument that more local churches are like the Laodicean church today than may have been at other times? Of course. And one may likewise make the same argument that more are like Philadelphia today, than were around, say under the 'heyday' of Roman Catholic influence, as well, such as in the Dark Ages. BTW, of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation, some of them have completely vanished from the face of the earth. I suggest that God has gotten along quite well without those, don't you??

This is nowhere near the clear-cut "black and white" issue you are attempting to portray, regardless of how much you attempt to make it appear as one.

Ed

 

Askjo: // Daniel 3:25 spoke of the Son of God. Is this verse doctrinal? If so, WHY does NASB change from God the Son to the gods the son? No difference? You are absolutely wrong! //

No, this verse does not support a true doctrine.

Here is the doctrine it supports:

God uses the mouth of heathen Kings to send His message.

But the scripture says:

2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV1611 Edition):
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any priuate Interpretation:
21 For the prophecie came not in olde time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost.

Askjo: // God did not inspire “His message”, He inspired “His Words”. //

God's Written (or Spoken) Word = God's Words = God's Message

Strangely, you deny the very meaning of words???
So you are saying:

FALSE STATEMENTS FOLLOW
​

God did not inspire “His message”, He inspired “His message”.
God did not inspire “His Words”, He inspired “His Words”.
God did not inspire “His Written Word”, He inspired “His Written Word”.

FALSE STATEMENTS PRECEDE
​

God: // 1 John 1:5 (KLJV1611 Editon):
This then is the message which we haue heard of him, and declare vnto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkenesse at all. //

 

The whole point of your debate is also flawed stilllearning (as indeed you are still learning) because you can search the KJV 1611 or 1769 or any other revision thereof and not find one jot or tittle in the law (1st 5 books of the Bible) as it is written in 17th century English.

Jots and tittles are/were Hebrew graphics.

Therefore my statement still stands as the translation called the KJV of any year or version has not one jot or tittle in the English translation of the Law. Therefore it is flawed in that it does not fulfill Jesus promise as it is not in Hebrew.

The Hebrew Torah section of the Masora on the other hand has multitudes of jots and tittles thus fulfilling His promise.

So I believe God and yet my statement still stands. All translations are flawed (except those in the Greek NT translated from Hebrew to koine).

HankD

 

Hello HankD

You have attributed the term “jot or tittle” to me, but I don’t recall, ever having used it in reference to our English Bible(for the same reason as you stated).

As for your letting your “statement stand”: That is just fine.
--------------------------------------------------
You statement was.......

But I still prefer, to believe God’s Word over your opinion!

 

Hi EdSutton

Thank you for responding to my inquiry..........

And the first line of your response answered my question.......

Once again, I find myself with a choice.
Do I believe a man’s opinion, or God’s Word.........
2 Timothy 4:2-4
V.2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
V.3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
V.4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

and
2 Timothy 3:13
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

And once again I will choose, to believe God.

 

Nice ad hominem, by implication. :thumbsup:

Now, since you are attempting to 'prove' that there is ONLY one approved text, how about answering all the questions I have asked about how God could have missed His own alleged directive for the 900 years preceding 1611, with the English language, which I gave back in post #68?

And when you have answered those, how about answering me this one? (I am going to assume you are familiar with the verses.)

What does Isaiah say?

Hmmm! Did you notice any difference in the text, here? I did happen to show the differences in bold blue, to help. (I did not overlook the 'difference' between the rendering of "good tidings" and 'gospel', BTW, but that is the difference in how the Greek and Hebrew words here, are normally rendered into English.) Isa. 61:1-2a is here translated from the Hebrew. It is simply a fact that what Jesus read is found in no known extant text or version, including the Massoretic, Dead Sea Scrolls, or LXX, yet the Holy Spirit, through Luke, tells us this was "written", and Jesus "read" (as opposed to merely citing it from His perfect memory). In addition, Jesus proclaimed what He read as Scripture.

Likewise, I also choose to believe God - in this case, both the Persons of God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit.

Ed

 

You did - in your post of other unrelated scriptures in post #53.

 

Hello again EdSutton

You asked......

I thought that I had, but maybe I missed it.

You asked(back in #68).......

It does hold true to those, if they were translated from the Inspired texts?
--------------------------------------------------
And here you stated........

This is not what I am doing. Although I am KJVO, it doesn’t matter to me what others are.
The point that I have been trying to make(for several months), is the inconsistency of a person saying, “I believe that God has preserved His Word”, but “He did it in several different Bibles”.

It has been said......
“If a man has one watch, he knows what time it is, but if a man has two watches, he can never be sure.”

In the same way......
“If a man uses one Bible, he knows what God’s Word says, but if he uses 2 or more Bibles, he can never be sure.”
--------------------------------------------------
This is where Satan wants us to be: “Unsure about what God’s Word says”.......
Genesis 3:1
“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”


Satan always wants to put a "?" over God's Word!


This danger, is as clear as a bell to me, but very few here seem to get it.

 

And haven't you cast doubt that other versions are the Word of God as much as the KJVs are?

Maybe you're hearing bells.

 

Once again, I find myself with a choice: Do I believe a man’s opinion, or God’s Word?

Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established. (Proverbs 15:22, KJV)​

And once again I will choose to believe God.

 

Stilllearning, Amen! Preach it!