Has KJVO caused any church splits?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Oh, so you're saying Luke was present to actually hear Jesus read?:tongue3:

Maybe you forget Luke was not one of the twelve, he was Paul's personal physician. Luke would have written his Gospel from at least a third person perspective: Jesus spoke. His words passed on eventaully to Paul ( who only saw Jesus in his glorified body) and from here to Luke.

talking about "subterfuge"!!!:sleeping_2:

deal with the facts and stop maligning the thoughts of others.

So Luke did not give an accurate rendering? He seemed really committed to accuracy in Luke 1v1-4. In fact - verse 2 makes it clear that he heard this things from eyewitnesses.

You are saying Luke got it wrong?

 

[Harold Garvey]

If you were to read the Greek text of the NT you would quickly realize that for most it was their second language. Greek was the trade language at the time much like English is today. Most of the NT is written in Greek using Hebrew phraseology as one would write a language which was their second language.

Are you saying the Jews refused to write the N.T. in Hebrew because they gave authority over their God given tongue to the Romans?

A sponge has many holes in it, but God put them there for the purpose of the function of the creation. Your line of reason has holes in it but for what purpose?

 

[Dale-c]

You are saying Luke got it wrong?

HG, this is exactly what I wanted to know.

 

[Harold Garvey]

So Luke did not give an accurate rendering? He seemed really committed to accuracy in Luke 1v1-4. In fact - verse 2 makes it clear that he heard this things from eyewitnesses.

You are saying Luke got it wrong?

Luke spoke from his perspective as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

His words are accurate not a facsimile. he was not an eyewitness but a witness.

 

[EdSutton]

Oh, so you're saying Luke was present to actually hear Jesus read?

I said nothing of the sort. (Which you very well know, but why be confused with facts?) However, I am pretty sure the Holy Spirit was present, who led Luke (assuming this is actually Luke writing the Gospel of Luke, since the human author of none of the Gospels is not actually stated in Scripture) to pen the actual words found. (II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:16-21) You might also note that the passage in II Peter tells us that the Scriptures are more trustworthy than Peter's own eye-witness testimony.

Maybe you forget Luke was not one of the twelve, he was Paul's personal physician. Luke would have written his Gospel from at least a third person perspective: Jesus spoke. His words passed on eventaully [sic] to Paul ( who only saw Jesus in his glorified body) and from here to Luke.

talking about "subterfuge"!!! ...

deal with the facts and stop maligning the thoughts of others.

It appears I have dealt with the facts, as given in the Scriptures. It also appears that you have dismissed the role of the Holy Spirit in this.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Oh, so you're saying Luke was present to actually hear Jesus read?

I said nothing of the sort. (Which you very well know, but why be confused with facts?) However, I am pretty sure the Holy Spirit was present, who led Luke (assuming this is actually Luke writing the Gospel of Luke, since the human author of none of the Gospels is not actually stated in Scripture) to pen the actual words found. (II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1: 16-21)

Maybe you forget Luke was not one of the twelve, he was Paul's personal physician. Luke would have written his Gospel from at least a third person perspective: Jesus spoke. His words passed on eventaully [sic] to Paul ( who only saw Jesus in his glorified body) and from here to Luke.

talking about "subterfuge"!!! ...

deal with the facts and stop maligning the thoughts of others.

It appears I have dealt with the facts, as given in the Scriptures. It also appears that you have dismissed the role of the Holy Spirit in this.

Ed

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Another thread dragged totally off topic and therefore closed.