Featured The King James Version onlyism mistake.

True

 

The main problem that I have is determining which Greek New Testament is the Word of God. Is it the Received Text or the Majority Text? I know it can't be the Critical Text.

 

I have found that you change KJV onlyists by being subtle. I know a KJV only preacher, who is too stubborn to ever admit he is wrong in the pulpit, but he has for practical purposes seen the light.
It happened through subtly showing him how he misinterpreted verses or needlessly stumbled through hard passages. It started a long time ago in Sunday School. He was not teaching, but we were both in the class. He commented on some passage about it's real meaning and he had studied it in dictionary. He basically explained it word for word ESV. I asked him later if he got it from ESV. He spotted and sputtered a bit. Next time ai saw him, he said " That ESV did have that one right.". Over time I have no doubt whatsoever that his sermon prep is now done from ESV.

 

It seems to me to be a matter of accuracy.
The Majority Text, Byzantine Text, Family 35 I believe to be the most accurate.
Next the Textus Receptus traditions.
Then the Critical Texts.

They are all copied from the Original Greek Text. But over time errors made there way in hand written copies. CriticalTexts have the most errors. The Textus Receptus traditions have only a few of the Critical Text errors and the Majority/Byzantine Text seems to have the least.

 

Where is it? I would like a shot at defending it.

 

Do you believe the death of Jesus Christ on the cross ended the ages like the ESV claims? Here:

26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

You are not buying that are you?

 

Time out! You obviously missed what the op said. He said, "The King James Onlyism's mistake is defending the KJV for KJV rather than defending the true word of God which is the real issue."

He needs to read what you are saying about there being no true word of God. You are just saying what all other scholars are saying. He doesn't know what he is talking about in the op when he says one must defend the true word of God. He doesn't have a clue where it is.

Since he knows this,it is a dumb op.

 

That is a question, not an answer.

 

The ESV claims in Hebrews 9:26 that the appearance of Jesus Christ, how do they say it, oh yeah, ONCE FOR ALL, brought the ages to an end.

Are you in full agreement with the authors of the ESV?

 

First, I was answering post number 3#, not number 1#.

Two I am saying opposite what most scholars say.
Three you are wrong you implied that I said "there was no true word of God". I never said nor implied such a wicked thing. I had pointed out to someone what I believe to be the most accurate Text of the word of God. You know, the ones with the least amount of errors in them.

 

What's wrong with it? ESV has it right

 

...wellll, okay. thanks. I doubt that I will take anything you say seriously from this point on.

I would like to demonstrate how out of touch with the language you and your ESV really are.

Here is what your ESV and you say in Heb 9:26.

Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Here is what your ESV says before verse 26;

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

On the one hand in verses 16-17 and context, we are told something new is beginning while in v 26 you say it is the end. If you would have said his death was the end of the age, instead of ages, then there would have been room for a new age where the New Testament in Christ's blood was the realization of what the Old Testament looked forward to in the person of Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus Christ made the ages, he has the right to determine the end and the beginning and it behooves us to believe it and not tolerating some changing his words by adding an "S' to them.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (AIONS = ages)

The last days of a single age, the age under which the Law of Moses was the divine principle of God's dealing with the Hebrews to bring them to Christ, and as Ga 3 says, that faith might come in as the saving principle.

Here is the age that was ended in plain English;
Ga 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(the promise is the Spirit)
Now look at this verse in relation to the others;

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The "we" are still the Hebrews.

Why do you think God had his apostle to write a whole letter to the Hebrews, who were actually exercised by this OT law for the previous 1500 years, to explain how those ordinances they were given to keep should have instructed them concerning Jesus Christ and their redemption in him?

Post death on the cross was a new age with different principles of divine dealing. To say all ages were ended by Christ's death is just wrong and is offensive. This letter was written in the mid 60's of the first century. When Paul wrote Romans in 58 AD, he said this after having observed the Jews reaction to Jesus Christ for 28 years.

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

You need to think of Israel's promises in the Old Testament as being put in force with the death of Christ and as ready to be claimed by those who are the heirs in his New Testament. There will be no more death of the testator after he was raised from the dead.

 

The translation is correct. Don't understand your hang up. The Cross is the culmination or end of the ages. It is not referencing a minute in time, but an act of completeness.

 

If this is true, then you and I must be a figment of someone's imagination. It has been 2000 years since the cross and here we both are. The ages did not end. One age ended. It was the age, in the end of which, Jesus Christ, the Son of God personally came and spoke to the Hebrews. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John recorded his words that he spoke. These words makes sense if you let them. Look.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (the ages = Aions);

Now watch this and apply some logic. Logic will come before faith is required.

I have quoted from Hebrews 1 concerning the age in which Jesus came and we are told it was at the end of the age. Now this;

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world (aion = age) to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Logic says there is an age after the completion of the age Jesus ministered in, initiated by the cross, and that there is an age to come going forward. One does not need faith until the words force one to believe what they say. Logic will do until then.

Look at the end of one age.

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world (kosmos = planet: but now once in the end of the world (aion = age) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

What is impossible for you as a Calvinist to believe is that Jesus Christ satisfied the wrath of God there for the whole world and God is no longer angry at sinners, but will save them because he put away sin at this time. But, it does not mean men will not be judged if they are not redeemed by personal faith in Jesus Christ as the sacrifice for their personal sins, because the next verse says this;

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I know you have not believed this before because you have not seen the logic of it, but I hope you will believe it now.