Open Debate Challenge on My Defending the KJV as the Perfect Word for Today in English

[Bible Highlighter]

No I have already analyzed it....old hat.

That’s funny. You had no idea who Georgios Babiniotis, and Eugenius Voulgaris until I mentioned them today. Do you even know the grammar issues involved involving the Comma? If so, why would you reject these experts in Greek grammar? What good reasons do you have to counter their points and why should I trust your grammar as being more superior than them? I have not seen you demonstrate any credentials that comes close to these two men. You are playing a shell game.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As far as I am concerned they read fine. You are not specific about your concern so how can I respond?

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

You are quoting a Modern Bible here. They decided to reword the first part of verse 8 and move it to verse 7 to fill the empty place where the Comma should go. That’s deceptive. The Revised Version moves the last sentence in verse 6 to replace the Comma in verse 7. If they were honest, they would simply just leave verse 7 entirely blank. But they are not dealing openly here.

 

[Grailhunter]

There you go with the false accusations. KJV advocates are commonly called cultists or that they are in a cult. It is nothing new. Jesus said we would be falsely accused. So thank you. I will rejoice in God my Savior for your false accusation.

I have not seen any professors in a cult…..nor that endorse the KJV….but the KJV is Bible of choice for cults. ...How many times have I had to correct you on trying to put words in my mouth ....surely the tactic of a desperate amateur. I did not say that KJV advocates are commonly called cultists or that they are in a cult....I said that the KJV is the Bible of choice for cults.

 

[Johann]

LOL

The following was written by Nick Sayers, who runs the Textus Receptus Academy page on Facebook. I’d like this info to spread far and wide, so I’m sharing it here on my blog, you can find the original post here: Textus Receptus Academy | Voulgaris vindicated by leading Greek expert | Facebook

Original Post:

Voulgaris vindicated by leading Greek expert.
Most critical text proponents don’t even engage in the grammatical issues surrounding the Johannine Comma, and those who do, such as Barry Hoffstetter, or James White, only reveal that they are not adequately informed about this issue.

In an email discussion with Professor Georgios Babiniotis a few months ago, I asked him about validity of the claims of legendary Greek professor Eugenius Voulgaris concerning the Johannine Comma. Those familiar with the grammatical arguments made by Voulgaris will be pleased to know that Babiniotis, who is probably one of the most important Greek linguists alive today, said that not only was Voulgaris correct to say we need to keep the Comma for grammatical reasons, and he also took it a step further by pointing out that verse 7 justifies verse 8 because of the “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses.

Babiniotis is a Greek linguist and philologist who has written several books about Greek grammar, etymology, and other Greek language related topics. He is the former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece, and previously served as rector of Athens University.

As David Crystal is to English speaking people, so Georgios Babiniotis is to the Greek speaker. Here are some of the books he has written here: Βιβλία - Γεώργιος Μπαμπινιώτης - babiniotis.gr. You may know of Babiniotis from his Greek dictionary which is often simply called the “Babiniotis” dictionary.

In May he wrote the following and attached a word doc:

“…Dear Mr Sayers,

I apologize that only now I can answer your kind letter about the N.T. passage discussed by Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης.

Here is my opinion as a linguist, not as an expert in theology.

Γ. Μπαμπινιώτης…”

===

(Word Doc)

I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically — though with another explanation — Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8.

What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek.

The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.

«καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,
τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»

is linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”, i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (“parallel”) in structure with that of 5.7.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα
καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν είσι

So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical “gender agreement rule” (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender : «καὶ τρία εἰσὶ τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ…»), but the overruling schema of “syntactic parallelism” which is much more stronger than a simple gender agreement rule.

Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7.

===
(End of word doc)

George later said in an email:

“…I have given you my own linguistic explanation which is to keep verse 5.7. which justifies verse 5.8. It is grammatical and mainly “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses…”

So I hereby challenge those of the Anglo Sanhedrin who desire to delete the Comma, such as James White, Dan Wallace, Barry Hoffstetter, James Snapp Jr, Stephen Boyce, Bill Brown, Bart Ehrman, Elijah Hixson, etc, to refute the claims of this top Greek linguist, who has basically just confirmed that the Greek grammatical argumentation that myself (Nick Sayers), Steven Avery, Will Kinney, Edward Hill, Jack Moorman, and many other TR/KJV people hold to, is not only correct, but that the Comma is also linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”.

Grammatical Evidence for the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7–8 Vindicated by Leading Greek Linguist

The following was written by Nick Sayers, who runs the Textus Receptus Academy page on Facebook. I’d like this info to spread far and wide…

sinnersaved.medium.com

 

[Grailhunter]

That’s funny. You had no idea who Georgios Babiniotis, and Eugenius Voulgaris until I mentioned them today. Do you even know the grammar issues involved involving the Comma? If so, why would you reject these experts in Greek grammar? What good reasons do you have to counter their points and why should I trust your grammar as being more superior than them? I have not seen you demonstrate any credentials that comes close to these two men. You are playing a shell game.

I still say I do and did not know them I am talking about the topic.
I just gave you the Comma, where are grammor issues.
I am sure you like them and I could not care less.
And this is not about my credentials it is about the facts.
They have manuscripts before the scriptures were modified and after....it is obvious that they were changed.

 

[Grailhunter]

The following was written by Nick Sayers, who runs the Textus Receptus Academy page on Facebook. I’d like this info to spread far and wide, so I’m sharing it here on my blog, you can find the original post here: Textus Receptus Academy | Voulgaris vindicated by leading Greek expert | Facebook

Original Post:

Voulgaris vindicated by leading Greek expert.
Most critical text proponents don’t even engage in the grammatical issues surrounding the Johannine Comma, and those who do, such as Barry Hoffstetter, or James White, only reveal that they are not adequately informed about this issue.

In an email discussion with Professor Georgios Babiniotis a few months ago, I asked him about validity of the claims of legendary Greek professor Eugenius Voulgaris concerning the Johannine Comma. Those familiar with the grammatical arguments made by Voulgaris will be pleased to know that Babiniotis, who is probably one of the most important Greek linguists alive today, said that not only was Voulgaris correct to say we need to keep the Comma for grammatical reasons, and he also took it a step further by pointing out that verse 7 justifies verse 8 because of the “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses.

Babiniotis is a Greek linguist and philologist who has written several books about Greek grammar, etymology, and other Greek language related topics. He is the former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece, and previously served as rector of Athens University.

As David Crystal is to English speaking people, so Georgios Babiniotis is to the Greek speaker. Here are some of the books he has written here: Βιβλία - Γεώργιος Μπαμπινιώτης - babiniotis.gr. You may know of Babiniotis from his Greek dictionary which is often simply called the “Babiniotis” dictionary.

In May he wrote the following and attached a word doc:

“…Dear Mr Sayers,

I apologize that only now I can answer your kind letter about the N.T. passage discussed by Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης.

Here is my opinion as a linguist, not as an expert in theology.

Γ. Μπαμπινιώτης…”

===

(Word Doc)

I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically — though with another explanation — Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8.

What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek.

The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.

«καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,
τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»

is linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”, i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (“parallel”) in structure with that of 5.7.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα
καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν είσι

So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical “gender agreement rule” (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender : «καὶ τρία εἰσὶ τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ…»), but the overruling schema of “syntactic parallelism” which is much more stronger than a simple gender agreement rule.

Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7.

===
(End of word doc)

George later said in an email:

“…I have given you my own linguistic explanation which is to keep verse 5.7. which justifies verse 5.8. It is grammatical and mainly “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses…”

So I hereby challenge those of the Anglo Sanhedrin who desire to delete the Comma, such as James White, Dan Wallace, Barry Hoffstetter, James Snapp Jr, Stephen Boyce, Bill Brown, Bart Ehrman, Elijah Hixson, etc, to refute the claims of this top Greek linguist, who has basically just confirmed that the Greek grammatical argumentation that myself (Nick Sayers), Steven Avery, Will Kinney, Edward Hill, Jack Moorman, and many other TR/KJV people hold to, is not only correct, but that the Comma is also linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”.

Grammatical Evidence for the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7–8 Vindicated by Leading Greek Linguist

The following was written by Nick Sayers, who runs the Textus Receptus Academy page on Facebook. I’d like this info to spread far and wide…

sinnersaved.medium.com

I am not trying to ignore you....
The Textus Receptus is a series of Byzantine-based Greek New Testament texts printed between 1500 and 1900, and is considered outdated by some scholars. While it's not a misleading or "bad" text, it's not technically accurate and differs from the original text in many ways:

• Sources: The Textus Receptus is based on fewer sources than modern methods use.
• Editing: The editors used manuscripts inconsistently and didn't follow a consistent method. For example, Erasmus, who edited the text, didn't have a complete copy of the Book of Revelation, so he translated the last six verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. He also made other changes to the text to match the Vulgate or Church Fathers.
• Typographical errors: The first edition of the Textus Receptus contained many typographical errors, likely due to the rush to print

 

[Grailhunter]

You are quoting a Modern Bible here. They decided to reword the first part of verse 8 and move it to verse 7 to fill the empty place where the Comma should go. That’s deceptive. The Revised Version moves the last sentence in verse 6 to replace the Comma in verse 7. If they were honest, they would simply just leave verse 7 entirely blank. But they are not dealing openly here.

Prove it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No I was saying that it would be easier for you to argue that the world was flat than the KJV was accurate.

The KJV is the Bible. It has been for hundreds of years.
Your extreme attack on it is simply liberalism, my friend.

What’s really important is that readers here should know the following about your belief vs mine.

In another thread, I said, I quote:

“The thing is that Christians agree that the Bible is the sole guide for all matters of faith and practice. You don’t believe that.” (Citation source).

You said, I quote:

“your God is a book.” (Citation source).
“there no such thing as "The Bible"” (Citation source).
“I am saying that people can be saved without the Bible” (Citation source).

These above quotes by you do not sound like the Bible is your sole guide for all maters of faith and practice.
This means you are a liberal Christian or you are liberal with the Bible.

Wikipedia states on Liberal Christianity:

Liberal Christians rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or infallibility,[12] which they saw as the idolatry (fetishism) of the Bible.[13]Instead, liberals sought to understand the Bible through modern biblical criticism, such as historical criticism, that began to be used in the late 1700s to ask if biblical accounts were based on older texts or whether the Gospels recorded the actual words of Jesus.[9] The use of these methods of biblical interpretation led liberals to conclude that "none of the New Testament writings can be said to be apostolic in the sense in which it has been traditionally held to be so".[14] This conclusion made sola scriptura an untenable position. In its place, liberals identified the historical Jesus as the "real canon of the Christian church".

Source:

Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grailhunter]

The KJV is the Bible. It has been for hundreds of years.
Your extreme attack on it is simply liberalism, my friend.

What’s really important is that readers here should know the following about your belief vs mine.

In another thread, I said, I quote:

“The thing is that Christians agree that the Bible is the sole guide for all matters of faith and practice. You don’t believe that.” (Citation source).

You said, I quote:

“your God is a book.” (Citation source).
“there no such thing as "The Bible"” (Citation source).
“I am saying that people can be saved without the Bible” (Citation source).

These above quotes by you do not sound like the Bible is your sole guide for all maters of faith and practice.
This means you are a liberal Christian or you are liberal with the Bible.

Wikipedia states on Liberal Christianity:

Liberal Christians rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or infallibility,[12] which they saw as the idolatry (fetishism) of the Bible.[13]Instead, liberals sought to understand the Bible through modern biblical criticism, such as historical criticism, that began to be used in the late 1700s to ask if biblical accounts were based on older texts or whether the Gospels recorded the actual words of Jesus.[9] The use of these methods of biblical interpretation led liberals to conclude that "none of the New Testament writings can be said to be apostolic in the sense in which it has been traditionally held to be so".[14] This conclusion made sola scriptura an untenable position. In its place, liberals identified the historical Jesus as the "real canon of the Christian church".

Source:

Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would say that most theologians like the KJV, but for different reasons than you do.

About the Comma

The passage isn’t in the early Greek editions, nor is it in the early translations of the New Testament, such as Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic or Latin. The earliest known reference to the long wording is by the church father Cyprian (died A.D. 258), But he seemed to be alone in this opinion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Prove it.

They were not auto-writing with no memory of when they did it, and then they woke up the next day and wondered how it happened. Obviously it does not take a detective that it was written intentionally that way. If you go to Biblehub.com, you can see the English Revised Version has the last sentence of verse 6 of the KJV and moves it to fill in the place where the Comma should go in verse 7. If you look at the other Modern Bibles, instead of saying, “there are three that bear witness” (KJV), they reword it to say something similar with the words: “There are three that testify:”, and they replace the Comma with these words from verse 8. If they were honest and upfront, they should have simply left verse 7 entirely blank instead. But obviously they did not do so because they don’t want the new reader to discover that there is a missing verse teaching the Trinity. Do I have evidence that is their motive? No, but it is the most logical conclusion (based on the deception we seen with the Revised Version being said to be the version set forth in 1611, when it clearly was not). If you go to Archive.org, you can see an original scanned Revised Version and look at the half title page and it says it is the version set forth in 1611. They lied through their teeth. Even today, some are still duped into thinking the Revised Version is a King James Bible update when it clearly was not one. Others in the Critical Text camp are aware of this deception and they simply don’t care.

 

[Grailhunter]

The KJV is the Bible. It has been for hundreds of years.
Your extreme attack on it is simply liberalism, my friend.

What’s really important is that readers here should know the following about your belief vs mine.

In another thread, I said, I quote:

“The thing is that Christians agree that the Bible is the sole guide for all matters of faith and practice. You don’t believe that.” (Citation source).

You said, I quote:

“your God is a book.” (Citation source).
“there no such thing as "The Bible"” (Citation source).
“I am saying that people can be saved without the Bible” (Citation source).

These above quotes by you do not sound like the Bible is your sole guide for all maters of faith and practice.
This means you are a liberal Christian or you are liberal with the Bible.

Wikipedia states on Liberal Christianity:

Liberal Christians rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or infallibility,[12] which they saw as the idolatry (fetishism) of the Bible.[13]Instead, liberals sought to understand the Bible through modern biblical criticism, such as historical criticism, that began to be used in the late 1700s to ask if biblical accounts were based on older texts or whether the Gospels recorded the actual words of Jesus.[9] The use of these methods of biblical interpretation led liberals to conclude that "none of the New Testament writings can be said to be apostolic in the sense in which it has been traditionally held to be so".[14] This conclusion made sola scriptura an untenable position. In its place, liberals identified the historical Jesus as the "real canon of the Christian church".

Source:

Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The first of the early Church Fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century but he did not explain his beliefs in detail.

Next was Tertullian and his beliefs in regard to the Trinity
Tertullian, was born around 150–160 AD. He defended his concepts of the Trinity and he explicitly "defined" the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended his theology against Praxeas, although he noted that the majority of the believers in his day found issue with his doctrine.

Against the common believers concerned with monotheism, Tertullian's beliefs gives little comfort because he argued that although the above process results in two more who could be called “Gods” it does not introduce two more Gods - not Gods in the sense that Yahweh is a God. His belief was that there is still, as there can only be, one ultimate source of all else, the Father. (This the Apostles in the Gospels made a distinction between Yahweh and Yeshua….the Father and the Son….referring to the Father as God and the Son as Lord.)

From these words, one can deduce that Tertullian was an advocate of a hierarchical system in the Trinity, with the Father as the source and the Son and Holy Spirit as his emanations, being second and third. And he never expressed the “one person” concepts developed in the 4th century.

Although early Christian theologians speculated in many ways on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one clearly and fully asserted the doctrine of the Trinity as being “one” until the 4th century with the Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church.

Did the Council of Nicaea create the Trinity?
The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the formula being three “persons” being one God.

Why was the “one person” concept so important?
The leaders of the early Christian churches (congregations) gathered in Nicaea to more or less standardize Christian beliefs. The driving force behind this was Emperor Constantine who ordered and financed the gathering. No surprise, standardization was the Roman way. And I want to mention that it took great courage for the Christian leaders to assemble because some came limping and had missing appendages from the Christian persecutions.

But they were not in agreement on many things and some of these arguments were strong enough that an answer had to be found. Some Christian leaders called “Overseers” saw a distinct difference in the character and persona of Yahweh and Yeshua. Yahweh was wrathful and hard line and Yeshua was loving and forgiving. The very first Bible….hand written bound book….was commissioned by Emperor Constantine and are called the 50 Bibles of Constantine and did not include the Old Testament. The participates of the Niciene Council could not agree on the nature of Yahweh and Yeshua…. More or less dead locked. Constantine insisted on agreement in this matter he was not going to tolerate on Christianity being divided. So the one God formula for the Trinity was formulated and its belief was mandatory upon penalty of death or excommunication if anyone preached anything else. So God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were one person so there could not be a difference in their nature.

As it turns out the one God formula silenced a lot of the disagreements. Silenced, because the belief in this doctrine was mandatory upon pain of excommunication or death as a heretic which was handled by the empire as an enemy of the state. The Catholic Church still asserts that you cannot be a Christian unless you believe in the "one person/one God" aspect of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. And of course you cannot go to Heaven if you do not believe the one God formula. From this the councils went on to proclaim that the Catholic Church “controlled” salvation.

So what is the Trinity really about?
I contend that the Trinity is three Gods in unity with Yahweh being the Supreme God and no one like Him. As He repeatedly said in the Old Testament. Actually it is the construct of the unity that is the legitimate discussion. This discussion is speculative because the exact construct of this unity may be beyond our comprehension. And with that in mind I suggest that it is possible that part of the unity is because of the perfection of the intellect of all three Gods, in that they think alike, so consequently will never disagree with each other.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I would say that most theologians like the KJV, but for different reasons than you do.

About the Comma

The passage isn’t in the early Greek editions, nor is it in the early translations of the New Testament, such as Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic or Latin. The earliest known reference to the long wording is by the church father Cyprian (died A.D. 258), But he seemed to be alone in this opinion.

Cyprian is not the only testimony. There are many others. My PDF provides a link to a digital academic research paper on the early church writers on the Comma. It is written in academic language. If you want it written in layman’s terms simply ask ChatGPT or another AI Tool. What is particularly noteworthy is the 460 Bishops testifying to the Comma and putting their lives on the line by confronting the Arians. Then there is the Fulgentius Comma debate that was a big event, too. I mention other evidences for the Comma in the PDF, as well. Read it, or put up that wall of ignorance. It’s only 4 pages to my PDF.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The first of the early Church Fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century but he did not explain his beliefs in detail.

Next was Tertullian and his beliefs in regard to the Trinity
Tertullian, was born around 150–160 AD. He defended his concepts of the Trinity and he explicitly "defined" the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended his theology against Praxeas, although he noted that the majority of the believers in his day found issue with his doctrine.

Against the common believers concerned with monotheism, Tertullian's beliefs gives little comfort because he argued that although the above process results in two more who could be called “Gods” it does not introduce two more Gods - not Gods in the sense that Yahweh is a God. His belief was that there is still, as there can only be, one ultimate source of all else, the Father. (This the Apostles in the Gospels made a distinction between Yahweh and Yeshua….the Father and the Son….referring to the Father as God and the Son as Lord.)

From these words, one can deduce that Tertullian was an advocate of a hierarchical system in the Trinity, with the Father as the source and the Son and Holy Spirit as his emanations, being second and third. And he never expressed the “one person” concepts developed in the 4th century.

Although early Christian theologians speculated in many ways on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one clearly and fully asserted the doctrine of the Trinity as being “one” until the 4th century with the Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church.

Did the Council of Nicaea create the Trinity?
The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the formula being three “persons” being one God.

Why was the “one person” concept so important?
The leaders of the early Christian churches (congregations) gathered in Nicaea to more or less standardize Christian beliefs. The driving force behind this was Emperor Constantine who ordered and financed the gathering. No surprise, standardization was the Roman way. And I want to mention that it took great courage for the Christian leaders to assemble because some came limping and had missing appendages from the Christian persecutions.

But they were not in agreement on many things and some of these arguments were strong enough that an answer had to be found. Some Christian leaders called “Overseers” saw a distinct difference in the character and persona of Yahweh and Yeshua. Yahweh was wrathful and hard line and Yeshua was loving and forgiving. The very first Bible….hand written bound book….was commissioned by Emperor Constantine and are called the 50 Bibles of Constantine and did not include the Old Testament. The participates of the Niciene Council could not agree on the nature of Yahweh and Yeshua…. More or less dead locked. Constantine insisted on agreement in this matter he was not going to tolerate on Christianity being divided. So the one God formula for the Trinity was formulated and its belief was mandatory upon penalty of death or excommunication if anyone preached anything else. So God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were one person so there could not be a difference in their nature.

As it turns out the one God formula silenced a lot of the disagreements. Silenced, because the belief in this doctrine was mandatory upon pain of excommunication or death as a heretic which was handled by the empire as an enemy of the state. The Catholic Church still asserts that you cannot be a Christian unless you believe in the "one person/one God" aspect of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. And of course you cannot go to Heaven if you do not believe the one God formula. From this the councils went on to proclaim that the Catholic Church “controlled” salvation.

So what is the Trinity really about?
I contend that the Trinity is three Gods in unity with Yahweh being the Supreme God and no one like Him. As He repeatedly said in the Old Testament. Actually it is the construct of the unity that is the legitimate discussion. This discussion is speculative because the exact construct of this unity may be beyond our comprehension. And with that in mind I suggest that it is possible that part of the unity is because of the perfection of the intellect of all three Gods, in that they think alike, so consequently will never disagree with each other.

So what best describes your view?
Do you believe in the standard Trinity view in that the Lord our God is one God and yet He is also three distinct persons?
Do you believe in Tritheism?
Do you believe in Modalism?
Do you believe in something else?
Your description here is still a little fuzzy to me.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Right, so then why not apply 2 Timothy 2:15 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to your life? Oh, that‘s right. You came up with some man made verse in your head that this is only for pastors, elders, and teachers. So again, you are condemning others for that which you are stating does not apply to you in the Bible. Why study the Bible according to 2 Timothy 2:15 (which obviously is to be applied to your life) if it only applies to pastors, elders, and teachers?

I didn't say that 2 Tim 2:15 is to be ignored, but the letter wasn't directed at dumb sheep like you and me. It was directed at workers who are rewarded for their diligent work in feeding and watching over us dumb sheep.

I asked you where the verse says that dumb sheep deserve to be paid for feeding other dumb sheep, and you have no answer as usual. All you do is ignore the question and you just refer to other unrelated scriptures while ignoring the charge I bought against you.

The only way 2 Tim 2:15 applies to me is, it tells me that I need to make sure that the flock I chose to join has a faithful shepherd, who preaches the whole counsel of the Lord. So when I was Church shopping, I came across many wolves in pulpits. They were dressed as shepherds, but I quickly realized they were wolves because they preached a false gospel message.

I continued my Church shopping for around 7 months before I found a faithful Shepherded and flock to join. This shepherd never spent any time talking about anything outside of the bible. All of his sermons deal with scripture only, and every sermon has a gospel message in it.

Paul advised Timothy, not to get caught up in futile debates about unimportant matters regarding the various interpretations of scripture. He said it was counterproductive, so wise and faithful Shepherds don't spend any time talking about the errors of other Shepherds. That's a waste of time, so they just focus on preaching the main message of the Bible and that is the good news or better known as the "gospel".

Paul was exhorting Timothy to study the Bible to show himself approved of God, so the application for dumb sheep is to find a faithful Shepherd who is focused on Gods Word and not on trying to outdo other Shepherds and put them down to lift themselves up. That's not what a faithful Shepherd should do.
But for the Shepherds, it's to study diligently. While dumb Sheep don't need to be that diligent because we are not responsible for anyone else except for ourselves. So if a dumb sheep gets a verse wrong, it doesn't hurt anyone because the Shepherd will discipline him for it and drag him back into line.

If the Shepherd gets it wrong the whole flock suffers, and their blood will be on the Shepherds hands. But no blood will be on the dumb sheep's hands, because we weren't called to lead. We were called to follow our Shepherd. I don't know why you struggle so much with this, simple verse.

 

[Grailhunter]

Cyprian is not the only testimony. There are many others. My PDF provides a link to a digital academic research paper on the early church writers on the Comma. It is written in academic language. If you want it written in layman’s terms simply ask ChatGPT or another AI Tool. What is particularly noteworthy is the 460 Bishops testifying to the Comma and putting their lives on the line by confronting the Arians. Then there is the Fulgentius Comma debate that was a big event, too. I mention other evidences for the Comma in the PDF, as well. Read it, or put up that wall of ignorance. It’s only 4 pages to my PDF.

Cyprian is not the only testimony. There are many others. My PDF provides a link to a digital academic research paper on the early church writers on the Comma. It is written in academic language. If you want it written in layman’s terms simply ask ChatGPT or another AI Tool. What is particularly noteworthy is the 460 Bishops testifying to the Comma and putting their lives on the line by confronting the Arians. Then there is the Fulgentius Comma debate that was a big event, too. I mention other evidences for the Comma in the PDF, as well. Read it, or put up that wall of ignorance. It’s only 4 pages to my PDF.

Bishops? Catholic Bishops? Of course they would believe it.
No offence if there were others early writers I would know about it.

The one God formula was extremely unpopular that is why the Roman Catholic Church had to threaten to excommunicate and kill people over it.

Some people believed that there was a hierarchy in the Trinity. As Christ said, the Father is greater than I.

Some people believed that there was a difference in their character. Some thought it was just a character difference some believed it was a harsh difference.

Then there is the throne thing as in sit on the right hand of the Father and Christ not knowing the end of time but the Father did.

 

[Grailhunter]

So what best describes your view?
Do you believe in the standard Trinity view in that the Lord our God is one God and yet He is also three distinct persons?
Do you believe in Tritheism?
Do you believe in Modalism?
Do you believe in something else?
Your description here is still a little fuzzy to me.

I believe in…
God the Father…Yahweh…God Almighty…Creator of Heaven and Earth and Adam and Eve…..
God the Son…Yeshua…the Son of God…Messiah…Savior.
God the Holy Spirit…the unnamed God…helper…guide… teacher… strengthener….nurturer…..

I believe the word Trinity expresses three Gods in unity. Tri-unity
Triune would be three in one.

But still what is that unity? And that explanation get deep….but simply put...three separate minds but if perfect minds think alike they would never have a disagreement…..unity.

Grailhunter’s Corner

******************The concepts of the Trinity in motion**************** Over a hundred scriptural reasons why the one God formula for the Trinity is false. Note: Feel free to verify all scriptural references in your own favorite translation. This is a topic that is easy to prove because it...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have not seen any professors in a cult…..nor that endorse the KJV….but the KJV is Bible of choice for cults. ...How many times have I had to correct you on trying to put words in my mouth ....surely the tactic of a desperate amateur.

Cults do not really care about the truth or representing people correctly. If I was not looking to change on how I view you (which would be cultic), and I did not care about the truth, I would not adjust my view based on what I read or see about you. So yeah, you don’t believe in a flat Earth. Hurray!!!! That is one less crazy thing we have to deal with in our conversation here. But please stop playing the victim. I am not setting out intentionally to put words in your mouth. That would not end well for me at the Judgment if I did that.

As for your professors and cults statement:

Well, if a professor was in a cult, I am sure he wouldn’t tell you, unless he or she thought they could convert you.

While I am not denying there are cults or heretical groups who believe or use the KJV (Mormons, Steve Anderson’s churches), there also other cult leaders or heretical figure heads like Jim Jones who had a strong disdain for the KJV Bible, and the conservative values that it teaches

Here is a list:

1. Jim Jones (Peoples Temple)
- Background: Jim Jones was the leader of the Peoples Temple, a religious group that ended in the tragic mass suicide at Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978.
- Dislike for the KJV: Jones expressed disdain for the KJV and traditional Christianity in general. He often criticized the Bible, including the KJV, accusing it of being a tool of oppression. He believed that traditional interpretations of the Bible were flawed and that only his interpretations were correct. This rejection of the KJV was part of his broader rejection of mainstream religious practices.

2. David Koresh (Branch Davidians)
- Background: David Koresh led the Branch Davidians, a religious group that became infamous during the Waco siege in 1993.
- Dislike for the KJV: Koresh heavily reinterpreted the Bible and often criticized traditional translations, including the KJV. He claimed to have direct revelations from God, which he believed gave him authority over any traditional text. Although he used the Bible, he believed his interpretations were superior to those of mainstream Christianity, which included the traditional readings of the KJV.

3. Victor Paul Wierwille (The Way International)
- Background: Victor Paul Wierwille was the founder of The Way International, a religious group established in the 1940s that became known for its unorthodox teachings and interpretations of the Bible.
- Dislike for the KJV: Wierwille criticized the KJV for what he saw as inaccuracies and mistranslations. He promoted the use of other translations and his own teachings to correct what he believed were errors in the KJV. The Way International often relied on these alternative interpretations to support its unique doctrines, which diverged from mainstream Christian beliefs. Wierwille’s teachings often downplayed the authority of traditional versions of the Bible, including the KJV. This group today is considered highly abusive in it’s control over its members even today.

Conclusion:
These cult leaders often rejected or disliked the KJV because it represented traditional Christianity, which they saw as corrupt, misguided, or irrelevant to their unique doctrines. Instead, they relied on their own revelations, alternative texts, or heavily reinterpreted versions of the Bible to establish their authority and control over their followers.

I did not say that KJV advocates are commonly called cultists or that they are in a cult....I said that the KJV is the Bible of choice for cults.

I beg to differ. The KJV was the only Bible at one time as the mainstream Bible. In reality, liberals tended to favor Modern Bibles before they became popular in the 1980s.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe in…
God the Father…Yahweh…God Almighty…Creator of Heaven and Earth and Adam and Eve…..
God the Son…Yeshua…the Son of God…Messiah…Savior.
God the Holy Spirit…the unnamed God…helper…guide… teacher… strengthener….nurturer…..

I believe the word Trinity expresses three Gods in unity. Tri-unity
Triune would be three in one.

But still what is that unity? And that explanation get deep….but simply put...three separate minds but if perfect minds think alike they would never have a disagreement…..unity.

Grailhunter’s Corner

******************The concepts of the Trinity in motion**************** Over a hundred scriptural reasons why the one God formula for the Trinity is false. Note: Feel free to verify all scriptural references in your own favorite translation. This is a topic that is easy to prove because it...

www.christianityboard.com

So you see the Trinity more as like three gods, and you do not see the three persons of the Trinity as representing one God?
Granted, please keep in mind that I am not referring to Modalism here.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Bishops? Catholic Bishops? Of course they would believe it.
No offence if there were others early writers I would know about it.

The one God formula was extremely unpopular that is why the Roman Catholic Church had to threaten to excommunicate and kill people over it.

Arians also killed and burned the homes of Trinitarians.
Arians had cut out the tongues of the 460 bishops who testified to the Comma.

 

[Grailhunter]

Cults do not really care about the truth or representing people correctly. If I was not looking to change on how I view you (which would be cultic), and I did not care about the truth, I would not adjust my view based on what I read or see about you. So yeah, you don’t believe in a flat Earth. Hurray!!!! That is one less crazy thing we have to deal with in our conversation here. But please stop playing the victim. I am not setting out intentionally to put words in your mouth. That would not end well for me at the Judgment if did that.

I think you need to understand something, I am not a preacher I am a speaker. I call my ministry the Johnny Appleseed of Truth. I work it like Christ did, I cast the seed and it is up to you and God from there on. I do not care if you believe me….not my job and not my concern. I have spent my life finding the truth….and I am good at it. But believing it….that is between you and God. So you do not hurt my feelings none if you do not believe. Belief control turned out real bad for the Catholic Church.