I made my case to you on the Comma in the PDF. Lots of information on that 4 page PDF. Check it out.
Open Debate Challenge on My Defending the KJV as the Perfect Word for Today in English
- Thread starter Bible Highlighter
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I am going to disagree with you but to be fair what are your sources? Now I saw a picture with Jim Jones with a KJV.
My only experience with a cult was the Jehovah’s Witnesses….they carry around KJV’s but they have their own bible and Calvinists seem to prefer the KJV.
Yes, I remember you giving yourself this glorified title before. It’s not really factual because you deny new truth or information when you are presented with it. For example: When I brought up the grammar points on defending the Comma in 1 John 5:7,
your response was not like,
“Oh, yeah. Thank you for that information on the Comma! I did not know about before about those grammar points on the Comma.
I will study that and get back to you to see if it pans out.” “I will also look into Georgios, and Eugene, too.”
No. That’s not you. You did not want to hear about Georgios anymore. You mentioned nothing about the grammar points and repeated your narrative. In essence, you ignored the grammar points, and just regurgitated what you thought was true. You are doing the belief control thing (Which is the very thing you think you are against). You are happy to stay within your own safe bubble information world you find the most comfortable.
Last edited:
You mean the Mormons. The JWs have their New World Translation today (Which is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). They also used a translation done by spiritualist, as well. Also, some Mormons believe the KJV has errors in it. They see the Book of Mormon as more authoritative. The KJV was simply the mainstream Bible at the time the Mormon religion was formed.
In fact, Manly P Hall (an occultist) had said in the past (When the KJV was the primary translation):
"For the last hundred years we have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct; but nobody wants it. What's wanted is the good old King James version every jot and tittle of it, because most people are convinced that God dictated the Bible to King James in English"
Oh, how things have changed today. Now people attack the KJV, and its considered good to do so.
Manly P Hall would be proud of you.
Last edited:
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Why is it so important for anti-Catholics to assert LIES like this with no evidence??? It's hate speech, PERIOD.
The Council of Nicaea proved the Church had always been Trinitarian. NICAEA DID NOT INVENT THE TRINITY. Was Athanasius a heretic? Oh, sorry, I forgot, anti-Catholics, like the rigid Pharisees, don't answer questions.
The Edict of Milan, a civil law, not a church law, made persecution of ANY religion illegal; your anti-Catholic agenda collapses in a heap.
This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable.
K
"As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical “scholarship,” whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon “archaeology,” or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly “researched,” and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn’t let it stand without response." by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.
Getting back to the topic, I have no problem with the KJV. It's common ground that I use only when in discussion with KJV-onlyist.
Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as King James-onlyism. Its advocates often make jokes such as, “If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me.” They commonly claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus); that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings; and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as “the Authorized Version” (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been “authorized.” To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations.
Bible Translations Guide
At Catholic Answers we are often asked which Bible version a person should choose. Here are guiding principles to help you decide which is right for you.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I do not deny new information if it true.....I love learning some new.
As far as grammar or spelling, that is a topic. One of the ways of knowing if a text is not a true copy is that the grammar and spelling was correct.
The people that wrote the scriptures were not grammarians and if grammar was the deciding factor if a scripture was true we would have a lot smaller Bibles. Now time period grammar is a different story.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
No I mean JW's, they carry KJV from door to door to deceive people. And as I said they have their own Bibles
There is the internet. Surely you can check that for the sources within a few seconds at the touch of a button, right?
That really doesn’t help you. That actually helps to prove my case because you don’t use something that is bad or untruthful as bait to deceive people. They are using something true and then playing the switch-a-roo trick.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
To be honest I never seen that cult liked other translations and the leader controlled that.
College the same thing.
But I am not a expert on cults.
The Catholic New American Bible that came out in the 1970s forbid the Catholic layperson from reading the KJV.Why is it so important for anti-Catholics to assert LIES like this with no evidence??? It's hate speech, PERIOD.
The Council of Nicaea proved the Church had always been Trinitarian. Was Athanasius a heretic? Oh, sorry, I forgot, anti-Catholics, like the rigid Pharisees, don't answer questions.
The Edict of Milan, a civil law, not a church law, made persecution of ANY religion illegal; your anti-Catholic agenda collapses in a heap.
This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable.
"As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical “scholarship,” whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon “archaeology,” or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly “researched,” and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn’t let it stand without response." by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.
Getting back to the topic, I have no problem with the KJV. It's common ground that I use only when in discussion with KJV-onlyist.
Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as King James-onlyism. Its advocates often make jokes such as, “If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me.” They commonly claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus); that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings; and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as “the Authorized Version” (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been “authorized.” To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations.
Bible Translations Guide
At Catholic Answers we are often asked which Bible version a person should choose. Here are guiding principles to help you decide which is right for you.www.catholic.com
Here is a video showing it:
Granted, this has changed in recent years. There is a Catholic KJV with the apocryphal books in it. But the point here is that at one time, the Catholics seen the KJV as a threat and so they banned at one point in history. Today, it is less of a threat because the Protestants no longer have a main Bible like they used to. They have been scattered by the Modern Translations. Catholics have even taken part of this Modern Bible Movement. Catholic ideas began to show in the Revised Version (Which is not present in the KJV). These Catholic ideas have only grown in later Modern Bibles. This should not be a surprise because a Catholic cardinal worked on the underlying Greek text in the 1970s (i.e., the Nestle and Aland).
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The point is that cult leaders did not like the KJV because it was considered THE Bible at one time by Bible believing Christians.
There were other translations out there. But they never took hold. Even the creators of other Modern translations threatened that the KJV would be obsolete because of their translation. This happened repeatedly in the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s. But the KJV still endured. It caused three of the great revivals in history. What other translation has done that? None. What other translation that has a huge following that states it is the very words of God? None. We all still speak like the KJV today. Many of its idioms are spoken even by unbelievers. The KJV is the most printed book in the world. The KJV was almost destroyed by a super bomb. So no. It’s not some humanist reason or explanation. Even biblical numerics show that the KJV is a book of divine origin.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
But it is not just it being popular for no reason. There are many other things that factor into why it is popular.
Granted, if you are hard pressed not to see it, then no evidence I bring forth will truly matter to you. You will continue to remain in your bubble information world as you slice away at the new information that is presented to you.
Manly P Hall quote? Yeah, slice away that, baby. Act like it doesn’t exist.
Grammar errors are in the text if the Comma is not in the text. Ignore it! Act like it is not there. There is no grammar to worry about. Slice baby. Slice and dice that truth. Forget about it.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
There are actually three biblical views of the final judgment.
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR)
All three views are both biblical and contradictory.
You also wrote:
Christian Soldier said:
Why are you being willfully ignorant of the fact that you falsely accused God of evil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now you claim that God DECIDED to save some and to predestine the others to eternal torment. (an evil mischaracterization of God)
If the narrow way refers to salvation, then you are accusing God of making sport with our souls.
A high-stakes puzzle that few can solve. (few find it) Do you really believe that salvation is a cruel game of chance?
"Christians don't know what they believe." - until they are brainwashed
Why do we need the church to TELL us what we believe? Must we surrender our right to our own beliefs to be a part of the church? There is even a famous book titled: Know What You Believe Which is there to inform you of what you haven't a clue about. Brainwashing, obviously. Not to say...
www.christianityboard.com
[
Last edited:
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Good question.
What sort of God would conceive a plan for humankind (created in his image) that assures such a pitiful outcome? This is slander against the love and mercy of God. Sinful humanity has not produced a tyrant as heinous as what some Christian claim about our God. Countless billions going to eternal torment with no hope of escape because God "predestined" them for destruction.
They fight tooth and claw to keep their precious hell. Why? Since they want hell, we should give it to them.
[
Last edited:
Similar threads
