Rockerduck
Well-Known Member
I have almost every bible version in my library. I don't know what scriptures that are missing, that you are talking about. I'll be more than glad to look at them, if there is another source.
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!
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
All doctrine is man-made. Regardless of your claims.
What makes a doctrine false?
1. You've never heard it before. (knee-jerk defensive response)
2. You have heard of it before, but assume it's false. (haven't looked into it)
3. Doesn't align with your church's doctrine (your church would say it is false)
4. Doesn't align with your personal doctrine (your views differ)
5. YOUR "Bible" says it is false. (other biblical opinions don't matter)
6. It makes you uncomfortable. (therefore it must be wrong)
7. Everyone knows it's false. (except those who believe it)
]
Christian Soldier
Well-Known Member
Why do you falsely accuse the God of the Bible of burning people forever in hell. The Bible doesn't say that, it says He casts those workers of iniquity, who He doesn't know into hell to burn forever.
He doesn't cast righteous people into hell, you don't even know the difference between the righteous and the wicked. Your false doctrine has blinded you from understanding the fact that there are only two types of people, the Children of God and the Children of the Devil.
You have invented other kinds of people which don't exist anywhere outside of your fantasy.
Christian Soldier
Well-Known Member
At the end of the nineteenth century, an intramural debate arose among Christians over which version of the English Bible should be used. This debate was occasioned by the discovery of numerous Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the mid-nineteenth century and the subsequent translation and publication of new versions of the English Bible after 1880. Proponents of the King James Only movement insist that the King James Version (KJV) is the only legitimate English translation of Scripture and that none others are valid. Proponents of the King James Only movement have belonged to a variety of ecclesiastical fellowships. A distinction should be made between those who believe the King James Version is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible (the King James Only movement) and those who believe that the King James is to be preferred over other English Bible translations but that it is not inherently wrong to choose other English versions. Some churches and individuals, largely for historical and stylistic reasons, believe that the King James Version remains the best English translation of the Bible while not insisting that all other English versions are wholly illegitimate.
Explanation
The history of the English Bible, leading up to the translation and publication of the King James Version, is important in understanding the King James Only movement. In 1525, William Tyndale printed and published the first English edition of the New Testament. Over the subsequent decade, Tyndale would revise it and work toward completing a complete English translation of the Old Testament. In 1560, English exiles to Geneva translated the Old and New Testament into English, and they added study notes. This complete English Bible came to be known as the Geneva Bible or the Breeches Bible. It was the Bible read and preached in Protestant churches in Scotland, England, and New England in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. In 1568, the Church of England authorized the publication of the Bishop’s Bible. This Bible underwent revision in 1572 and in 1602. The 1602 edition became the basis for the King James Version.In 1611, King James I of England issued an edict for a new translation of the English Bible. His rationale was to replace the Bishop’s Bible with an authorized version for the Church of England and the English-speaking world. Therefore, the King James Version has also been referred to as the Authorized Version. James was also motivated to replace the Geneva Bible. James’ edict was prompted in part by the need for a better translation of the original Greek and Hebrew text into English and in part by the king’s strong aversion to the notes in the Geneva Bible on certain passages of Scripture regarding the role of government. The King James Version was printed, published, and distributed in 1611. Since English-speaking Protestant churches used the King James Version of the Bible from the early seventeenth century until the late nineteenth century, the King James Version has held the most significance place among English translations of Scripture.
The King James Version was a translation of the Textus Receptus (i.e., Received Text). The Textus Receptus finds its origin in Desiderius Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, which Erasmus produced from a handful of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that represent the Byzantine text-type (also called the Majority Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiochian Text, and Syrian Text). Erasmus’ work was supplemented and corrected over time with the use of additional Byzantine text-type manuscripts, but all of these manuscripts are relatively late copies of the original Greek New Testament. While for the most part the Textus Receptus preserves the original text written by the Apostles, there are places where other, more ancient copies of the Greek New Testament are better. The Textus Receptus was the most used text-type among Protestants from the Reformation era until the early twentieth century, serving as the basis for other translations as well. With Constantin Tischendorf’s mid-nineteenth-century discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth-century edition of the Bible in Greek, textual criticismadvanced significantly as a theological science, and biblical scholars began moving away from reliance on the Textus Receptus to “critical text” editions that incorporate what we have learned from older copies of the Greek New Testament.
The most significant distinction between the Textus Receptus and other critical texts is the Textus Receptus’ inclusion of Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11; and 1 John 5:7. Because older manuscript copies of the New Testament do not have these passages at all or, in the case of some of them, include them elsewhere in the Greek New Testament, most modern scholars do not believe these verses come from the Apostles but were later, well-intentioned additions by a scribe. Thus, in more recent English translations, these passages are excluded entirely or included with brackets and notes that indicate that they are likely scribal additions. Proponents of the King James Only position contend that these passages were indeed written by the Apostles and should not be excluded from modern translations, and sometimes these proponents argue that eliminating them means we are taking away from God’s Word, which is forbidden in texts such as Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18–19. It should be noted, however, that if modern scholars are right that Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11; and 1 John 5:7 were not actually written by the Apostles, removing them is not actually taking away from God’s Word but eliminating additions that never should have been there in the first place. (Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18–19 also forbid adding to God’s Word things that the Apostles and prophets did not themselves write.)
Beginning with the translation and publication of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible in 1881, the number of English translations of the Bible began to rapidly increase. This flurry of new translations revolutionized the way that scholars and pastors approached Bible translation preferences. Many began to promote new English translations of the Bible as preferential to the King James Version. In response, those who believe that the King James Version is superior to all other English versions have raised a series of arguments in favor of the King James Version. The two primary arguments are 1) the King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, which is preferred over the critical text for various reasons, and 2) the King James Version, though not a perfect translation, is superior to others because of its style and tradition of use in the church.
Theologians and pastors in a variety of ecclesiastical fellowships have argued that the King James Version should be preferred over other English translations. While more serious arguments in favor of preferring the King James Version have been made by textual and biblical scholars, many other arguments advanced by modern King James Only proponents lack intellectual credibility, with some proponents even implying or outright contending that the English translators of the King James Version were directly inspired by God. However, the historic Christian position has been that only the original authors of the Bible—the prophets and Apostles—enjoyed such direct inspiration. Thus, as Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8 indicates, while translations of the Bible into other languages are to be employed and studied, only the prophets and Apostles’ writings in Greek and Hebrew can settle theological controversies.
Christian Soldier
Well-Known Member
Quotes
These sorts of considerations are relevant for addressing the most commonly discussed bracketed words in our Bibles: Mark 16:9–20 (known as the long ending of Mark) and John 7:53–8:11 (the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman). When we examine these two disputed passages, we have good reasons to doubt their originality.In the case of the long ending of Mark, it is missing from our earliest copies of Mark (found in codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) and from the testimony of the early church fathers (particularly Eusebius and Jerome). This indicates that most early copies of Mark lacked the longer ending. Similarly, we don’t find the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman in any of our early copies of John (papyri 66 and 75, codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), again suggesting it was a later addition.
So, while these two bracketed texts may raise concerns for the average reader—particularly given their length and popularity—they do not present the threat we might suppose. If we know they are not original, then we cannot say the text is unreliable at these points. The text would only be unreliable in these passages if we did not know what the original text was.
Of course, it needs to be acknowledged that for the average English reader, it feels like a problem to say these texts are not original. Given that these passages have been part of our English Bible tradition for generations—largely due to the influence of the King James translation—it can seem like they are being unduly kicked to the curb. And such a response is understandable. But if we step outside of our English Bible tradition for a moment and just ask what was originally in the Greek text of Mark and John, then we realize that these texts are not getting “kicked out” of the New Testament. Instead, we realize that they were likely never there to begin with.
Michael Kruger
Christian Soldier
Well-Known Member
There is only one Doctrine that matters, you don't even believe that "Bible Doctrine" exists. You don't even believe that the Bible is Gods Word. Your have invented your own god in your own mind and it's nothing like the God who speaks through His Word as we have it in the Bible.
All you have to offer is your private fantasy, the Bible is against your opinion. It exposes you all the time, you haven't got a single verse of the Bible right yet and that tells me a lot about your theology. It tells me you reject what God has said and you make up your own doctrine to suit yourself.
The Satanic Bible only has one commandment, it says "Do as thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law". It's the exact opposite of Gods command. God didn't leave it up to us to privately, interpret the Bible and trash the parts we don't like. That's exactly what you do constantly. You accuse God of being evil, for punishing sinners and that shows your not on Gods side and you side with the evil doers.
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
No one is saved by doctrine. Only God can save.
Your post makes doctrine a god.
You inferred that your doctrine saved you. And that you believe mine won't save me.
As if to say:
Correct doctrine = salvation
Incorrect doctrine = no salvation
Therefore:
Correct doctrine = Savior
[
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
And neither should you believe that "Bible Doctrine" even exists.
Correct, "Bible Doctrine" does not exist.
Doctrine is man-made and ONLY a man-made interpretation of what the reader believes the Bible is saying.
There 1st Baptist churches.
There are also 2nd Baptist and 3rd Baptist churches. What's the difference? (doctrine)
Which of these churches has "Bible Doctrine":
- 1st Baptist churches?
- 2nd Baptist churches?
- 3rd Baptist churches?
There can only be one TRUE "Bible Doctrine", correct?
Which of these churches will you condemn as NOT having "Bible Doctrine"?
[ cc: @Wrangler @BarneyFife
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
That's a fine mess of double-talk. I don't accuse God of "burning people forever in hell", but you do.
Unless you are claiming that the people God burns in hell aren't actually people? (subhuman) ???
What should we conclude when you write: "He doesn't cast righteous people into hell..."
What sort of people does he cast into hell? And why would you "falsely accuse the God of the Bible of burning people forever in hell"?
[
1 Timothy 4:16 (KJV):
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
John 6:68 (KJV)
"Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
John 10:27-28 (KJV):
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
Comment:
John 10:27-28 underscores that following Jesus leads to eternal life, affirming His role as the giver and source of eternal life.
How do you follow Jesus if not by His words as found in Scripture?
John 6:63 (KJV)
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Comment:
Jesus says His words are spirit and they are life. Meaning, they are life giving (i.e., they can give eternal life).
1 John 2:4 says that the person who says they know the Lord and they do not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in them. 1 John 5:12 says that He that has the Son has life, and He that does not have the Son of God does not have life. So you have to be able to keep His commands (words) in order for Christ to abide in you in order to have eternal life (Which is Jesus). This is just what the Bible says.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
LOL as in lots of laughs......the KJV strikes again!
The word doctrine is not in the scriptures.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
That is how the Greek word is translated into English. Most folks like you who attack the KJV do not know how to speak, write, read, or hear Modern Greek and neither do they know how to read Koine Greek. What is also silly is that you have no idea of the issues involved. Greek grammarians actually agree with us. Do you even know their names? It is only the scholars with their fancy degrees who do not really know the languages intimately like they should who pretend to know the Greek. It’s not that they cannot know certain things in the Greek, but the point is that they are not really interested in becoming an expert whereby they are going to deal honestly.
Last we talked, you held to beliefs that would make you fall into the liberal camp of Christianity (Whether you want that label or not).
Are you also democrat?
Do you want Harris to be president?
I say this because the Bibliology topic is related to politics.
The Modern Bible Movement only survives based on false propaganda and lies.
Anti-KJV believers really don’t ever bother to do their own homework properly and seek out the truth.
The same is true when a person is on the liberal side in politics.
They just believe the Media blindly and they don’t think rationally.
They don’t even care if this country is destroyed in the process by the liberal machine.
Side Note 1:
Also, the Bible talks about how God preserves His Word. See 1 Peter 1:23, Matthew 24:35.
Side Note 2:
If we lived before Westcott and Hort’s Modern Bible Movement, there is a good chance you would not even know any different of what the Bible says. You would either believe the KJV or not believe at all. So to attack the KJV is just dumb. You would be attacking the faith of tons of Christians who went before you. This is insanity because you would be claiming that they did not have the Bible or the Word of God and they were deceived. This is what is silly about your liberal position involving the Bible.
At the end of the day, faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
If you reject the Bible in what it says, you are on very dangerous ground, my friend.
Isaiah 8:20 says,
“…if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
Last edited:
Christian Soldier
Well-Known Member
Doctrine is the application of scripture, so if you apply false doctrine, you believe in a false gospel and false god.
The difference between saved and lost people is the saved know the real Lord Jesus, while the lost have created a fake Jesus in their minds. The only reason Jesus casts sinners into hell, is because as He said "I don't know you".
So salvation = knowing the Lord Jesus as your savior. You can't know Him if you don't believe He is who He said He is = correct doctrine.
False doctrine = false Jesus = no salvation. The fake Jesus can't save anyone.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
Guess who else doesn't know how to do any of those things?
Most of the people who have ever lived.
.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Nope you are all wrong....
Actually reading the actual scriptures would not do you any good.
The reason that most accurate translates to not translate teachings to doctrine is because the word doctrine can imply more than one thing in the more modern time periods….none of which are 1st century.
Last edited:
My point was that a person should not act like they know the Greek by saying that the English word “doctrine” is an incorrect translation from the Greek in the Bible when they really do not know the language to make such a claim. In short, a person cannot act like an expert when they clearly are not one.
Again, you are not qualified to make such a claim. You are a Greek pretender. You are attacking that which you do not understand. But don't worry, there will be a Judgment if you don't repent, my friend. God will not take your attacks on His Word lightly.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
LOL
Highly insulted…..May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your crouch.
I am a Tea Party Republican.
They are questions and not statements that you are.
It is shocking that you would hold to a strict conservative group.
But I see to holding to such small groups as flawed because there is no influence or nominee for this party in the current presidential election. The tea party has been absorbed primarily into the Republican base.
Also, why would you wish fleas from a thousand camels to infest my couch?
I am not really wishing you any harm. I wish that you would agree with the Bible and have a right relationship with the Lord and be in the glory of His good Kingdom. I actually wish you the best in life. I don't desire anything bad to happen to you. Granted, if you continue to reject the Scriptures and remain biblicallly liberal, it will of course lead to an unpleasant Judgment for you. I also don't want that to happen. But it is simply the reality of what will happen (If you don't believe the words as found in the Bible).
See, I actually believe the Bible in the fact that I would pray, and do good and love my enemies (as Jesus taught). I don't believe in cursing others to have fleas upon their couch. Therein lies the difference between us.
Last edited:
Similar threads
