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

[Christian Soldier]

St. SteVen said:
LOL
Is God such a tyrant in your opinion that he can't answer a few reasonable questions? Such an insult to our loving heavenly Father.

Thanks for proving my point. The god you described is a tyrant. Would you talk that way about your own father?

[

We have already established the fact the we don't believe in the same God. You can mock the God of the bible all you want, while He lends you breath. But judgement day is fast approaching and all the mockers will be silenced once and for all

 

[Christian Soldier]

Actually I do have an issue with global genocide. And that it was used as a cover-up for an error in creation.

The Atonement paid the death penalty for all. Do you claim it was insufficient somehow?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

[

If you learned what the word context means, you would know who that verse was spoken to. Then you would know that, what "whole world" means in the context of that verse. But I feel that you are incapable of grasping what "context" means.

If you were one of the Jews listening to that being spoken, you would understand it as saying. His atoning sacrifice was not only for us Jews, but for Gods elect from every other tribe and tongue from around the world.
But of 'course your not interested in the truth of the matter as it exposes your heretical doctrine.

 

[Christian Soldier]

If God is sovereign, then the buck stops there. He is ultimately responsible for what he allows. In the book of Job, God determined how far Satan could go.


More proof of your claim that God is a tyrant. (for shame)

Does Father God really regard humankind that he created in his own image in the demeaning terms you describe in your quote above?


So, you don't believe that God hears prayers through Mary the Mother of God, or the Saints?

[

As I've tried to explain many times before, we simply don't know why God does what He does. He has never told us why, He deliberately hides many things from us as any loving father hides things from his children.

God hides these things from us because He knows it would blow our puny little minds so He hides them to protect us from ourselves. Why do you think God ordered witches and those who consult them to be stoned, we can't even deal with what's on our plate as it is and yet you demand God blows you puny mind with deep stuff.

You should be thankful that God keeps you in your state of ignorance, because ignorance is bliss.

God created Adam in His own Image, and nobody else was ever created in His image. Everyone after Adam, bore their father Satan's image. God sent His Son to redeem His elect, so they would die to Satan and be born again in Gods image. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.

God doesn't have a mother, so this Mary you mention is a fictional character, like Mickey Mouse. Mary was born a sinner, she used to burn animals alive as an offering to the Lord, to have her sins forgiven. So Mary can't help you at all because she i in the same boat. And so are the Saints, I'm an Elect saint of God myself and I can't pray directly to God, I need Jesus to intercede on my behalf.

There's no other way to the Father, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary prayed to God, in her Lord's Name, just as everyone else has to.

 

[Grailhunter]

What oldest manuscripts are you talking about? If you are educated on this topic even remotely, you would know that the Modern Bibles are based on the Nestle and Aland apparatus (which has Vaticanus and Sinaiticus primacy). So if you are for popular Modern Scholarship, you follow the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for the New Testament Greek. Now, there are many problems with this position. First, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree in thousands in places in the gospels alone. So an artificial never before seen sham-Wow Bible mashed these two conflicting manuscripts together. They teach Catholic ideas (unlike the KJV / TR). They have corrections all over the Vaticanus. One scribe says to another scribe, “fool and knave, keep the old reading.” Hardly the best. Sinaiticus was found in the fake Sinai location and Unitarians visit this manuscript by the bus load because it was a major reform for their Unitarian cause. Again, how is m this manuscript the best? You just bought the lie by scholars it was the best when you did not bother to check if they had problems.

What oldest manuscripts are you talking about? If you do not understand what the oldest biblical manuscripts means….we can discuss it.

How many ways can you be wrong…..You look for conspiracies theories and you peddle conspiracies theories. Is this how you formulate your religious beliefs? It is all a smoke screen for the fact that the KJV was translated from inaccurate information and from the perspective of 17th century religious beliefs.

Modern translations, what all did they looked at….who knows….but to say they were based on any old works does not make any sense. As for as Nestle and Aland’s work I am sure they did look at and consider it? Their work is highly regarded by worldwide scholars....but did they copy and paste their work? No.

The NASB and NIB and ESV were translated under the microscope of international biblical scholars, they did not get away with anything.

The NASB is an original translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It is an update of the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, which itself was a revision of the 1885 Revised Version, which updated the King James Version (KJV). The goal of the translation was to incorporate Hebrew and Greek texts discovered since 1901, as well as render a translation in more current English than the ASV and KJV. The main alternative at the time was the Revised Standard Version (1946–1952/1971), but it was considered overly theologically liberal in parts.

The Hebrew text used for this translation was the 3rd edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Biblia Hebraca Stuttgartensia was consulted for the 1995 revision. For the Greek text, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece was used; the 23rd edition in the 1971 original, and the 26th in the 1995 revision.

The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is an eclectic text edited by the German biblical scholar Eberhard Nestle (1851—1913) and further updated by German scholar Kurt Aland (1915—1994). The official title is Novum Testamentum Graece, which is Latin for “New Testament in Greek.” Having been regularly updated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research and published by the German Bible Society, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is currently in its 28th edition. Having been regularly updated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research and published by the German Bible Society, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is currently in its 28th edition. It is often referred to as the NA28.

The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is the Greek text often preferred by Bible scholars and researchers because of the extensive notes and cross references, including reasons a particular reading was chosen over an alternative reading. (This is known as the critical apparatus or the textual apparatus.) The NA28 runs about 1,000 pages.

About the NASB - NASB Online - Literal Word

Learn about the NASB translation of the Bible.

nasb.literalword.com

 

[Grailhunter]

The Bible doctrine of election and predestination to salvation, is confirmed throughout the Bible. It's a done deal, so it's not open for debate and the opinions men don't change the anything.

If one rejects, the doctrine of election to salvation, then he is rejecting Gods Word and making Him a liar. I understand most Christians hate this doctrine, as it leaves them nothing to boast about. Men love to boast about how smart they were to figure out that choosing eternal paradise is wiser than choosing eternal torment in the lake of fire.

These proud Christians take a lot of pride in their wisdom and intelligence and they love to mock those poor devils who chose to spend eternity in the lake of fire. I know it's a very difficult decision for most, because the lake of fire obviously sounds like lots of fun, otherwise they wouldn't choose it right?

You mean if I do not believe God is a monstrous puppet master and we are all robots some of which are damned before birth and babies that die go to hell I am I am rejecting God's word. LOL
Yes predestination is a power of God but it does not define all reality.

 

[Christian Soldier]

You mean if I do not believe God is a monstrous puppet master and we are all robots some of which are damned before birth and babies that die go to hell I am I am rejecting God's word. LOL
Yes predestination is a power of God but it does not define all reality.

I wouldn't let this doctrine trouble you, we weren't told why God does what He does or why He chooses to do things the way He does.

We will never figure it out, because He has hidden these things from us. I very comfortable in the knowledge that God is, perfectly righteous and perfectly just. He rewards and punishes everyone, according to what they deserve. He will never punish anyone unjustly, like some corrupt earthly judge might.

I struggled with the bible doctrine of predestination, and election to salvation, for a few years. Like you, I just couldn't accept it as it made God sound cruel and unfair. But as studied the subject more, I came to understand that I need to accept it for what it is and not try to twist it's meaning to make it palatable to my tase.

It doesn't need to be a bitter doctrine, if we simply trust in the Lord. He did say that His ways are infinitely higher than ours and His ways are past finding out. Yet we reject that and put God on trial and accuse Him of being a Monster.

It comes down to making a choice to accept what God has said, or reject it and make it say something else altogether. My brother died in an accident a few days before he was going to come to Church with me. I did witness to him for a few years before he died, and when he finally told me that he believes in the Lord and he would like to come to church. Then the accident happened and I felt like he was snatched away just before he got the chance to be baptized.

I was inconsolable for months, I asked my pastor if he thought my brother could be in hell. But my pastor said he couldn't say for sure, because he doesn't know if he died I his sin or if he was converted before the accident. I asked him, how ca I expect to be happy in heaven if my brother is in hell. He answered, that we will be given the mind of Christ when we receive our glorified body's in the life to come.
He said, when that happens we will agree with everything God does, because we will see things from His perspective so there will be no sorrow or tears for our loved ones in hell.

I know this sounds unfair, but again God is unfair. Because if He was fair He would cast everyone into hell, because that's what we all deserve. But thank God, He is not fair and He decided to save some for His glory.

 

[BarneyFife]

I have never seen such a wonderful display of uncharitable idolizing of biblical scholars.

At best, good biblical scholarship is an effective means/tool at God's disposal to preserve His Word for the purpose of saving souls for whom Christ died.

But here, the abuse of good men's studious efforts have served to divide those souls into "us-and-them," tribalistic virtual camps...

While angels weep.

 

[Grailhunter]

I wouldn't let this doctrine trouble you, we weren't told why God does what He does or why He chooses to do things the way He does.

We will never figure it out, because He has hidden these things from us. I very comfortable in the knowledge that God is, perfectly righteous and perfectly just. He rewards and punishes everyone, according to what they deserve. He will never punish anyone unjustly, like some corrupt earthly judge might.

I struggled with the bible doctrine of predestination, and election to salvation, for a few years. Like you, I just couldn't accept it as it made God sound cruel and unfair. But as studied the subject more, I came to understand that I need to accept it for what it is and not try to twist it's meaning to make it palatable to my tase.

It doesn't need to be a bitter doctrine, if we simply trust in the Lord. He did say that His ways are infinitely higher than ours and His ways are past finding out. Yet we reject that and put God on trial and accuse Him of being a Monster.

It comes down to making a choice to accept what God has said, or reject it and make it say something else altogether. My brother died in an accident a few days before he was going to come to Church with me. I did witness to him for a few years before he died, and when he finally told me that he believes in the Lord and he would like to come to church. Then the accident happened and I felt like he was snatched away just before he got the chance to be baptized.

I was inconsolable for months, I asked my pastor if he thought my brother could be in hell. But my pastor said he couldn't say for sure, because he doesn't know if he died I his sin or if he was converted before the accident. I asked him, how ca I expect to be happy in heaven if my brother is in hell. He answered, that we will be given the mind of Christ when we receive our glorified body's in the life to come.
He said, when that happens we will agree with everything God does, because we will see things from His perspective so there will be no sorrow or tears for our loved ones in hell.

I know this sounds unfair, but again God is unfair. Because if He was fair He would cast everyone into hell, because that's what we all deserve. But thank God, He is not fair and He decided to save some for His glory.

Run now and don't look back.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What oldest manuscripts are you talking about? If you do not understand what the oldest biblical manuscripts means….we can discuss it.

How many ways can you be wrong…..You look for conspiracies theories and you peddle conspiracies theories. Is this how you formulate your religious beliefs? It is all a smoke screen for the fact that the KJV was translated from inaccurate information and from the perspective of 17th century religious beliefs.

Modern translations, what all did they looked at….who knows….but to say they were based on any old works does not make any sense. As for as Nestle and Aland’s work I am sure they did look at and consider it? Their work is highly regarded by worldwide scholars....but did they copy and paste their work? No.

The NASB and NIB and ESV were translated under the microscope of international biblical scholars, they did not get away with anything.

The NASB is an original translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It is an update of the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, which itself was a revision of the 1885 Revised Version, which updated the King James Version (KJV). The goal of the translation was to incorporate Hebrew and Greek texts discovered since 1901, as well as render a translation in more current English than the ASV and KJV. The main alternative at the time was the Revised Standard Version (1946–1952/1971), but it was considered overly theologically liberal in parts.

The Hebrew text used for this translation was the 3rd edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Biblia Hebraca Stuttgartensia was consulted for the 1995 revision. For the Greek text, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece was used; the 23rd edition in the 1971 original, and the 26th in the 1995 revision.

The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is an eclectic text edited by the German biblical scholar Eberhard Nestle (1851—1913) and further updated by German scholar Kurt Aland (1915—1994). The official title is Novum Testamentum Graece, which is Latin for “New Testament in Greek.” Having been regularly updated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research and published by the German Bible Society, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is currently in its 28th edition. Having been regularly updated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research and published by the German Bible Society, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is currently in its 28th edition. It is often referred to as the NA28.

The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is the Greek text often preferred by Bible scholars and researchers because of the extensive notes and cross references, including reasons a particular reading was chosen over an alternative reading. (This is known as the critical apparatus or the textual apparatus.) The NA28 runs about 1,000 pages.

About the NASB - NASB Online - Literal Word

Learn about the NASB translation of the Bible.

nasb.literalword.com

First, I asked you what are the oldest and best manuscripts, and you dodged the question. Are you not talking about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus? This is generally the two major manuscripts that is defended in Modern Scholarship since Westcott and Hort. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are considered the oldest and best manuscripts by Modern scholars, and yet they have never been scientifically tested to determine their actual age. Are you aware that these are the two Greek manuscripts that underly the Revised Version and every other Modern Bible out there? Yes, Westcott and Hort tried to smash these two manuscripts together and others have tweaked it, but the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are still the main texts that underly most Modern Bibles today. Do you agree with this fact?

Second, as for trying to talk about the various Bible translations and the Nestle Aland:

Many things that you said here is not news to me.

Three, as for the NASB:

While it had some updates and comes from previous translations, it is still primarily based on the Nestle and Aland (Which in turn relies heavily upon the Vatcanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts as its two primary manuscripts).

Four, as for your claim that the Revised Version updated the KJV:

This is a lie. The Revised Version did no such thing. It does not even have the Johannine Comma in it. The true updated KJV editions used by most people in the public today is either the 1769 Blayney or the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900). Are you copying and pasting an article or articles? In addition, George Vance Smith (a Unitarian) worked on the Revised Version and he wrote a book called Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament. In this book, he celebrates about the changes that favor Unitarianism. You can look these things up for yourself. They are facts.

Five, as for the Nestle and Aland:

Are you aware that Carlo Maria Martini (a Catholic cardinal) worked on the Nestle and Aland in the 1970s?
Are you aware that the Revised Version teaches Catholic ideas and that these ideas only grow with later Modern Bibles?
You can check out a list of Catholic ideas taught in the NIV on page 21 here:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

The Nestle and Aland has an error. Are you aware of the solecism in 1 Timothy 3:16? James White even agrees with the “God” reading in 1 Timothy 3:16.

Six, you mention Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica:

Here is what I have from my own write-up.

Rudolf was not a Christian, but he was a German rationalist. Rudolf did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. In the end, he used the Ben Asher Text instead of the Ben Chayyim Text to create his final Hebrew third edition. This Hebrew text is the basis of the Old Testament Modern English bible translations we have today (Note: Kittel’s work is updated later by others, but it was not radically changed - See this article here). Compared to Rudolf’s work vs. the traditional received text that the King James Bible uses, there are thousands of changes in the Old Testament (To learn more about Rudolf, see this article here). Now, Gerard Kittel (the son of Rudolf Kittel) edited a 10-volume standard reference work used in the N.T. Greek word studies entitled "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.”Rudolf was not a Christian, but he was a German rationalist. Rudolf did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. In the end, he used the Ben Asher Text instead of the Ben Chayyim Text to create his final Hebrew third edition. This Hebrew text is the basis of the Old Testament Modern English bible translations we have today (Note: Kittel’s work is updated, but it was not radically changed - See this article here). Compared to Rudolf’s work vs. the traditional received text that the King James Bible uses, there are thousands of changes in the Old Testament (To learn more about Rudolf, see this article here). Now, Gerard Kittel (the son of Rudolf Kittel) edited a 10-volume standard reference work used in the N.T. Greek word studies entitled "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.”

Gerhard Kittel joined the Nazi party in 1933 and, the same year, began working on his 10-volume Greek Word Theological Dictionary until completed in 1944. At this time, he was taking a leadership role in the Nazi organization and became a key contributor to their propaganda journal. He wrote six of the eight volumes before publication was cut short by the end of the war. He was Hitler's hired man. He recommended in his writings that all German Jews be dismissed from their jobs, stripped of their German citizenship, and their property confiscated. Kittel was tried, convicted, and imprisoned for his key part in the extermination of two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. It is amazing that this was hidden from those who were seeking Greek definitions from a 10-volume set of books penned during the time of a Jewish-hating Nazi. Unfortunately, this 10-volume set has appeared in many pastors’ libraries over the years.

Seven, as for the Dead Sea Scrolls:

As I stated before, they have been proven to be fake by the Bible Museum in Washington.

 

[Johann]

I have never seen such a wonderful display of uncharitable idolizing of biblical scholars.

At best, good biblical scholarship is an effective means/tool at God's disposal to preserve His Word for the purpose of saving souls for whom Christ died.

But here, the abuse of good men's studious efforts have served to divide those souls into "us-and-them," tribalistic virtual camps...

While angels weep.

I have never seen such a wonderful display of uncharitable idolizing of biblical scholars.

At best, good biblical scholarship is an effective means/tool at God's disposal to preserve His Word for the purpose of saving souls for whom Christ died.

But here, the abuse of good men's studious efforts have served to divide those souls into "us-and-them," tribalistic virtual camps...

While angels weep.

Open Debate Challenge on My Defending the KJV as the Perfect Word for Today in English--guess @Bible Highlighter is not very popular then @BarneyFife.
What is your recommendation for good scholarship?

 

[Grailhunter]

First, I asked you what are the oldest and best manuscripts, and you dodged the question. Are you not talking about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus? This is generally the two major manuscripts that is defended in Modern Scholarship since Westcott and Hort. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are considered the oldest and best manuscripts by Modern scholars, and yet they have never been scientifically tested to determine their actual age. Are you aware that these are the two Greek manuscripts that underly the Revised Version and every other Modern Bible out there? Yes, Westcott and Hort tried to smash these two manuscripts together and others have tweaked it, but the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are still the main texts that underly most Modern Bibles today. Do you agree with this fact?

Second, as for trying to talk about the various Bible translations and the Nestle Aland:

Many things that you said here is not news to me.

Three, as for the NASB:

While it had some updates and comes from previous translations, it is still primarily based on the Nestle and Aland (Which in turn relies heavily upon the Vatcanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts as its two primary manuscripts).

Four, as for your claim that the Revised Version updated the KJV:

This is a lie. The Revised Version did no such thing. It does not even have the Johannine Comma in it. The true updated KJV editions used by most people in the public today is either the 1769 Blayney or the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900). Are you copying and pasting an article or articles? In addition, George Vance Smith (a Unitarian) worked on the Revised Version and he wrote a book called Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament. In this book, he celebrates about the changes that favor Unitarianism. You can look these things up for yourself. They are facts.

Five, as for the Nestle and Aland:

Are you aware that Carlo Maria Martini (a Catholic cardinal) worked on the Nestle and Aland in the 1970s?
Are you aware that the Revised Version teaches Catholic ideas and that these ideas only grow with later Modern Bibles?
You can check out a list of Catholic ideas taught in the NIV on page 21 here:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

The Nestle and Aland has an error. Are you aware of the solecism in 1 Timothy 3:16? James White even agrees with the “God” reading in 1 Timothy 3:16.

Six, you mention Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica:

Here is what I have from my own write-up.

Rudolf was not a Christian, but he was a German rationalist. Rudolf did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. In the end, he used the Ben Asher Text instead of the Ben Chayyim Text to create his final Hebrew third edition. This Hebrew text is the basis of the Old Testament Modern English bible translations we have today (Note: Kittel’s work is updated later by others, but it was not radically changed - See this article here). Compared to Rudolf’s work vs. the traditional received text that the King James Bible uses, there are thousands of changes in the Old Testament (To learn more about Rudolf, see this article here). Now, Gerard Kittel (the son of Rudolf Kittel) edited a 10-volume standard reference work used in the N.T. Greek word studies entitled "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.”Rudolf was not a Christian, but he was a German rationalist. Rudolf did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. In the end, he used the Ben Asher Text instead of the Ben Chayyim Text to create his final Hebrew third edition. This Hebrew text is the basis of the Old Testament Modern English bible translations we have today (Note: Kittel’s work is updated, but it was not radically changed - See this article here). Compared to Rudolf’s work vs. the traditional received text that the King James Bible uses, there are thousands of changes in the Old Testament (To learn more about Rudolf, see this article here). Now, Gerard Kittel (the son of Rudolf Kittel) edited a 10-volume standard reference work used in the N.T. Greek word studies entitled "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.”

Gerhard Kittel joined the Nazi party in 1933 and, the same year, began working on his 10-volume Greek Word Theological Dictionary until completed in 1944. At this time, he was taking a leadership role in the Nazi organization and became a key contributor to their propaganda journal. He wrote six of the eight volumes before publication was cut short by the end of the war. He was Hitler's hired man. He recommended in his writings that all German Jews be dismissed from their jobs, stripped of their German citizenship, and their property confiscated. Kittel was tried, convicted, and imprisoned for his key part in the extermination of two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. It is amazing that this was hidden from those who were seeking Greek definitions from a 10-volume set of books penned during the time of a Jewish-hating Nazi. Unfortunately, this 10-volume set has appeared in many pastors’ libraries over the years.

Seven, as for the Dead Sea Scrolls:

As I stated before, they have been proven to be fake by the Bible Museum in Washington.

You have and odd style of debating. You say things that are not true to try to get people to believe what you say is true. LOL

I did not dodge the question I said….copy and pasted here---> If you do not understand what the oldest biblical manuscripts means….we can discuss it.

Lets start with this for the discussion….

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia.

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

Dating the Oldest New Testament Christian Manuscripts

 

[RedFan]

The Bible doctrine of election and predestination to salvation, is confirmed throughout the Bible. It's a done deal, so it's not open for debate and the opinions men don't change the anything.

If one rejects, the doctrine of election to salvation, then he is rejecting Gods Word and making Him a liar. I understand most Christians hate this doctrine, as it leaves them nothing to boast about. Men love to boast about how smart they were to figure out that choosing eternal paradise is wiser than choosing eternal torment in the lake of fire.

These proud Christians take a lot of pride in their wisdom and intelligence and they love to mock those poor devils who chose to spend eternity in the lake of fire. I know it's a very difficult decision for most, because the lake of fire obviously sounds like lots of fun, otherwise they wouldn't choose it right?

You're anxious to engage me on this, aren't you? I told you I don't want to get into it with you, preferring to focus on the invalid argument you advanced in support. (If you don't concede that invalidity, I'm happy to discuss that point further.)

But I do have a question. Have you taken a worldwide poll of Christians to find out if "most" who reject predestination do so because "it leaves them nothing to boast about?" Or is this conjecture on your part? Because if you took the poll, you really ought to publish the results.

 

[BarneyFife]

Open Debate Challenge on My Defending the KJV as the Perfect Word for Today in English--guess @Bible Highlighter is not very popular then @BarneyFife.
What is your recommendation for good scholarship?

Brother, the best Bible to read is the one you can get your hands on. In this arena of operation, most people are perishing from starvation—not food tampering. Virtually no one is sinking into perdition over manuscript and translation issues. Most people don't have the capacity or facility to even consider these issues, and before the Almighty Internet (which has proliferated more error and unbelief than was ever before imaginable), even fewer did.

The best scholarship is found in reading the best Bible one can find and leaving the "scholars" to their "ever learning and never (being) able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

:)

 

[BarneyFife]

Open Debate Challenge on My Defending the KJV as the Perfect Word for Today in English--guess @Bible Highlighter is not very popular then @BarneyFife.
What is your recommendation for good scholarship?

Not sure what a forum member's popularity has to do with the discussion?

:)

 

[Johann]

Not sure what a forum member's popularity has to do with the discussion?

:)

I mean him being a staunch defender of the KJV and why it is Imperative to read the KJV only, and no, he is not a KJV Only-ist. Right?
Makes him unpopular and online ad hominem normative.

 

[BarneyFife]

You're anxious to engage me on this, aren't you? I told you I don't want to get into it with you, preferring to focus on the invalid argument you advanced in support. (If you don't concede that invalidity, I'm happy to discuss that point further.)

But I do have a question. Have you taken a worldwide poll of Christians to find out if "most" who reject predestination do so because "it leaves them nothing to boast about?" Or is this conjecture on your part? Because if you took the poll, you really ought to publish the results.

I was a Calvinist for 18 years before even knowing what it meant or was called, if that helps. I didn't even know there was anything to object to with regard to predestination.

Probably millions of folks are walking around today without a thought in their heads about some people being born for God's intentional purpose of tormenting others and finally being tormented in fire for eternity, as a logical conclusion of a theology they take for granted.

:)

.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You have and odd style of debating. You say things that are not true to try to get people to believe what you say is true. LOL

Actually, the debate challenge if you read the OP was supposed to be on YouTube via Nick Sayers channel. The thread is just a discussion, and not a formal debate that selects people on two opposing side with a moderator. There have been formal debates on the KJV topic before on Christian forums before. One was on TheologyOnline. But this is not the setting I was referring to. If you are familiar with debates, open discussion is not how they work.

I did not dodge the question I said….copy and pasted here---> If you do not understand what the oldest biblical manuscripts means….we can discuss it.

I did not give you any indication I did not know. I was asking you to determine your position. Big difference. If you read my post, I told you that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two primary manuscripts used for the New Testament Greek (Although there are other smaller fragment of manuscripts that are used to update certain readings, etcetera). Your not being able to distinguish this in my post to you shows that you are not reading my posts in context correctly. Nowhere did I act like I was totally clueless and I was stumbling over myself for you to help me figure it out. No such thing happened but in your own mind, my friend. I told what Modern scholarship believes and I was asking if you agreed with Modern Scholarship.

Lets start with this for the discussion….

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia.

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

Dating the Oldest New Testament Christian Manuscripts

Again, sending me on a wild goose chase to figure out what YOU believe in regard to Modern Scholarship’s view that they uplift the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus does not really help. You are not reading my posts correctly, and so why would I believe that you are reading their articles correctly? Again, tell it to me straight. Do you believe (I am not asking cause I don’t know the answer in general myself), do you believe that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two primary manuscripts that are used for both the Westcott and Hort text, and all subsequent Modern Translations after that?

 

[BarneyFife]

I mean him being a staunch defender of the KJV and why it is Imperative to read the KJV only, and no, he is not a KJV Only-ist. Right?
Makes him unpopular and online ad hominem normative.

You lost me there, Bro.

But I don't really like talking about forum members to other forum members, anyway. Not that I've never been guilty of that, but I like to try, at least, to avoid it.

:)

 

[Grailhunter]

I did not give you any indication I did not know.

copy and past here from post 369 you said--->First, I asked you what are the oldest and best manuscripts,

 

[Grailhunter]

Again, sending me on a wild goose chase to figure out what YOU believe in regard to Modern Scholarship’s view.

Are you saying that at this point you still do not know what I believe in regard to Modern Scholarship's view.