Quoting scripture is not the same thing as thinking that there is a talking book.
This is the kind of thing that makes it clear KJVOnlyism is a delusion.
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
This is the kind of thing that makes it clear KJVOnlyism is a delusion.
Of course, I did not say impossible.
You had to pretend I said something I did not to try to make your case. You failed.
Then why can’t you answer simple questions, such as whether the centurion came to see Jesus and talked to Him or not? Or whether Joseph was a descendant of Nathan or Nathan’s brother Solomon?
If you had a perfect book, you could answer those. But you ignore the questions and name call instead.
‘Admitted?’
Again, dishonest.
I rarely find an example of the delusion of KJVONLYISM as clear as in this thread:
1) false statements
2) shameful name calling
3) no attempt at all to address facts.
It is a delusion with special needs. Hopefully the stronger among the KJVONLYISM group will see where this error leads and turn back to truth!
1) false statements
2) shameful name calling
3) no attempt at all to address facts.
It is a delusion with special needs. Hopefully the stronger among the KJVONLYISM group will see where this error leads and turn back to truth!
Nope, Heli is the father of Mary and Joseph's father in law.
Luke lists the bloodline of Mary through David's son Nathan. If her lineage had been through Solomon, then the Lord Jesus would be ineligible for the throne of David because of the curse on the descendants of Jeconiah from Solomon's lineage.
Joseph is a descendant of Solomon through Jeconiah and the curse which GOD placed on that lineage eliminates Joseph's son from inheriting the throne of David.
GOD bypassed the curse through the virgin conception and the step-father status of Joseph.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
I prefer to read the psalm without having to remove this verse, as you're forced to do with your chosen translations.
Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Peter is saying the exact same thing as the psalmist does. Men and all their words will wither away, but the word of God endures forever. Man's words are corruptible, but God's are incorruptible. God's words are LIVING and abideth forever.
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
The psalmist is referring to the enduring word as a sword. There is a reason for that. It was true for David, it was true for Daniel, it was true for Job....it's the word of God that is preserved forever from generation to generation.
Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Luke clearly says this is the genealogy of Joseph:
Luke 3 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, 24 son of Matthat...son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, 32 son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz,
So you are denying what the Bible actually says and rewording it to say:
Luke 3 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Mary, daughter of Heli, 24 son of Matthat...son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, 32 son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz,
You erased Joseph and wrote Mary. You erased son and wrote daughter.
You should also erase “(as was thought).”
It is easy to eliminate errors by rewriting the text! But is that really what you want to do?
Zenn
New member
Do you consider the Catholic Bishops to be credible witnesses? And what "credible witness" told you that the 27 books as currently found in the New Testament is to comprise "scripture" and is the word of God? (I merely ask.)
If I may rephrase the question, then, can you name the person who selected these 27 books and declared them to be New Testament scripture?
Exactly, but 'Biblical Authority,' as you present it, is a concept that came into existence only ~500 years ago with Martin Luther. This "biblical authority" was invented to fill the void left by the rejection of "Papal authority". But throughout most of Christian history, even back to the Council of Nicaea, there was no such thing as "Biblical Authority". For most of the 2000 some odd years of Christianity "sola scriptura" did not even exist as a fundamental doctrine.
Now Jesus did speak of Scriptural Authority, but he certainly didn't include the New Testament (as it hadn't even been written yet). He also never listed what specific Jewish writings He considered to be "scripture". And so we are left only with scriptures he actually quoted, or a collection of writings that would have been generally accepted as indicative of "scripture" when He used the word. (Otherwise you're just pulling a definition out of thin air.)
And again, this begs the question who selected these 27 books and declared them to be, well, "biblical"? I'm sure you know the Catholic Church selected these 27 books and rejected others (such as 3rd Corinthians). So why do you place credence in the selection authority of Catholic Bishops but yet reject their teaching with regards to salvation, as if God would rather preserve a book than save souls?
Satan just loves that idea, john w. He loves to preach that the Bible has authority to rule over you. Because then such authority that is actually the sovereign domain of the Holy Spirit alone is nullified.
Exactly. Because what the Catholic church claims to be "the Holy Bible" (at least with regards to the New Testament texts) is most certainly not the word of God.
Zenn
Zenn
New member
And yet the KJV translators did not have an "infallible source authority" when they created their translation. History actually proves the opposite. Much better "source authorities" were discovered after this translation was published by the Church of England.
So I can see why you need to believe in "inspired translators" (and yet these very same people claimed otherwise).
This is what happens when people put their faith in books, rather than the God who desires to speak directly to all men.
It's a psychosis that says, the book must be infallible or Truth becomes impossible.
And yet, without ANY New Testament books, none whatsoever, about three thousand souls heard the Truth of Jesus and were saved.
You: People can only be saved by the Bible.
The Bible: 3,000 people were saved without a New Testament.
(So which should be believed?)
Zenn
In that culture father-in-laws were considered fathers when the children were married and son-in-laws were considered sons.
Matthew and Luke weren't stupid when they wrote their accounts.
Been watching the authoritative History Channel?
jsanford108
New member
That is actually from actual history. Scholars, from classical, Jewish, Christian, and secular backgrounds all agree. Zen is simply referencing reality.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Zenn
New member
Been watching the "Avoids truth by mouthing off sardonic quips" channel?
Zenn
PS: My apologies, I don't find ironic dismissals to be useful. Nor do I find a willful ignorance of history to be wise.
That is easy to say. Would you like to provide proof?
Your claim is contrary to the rest of scripture, as father-in-law is used 49 times in the Bible, such as John 18:
First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.
After you provide that proof, you can explain why the gospel attributed to Matthew says there were 14 generations from David to the deportation, while 1 Chronicles lists 18.
Zenn
New member
Well, one tries one's best.
Schöne Grüße,
Zenn
PS: And while it rather doesn't bother me, Zenn is with 2 n's. I merely point this out only because someone is bound to go zonkers over the word 'Zen' and post more useless air that I would rather not waste time reading.
Zenn
New member
I was wondering about that myself. While on the surface it sounds all academic and professorial and stuff, I've never encountered this assertion.
So count me curious as to its bone fides, and I guess I should go on record as requesting a citation.
Zenn
Steko, maybe this will help you:
The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 3995 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
penqeroß of uncertain affinity
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pentheros None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pen-ther-os' Noun Masculine
Definition
father-in-law, a wife's father
NAS Word Usage - Total: 1
father-in-law 1
No, Luke does not say father-in-law.
In the Bible, the term father-in-law is used for father-in-laws.
That is not what it says in Luke.
So, you have rewritten the text to try to eliminate an error.
The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 3995 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
penqeroß of uncertain affinity
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pentheros None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pen-ther-os' Noun Masculine
Definition
father-in-law, a wife's father
NAS Word Usage - Total: 1
father-in-law 1
No, Luke does not say father-in-law.
In the Bible, the term father-in-law is used for father-in-laws.
That is not what it says in Luke.
So, you have rewritten the text to try to eliminate an error.
jsanford108
New member
It was autocorrected by my phone. My apologies. I noted it, as well, the moment it posted.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Zenn
New member
Even Jesus recognized a difference.
(Luk 12:53 KJV) The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
But then again He was only quoting Micah.
Zenn
glorydaz
Well-known member
It's just exactly what I told you, but you won't listen. You never have and you never will.
Zenn
New member
(Dang those computers)
.
Absolutely no apologies necessary, though. I'm just overly concerned for those who would come unglued over this. (Some already have....)
Zenn