First off, I'm not a Catholic.
However, you do know it was the Catholics (Vatican) who were responsible for the development of the New Testament canon?
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
First off, I'm not a Catholic.
However, you do know it was the Catholics (Vatican) who were responsible for the development of the New Testament canon?
heir
TOL Subscriber
I do 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV and I've no need to study counterfeits when I believe I have the authentic "all scripture".
Thanks for the Bullengerite comment, but I'm a Bible believing 9er not a 28er!
How about a Darby comment next to really show your love :kiss:
heir
TOL Subscriber
He was addressing someone else. What's the difference between you and a Catholic?
If you would study, you would see it was the same gospel to different people.
Because your KJVO has confused you so much, maybe the International Children's Version can help you.
(Gal 2:7 ICV) But these leaders saw that God had given me special work, just as he had to Peter. God gave Peter the work of telling the Good News to the Jews. But God gave me the work of telling the Good News to the non-Jewish people.
You somehow think all the people responsible for all the other Bible versions were working in cahoots against your Hyper-Dispensationalism.
Will thinks somehow the Vatican is behind all the other bible versions.
Difference #1 - I don't pray to Mary.
There are too many more to list.
What's the difference between you and a Catholic?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Tet: "The KJV is without error."
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
We certainly don't spend a lot of time on websites like wikipedia, but how can you make such a claim?
heir
TOL Subscriber
Many things!
The gospel Paul preached and by which I'm saved (presently and eternally 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) is not preached by Catholics as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Romans 1:16 KJV today of course it's to all men without distinction 1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV, Titus 2:11 KJV).
I do not believe Peter is the first in the Body, but Paul 1 Timothy 1:16 KJV nor do I believe the church Peter is in is the same as the one Paul is in.
I don't follow Peter, but Paul (1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV)
I don't wrongly apply Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that which is preached by Peter in Acts or Hebrews through Revelation TO us. It's all for us, but not TO us.
brandplucked
New member
Will Bob Enyart or Will Duffy tell us the truth?
Will Bob Enyart or Will Duffy tell us the truth?
Hi Bob and Will D. Sirs, when will you tell us the truth about what you really believe?
Throughout this debate I have been consistent in telling you what I believe. You do not have to agree with me about what I believe, and you obviously do not. But I have been truthful about what I believe.
You have basically two main points you bring against the King James Bible as being the inerrant words of God. The printing errors, which you claim were deliberate changes to the text and the alleged use of the so called Greek Septuagint.
I have stated what I honestly believe about these things. The underlying Hebrew and Greek text that forms the textual basis of the King James Bible has NEVER changed one word in over 400 years.
There have been minor printing errors, and this was due to the way in which printing was done. But we can always check either the underlying Hebrew or Greek texts used to make up the KJB or past English versions to see what is the right wording and correct it.
As one KJB pastor has well said: "Some folks need to learn the difference between the work of the translators and the work of the printers. KJV only opponents see the mistakes of the printers and blame them on the translators. God's promise of preservation does not mean that everyone's attempt to copy, translate or print the Bible will be inerrant."
You claim that Jesus and the apostles used the so called Greek Septuagint. There is no such thing as "the" Septuagint, but there are many different Greek translations done by various individuals, and they all differ from each other. Other Bible commentators like John Owen, John Gill, and even Jerome have questioned the use of the alleged LXX.
Your present day LXX is nothing more than what we find in the Vatican, Sinaitic and Alexandrian mss. All of which were written long after that N.T. was already completed. They often took the readings of the N.T. and placed them in their "LXX" copies.
I gave lots of evidence for this, but you either dismiss it or ignore it.
NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm
But at least I am telling you the truth about what I really believe.
Throughout this debate, you have not been truthful. Neither one of you. When you finally get cornered into actually identifying what you SAY you believe is the inerrant and infallible words of God, Bob Enyart says he does not believe 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture, even though it is found in his own NKJV.
Bob Enyart came out with what is probably one of the most bizarre answers I have ever seen when he finally gets around to identifying his "infallible Bible" and Standard of written truth. He tells us it is the Hungarian Karoli bible, which not even he himself can read!
Yet this Hungarian Karoli Bible contains 1 John 5:7 just as the King James Bible does.
So, Bob, which is the truth? You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you tell us that 1 John 5:7 is NOT original scripture and not inspired, and on the other hand you tell us that the Hungarian bible IS inspired and inerrant, and yet is contains 1 John 5:7
Will Duffy finally identifies his NKJV as being his infallible Bible and Standard of truth. But when I ask him if he believes 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture or not, he DODGES the question and refuses to tell us.
I don't believe for a second that Will Duffy REALLY believes the NKJV is the complete and inerrant words of God. IF he did, then to be consistent, he would have to say that the NKJV is the first bible in all of history that was the inerrant words of God because ALL other bibles in all languages differ both textually and in meaning from what we find in the NKJV.
So when are either of you gentlemen going to tell us the truth about what you REALLY believe?
This is the problem the bible agnostic runs into when he finally gets around to IDENTIFYING what this complete and inerrant words of God Bible IS that they apparently want other people to think they believe in.
Why not just be HONEST about it, and admit that you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, and be done with it?
I agree that the gospel of salvation is found in ANY bible, no matter how corrupt it may be both textually and in translation in other areas, and that God can and does use any of them to bring people to faith in Christ as their Saviour. I have always stated that.
Even though we disagree about many things (printing errors and the so called LXX), I have been honest and consistent about what I really believe.
I do not believe that either Bob Enyart or Will Duffy have been truthful and honest or consistent in what they REALLY believe is the true words of God.
So here is the simple question. Is 1 John 5:7 inspired Scripture that belongs in the true words of God Bible or not? Yes or No?
1 John 5:7-8 KJB - "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
1 John 5:7-8 - ESV, NIV, NASB - "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree."
http://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm
God bless.
Will Bob Enyart or Will Duffy tell us the truth?
Hi Bob and Will D. Sirs, when will you tell us the truth about what you really believe?
Throughout this debate I have been consistent in telling you what I believe. You do not have to agree with me about what I believe, and you obviously do not. But I have been truthful about what I believe.
You have basically two main points you bring against the King James Bible as being the inerrant words of God. The printing errors, which you claim were deliberate changes to the text and the alleged use of the so called Greek Septuagint.
I have stated what I honestly believe about these things. The underlying Hebrew and Greek text that forms the textual basis of the King James Bible has NEVER changed one word in over 400 years.
There have been minor printing errors, and this was due to the way in which printing was done. But we can always check either the underlying Hebrew or Greek texts used to make up the KJB or past English versions to see what is the right wording and correct it.
As one KJB pastor has well said: "Some folks need to learn the difference between the work of the translators and the work of the printers. KJV only opponents see the mistakes of the printers and blame them on the translators. God's promise of preservation does not mean that everyone's attempt to copy, translate or print the Bible will be inerrant."
You claim that Jesus and the apostles used the so called Greek Septuagint. There is no such thing as "the" Septuagint, but there are many different Greek translations done by various individuals, and they all differ from each other. Other Bible commentators like John Owen, John Gill, and even Jerome have questioned the use of the alleged LXX.
Your present day LXX is nothing more than what we find in the Vatican, Sinaitic and Alexandrian mss. All of which were written long after that N.T. was already completed. They often took the readings of the N.T. and placed them in their "LXX" copies.
I gave lots of evidence for this, but you either dismiss it or ignore it.
NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm
But at least I am telling you the truth about what I really believe.
Throughout this debate, you have not been truthful. Neither one of you. When you finally get cornered into actually identifying what you SAY you believe is the inerrant and infallible words of God, Bob Enyart says he does not believe 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture, even though it is found in his own NKJV.
Bob Enyart came out with what is probably one of the most bizarre answers I have ever seen when he finally gets around to identifying his "infallible Bible" and Standard of written truth. He tells us it is the Hungarian Karoli bible, which not even he himself can read!
Yet this Hungarian Karoli Bible contains 1 John 5:7 just as the King James Bible does.
So, Bob, which is the truth? You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you tell us that 1 John 5:7 is NOT original scripture and not inspired, and on the other hand you tell us that the Hungarian bible IS inspired and inerrant, and yet is contains 1 John 5:7
Will Duffy finally identifies his NKJV as being his infallible Bible and Standard of truth. But when I ask him if he believes 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture or not, he DODGES the question and refuses to tell us.
I don't believe for a second that Will Duffy REALLY believes the NKJV is the complete and inerrant words of God. IF he did, then to be consistent, he would have to say that the NKJV is the first bible in all of history that was the inerrant words of God because ALL other bibles in all languages differ both textually and in meaning from what we find in the NKJV.
So when are either of you gentlemen going to tell us the truth about what you REALLY believe?
This is the problem the bible agnostic runs into when he finally gets around to IDENTIFYING what this complete and inerrant words of God Bible IS that they apparently want other people to think they believe in.
Why not just be HONEST about it, and admit that you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, and be done with it?
I agree that the gospel of salvation is found in ANY bible, no matter how corrupt it may be both textually and in translation in other areas, and that God can and does use any of them to bring people to faith in Christ as their Saviour. I have always stated that.
Even though we disagree about many things (printing errors and the so called LXX), I have been honest and consistent about what I really believe.
I do not believe that either Bob Enyart or Will Duffy have been truthful and honest or consistent in what they REALLY believe is the true words of God.
So here is the simple question. Is 1 John 5:7 inspired Scripture that belongs in the true words of God Bible or not? Yes or No?
1 John 5:7-8 KJB - "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
1 John 5:7-8 - ESV, NIV, NASB - "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree."
http://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm
God bless.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I would say that God is not reduced to hundreds of translations contradicting one another...
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, I agree.
I am a brief, bottom line kinda guy.
I would like for them to bottom line this for us.
heir
TOL Subscriber
I study every day and see two in that one verse and many in the Bible as I 1 Corinthians 2:13 KJV.
The we's and the ye's have certainly helped me see and helped me to make all men see what is the fellowhship of the mystery! I can't do that with many versions.
Look at where being a bible user has gotten you. :nono: Paul was committed the gospel OF the uncircumcision. He also went to the Jew first and also to the Greek after the hand shake.
2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
The faith of Jesus Christ, the blood and that which was committed and given to Paul by revelation(s) of Jesus Christ are muddied and in some cases MIA in the (per)versions. And why you don't believe there is a power at work today that is contrary to God, I don't know . There's no denying these are behind pulpits all over the world (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV).
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Number 1 answer!
heir
TOL Subscriber
:up: That would be refreshing!
GuySmiley
Well-known member
This is off topic. The question is if the KJV is inerrant. You are proving its the best version. But as long as you admit to errors, even if they are qualified with words like "minor" or "printing" they are still errors.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Amen!
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Jesus must have known this would happen
so
why didn't He leave someone to settle all the differences?
so
why didn't He leave someone to settle all the differences?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why was God able to keep "sacred tradition" without error, but could not do the same with "sacred scripture"?
He will never answer.
Convenient for his church.
heir
TOL Subscriber
I'm aware of the question, but it's not a question for me Psalms 12:6 KJV, Proverbs 30:5 KJV, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV and should not be for a believer.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
So can I hold an inerrant version of the Bible in my hand or not? Can I trust every word in a KJV Bible? Now you are saying that to be sure we have to check the underlying Hebrew and Greek. We can do that with any version. This is insane, you've said all along I can hold a physical copy of an inerrant Bible in my hand, all while also saying there are errors.