Theo1689
Well-known member
Sorry, but feigned indignation is NOT a valid theological argument.
You STILL haven't provided ANY evidence that there are "intentional errors" in the manuscripts.
But there's no way to know if it's a manipulated copy without the original.If I have a copy of a driver's license, we don't need the original to know what is on the D.L.
That's simply not true. Prove to me that if you have enough bad copies you can know what's in the original.We don't have the autographs, but we have MORE than enough copies to know that we can know what was in the original.
That's simply not true.Theo1689 said:
We don't have the autographs, but we have MORE than enough copies to know that we can know what was in the original.
so, I say prove it. and then you reply prove it. LOL.Prove it.
You've made HUNDREDS of bogus claims that you haven't proved.
Try proving at least ONE of them for a change.
so, I say prove it. and then you reply prove it. LOL.
So you’ve basically just taken God, His word, and His power to preserve it, out of the Bible. Well done. Watch out for that cosmic 2x4. It’s a doozy.LOL. Yes. It has. First, it wasn't even compiled until 300 years after the death of the apostles. In that time, most of what the apostles taught was destroyed or declared heretical. You can't tell me that Paul was the principal speaker for all of the apostles. What do we have? Three apostles, not including Paul? All the other apostles were mute? Stephen didn't have anything to say until he died?
Sorry Bonnie, The scriptures were brutalized before we got them and the Jews did some pretty heavy redacting themselves.
We don't have any original manuscripts from the first century, NONE. All we have is copies of copies and I would hope, that they could get the copies correct, but we have evidence of the copies being tampered with both intentionally and unintentionally, or at least we think it was unintentional. Once an error creeps in, the copies are going to have errors. They can be a 100% accurate copy and still be wrong.
I'm telling you, you might not like it, but the story about the Holy Ghost killing a man and his wife while the apostles laid in wait for the wife to see if she'd tell the same lie her husband did, is not true. So sorry, but that is an error that we'll never get corrected without the original manuscripts and that wasn't even told by an apostle. It's a wive's tale. It may have been centered around an actual event, but no one was killed by the Holy Ghost and the apostles weren't laying in wait to see if the wife would tell the same lie her husband did. Also, God never intended for the men of God to be celibate. That would be in direct violation of his first commandment to be fruitful and multiply. That's just the tip of the "copied" errors that still exist and will continue to exist because we have nothing to correct these errors, except common sense. It would be nice if we had, in the church, first apostles and second prophets...
It is the Book of Revelation (singular), not Revelations. FYI. the Textus Receptus which the KJV was translated from results in the kings and priests renderingNo. In Revelations, it states that we will be kings and priests, big difference.
Later translations based upon earlier Greek documents result in the translation being a kingdom of priests, which is far more accurate. Exodus 19:6.No. In Revelations, it states that we will be kings and priests, big difference.
I didn't quote a scripture, I used one word in the scripture.
Nope. I wasn't quoting scripture. You totally missed that one. No need to address it.
Which is why the priesthood was NEVER lost from the earth, since each and every true believer IS a priest to God our Father, with Jesus Christ as our great High Priest, the ONLY on we need the ONLY one after the order of Melchizedek.It is the Book of Revelation (singular), not Revelations. FYI. the Textus Receptus which the KJV was translated from results in the kings and priests rendering
Later translations based upon earlier Greek documents result in the translation being a kingdom of priests, which is far more accurate. Exodus 19:6.
And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."
(Exodus 19:6 NKJV)
Peter reiterates and quotes that verse and refers to the church as well in this:
1 Peter 2:9-10
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
(1 Peter 2: 9-10 NKJV)
I also know you didn't quote scripture. You don't believe biblical scripture so why bother, right?
So, we have that. There is one king and His name is Jesus. We are his servants, members of a royal priesthood, a kingdom of priests meant to serve Him. We are joint heirs. But we are not God. My children are my heirs, but they do not have the authority over my property or anything that is mine except what I may specifically give to them at any given time. Jesus is alive forever more. He has given me new live, His righteousness and the ability to access the throne of grace and ask directly for what I need. Not to demand and faith preachers say but ask with reverential fear. I don't assume I can just waltz in, make a demand and waltz out and that God has to accede to my demands.
We are a kingdom of priests in a royal priesthood. Priests were servants, not rulers. Read your Bible.
Oh, so you admit that the ONLY proof that Acts 5 never happened is "common sense." How is that "proof"? Why is it "dumb"? Because YOU say so? This is typical of some in Mormonism...don't like a story in the Bible? No problem! Just call it "dumb" or "stupid" or that it was added later to the Bible, or that it makes no sense...etc. and etc.Almost nothing you wrong is true.
Prove it. If they were accepted as canon, why don't we have a complete set from that period? We don't. Some of the manuscripts we have don't show up until 300AD
You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts:
The earliest known complete list of the 27 books of the New Testament is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD. The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. (Wikipedia)
What did I say? It's common sense. The story is just dumb. The Holy Ghost isn't going to kill anyone. I said something did happen, I'm sure it did, but what's written didn't happen. That's a clear embellishment to scare children and simple-minded adults. This is, of course, my opinion. You can believe whatever you want, but I don't accept it as an inerrant text.
Hey, OG. Theo, and Maggie...this bit about mistakes in the bible is just a diversionary tactic. I think I will flag those posts to have them moved to another forum.It is the Book of Revelation (singular), not Revelations. FYI. the Textus Receptus which the KJV was translated from results in the kings and priests rendering
Later translations based upon earlier Greek documents result in the translation being a kingdom of priests, which is far more accurate. Exodus 19:6.
And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."
(Exodus 19:6 NKJV)
Peter reiterates and quotes that verse and refers to the church as well in this:
1 Peter 2:9-10
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
(1 Peter 2: 9-10 NKJV)
I also know you didn't quote scripture. You don't believe biblical scripture so why bother, right?
So, we have that. There is one king and His name is Jesus. We are his servants, members of a royal priesthood, a kingdom of priests meant to serve Him. We are joint heirs. But we are not God. My children are my heirs, but they do not have the authority over my property or anything that is mine except what I may specifically give to them at any given time. Jesus is alive forever more. He has given me new live, His righteousness and the ability to access the throne of grace and ask directly for what I need. Not to demand and faith preachers say but ask with reverential fear. I don't assume I can just waltz in, make a demand and waltz out and that God has to accede to my demands.
We are a kingdom of priests in a royal priesthood. Priests were servants, not rulers. Read your Bible.
Hey, OG. Theo, and Maggie...this bit about mistakes in the bible is just a diversionary tactic. I think I will flag those posts to have them moved to another forum.
You made the assertion about the Bible--therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your assertion.so, I say prove it. and then you reply prove it. LOL.
I'm still laughing.You made the assertion about the Bible--therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your assertion.
You made the assertion about the Bible--therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your assertion.
There's no proof that they did happen. It is common sense that they didn't and the story we got in the Bible is an embellishment of actual events.Oh, so you admit that the ONLY proof that Acts 5 never happened is "common sense."
It's common sense. The Holy Ghost isn't going to kill anyone.How is that "proof"? Why is it "dumb"? Because YOU say so?
There's no proof that they did happen. It is common sense that they didn't and the story we got in the Bible is an embellishment of actual events.
Jesus is not a man and "a" god--but man and THE God. Please discern the difference.Umm, Yea. "that" is your error.
Isn't Jesus a "man god"? Was he not a man and is a god?
The idea that we may become one is taught in the scriptures. It is what a "joint-heir" is. That's what it means to sit on the throne with Him. What else would John mean when he says we will be "like him"?
So sorry, but the Bible does teach that we "may become one". It appears that you disbelieve the biblical scriptures and try to rationalize them to fit your theology. That is your error.
I sure hope it is.It is "common sense" that no one can rise from the dead, in a glorified body, before Jesus' second coming.
So where are the apostles "in the church"? I know where they are and I know where the church is. It appears that you don't,Which is why the priesthood was NEVER lost from the earth