Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

logos1560

Well-known member
You keep bragging on the abilities of educated men , and I keep bragging on God who has preserved His word as He said He would. See the difference ?
You fail to prove that difference. You do not show that God has endorsed or approved your opinions.

Human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning has not been proven to be bragging on God. KJV-only reasoning involves showing partiality or respect of persons to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars (educated men) in 1611, which contradicts the wisdom from God above that is without partiality (James 3:17).

You have not displayed consistent trust in God to preserve the actual exact original-language words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
I see someone who again is unable or unwilling to defend their position and trying to cloak that apologetic deficit in a robe of hollow piety.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
KJVO decry that we are trusting in "education" to decide for us which should be the Greek texts to be used and which translation to use, and then turn around and :brag on: how scholarly the1611 translators alll were!
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
You fail to prove that difference. You do not show that God has endorsed or approved your opinions.

Human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning has not been proven to be bragging on God. KJV-only reasoning involves showing partiality or respect of persons to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars (educated men) in 1611, which contradicts the wisdom from God above that is without partiality (James 3:17).

You have not displayed consistent trust in God to preserve the actual exact original-language words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.
Kjvo always label tnose into MV and MT as holding to corruption and at times even satanic, and yet is not their trust fully into how Church of England would translate the bible to and for us? Do they agree with all Anglican theology then?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
KJVO decry that we are trusting in "education" to decide for us which should be the Greek texts to be used and which translation to use, and then turn around and :brag on: how scholarly the1611 translators alll were!
Wrong, those who translated the KJV were scholars. It is only about one thing, which MV’s supporters want to ignore, avoid, and deflect from, which are the manu scripts used. W&H’s influence has destroyed confidence in God’s word for many just as the corrupted minority texts have done.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Kjvo always label tnose into MV and MT as holding to corruption and at times even satanic, and yet is not their trust fully into how Church of England would translate the bible to and for us? Do they agree with all Anglican theology then?
Show me any Anglican theology in the KJV. There is Anglican (RCC)theology in MV’s not in the KJV.Being saved(MV’s) is RCC doctrine are saved is what the KJV says.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
I see someone who again is unable or unwilling to defend their position and trying to cloak that apologetic deficit in a robe of hollow piety.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
My goal is not to destroy confidence in God’s word as many have unwittingly fallen into. The minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because they were corrupt , which is a historical fact. Now modern men more devoted to themselves and their prestige have resurrected which was rejected for cause, and brazenly slander anyone who dares display confidence in God’s promises and word. Your loss not mine
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
My goal is not to destroy confidence in God’s word as many have unwittingly fallen into. The minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because they were corrupt , which is a historical fact. Now modern men more devoted to themselves and their prestige have resurrected which was rejected for cause, and brazenly slander anyone who dares display confidence in God’s promises and word. Your loss not mine
Which of the translators on the Nas/esv/Nkjv deny the scriptures, as they all had to agree to verbal plenery inspiration of the originals?
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Then they chose the minority texts that the early church and reformers had rejected.
Thinks he makes valid points here!
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Didn’t Jesus say to be water baptized ? Weren’t all the apostles water baptized ? Bishop simply means pastor.
They did not translate it as should have as immersion, did the transliteration due to their church view on water baptism! We see Bishops and pastors and elders as same, but they did not!
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
The Byzantine texts are found throughout Codex Alexandrianus. Proof that Byzantine texts weren't late fabrications/emendations.

How ironic, the very document that shows the value of the Byzantine texts are very valuable in textual criticism is the very docume has the right approach, as they seem to be accepting some "chamges: that were better supported in the Bzt greek text....nt most all KJVOist reject.

The Byzantine texts are found throughout Codex Alexandrianus. Proof that Byzantine texts weren't late fabrications/emendations.

How ironic, the very document that shows the value of the Byzantine texts are very valuable in textual criticism is the very document most all KJVOist reject.
Think that the current edition of the nestle Aland text is more open now to having some instances where the Bzt seems to have a better rendering allowed to be brough over and in now!
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
They did not translate it as should have as immersion, did the transliteration due to their church view on water baptism! We see Bishops and pastors and elders as same, but they did not!
Enlighten me where do you believe you see sprinkle as opposed to immersion in the KJV ? Book- chapter- and verse ?
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Enlighten me where do you believe you see sprinkle as opposed to immersion in the KJV ? Book- chapter- and verse ?
I see that they should have translated immersion, and think right until ther final edit that was what they were going to do! They got overriden by Church of England board
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
I see that they should have translated immersion, and think right until ther final edit that was what they were going to do! They got overriden by Church of England board
Still not one scripture provided to support that sprinkling as opposed to immersion is in the KJV. FYI,baptism is translated from baptizio which means immersion.
Strong's Greek: 907. βαπτίζω (baptizó) -- to dip, sink
https://biblehub.com/greek/907.htm
εἰς, to mark the element into which the immersion is made: εἰς τόν Ιορδάνην, Mark 1:9. to mark the end: εἰς μετάνοιαν, to bind one to repentance, Matthew 3:11; εἰς τό Ἰωάννου βάπτισμα, to bind to the duties imposed by John's baptism, Acts 19:3 (cf. Winer 's Grammar, 397 (371)); εἰς ...
 
Last edited:

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
I see someone who again is unable or unwilling to defend their position and trying to cloak that apologetic deficit in a robe of hollow piety.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Noted: you have no clue what I said, and or your pride will not allow you to consider that you could possibly be wrong.
 
Top