the irony meter just pegged.
Modern translations/ scriptural support ?
- Thread starter Leatherneck0311
- Start date
Jewjitzu
Well-known member
Rotfl...
Truth7t7
Well-known member
Because they were well aware of the corruptions and lies in the Alexandrian Egyptian Philosophical Schools,the very reason why 1 John 4 was written, as many in the Alexandrian schools denied Jesuus Christ had a fleshly body, but was a spirit being
kiwimac
Member
Laugh as you will but he did.
kiwimac
Member
Hooey.
Truth7t7
Well-known member
En Hakkore
Well-known member
We are clearly in agreement on the bankruptcy of the KJVO position, but I also challenged your post a week or so ago here. We can discuss further on an appropriate forum if you'd like...
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Truth7t7
Well-known member
Kiwi doesn't have time, hes tending the sheep on the other side of the mountain, and rarely gets to town for internet reception
En Hakkore
Well-known member
Do you have the same limited access to the Internet? I've been waiting since Saturday for your acknowledgement that the Essenes did include Leviticus among their sacred texts, as documented here.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Truth7t7
Well-known member
No need to argue the fact, the Essenes didnt sacrifice for sin in the Jerusalem Temple, they were renegades outside of Gods will for sin and atonement
Sorta like a cult group today denying repentance and acceptance of the finished work of Calvary
En Hakkore
Well-known member
I'll take that as a concession to the point I made about Leviticus' place within the Essene sacred library.
Agreed, that is a historically-sound claim.
That's debatable, but best taken up in the other thread with someone who has vested interest in the topic... I'm afraid that isn't me. Have a good night/day.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Jewjitzu
Well-known member
Highly doubtful given the availability of the Hebrew scrolls, Aramaic Targums, and just being seen as a Rabbi, teacher.
The 1611 translators could have very well chosen Immersion, but their Church of England theology precluded that!
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Hello, baptism means immersion, because YOU say so does not make it so.
The same assertion applies just as much to you. Because you say so does not make something true. You fail to prove many of your claims or assertions to be true. You choose to believe some assertions that are not true; therefore, you demonstrate that you deceive yourself.
My point is that the 1611 could have translated it that way, but choose to not due to church of England view on water baptism!
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
The KJV translators translated baptizo into baptize, which means immersion . 100% nonsense the MV’s lean toward RCC doctrine ,and I do not see those influences in the KJV.
Eramus steeped in Church of Rome theologe, Church of Engkand has unscriptural doctrines, guilt by association that you label on Westcott and Hort, dop you agree then with Rome and Anglican churches?
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Yet you have not produced even one thing in the KJV that supports any Roman or Anglican doctrine not even one, and yet most modern versions align with Romes theology.
Nas/Esv/Njkv teach Sacramentalism, Papacy, and water baptism now saves?