rossh
Well-known member
well then there is no specific reply/answer is there,, seriously ?I am speaking in general terms. No specific scripture.
well then there is no specific reply/answer is there,, seriously ?I am speaking in general terms. No specific scripture.
Of course there is. Far too many Christians seem afraid of an educated understanding of the Bible. Just as long as your rely on what you say "God is telling you" you are at the mercy of your feelings.well then there is no specific reply/answer is there,, seriously ?
? Listen,, I am the one here preaching Healing and preaching that we must listen to the Word of God - as in His Word - Scriptures only... is there a problem with this or should I listen to someone else ?Of course there is. Far too many Christians seem afraid of an educated understanding of the Bible. Just as long as your rely on what you say "God is telling you" you are at the mercy of your feelings.
I have never relied on what I say, but rather it is the Word of God Himself that only ever trust....Of course there is. Far too many Christians seem afraid of an educated understanding of the Bible. Just as long as your rely on what you say "God is telling you" you are at the mercy of your feelings.
Hey, it is not a one way street here, you say I avoid your question, so do you mine.. God explains His Word to me in His Word, the Bible... Do you not believe that God can do this ? well do you or not ?You are avoiding my question.
Let me ask it in a different way. If someone told you that God told them that one piece of scripture told them one thing. And you believe that God told you the same scripture ment something different. What would you say or do?
and I bet, it is not very specific either is it ? Let me make this back and forth debate end.Of course there is. Far too many Christians seem afraid of an educated understanding of the Bible. Just as long as your rely on what you say "God is telling you" you are at the mercy of your feelings.
Aha...yeah...right!and I bet, it is not very specific either is it ? Let me make this back and forth debate end.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. So there was evening, and there was morning, one day.
There above, no guessing no doubting no debating,,, If anyone doubts the passage above then it is on them, not me.
No, you seem to think that we have be educated in God in order to simply understand exactly what Gods Word is saying.. I believe that God can and will explain to us what He is saying to us if only we ask..
Didn’t Jim Jones, amount others, say the same thing?I have never relied on what I say, but rather it is the Word of God Himself that only ever trust....
Well it is a translation of the Bible (OT in particular) KJVO folk don't accept. KJVO folk don't accept anything but the KJV. The LXX was a "modern translation" of the OT during the time of Jesus and Paul. They both quoted from it.Which has absolutely nothing to do with modern translations.
You do realize the KJV was a modern translation when it was made in 1611 and that other English translations existed before the KJV. And don't forget about the Latin Vulgate which was used since the 500s (late 4th century). Also the absolute best reference crib for the Vulgate in college in Latin class was the KJV. What does that tell you?I believe attacking the KJV to promote modern translations is a red herring. Like I said I started this thread if you don’t like it move along or answer the question. Where is there scriptural support for modern translations ?
Not completely true the KJV was translated from the majority texts not the minority texts. Considering the manu scripts the KJV was not exactly the new kid on the block.You do realize the KJV was a modern translation when it was made in 1611 and that other English translations existed before the KJV. And don't forget about the Latin Vulgate which was used since the 500s (late 4th century). Also the absolute best reference crib for the Vulgate in college in Latin class was the KJV. What does that tell you?
You missed the entire point of the post. Go back and read it again. Slowly this time. See if you can pick out the points and statements. Dispute them if you can. Hint: it wasn't about majority and minority texts.Not completely true the KJV was translated from the majority texts not the minority texts. Considering the manu scripts the KJV was not exactly the new kid on the block.
I got the point you said the KJV at one point was a modern translation and in one sense that is true , but in reality since it was translated from the existing majority texts it wasn’t exactly new.You missed the entire point of the post. Go back and read it again. Slowly this time. See if you can pick out the points and statements. Dispute them if you can. Hint: it wasn't about majority and minority texts.
This works both ways, of course. Since the so-called modern versions are translated from a critical text that factors in readings from a number of ancient manuscripts and papyri fragments, then they're not exactly new either, are they?I got the point you said the KJV at one point was a modern translation and in one sense that is true , but in reality since it was translated from the existing majority texts it wasn’t exactly new.
You still missed the point relative to this discussion, it appears.I got the point you said the KJV at one point was a modern translation and in one sense that is true , but in reality since it was translated from the existing majority texts it wasn’t exactly new.
You do realize the KJV was a modern translation when it was made in 1611 and that other English translations existed before the KJV. And don't forget about the Latin Vulgate which was used since the 500s (late 4th century). Also the absolute best reference crib for the Vulgate in college in Latin class was the KJV. What does that tell you?
The point is the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because of their disagreement, deletions, additions, changes by many scribes over many years, and of course the 2 main manu scripts of the minority texts being in Roman Catholic possession was another red flag.This works both ways, of course. Since the so-called modern versions are translated from a critical text that factors in readings from a number of ancient manuscripts and papyri fragments, then they're not exactly new either, are they?
Kind regards,
Jonathan
And I have numerous times challenged your anachronistic use of "minority texts" in connection with, for example, the early church period and at least once exposed your error on the whereabouts of a key manuscript, which is housed right alongside a key Byzantine text-type manuscript for the gospels. Per usual, you offer nothing new or substantive in the face of critique...The point is the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because of their disagreement, deletions, additions, changes by many scribes over many years, and of course the 2 main manu scripts of the minority texts being in Roman Catholic possession was another red flag.
Nope, you got that backwards ! The minority texts are less than 5% of known texts with, deletions, additions, dropped verses, and fooled with by many scribes over many years not to mention the many disagreements between the minority texts. The minority texts are a product of Gnostics who never believed what they were translating.What Leatherneck disparages as "Minority texts" are actually the majority of texts and versions dating back to no later than the 5th and early 6th century.
The so-called Majority Text is based heavily on later resources, some dating after the Crusades, showing errors and questionable readings copied and recopied.