[Will Kinney]

Hi brother. Well, it is what I love to do and I thank God for it and for His precious words. I wrote a lot of that before but it came up again at a Bible club I belong to and I did some more studying on it and on Psalm 2. God's true Bible is so wonderful and always true. The bogus bibles always fall way short of the whole truth.

May God be pleased to open more eyes and to confirm the faith of those who already see.

Will K

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

The bogus bibles always fall way short of the whole truth.

Will K

Indeed they do brother, the last thing the world needs is another
BOGUS Bible... wait, I had an image for that, ahhh here it is...

[Will Kinney]

I love it! That is a great poster.

Kewl!

Will K

[greenbear]

Will, this was a great study. I was not aware of the changes in Acts 13:33. It's sad that many Christians will not be convinced to throw away their NIV when confronted by this just this one attack on the diety of Christ and it would seem? the doctrine of the trinity.

God bless,

Jen

[Will Kinney]

Thank you sister. Yes, I am afraid you are right. Truth can be presented that the King James Bible is the onlt 100% true Holy Bible and all others are poor pretenders at best, but more and more people today don't care much for Truth.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine...and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3-4

God bless,

Will K

[Will Kinney]

Brother Parrish. I have had a couple people ask me where they can get a link or a copy of that great poster you showed us. A brother I know wants to put it up on his site. Can you tell us how to make a link to that poster about Another New Bible? Or did you make it up yourself? It is really a great poster. Thanks so much for showing it to us.

Will K

[PaulB]

Thanks for another very helpful article Will. If the Lord tarries there may no count of the people you may be equipping in the future. I also think that it is good that people like Bro Parish & Greenbear are giving you their feedback because this just goes to show that your labours are not in vain.

This is a classic example of the lie of “updated English” where they argue that there are no doctrinal differences. I raised this point to an NIV preacher the other week (who was offering to teach NT Greek to anyone who was willing) to illustrate that the NIV both distorts Christ persons and clear prophetic references that point to Him. I didn’t get a response to the issue I raised, all I got was a classic “escape hatch” comment of “oh, I just want to go and speak to those people over there”.

I have also lent a 3 part DVD set to a family that clearly point out many of these issues in the hope that they will realise how faulty the foundations are on which they are standing.
I don’t know whether you checked out the link that I posted yesterday onto a previous article that you placed on the forum, but things like these examples just show how serious these issues are. Not only that, but boiling points such as these do tend to bring the question of motives behind translations to the surface don’t they?

How quick the seminarians are to proudly undress the KJB by the authority of vile translations such as these by correcting the “so called errors” that modern day scholarship has ironed out. But they are not so eager when it comes down to doing the reverse and rightly correcting the errors of modern scholarship with the KJB.

Daniel Wallace’s comments are pathetic when he claims that the word begotten is misleading just because it is no longer a part of our common day speech. Would he come to the same conclusions over other words found in Scripture that even the seminarians use such as:
Hades, demons, holy, gospel, procurator, Pharisee, scribe, satraps, Ark, pugnacious (NASV), tongues, sons of God, as all of these are words that are hardly ever heard voiced in the 21st century?

For one the word “begotten” stops me racing ahead and makes me think, as the word fathered can apply to someone who never had anything to do with the child, or it could apply to a child that is not my own. But I see begotten as a means of stating “the bringing forth of” (in the sense of coming out of) but “fathered” to me, is like the way in which the word “with child” has been substituted with “pregnant” in most modern versions.

God bless Will

PaulB

[PaulB]

Please forgive the typing errors (eg, Christ persons) as these are't intended to be subtle heresies!

[Luke]

Will, forgive me if I am wrong. I noticed fssl on fff said something about eternally begotten or something.

Do you believe that "this day" refers to a specific day in time, or some eternal decree?

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Luke

Will, forgive me if I am wrong. I noticed fssl on fff said something about eternally begotten or something.

Do you believe that "this day" refers to a specific day in time, or some eternal decree?

Hi Luke. This is a good question. Like I said earlier, I do not believe the eternal Sonship is a "deal breaker" as long as one believes that the Lord Jesus Christ is JEHOVAH God. He is the God-man, with two natures. His deity took on humanity at the incarnation.

I think the Baptist commentator John Gill explained the various uses of the phrases "begotten" and "only begotten Son" quite well. However when it comes to the specific phrase used when God says: "This DAY have I begotten thee" I think this refers specifically to the very real DAY when God gave the Son's dead body life again at the resurrection as recorded in Acts 13:33, and as most Christians used to understand Psalms 2:7.

Christ then became "the first begotten from the dead" Rev. 1:5 and "the firstborn from the dead" Colossians 1:18.

This has been the long held traditional view. It is not some new kind of doctrine. However there are some who disagree with the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of the second Person of the Trinity; yet I believe they are Christians too.

I hope that answers your question. If not, then please clarify.

Thanks,

Will K