Doctrine Discussion about matters of the faith.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-05-2009, 06:15 PM
DevonR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[QUOTE=George;15216]DevonR
Quote:
DevonR,

Your quote:
Well... I suppose he didn't call Erasmus AN anabaptist, but it's still cutting the pizza pretty close.”

I SUPPOSE”??? I produced enough evidence from David Sorenson’s statements to totally refute your assertion concerning: “A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist”, and all you can do is to grudgingly admit – “I suppose”? Why not own up (like a man) and admit you were WRONG? Hmmm?

Not only that, but right after your weak admission you come right back with another un-called for and unfounded attack and personal “smear” against Desiderius Ersamus – I don't think Erasmus was a bible-believing Christian - but if God can use a talking donkey, I'm sure he can use Erasmus. I don’t know what your “problem” is with Erasmus, but I do know that unless you can PROVE what you “THINK” - you shouldn’t be judging a man whom you have already have proven (by your prior allegations) that you obviously don’t know that much about!

WHY make the statement: I don't think Erasmus was a bible-believing Christian”? Only God can judge people’s hearts [1 Kings 8:39; 2 Chronicles 6:30; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalms 44:21], so what are you doing judging another man’s heart who lived 450 years ago? [Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.] WHY “judge” him at all, since you have already demonstrated that you really don’t know that much about him? Don’t you remember the Lord’s COMMAND?

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

John 7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

And WHYsmear” a man who hazarded his life (on more than one occasion) in order to bring the word of God to the common man? if God can use a talking donkey, I'm sure he can use Erasmus. Comparing Erasmus to a “JACKASS” is not a very honorable way to treat a man whom God used – regardless of his “shortcomings” {which, by the way – We ALL Have!}

Have you forgotten that God has used “murderers” - Moses & David; “adulterers” - Judah & David; “harlots” - Rahab & Tamar; “persecutors” - Saul, i.e. Paul, “doubters” - Thomas; “disobedient” – Peter; and literally thousands more of His people (ALL of whom have been imperfect and sinful) and yet God has seen fit to use these imperfect and sinful men to fulfill His will. So the question arises - WHY are you going out of your way to castigate and vilify a man, whom God has obviously used (regardless of his obvious “shortcomings”)?

By your comments on this Forum, it’s obvious that you don’t appreciate people maligning King James (to which, I am in complete agreement with you), then WHY do you persist in maligning Desiderius Erasmus? God obviously used both of these men to fulfill His will (regardless of their “shortcomings”)

You said:
Sorenson should write an article about how King James didn't like all of those denominations, rather than justify Erasmus.

WHAT do you care about “What” David Sorenson writes? WHAT concern is it of yours? God has given brother Sorenson the Liberty to follow His lead according to His word as the Holy Spirit guides him, without someone (like you) coming along and falsely criticizing what he has said, and then demanding that he write about something that you are concerned about. If you have that much concern, then you ought to write a book, or a booklet or pamphlet on the subject - but, since you have no power or authority to exercise ‘dominion” over brother Sorenson, you should seek out God’s will for your own life and not worry about WHAT another brother in Christ is doing!

Again you stated:
I believe people should focus on how King James carefully administered the KJV to FIT correct doctrines, if the textus receptus said anything "bad," it surely would have been corrected. I don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this), but, King James wanted to give the gospel to the English speaking people [IMG]file:///G:/DOCUME%7E1/GEORGE%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]- indeed a wonderful gift from King James... which makes me wonder why people who don't agree with King James' very good theology (especially for just coming out of catholicism) use his Bible...

If that is what you believe, then “focus” on it. In the meantime I am going to focus on the Holy words of God (not a man), and not worry or concern myself with the man, whom the Bible Publisher’s named the Holy Bible after - more than 300 years after it was ONLY known as just – THE HOLY BIBLE!

The fact that you don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this), means absolutely nothing to most of us on this Forum (Join “The Skeptics Club”). Most modern day Christians are in complete agreement with you – so you have plenty of company. Of course, since most modern day Christians have no idea WHERE the word of God is (or WHAT it is), and since they have NO “FINAL AUTHORITY” in all matters of faith and practice, it makes it quite easy for us to dismiss whatever they personally believe - since WHATEVER they believe is determined by their personal opinions, suppositions, speculations, or feelings.

You have voluntarily joined the AV1611 Bible Forums - Guess what? We love and cherish God’s Holy words – found in the Perfect and Holy King James Bible. If you disagree with us, well fine – it’s still a free country (for a little while longer). But if, shortly after coming here, you falsely accuse, malign, and smear a man whom God used in the preservation of His Holy word – well, don’t be surprised if some of us are going to contend with you and take you to task, both for your misstatements and your critical attitude.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Firstly, Paul and all of the bible believers changed their ways and walked in the statures of the Lord (they were saved by faith), Erasmus was a confused Catholic that never professed being reborn and most likely died in his works salvation. Am I judging Erasmus really? I am basing an idea the best I can. Only God truly knows if he's saved or not - I never said I truly knew (but him being a Catholic, the CHANCES are low):
Quote:
2 Corinthians 12:2-3 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
And you misunderstood me with the donkey jest, we're ALL donkeys my friend.

Secondly, the King James DOES have errors,
http://christkeep.com/articles/patching_kingjames.html
I outlined many of them there if it pleases you to read them. Of course, I don't expect many people to understand it off the bat.
On the positive side, I wrote an article defending why the King James uses mythical creatures, I believe people are unjustly attacking it:
http://christkeep.com/articles/kjv_m...explained.html
(that famous "dan corner" who uses the NIV was making poor claims attacking the KJV, almost pathetic)

And no, "modernist christians" do not agree with me (you'll have to try better than that), I got all of my doctrines correct (pre-trib rapture, eternal security, saved by faith etc), BUT, soon as I say "the King James is the BEST translation but not perfect," the hyper-King James brigade snaps at me and try refer to books that the JESUIT Texe Marrs praises (figure out why). The original God-breathed scriptures (that King James himself read) are perfect. The KJV was originally a "crutch," that's why it is so easy to see the original Hebrew/Greek words - it was MADE like that for a reason... Furthermore, the preface on the KJV 1611 states that it isn't perfect and there may be errors. Lazy people who don't want to study the original texts force themselves into a shell that become reliant ONLY on the KJV, if you ask any KJV-Onlyist, they will have nowhere else to go, thus, kind of HAVE to say it's perfect, if you get what I mean.

You CANNOT TRANSLATE ANYTHING PERFECTLY. English was NOT a language God created (that removes any notion of divine intervention of the translating - and the present errors make it more obvious), God however did create Hebrew and Greek at the tower of Babel if I'm not mistaken, Greek is very similar to phoenician - so those langauges (and during the time of apostleship) would have had some "divine inspiration."
The KJV translators were simply extremely educated and guided by a King who walked in the ways of the Lord.

I would like to get something correct here, I do NOT advocate any new translation, they are garbage (thus empty threats of calling me a modernist are eliminated, otherwise I'd be first to pull out an NIV), you're not going to beat Edward de Vere, King James, and all of those great translators; plus, they weren't planning to butcher the Bible.

If I said the King James Bible was perfect, I'd be lazy, and would be following a "modernist" doctrine on the contrary - because in King James' day, no one said his translation was perfect, this is a recent belief.

I encourage anyone to read the 1611 preface; it is very good - pity it is removed, now THAT'S what I call modernist "editing."
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #12  
Old 02-05-2009, 09:09 PM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

*sigh* We got another Mark 16:9-20 butcher; among other things. You can say what you want, but you are none other than a Bible corrector. I don't imagine you'll be enjoying your stay here on av1611.com.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen
  #13  
Old 02-06-2009, 12:09 AM
Bro. Parrish
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh brother, the puppet strings are showing...
He's only made 4 posts, and half of them claim the KJV has errors.

The King James Bible is inerrant.
The only "errors" are the ones you are spreading about God's Word.
I realize you are trying to defend the Bible on one hand, and that's a good thing, but unfortunately your other hand is holding a lump which contains some serious leaven, and it won't fly on this forum.
I would advise you to choose your next words carefully, or you will not last here.

Last edited by Bro. Parrish; 02-06-2009 at 12:25 AM.
  #14  
Old 02-06-2009, 10:20 AM
MC1171611's Avatar
MC1171611 MC1171611 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Western Ohio
Posts: 436
Default

Tsk tsk tsk....oh well.

Why is it that people can apparently have so much faith in so many things....but when it comes to the Bible:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevonR
You CANNOT TRANSLATE ANYTHING PERFECTLY.
Reminds me of another questioner...

Quote:
Yea, hath God said...?
  #15  
Old 02-06-2009, 11:15 AM
Bro. Parrish
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevonR View Post
Lazy people who don't want to study the original texts force themselves into a shell that become reliant ONLY on the KJV, if you ask any KJV-Onlyist, they will have nowhere else to go, thus, kind of HAVE to say it's perfect, if you get what I mean.
I noticed the way he positions KJV Bible believers as lazy people, then in the same sentence assumes that they have not studied the other languages. And then there is the O word... "ORIGINAL texts." (As if he had the original texts). This is both classic, and very sad.
  #16  
Old 02-06-2009, 04:58 PM
George's Avatar
George George is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 891
Default Re: "A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist"

DevonR,

An examination of your Posts on this Thread:
Quote:
Firstly, Paul and all of the bible believers changed their ways and walked in the statures of the Lord (they were saved by faith), Erasmus was a confused Catholic that never professed being reborn and most likely died in his works salvation. Am I judging Erasmus really? I am basing an idea the best I can. Only God truly knows if he's saved or not - I never said I truly knew (but him being a Catholic, the CHANCES are low):"
Firstly, you have conveniently left out some other saints that didn’t “fare as well”:

NOAH: One of the last things that we read about him in the O.T. is - he got drunk!
LOT: The last thing we hear about him in the O.T. is - he got drunk and committed incest!
AARON: Not allowed into the Promised Land because - he failed to obey God’s words!
MOSES: Not allowed into the Promised Land because - he failed to obey God’s words! JEPHTHAH: A Judge of Israel - Sacrificed his daughter over a foolish vow to God.
SAMSON: A fornicating Judge of Israel - who was blinded and ended up a suicide!
SOLOMON: Who wrote 3 Books of the Bible [God Inspired words] - & ended up an Idolater!
JOSIAH: A great King of Israel - ignored God’s commandment and ended up killed in battle.

Not ALL of God’s saints (although saved by God’s Grace) have always been faithful and had “happy endings” in this life! So don’t give us that “hot air” about Erasmus – some of us have lived long enough, as Christians, to see Christians (NOT Apostates or Reprobates) backslide, fail, and sometimes fall into sin and turn away from God. Not all of God’s people are faithful ALL OF THE TIME. Now, that doesn’t excuse sin in our lives, but it should make all of us mighty grateful for God’s mercy, and extremely thankful for His Grace, without which, no man would be saved.

Your quote:
Quote:
"And you misunderstood me with the donkey jest, we're ALL donkeys my friend.
Speak for yourselffriend”. I didn’t “misunderstand” anything! According to your “favorite” English Bible: JESTING IS “NOT CONVENIENT”:

Ephesians 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

So the question arises – what are you doing making fun of a man, whom you know so little about? Hmmm?

Your quote:
Quote:
Secondly, the King James DOES have errors,”
http://christkeep.com/articles/patching_kingjames.html
I outlined many of them there if it pleases you to read them. Of course, I don't expect many people to understand it off the bat.
On the positive side, I wrote an article defending why the King James uses mythical creatures, I believe people are unjustly attacking it
:”
http://christkeep.com/articles/kjv_m...explained.html
”(that famous "dan corner" who uses the NIV was making poor claims attacking the KJV, almost pathetic)
What is “pathetic” are your infantile attempts to prove that the King James Bible has “errors” in it. Just one example from your web sight will suffice (I refuse to spend all of my time dealing with Bible critics & skeptics). The following is from your obnoxious (but “cutesy”) article entitled: “PATCHING UP THE KING JAMES” (with accompanying “cheesy” picture – you must really think that you are humorous or funny):

Quote:
#2 (Exodus 6:20)
And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.
Your infantile comments:
Quote:
"The highlighted text is not in the Hebrew manuscripts, it would be adulterous for one to marry their “father’s sister (against the Mosaic Law)."
WHICH “Hebrew manuscripts” are you referring to? You are aware, aren’t you, that the MOSAIC LAW was NOT in effect until at least 80 years (or more) AFTER Amram married Jochebed! They were MOSES’S PARENTS, after all! DUH! {I rest my case!}

Your quote:
Quote:
And no, "modernist christians" do not agree with me (you'll have to try better than that), I got all of my doctrines correct (pre-trib rapture, eternal security, saved by faith etc), BUT, soon as I say "the King James is the BEST translation but not perfect," the hyper-King James brigade snaps at me and try refer to books that the JESUIT Texe Marrs praises (figure out why). The original God-breathed scriptures (that King James himself read) are perfect. The KJV was originally a "crutch," that's why it is so easy to see the original Hebrew/Greek words - it was MADE like that for a reason... Furthermore, the preface on the KJV 1611 states that it isn't perfect and there may be errors. Lazy people who don't want to study the original texts force themselves into a shell that become reliant ONLY on the KJV, if you ask any KJV-Onlyist, they will have nowhere else to go, thus, kind of HAVE to say it's perfect, if you get what I mean.
Your quote:
Quote:
And no, "modernist christians" do not agree with me (you'll have to try better than that), I got all of my doctrines correct (pre-trib rapture, eternal security, saved by faith etc),"
Can you not read? Have you no discernment? I did NOT say “modernist christians” (the term is an oxymoron) – A “Modernist” is not a Christian, and a genuine (born again) Christian is NOT a “Modernist”! I clearly said: “Most modern day Christians are in complete agreement with you – so you have plenty of company. Of course, since most modern day Christians have no idea WHERE the word of God is (or WHAT it is), and since they have NO “FINAL AUTHORITY” in all matters of faith and practice, it makes it quite easy for us to dismiss whatever they personally believe - since WHATEVER they believe is determined by their personal opinions, suppositions, speculations, or feelings.”

When I was referring to “Most modern day Christian’s” I was NOT referring to “Modernists” (who are apostates & reprobates). I was referring to “most modern day Christians”, that is - genuine, born again children of God (In these “modern days” known as “Evangelicals” or “Fundamentalists”). I try to be real careful with my words – There is a difference between a genuine Christian and an apostate or reprobate “modernist”, and I would never make the mistake of calling a real Christian (regardless of any differences between us) a “modernist”.

I’m glad that you have: “I got all of my doctrines correct (pre-trib rapture, eternal security, saved by faith etc)” – you’re the first Christian in the 50 years that I have been a Christian that has professed that openly (and I guess that you must sincerely believe it).

Your quote:
Quote:
And no, "modernist christians" do not agree with me (you'll have to try better than that), I got all of my doctrines correct (pre-trib rapture, eternal security, saved by faith etc), BUT, soon as I say "the King James is the BEST translation but not perfect," the hyper-King James brigade snaps at me and try refer to books that the JESUIT Texe Marrs praises (figure out why).
You didn’t just state: "the King James is the BEST translation but not perfect," You have said: “the King James DOES have errors” (Your Post #11 this Thread). There’s a huge difference between someone recognizing the King James Bible as the “best translation, but not perfect”, and someone claiming that it has “errors”. The first statement is tolerated by most genuine Bible believers; the second is a direct attack on the Holy words of God. If you cannot (or will not) discern the DIFFERENCE, THAT’S YOUR PROBLEM. It seems that you have a real “problem” with “Discernment” in many areas.

You keep carelessly slinging around your accusations (against Erasmus and David Sorenson) and then bad-mouth us all with another of your cheap “smears” by calling those of us who are genuine Bible believers as – “the hyper-King James brigade”. I guess all hyper-critics of God’s Holy word just “can’t help themselves”! Who on this forum mentioned Texe Marrs? I know of no one on this Forum who recommends or follows Texe Marrs – so what is that all about? Although I have read well over 100 books and various booklets, pamphlets, and articles in regards to the King James Bible “controversy”, I have never read anything from Texe Marrs (once again – faulty judgment on your part).

Your quote:
Quote:
“The original God-breathed scriptures (that King James himself read) are perfect. The KJV was originally a "crutch," that's why it is so easy to see the original Hebrew/Greek words - it was MADE like that for a reason... Furthermore, the preface on the KJV 1611 states that it isn't perfect and there may be errors. Lazy people who don't want to study the original texts force themselves into a shell that become reliant ONLY on the KJV, if you ask any KJV-Onlyist, they will have nowhere else to go, thus, kind of HAVE to say it's perfect, if you get what I mean.
You wrote about “The original God-breathed scriptures (that King James himself read) are perfect.” Could you tell us which Hebrew Text King James read from? Hmmm? Oh, and while you are at it, WHICH “original God-breathedGreek Text did he use? Was it Erasmus’s, or Stephanus’s (Robert Estienne), or Beza’s? You are aware that there are minor differences between all of them, aren’t you?

The KJV was originally a "crutch," that's why it is so easy to see the original Hebrew/Greek words - it was MADE like that for a reason ...” I get it now – All of us King James Bible believers (and all of those believers who came before us, who for over 350 years believed it to be the Holy word of God) are CRIPPLES! Our English Bible is just a “CRUTCH” for us to lean on since we don’t have the advantage of being able to read THE HEBREW (which is a language used and spoken by less than 1% of the world’s population) and THE GREEK (“Koine Greek” to be exact – which is a language that is SPOKEN BY NO ONE in the world today, and is only used by a handful of unbelieving “scholars” (scribes) to undermine God’s FINAL WRITTEN AUTHORITY on earth, i.e. The King James Bible.

Your quote:
Quote:
You CANNOT TRANSLATE ANYTHING PERFECTLY. English was NOT a language God created (that removes any notion of divine intervention of the translating - and the present errors make it more obvious), God however did create Hebrew and Greek at the tower of Babel if I'm not mistaken, Greek is very similar to phoenician - so those langauges (and during the time of apostleship) would have had some "divine inspiration."
The KJV translators were simply extremely educated and guided by a King who walked in the ways of the Lord.
Bible critics and skeptics are all the same – their minds are so corrupt that they no longer can think straight! God has given to his saints “the spirit of . . . a sound mind” {2Timothy 1:7] - is DevonR’s reasoning sound? When he disparages the King James Bible, because he doesn’t believe that any TRANSLATION IS PERFECT, and consequently can not possibly be God’s Holy word – is this sound reasoning {especially after God has promised to preserve His WORDS}?

Is God “limited” to just two languages (one, which is used by less than 1% of the world’s population, and the other, which is DEAD – which no one speaks)? Is DevonR serious? Does God require all people everywhere, to learn just these two languages in order to understand His word? I trow not!

Your quote:
Quote:
You CANNOT TRANSLATE ANYTHING PERFECTLY.”
WHO SAID YOU CAN’T? CHAPTER & VERSE?

Your quote:
Quote:
God however did create Hebrew and Greek at the tower of Babel if I'm not mistaken, Greek is very similar to phoenician - so those langauges (and during the time of apostleship) would have had some "divine inspiration."
IF DevonR were to spend the rest of his life researching the inane, sophomoric, and absurd statements that he just made – he couldn’t possibly PROVE his “assumptions”! WHY do Bible skeptics always make such ridiculous claims?

Does DevonR “think” that Adam & Eve spoke Hebrew? What about from Seth on down through Job – did they all speak Hebrew? Who was the FIRST HEBREW? Abraham was the very first Hebrew (approximately 2,000 years after Adam) – did all of Adam’s descendants speak Hebrew – BEFORE the very FIRST Hebrew showed up? WHERE is the PROOF that God created the Hebrew language? Abraham was removed from the happenings at the Tower of Babel by approximately 300 years – WHO spoke “Hebrew” all of that time? Hmmm?

And what about “THE GREEK”? DevonR’s speculation about the Greek language being “created” by God is so tenuous that it doesn’t deserve comment – except to say that DevonR’s suppositions and speculations are unworthy of someone who claims the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps DevonR could explain the difference between “SOME divine inspiration” and genuine inspiration. But, on the other hand, I’m not in the mood for more “fairy tales”.

Your quote:
Quote:
I would like to get something correct here, I do NOT advocate any new translation, they are garbage (thus empty threats of calling me a modernist are eliminated, otherwise I'd be first to pull out an NIV), you're not going to beat Edward de Vere, King James, and all of those great translators; plus, they weren't planning to butcher the Bible.”
Again, just for the record, no one called DevonR a “MODERNIST”! I said he fits right in with “modern day Christians”. Many, if not most, of today’s Christians (God’s children) have no idea WHAT God’s word is, or WHERE to find it – thanks to the numerous self-appointed “experts” (like DevonR), who are not only confused themselves, but are spreading their leaven throughout the body of Christ.

Your quote:
Quote:
I would like to get something correct here, I do NOT advocate any new translation
No, DevonR doesn’t advocate a new translation, since that might obligate him to adhere to some “final authority”. No, it’s much better (for DevonR) that he not advocate anything as his “final authority” – that way he can “decide for himself’ just what the word of God says whenever a question of doctrine comes up.

It’s always the same with Bible critics and skeptics – They have NO FINAL AUTHORITY, other than their own personal opinions, conjectures, assumptions, and feelings. And they always run to “THE HEBREW” & “THE GREEK” without ever identifying WHICH “Hebrew” and “Greek” they are referring to, so that we might critique their numerous phantom "authorities".

Your quote:
Quote:
If I said the King James Bible was perfect, I'd be lazy, and would be following a "modernist" doctrine on the contrary - because in King James' day, no one said his translation was perfect, this is a recent belief."

I encourage anyone to read the 1611 preface; it is very good - pity it is removed, now THAT'S what I call modernist "editing."
After all of DevonR’s unfounded statements and accusations, he finally ends up with a parting shot at all of the genuine Bible believers on this Forum (Bible critics just can’t help themselves ) “If I said the King James Bible was perfect, I'd be lazy”. So we’re LAZY! It’s almost laughable – if it weren’t so tragic! Let’s see: From 1968 – 1988 I spent at least 12,000 to 15,000 hours studying the issue of “WHICH BIBLE”, and since then, perhaps another 2,000 hours. LAZY??? There are men (Steven Avery, Bibleprotector, John Hinton, & Will Kinney – to mention a few) on this Forum that (when it comes to this issue) can eat me up for breakfast and spit me out for lunch! LAZY – LAZY!!! Why would DevonR say such a thing – without knowing what he was talking about?

The Bible that is now known as the King James Bible was known only as THE HOLY BIBLE for around 300 years; its critics started calling it the Authorized VERSION in the 1700’s & 1800’s, but ordinary, every day Christians (the kind of men & women that the Lord ate and drank with, and dealt with) called it THE HOLY BIBLE. They believed what genuine Bible believers still believe today. Contrary to what DevonR thinks - it’s NOT a NEW doctrine or belief, it’s a belief that was nearly abandoned by Christians after they became enamored of “Education” and College degrees (after the scholars & the scribes convinced many Christians that the HOLY BIBLE was JUST ANOTHER TRANSLATION – just exactly like DevonR believes!)

I am done (for now); DevonR has proven that he is just one more Bible critic and skeptic that “thinks” that he “knows it all”, and when presented with the truth takes refuge in false statements and accusations. We all know who the accuser of the brethren is – DevonR should carefully consider what he is saying and doing. But if he is like all of the other Bible critics and skeptics that have come on this Forum in the last year, he will IGNORE everything that we have said and continue spreading his false statements and leaven.

Proverbs 29:20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

Last edited by George; 02-06-2009 at 05:08 PM.
  #17  
Old 02-07-2009, 01:03 AM
MC1171611's Avatar
MC1171611 MC1171611 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Western Ohio
Posts: 436
Default

Amen Bro. George, PREACH IT!!
  #18  
Old 02-07-2009, 02:51 AM
DevonR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Concerning the Texe Marrs:
https://shop.avpublications.com/prod...4b9df4b8637cf6

He praises that book concerning new age bibles
Quote:
"It may be the most important book ever written." --Texe Marrs
A fellow told me to read that book... If it's being praised by Texe Marrs, I am hesitant. But that is what I was getting at.

As for the "Original Scriptures" (yes I said it because we do have lots), you can buy the texts Tyndale and Martin Luther used (1516 Erasmus Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament: First Edition):
http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rar.../platinum.html

It's amazing how many original texts survive, people who say we don't have any would have to be living in a bubble!
http://bibleworks.com/ <-- bibleworks has compiled all bible texts into software, as well as numerous concordances. I plan on buying that amazing peice of software in due time. Literally EVERYTHING, all translations, all texts, the ultimate bible resource.

As for the Hebrew texts, the KJV translators used the masoretic texts - any KJV supporter should know that. Jerome used them too (or something identical), the Hebrew texts are very well preserved.

For the great isaiah scroll (written by Isaiah himself), you can see original scans of it here:
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

the KJV translators used it (or a copy of it anyways)
  #19  
Old 02-07-2009, 03:46 AM
DevonR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ooops and I almost forgot:

Quote:
"And therefore I would not have you to pray with the Papists, to be preserved from sudden death, but that God would give you grace to live, as ye may every hour of your life be ready for death: so shall ye attain to the virtue of true Fortitude, never being afraid for the horror of death, come when he list: and especially, beware to offend your conscience with use of swearing or lying (suppose but in jest): for oaths are but an use, and a sin clothed with no delight nor gain, and therefore the more inexcusable" - King James, Basilikon Doron
King James says there is some leeway concerning jesting
  #20  
Old 02-07-2009, 04:16 AM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevonR View Post
Concerning the Texe Marrs:
https://shop.avpublications.com/prod...4b9df4b8637cf6

He praises that book concerning new age bibles


A fellow told me to read that book... If it's being praised by Texe Marrs, I am hesitant. But that is what I was getting at.

As for the "Original Scriptures" (yes I said it because we do have lots), you can buy the texts Tyndale and Martin Luther used (1516 Erasmus Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament: First Edition):
http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rar.../platinum.html

It's amazing how many original texts survive, people who say we don't have any would have to be living in a bubble!
http://bibleworks.com/ <-- bibleworks has compiled all bible texts into software, as well as numerous concordances. I plan on buying that amazing peice of software in due time. Literally EVERYTHING, all translations, all texts, the ultimate bible resource.

As for the Hebrew texts, the KJV translators used the masoretic texts - any KJV supporter should know that. Jerome used them too (or something identical), the Hebrew texts are very well preserved.

For the great isaiah scroll (written by Isaiah himself), you can see original scans of it here:
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

the KJV translators used it (or a copy of it anyways)
(I'll leave others to comment on your flawed knowledge of the "original texts")

Who told you that the Great Isaiah Scroll was written by Isaiah himself? Most "scholars" believe the book of Isaiah was written by 3 different people (this isn't what I believe). I'd like to see your source on this one.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com