Featured Seriously, why the KJV?

I have been telling you forever that we cannot depend on the Greek if there is more than one scholar involved and more than one text. It can lead only to imaginations like you have admitted to.

The more important question of this text is why did this man believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God? The second question is why is there no mention of him receiving the Holy Ghost, especially since the purpose of this book is to chronicle his coming into the world and into individual believers as the agent of the transaction of salvation? Another question, if all one believes about Jesus Christ is that he is the son of God would that be enough to save him if salvation is defined by receiving the person of the Holy Spirit into ones body? Last question, are Greek scholars more likely to answer hard question because they have learned the Greek language than a KJV only believer who believes the answers are in the words he has been given in his own language to study?

An interesting footnote about the KJV. The only other time in the 35 or so year history that Luke gives us in Acts has this phrase "son of God" is in Acts 9:20 immediately after the conversion of Paul. He preached in the synagogues of the Jews that Jesus is the son of God and the Christ of God. This is a fundamental of the Christian faith.

19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

The fact of the Christ of God puts his teaching in the Old Testament and the Son of God puts him in the New Testament and this fact alone gives me an advantage with my KJV over Greek scholars because both my Hebrew OT and my Greek NT has been translated into English and I can cross reference between the two. Because of this I am much more likely to be able to understand the great mysteries of the Christian faith, which are shrouded in mysteries in OT times, than Greek scholars who are limited to the New Testament.

I am thinking this Acts 8:37 is far and away more important for our knowledge of God and his ways than has been supposed.

 

I got it from you and others like you.

 

Why KJV? Because the modern translations mess up many a good handed down sermon. Many preachers lack the ability to admit they were ever wrong.

 

You realize the KJV has the same problem right?

 

The true scriptures of God are written in such a way, and information is included in them, that is designed by God to provoke us to ask questions of a text in order to learn the mind of God. I asked the text why there is no mention of this man in Acts 8:37 receiving the Spirit since all instances of the preaching so far in Acts has emphasized that very thing. I am asking why he is believing that Jesus Christ is the son of God but makes no mention that he is trusting in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for his salvation.

I have already asked Acts 8 why it is that this same Phillip showed up in Samaria to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to them, and when they believed the gospel that he preached to them, they were baptized in water but did not receive the Holy Ghost until the apostles, Peter and John, came down from Jerusalem and laid hands on them and at that time they received the Holy Ghost. I asked the text why is it that Phillip did not do this for them.

Later, when I read Acts 10 I noted that the reluctant Peter was sent by God himself to gentiles to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to them and they received the Holy Ghost at the moment they believed, and without a water baptism or the laying on of hands. I know that was different than those who previously received the Holy Ghost. I am going to ask the text why is this? I am not content to let this lay. I need to know this. There are differences.

I do not think it makes any sense to ask the Greek scholars and the Greek speakers why this is true. They would have the same information and thus the same questions that I have. Why would they be able to answer these questions better than me, who has a faithful copy of the word of God in the language I speak every day?

Then I learn the Greek speakers have several different families of manuscripts from which to choose. Never mind that they say different things, but it makes me wonder how I can trust four different kinds of manuscripts for an authority on any text. Greek scholars don't agree which is really from God. It makes me wonder why I should trust Greek scholars who obviously have never asked the right questions and therefore certainly do not have the right answers.

Can you answer any of these questions? Have you ever asked any of them?

 

Do you in effect contradict yourself since according to your KJV-only reasoning you blindly trust the doctrinally-unsound Greek scholars who made the KJV by use of multiple, textually-varying sources including the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?

The KJV translators did not follow 100% any one of the twenty to thirty textually-varying printed Textus Receptus editions available to them as they inconsistently picked and chose from more than one edition and sometimes chose to follow the Latin Vulgate instead of any of their printed Greek TR editions.

 

My answer is your are a brainwashed fool who has no idea what he is talking about.

 

No point in arguing with a brainwashed fool.

 

How about telling me what you really think.

 

so we can not rely on the greek. from which God throu inspiration, chose to write the words of the NT.

But we can trust a week and inadequate language (English) and people who translated from the greater language?

 

I'm pretty sure I did.

 

The KJV used multiple scholars and multiple manuscripts. So I guess your KJV is no good too right?

 

Can you read the Greek NT?

 

Your doctrines of grace has filled you with grace....not! You Reformed fellows are the meanest men on the planet. Your religion is doing nothing for you but making you obnoxious.