Satan Misquotes Scripture

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Should sarcasm be part of the discussion of a disagreement between Christians? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it shouldn't and I appoligize. I sometimes let my feelings get the better of me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You will please note that I did not say that it was corrupt. And the question is not whether the text passes a theological purity test. The question is whether or not the passage was part of the originals. If you have evidence that says it does then please show it. I would personally like to believe that it was! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Here is a small piece of the document at this web page.:

In short, it has been denied that this verse was ever quoted in the Arian controversy, or ever appealed to as having unquestionably proceeded from the pen of the Apostle John. The contrary, however, is manifest to those who will take the trouble to examine the history of the Church. Were it necessary to insist on this part of the subject, we might refer to the testimony of Phaebadius, Jerome, and Marcus Celedensis, in the fourth century; of Eucherius, Vigilius, and Fulgentius, in the fifth and sixth centuries; and of many Greek and Latin fathers in subsequent ages, who make frequent and direct citations of the verse in question; and some of whom have appealed to the Arians themselves, as acknowledging its authenticity.


Maximus, who lived in the seventh century, about A.D. 645, is generally supposed to have been the author of a dialogue in the Greek language, in which Athanasius and Arius are the assumed disputants. In this dialogue, the verse in question is expressly referred to. "Is not that lively and saving baptism," says he, "whereby we receive remission of sins, administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? And moreover St. John says, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE."

I would that you would read it in it's entirety. As it shows the text of 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 being used as far beack as the 5th century...

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:

True, but satan done it in such a way as to TEMPT Christ. And in such a way as would not be in the will of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well now you are changin the argument. You originally said that Satan misquoted Scripture. When faced with the facts, you now change your argument to him quoting it for a wrong purpose. Are you willing to hold yourself to that same standard?? If quoting Scripture for wrong purposes is a sin, then certainly the KJVOnly movement must face the music on that one.

 

Hey Joey,
Thanks for the fervent defense of THE BOOK. Let me give you a little nugget I have uncovered that may be a blessing to you.Genesis 2:7 says that God "breathed into"
man, and he became a living soul. This phrase
is the same as the New Testament phrase for
Inspiration, which means God breathed. Are
we less men than Adam, even though we are copies of the original(Adam). If not, then why are there so many who are so quick to say
that the KJV is less of the Word of God because it is a copy.

 

Pastor Larry, I did not change my argument on anything. If I use a verse of scripture out of context and in a way to cause doubt or in a way to tempt someone, then I have misquoted scripture. And that is exactly what satan did. Now I know, you being a learned fellar and all, that you will find another twist on words in what I just said. And come back with another insignificant point. But the fact of the matter and my point is that satan uses scripture and twists it to his advantage. And in the moderen versions if we can just dilute some of the doctrines then we can help satan right along his merry little way. Then maybe the next generation of translations we can just take out the blood all together.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by david reed:
Let me give you a little nugget I have uncovered that may be a blessing to you.Genesis 2:7 says that God "breathed into"
man, and he became a living soul. This phrase
is the same as the New Testament phrase for
Inspiration, which means God breathed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me give you a little nugget ... the phrases are not the same.

Gen 2:7 -- ... vayippach be'apav nishmath chayyim

2 Tim 3:16 -- pasa graphe theopneustos.

These two phrases are not even similar even if they were in the same language. Furthermore, even if they were, they are in different contexts and therefore do not necessarily mean the same thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are we less men than Adam, even though we are copies of the original(Adam). If not, then why are there so many who are so quick to say that the KJV is less of the Word of God because it is a copy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you show me a quote from someone who has said the KJV is less than the Word of God? You are setting up straw men. No one here has said that to my knowledge.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
Pastor Larry, I did not change my argument on anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>\

You said Satan misquoted Scripture. In fact, you titled this thread by that very title and then showed a place where the NT citation in teh temptation is story is different than the OT citation.

When I showed you that Christ did the same thing that Satan did, you changed your argument from "he quoted it wrong" to "he used it for the wrong purpose." Now what is your point?? Did he quote it wrong or did he use it out of context??

Changing your argument midstream is not insignificant. It helps for us all to know what we are talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But the fact of the matter and my point is that satan uses scripture and twists it to his advantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

KJVOnlyites do the same thing. Why is it wrong for Satan to do it and not for KJVO people to do it? Isn't that a double standard??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And in the moderen versions if we can just dilute some of the doctrines then we can help satan right along his merry little way. Then maybe the next generation of translations we can just take out the blood all together.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No MV has diluted any doctrine. They haven't taken the blood or anything else out. I am not sure how to say it any more clear. I suggested that if you have questions about passages you should start a thread on an individual passage so we can discuss it. So far you have resisted the encouragement to make your case.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BY PASTOR LARRY,

You said Satan misquoted Scripture. In fact, you titled this thread by that very title and then showed a place where the NT citation in teh temptation is story is different than the OT citation.

When I showed you that Christ did the same thing that Satan did, you changed your argument from "he quoted it wrong" to "he used it for the wrong purpose." Now what is your point?? Did he quote it wrong or did he use it out of context??

Changing your argument midstream is not insignificant. It helps for us all to know what we are talking about.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you will look back at the start of this thread, I'm not the one who started this thread. In fact if you will look at my first post to this thread I never said that, but rather I said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote:by someone else
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satan's problem was his intent to misapply those passages. Christ did not address his "miscitation;" Christ addressed his wrong theology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote by me,

YOU MEAN LIKE THE WAY THE MODERN VERSIONS MISAPPLY THE SCRIPTURES? SUCH AS TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST BEING WATERED DOWN. THE VIRGIN BIRTH BEING WATERED DOWN, REPENTANCE BEING WATERED DOWN, THE TRINITY BEING WATERED DOWN, THE BLOOD BEING WATERED DOWN, AND THE SIMULATION OF SOME OF THE OT SCIPTURES WHICH TYPIFIED CHRIST, BEING CHANGED AROUND IN WORDING SO THAT NO CORRELATION CAN BE SEEN.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I think maybe we should shut down this thread. It appears as if it is becoming a fuss over what was actually said and Pastor Larry has made his point quite clearly and for me once is enough. I agree with him.