Search results

That's an assumption that flies in the face of the clear preservation language that Scripture uses to tell us who and where the OT would be kept. Please address Matthew 5:18, Romans 3:1-2, and the fact that Paul considered himself a Pharisee even as a Christian. Because all the biblical evidence...

I do not deny such. Scripture says that God changes not—"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8). To claim God changed His Word when quoting/alluding to it later is not the same as claiming God changed. The basis for my statements are that God promised the...

It's not. God made no errors. He can quote His own Word however He likes, and He can reinspire it in the next Testament in a different way than before. He is God.

The KJV translators were off in their historical accounts. I do not believe that the LXX originally contained the entire OT, but rather that it was a gradual process. And then later people took the NT and inserted it into the OT, which is where we get the LXX we know today. I'm not aware of any...

My view of inspiration doesn't allow for them to have used a single external source, only what God told them did they write. I find it most probable that the Septuagint was modified later to conform to the NT rather than the NT reflecting a supposed Septuagint. Again, Christ promised that no...

Notice, I never said Jesus, Paul, or the Gospel writers were wrong (though I will say we don't know who actually wrote the Gospels, but that's beside the point). The Masoretic Text is the preserved text, based upon what the Scriptures themselves say about preservation. And God, being the author...

Well, that simply cannot be so since the OT and NT differ in exact wording. The Hebrew text God preserved has to be through the Jews (Romans 3:1-2), specifically the Pharisees (Acts 23:6), and would be in the original Hebrew/Aramaic (Matthew 5:18). As such, the Masoretic Text is the correct OT...

No, I don't believe God "changed" His Word, at least not after the fact. Like some of the OT quotations in the NT aren't one-for-one like the Hebrew, so He "changed" or "repurposed" OT passages to fit a particular thing in the NT. That, however, is not the same as what you seem to think I've...

Oh, I agree that the original language texts have been preserved, but I also believe that other languages have preserved them as well. It's not really a lack of preservation if a word or two were added, then, later removed to conform it back to its original state. Now, if I were trying to say a...

The fact is, there is evidence to support the KJV/TR reading, even if you don't want to admit it. You don't seem intent on actually discussing, so if you don't want to have a discussion worth having, then I will see myself out. God never said His preserved Word would only be in Greek Codexes...

Whilst I cannot confirm or deny your statement (I don't know Greek), I do know there is evidence outside of Codxes alone. Nick Sayer's lists Tertullian, Beatus of Liébana, and the Book of Armagh. In all honesty, I find this to be underwhelming, but I think we should also consider the critical...

First, prove it was an error.

1) "God" is not original to the text. There's evidence in support of the ommission of it. I'm not going to try and pass off someone else's work on this topic as my own, so here's a link: Revelation 1:8 - Textus Receptus 2) The phrase "which is, and which was, and which is to come" is one of the...

I don't see how you could come to such a conclusion. You asked if the KJV taught Baptism by immersion exclusively. I believe it does, but on basis that it transliterates (instead of translating) the Greek, which means to immerse.

I'm going to assume the reason is because previous translations (like Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops') use it as well as the term being used by English Christians.

I disagree with the framing of the question. I believe immersion is the only valid form of Baptism, but the KJV simply uses a transliteration. I'm glad it did, because as Anglicans, the KJV translators likely wouldn't have translated it as immersion. Now, because it's a transliteration, the...

In 1699, Edinburgh had a KJV without the Apocrypha: Then, in 1700, London had a printing without the Apocrypha:

Or they were bound originally without them. It seems like a huge leap to say all KJV's without the Apocrypha ALL don't have it simply because some may have removed it at rebinding.

That's assuming we agree those are the "standard editions." I simply believe that God worked it out that the KJV is technically the majority text now. So while information is more avaliable for those printings, the fact remains that KJV's without the Apocrypha (whether you think proper or not)...