Search results

The "Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th or 27th Edition Refused To Follow Burgon's Six Prerequisites and Therefore Is Not What Burgon Would Call an "Authoritative Revision" of the Textus Receptus. If you examine closely the Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th or 27th edition--in the Preface, you will find...

Burgon Demanded at Least Six Prerequisites Before Any Authoritative Revision of the Textus Receptus Could Be Successfully Completed. Burgon was writing on page 124 of his book, Revision Revised, as quoted in paragraph "(5)" above. After stating that "for such an undertaking we are not yet...

Dean Burgon Felt the "Textus Receptus" Needed "Revision" in "Many of its Lesser Details," But That It Was "an Excellent Text as it Stands" That Will "Never Lead Critical Students of Scripture Seriously Astray." Dean Burgon wrote: Obtained from a variety of sources [that is, the Textus Receptus...

Dean Burgon Felt the "Textus Receptus" Does "Call for Revision" But That Must Be Based Upon "Entirely Different Principles" From Those of Westcott and Hort's Text. Dean Burgon wrote: But (what is a far more important circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of penance to be...

you take Burgon out of context at pg 114: We shall in fact never have another “Authorized Version.” And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief,—As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book...

More than that. Just because I dont quite understand this one verse and what it is saying does not negate the other scripture I have posted I was giving one potential interpretation. I reject the NKJV and the Holman, The Geneva reading stilll fits the possible interpretation I gave. whatever the...

the proper translation is.Eze 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. Never shalt thou be a terror is a potential interpretation. whatever bible you are quoting from is not even a good or proper...

I fail to see how this helps your position. You are a heretic teaching false doctrine and need to repent.

What don't you understand about the phrase everlasting destruction? if it meant destruction that leads to an everlasting state than the phrase everlasting would be unnecessary and would only cause confusion, which we know God is not the author of. God destroys the soul and body in hell...

yeah the fire wont be quenched forever because it will be consuming the souls for eternity.

Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Sodom and Gomorrah's inhabitants are still being punished in hell.

2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; What's everlasting? it says destruction is everlasting. they are punished with being going through destruction forever. it is not everlasting results from destruction.

You are adding a private interpretation to scripture. I've dealt with people like you. constantly trying to redefine everlasting. Rev_20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and...

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

You consistently refer to romans 11 about losing salvation when it clearly is talking about Israel being put aside and the church age starting. has nothing to do with an individual's salvation and you repeatedly refuse to respond to this every time I point it out

my response is in bold.

John 10:28-29 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to...

how many evils are included in the phrase "ALL kinds" or "ALL sorts of evil"? Well, it seems obvious that this would include ALL kinds of evil, not "many kinds" or "lots of different sorts", or "various types of evil". If you going to criticize the King James reading because the literal meaning...

If, as the KJB critics affirm, there is a distinct difference between "to kill" and "to murder", they are contradicted by the very versions they promote. Other words are also translated as both "to kill" and "to murder", and often when describing the clear act of what we would call "murder", the...