Search results

It is the King James Version of the holy Bible. Why do you do this bait and switch? The King James is a version of the word of God, not the sole word of God. What you are doing is committing idolatry, as you are worshiping a Bible, not who the Bible is about.

And of course, they waited until this, "during which her group was seated at two tables and had already paid and tipped staff,". Gots to get paid before they are waylaid.

Yes! Unitarians use the KJV to denounce the deity of Jesus Christ.

Lots of revisions [1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626. 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640. 1644, 1650. 1652, 1655, 1657, 1698] for an inerrant Bible, eh? Seems like the KJV underwent several revisions, but you ignore them, make unfounded excuses why they were not considered revisions. Inerrant...

You are KJVP not KJVO, and that's no different than promoting the NWT to them. Its a cult, you MUST adhere to the onlyism not the preferredism.

He's like the many I've seen on these crime shows where someone is murdered and the accused, in desire to clear their name, take the stand and torpedo their own case. I've heard where jurors said their testimony was what made them believe they were guilty. That is him, the more he defends the...

Matthew Henry How hast thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer! son of the morning! v. 11, 12. The king of Babylon shone as brightly as the morning star, and fancied that wherever he came he brought day along with him; and has such an illustrious princeas this fallen, such a star become a clod of...

Adam Clarke: Verse Isaiah 14:12. O Lucifer, son of the morning — The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in...

Again, if the KJV was inerrant in 1611, there would have been no need for the revisions. Inerrant: free from error incapable of being wrong If a religious book is inerrant, it contains no faults or mistakes (from Cambridge dictionary) not erring; making no mistakes; infallible None of these...

What I meant was that Satan never had a literal body that was buried in verse 11 and no children who needed to be killed to keep them from assuming his throne in verse 21. There is no one who will assume Satan’s position. When he’s cast into the lake of fire, it’s over for him and his ppl. And I...

I wonder what color the oxygen is on the planet you live on is? Delusion is some sort of drug. I’m done with this, speaking with cult members gets nowhere and fast. Farewell. I also noticed you avoided my posts showing with all the revision year like the plague. But good bye.

He’s doing of good job of it.

It’s the same old tired rhetoric. He’s saying the same things I’ve read posted by others on here and other forums. It’s a cult he’s in, and he’s too blind to see it.

Right here is your context, buttercup. That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased![Isaiah 14:4] Further proof “Lucifer” isnt a pre-fallen Satan: Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy...

Lots of revisions [1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626. 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640. 1644, 1650. 1652, 1655, 1657, 1698] for an inerrant Bible, eh? Inerrant: free from error incapable of being wrong If a religious book is inerrant, it contains no faults or mistakes (from Cambridge dictionary)...

Lots of revisions [1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626. 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640. 1644, 1650. 1652, 1655, 1657, 1698] for an inerrant Bible, eh?

FYI, Lucifer is not a pre-fallen Satan, but the Babylonian king. That’s the context.

Lucifer, AFAIK, is not in any OT manuscript. The ppl who worked on the KJV took it from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. But nice try anyways.

The KJV addition of “Lucifer” has caused problems as well.

It can also mean ceremonially washed as well. Unless they baptized dining couches per Mark 7:4. https://biblehub.com/greek/907.htm#google_vignette