Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?

[Eliyahu]

The only reason you don't claim it because you don't know what you are talking about. What is important is reality. If the police pulls you over when you are driving 15 over, your confession doesn't matter. And so here, the fact that you don't confess to practicing TC doesn't matter. You do it. The only question is, Do you do it well?

The point of the question is this. If you are chosen by God, then were you not given the Bible as well? Of course you may argue that not everyone is saved by KJV. In fact I was saved by reading one of the Modern Versions, but the Holy Spirit has led me to read KJV. In that process, God convicted me and taught me about which version is correct. I could get the discernment without any TC which you mentioned. TC cannot be a pill for the discernment about what is right or wrong.

Like every other believer, I was chosen by God to believe, and as a result I chose to believe. That's basic Soteriology 101. (Soteriology is the theological name of the doctrine of salvation.)

By study.

No, TC is not equipped to answer those questions. That's like asking your oncologist to fix your car.

Holy Spirit is different from Oncologist or Psychologist. Moreover, as far as the Bible is concerned, the Holy Spirit is the Author of the Bible. We must listen to the Author directly.

I don't believe I reject any verses that apply to me. As I study, I seek understanding.

But you are deciding which verse apply to you.
You don't believe the Holy Spirit guide you for your life. But I believe He guides me throughout the life as David confessed in Psalm 23.

The fact that you misapply a verse doesn't mean it applies to you. You can claim John 14:26 all day long, but it still won't apply to you.

Then you are not listening well.

I think it is apparent that I have listened far better than you.

The stuff you are saying here is simply incorrect. It does not reflect reality. And therefore, it is dishonoring to God, and you are dishonoring to God by trying to infect others with things that aren't true. You say, "Hath God said?" and in so doing you cast doubt on the Scriptures out of your own inadequacy. Those who don't suffer from that inadequacy see easily through it. Unfortunately, you seem too prideful to learn.

Hath God said ...? was asked by the first TC !
You better have the ears to listen to the Holy Spirit as Jesus said here:

Rev 2:
7He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Don't you have the ears to listen to the Holy Spirit?

 

[Eliyahu]

Interesting. You claim the minority texts are wrong, claiming that since 617 mss of Mark include the longer ending it must be authentic. Yet the variant you are arguing for in 1 John 5 is a minority variant, and Acts 8:37 is also a minority variant. The Majority Text includes neither. So if the minority are wrong, why are you arguing for them?

The arguments are you making would be laughable it if weren’t so serious. You are blatantly attacking the Word of God, and saying things about it that simply aren’t true. It is theologically and intellecutally bankrupt. And the scary thing is that you don't get it. You don't understand that.

There are sufficient reasons to support Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 Comma even though they are minority.

Without 8:37 of Acts, the context doesn't make sense, unless both Eunuch and Philip became dumbs suddenly.

Without Comma in 1 John 5:7, the gender disagreement doesn't make sense, and the Word is a typical Johanine style.

There is no reason to think about the shorter ending for Mark 16. Even Vaticanus B implies the possibility of the longer ending in the unusual space in the page.

You are holding on the B, which has been modified and preserved by Roman Catholic which is the center of all the paganism.

 

[Eliyahu]

If you define biblical discernment properly, then yes.
Then show me biblical proof that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic. Show me where the Spirit said that, not Erasmus, or the Vulgate, or some church father, or some yo-yo with an internet site.

Interesting. You claim the minority texts are wrong, claiming that since 617 mss of Mark include the longer ending it must be authentic. Yet the variant you are arguing for in 1 John 5 is a minority variant, and Acts 8:37 is also a minority variant. The Majority Text includes neither. So if the minority are wrong, why are you arguing for them?
.

Were you not given the Bible or guided to a certain Bible by the Holy Spirit as you were chosen to be a Believer?
The True Believers preserved the Bible and passed it to the Believers in the next generation, and we received them as the Received Texts, and they contained Mark's longer ending.
617 manuscripts contain it, while only Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not. I showed you Sinaiticus cannot be accepted as a Bible manuscripts because it contains too many errors. Vatican text omits many verses too, which discredits the veracity of it as the Bible.
This kind of Discernment cannot be called as TC. Without TC, I can discern it.

 

[Eliyahu]

Infant Baptism cannot stand on KJV.

Why? KJV contains Acts 8:37 which rules out the Baptism of the Babies who do not have the faith.

Infant Baptism has been one of the main dogmas by the Roman Catholic and many other denominations, through which they could bring the billions of Unbelievers into the churches, so that the churches may become the assemblies of the unbelievers.

Remember why millions of the Baptists chose to die refusing the Infant baptism.

RCC knew this problem with Acts 8:37 and therefore they deleted it.

Infant Baptism which is the important doctrine of RCC cannot stand on the Acts 8:37 of KJV, and RCC is the center of all the paganism.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But I emphasized the too much reliance on the TC.

But you have been almost entirely incorrect your assumptions about TC.

 

[Eliyahu]

Pastor Larry,

I have noticed you are a Calvinist. Do you know that Calvin claimed the Baptismal Regeneration?
He insisted on the Infant Baptism, and said Baptism by Sprinkling is OK.
He mentioned that the rejection of the Infant Baptism is to deprive the infants of the salvation.

Do you agree with him on these?

Also, he condemned Donatists actually in his book. How would you comment on this part of church history?

 

[Eliyahu]

But you have been almost entirely incorrect your assumptions about TC.

Who is wrong or right can be judged by the Judge. The Bible is the Judge until He comes. The Bible never mentioned the method of TC at all.
None of the TC critics claimed he or she is doing the TC according to the guidance by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Over two pages of more nonsense from you, Eliyahu. What in the world?

If you are chosen by God, then were you not given the Bible as well?

Yes.

Of course you may argue that not everyone is saved by KJV.

No one is saved by the KJV. Any saved person is saved by Jesus.

In fact I was saved by reading one of the Modern Versions, but the Holy Spirit has led me to read KJV

My experience was the opposite. I was saved out of the KJV, but the Spirit has led me to use modern versions.

In that process, God convicted me and taught me about which version is correct.

As he has me, and verified it through his word.

Holy Spirit is different from Oncologist or Psychologist.

You think? This is about the most correct thing you have said in this whole conversation.

Moreover, as far as the Bible is concerned, the Holy Spirit is the Author of the Bible. We must listen to the Author directly.

I agree. How does he speak? Through the word.

But you are deciding which verse apply to you.

So are you.

You don't believe the Holy Spirit guide you for your life.

That’s an outright lie that I have already corrected. Do not repeat it. Be honest.

Hath God said ...? was asked by the first TC !

No it wasn’t. Satan said that in Genesis 3. (It’s even in your KJV.) Satan wasn’t trying to decide between two textual variants.

Don't you have the ears to listen to the Holy Spirit?

Yes.

There are sufficient reasons to support Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 Comma even though they are minority.

Not really.

Without 8:37 of Acts, the context doesn't make sense, unless both Eunuch and Philip became dumbs suddenly.

It makes perfect sense.

Without Comma in 1 John 5:7, the gender disagreement doesn't make sense, and the Word is a typical Johanine style.

That’s just ignorance of the Greek.

There is no reason to think about the shorter ending for Mark 16.

Simply incorrect. People who actually know what they are talking about who actually deal with the evidence disagree with you. And they actually know Greek.

You are holding on the B, which has been modified and preserved by Roman Catholic which is the center of all the paganism.

A lot has been preserved by the RCC. So what?

Were you not given the Bible or guided to a certain Bible by the Holy Spirit as you were chosen to be a Believer?

Yes, through the Bible, the Spirit called me.

The True Believers preserved the Bible and passed it to the Believers in the next generation, and we received them as the Received Texts, and they contained Mark's longer ending.

No, incorrect.

617 manuscripts contain it, while only Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not.

But you have already argued that the minority texts can be correct. So you defeated your own arguments. 617 copies of an error is still an error.

Infant Baptism cannot stand on KJV.

Can’t stand on any version.

RCC knew this problem with Acts 8:37 and therefore they deleted it.

That’s simply false.

I have noticed you are a Calvinist. Do you know that Calvin claimed the Baptismal Regeneration?
He insisted on the Infant Baptism, and said Baptism by Sprinkling is OK.
He mentioned that the rejection of the Infant Baptism is to deprive the infants of the salvation.

Do you agree with him on these?

No, Calvinists are so called because they agree with Calvin. They are called Calvinists because they believe certain things about soteriology, things that were believed long before Calvin. Here is yet another place where you are simply uninformed.

Also, he condemned Donatists actually in his book. How would you comment on this part of church history?

I don’t.

​

Who is wrong or right can be judged by the Judge. The Bible is the Judge until He comes. The Bible never mentioned the method of TC at all.

So stop practicing it then.

None of the TC critics claimed he or she is doing the TC according to the guidance by the Holy Spirit.

I doubt that’s true, but even if you claim the Spirit that doesn’t mean that he is actually leading you. You have said enough false stuff here that we know the Spirit is not leading you in some of these things.

 

[gb93433]

This is a wild accusation. You don't know me. Did I mention that we should believe in Paul as a god, as RCC which pray to Paul, Mary, Apostles, do? Remember RCC use the Bible based on the same Greek Text as the ones for Modern Versions.

Why use relativism as a method to try and escape the truth. I do not need to know you to know what you wrote. The Bible declares that we are to folow Christ not the apostles. Not one of ther aposteles are perfect but Christ is.

You insinuate that Paul disagreed with Jesus Christ.

Could you quote me on that?

Even your quotation may have been written by Paul who said this:

1 Corinthians 11:
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Remember the historical context and who he was addressing.

 

[gb93433]

Were you not given the Bible or guided to a certain Bible by the Holy Spirit as you were chosen to be a Believer?

I was quoted the verses by the man who spoke to me and led me to Christ. I have led many to Christ without using a Bible. A pastor friend of mine seldom takes a Bible with him but rather uses their Bible if they have questions.

The True Believers preserved the Bible and passed it to the Believers in the next generation, and we received them as the Received Texts, and they contained Mark's longer ending.

Most (98%) of the the early believers could not read nor write. Does your KJV contain the apocrypha? If not then it is not a KJV but an abberation. If it does not contain the apocrypha then it has deleted many verses.

 

[gb93433]

If you can reject the application of one verse to your life, then you may reject another verse for some other reasons as well.

It is not about rejection of verses but their correct interpretation and the application founded on that correct interpretation.

How would you personally apply Lk. 22:3-4, "And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. 4 And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them."

 

[Tater77]

Then don't carry that Greek banner all the time. Have you ever read it? Is the Bible a trash for you?

Its John 3:16 !!!!!!!!

Is the Bible trash for me? Why play word games? Whats trash is the twisted interpretations and complete lack of knowledge and historical fact. The throwing of wild accusations with next to no proof except for crazy Ruckman like word games, insults, accusations and ranting that makes no sense at all.

You two are so taken in by a circular logic that you cannot escape. Once you believe the Ruckmanite teaching that the KJV is a pure revelation you are trapped.

You make the evidence fit the conclusion instead of the conclusion fitting the evidence.

"that Greek banner" just happens to be a favorite verse, so what of it. I have a high resolution pic set of Aleph, A , B and many others. Do you want me to do a direct translation of it for you?

What YOU need to do is properly educate yourself with facts rather than this conspiracy theory fiction you believe. Its got more holes in it that a cheese grater and some big enough to drive a car through. You arguments may sound good to those that don't know any better but those of us that do can see right through it.

What has actually happened is that monks/scribes misspelled words, smoothed over hard readings, "fixed" what they thought to be mistakes, skipped words here and there for innocent reasons (ancient form of a typo) and sometimes an overzealous scribe would add to readings to make them match up better with a similar verse.

Thats it, no grand conspiracy, no X-files mystery, just what happens when you hand write a collection of 27 books for over 1000 years.

 

[Eliyahu]

Its John 3:16 !!!!!!!!

Oh, dear ! you can read it ! Great achievement for you after finding it by the English remark underneath, right?

Is the Bible trash for me? Why play word games? Whats trash is the twisted interpretations and complete lack of knowledge and historical fact. The throwing of wild accusations with next to no proof except for crazy Ruckman like word games, insults, accusations and ranting that makes no sense at all.

You two are so taken in by a circular logic that you cannot escape. Once you believe the Ruckmanite teaching that the KJV is a pure revelation you are trapped.

You make the evidence fit the conclusion instead of the conclusion fitting the evidence.

"that Greek banner" just happens to be a favorite verse, so what of it. I have a high resolution pic set of Aleph, A , B and many others. Do you want me to do a direct translation of it for you?

What YOU need to do is properly educate yourself with facts rather than this conspiracy theory fiction you believe. Its got more holes in it that a cheese grater and some big enough to drive a car through. You arguments may sound good to those that don't know any better but those of us that do can see right through it.

What has actually happened is that monks/scribes misspelled words, smoothed over hard readings, "fixed" what they thought to be mistakes, skipped words here and there for innocent reasons (ancient form of a typo) and sometimes an overzealous scribe would add to readings to make them match up better with a similar verse.

Thats it, no grand conspiracy, no X-files mystery, just what happens when you hand write a collection of 27 books for over 1000 years.

Your Ignorance is here and this tells what you are !

You carry the banner of Saint Augustine. Do you call such a man as a Saint ?

The following is the summary about Augustine :

I have noticed the following summary from the book "What Love is this p55-58" by Dave Hunt, but some points may be confirmed from Confession and City of God by Augustine.

Augustine believed and claimed;

1) He believed in the Coercion of Faith unto the unbelievers by Force
He misinterpreted Luke 14:23- and believed that the Force can be used as long as it is available.
This may mean that Augustine was the "Father of Inquisition"

2) Predestination of the Unbelievers that they may not believe in Jesus and thereby they should go to the Hell, even though God could save them all, for it pleased God.
( In this case, god of Augustine is responsible for the unbelief of the people and therefore the god of Augustine should go to the Hell !)
Calvin quoted Augustine 400 times in his Institutes calling him " Holy Father"

3) Infant Baptism

4) Baptismal Regeneration

5) Mary was sinless, Augustine promoted Mary Worship

6) Grace can be obtained thru Sacraments

7) Lord Supper as the spiritual presence of Body and Blood

8) Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ, Outside this body, the Holy Spirit gives the life to No One.

9) Purgatory

10) Acceptance of Apocrypha ( while admitting that the Jews rejected this)

11) Jews must be killed by double edged swords.

12) Rejected the literal interpretation of Creation like 6 days and other details of Genesis

13) Rejected the literal reign of Christ Jesus for thousand years.

14) Satan was already bound and the abyss was in the heart of the unbelievers - Christ Rejecters.

15) placed the Tradition to the first place over the Bible, incorporating the Greek philosophy, Platonism.

He hated Donatists and praised Constantine for killing Donatists and confiscating their properties.

Was Augustine a truly born again Believer in Jesus Christ? give your thoughts!


St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14
How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!

http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm

http://davidbrett.blog.ca/2006/12/20/christians_jews_and_the_passion~1459087/

 

[Eliyahu]

Why use relativism as a method to try and escape the truth. I do not need to know you to know what you wrote. The Bible declares that we are to folow Christ not the apostles. Not one of ther aposteles are perfect but Christ is.

None of the apostles is perfect, but the apostles followed Jesus Christ and obeyed Him, and therefore they asked us to follow their examples of the obedience. I never claimed any equality of the Apostles with Jesus.

Could you quote me on that?

In above sentence you are still refusing to follow the Apostles because they are imperfect. But the truth is that what they wrote was by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Paul asked us to follow him in pursuing Jesus Christ.

Remember the historical context and who he was addressing.

Now you reject Jesus claiming that what Jesus said is a historical truth, not applicable to your life.

BY your logic, you reject the teachings by Jesus Christ as if they had applied only to the disciples.

You reject the teachings by the apostles because they are imperfect, insinuating that they disagreed with Jesus Christ.

At the end you have many reasons to reject and refuse the Words of God, which is typical to the stubborn people.

 

[Eliyahu]

Pastor Larry,

You'd better read " What love is this" the Misrepresentation of God by Calvinism" written be Dave Hunt, though it is not TC.

You can find Calvin's Predestination theory is nothing but the extension of the Predestination by Augustine, who was a horrible Anti-semitic, Father of Inquisition.

TULIP of Calvinism is full of contradiction to the Bible, and the Perseverence is the most ridiculous theory contradicting the Predestination itself.

How come a Baptist Pastor follow such person who claimed the Infant Baptism and Baptism by sprinkling?

 

[Eliyahu]

I was quoted the verses by the man who spoke to me and led me to Christ. I have led many to Christ without using a Bible. A pastor friend of mine seldom takes a Bible with him but rather uses their Bible if they have questions.

When you were guided by a certain man or a pastor, didn't you have any discernment of your own at all? When you had your own discernment, wasn't it revealed by the assistance of the Holy Spirit? or did you have to appeal to the TC?

Most (98%) of the the early believers could not read nor write. Does your KJV contain the apocrypha? If not then it is not a KJV but an abberation. If it does not contain the apocrypha then it has deleted many verses.

I already explained it is a childish accusation if one accuse KJV about the Apocrypha. I already mentioned that KJV didn't claim that AP is the part of the Bible. Many of the Bibles today carry the maps or Hebrew calendar, does it mean that they claim the Hebrew calendar or Map is the part of the Bible?

Moreover, the modern versions are based on the Naptali Masoretic Texts influenced very much by LXX, even though even KJV is influenced by LXX a little. As you know LXX contains AP.

Roman Catholic Bible has the same basis as the one for the MV's.
RCC get along with MV, not with KJV.

 

[Eliyahu]

It is not about rejection of verses but their correct interpretation and the application founded on that correct interpretation.

How would you personally apply Lk. 22:3-4, "And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. 4 And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them."

This is another childish way to reject the application of the Bible teaching to the actual life.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You'd better read " What love is this" the Misrepresentation of God by Calvinism" written be Dave Hunt, though it is not TC.

Hunt's book was one of the worst books ever written. It has been so thoroughly discredited though no thinking person puts any credibility in it. Both his facts and his methodology are wrong. He flat out lied in places.

Here is a review that will help you to understand the issues: http://www.dbts.edu/journals/Hunt_Review.pdf

TULIP of Calvinism is full of contradiction to the Bible, and the Perseverence is the most ridiculous theory contradicting the Predestination itself.

If you can support this, I will be glad to listen, but if you do, you will be the first ever to do it. I doubt that will happen.

How come a Baptist Pastor follow such person who claimed the Infant Baptism and Baptism by sprinkling?

I don't know. You will have to ask a Baptist pastor who does. It isn't me.

But on to a real issue, you talk a lot about John 14:26 and whether or not it applies to you. Do you believe John 14:25 applies to you?

 

[Eliyahu]

Hunt's book was one of the worst books ever written. It has been so thoroughly discredited though no thinking person puts any credibility in it. Both his facts and his methodology are wrong. He flat out lied in places.

Here is a review that will help you to understand the issues: http://www.dbts.edu/journals/Hunt_Review.pdf

If you can support this, I will be glad to listen, but if you do, you will be the first ever to do it. I doubt that will happen.

I don't know. You will have to ask a Baptist pastor who does. It isn't me.

But on to a real issue, you talk a lot about John 14:26 and whether or not it applies to you. Do you believe John 14:25 applies to you?

Thanks for your quotes.
The site you quoted doesn't cover very much issues of what Dave Hunt pointed out. It is about 530 pages book with heavily quoted Bible verses, requiring lots of thoughts on Systematic Theology.

JN 14:25 mentions the timing, the presence of the disciples.

Then do you believe Mt 28:19 applies to you? Because Jesus asked the Disciples to teach the people and make them disciples. Then the next disciples did the same, made another generation His disciples, and they did the same continuously down to our generation, and we became His disciples. The teachings given to the Disciples by Jesus still applies to our generation, don't you agree ?

 

[Eliyahu]

Pastor Larry,

How do you compromise the Limited Atonement with this verse?

1 Jn 2
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

I want to hear your own word.