/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>544448

Being a trap is a sin

>>544454

Don't they know that during Christ's time, some clothes exposed a single breast of a woman?

Wut?

>>544448

No, you can be in your birthday suit for all it matters since there is nothing against it in the Bible. Just remember to follow local laws i.e romans 13 on public indecency if that's a thing where you live. While also not being a deutoronomy 23:17

>>544453

Traps are gay.

>>544448

No. It is a sin for men to list after you though. So, lest you encourage others to sin, best wear one of those hijab style swimsuits.

Yes, I'm joking. Don't wear a hijab.

>>544467

Meant to say burka, not hijab.

>>544467

<lust is a sin

>not saying covetousness

Read James 1:14, romans 7:7, exodus 20:17, james 1:15, ephesians 2:3, acts 20:33-34, 2 timothy 2:4, and galations 5:17.

Are you by yourself or only with your husband? Go right ahead.

Anything else is sinful.

>>544473

James 1:14-15

>But everyone is tempted by being drawn away and enticed by his own passion. Then when passion has conceived, it brings forth sin; but when sin has matured, it begets death.

Romans 7:7

>What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? By no means! Yet I did no know sin save through the Law. For I had not known lust unless the Law said, "Thou shalt not lust."

>ephesians 2:3

Indeed, in the company of these even we, all of us, once led our lives in the desires of our flesh, doing the promptings of our flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest.

>acts 20:33-34

I have coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. 34 You yourselves know that these hands of mine have provided for my needs and those of my companions.

>2 timothy 2:4

No one serving as God's soldier entangles himself in worldly affairs, that he may please him whose approval he has secured.

>Galatians 5:17

For the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you would.

Exodus 20:17

>Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

Lust is used twice in the context of the flesh. Covet is used twice in the context of physical possessions.

Desire is used once in the context of your neighbor's wife.

What was your point?

>>544487

Stop using a corrupt version and use the KJV only. Then it makes more sense if you have eyes to see. My point is that lust =/= covetousness. So stop calling lust a sin when it has not "concieved" or been "fullfilled" as said in the KJV.

>>544488

>Stop using a corrupt version

<use the KJV only

lol ok

>>544489

Glad I could convince you of the err of your ways. You even quoted a perfect example of why your version is corrupt. In Romans 7:7 for WES

>What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? By no means! Yet I did no know sin save through the Law. For I had not known lust unless the Law said, "Thou shalt not lust."

In Exodus 20:17 of your version, the WES, it says

>Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

So which was it? Did God say lust or covet? It can't be both or God would be a liar in Romans 7:7 for your version if it were true.

>>544476

>:)

stop

>>544498

stop what, that's how i write online

>>544496

>Your version, the WES

>>544484

>tfw no wife to go skinny dipping with at a remote lake

>implying females go to /christian/

>>544453

This

>>544496

Friend, let me show you why claiming the bible I read is silly, using the KJV and the original text.

The Hebrew word in Exodus 20:17 is: ṯaḥ·mōḏ.

Tahmod is translated in the KJV three different ways: as covet, in Exodus 20:17; as desire in Deut. 5:21; and lust in Proverbs 6:25. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/tachmod_2530.htm

The Greek word used in Romans 7:7 is: epithymian.

The KJV translates epithymian in three different ways: as lust in Romans 7:7; as desire in Philippians 1:23; and as concupiscence in Colossians 3:5. http://biblehub.com/greek/epithumian_1939.htm

If tahmod and epithymian are the exact same word in different languages,

and the KJV is perfect so its translations are perfect;

and if the KJV can translate Tahmod as both covet, desire, and lust;

and if the KJV can translate epithymian as concupiscence, desire, and lust;

then so too can my bible translate them as lust, covet, and desire interchangeably as it did, without being considered corrupt, just like the KJV did.

>>544502

DUDE

>>544520

>why claiming the bible I read is silly

meant

>why claiming the Bible is read is corrupt is silly

>>544520

Holy crap dude. Care to explain how you came to the conclusion that

>If tahmod and epithymian

>the original text.

These words mean what you claim them to mean in line with 2 peter 1:20? I don't understand how you came to this private interpretation of words meaning something completely different then what is on the page. I came to the conclusion that the KJV was directly inspired by God because of 2 timothy 3:16. I did this by examining it's fruits in line with matthew 7:15-20, which do not make God a liar in line with titus 1:2.

You're version does exactly that though, if it were true. The private explanation you gave me of some private words no one understands today and could mean anything makes no sense. It's not a arguement, unless you want to claim that words in the Bible could mean anything or everything you privately interpret. But if you continue to did that then you make the word of God of none effect against what matthew 15:3,6-9 says.

>>544520

>Friend, let me show you why claiming the bible I read is silly

I am not your friend. I didn't say "silly" I said "corrupt".

>then so too can my bible translate them as lust, covet, and desire interchangeably as it did,

But it didn't, the word on the page is "lust". Why would God write things making Him a liar down?

>without being considered corrupt, just like the KJV did.

But the KJV used "covet" there, not lust. Therefore it is true because it fits in line with what is said in exodus 20:17 by not making God a liar.

>and the KJV is perfect so its translations are perfect;

No, all versions must be tested for their fruits in line with matthew 7:15-20 as to not make God a liar in line with titus 1:2.

>>544533

I don't claim the words mean anything but what the KJV translators said they mean.

The KJV translates: tahmod three different ways.

The KJV translates: epithymian three different ways.

Either it's right to translate the both words three different ways each or the KJV translated these words wrong.

It's not any private interpretation of words. It's the exact interpretation of the words as used by the translators of the KJV.

Are you saying the KJV is wrong or are you saying the English supersedes the text it was translated from?

So. Lets go back to your question.

>So which was it? Did God say lust or covet? It can't be both or God would be a liar in Romans 7:7 for your version if it were true.

According to the KJV, tahmod is lust, covet, and desire. So, because the Hebrew says:

>Thou shalt not tahmod thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not tahmod thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

And tahmod is covet, lust, and desire, I can replace "covet" in the verse with "lust" or "desire".

Because I can do that, (remember, the KJV uses tahmod those three ways), then Romans 7:7, which is quoting Exodus 20:17, can legitimately be translated as:

>What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet

OR

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not lust.

BOTH of which were acceptable translations, according to the perfect KJV, because BOTH lust and covet were used for the SAME WORD by the KJV.

>>544548

Moreover, the word translated in romans as "covet" is used by the same KJV translators as lust. Making everything I said in perfect harmony. It's really quite simple.

This thread went from "should I wear a bikini" to lessons in Greek within an hour.

I love this board.

>>544552

>Moreover, the word translated in romans as "covet" is used by the same KJV translators as lust. Making everything I said in perfect harmony. It's really quite simple.

Gah. I gotta proofread for clarity, lest I be misinterpreted.

>The word translated in Romans as covet is also translated by the same KJV translators as lust.

>I don't claim the words mean anything but what the KJV translators said they mean.

They wrote down what they meant, which was "covet" which has a different english meaning then "lust". So why do you keep going on about the kikes (((hebrew, greek, and latin))) words that you can't show me how you translated them to english? Unless you are going to claim inspiration by God in lieu of 2 timothy 3:16. But why translate exodus 20:17 and james 1:15 to "lust" when that yet again makes another verse corrupt, if it were true, in acts 20:33?

>Are you saying the KJV is wrong or are you saying the English supersedes the text it was translated from?

I am saying all scripture is inspired by God 2 timothy 3:16. Therefore if it is scripture it must be inspired by God and have the good fruit matthew 7:15-20 of not making God a liar titus 1:2 which the WES you quoted maketh God a liar if it were true.

>And tahmod is covet, lust, and desire, I can replace "covet" in the verse with "lust" or "desire".

Why can you do that? What authority do you do this by? How did you come to your conclusion in line with 1 peter 1:20? Why don't you make your own version since the WES is wrong and you seem to not believe that the KJV is scripture given by inspiration of God?

>>544555

Nice trips btw.

>>544557

>They wrote down what they meant, which was "covet" which has a different english meaning then "lust".

Sure. But the words used in Hebrew and Greek do not make such a distinction. Either the KJV translators were privately inspired to be able to discern the difference or they weren't. If they weren't then the KJV isn't perfect and I would have no reason to use it over another translation.

>you can't show me how you translated them to english?

But I did. I even referenced how the KJV translated them.

here are my sources:

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/tachmod_2530.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/epithumian_1939.htm

>Unless you are going to claim inspiration by God in lieu of 2 timothy 3:16

I claim no divine inspiration, but in order to be consistent, you have to claim the KJV is inspired. Which if it is, means I can move these words around because the tahmod has three perfect, inspired translations. If it is not, then I have no reason to be KJV only.

>But why translate exodus 20:17 and james 1:15 to "lust" when that yet again makes another verse corrupt, if it were true, in acts 20:33?

It doesn't corrupt any verse, because the three different translations are all perfect. Either the KJV translated these perfectly or they didn't.

> if it is scripture it must be inspired by God and have the good fruit of not making God a liar, which the WES you quoted maketh God a liar if it were true.

This is not a complete sentence. Also, I did not quote the WES.

>Why can you do that? What authority do you do this by?

By the same authority as the KJV translators, who did the same.

>How did you come to your conclusion in line with 1 peter 1:20?

The same way the KJV translators did.

>why don't you make your own version since the WES is wrong and you seem to not believe that the KJV is scripture given by inspiration of God?

1. There are way too many translations out there already, we don't need another one.

2. I'm too lazy

3. I didn't quote the WES.

4. If you believed the KJV is inspired by God, you would have to allow me to translate tahmod three different ways and epithymian three different ways because the KJV translated each word three different ways, meaning each translation is perfect.

It's the transitive property, man.

>>544568

>exposed thighs

>modest

nope

==L O N D O N==

Isn't there some sort of light jacket or dress or something you can wear if you start feeling too guilty?

>>544572

But that was when society was a million times more pious and devout. Even the best of today's Christians have trouble living up to that standard.

For guys who look at porn bikinis are boring and not lewd.

For us doing noporn, no fap, purity mode bikinis are of the devil and enticing.

>>544576

But I'm saying the standard back then when it comes to bathing was the same as today so no problemo

>>544448

waaaaaait a second.

Who goes to a beach in October? Maybe it's because I live in the frosted north, but I've never been to a beach in October.

>>544572

Christians hated bath houses.

Go look at bikini pics from the 18/1900s…they're full body.

>>544580

>Go look at bikini pics from the 18/1900s

But look at this painting from the middle ages…

<http://biblehub.com/hebrew/tachmod_2530.htm http://biblehub.com/greek/epithumian_1939.htm

Those links you linked just show a random scribbling of supposed words and no source on how they translated them from those scribles to english. So not a arguement.

>Either the KJV translators were privately inspired to be able to discern the difference or they weren't.

>By the same authority as the KJV translators, who did the same.

>The same way the KJV translators did.

So by God then. Because all scripture, if it is scripture, is inspired by God i.e 2 timothy 3:16.

<It's the transitive property, man.

<Which if it is, means I can move these words around because the tahmod has three perfect, inspired translations. If it is not, then I have no reason to be KJV only.

But it's not. Because the word put down was the english "covet" and not the (((greek/hebrew/latin))) "tahmod" or "epithymian".

>It doesn't corrupt any verse, because the three different translations are all perfect.

No, we speak english not (((greek/hebrew))). If "tahmod" or "epithymian" had been put down then it would need to be defined. But it wasn't. So use the word "covet".

<I claim no divine inspiration

So you have no authority or power from God then, to interpret words in the Bible ala 1 peter 1:20, because of matthew 7:15-20 and all scripture being given by inspiration of God in 2 timothy 3:16. So why should I listen to you instead of what God says?

>>544584

> no source on how they translated them from those scribles to english

I don't understand.

This is the verse in Hebrew, next to a direct translation of each word into English. http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/20-17.htm

If you click on tahmod in blue, it will link you to http://biblehub.com/hebrew/tachmod_2530.htm which shows you other places it appears in the Bible and how it is translated different.

Here is Deut., where tahmod is translated as desire. http://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/5-21.htm

Here is proverbs 6:25, where tahmod is translated as lust.

You can do the same here with Romans 7:7

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/7-7.htm

>not an argument

You're right. It's not an argument. It is the authority I am using to cite my claims that tahmod is translated three different ways in the KJV.

>So by God then

Thou sayest it. Matt 25:11.

>But it's not. Because the word put down was the english "covet" and not the (((greek/hebrew/latin))) "tahmod" or "epithymian".

The word translated into English by the KJV as "covet" is "tahmod". I don't know what you're not understanding.

> If "tahmod" or "epithymian" had been put down then it would need to be defined.

Those were put down. You know Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul, Peter, etc. didn't speak or write in English, right?

>so you have no authority or power from God then, to interpret words in the Bible

Then neither did the KJV translators.

>o you have no authority or power from God then, to interpret words in the Bible

>So why should I listen to you instead of what God says?

You shouldn't. You should listen to what the Bible says. And the Bible says "tahmod", which interpreted into English by the KJV, means "covet" and "lust" and "desire".

I don't know how else to put it, bud. The KJV translates the same word three different ways. If the KJV is inspired, then the three different translations are inspired. if the three different translations are inspired, then every time I swap one out for the other, it is still inspired.

>>544593

proverbs 6:25

http://biblehub.com/text/proverbs/6-25.htm

>>544593

>>So by God then

>Thou sayest it. Matt 25:11.

should be Matt 27:11. my b.

>>544593

>So why should I listen to you instead of what God says?

<You shouldn't.

<You're right. It's not an argument.

So why don't you use the king james Bible then? Why argue over endless genealogies of words?

>so you have no authority or power from God then, to interpret words in the Bible

<Then neither did the KJV translators.

But the fruits of their translation clearly make it of God, because it doesn't make God a liar. But you lied, just now saying.

<I claim no divine inspiration >>544570

<The same way the KJV translators did. >>544570

I believe that because of 1 peter 1:25 that the word of the Lord is on the earth today because God says so. The only version that fits His description of what the Bible is yes this is circlular logic requiring faith in believing God is real and tells the truth the KJV.

<This is the verse in Hebrew, next to a direct translation of each word into English

Right, but who determined that it is hebrew? Who told you those scribbled on that webpage are hebrew words? How did they determine that those scribbles mean a word in english? Don't say God because you already admited you weren't of God.

>>544599

>>544593

>>544584

>>544570

> All of this autism

> Mfw OP and I still don't understand modesty

Thanks guys

>>544593

>I don't know how else to put it, bud. The KJV translates the same word three different ways. If the KJV is inspired, then the three different translations are inspired. if the three different translations are inspired, then every time I swap one out for the other, it is still inspired.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I must note that you're oversimplifying things on two levels. First of all, the same word may carry different connotations depending on the context of the sentence, and, likewise, for the language it's being translated into. Not all language can be treated as a one-to-one word exchange operation, or else google translate would be all we need. Sometimes it can, but you can't assume it always is like you've done. One should also pay attention to the larger sentence structure of the source and ensuring the translation of it works.

>>544599

>So why don't you use the king james Bible then?

A variety of reason, none of which are relevant.

Why argue over endless genealogies of words?

You're the one saying everything but the KJV is corrupt. I'd rather not waste my time, frankly.

>But the fruits of their translation clearly make it of God,

Some would say the KJV has only lead people to Hell because it was not proofread by the Christ's church. Therefore, by its fruits, the KJV is not of God.

>I believe that because of 1 peter 1:25 that the word of the Lord is on the earth today because God says so.

Amen. The word of the Lord is on Earth. That doesn't mean it is in the KJV, that doesn't mean it is only in the KJV.

>The only version that fits His description of what the Bible is the KJV

Have you read all of them? Including the Japanese? What about the Belarusian? Zulu? Somali? Certainly the Persian translation has a valid claim as well.

>Right, but who determined that it is hebrew?

The KJV translators. Where do you think the KJV translators got their source Hebrew and Greek text from? Paul didn't write in English.

>Who told you those scribbled on that webpage are hebrew words?

The KJV translators accepted the received text–copies of copies of copies of the original manuscripts. That is just a copy on a webpage of a written copy of the received text. If it was good enough for the KJV translators, then it's good enough for you and me.

>how did they determine that those scribbles mean a word in english?

Go ask whoever told you the KJV was a perfect translation of those scribbles.

>I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I must note that you're oversimplifying things on two levels. First of all, the same word may carry different connotations depending on the context of the sentence, and, likewise, for the language it's being translated into. Not all language can be treated as a one-to-one word exchange operation, or else google translate would be all we need. Sometimes it can, but you can't assume it always is like you've done. One should also pay attention to the larger sentence structure of the source and ensuring the translation of it works.

You just became non KJV only.

>>544579

OP probably lives in or is at least holidaying in the Southern Hemisphere or the Tropics. I don't think anybody would be mental enough to go swimming in a bikini during Autumn.

>>544611

I am not the same person as >>544601 .

>Some would say the KJV has only lead people to Hell because it was not proofread by the Christ's church

>A variety of reason, none of which are relevant.

>If it was good enough for the KJV translators, then it's good enough for you and me.

I want to see the chapter and verse on how you came to these conclusions and interpretations. Are you saying the ALL the KJV translators were not Christians? Including king james in the 1600's?

>You're the one saying everything but the KJV is corrupt. I'd rather not waste my time, frankly.

This is a huge issue though. God's word is above His own name psalms 138:2. The Bible is the foundation for the Christian faith. Without it we are just making shit up like all the other religions as we go along.

<Have you read all of them? Including the Japanese? What about the Belarusian? Zulu? Somali? Certainly the Persian translation has a valid claim as well.

Sure they could. But we speak english. So use the enlglish Bible, the KJV. I remember going through the zulu/somali/africannees version and finding it corrupt in mark 1:2 and malichi 3:1 though.

>>544611

>You just became non KJV only.

The KJV translators did that though.

And I'm not KJV only, I just fully reject the critical text and choose to use the KJV.

>Amen. The word of the Lord is on Earth. That doesn't mean it is in the KJV, that doesn't mean it is only in the KJV.

What else is it in? Do you read English and if so what version?

>>544615

This is further proof of how depraved Catholics have been for centuries, thanks for the contribution.

>>544615

I don't see what's wrong with the scene besides the two people having lain together at the top of the bath against what deutoronomy 23:17 says. Possibly the two in the left hand corner violating james 1:15 and about to deutoronomy 23:17 it up. But only a possibility.

>>544618

>I want to see the chapter and verse on how you came to these conclusions and interpretations.

What conclusion or interpretation? I didn't make any conclusion or interpretation. I didn't rely on any verse to choose not to use the KJV. Moreover, why I don't use the KJV is irrelevant in determine whether the KJV is perfectly inspired to the exclusion of all other translations.

>Some would say the KJV has only lead people to Hell because it was not proofread by the Christ's church

Have you ever heard of Catholics?

>If it was good enough for the KJV translators, then it's good enough for you and me.

So the received text is good enough for the KJV translators to use, but not good enough for you and me to reference?

>Are you saying the ALL the KJV translators were not Christians? Including King James?

If anything, I'm saying that if the KJV translators were allowed to reference and translate the textus receptus, then so am I. And if the translators of the KJV were allowed to interpret tahmod as "covet" "lust" and "desire" then so am I.

>This is a huge issue though. God's word is above His own name psalms 138:2. The Bible is the foundation for the Christian faith. Without it we are just making shit up like all the other religions as we go along.

Well then that's why we're arguing over "endless genealogies of words" ya goose.

>We speak English. So use the enlglish Bible

I did quote the Bible in English.

>The KJV translators did that though.

Then so too am I. Therefore, I do not have to use the KJV.

>I just fully reject the critical text and choose to use the KJV.

Neat.

>What else is it in?

My superiors, who spoke to me the word of God. Hebrews 13:7.

>Do you read English?

If I didn't, we couldn't have this conversation.

>if so what version?

What version I read is irrelevant.

>>544632

You forgot to link me but I saw it anyway.

>So the received text is good enough for the KJV translators to use, but not good enough for you and me to reference?

By all means, refer to whatever you want. But whether that makes you factually correct or not is to be determined.

>Therefore, I do not have to use the KJV.

Alright, what do you propose then?

>>544632

>What version I read is irrelevant.

It's very relevant, why don't you show us the truth of what God says if there is another version out there besides the KJV that is inspired by God? Let all things be done unto edifying after all 1 corinthians 14:26

>So the received text is good enough for the KJV translators to use, but not good enough for you and me to reference?

If you are going to claim it is scripture, then yes it's not good enough as you would be claiming to be inspired by God Himself. Which you already denied.

>>544633

>But whether that makes you factually correct or not is to be determined.

Well the options are either I'm correct or the KJV is wrong. So…

I mean what would you want? a pdf scan of the actual hebrew and greek manuscripts the KJV translators used in 1611 notarized and signed by the translators? C'mon man.

>what do you propose then?

I propose you all stop freaking out when someone doesn't use the KJV.

>>544637

what are your lifts?

>>544637

It's vanity because romans 8:8 and offtopic for the subject.

>>544638

>Well the options are either I'm correct or the KJV is wrong.

You think so?

>I propose you all stop freaking out when someone doesn't use the KJV.

That's not what concerns me. It only concerns me if someone tries to nullify the word of God, and I think that's understandable.

>>544635

> why don't you show us the truth of what God says if there is another version out there besides the KJV that is inspired by God?

There is only one version of the Truth of God, silly. But it is not exclusive to the KJV, otherwise it could not be spoken like in Hebrews 13:7.

>If you are going to claim it is scripture, then yes it's not good enough as you would be claiming to be inspired by God Himself.

So the textus receptus isn't scripture, but the KJV is. Even though the KJV wouldn't exist without the textus receptus? That is absurd.

>>544644

>So the textus receptus isn't scripture, but the KJV is.

Correct because of it's fruits matthew 7:15-20.

>Even though the KJV wouldn't exist without the textus receptus?

No your thought process is excluding God. The scriptures wouldn't exist without God saying they would endure forever i.e 1 peter 1:25. It doesn't matter if you destroyed every single manuscript and datapoint of the Bible tommorow and eliminated all Christians on earth. It will endure because God said so in 1 peter 1:25, end of story.

>>544627

>>544615

>>544631

It's a brothel

The bikini was made by a Jewish designer and it was a very controversial item in its early days. Make of that as you will, but realize that basically the original reaction was that he had succeeded in making ordinary women wear things at the beach that to that point was only to be find in saloons or brothels.

>>544643

>You think so?

It seems logic would demand it. Your own position would demand it. Either the Hebrew the KJV and I both referenced is acceptable or its not. If it is not acceptable, the the KJV unacceptably employed it four hundred years ago and therefore the KJV should be discarded.

>It only concerns me if someone tries to nullify the word of God

Isaiah 40:8. You've got nothing to worry about then.

>>544645

>Correct because of it's fruits

And who determines its fruits? You or the Catholics? You could say God, but that is not an answer because you're not God. You can't say you get to judge, because only God can judge.

>The scriptures wouldn't exist without God saying they would endure forever i.e 1 peter 1:25.

You're right the Scriptures wouldn't exist without God. But you just said the TR isn't the Scriptures. Therefore, the KJV couldn't have been translated from the scriptures and should thus be discarded.

> It doesn't matter if you destroyed every single manuscript and datapoint of the Bible tommorow and eliminated all Christians on earth. It will endure because God said so in 1 peter 1:25, end of story.

Great. I can destroy every KJV ever made and no one could ever use it again and still read the word of God. Therefore, I have no reason to use the KJV to the exclusion of any other version.

>>544648

You are making even less sense as this conversation goes on.

>Great. I can destroy every KJV ever made

Well the kikes plan on doing something similar to this. But don't do it yourself because that is profaning God's word and against what Revelation 22:19 says.

>You're right the Scriptures wouldn't exist without God. But you just said the TR isn't the Scriptures. Therefore, the KJV couldn't have been translated from the scriptures and should thus be discarded.

That's where you are wrong. The TR wasn't inspired by God because of its fruits matthew 7:15-20 of making God a liar titus 1:2 if it were true, which it is not. The KJV, if it is scripture, will fulfill not making God a liar and therefore be directly inspired by God like said in 2 timothy 3:16. It doesn't make God a liar by having errors so it passess. But this requires beleiving God exists and will inspire scripture in the first place. Which you obviously don't beleive is happening currently even though God said He would preserve his word forever in 1 peter 1:25.

>>544647

THIS. It's the same story with yoga pants, mini skirts, etc. All of these are designed to make you want to fug a woman, that's it. That's all they're designed for. Not for comfort, not for the cold weather, not for anything but showing skin so you pop a boner.

>>544648

>Either the Hebrew the KJV and I both referenced is acceptable or its not.

Assuming you are both referring to the same original source, what reason would we have to think you understand Hebrew sufficiently to translate it?

>Isaiah 40:8. You've got nothing to worry about then.

Beautiful verse. Right up next to 59:21.

But I still have some means for concern, see Mark 7:13. I wouldn't want to be associated with or listen to people who lay aside the Word.

>And who determines its fruits?

Clearly in Matt. 7 Jesus expects you to, which is why he said this. Also in 1 John 4:1 you are expected to try the spirits whether they be of God.

>Therefore, I have no reason to use the KJV to the exclusion of any other version.

The critical text versions however are corrupt, so be aware of that. Be aware that not all versions say the same thing.

>>544448

>Girl here

I believe you

>>544653

Another series of verses on discerning is deutoronomy 18:18-22.

>Be aware that not all versions say the same thing.

Such as on covetousness and lust. Hence why this whole debate started

Romans 7:7 some random unspecified version

>What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? By no means! Yet I did no know sin save through the Law. For I had not known lust unless the Law said, "Thou shalt not lust."

Romans 7:7 KJV

>What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

>>544650

I feel like I'm talking to wall

>It doesn't matter if you destroyed every single manuscript and datapoint of the Bible tommorow and eliminated all Christians on earth. It will endure because God said so in 1 peter 1:25, end of story.

Is the KJV the Bible or not? You said the TR is not the Bible so the only bible manuscripts that could be destroyed are those of the KJV! But even if I destroyed every bible (e.g. the every KJV), God's word would endure. Therefore, I have no reason to use the KJV because you said I can destroy every copy of it.

I'm only taking what you say to its illogical conclusion.

>The TR makes god a liar

>The TR was written by the apostles

<The apostles made god a liar

That is what YOU are saying when you say the words penned by the apostles, as recorded in the TR make God a liar. I am only taking your words to their illogical conclusion.

Do you know what the TR is?

>It doesn't make God a liar by having errors so it passess.

The text I quoted doesn't have errors, so it passes too. If the text I quoted has errors, the KJV has errors because the text I quoted translated the same words in the same way that the KJV translators did.

>>544653

>what reason would we have to think you understand Hebrew sufficiently to translate it?

None whatsoever. Which is why I didn't translate it, but instead showed how the KJV translators interpreted the same Hebrew word Tahmod three different ways in the KJV. Check it out: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/tachmod_2530.htm

>Mark 7:13. I wouldn't want to be associated with or listen to people who lay aside the Word.

Yeah OK. I getcha.

>Clearly in Matt. 7 Jesus expects you to, which is why he said this. Also in 1 John 4:1 you are expected to try the spirits whether they be of God.

Yeah OK. You're right. But my hangup is how subjective it all ends up being. Like I said, Catholics would say the KJV is sending people to Hell, after testing the spirits and looking at the fruits.

>Be aware that not all versions say the same thing.

YES! YES! YES!

>>544649

Reading your post, I remembered that showing more skin was actually more risque since the Imagination is left to float around.

Now what?

>>544660

>The text I quoted doesn't have errors, so it passes too.

If at all possible I wouldn't want to create a stumbling-block for someone else, by using a translation that has known errors in it elsewhere. I think that's what he was also trying to say there.

>But my hangup is how subjective it all ends up being. Like I said, Catholics would say the KJV is sending people to Hell, after testing the spirits and looking at the fruits.

Forget what other people say and determine it yourself like Jesus said. That's the only way this can ever be objective. It's the same thing with letting the Holy Spirit objectively guide you into all truth, John 16:13 and John 14:16-17. Also 1 Cor. 2:12-13 and 1 John 2:27 and Luke 11:13.

>Do you know what the TR is?

A large series of manuscripts of scrap toilet paper and trash with which bits of peices of what God said that was copied over and over and over again.

>That is what YOU are saying when you say the words penned by the apostles, as recorded in the TR

No those are copies of what the apostles penned. That doesn't mean the copies were/are inspired by God.

>Is the KJV the Bible or not?

It is scripture yes.

>so the only bible manuscripts that could be destroyed are those of the KJV! But even if I destroyed every bible (e.g. the every KJV), God's word would endure.

Indeed.

>Therefore, I have no reason to use the KJV because you said I can destroy every copy of it.

No I said it's possible. Don't do it because God warns against such things in revelation 22:17.

>The text I quoted doesn't have errors, so it passes too

You are kinda wrong. You are right in that those specific words are not in err. You are wrong because those specific words don't make a complete word of God Bible or scriptures. Unless you are going to show me a whole complete version written in (((greek, hebrew and latin))) I can compare other scripture against, then it's vanity.

>>544671

Are you a Ruckmanite m8?

>>544675

I've literally never heard of that before. I am a Christian. What is a ruckmanite?

>>544679

KJV Onlyism.

Protestants of varying sects have used the KJV for a while, but only southern Baptists have adapted the "KJV Only is inerrant and alone is God's Word". It's a recent religious phenomenon of the last 50 years.

>>544660

>after testing the spirits and looking at the fruits.

I see the fruits of KJV-Onlyism and I only see error. Sorry.

>>544682

No, I am open to other versions being the word of God. But the only one I am aware of right now is the KJV. Why? Do you have a version I could inspect for errors? Or do you know of an error in the KJV that makes God a liar?

>>544682

>Southern Baptists

>>544671

>the TR is a large series of manuscripts of scrap toilet paper and trash with which bits of peices of what God said that was copied over and over and over again

Whoa.

>o those are copies of what the apostles penned. That doesn't mean the copies were/are inspired by God.

Then the original KJV was inspired, but the copy of it you read is not. therefore, I have no reason to use the KJV.

>No I said it's possible

You said what is possible? That the KJV could be completely destroyed and the word of God survive. Therefore, the word of God exists outside the KJV and I have no reason to use it to the exclusion of other translations. That is the logical conclusion of your words.

>Don't do it because God warns against such things in revelation

I didn't say I was going to. I'm far too lazy for that.

>You are right in that those specific words are not in err.

THEN MY THE TEXT I QUOTED IS NOT CORRUPT.

>You are wrong because those specific words don't make a complete word of God Bible or scriptures.

Of course not. It was just one verse, ya goose.

>Unless you are going to show me a whole complete version written in (((greek, hebrew and latin))) I can compare other scripture against, then it's vanity.

You have admitted the translation I used is did err. Therefore it is not corrupt.

Because it is not corrupt, then you had no reason to tell me to stop using a corrupt bible and only use the KJV, because the word of God can be found uncorrupted outside of the KJV.

Any discussion further is vanity.

>>544689

>You have admitted the translation I used is did err

should be

You have admitted the translation I used did not err.

>>544685

Cult member. Or worse, Pharisee. At least the Pharisees of Christ's time probably had the original manuscripts, you do not know what you worship.

one piece suit or gtfo

>>544691

You're silly. I worship/serve God through His son Jesus. Why do you claim that we don't have the scriptures today? That would make God a liar if it were true because of 1 peter 1:25.

>>544694

The KJV is a translation, it is not inerrant.

I look at the fruits of KJV-Onlyism and I see nothing but inanity, it will actively drive away anyone trying to give Christianity a chance.

>>544695

Well the gate is strait, and narrow is the way after all matthew 7:14. Hath ye not read ecclesasties 3:18-21 and 1 corinthians 15:44?

>>544700

Show me the verse where anyone who can't read English does not have the true scripture, you ass.

>>544692

Yup. A simple typo renders what I said invalid. A typo I corrected before you responded.

>>544639

Just did 385 for 5 reps deadlift after that picture bench 225 for 5.

>>544641

Not at all off topic,this thread is about modesty and I'm wondering if it's sinful to wear a somewhat tight sleeveless shirt. Not sure that verse applies to this.

I love how even a thread about swimsuits turns into an argument about bible translations. Never change brothers (and sister).

The natural sinless state of man and woman is completely naked so I don't see a problem with showing a lot of skin.

>>544733

>sinless

>>544453

This.

>>544637

>Exposed shoulders

At least wear a t-shirt, you slut! Compression anything makes you dehydrate faster regardless of cardio or lifting. Your ffmi has to be at least 24 before trying to show up, dyel?

>>544448

>File deleted

IF PEOPLE HERE CAN'T BE CHASTE, THEY SHOULD GET MARRIED

BEING A EUNUCH IS FOR THE ONE WITH WILLPOWER

>>544787

But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. Calm down.

>>544682

It's the meme KJV-onlyism that actually does all the things people claim we do. Ruckman was an independent Baptist too, but that also doesn't make him right.

>>544800

To give any primacy to the KJV alone is full Ruckmanism.

Any Baptist church that claims the KJV is inerrant, or the only Word of God, or etc etc is liable to the label of Ruckmanism.

Outside of black baptist churches (which are outside of the sphere of miscellaneous baptist congregations) I have seen many, many fall for this odd theology.

>>544804

Well I haven't found any errors in it m8. But name any other translation made since then, and I'll check it out, I have about 50 verses that I always check to see how bad it is, usually only takes me a minute to find something seriously wrong with any new translation. By contrast, the other also purely-TR translations which preceded it have far less serious differences. I'm just telling you how it is.

>I have seen many, many fall for this odd theology.

Do you think full Ruckman is very harmful? I haven't dealt with it much, but I find it's easy to just brush off as an oversimplification. It's still superior to being like the majority, who doubt the veracity of every Bible today, now that the horrible, horrible alexandrian versions with errors and deletions are being trafficked as bibles.

Or to accepting Greek lessons on authority from someone who can't even speak the language.

>>544816

>Do you think full Ruckman is very harmful?

It's destroying Christianity in USA, yes.

>Well I haven't found any errors in it m8. But name any other translation made since then, and I'll check it out

I have nothing against KJV as a merely good translation.

>>544817

>It's destroying Christianity in USA, yes.

And are you sure they are actually like him and not just trying to say it's the only translation they use? I say this because I'm constantly accused of this as well and I'm not. Like, all the time.

I'd say the modern translations have been silently killing Christianity ever since Westcott & Hort. And of course I can't leave out the subversive hyper-dispensational zionism of Darby and C.I. Scofield via "study Bibles" a generation before that.

>>544819

>And are you sure they are actually like him and not just trying to say it's the only translation they use

When you claim the KJV is inerrant scripture alone, yes.

>>544820

What exactly is the difference between claiming that and just "it is inerrant scripture"?

If there is another translation of the TR into a foreign language for instance, that would also be truth, because it would also say the same things in that language.

I just get the consistent feeling like I'm being cariacatured by the very same lying deceivers who made all these changes to their versions. And if so, I know exactly why they would do it.

>>544822

>What exactly is the difference between claiming that and just "it is inerrant scripture"?

come on, do I really need to answer that? what I if I said the japanese translation of the NJKV was inerrant?

>>544476

Yeah, similar to the photo probably.

>>544579

>Who goes to a beach in October?

argentines. but I was thinking more about going in december

>>544600

>>544553

I forgot there is a million denominations and nobody can agree on anything in this board. I appreciate the passion, but I'll probably just ask to my priest.

>>544637

it makes me want to see you shirtless, so yes :^)

>>544852

>Is THAT what the OP pic was of

It was literally just a girl wearing a bikini. No need to be an asshole and assume stuff you don't know.

I believe it is in the context that it is done.

If you are just wearing it because its a swimsuit. Why not? As long as you're not intentionally trying to cause others to lust after you it shouldn't be an issue.

Now this is not to say that you can wear anything as long as you don't do it to make others lust after you. For you would know deep in your heart if you wore a g-string or other similar things, or no top. You would be enticing others to lust after you whether you mean it or not.

I do not believe it is an issue. However if your consciousness dictates otherwise then follow it.

Yes, without a doubt. God doesn't take kindly to harlotry or the apparel of the whore.

>>544448

I don't know but Bishop Fulton Sheen had interesting comments on it. We wear clothes to cover up our nakedness for we were clothed with God's grace before which we have lost. Being naked he said is a perversion that comes with a rejection of God. And the more degenerate a society becomes the more naked it becomes.

There are health benefits to being naked for short windows of time at midday to get as much uvb and thus vitamin D and also benefits to endocrine sex hormone health. But I hypothesise that it is only appropriate to be like so alone or with your husband. As for a bikini one should probably limit it to family and women only settings. One should also consider what one's motivations are also if one is seeking attention and vanity or health benefits.

>>544496

>Did God say lust or covet?

He said neither because the Scriptures were not written in English…

I can't stop thinking about the woman in Op's picture. That bikini showed off her really nice figure.

>>544887

Why does it sound like you're endorsing Mudslime dress codes?

I would argue along opposite lines that children in their innocence do not yet fully understand the shame we hold towards nakedness and the further we fetishize and sexualize the naked form the more we have embraced our fallen nature, but that's just me. In any case, I don't think an African tribeswoman wearing almost nothing is the symptom of the epitome of degeneracy while a woman wearing three bedsheets to avoid so much as meeting eyes with someone is a paragon of purity.

>>544916

Huh. I'm a pervert myself, but I can't even remember what OP's picture was like.

Tbh, you might want to spend time off 8chan. Lots of unsavory pictures get posted here, even on /christian/; if you're so weak to them, staying around here sounds dangerous to me.

>>544925

I don't think it was lust, I just admire her beauty.

>>544863

>No need to be an asshole and assume stuff you don't know.

You're right that he was a fool, but you are no better, reddit. Lurk more.

>>544448

Yes, it is.

>>544649

>mods delete OP pic

>but not this

o k g a m e

>>545158

>at least you wouldn't be considered a freak

so you care more about what the world thinks of you instead of God's commandments? ok.

>>544458

Pretty common stuff back then

Not only in Judea though.

>>545236

>A stripper was used to promote it because no model would wear it. It's worth a listen.

I heard they used a prostitute.

I can't think of any verse in the Bible that expressly forbids this sort of thing.

However on a practical level you may want to attempt to dress more modest ie cover up more of your naughty bits to keep nigger/mexican rapists at bay.

>>546276

IF THE THIGH IS EXPOSED THAT'S NAKEDNESS

>>544448

It isn't, but there are other swimsuit options that might be more chaste.

>>551328

>Being a trap is a sin

yes, yes it is