/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Get The Message if you want the closest to the speech rhythm of the Apostles.

>>651052

are you high

the message is pretty wack

>>651051

>>651068

The differences you've mentioned are pretty minor overall. The DR (any year revision) is still pretty poetic overall. I would recommend as a Cat don't use or promote the KJV, many issues with it. Stick with the DR, if you want a more modern translation, the RSVCE would be good, the first revision keeps the thees and thous.

We have to promote Cat bibles and not support the Prot heresy that has caused much harm to the body of Christ.

One of the best things about the KJV aside from its precise language is the fact that it never cuts out any part of Scripture, like the critical texts especially do. Nor does it insert spurious things into Scripture, like the Catholic texts especially and also the critical texts do.

For instance, in case of the Douay-Rheims, as compared to the standard of KJV:

Ephesians 3:9— "who created all things by Jesus Christ" is removed

1 Corinthians 15:47— "the Lord from heaven" is removed

John 4:42— "this is indeed the Christ" is removed

Romans 1:16— "of Christ" is removed

Galatians 4:7— "through Christ" is removed

1 Timothy 3:16— "God was manifest in the flesh" is removed

1 John 4:3— "is come in the flesh" is removed

Hebrews 11:6— "diligently" is removed

1 John 5:13— 2nd half of the verse is removed

Acts 15:34— An extra sentence is added (strangely, critical texts instead remove the whole verse)

Revelation 14:1— "his Father's name" is changed to "his name" (and see Rev. 14:11)

>>651108

>RSVCE

It implies that Joseph was the father of Jesus in Luke 2:33.

What mad Popery is this? An Authorized Version of the strange Pagan myths of the Apocrypha can, with neither great Trouble nor considerable Expense, be had by any Popish Person so inclined as to set his precious Mackerel back down upon his dinner plate long enough to seek out a sheaf thus Tainted by the Fenian spirit of Rome.

>>651142

>that pic

You have to admit that we're on two different levels right now. You are saying a word was translated wrong according to your definition, but I am saying that your version removes entire sentences and phrases wholecloth. Not that it was mistaken on a definition, but it simply deleted the words without a trace. Words like "God" and "Christ" are just gone, and that's the issue I have with those versions.

1 Timothy 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh" and you can't simply erase the word for God from your translation.

>>651170

>I am saying that your version removes entire sentences and phrases wholecloth.

Did you read his post? Let me quote it again for you:

>why should we think that it's not KJV which ADDS to Scripture? Why should [the KJV] be a standard?

>1 Timothy 3:16 says "God was manifest in the flesh" and you can't simply erase the word for God from your translation.

Implicit here is the presumption that the word of God said "God was manifest in the flesh". Perhaps Paul actually wrote "which was manifested in the flesh" (DR) and the KJV changes it.

>>651171

>Implicit here is the presumption that the word of God said "God was manifest in the flesh". Perhaps Paul actually wrote "which was manifested in the flesh" (DR) and the KJV changes it.

You have to admit my issue is bigger than a mere mistaken definition. My complaint is that your version removes God and Christ in these places.

>>651174

>a mere mistaken definition.

And by the way, I could bring those up as well, but then you would be the one belittling it as nothing. So why don't you explain the direct removals in these places instead of pretending like the two translations are somehow comparable. Only one can be right, that needs to be admitted upfront before any discussion continues.

>>651108

How on Earth does the kjv go against Catholicism? Sure it's missing a few books but as long as you're not a king-james-onlyist then what's the big deal? It was extremely enjoyable to read.

>>651179

it's definitely not approved for liturgy. a lot of tradcaths get hung up on people reading KJV because of the old religious wars. personally I use the Ignatius bible (RSVCE) for studying. say what you want about the jesuits but they're top-tier academics when it comes to that stuff.

>>651181

>So why don't you explain the direct additions in these places instead of pretending like the two translations are somehow comparable.

Sure, I will gladly. Because God actually was manifest in the flesh, the word of God makes sure to say this in 1 Timothy 3:16. The Word is God. So then this isn't erroneous.

I'm glad you recognize that the two versions don't agree and can always hope you see which one is the misleading, wicked corruption from the above examples of full deletion of words from scripture by certain men. The important thing is that due to these changes, the two translations are not comparable. They say substantially different things and therefore cannot both be right in claiming to be scripture.

>They both could be wrong, actually.

If you're an unbeliever you might say they are both "wrong." I say one is right and the other is a corruption.

It is important to recognize that, purporting to be the same inspired scripture, they cannot both be right. One of them clearly deletes the word God, without a trace. Maybe if you had any respect for God you would care more about what his word says instead of acting intentionally snarky and pretending like it doesn't matter.

>>651190

>Sure, I will gladly. Because God actually was manifest in the flesh, the word of God makes sure to say this in 1 Timothy 3:16. The Word is God. So then this isn't erroneous.

The word of God is what the inspired authors wrote. So the issue is not necessarily what is the most detailed or accurate description of what happened, but what is the proper translation of the inspired Greek. If Paul wrote "which was manifested in the flesh", then switching it to God was manifest in the flesh" would be an erroneous addition to of scripture, even if it is true.

I'm glad you recognize that the two versions don't agree and can always hope you see which one is the misleading, wicked corruption from the above examples of full addition of words to scripture by certain men.

The two translations are not comparable.

Why not?

They say substantially different things and therefore cannot both be right in claiming to be scripture.

Sure, but you still haven't proven one is right. You've just assumed one is right. Both could be wrong.

>I say one is right and the other is a corruption.

Which translation do you think is right: The NIV or the ESV?

I assume you are a KJV only kinda guy, which means you'll say only the KJV is right and both the NIV and the ESV are wrong. I'm not a KJV only guy. In fact, I'm not a "one-translation-only" kinda guy at all. So you first have to prove the KJV to be a perfect representation of the inspired biblical text before you can begin using it as a standard of comparison. So I will quote >>61142 again: why should we think that it's not KJV which ADDS to Scripture? Why should [the KJV] be a standard?

>It is important to recognize that, purporting to be the same inspired scripture, they cannot both be right.

It is equally important to recognize that they both can be wrong.

>One of them clearly deletes the word God, without a trace.

clearly? deletes? compared to what? You have not proven the KJV should be our standard of comparison, and therefore I reject using it as such. Thus, it is not in any way clear that one deleted or added a word. I will admit they are different. I am not convinced there is a substantive difference, but we can move on to that after we've reached an agreement on whether either text (or both) is an accurate translation of the inspired words.

>Maybe if you had any respect for God you would care more about what his word says instead of acting intentionally snarky and pretending like it doesn't matter.

Why are you being so rude? I merely used your words as a mirror to expose the issue presented. You didn't address at all the questions presented in the post you responded to or when I reiterated them.

>>651212

>So the issue is not necessarily what is the most detailed or accurate description of what happened, but what is the proper translation of the inspired Greek.

Then why would you flat out say they are "wrong?" You're being intellectually dishonest. You know all the way back in my original post what I mean, yet you have tried to derail this whole thread by pretending I don't understand that "only one is right" means the same as "both cannot be right," but you seized on the semantics to make a huge, pointless sidetrack about how both could be "wrong" as you put it and in the process of doing that you called the word of God outright wrong. Yet now you are also pretending not to understand that I call one right and the other a corruption. I don't call it "wrong" persay, and to "call both wrong" is something I would never say unless they were factually wrong. Rather, one is a corruption. I made myself clear before. And that's what I have been saying here, my explanation is clear and obvious, and you are deliberately pretending that it isn't. As I said before and you apparently missed, they cannot both be right; or in other words one of them must be corrupted; or in other words only one can be right. You deliberately fail to understand these things however that so you can redirect the whole conversation into this pointless subject of trying to explain the most basic logic and continue to pretend every step of the way that precisely what I've said from the beginning cannot be understood. Hence, you are being intellectually dishonest and I refuse to allow you to keep changing the subject to basic logic that we all already understand when I've spoken clearly from the beginning. I'm glad that settles this.

>Why should [the KJV] be a standard?

The OP in this thread is trying to compare the Authorized KJB with the DRB, and that is who I was originally addressing my post to, before you even came here.

>It is equally important to recognize that they both can be wrong.

It is only your intellectual dishonesty that makes you think I haven't implicitly recognized this from the beginning, although I would say corrupted, not WRONG. Because it may only have some words changed, it might mean something that's true still so I wouldn't outright say it's wrong. But since only some of us has any respect for the Lord, only some of us take any consideration not to blaspheme the word of God. Even indirectly.

But for you, when I say "God was manifest in the flesh" you can blithely dismiss that as "wrong."

>I will admit they are different.

So finally, after all of the sidetracking, you acknowledge my point actually. It had to be buried this deep, though.

>You didn't address at all the questions presented in the post you responded to

Yes I did. His complaint was that a word definition was off. That is all you apparently have to complain about. But my issue that I'm bringing to the table about why the DRB should never be used is that entire deletions of the word God and Christ have occurred. Since the OP wanted to know whether to switch from Authorized KJB to some other non-authorized version, I therefore told him why he should not switch to that version. And then the mockers who belittle what God's word has to say showed up, making empty contradictions to all of these things and scoffing at them. But let me tell you that one word in 1 Timothy 3:16 has more meaning and value than my own life.

>>651182

>>651108

Thanks for the recommendations, definitely will check it out the RSVCE for reading, and when I listen to audio books I'll try to find a good DR one.

I already read the KJV so I'm not missing out on the book that shaped English language, as well as mine; as one girl puts it when I talk to her

>You're so annoyingly eloquent; makes me want to be like that

Even though I'm a papist now, we should all appreciate it

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/nov/21/king-james-bible-english-language

>>651237

>Then why would you flat out say they are "wrong?"

I didn't say either one was wrong. I said "It is equally important to recognize that they both can be wrong. Let me explain,

The DR reads:

"which was manifested in the flesh"

The KJV reads:

"God was manifest in the flesh"

Both would be wrong if Paul actually wrote,

"He was manifested in the flesh," (ESV, RSV, CSB, etc.)

>You're being intellectually dishonest.

You're not listening to what I actually say. There is nothing dishonest about what I've said at all.

>you have tried to derail this whole thread by pretending I don't understand that "only one is right" means the same as "both cannot be right,"

I'm not pretending anything. I'm only taking your words to their logical conclusion.

>you seized on the semantics to make a huge, pointless sidetrack about how both could be "wrong" as you put it and in the process of doing that you called the word of God outright wrong.

You have argued that the KJV's representation of the text "isn't erroneous" without proof. I am merely trying to get you to admit that, in fact, the KJV may not be an accurate reflection of the inspired word. It's not semantics, it's logic.

>Yet now you are also pretending not to understand that I call one right and the other a corruption. I don't call it "wrong" persay,

lol now you're actually arguing semantics. I mean, you're right in that I conflated the words "wrong" and "corruption" to mean the same thing, which for our purposes here, is appropriate.

>to "call both wrong" is something I would never say unless they were factually wrong. Rather, one is a corruption

Which you have not done. You have also not shown it to be a "corruption".

>they cannot both be right; or in other words one of them must be corrupted; or in other words only one can be right.

"only one can be right" does not follow from "they both cannot be right." Both can be wrong. It's that simple.

> You deliberately fail to understand these things however that so you can redirect the whole conversation into this pointless subject of trying to explain the most basic logic and continue to pretend every step of the way that precisely what I've said from the beginning cannot be understood.

I never claimed you could not be understood. I am saying your conclusion that the KJV is "right' rendering does not follow from the evidence you presented.

>you are being intellectually dishonest and I refuse to allow you to keep changing the subject to basic logic that we all already understand when I've spoken clearly from the beginning.

I have not changed the subject. We're still talking about which rendering of 1 Tim 3:16 is right. You have argued the KJV wording is accurate without sufficient proof.

>I'm glad that settles this.

Absolutely nothing has been settled. lol

>The OP in this thread is trying to compare the Authorized KJB with the DRB, and that is who I was originally addressing my post to, before you even came here.

Right. And you said: "you can't simply erase the word for God from your translation." and "Words like "God" and "Christ" are just gone, and that's the issue I have with those versions." but you haven't proven that the KJV didn't add those words, you immediately assumed the DR removed them without sufficient proof. Therefore, you haven't yet shown why the KJV "should be . . . [the] standard."

>It is only your intellectual dishonesty that makes you think I haven't implicitly recognized this from the beginning, although I would say corrupted, not WRONG.

OK, so you admit then that the KJV may have been "corrupted" and therefore it is equally possible that the different reading in the DR is "right". Now we can actually begin discussing whether the KJV was corrupted.

>Because it may only have some words changed, it might mean something that's true still so I wouldn't outright say it's wrong.

Fair enough. So, following your words, the DR's rendering might be "true still" even if it has "some words changed." This means there is no reason to assume the KJV should be the standard of comparison, as you did by saying "one of them clearly deletes the word God, without a trace."

>But since only some of us has any respect for the Lord, only some of us take any consideration not to blaspheme the word of God. Even indirectly.

sigh.

>>651237

cont.

>But for you, when I say "God was manifest in the flesh" you can blithely dismiss that as "wrong."

I never said the KJV's rendering was "wrong". At most, I said it could be wrong, just as I said the DR's rendering could be wrong. You were the one who said, the DR "removed" words, and used the KJV to demonstrate words were "removed." But you have not yet said why the KJV should be the standard of comparison so that the KJV couldn't have added words, and only the DR could have "removed" them.

>you acknowledge my point actually.

Your point wasn't that they are different. Your point was the the DR "removed" words.

>Yes I did. His complaint was that a word definition was off.

>>651142 said:

>And why should we think that it's not KJV which ADDS to Scripture. Why it should be a standard?

your response:

>>651170

> I am saying that your version removes entire sentences and phrases wholecloth.

you did not address his question as to "why the KJV should be a standard." You statement "that [the DR] removes entire sentences" is only valid if the KJV is the standard. A question raised in the post that you did not address.

>That is all you apparently have to complain about.

I didn't complain about the definition at all. lol

>my issue that I'm bringing to the table about why the DRB should never be used is that entire deletions of the word God and Christ have occurred.

You have not proven this, as I've said over and over.

>Since the OP wanted to know whether to switch from Authorized KJB to some other non-authorized version, I therefore told him why he should not switch to that version.

Right, you told him that the DR removes words and therefore use the KJV. But you didn't prove the DR actually removes words, as you used the KJV as a standard. And here I am, contesting your use of the KJV as the standard for comparison. sheesh dude.

>And then the mockers who belittle what God's word has to say showed up, making empty contradictions to all of these things and scoffing at them.

Who is mocking God's word? I want to know what God's word is. You haven't proven that the KJV ONLY is God's word.

>But let me tell you that one word in 1 Timothy 3:16 has more meaning and value than my own life.

????

>>651251

>Even though I'm a papist now, we should all appreciate it

"Papist" is a slur. Do not address yourself like that.

>>651302

>You haven't proven that the KJV ONLY is God's word.

Non-christians who don't believe in the Bible say the same thing every day. There are always skeptics asking for proof that the Bible is the word of God.

>There is nothing dishonest about what I've said at all.

In the general case, if two translations say completely different things, then only one can be right. I did not say only one IS right— that statement might be taken as assuming one is right— but I did say only one CAN BE right. So you have totally failed at reading comprehension here. In the general case, only one can be right. That's what I said, and you apparently didn't fully understand that.

Now in the general case, only one can be right. That is just basic logic. But in this SPECIFIC case, the Authorized Version is correct. You are now trying to conflate properly understanding my general logic with what I've been saying about the particular case. In this particular case, there is no question of which one is right, namely the Authorized Version. By simply clarifying the general principle that they cannot both be right if the two differ in this way, that does not mean I've raised any doubt as to which is right in this specific case. I'm first stating general idea that if two differ then they are definitely not both right and then applying it to this case where we know the right translation, to show that the differing version must be corrupted. It's pretty odd that this all needs to be explicitly stated for you, but you are going to some extreme lengths to argue semantics here, by trying to conflate the general case with this specific case. And yeah, that is intellectually dishonest. There's no way you don't know what you're doing.

>"only one can be right" does not follow from "they both cannot be right."

I already showed that it does. "Can be" means "has the potential to be." Not just for intentionally bringing this discussion nowhere, your reading comprehension is to blame for this in the first place. Only one can be right is the exact same as they cannot both be right. And this is absolutely true is for any two translations that come from objectively different words.

>Absolutely nothing has been settled. lol

So are you now tacitly admitting to wasting our time? Is that funny? tell me exactly what any of this proved. All you did was waste a bunch of time, it didn't really accomplish anything for anyone. I said all along "only one can be right" and you got all tied into a knot over this. You tried to use these semantics to imply something about this specific case to which the principle has been applied, in which one of the versions happens to be the KJV. In which I never raised any question about which is right; even though I did say "only one can be right" which was just logic in general.

>OK, so you admit then that the KJV may have been "corrupted"

See, this is your dishonesty conflating the specific case with general logic. In general two disagreeing translations cannot both be right, in this specific case the Authorized Version is right, and therefore (logically) the other is corrupt, as I've said up til now.

>you did not address his question as to "why the KJV should be a standard."

He should have read the OP then.

>Who is mocking God's word?

You are. By making posts like the above where you flat out state that God and Christ are erroneously added. I don't care if it was supposed to be a parody of me, I take those words seriously. I don't care if you tried to post a sarcastic reaction image to go with it. That was serious.

>>651334

>Non-christians who don't believe in the Bible say the same thing every day. There are always skeptics asking for proof that the Bible is the word of God.

I thought we agreed that God's word is whatever the inspired author's wrote. The inspired authors didn't write in English. So you need some more evidence to back up your assertion that I should be KJV only.

>if two translations say completely different things, then only one can be right

Or they could both be wrong. I don't understand why you are so confused at that.

> I did not say only one IS right— that statement might be taken as assuming one is right

No. But from your word choice, like "your version removes God and Christ in these places.", you are assuming the KJV is right, as I pointed out. >>651171 . You have not yet shown to be true.

>In the general case, only one can be right. That is basic logic.

The only iteration of the Bible guarantee to be right are the original autographs of from the inspired authors and any exact copies. There is no grantee any particular translation is ever right. There is no guarantee any particular handcopy is exact like the autograph either.

>in this SPECIFIC case, the Authorized Version is correct.

You have not shown this to be true from any evidence other than "it's the KJV"

>You are now trying to conflate properly understanding my general logic with what I've been saying about the particular case.

I am only taking your words to their logical conclusion.

>there is no question of which one is right, namely the Authorized Version.

I have been asking you repeatedly to prove this, and you have not.

>By simply clarifying the general principle that they cannot both be right if the two differ in this way, that does not mean I've raised any doubt as to which is right in this specific case

Yes you have. By presenting two choices and saying "one is right" you have called into question both. By using language like "x removed and deleted a,b, and c" you have asserted just that, without proving a, b, and c, were ever there in the first place.

>I'm first stating general idea that if two differ then they are definitely not both right and then applying it to this case where we know the right translation to show that the differing version must be corrupted.

But we do NOT know the right translation. You assumed the right translation. You refuse to answer the question: why the KJV "should be . . . [the] standard." This issue is fundamental to our discussion here and the issue presented by OP. I don't understand why you won't address this. Without an answer, our discussion cannot continue fruitfully. At this point, I have to assume you do not have an answer.

>you are going to some extreme lengths to argue semantics here, by trying to conflate the general case with this specific case.

I do not think the word "semantics" means what you think it means. I am not conflating anything. You are sidestepping this issue. Why should I think the DR "removed" words? Why shouldn't I think the KJV is corrupt because it added words?

>And yeah, that is intellectually dishonest. There's no way you don't know what you're doing.

You accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, yet I have responded to your posts sentence by sentence, raising issues you either didn't see or didn't address. You have skipped around my posts, hardly addressing anything. Instead, you have danced around the issues I presented by arguing the semantic difference between "wrong" and "corrupt" which for our purposes, is not significant. You have gone at lengths to draw a distinction between a "general case" and "a specific case" without provind meaningful support to your assumption that the KJV should be our standard of comparison in either situation.You have been asked at least seven times: "Why should [the KJV] be a standard?" and you have never once addressed it. You sir, are the one being intellectually dishonest.

>I already showed that it does.

I am afraid you have not.

>"Can be" means "has the potential to be."

Indeed.

>Not just for intentionally bringing this discussion nowhere, your reading comprehension is to blame for this in the first place. Only one can be right is the exact same as they cannot both be right. And this is absolutely true is for any two translations that come from objectively different words.

Let me ask you this:

1+1=3

1+2=4

Which one is right?

As I've said repeatedly, you have not shown me any reason to believe either the DR or the KJV is right. I presented in my previous post a third translation found in the ESV, RSV, and CSB. If Paul, when he put pen to paper, wrote neither what is in the DR or the KJV, then both the DR and the KJV have been corrupted. This is not difficult to understand. You haven't yet shown the KJV to be correct, and yet you use it to measure what is right and wrong. This is fallacious reasoning.

>>651334

cont.

>are you now tacitly admitting to wasting our time?

If you won't answer the questions I have given you, then yes this was a complete waste of time for both of us. Just so you're not confused, I'll repeat the question raised initially by >>651142 and repeated over and over by myself: Why should we think that it's not KJV which ADDS to Scripture? Why should it be the standard?

>tell me exactly what any of this proved.

It has proved you do not have the intellectual integrity or capacity to engage in serious argument.

>I said all along "only one can be right" and you got all tied into a knot over this.

You got tied in a knot. I would've dropped the issue if you would have either admitted the KJV could have wrong rendering here or answered the initial question about why you made the KJV the standard for comparison.

>You tried to use these semantics to imply something about this specific case to which the principle has been applied, in which one of the versions happens to be the KJV.

I really don't think you know what it means to argue semantics. You've come up with all this gobbedly gook about general cases and the difference between "wrong" and "corrupt" when I just want you to answer why you think the KJV isn't the "corrupt" text.

>I never raised any question about which is right; even though I did say "only one can be right" which was just logic in general.

You didn't raise any question. I did. I raised the question over which is right: the DR or the KJV. Your answer was "the KJV". I asked why is the KJV right and the DR wrong? I asked couldn't they both be wrong? You haven't really addressed that question.

> this is your dishonesty conflating the specific case with general logic.

You said "you think I haven't implicitly recognized [they both can be wrong] from the beginning". The "both" we are talking about here is the DR and the KJV. Therefore, if you have "implicitly recognized" both the DR and KJV can be wrong, you have admitted "that the KJV may have been corrupted." I am taking your words to their logical conclusion. There is absolutely no intellectual dishonesty here.

> In general two disagreeing translations cannot both be right,

sure. But both can be wrong

>in this specific case the Authorized Version is right,

You have not shown this to be true.

>and therefore (logically) the other is corrupt, as I've said up til now

You argument would be sound and cogent if all your premises were true. I am contesting your premise that "the Authorized Version is right". Without establishing all your premises, your conclusion is not true or convincing.

>He should have read the OP then.

Now you're backpedaling. You responded to >>651142 who initially contested an implicit premise in your argument. You have maintained your position as correct without addressing the issue. Thus, your position has not been proven correct.

> By making posts like the above where you flat out state that God and Christ are erroneously added.

If Paul did not write those words, then yes they are erroneously added. That is not mocking God's word. You are blasphemously trying to correct the inspired Apostle Paul by adding them without justification.

>I don't care if it was supposed to be a parody of me, I take those words seriously.

It does not seem like you take it seriously, based on our discussion so far.

>I don't care if you tried to post a sarcastic reaction image to go with it. That was serious.

Indeed it was serious. But you have not seriously refuted any of the issues I brought up with your argument as to why KJV and not DR. You have danced and sidestepped, around it, throwing insults along the way. If you won't support your initial statement about how the DR "removed" words and verses, then your argument in support of the KJV is invalid. Any further discussion with you is fruitless. May God have mercy on you.

>>651511

>then it follows logically that everyone that doesn't agree with you does not have the Holy Spirit.

They don't have to agree with me though, I'm fallible, they have to agree with the Spirit. I can't stand in as a substitute for that. It's the same word of God and the same Holy Spirit that you choose to resist whether or not I'm here.

>Your fundamental assumption is clouding the judgment of how you read the Bible.

Saved by grace through faith is in the Bible.

>Now, looking at History as I did, I found that no one had Baptists beliefs, and they were deemed as heretics.

So if the world says they are nonexistent heretics, that's who you believe? Alright, then that's who you believe then.

>By faith you believe that the KJV is inspired, and by faith I believe that there is one church that kept the interpretation of those scriptures to be inspired.

There is no second inspiration, that's nonsense. The original words that God gave to the prophets and apostles has never left this earth in the first place. Matthew 24:35. If you disbelieve that, you must be putting your faith in something other than what God said.

>>651585

>So if the world says they are nonexistent heretics, that's who you believe? Alright, then that's who you believe then.

I think that his point is more: "If there is no historical proof whatsoever that baptist theology was existent before the 16th century, and early christian evidence shows a completely different theology, is your theology actually christian at all?"

>>651606

I like how you've purged the Bible from your whole thought process. At this point, you can just subjectively change the standards to decide what is evidence and what isn't. And that's what you do. After all, according to what you just wrote it doesn't have to adhere to any Biblical standard. There is no such justification anywhere in that sentence, you don't even pretend there is one! That is, unless you yourself think differently than what you just wrote.

>>651645

I know Anderson objects to Mary being the mother of God.

Mary gave birth to Jesus, jesus is God, ergo Mary gave birth to God.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct bodies but one God. Mary didn't give birth to God the father, or the Holy Spirit, but to Christ who is God.

That is directly from the Bible.

There is one mediator between God and man, and that is the man,Christ Jesus.

But I bet you ask people to pray for you, is Jesus no longer the only mediator?

>>651654

>The point is, I can read the Bible(and I have 66 books of the KJV), and see justifications for calvinism, armianism, lutherism, andersonism; it becomes subjective to my interpetation which is correct in that case even if we just use the 66 books.

2 Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

>>651663

That means the Bible itself undermines the entire principle of sola scriptura. Man is not fit to personally interpret scripture alone, he needs to conform to the interpretation that is reached by the Body of Christ as a whole, without schism.

>>651051

Read Sirach 1, it is very important for you:

You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.

>>651673

>Man is not fit to personally interpret scripture alone

This is what I've been trying to say. The Holy Spirit does. And you can't place any man in the role of God. Any man who does is a usurper.

>>651727

>Then how did no Christian come up with baptist beliefs until after the reformation?

That's where you are wrong.

>If you know you have it, then everyone who disagrees with you on a doctorine must logically mean the person does not have the holy Spirit.

Failure of basic logic. I am not the Holy Spirit. In fact the scripture says in 1 Peter 2:2 to "desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." So then it is incumbent on you to study the word of God, or else you will get nowhere in doctrine. That is the fate of people who reject the word of God as well, they can never learn what the Spirit teacheth.

>>651727

>Then how did no Christian come up with baptist beliefs until after the reformation?

The Didache clearly states that baptism is preferably by immersion and since it says that the person to be baptized should fast beforehand, we can also assume that they were adults.

Other than that it depends what you mean by "baptist" but going with a Reformed view:

Epistle to Diognetus Section 9:

>As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!

Sounds a lot like total depravity, substitutionary atonement, etc. to me…

From the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians Chapter 32:

>All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

On top of that he uses the term "elect" quite a lot all throughout the epistle.

Of course not everybody had the same view in the early church or held the completely correct view, but they also don't have to. Unlike Catholics who desperately are looking for any scrap that seems to confirm the authority of the Bishop of Rome, you don't have to search history for early Baptists.

You can gladly acknowledge that there were some people that had views that sound similar to yours today, there were heretics and everything in-between. You might be shocked to hear this, but nobody at the Council of Nicaea held views that correspond to modern day Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, or any other denominational view. Most of those theological dogmas developed over time and many dividing issues today (e.g. soteriology) were not discussed until many centuries later.

The douay-rheims is much more accurate but the KJV was created to sound nice. l prefer the douay-rheims

>>651947

Colorful infographics based on air and fanfic don't prove anything though.

>>651645

The bible does not equal baptist theology no matter how hard you want to meme it.

Biblical interpretation has been fairly consistent for the first 1400 years with the exception of the natures of Christ.

Historical evidence shows that everybody took the "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood" literal.

>At this point, you can just subjectively change the standards to decide what is evidence and what isn't. And that's what you do.

Accusing someone of subjective standards wont refute them if they are mere historical facts.

If early christians believed in child baptism, the real presence, praying to saints for intercession, that Mary was the Mother of God and certain denominations don't do any of these, are they really christian then?

>After all, according to what you just wrote it doesn't have to adhere to any Biblical standard.

You have literally zero proof of your theology being christianity as it was known right after Christ died.

You argue that your theology is based on the bible and purely biblical, and you do so saying that the bible proves it.

This is such a circle argument if I ever saw one YET you cannot prove that the bible has always been interpreted this way.

Not that this matters to you because as long as the book that the apostolics compiled in the late 4th century is interpreted by you it keeps on saying something different than we do.

>>651947

>Albigenaas and Bogomils

>Literally claiming that you were gnostics

>Donatists

>Sect that was fixed upon purity of MINISTERIAL&SACRIFICIAL Priesthood

HAHAHAHA

I really hope that it was made ironically or by some bored Catholic, noone can be this stupid.

>>651051

I'm a Catholic, I like the King James too. Here's what you should know: the King James Bible was intended for use by high-church Anglicans, and in the 1600s there weren't very many differences between them and Catholics. Also, both the King James Bible and the Douay-Rheims Bible borrow from each other (the King James was compared to numerous translations when it was being made, one being the Douay-Rheims and one being the Vulgate the Douay Rheims is based on. The Douay-Rheims was revised several times after its initial 1610 release, most notably the Challoner revision, and many of these revisions were making it more inline with the King James). I don't think that using it as your typical Bible will get you in much spiritual trouble, however you should be cognizant of certain areas where the translation does differ specifically due to theological issues. The biggest one being how the KJV renders Luke 1:28

>>651768

>The Didache

Says this: the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time.

>Epistle to Diognetus

Is Catholic: Section 8: He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of Gob, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God BE MADE ABLE.

And then: He who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who whatsoever thing he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive his benefits: he is an imitator of God. Then thou shalt see, while still on earth that God in the heavens rules over the universe; then thou shalt see, while still on earth that God in the heavens rules over the universe; then thou shalt begin to speak the mysteries of God; then shalt thou both love and admire those that suffer punishment because they will not deny God

>Epistle of Clement

Also Catholic:

CHAP. XXX.–LET US DO THOSE THINGS THAT PLEASE GOD, AND FLEE FROM THOSE HE HATES, THAT WE MAY BE BLESSED.

Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change,(3) all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. "For God," saith [the Scripture], "resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble."(4) Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. LET US CLOTHE OURSELVES WITH CONCORD AND HUMILITY, EVER EXERCISING SELF-CONTROL, STANDING FAR OFF FROM ALL WHISPERING AND EVIL-SPEAKING, BEING JUSTIFIED BY OUR WORKS, AND NOT OUR WORDS. For [the Scripture] saith, "He that speaketh much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who liveth but a short time: be not given to much speaking."(5) Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hateth those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. Boldness, and arrogance, and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him.

When he made the quote that you noted, we see that surrounding it before and after was the necessity of works done in God's grace for salvation. He was in the quote contrasting a self-righteous holiness to the holiness that must be done in God's grace. The one that did not justify, is when one tries to justify himself, relies on his own wisdom, holiness, etc. One indeed who works on one's own power is condemned by Trent, canon 1, justification. That is what Clement was condemning, and saying that does not avail before God. He specifically speaks of justification by works in Chapter 30. Notice though that those works are done in grace, as he specifically says in that same chapter. In Chapter 31 he says Abraham was blessed (and the context is speaking of justification), because of the act of offering Isaac on the altar. In chapter 34, Clement says that in justification it is requisite to our actions to be well-doing. He gives us two choices. To be a faithful servant, we labor (in grace of course) and we get the reward of heaven. However, if we are a slothful servant, and don't labor for God, we are sent to hell. Clement is obviously referring to Mt. 24:45-51. The slothful servant gets what? weeping and gnashing of teeth. That is hell. Why, because he didn't work. Then Clement says, he forewarns us he renders accoring to our works (Rom. 2:6, Mt. 16:27). If faith alone, he wouldn't forewarn us (because our justification would be absolutely assured), and we would not fear damnation. In Chapter 48 he speaks of those can attain salvation only those who direct their ways in holiness. Thus, that direction in holiness is a cause of justification. In Chapter 50 he notes that we must keep the commandments and that love (not faith alone) forgives sins. Clement notes that works are what must be judged before God to achieve salvation, and not even a hint of forensic justification, or Sola Fide.

As for use of elect, it's not what you think: http://jimmyakin.com/2017/11/gods-elect-in-1-clement.html

>>652000

>All that personal interpretation of non-scripture

>Still avoiding the incorruptible word of God

Well, at this rate it seems like my work is done.

>>652067

>Guy quotes Early Fathers

>"See they were just like us!"

>Prove him wrong

>"Ni-nice not-quoting scripture, my work here is done!"

Just wunderbar.

>>652078

It's just so funny how the moment someone gives you something malleable to work with you go to town on that, but still have nothing in response to the inspired infallible words. Because no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

>>652117

>And lo and behold we can find Catholicism in any given time period while rest of sects just start in history.

Not true. Sacerdotalism started later in history.

>there was no a bit of scripture in the post that I answered to

I know. You want to talk about all kinds of private interpretations of subjective things and avoid all the Scripture references so far. Because it is the witness against which you cannot stand, against which you cannot possibly hope to stand.

>Like the Bible?

No, because 2 Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

But I'm glad you freely admit that what you responded to was subject to all kinds of corruption and private interpretation, as it is all imperfect works of man. You can conclude anything you want from those.

Arguing with a KJV-onlyist must be similar to arguing with a Gnostic during the days of St. Paul/St. John. There's so much wrong about it, there's not much else to do but to follow St. John's example.

"There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."

This is strange mixture of Anglo-centrism, pride, and circular logic isn't worth anyone's time. I really use "Anglo-centrism" seriously here, I cannot figure out how anyone could really think an english translation gets any primacy of "God's Word" over the Latin or Greek Scriptures.

>>652185

The Greek and the Hebrew original says the same thing.

>>652192

ah yes, the old "I'm not a KJV onlyist, I just happen to prefer the Greek; only in the form of KJV"

>>652000

Catholics lying about church history again, oh joy.

First of all, the point is not to make them all reformed but to show that there are views well within the reformed tradition at a very early stage in Church History. Unlike Catholics, I don't have to go looking for traces of papacy and Marian dogmas in the early church. I can quite contently say that doctrines develop over time and that issues like soteriology were not really at center stage in the early church.

Just quickly on the few passages:

>Didache

Of course, you are made perfect in the last time by God, not of your own doing. The point was about Baptism anyway, not anything else.

>Diognetus

Yes silly, we are made able to enter the kingdom of heaven by Christ's sacrifice. Again, being instructed in how to do what is pleasing to God is not teaching a works based salvation.

>Clement

Every Reformed theologian will tell you that a regenerate believer will not just talk about how he believes that Christ is his savior but act accordingly.

Oh, and to make this even better: Notice how the letter never identifies Clement by name? In fact the first passage almost reads like a church writing to a fellow church on equal footing. Almost like there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century.

What's even more, no bishop of Rome will claim to be the direct successor to Peter and have a special position until Stephen in the 3rd century tries to force his authority on the churches of North Africa.

>>652117

>Like the Bible? Sheer number of denominations proves it can be malled like clay.

Many of these "denominations" that actually hold to Sola Scriptura have very small differences between them (e.g. divided over Baptism of infants or form of church government) and many others will just flat out ignore certain passages or believe in additional revelation. It is also important to keep in mind that correct doctrine will not save you. You can very well be wrong on certain theological issues (e.g. eschatology) and still be saved. On top of that, any truly regenerate believer will have the Holy Spirit guide his study of scripture to guide their understanding of God's Word. Keep in mind the narrow gate.

Quite frankly, you sound a lot like a postmodernist with your relativism and "all interpretations are valid"-attitude. How can we ever know what a text was intended to say unless we have an authoritative source tell us? If we are being honest, Catholics believe in "Sola Ecclesia": The church tells you what the bible says, it tells you what is tradition and what those tradition are telling you.

>And lo and behold we can find Catholicism in any given time period while rest of sects just start in history.

What do you mean by "Catholicism"? You must know that nobody at the Council of Nicaea believed in Purgatory, Transubstantiation, infallibility of the pope or the Immaculate conception. In what sense could you call them "Catholic"? Any honest believer would have to admit that these believes developed over time, so to claim that any church father was "of your denomination" is just a blatant lie. I believe even Cardinal Ratzinger (aka former pope Benedict) admitted in one of his books that the church in the first thousand years looked quite different from what anybody today would understand as Catholic.

>>651108

>Cat don't use or promote the KJV

>We have to promote Cat bibles

I'm pretty sure cats can't read

>>652369

>I corrected him.

Yes, you chose to go into a long argument over that, but you ignored all the scripture I posted before. This is my point.

>And Clement will tell you in Chapter 50

Ok, tell me a couple things before you go into this. Please prove to us that Chapter 50 of whatever you are reading, hasn't been changed by even one word since it was written. Prove to us that the claimed author is in fact the author. Prove to us with 100% certainty that the claimed author of these unaltered words was a Christian, and furthermore prove to us with 100% certainty that he was writing it by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

If you can't prove every single one of these, the discussion is pointless. You will come away with your subjective interpretation because it is not inspired scripture. The person you are arguing with will come away with his. And, beside all this, I would never actually base a doctrine on such a changing, corrupted foundation as this. It could have been altered by ten different people before it got to me.

>>651051

seeing you quote psalms and say "poetic" made me think:

the use of the psalms is prayer, and all of the psalm tones are written in plainchant, which though it's written for latin, isn't metrical – you could literally chant the liturgy of the hours in hawaiian pidgin and still be good.

either way, KJV doesn't have the imprimatur, so it's not useful for anythng official or done with the church.

>>651109

>It implies that Joseph was the father of Jesus in Luke 2:33.

anything not based on byzantine text types says the same thing, since only byzantine manuscripts say "joseph" instead of "father".

Even the vulgate says "pater" there, rather than joseph, so the "error" is at least as old as st. jerome.

>>651051

interlinear

>>651051

Kang Jimmies bible is a classic, it doesn;t really matter if you read douyou-rhymes or jimjams bible just keep in mind its a prottie trans-lation but the differences are minor so personally i wood gouh with the kangs as a catlicker.

>>652831

>How do I gracefully leave my old church?

Stop going.

>He thinks I should stay in the church until I leave for work;

Of course he does. He either still wants your money in the coffer or hopes to convert you away from Catholicism.

>I do want to get the Eucharist (going to confession today).

Are you a revert? Until you've gone through RCIA, don't take the Eucharist.