/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

KJV-onlyism applies to english bibles, not bibles in general, as far as I know.

Their meme pastor suggests the RVG 2010 Spanish NT for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRh6hKv-SmE

>>674883

and toward the end of the 1st century and into the 2nd century, the Talmudic Jews were actively attacking the Greek Septuagint because it was predominately used by Christians.

these jews felt that they could discredit Christians merely for the reason that they used Greek, and at the same time, they began twisting the Hebrew Scriptures to try and disprove that Jesus was the true Messiah. This controversy roared on until at least the 4th and 5th centuries AD. One of the most famous examples of how the Jews attacked the Greek Septuagint regarded the word virgin. The particular verse in question is Isaiah 7:14, which reads in the Greek Septuagint:

"Therefore, the Master Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb, and will bring forth a Son, and you will call His Name Emmanuel."

In the Greek, the word for virgin is parthenos, and it literally means a virgin. In the Masoretic Text, however, the word is almah which means a young girl. The usual Hebrew word for virgin, and the word in every case translated virgin in the Revised Version, is bethuwlah. This verse is quoted from Isaiah in the Christian Scriptures in Matthew 1:23. The Jews attacked the Septuagint from the beginning because they claimed that it had been corrupted by the Christians....etc

Anyone using the masoretic text needs to be aware of the influences the talmudists have on their text so they won't be susceptible to their deviations and misrepresentations.

>>674883

Whatever it was translated by a saint whose venerated pretty much transdenominationally. Heck much of the religious English terminology and vocab is probably inherited through translations. Without it Anglos might still have been using Germanic wizardry terms like foreteller for prophet.

Also the idea that Alexandria was some den of exotic pantheism while Antioch was some bastion of piety is ridiculous but perfectly apt for advancing the fears of paranoid xenophobic prudes.

>>674873

>Do you propose translating the KJV into other languages?

I'm not a KJV Onlyist but I constantly get accused of being one. The answer is to use the received original language version to make a formal equivalence translation. No need to go through an intermediate language like English. But if you did the translation properly it will turn out to say the same thing as the KJV in that language, and it especially won't have random stuff removed due to using a "critical" text. That's the real sticking point for people like me.

>>674881

>Namely the Reina-Valera Antigua and the 1960 revision.

Pretty sure the 1960 revision removes a ton of stuff via critical theory. Definitely use the Antigua.

>>674876

Wouldn't it be better to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the OT and NT respectively in the original language so that there's no risk of anything getting lost in translation?

>>674881

Strangely enough many people in Spain use the Reina Valera translation despite the country being 99,9% Catholic

>>674876

0/b8

>>674907

It's simply better being translated from the Greek in the NT but probably misses out on the Septuagintal readings in the OT by using the Masoretic text.

>>674873

You can use other language translations but they won't be as accurate because Jesus spoke English.

when the apostles spoke tongues, it was actually KJV elizabethan english

>>674944

>>674941

>>674876

And Cucklicks say Baptists always derail threads when its Cucklicks

>>674944

The apostles were anglos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

>>674950

You honor us with your persecution.

>>674901

Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were translated from the KJV

>>674941

>>674944

I don't think I've ever encountered this level of abysmal stupidity before. I think my brain just melted a little bit.

>>674954

>not knowing Paul wrote the original KJV

>>675025

>forsake the authority of the Church

>have to take the authority of a wolf-pastor reviewing Bibles like a book club

pathetic!

>>674955

False flaggers bro. Haters gonna hate.

>>674951

Stop with this Anglo supremacy. The real ethnic Israelites were seeded among Christian nations in general. No, I'm not referring to the SoS.

>>674873

Strict KJV Onlyism does not have an answer to the question because its brain dead, but most KJV Onlyists are just self loathing Ecclesiastical text supporters.

Anything translated from the TR/Orthodox Patriarchal text, and Masoretic hebrew text are largely acceptable.

>>674955

I'm willing to bet those were sarcastic comments friend.

>>675162

I certainly hope so.

>>675146

That's far too dismissive. Strict KJV onlyism comes in two forms. There's those that believe the KJV is perfect an divinely inspired in which case foreign translations should be made directly from it, and there's others that believe the KJV is the best translation available in English in which case foreign translations should be taken from the sources. The idea of KJV onlyism is completely logical. Limiting to one translation creates a bedrock from which to base doctrine.

>>675170

If not look at the bright side, there's much worse hands such deranged people could be left in than a KJV.

>>675188

Checkem

>>675185

>That's far too dismissive.

I don't really have anything against KJVO, most of my family believes it. I just think the Ecclesiastical text should be primary.

>Strict KJV onlyism comes in two forms.

You're first definition is KJVO, your second is the Ecclesiastical text position with a preference to use the KJV in English.

>Limiting to one translation creates a bedrock from which to base doctrine.

It's better to ground doctrine on the original language text because that is what God immediately inspired.

>>675188

Hey someone else has done research.

>In those days the house of Judah shall join the house of Israel, and together they shall come from the land of the north to the land that I gave your fathers for a heritage.

Hmm, if eventually when Israel returns to their home they come from the North, I wonder who they could be. I also don't know any Europeans who separate themselves from other Europeans by the name of Judah so Judah has completely joined with Israel as Jeremiah predicted. It's all in the Bible, frens. Be sure to read it (objectively) so you don't fall into the hands of the wicked zionists.

>>675190

>It's better to ground doctrine on the original language text because that is what God immediately inspired.

That's just it, the average person doesn't have time to learn khoning greek and ancient hebrew. They also don't trust other people just because they have, and there's no reason they should. There's been a slew of translations released in modern times to turn a quick profit. The KJV on the other hand has been around since the 1600s, admittedly with politics surrounding it at the time that could have influenced it. I do understand the Orthodox and Catholic frustration with the Protestant insistence on the KJV given how little evidence we really have there's anything special about this translation.

For me personally though I love the KJV and always will. The church didn't bring me to Christ, no living person did or could, the words printed down in an old beat up forgotten KJV brought me to Christ. I'll never forget that. To me what I read and what seeped so deep into me it changed the very nature of my being could only be the word of God.

>>675190

>It's better to ground doctrine on the original language text because that is what God immediately inspired.

The question then becomes who do you trust to translate that for you? None of us can read ancient hebrew and koine greek. How many different translations have come out in the past few decades? They can't all be right. It makes me angry that so many dare touch the word of God in this way.

I should admit I have an intense love for the KJV. I wouldn't listen to anyone.The book itself brought me to Christ because I couldn't deny the truths laid down in it. I do accept on the other hand I don't really know anything, I can only pray God forgives me for my confusion.

>>675214

>>675224

ignore the duplicate posts, it won't let me delete one. Probably a website hiccup but I'm going to blame the Catholic mod mafia none the less.

>>675214

>That's just it, the average person doesn't have time to learn khoning greek and ancient hebrew

The average person shouldn't be reading the Bible in the first place. That is why we have priests.

>>675322

Wow, cutting people off from the word of God. That's pretty severe.

Definitely not something a saved person would say or think.

>>675331

"THE imagination must have great power over Huguenot understandings, since it persuades them so absolutely of this grand absurdity, that the Scriptures are easy to everybody, and that everybody can understand them. It is true that to bring forth vulgar translations with honour it was necessary to speak in this manner; but tell me the truth, do you think that the case really runs so? Do you find them so easy, do you understand them so well? If you think you do, I admire your credulity, which goes not only beyond experience, but is contrary to what you see and feel. If it is true that the Scripture is so easy to understand, what is the use of so many commentaries made by your ministers, what is the object of so many harmonies, what is the good of so many schools of Theology ? here is need of no more, say you, than the doctrine of the pure word of God in the Church. But where is this word of God? In the Scripture? And Scripture-is it some secret thing ? No-you say not to the faithful. Why, then, these interpreters and these preachers? If you are faithful, you will understand the Scriptures as well as they do; send them off to unbelievers, and simply keep some deacons to give you the morsel of bread and pour out the wine of your supper. If you can feed yourselves in the field of the Scripture, what do you want , with pastors? Some young innocent, some mere child who is able to read, will do just as well."

continued…

"Certainly S. Peter is not of your thinking, who assures us in his 2nd Epistle (iii.16) that in the letters of S. Paul there are certain points hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other Scripture to their own Perdition. The eunuch who was treasurer-general, of Ethiopia was certainly faithful.(Acts viii) since he came to adore in the Temple of Jerusalem; he was reading Isaias ; he quite understood the words, since he asked of what prophet that which he had read was to be understood ; yet still he had not the understanding nor the spirit of them, as he himself confessed: How can I, unless some one shows me? Not only does he not understand, but he confesses that he has not the power unless he is taught. And we shall see some washerwoman boast of understanding the Scripture as well as S. Bernard did! Do you not know the spirit of discord ? It is necessary to convince oneself that the Scripture is easy in order that everybody may drab it about, some one way, some another, that each one may be a master in it, and that it may serve everybody’s opinions and fancies. Certainly David held it to be far from easy when he said (Ps. Cxviii. 73) Give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments"

As St. De Sales argues, Sacred Scripture IS NOT MEANT FOR CASUAL READERS, it is not something anyone can just open and comprehend, SCRIPTURE ITSELF AFFIRMS IT, St. Paul warns us our own interpretation can corrupt us, even St. Peter explicitly warned against personal interpretation.

>>675334

>St. Paul warns us our own interpretation can corrupt us, even St. Peter explicitly warned against personal interpretation.

Yes, that's what 2 Peter 1:20-21 affirms for us. No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. So the only way to be taught is by the Holy Spirit himself. That's what John 14:26 makes clear and demonstrates.

John 14:26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:13-14

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 Corinthians 2:9-14

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22

Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

1 John 2:27

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

>Eunuch in Acts 8

He wasn't saved yet. After he got saved things were different.

So yeah, considering what Romans 10:17 says, that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That makes intentionally cutting someone off from the word of God a wicked, satanic thing to do as that's what they need to believe to be saved/indwelling of the Holy Spirit/knowledge of Christ Jesus.

And yet that's what he just did, order the word of God to be cut off from people. Very wicked and corrupt.

>>675352

>After he got saved things were different.

You cannot be saved unless you are part of the body of Christ which is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. If you're not then you cannot interpret scripture. Doesn't matter how many claims you make about how you "totally have the holy spirit". Half the epistles in the New Testament are directed at communities that are teaching incorrect doctrine because of bad interpretations of scripture.

>>675357

>you cannot interpret scripture.

Didn't I just say that it's the Holy Spirit who teaches all these things? So then logically that means it isn't me who's doing it. It's God. So speaking in general the man of God doesn't require some other intermediary to understand the word, he is saved.

John 14:16-17

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Luke 11:9-13

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

>But how do I tell the difference?

You have to be saved yourself then you can tell. Because it's all reliant on God. Some wicked man wants to cut off the word of God, but he is simply wrong and evil.

>>675540

>Every single denomination that disagrees with my personal interpretation of scripture lacks the Holy Spirit!

How do you even justify this level of retardation? Did the early churches in Corinth, Rome, Thessalonica and Ephesus lack the Holy Spirit because Paul had to send letters and his students to those places to correct their wrong interpretations and practices? The Church has always had a hierarchy and has always depended on people like the apostles and their students to carry the tradition that Jesus taught and keep others on the straight path. You would be the guy who would reject Jesus teachings and say "You're wrong and I know it because I have the Holy Spirit maaaaan!"

>>675322

Its scary how many Catholics support that idea

>>675543

They were completely right though. As soon as the Bible got into the hands of the laity they split Christendom into a million different shards. The Protestant Reformation was the worst thing that ever happened in European history, it caused a gaping spiritual wound from which it has never recovered and we have heretics like Anderson running around telling people retarded shit like the KJV is the infallible word of God

>>675545

And now we have heretics spelling out retarded shit like papal infallibility

>>675547

How can you be against Papal Infallibility when you believe in personal infallibility (If you have the Holy Spirit!) in interpreting scripture? Apparently one person sitting on the seat of St Peter having the ability to make authoritative statements about the faith is absurd but every single person on Earth having the ability to do the same thing is perfectly acceptable? At least Catholic Dogma is entirely based on scripture and tradition. Protestants simply pull shit out of their asses and say "Uh it actually means this because I have da Holy Spirit! I know I have da Holy Spirit because I think I'm right and my interpretation confirms my prior beliefs!"

>>675322

>But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

>ye need not that any man teach you:

>Don't read the Bible goyim, trust me on what it says.

>>675595

Im not a Andersonite but is that pic real or fake? I tried googlibg th and title but got nothing

>>675541

>Did the early churches in Corinth, Rome, Thessalonica and Ephesus lack the Holy Spirit because Paul had to send letters and his students to those places to correct their wrong interpretations and practices?

No more than we need the same word of God today. They needed it too. And it would be wrong for someone to be a Diotrephes and cut off the word of God from reaching them.

>>675545

>The Protestant Reformation was the worst thing that ever happened in European history, it caused a gaping spiritual wound

It caused a political wound in the state church. So yes it was politically destructive. The Protestants were still pedobaptists who called for the death of baptists. They were already executing baptists in the 1520's.

>>675552

Nice pic, that's what this thread today reminds me of. Bunch of pharisees trying to burn God's word so that less people will know what God says, and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

>>675599

It's photoshopped, no false teacher is that blatant. Although I don't really know who that person is so I don't know if hes false teacher

>>675601

Umm, anon according to acts 26:14-15

>And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

>And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

During the days of paul, Jesus clearly spoke with the hebrew tongue. Now that that's said, don't discount that God/Jesus, the creator of everything that is all knowing, can speak modern fluent english at His own will. It is indeed possible that God knew how to speak english back in 0 A.D since God knows everything. But according to the Bible Jesus spoke the hebrew tongue at that time.

>>675549

>papal infallibility

Call no man on earth your father matthew 23:9.

>>675357

>can't be saved unless catholic

Have you not read 2 peter 2:20-21?

>For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

>For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

These had already been saved as pertaining to the election romans 9/galatians 4:21-31, yet were entangled and overcome such as satan and other fallen angels. Are you saying satan or those who are overcame and were saved as pertaining to the election are apart of your so called synagogue?

>>674873

>What translations of the word of God should non-English speakers use?

Use the version that is of God as known by its fruits matthew 7:15-20.

>Do you propose translating the KJV into other languages?

Yes and I have actually tried this with automatic translators. Literally every online translator blocks even partial translations of the word of God from the KJV. Like if you take half a verse and translate out of the word of God it totally blocks it. But if you try translating a verse that is from a version that isn't true/would make God a liar if it were true then it translates just fine. Its a winnie the pooh conspiracy, go try it for yourself.

>But then if you did that it couldn't be the word of God because no language operates exactly like English, especially for archaic English words that have no meaning in other languages, how would your translate that? Best guesses?

The same way the word of God affects languages, by inventing new words for said language.

<But that still wouldn't be perfect.

That's if you aren't being moved by God 2 peter 1:21 as to speak by the spirit of prophecy revelation 19:10 to speak/write/communicate the word of God. Hence you would know them by their fruits matthew 7:15-20.

>>675352

>So the only way to be taught is by the Holy Spirit himself.

Yes, which descended upon the Apostles during Pentecost, and they themselves told us to hold fast to their Christ-given traditions.

>And yet that's what he just did, order the word of God to be cut off from people. Very wicked and corrupt.

Cutting people off from the Word of God, is cutting them off from their Church, wherein they are given the Word along with Apostolic Tradition and CORRECT teaching.

>>675635

We do not need "an authoritative English translation", we are not expected to personally interpret Sacred Scripture. Scripture itself affirms and justifies the need for TEACHING with TEACHERS.

>>675689

>Call no man on earth your father matthew 23:9.

This isn't the Apostolic teaching on the matter, disregarded.

>Are you saying satan or those who are overcame and were saved as pertaining to the election are apart of your so called synagogue?

speak clearly, your words are as confused as your mind.

>Use the version that is of God as known by its fruits

and what are the fruits of the KJV, specifically? the Church existed, and still exists just fine without it.

>That's if you aren't being moved by God 2 peter 1:21 as to speak by the spirit of prophecy

you seem to be moved by the spirit of confusion, anon

>>675834

matthew 23:9

>And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

<This isn't the Apostolic teaching on the matter, disregarded.

No, it's the literal words of Jesus Christ. Why disregard what Jesus said anon? Aren't you a follower of Chirst, a disciple, a christian? He that loves Christ will keep His sayings as stated in 1 john 2:4-5.

<speak clearly, your words are as confused as your mind.

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

john 8:43-47 applies

>and what are the fruits of the word of God, specifically?

Galatians 5:22-23

>But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

>Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

<you seem to be moved by the spirit of confusion, anon

I am not confused, you seem not to understand my speech.

<We do not need "an authoritative word of God"

Yes we do, whether God is speaking to you in english or in ancient hebrew is irrelavent, God is the Authority and so thusly are His words authoritative. His word, the Bible/holy scriptures/old testament/new testament as translated for your reading in english since it is preserved forever 1 peter 1:25 is just that, the word of God and not the word of men as stated in 1 thesselonians 2:13

>For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

>>675833

>Cutting people off from the Word of God, is cutting them off from their Church, wherein they are given the Word along with Apostolic Tradition and CORRECT teaching.

No you're just cutting off the word of God and now starting to making excuses and trying to squirm out of it. You're. Cutting. It. Off.

That act is evil and you should be ashamed to even show your face around here after arguing for it.

>>675840

>No, it's the literal words of Jesus Christ.

For 2,000 years since the Passion of Christ, we have always referred to our fathers as "father". If He were being literal here, this tradition would follow all through Christendom. No, not even you false teachers practice this. Or maybe you do, do you call your own father, "father", anon?

>Aren't you a follower of Chirst, a disciple, a christian? He that loves Christ will keep His sayings as stated in 1 john 2:4-5.

His sayings as passed down and taught by the Apostles, not by you or your own sinful personal interpretations.

>His word, the Bible/holy scriptures/old testament/new testament as translated for your reading in english

BZZT! Only the Septuagint and the Vulgate are considered inspired translations, the KJV being inspired is a man-made tradition.

>>675844

>No you're just cutting off the word of God and now starting to making excuses and trying to squirm out of it. You're. Cutting. It. Off.

You don't even know what you're saying. The Apostle's were inspired and taught first, the Gospels came from them, and their own students/apostolic successors.

You contradict history and scripture, the only shame is your own sin against the Apostles and the True Church.

>>675846

<His sayings as passed down and taught by the Apostles, not by you or your own sinful personal interpretations.

As written down in the word of God for all to read since no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretation 2 peter 1:20. I am open about how I interpret the Bible, Jesus says to let you yea be yea and nay be nay in matthew 5 so that's how I read the Bible. I assume Jesus' nay is His nay and His yea is His yea. Or His "just" is his "just" or Him saying "philosophy" means "philosophy".

<For 2,000 years since the Passion of Christ, (((we))) have always referred to our fathers as "father". If He were being literal here, this (((tradition))) would follow all through Christendom.

Have you considered that the (((fake jews))) in (((fake isreal))) who are in reality (((babylonians))) because of jeremiah 27, hebrews 9:4, revelation 18:23/17:21, and whose leader is literally satan, the father of lies in john 18:44 and in revelation 13, are lieing about the tradition of the biblical church?

<No, not even you false teachers practice this. Or maybe you do, do you call your own father, "father", anon?

Thou hypocrite, I call my Father, thou art in heaven, Father. And not a man on earth as stated to do in matthew 23:9.

<BZZT! Only the Septuagint and the Vulgate are considered inspired translations,

How did you come to this conclusion as no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretation 1 peter 1:21?

<the KJV being inspired is a man-made tradition.

Same question, how did you come to this conclusion? I thought that since the KJV says it is the word of God and doesn't contain bad fruit such as something that would make God a liar against titus 1:2 that it is, as it is in truth the word of God, which effectually worketh in you that believe.

<The Apostle's were inspired and taught first,

Wrong the prophets of the old testament were inspired and taught before them even.

<the Gospels came from them

Wrong again, the gospel came from God since it is the word of God, stop trying to glorify men you hypocrite.

>>675871

>john 18:44

Should be

>john 8:44

>>675871

Nothing but a confused mess of circular logic. As St. Francis De Sales would say, you have a spirit of confusion, rather than the Holy Spirit.

"But let us be frank. Do we not know that the Apostles spoke all tongues ? How is it then that their gospels and their epistles are only in Hebrew, as S -Jerome witnesses (Prol. in Matt.) of the Gospel of S. Matthew; in Latin, as some think concerning that of S. Mark; * (* In Pontificali Damasi. The Saint mentions the opinion, be he himself held the now universal sentiment of Doctors that S. Mark wrote in Greek.[Tr.]) and in Greek, as is held concerning the other Gospels? which were the three languages chosen at Our Lord’s very cross for the preaching of the Crucified. Did they not carry the Gospel throughout the world ? and in the world were there no other languages but these three ? Truly there were and yet they did not judge it expedient to vary their writings in so many languages. Who then shall despise the custom of our Church, which has for its warrant the imitation of the Apostles?"

As St. De Sales would say, where did the Apostles speak English? Where did Christ speak English? It's true what you say, God is not limited by time and space, He could have spoken perfect English…but He did not!

". An honest man, and one who in my opinion would not lie, has related to me that he heard a minister of this country, treating of the Nativity of Our Lord, assert that he was not born in a crib, and expound the text (which is express on the other side) figuratively, saying: Our Lord also says that he is the vine, yet for all that he is not one; in the same way, although it is said that he is born in a crib, yet born there he is not, but in some honourable place which in comparison with his greatness might be called a crib. The character of this interpretation leads me still more to believe the man who told me, for being simple and unable to read he could hardly have made it up. It is a most curious thing to see how this pretended enlightenment causes the Holy Scripture to be profaned. Is it not doing what God says in Ezechiel (xxxiv. 18): Was it not enough for you to feed upon good pastures; but you must also tread down with your feet the residue of the pastures?"

You follow the path of the Reformers. I do not know where your man-made tradition will lead you, but I suppose you shall follow wherever your KJV tradition leaves you.

>>675886

<How is it then that their gospels and their epistles are only in Hebrew, as S -Jerome witnesses

This is a lie, the gospel was written in koine greek during Jesus' time on earth.

<and in the world were there no other languages but these three ? Truly there were

This is a lie again because peter in acts 2:8-11,14-17 states

>And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

>Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

>Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

>Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

>For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

>But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

>And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Here the word of God was spoken in a great different many languages which were not greek, hebrew, and latin. Yet it is still literally the word of God. So it is in english with the king james Bible.

<and yet they did not judge it expedient to vary their writings in so many languages.

Because the majority of the entire world during the reign of the roman empire wrote, spoke, and read greek.

<Who then shall despise the custom of our Church, which has for its warrant the imitation of the Apostles?"

I don't know what your synagogue is or its so called apostles but these quotes you keep giving are by men and not God as they are lies and you a liar for not doing the word of God.

<You follow the path of the Reformers.

No, I follow God and not men.

>but I suppose you shall follow wherever your word of God leaves you.

Suffice it to say that it is of God, you would be foolish to fight it.

>>675901

Did you even read the full thing or just skim over it?

>Here the word of God was spoken in a great different many languages which were not greek, hebrew, and latin. Yet it is still literally the word of God. So it is in english with the king james Bible.

More and more circular logic, the Apostles did not leave you an english gospel, the Lord did not leave us the KJV as an inspired gospel and…the spirit of confusion is great in you. What else can I say? Are you mad? Is there a demon inside of you, twisting your sense of things? You exasperate me. Your false teachings endanger your salvation.

>I don't know what your synagogue is or its so called apostles but these quotes you keep giving are by men and not God as they are lies and you a liar for not doing the word of God.

It's the Church Christ built on St. Peter, any Church that does not have St. Peter, is not the Church Christ built, and will be swept away with the rest of things that are not of Heaven.

>>675903

>are you mad for believing the word of God exists on the earth today

Possibly a fool for Christ 1 corinthians 4:10 if anything.

<It's the Church Christ built on St. Peter

That's not what Jesus said in matthew 16:18

>And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

1 corinthians 10:4

>And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Jesus said He would build it upon that Rock, and that Rock was Christ. Stop trying to glorify a man and rather glory in the Lord.

<Your false teachings endanger your salvation.

Are you talking about saved as pertaining to the election or saved as pertaining to the faith in Jesus Christ?

<Your false teachings

>quoting the Bible literally due to matthew 5 is now a false teaching

Hmm, that's not a arguement and neither is the rest of your post.

BTW OP wanted the opinions of people that believe God preserved His word forever as He said He would. Not unbelievers that think God a liar by not doing what He says and saying that the word of God doesn't exist in a form you can read today publically.

>>675834

>Scripture itself affirms and justifies the need for TEACHING with TEACHERS.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

>and ye need not that any man teach you:

>>675834

>we are not expected to personally interpret sacred scripture

well

>Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20

it is inevitable that the bible is meant to be read because no one person has interpretive authority over another. the only exception were the apostles that personally served under Jesus notwithstanding paul the apostle.

>>675965

>Possibly a fool for Christ 1 corinthians 4:10 if anything.

Were you a fool for Christ, you'd be part of the Church. Being not part of the Church, but of a man-made church, you are merely a fool.

>That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church

Christ literally says, verbatim, His authentic Church will have a lineage from St. Peter.

>Jesus said He would build it upon that Rock, and that Rock was Christ.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Cephas means, "great rock, stone". Or does the KJV supersede the Vulgate and Septuagint?

>Are you talking about saved as pertaining to the election or saved as pertaining to the faith in Jesus Christ?

Your fake teachings are reprobate.

>BTW OP wanted the opinions of people that believe God preserved His word forever as He said He would. Not unbelievers that think God a liar by not doing what He says and saying that the word of God doesn't exist in a form you can read today publically.

You are blinded, and I do not think it is from the spirit of the Lord, but of a spirit of Babylon.

>>676110

You left out this part to suite your own context:

"I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you."

Who baptizes you? The Holy Spirit. How are you baptized by the Holy Spirit, especially in the ancient, authentic Church of Jesus Christ? Through this Church. Even the Catholic Church still teaches and maintains that any (legit) baptized Christian is under their authority, as Christ left the keys of binding and unbinding to His Church.

>>676117

And you yourself thus establish the importance of the Apostolic deposit of faith, and apostolic tradition.

>>676156

>apostolic tradition [a]

a: that ended when the last literal apostle ever mentioned in canonical scripture died.

>>676159

And where does Scripture say the authority of the Apostles ends with their death? Even the Gospels have two apostolic successors as their authors!

>>676212

>where does it say their authority ceased

the message of the kingdom which says that all power and glory is given to Christ.

since youre claiming authority passes from apostle to non apostle, the proof is on you to prove that im under authority to anyone and what the corresponding consequences are according to clear scripture.

if you claim i withold authority from God by not acknowledging papal authority, the same punishment of ananias would be upon me. but alas it does not come to pass, so your presuppositions are jewish in nature as Jesus would have criticized.

>gospels have apostolic successors

luke and mark are not apostles, genius.

>>676220

>the message of the kingdom which says that all power and glory is given to Christ.

Which nowhere implies that the Apostolic powers bestowed upon them by Christ ever ended, for how could they have initiated Matthias to replace Judas?

>since youre claiming authority passes from apostle to non apostle, the proof is on you to prove that im under authority to anyone and what the corresponding consequences are according to clear scripture.

Sure, Matthias was a non-apostle, whom was made Apostle by the authority of the Apostles, and there are several canonical New Testament works made by those not apart of the initial 12.

>if you claim i withold authority from God by not acknowledging papal authority, the same punishment of ananias would be upon me.

So you have said.

>but alas it does not come to pass, so your presuppositions are jewish in nature as Jesus would have criticized.

The end of your error is eternal damnation, and by the very authority I argue, you can repent before you die, and save yourself. So, repent.

>luke and mark are not apostles, genius.

obviously?

>>676225

>how could they have raised mathias

because the office was identified by a specific function which was to start the early churches. the office expired once the function was completed, but once the function was completed, then there is no one to succeed.

the other issue youre missing is when peter the apostle told cornelius not to bow before him, implying that he had equal authority

>so you have said

and have been saying for a while and will continue to say convicting the guilty.

>the end of your error is eternal damnation

then you are calling Jesus a liar.

>>676232

>because the office was identified by a specific function which was to start the early churches.

Christ only started one Church with one Apostolic authority, you may have read some epistles from St. Paul explaining why exactly he spends a majority of his time visiting communities, rooting out heresy and preaching authentic teaching, you know, Romans and Corinthians, and etc etc.

>the office expired once the function was completed, but once the function was completed, then there is no one to succeed.

And where is this ever stated?

>the other issue youre missing is when peter the apostle told cornelius not to bow before him, implying that he had equal authority

What does this have to do with anything? Christ gave St. Peter the leave to bind and unbind teachings on Earth; St. Peter properly communicating that he does not supersede Christ's authority as God does nothing to contradict the Church.

In fact, it is by this authority that the Church makes Her proclamations.

>and have been saying for a while and will continue to say convicting the guilty.

Then don't be guilty. If you have been properly baptized, I'm in rights to admonish you.

>then you are calling Jesus a liar.

???

>>676235

>Christ only started one church

tell that to the corinthians, the Thessalonians, the bereans, colossians, galatians, ephesians, rome, etc.

it is really weird, you referenced paul who wrote epistles to SPECIFIED churches, thus negating your presupposition. weird.

>proof apostolic succession ends

no YOU prove that so called apostles today have authority over me. im denying that declaration and appealing to natural law that there are no consequences, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

i shrug my shoulders at your declaration. it doesnt mean anything. lol

>if youve been properly baptized i can admonish you

no, you cant. and since catholics dont even baptize properly because they neither immerse nor require a confession of faith prior to performing the sacrament, youre commenting on matters you neither know or understand because you have scales on your eyes.

and even if you were properly baptized, which you werent, what makes that he grounds to appeal of authority to admonish me?

ill withstand you to the face with scripture, lol?

>>676250

>tell that to the corinthians, the Thessalonians, the bereans, colossians, galatians, ephesians, rome, etc

"It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, (56-7) yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the (58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, (59-60) nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (62-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

This 170 A.D. Christian would laugh at you.

>no YOU prove that so called apostles today have authority over me.

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

>i shrug my shoulders at your declaration.

It's not I whom you defy.

>no, you cant.

And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed:

15 Yet do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

>and since catholics dont even baptize properly because they neither immerse nor require a confession of faith prior to performing the sacrament, youre commenting on matters you neither know or understand because you have scales on your eyes.

And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Not only is the Trinitarian Baptism mandated, but the command for the authentic Church - vouchsafed with Apostolic tradition - to go about the world preaching the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ.

>and even if you were properly baptized, which you werent, what makes that he grounds to appeal of authority to admonish me?

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place:

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.

The authority of the Apostle's, through the Holy Spirit.

>>676459

i reject anything that happened outside of the bible with equal authority to the bible, dude. sorry, not a respecter of persons nor of corresponding church traditions.

>its not me whom you defy

no, i literally am defying just you. i know you were just using rhetoric though.

im not worried about my baptism. i had a solid confession of faith prior to it, baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and i was immersed in water. im concerned about yours but im generally not disposed to being an ass about it.

>ad 170

who cares? im an american. speak to me in concepts, not vain and repetitious tradition.

>the authority of the apostles not the Holy Spirit

???

but the apostles got their authority from the Holy Spirit. your own declaration within your argument is the rebuke. ultimately the authority is from God. God did not ordain anybody over me because only the Godhead and scripture have authority over me.

why else was paul earnest in demanding cornelius to stand before him as a man, rebuking him for bowing citing because he himself is also a man.

>>676469

>i reject anything that happened outside of the bible with equal authority to the bible, dude

you what now? could you re-phrase this? the entire point of the fragment, is that the early Church recognized itself as One Church, and this is easily justified by Jesus Christ Himself, whom promised that His church built upon St. Peter would never fall.

>no, i literally am defying just you

I am providing no argument on my own authority, but the authority of the authentic Church, which is proclaimed authentic by Jesus Christ.

>baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

good

> im an american. speak to me in concepts, not vain and repetitious tradition.

I don't get it, all I have posted is a mixture of scripture, argumentation based upon scripture, and a bit of history proving what the early Church thought.

>but the apostles got their authority from the Holy Spirit

Exactly, they received the Holy Spirit, and thus the importance of the Apostolic Succession is absolutely critical for any Church that refers itself as the one scripture and Christ preaches and prophecies of.

As Jesus Christ said: He will build His Church on Cephas, being St. Peter. Any Church without any lineage to Cephas, is not the Church of Jesus Christ.

>your own declaration within your argument is the rebuke. ultimately the authority is from God. God did not ordain anybody over me because only the Godhead and scripture have authority over me.

And Jesus Christ and Scripture both affirm the authentic Church, which has the power to loose and bind things on Heaven and on Earth. Being in opposition to this church, is a grave sin, because it HAS AUTHORITY OVER YOU.

>why else was paul earnest in demanding cornelius to stand before him as a man, rebuking him for bowing citing because he himself is also a man.

Because the authentic Church isn't sola scriptura, and does not use a circular argument to justify it's authenticity (scripture -> church -> scripture) it uses the authority of God the Father, on God the Son.

(Christ -> Apostles -> Church -> Scripture)

All authority comes from Jesus Christ alone.

>>676487

>Scripture is the word of God and you will respect it.

And Scripture affirms:

1. All authority has been placed with Jesus Christ, from God, His Father.

2. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles (1st time)

3. Jesus proclaimed St. Peter the beginning of His Church

4. The Apostles received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (a second time!)

All in the Scriptures, but, why do you then deny it?

>Attempting to demote it below you is a low blow.

?

Sacred Scripture is of the same pillar as the Apostolic Tradition (which is sizeable chunk of the scriptures, being all of the NT, and the proper source of interpretation of the OT) and the Magisterium.

>be prepared to face the consequences

What? I won't get picked up at the rapture, or whatever nonsense it is?

>>676489

>What? I won't get picked up at the rapture, or whatever nonsense it is?

Proverbs 30:6

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Matthew 16:18 (actual)

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

>>676491

The actual quote is in Greek, and Cephas mean rock.

Or do you mean to stay Christ said:

>And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock, which is myself, I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

That's a strange, man-made teaching; the Church nor the Tradition has ever taught it.

>>676493

doh! Cephas is Aramaic :)

>>676476

>it IS based on scripture!!1

>…and just a teency weency amount of history…

>J-j-just-

no, dude. sola scriptura. your traditions are contrivances and have no relevance outside of yuropoor church live action roleplay.

>>676497

You have cut yourself off from the Church of Jesus Christ out of vanity, and if not vanity, pure stupidity.

Consider this, if you had been born in the early ages, would you have been part of the true Church? Only God knows, yet, here you are, in defiance of the authentic Church! Is this not an occasion for fear and trembling?

>>676499

>would you have been part of the true church in the early days

(implying it is a small church…)

>here you are in defiance of the (alleged) true church

(…and yet the rcc is the biggest canaanite cult ever)

is it a big church or a small church? pick one.

>>676504

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue. Both Peter and Paul speak to different churches, yet lays out instructions for all. This understanding is historically traceable to 170 A.D.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

and more than defensible via scripture with Christ's promise to build the Church on St. Peter, and that this Church shall never fall.

Taking Christ's promise means that the mark of the true Church is the apostolic lineage to St. Peter.

>>676506

ok so peter and paul lay out the instructions, and then the catholic church starting in about 340 proceeds to fail to comply for a little under 2 millennia.

objectively the state of the church is getting worse. so if the church as they are is currently failing, it stands to reason to drain the necrotic fluid from the fester so that recovery can commence.

that includes the roman catholic church started in 340 in the basilisk building in rome.

>>674873

What language did you just write your OP post in?

KJV became the perfect translation about the time English started to become the lingua franca of the world. It happened at a time when the corruption had become too big (just like all corrections of the truth does).

>>676673

KJV built on the tradition established by earlier translators so it wasn't exactly done from scratch. Credit should go to Tyndale and the like. The Norman French are mostly responsible for endowing English with its bulk of Romanic terminology.

>>676684

>Credit should go to Tyndale and the like.

Its hard to give "credit" to a single thing. Tyndale never finished his work, but out of the entire Bible it's estimated about 34% of the words remained from Tyndale, including parts that he never translated. In the end the Authorized version gave a fine balance in ecclesiastical language between what it was in Geneva and in Bishop's that we still see reflected in English today. Johnson acknowledged its subsequent influence that it would have in his dictionary in 1755, as it was the only Bible in use at the time. The ESV and others are struggling against the language now, trying to change what's already been set. They constantly have to change "fornication" to "sexual immorality" and things like that (or "go back to the Greek" and thereby invent new definitions from thin air) in order to redefine the language as everyone knows what fornication is and you can't get out of it. So to do that, they had to make new versions.

>>676694

What I've seen also however is that the contemporary western understanding of the bible has been in part inherited through the Latin Catholic interpretation of it with the word "temptation" to give one example. I guess in earlier times as well as with the original tongues it had more of a meaning of "trial" but the meaning seems to have been scandalized in a sense and has become synonymous with "seduction" and "enticement" in the popular western mind. Old English had "costnunge" (costning).

>>676694

You're saying they want to change fornication to something vaguer to avoid offending people? Please correct me if I misunderstand.

Fornication does seem to fit nicely as it resemble the Greek porneíā for some reason. It also similarly has connotations of sold sex as it's derived from "fornix" which is a brothel. Perhaps "prostitution" could even be an applicable substitute.

>>676724

Yeah, that's one example. The purpose is to change the word used entirely to disassociate the passage with the word as it is defined in the English language, even if that word was defined as such based on its use in that passage in the KJV. Whether it's to avoid offending people, to make the scripture easy to reinterpret a certain way, or even to make it disagree with itself, there are many possible reasons why they would be changing the words, and none of those reasons are good ones.

As another example of this kind of change, the modern versions like to change Titus 3:10 to say "divisive." Yet in Luke 12:51, this is how Jesus described himself. There are endless examples you could find how they change language all over the place, and none for any good reason. If you ask them, they may try to take you "back to the Greek" and point you to a definition that some "scholar" made up himself in modern times and act like this is all objectively and impassive scholarship. When really, it's an industry of lies.

>>676730

The interesting thing looking at the Syriac the root of the equivalent used term which has cognates across Semitic languages appears to be identical with another word which has a basal meaning of "breed" as in the noun. Don't know whether they are related

http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/root.php?adr=0:572&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%96%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94#Hebrew

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%DC%99%DC%A2%DC%90

http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/sureth/dosearch.php?searchkey=3885&language=id

Only the interlinear is good.

>>676731

Actually the Bible does give a definition for fornication and it's not what you would expect. 1 corinthians 10:8

>Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

Where was this incident of "fornication"? Because of the listing of events of 1 corinthians 10:6-7 it is in numbers 25:1-9

>AND Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

>And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

>And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the anger of the LORDwas kindled against Israel.

>And the LORDsaid unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORDagainst the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORDmay be turned away from Israel.

>And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baal-peor.

>And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

>And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

>And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

>And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

The "fornication" isn't just the man of israel in the tent. It is also the "AND israel joined himself unto Baal-peor:" and the "sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods" part. Fornication isn't neccessarily sexual, it is to say a different thing entirely in reality. In 1 corinthians 6:18

>Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Which body is he talking about if fornication isn't neccessarily sexual? See verse 19

>What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

<lul anon its the physical body

Wrong, because of 1 corinthians 2:12-15 and romans 8:6-8 the physical doesn't matter. The "body" is the body of Christ, it is to sin against the body of Christ. That is what fornication is, sinning against the body of Christ. For example in the verse above, by them sacrificing to other gods and bowing down to them they were at that time sinning against the body of Christ, i.e eachother by defiling their conscience. But phineas who murdered the conscience defilers, the fornicators, was fine, and God even commmended him.

Another example is in matthew 12:31-33

>Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

>And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

>Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

"blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men", wow doesn't that sound a whole lot like " Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." Since the Holy Ghost would also include the bride of Christ in the future since christians are to marry Christ in revelation 19:7-9?

<anon that verse says twenty and four thousand died to the plauge

Yes but twenty and three thousand fell in one day of reasons that may or may not be the plauge like getting stabbed with spears, they are both true but it just spanned a longer timeline then you expected.

>>676491

Here's a translation I did

And I also say to thee that thou art Rock, and on this rock I will build my convocation, and Hade’s gates shall not overpower it (her).

Here's a more Aramaean perspective.

I also say to thee that thou art Rock, and on this rock I will build my gathering/congregation, and the gates of Sheól (or Sheól's gates) shall not overpower/prevail against it (her).

Kjv onlyism is a tradition of man