/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I've never seen a post filled with so many memes in my life. 10/10 bait, you'll definitely get some /pol/tards on the hook with this one

>>678720

Name 1, deceiver.

>>678720

Seriously, hone in on 1. If you are sincere nd want to have a discussion like bretheren, we can. But if you are a serpent who only wishes to sew discord: this is an abomination before God.

>>678718

>Anderson

>NWO Bibles Conspiracy

You may be more suited here >>>/kjv/

>>678725

The entire post.

>>678753

No, I'm right where I belong. Here among vipers to rebuke and reprove.

Do you have a specific contention that csn be supported by scripture? Or should I just start repeating "leave, kike" over and over.

>>678754

Same with you. 1 specific contention supported by scripture or tell your Hasbara manager you need to take the rest of the day off.

Are you afraid or unable to support your beliefs? Do you think I hold my convictions with no basis? I have a firm scriptural understanding of why OP is correct and am open to prove them to you. You all, however, are unlearned and seek to sew discord.

Proverbs 18:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Does anyone have resources on why people choose King James Only ism as opposed to some sort of King James suppremacy? I don't really have a problem with someone having a favorite translation or justly disliking errant translations, but it seems like KJV onlyers often imply some sort of second inscripturation, which is the part I can't really get over. When I've brought it up I've seen countless arguments against other translations, but the only arguments for KJV inscripturation have been wongoed arguments like stretching silver purified seven times and applying it to six randomly chosen english Bibles ending in the KJV

Isaiah 42:13

The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

Matthew 10:34-36

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Matthew 23:38-39

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

>>678765

Well here's my stance, and I think I speak for most:

KJV-onlyism is a misnomer, and rather we are strictly anti-postKJV Bibles. There are an unbelievable amount of discrepancies in the other leading Bible(NIV, ESV, Douay Rheims), however I'm sure the Tyndale Bible is great and obviously the actual Textus Receptus is too.

The problem is when an anon, or even a publisher, believes that a group(and sometimes even an individual) thinks they are qualified to edit the King James. The Scolfield controversy is one such example, wherein an elite group of "jews" comissioned an individual to create a version with an agenda: a pro-Isrsel Bible.

The 54 scholars who were commissioned for the 1611 KJV were some of Europe's best. We don't know much about them, but we do know a some:

-Lancelot Andrews spoke 21 languages fluently, 5 of which were dead.

-One editor claimed to have read every Greek word in the known world.

-The 54 were split into several groups and over a period of 7 years, each verse was translated and finalized, then proofread by each group. It was extremely professional and systematic and it is folly to think the authors of the NIV were as qualified/meticulous.

These are the best videos I have found on the subject of KJV-onlyism:

>Kent Hovind - Why the King James?

https://youtu.be/L5HY22JBzDU

>Documentary: NWO Bible Versions - Pastor Steven Anderson

https://youtu.be/kFtI_mVOXbQ

>Sermon: Bible Translations - Pastor Steven Anderson (June 2018)

https://youtu.be/HeK3-XTW1Pc

>>678769

Disregard that 1st sentence.

>>678769

Yeah pretty much it's just that you should take the KJV as the definitive version and if you find something wrong with some other translation that contradicts it then you know not to use it. So far every modern translation I've ever seen has massive differences and contradicts the KJV, so therefore I never use them. Then a few people get butthurt and accuse me of all kinds of things I never believed.

>>678769

I would say my problem with this stuff is kinda like my problem with tradcaths and the Latin mass. It just seems to me like someone could go along translating from the same original texts as the KJV, maybe even essentially translating the KJV, into a more modern form of English. They could make all the same assumptions while translating it but simply use words more in use rather that words that are used less often, but have the same meaning. But if this were done it would create a million youtube videos in which people would take the most uncharitable view of it possible using weird definitions of words that everyone knows weren't the intended meaning to show how this new pseudo-translation is actually a masonic jesuit new world order """";"bible"".

Pretty sure I've already seen the Anderson ones, maybe I'll watch the Hovind one. I'm more accepting of the KJV than I used to be, mostly from distancing it in my mind from the KJV only groups and reading it fresh, but I don't get the idea that there can't be a good translation now it days, as opposed to that their likely will not be

>>678775

>Yeah pretty much it's just that you should take the KJV as the definitive version

Also the reason for this is because it says the same thing as the received text, the original language words which we always had.

>>678718

The KJV is a subverted Bible. Without Maccabees, zionism is a logical conclusion of the Bible. The first Rheims is interesting and the OSB seems better than most modern English Bibles. The best Bible that's conveniently universal and easy to find on mobile is the RV with apocrypha imo. But nothing beats the interlinear.

>>678783

Why is servant wrong for Παῖδά?

>>678790

What basis are you coming to this discrepancy? Do you speak Greek? Kalimera. Maybe this is a logical fallacy, but among the 54 editors and translators of the King James were numerous Greek scholars and others fluent in the language. Why would they make such a careless mistake that a Jehovah's Witness could refute their concensus with a penstroke?

>>678788

All of those verses are in my RSV though?

>>678805

As footnotes or with footnotes, correct? Remember: the 1st thing the devil did was not kill, or maim, but cast doubt on God's Word.

>>678805

>(KJV) Romans 11:6— And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

The RSV removes the second sentence of Romans 11:6 and doesn't even leave a footnote.

>John 9:4— I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

The RSV changes "I must work" to "We must work" in John 9:4 and doesn't even leave a footnote to mark it.

>1 Corinthians 16:22— If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

The RSV removes the words "Jesus Christ" from 1 Corinthians 16:22 and doesn't leave a footnote.

>1 Peter 4:14— If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

The RSV removes "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified" in 1 Peter 4:14, and doesn't leave a footnote.

>>678818

To be fair those changes are because the KJV translation is in error, not the RSV. Remember that the people who translated the KJV only had 9 manuscripts, we have hundreds today that allow us to make far better judgements on what is original and what are later additions. The KJV still has the comma johennium in 1 John 5:7 for example and we know for a fact that was a later addition

>>678841

But we know that 1 John 5:7 is really because it was in those super special manuscript, checkmate jesuit

>>678840

>What the heck does that bottom text say?

Yea, that needs to be cropped out…haha

>It really seems like you're oversimplifying issues and being over reliant on a collection of reformed scholars

Well I have to ask: do you speak or read Greek? This is an important question.

>>678841

Watch this 15 minute Kent Hovind video OR just fast forward to 7:25-10:00

https://youtu.be/L5HY22JBzDU

>>678840

>Why is it that when KJVers say recieved or always used it's always applying to what was used in Europe and maybe where ever Europe had the most contact with.

Because it's still in the original languages. We still have the original words preserved through God's will today.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1 Peter 1:23-25

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

>>678841

>Remember that the people who translated the KJV only had 9 manuscripts

What?

>we have hundreds today that allow us to make far better judgements on what is original and what are later additions.

Actually they had access to manuscripts that today are no longer around. Fortunately we have the work of several top scholars who put together the various TR publications as did the KJV translators. The KJV translators had access to everything at the time. If God's word was not in the world at that time but buried in a monastery somewhere that nobody knew about, then the prophecy about God's word was not fulfilled.

>The KJV still has the comma johennium in 1 John 5:7 for example and we know for a fact that was a later addition

They said the same of 1 John 2:23b at the time in 1611, it turned out later that it is very well supported.

>>678863

>Fortunately we have the work of several top scholars who put together the various TR publications as did the KJV translators.

Sorry I meant the KJV translators had access to it, not that they put those together themselves.

Thanks brother.

>>678858

>>678863

>>678864

>>678847

everybody as some Greek speaking dude on their team and virtue signalling about it doesn't help anyone

The Hovind video might be a new video for people that are incredibly new to this, but it's not all that deep. I would love to see what he's talking about with the Alexandrians, from what I've seen about Origin he's oversimplifying this in an incredible way. Also Egypt = bad is retarded as is the trashcan manuscript meme, a blatant lie

I don't get how KJVers hate the ancient manuscripts so much, I half expect them to feces-post about how THESE ARE PRESERVED and whatnot

>>678858

>We still have the original words preserved through God's will today.

>>678863

>Actually they had access to manuscripts that today are no longer around.

NOT PRESERVED!!! RRRREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

>>678869

>NOT PRESERVED!!! RRRREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

Don't worry, they made copies for us.

>>678869

>everybody as some Greek speaking dude on their team and virtue signalling about it doesn't help anyone

What? So just say: "No, i don't speak or read Greek." I won't say anything else, I'll let that speak for itself in the context of your lengthy review you posted earlier.

>The Hovind video might be a new video for people that are incredibly new to this, but it's not all that deep.

The video or the topic isn't deep? I disagree with either statement.

>I would love to see what he's talking about with the Alexandrians, from what I've seen about Origin he's oversimplifying this in an incredible way.

What does this mean?

>Also Egypt = bad is retarded as is the trashcan manuscript meme, a blatant lie

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN

>I don't get how KJVers hate the ancient manuscripts so much, I half expect them to feces-post about how THESE ARE PRESERVED and whatnot

Just because something survived doesn't mean it's correct. vaticanus sinaiticus and the Textus Receptus contradict each other.

>>678880

There isn't a single manuscript that completely agrees with the Textus Receptus

>>678891

It's simply this:

Erasmus was arguably the smarter man who ever lived. His work was then reviewed by 54 geniuses under comission of King.

>>678891

And the other argument implies that God concealed His Word from us for centuries.

>>678902

Smartest*

>>678880

He acts like the situation in Alexandria is really simple. Origen was very flawed, but four of his followers where Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, so it's not like there was this little click that all had the same beliefs.

Trashcan meme dealt with in video from theopneustos man

>>678906

James White is extremely annoying. His interview with Pastor Anderson spoke volume. Anyway:

From Tischendorf’s own testimony he writes the following:

It was in April, 1844, that I embarked at Leghorn for Egypt. The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any manuscripts, more especially Biblical, of a date  which would carry us back to the early times of Christianity, was realized beyond my expectations. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844,

>I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments;

and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that 

>two heaps of papers like this, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. 

What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, 

>which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen.

The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-five sheets,

>all the more readily as they were destined for the fire.

>>678917

>His interview with Pastor Anderson spoke volume

It really did

>From Tischendorf’s own testimony he writes the following:

Did you watch the video?

Source: Wordpress written by 2 PhD holders

https://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/was-sinaiticus-found-in-a-trash-can-or-not-more-hip-thigh-nonsense/

>>678902

Oh, you're just a troll. Well done

>>678922

Yes I watched it. He's wrong.

>>678917

>Tischendorf

>>678928

Because you have no retort?

>>678930

Nice. Will listen to this today.

>KJV onlyism

These ten guys told me 2+2=4, but this one guy told me 2+2=5. Since that one guy is the only one giving me a different answer, he must be right!

>>679007

I agree. The 54 KJV translators superceed 1 or 2 unsaved heretics behind the other versions.

Where did all this stuff about modalism come from recently?

I've been hearing a lot of IFB pastors not believing in the trinity?

What are the scriptures that confirm the trinity?

>>678718

>-Key points of a proper church/denomination:

>>Once Saved Always Saved

>>Salvation = Grace through FAITH ALONE

>>Jesus is the Son of God, and is God

haha