/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

America is the most anti-christian country in the world.

>>828851

>America is the most anti-christian country in the world

Founding fathers being christians one of the biggest lies ever told. They were Freemasons and Jewish slave owners.

>>828847

>biggest promoters of LGBT propaganda, abortion and pornography in the world

>MUH American a Christian nation

What a joke.

Both those things are anti Christian by worshiping religious freedom instead of God.

>>828881

Founding fathers being Freemasons and anti-religion very well documented among themselves.

>>828882

The biggest redpill ((/pol/)) refuse to accept is white women still have the second most abortions world wide.( America doesn’t = rest the world)) and white women always been the biggest voting block in the west.

>>828894

Some were Freemasons, and some quotations can be interpreted as anti religion yes

>>828882

My typo aside. White women have now and always been the biggest voting block For the left in the west. You can only blame

Jews for so long. White western culture became anti-god. Of course, white men lose control of White women. Every culture and race that turns its back on god lose control of their women.

>>828896

>Some were Freemasons, and some quotations can be interpreted as anti religion yes

>((America)) became the First Nation in the west that became openly anti-god and anti-christian

Surely that hasn’t done any damage.

>INB4 my French Revolution

French Revolution was directly inspired by the American masonic atheist revolution.

>>828900

>>Some were Freemasons, and some quotations can be interpreted as anti religion yes

>>((America)) became the First Nation in the west that became openly anti-god and anti-christian

Non sequitur

>>828881

Ah, the Mammorstein pic.

That stuff always makes me laugh.

Besides being fake, even if he were a jew, that name would be nonsensical af, since it'd be a ashkenazim FAMILY name being used as a MIDDLENAME for a presumably italian rite jew.

>>828881

>America is still the greatest place in the world for Christians

The biggest producers of anti-christian propaganda in the world as sodomites have sex in public and said sodomites promote Islam and Judaism.

>because of freedom of worship without state interference.

This is untrue. Christianity chased out of the American public as the state forced Christian businesses to serve sodomites. Only true freedom of speech in America is for Jews and enemies of God. ((Separation of Church)) anti-god though and though and only to serve Jews. Don’t kind yourself.

>>828912

Said a lot about America and the west at whole when even the godless Soviet Union bans sodomites from parading in the streets

You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

James 4:4

We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

1 John 5:19

I'm anti- every human government and institution. Notice that John said the WHOLE world lies in the power of the evil one. America and the European Union are evil, or at least under evil influences, and so I hate it as I am instructed to. I don't support politicians of any kind. I am not patriotic. When presented with opportunities to participate in government in a pro-Christian way, I do my part, but I don't make the mistake of thinking that Trump is some friend to me and my people the way my father does.

>>828915

at the time stalin banned homosexuality in the soviet union, which he only did out of pragmatical reasons, in the rest of Europe homosexuality was still a punishable crime

>>828851

This. What other country produces so much pornography, greed, pride, suicide, senseless violence, sexual deviancy, drug abuse, blasphemy, abortion, etc.? Our government doesn't even follow its own Constitution anymore. We're a joke of a nation, and any Protestant still whimpering the tired old phrase "America is a Christian nation." needs to open a Church history book. 1000 years of Christendom has come and passed, and we've been on the decline since then - modern medicine doesn't count for much when most famies are in shambles, a notable percentage of Americans are either offing themselves or borderline suicidal, people are increasingly sedating themselves to cope with life, and your secular culture is otherwise a trainwreck that can't sustain itself.

>>828980

It's because all those people stopped using the Authorized Bible (KJV) and went to corrupted versions. Then, they stopped even thinking about or taking it seriously entirely, because, again, those are corrupted and obviously wrong. The word of God stopped entering their minds. It's a pretty simple and straightforward cause and effect, not hard to understand. That's why the demoralizers do everything they can to keep the Bible out of everything. That's why they want to condition and train every reaction to be negative to it.

>1000 years of Christendom has come and passed, and we've been on the decline since then

More like Christianity has been a light and beacon of hope in a world where continual spiritual wickedness in high places has just continually been in control by the god of this world and various corrupt oppressive evil lying state church regimes. Nowadays, it's more of the judeo-secular variety of state church, where everybody supposedly has to subscribe to those values with talmudists at the top. In the past, it's been others. It doesn't matter. Our faith and hope is in God. We are strangers in the earth, not meant for this world, patiently obediently waiting for his return. So one way or the other, things are going to be right again.

Also, "Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this."

Long story short, no amount of foreign subversives, jesuits and synagogue of satan and their errors and lying corruptions will ever prevail. Even though what you describe is exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Those who know the truth, once they know it, once they hear it, can never be demoralized. I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord!

>>828994

>Because kike universities brainwash them and then they're raised by kike entertainment

Which never happen when weak secular culture haven’t taken over the strong church in the west.

>Mommy and Daddy are too busy working for Mr. Goldstein to raise their daughter.

Capitalism and communism are different sides of the same Jewish coin. Defenders of capitalism no different than defenders of Boskovicism

>Isn't sex ed great?

Like someone else pointed out here. Before exposure to American secular consumer culture. Sexual deviantism was looked downed upon and outright criminalized in godless places like Soviet Union and communists China. You have American alone to thank for explosion of homosexuality.

>>828994

<But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

<But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;

<And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

<The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

<And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

<And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"

<Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

<"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

<If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

<If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha.

<In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

<in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

<Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

<who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

<For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

<For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,

<And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,

<and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist,

<For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:

<For we are not like many, peddling the word of God,

>It can mean either robbery or the thing being stolen. Hence "a thing to be grasped."

The implication by this definition, of saying that something was not a thing to be grasped, implies that he did well not to make an attempt to grasp something that he supposedly couldn’t grasp. This is contrary to the reality of the Bible which states that he did not exercise something that was his as if it was obtained by robbery.

He thought it not robbery to be equal to God; not “he didn’t regard it a thing to be grasped.”

People who deny that Jesus claimed to be God will immediately turn to Philippians 2:6 in the NASB and point to it saying, "Look, he didn't regard equality with God as a thing to be grasped!!"

>Another textual variant,

From what??

>but read the immediately preceeding verse:

That does nothing to alleviate the changed. That does nothing when someone quotes the false version of the verse and misuses it to mislead others. When you make such earth-shaking changes to the Word of God, you do one of two things: either you weaken a completely unique doctrine, or else you create a contradiction with scripture elsewhere. Both of these are evil!

>So the missing words are implied from the previous verse, and the meaning is not changed.

No they aren't. In mathematics we are taught that the proof of a proposition's converse does not necessarily follow from the proof of the proposition itself. We need both the statement and its converse, one does not always follow from the other! Learn logic!

>Modern English speakers wouldn't know what the KJV translators meant by the term corrupt,

Yes they would. Just look at the dictionary definition in the original dictionaries of the English language. They derive many of their word definitions from the Authorized Version of Scripture, which they treated as an unchallenged authority on the correct usage of words in the English language. It still is.

Corrupt does not mean the same thing as peddling, just look at the dictionary. Peddling implies that someone is selling cheap wares like some kind of convenience store. Basically they think that the word of God is something cheap that can be peddled. But worse… they remove the clear teaching against corrupting the word of God. They are part of the many that corrupt the word of God. See definitions of corrupt here:

<To vitiate or deprave; to change from good to bad.

<To pervert or vitiate integrity; to bribe; as, to corrupt a judge.

<To debase or render impure, by alterations or innovations; as, to corrupt language.

<To pervert; to falsify; to infect with errors; as, to corrupt the sacred text.

To corrupt the sacred text! It's right there in the definition. It means to pervert, falsify and infect with errors. Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians that there were many out there who are CORRUPTING the word of God, but we are not as they are. Amen.

>>829080

>Even the Latin Vulgate agrees with the Greek reading used by the NASB on this one.

There have always been corrupt versions. Marcion corrupted the Gospel of Luke in the 2nd century. That does not address the substance of anything that has been said here.

>But either way, the message that Jesus was trying to get across is still crystal clear.

By removing the words, the false witness version makes an unconditional statement that all anger against one's brother, even righteous indignation or wrath, is sinful. Thereby indicting the wrath of the Lord Jesus Christ and saying that he is also in danger of the judgement. This substantial point remains. It's a false witness that does not represent the truth. That's why I specifically chose it.

I also chose it specifically because the non-Greek text type is known to have had this corruption.

>Anger in your heart toward your brother is murder in your heart

Correction, Anger without a cause is. Anger without a cause.

>The phrase "without cause" does not change anything

Yes it absolutely does and nothing you say no matter what can ever change that.

>Or maybe some well-intentioned early scribes added

No, not maybe. Some false witnesses definitely removed those words of our Lord. I know this because for one thing, Jesus himself has had wrath. This point is so blindingly obvious that it becomes the very first point in any discussion.

>

You also didn't address the fact that Mark 10:24 in the NASB can be and is being abused by individuals who will just continually quote it claiming it is what Jesus said. Teaching that it is difficult to enter into heaven. Likewise in Matthew 7:14 some versions such as NKJV, ESV, NLT and others change the word "narrow" to "difficult." Likewise, in many versions John 9:4 is changed from "I must work" to "We must work" and so on.

You didn't even seem to spend any time thinking about this verse. Changing Mark 10:24 by removing the words "for those that trust in riches" is corruption that wasn't introduced until some 20th century bibles. Are you saying the whole world was wrong about what he said until then? Because this passage of scripture is abused to no end by people today, and it beyond all argument completely misrepresents the truth on key doctrines. I understand why you feel you can't answer this.

You also have to admit that the passage in Luke 23:42 was unchanged until Tischendorf in 1859. So then you would also have to think that some Israeli could uncover something tomorrow that proves all Bibles in the world wrong and would have to argue that all have to take that as our new authority.

But what does Christ say?

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

His word has actually been preserved to all generations.

>I don't know anyone who doesn't share your view of modern translations who would ever read that verse the way you're presenting it.

The NLT version of the verse, which I quoted, outright states that they shouldn't be searching the scriptures.

>Why do you pick at such inconsequential nits?

1 Corinthians 16:22 is not minor or inconsequential.

>So then you have no problem with the MEV?

The MEV does the exact same corruptions in Philippians 2:6, John 5:39, 2 Corinthians 2:17 and Titus 3:10 that I've already mentioned in this thread.

So no, it is a poor translation and it does not follow the T.R. for the exact same reasons. They also changed Jude v. 19 to say "cause divisions" instead of "separate themselves," in the same manner as Titus 3:10.

The MEV also changes Acts 2:47 and 1 Corinthians 1:18 to say "being saved" instead of "are saved." Yet it doesn't do so in 1 Corinthians 15:2 or in 2 Corinthians 2:15, where some other translations do. Which is strange because the NASB does change 2 Corinthians 2:15 to say "being saved." So which is correct.

If it wasn't for all that and a number of other things I'm looking at here, I might not condemn it as corrupt and inaccurate. Of course, I would have to do a deeper search at that point to see if there are no other blatant contradictions. Once I find ten or twelve, I usually have enough.

We could also go into the problems with translating the Old Testament in the MEV as well. Starting in the MEV corruption of Genesis 22:17 (it's supposed to say "his enemies" not "theirs," see Galatians 3:16 which literally argues this point.)

>Again, not a big deal.

Again, what do you mean again? Is Matthew 5:22, Mark 10:24 and Luke 23:42 just "not a big deal" as well? Where did you explain this? You didn't even answer anything I said about Mark 10:24 and Luke 23:42. Shouldn't that be answered for and not ignored if we are to take any of your points seriously at all.

>in the Byzantine reading.

Dude I'm looking at the majority text right now and it's not showing the corrupted version. Please at least get your facts straight. You can't just remove words for no reason, not when only modern versions do. I don't like to see you arguing that it doesn't matter, it just shows how little you regard these issues.

>There's nothing mystical about word order

The false witness removes entire words and phrases without a trace. It's not even a question of whether it was translated right or not. How can you argue this?

>or verse numbers

Nobody once said there was anything mystical about verse numbers.

>There is no earthly reason that a unitarian should feel compelled to visit Ephesians 3:14 in order to support their position.

No, but they don't want it in their bibles.

>So then you take them back to John 1. Or John 6. Or John 8. Or John 10. Or Romans 5. Or Romans 8. Or heck, just make them read the entirety of the verse.

I can't be everywhere in the world at once. Millions of people are reading a corrupted version now and even if you were to explain it they would simply point back to Philippians 2:6 and say it contradicts what it said there about how he didn't think equality with God was something to be grasped, they'd close the book and walk away. One false statement will only create contradictions, and God doesn't contradict himself in any point. People can see through this. That's why nobody takes corrupted Bibles seriously. That's the tragic reality why people have stopped taking this seriously. And it's all because of people who push the corrupt versions. All this moral decay falls on their account, for ridiculing the truth, for abusing the positions of trust they've been given by others, and for spreading error far and wide, for misrepresenting what God said, and for making a personal profit from it in the process.

>Where are you getting these weird interpretations from?

I've seen it myself. People saying that Jesus never claimed to be God and turning to Philippians 2:6 in the ESV or NASB, two major translations where it's corrupt. I have seen people doing this myself. Anything you might bring up is brushed off by simply requoting that verse in the corrupt version.

>In all seriousness, please look at the verse and ask yourself if you could ever come to the conclusion that to "confess Jesus" meant anything other than confessing Him as Lord and that He had come in the flesh…

1 John 4:2 sets a minimum and 1 John 4:3 sets a minimum. If you change the second one, then people will start to say that creates a middle ground where you don't know between the two, but the reality is that there isn't. This is very basic logic. They also deleted the second half of Romans 11:6 and eliminated the converse statement there as well.

>If your apologetic method is to rely on the citation of individual verses in order to defend your position,

You are the first person who did this. Is your method of argument to make such fallacious straw men that they don't deserve a response? Nobody at any time claimed that we were only using single verses out of context. Every thing I have brought forward is despite the existence of the rest of the Bible. If one single statement is corrupted, it doesn't matter. As I have said, if you corrupt even one single part of one passage with such an earth-shaking change, then you have done one of two things: Either 1) you have weakened a completely unique doctrine or else 2) you have created a contradiction with a related passage. Both of these are evil. I will gladly keep explaining this point for everyone.

>You need to be able to defend the critical doctrines using entire chapters.

So then If someone just randomly changes one word to say the opposite thing in each chapter, you claim that wouldn't be a problem. You claim that people wouldn't be pointing out these contradictions. How utterly absurd.

I say this is utterly absurd. And it is almost beneath being worthy of a response for how contemptibly foolish it is.

Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

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

>…This is linguistics, not mathematics.

Logic applies.

>You're not doing that weird numerology stuff that Gail Riplinger teaches, are you?

I should be asking you that because you seem to be more like that than I am.

>Okay then, if that's your standard, then corrupt doesn't mean the same thing as καπηλεύοντες

Ok why do you say that? You brought up a concordance, where's the context?

Καπηλεύω. f. ενσω, (pr. to be ὁκάπηλος, either an innkeeper, or a retailer, huckster; and as these persons, in ancient as well as modern times, seem to have had the reputation of increasing their profits by adulteration, hence) to corrupt, adulterate, 2 Co. 2. 17.

That's from Greenfield's Polymicrian Greek Lexicon, and it's much more accurate than Strong's. It is also a Lexicon, not a Concordance. I don't even know why you brought up a concordance for a word that only occurs once.

>But the definition you just supplied does not match the literal definition of the actual Greek.

It does, see the Lexicon reference supplied above. The reference you supplied, Strong's, is inaccurate.

The fact that the Vetus Latina also uses the word "adulterate" only further shows us that this hapax legomenon has been translated correctly in the Authorized Version. The fact that the dictionary definition of "corrupt" and of "peddle" are completely different also shows that the latter translation is not equivalent. The correct translation of the Greek is "corrupt."

>>829099

>It's a false witness that does not represent the truth. That's why I specifically chose it.

<Only if you take it in isolation.

Agreed then, that it does not represent the truth. Someone who is angry with their brother is not always in danger of the judgment. Someone who is angry with their brother is not always in danger of the judgment. But if it is without a cause, then it is. Therefore the NASB version of Matthew 5:22 does not represent the truth. That's the end of this discussion then.

Regarding this one, thank you for referencing Ephesians 4:26 for me rather than making me do it myself as I had been prepared to do if you refused to accept.

>If they sat there reciting verse 24 at me and ignored that verse 23 specifically mentioned the rich, I'd laugh at them.

The point is their preacher is sitting there reciting corrupt verse 24 (thousands of times across the world) in front of congregations every Sunday, and a majority of people in those places is going to be any the wiser or figure this out. The only ones that do will be mocked and made fun of.

>There's no conspiracy by modern translators

Right. There is a darker hand at work here.

>It's a disagreement about what the original reading actually was.

Because they don't like what it actually says. It isn't popular. It doesn't bring in the crowds.

>You do realize that over the past 150 years or so in particular that we've recovered a vast amount of manuscripts?

So then you would also admit that some Israeli could uncover something tomorrow that proves all Bibles in the world wrong, and would have to argue that everyone should be able to take that as our new authority now. So now you are defending every possible change to scripture, because you don't know what they might produce. If they pulled a new bible out of a hat once, they can do it again. They might produce a manuscript that suddenly removes a dozen or more verses from the end of a book. They might produce one that removes more mentions of Jesus Christ being Lord until there are none left. The "modernists" will just keep on saying the same things, making the same arguments. They will change it every which way to their heart's content, as much as they believe they can get away with, and they already have. They've already crossed the line into free editing at this point. But at the end of time, God is waiting for them. And for all those with itching ears who cannot endure sound doctrine.

The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

>I can't even imagine how they would try to use that as part of an argument.

Then you have a very poor imagination. Someone just has to say "well, he did say 'how hard is it to enter into heaven' after all" without mentioning any thing else, and the other person will probably accept it without even checking the corrupt version in their hands. People like to think that they can earn their way by works, so this plays well to that as I've said. John 9:4 is also corrupted from 'I must work' to 'We must work.' Matthew 7:14 is also corrupted to say "difficult" in NKJV, NLT and some others. 1 Peter 2:2 is corrupted to say you grow "up into salvation" rather than simply growing. This all suggests that people's works are earning their own way into heaven. If you think nobody believes in a works gospel right now and would abuse the altered Mark 10:24, then you just have a really poor ability to think abstractly. All it takes is reversing one statement and claiming God said it, while pointing to an altered scripture, to mislead others. Most people don't check for themselves. But of course, Hebrews 11:6 says that those that diligently seek him, he shall reward.

>You've yet to demonstrate how that is the case, unless you take verse 24 in isolation.

That's all they need to do.

>1 Corinthians 16:22 is not minor or inconsequential.

<The objection you raised is though.

The altered version of 1 Corinthians 16:22 removes the words "Jesus Christ" and only says "Lord." But they have to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. It's not just anyone who says "Lord" without even qualifying who that is. This matters to an infinite degree. End of discussion from me.

>There are entire passages that are dedicated to those doctrines, and those are where I would go to defend them.

They will be corrupted later, but this isn't even the point. Because other people are abusing them to make incorrect statements on their own, attributing incorrect things that God never said. If you create contradictions where there were none, then people will stop taking it seriously, and this, is what we've seen.

>That's the case with virtually any minor variant that you could bring up, which is all you've brought up so far.

In Luke 23:42, the only line in which the thief says "Lord," the modern versions take the very confession out of his mouth. This is only minor to someone who doesn't care about the words of God, (These are the true sayings of God), which is someone who is ensnared in modern corruption and has been demoralized so that these things no longer matter to him or her.

The place where someone confesses that Jesus is Lord is not minor or inconsequential. It is of infinite consequence. That is why God included it. All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

It is not minor or of little consequence.

>Translations are only approximations intended to convey meaning.

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words. Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

>How do you know it's a false witness? That's the issue.

You said I was raising concerns about word order. No, I was raising concerns about complete word removal. It is simply beyond argument that they have completely removed those words and there is no precedent you can point to. Moreover, examples I've chosen have been specific, important cases, not random cases; where contradictions and weakening of clear doctrine have occurred, allowing false teachers to misrepresent the word of God, and turning away others from the truth, exactly as I have described from the very beginning. But worst of all, people gradually lost faith in the Bible because they were only ever presented with these weak, corrupted versions. The real thing was deliberately replaced by big money interests and by alien, non-christian influences. A darker hand at work. This leads to the situation we are now in, and pretty much everything else being point out that has gotten worse is a result of that happening first. And it seems like it will keep getting worse as more extreme corruptions keep coming out. I haven't even gotten started yet describing all the things that they've done. Are you afraid of God's judgment for any of this? Or are you just sitting back not really believing in any of it, downplaying it. You who are reading this, are you pretending that you can learn about all of this and still just let it slide. I tried my best to convince. I used scripture.

>You seem to think that individual, arbitrary verses have to be standalone refutations of heresy,

They can't just go around changing things and then say "oh well as long as this other chapter over here still says this similar thing then I don't need this." That's not how the Scripture works. All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Everything has a purpose, has a place, serves a necessary purpose. And what they've done in all these places is either weaken a key passage that has no parallels or else they've created an contradiction with another passage if there is one.

>It's not a translation issue, it's a heart issue.

Wicked teachers are abusing these corrupted translations to deceive others into thinking things that were never intended to be in God's word. Maybe the wicked teachers would be wicked. But what about the people who they are using this as a tool to lie to. What about the person who just doesn't know any better and gets told one of the corrupt passages of scripture. They don't have any context… they've just been tragically misled about what God really said. And anyone who points out this problem, furthermore, gets attacked and belittled!

>That makes perfect sense.

It's because they don't take the Bible seriously. Therefore, they don't even know what it actually says, because most people have stopped reading it. All they've been given a lot of times is corrupt, contradictory versions. Nobody takes those translations seriously because it contradicts itself. They don't tell others to read it. People stop caring entirely. It does make perfect sense.

>You can't just chop a thought in half.

A sentence can make more than one proposition. Such as when it contains conjunctions like "and." For example: If you do all of the job, you will get paid; and if you do none of the job, you will get fired. That leaves the question, what if you only do part of the job? But what if I change the sentence to say If you do all of the job, you will get paid; and if you don't do all of the job, you will get fired. Now there are only two possibilities, either you do the full job or not and one of two things happens. There is no middle ground anymore, where neither consequence happens. Are you saying those two are functionally equal sentences? They clearly convey different content. The first sentence is weaker and less definitive.

>No I do not make that claim.

Yes you do because you said no "isolated" change to a single verse can affect doctrine as you can just point to the rest of the chapter in any case. Reductio ad absurdum. Change one word in every chapter. After all, it's just one single isolated word according to your ideals. It supposedly can't create any problems while whole chapters remain perfectly unchanged aside from that one word that got changed.

>The point of my argument was that it's less literal to use corrupt than to peddle.

Peddling is completely different and it implies that the object in question is a cheap, low-quality good being sold. There is no implication of it being corrupted from a better state to any lesser state, only of it being cheap from the start. Look at the definition of the word peddle. That word is not found in anything, except where modernists have tried to redefine words so they can insert it there. But when people go back to the real definition of the word peddle, they get the completely wrong sense of the Greek.

>>828882

Blacks and Jews are also Americans, even if some of them aren't Christian.

>>829129

>Blacks and Jews are also Americans

In name only. They are distinct peoples with their own languages, cultures, and values. They just happen to share the country with us.

>>829133

A lot of blacks (especially ones with full families in tact) are largely Christian in culture (largely Protestant to be specific). They literally have little other heritage to remember or hold on to in terms of ethnicity or source lands.

>>829140

>>829140

>A lot of blacks (especially ones with full families in tact) are largely Christian in culture

Very, very few by comparison. I have to live around them, so I see it every day. Nice people, but they're still culturally distinct and, regardless, "nations" are scripturally ethnicities. I hope that one day God will grant them their own country again, but for now they remain guests in ours.

>that's not how textual critical work is done.

Exactly! This guy that I'm quoting gets it here. We see other people failing at applying basic logic by removing words out of Mark 10:24 and Luke 23:42 and misleading people that every single Bible ever made before Tischendorf was wrong, in those and thousands of other places. First of all they are beyond question changing the content of these unique verses. I chose them as some examples to prove this point. Secondly… they are doing this purely on the basis of something some guy named Tischendorf found in 1859. That's why no one in the world had ever heard of these versions of the New Testament. And exactly, they are not doing legitimate textual critical work. The producers of these corrupted versions are wicked and evil men who deride the doctrine of the preservation of the scripture, that none of his words shall pass away. They say it had to be rediscovered in 1859. No Bible on the planet had those variations in Mark 10:24 and Luke 23:42. Or in thousands of other places as well. They will just pull another version out of a hat and start changing more things. So I have to say thanks for agreeing on that point.

>I have no reason to believe that they have, and I have no idea why you believe that they did.

See this guy has just been contradicting me to contradict… I've said all that is required to support the truth, and there is no further need to discuss these things since not even an attempt is being made to try to argue against it.

>Again, does not meaningfully change anything…

This basically captures the essence of the problem, because this individual thinks that because it means nothing to him (that is, it is not "meaningful"), that it has no meaning to anyone else. That the difference between God saying "I" and saying "we" really just doesn't matter that much.

But that's not true for those who believe God's word actually matters, and those who pay attention to and respect his word as being legitimate and not just a game. The differences here are serious. Because it's a question of what the Creator actually said in his perfect word… Not just some corrupted, fallible handed down copy which is what all nonbelievers regard it as. But read 1 Peter 1:23-25 and consider whether you believe that doctrine. If not, you're likely going to be something like this person, who doesn't seem to be concerned. At least, not now. Once the world realizes the gravity of what they've been so casually waving off, then it will dawn on them suddenly. It is a regrettable mistake to take such matters lightly. To pretend like it doesn't even matter!

>Yes, but you can do something like that with the KJV just as easily by ripping verses out of their context.

Now this isn't really a new objection, because as it was previously discussed, there are no contradictions in there. But, but, but, if we introduce random contradictions, then we get problems. Because if there are actual contradictions, people will be inclined to simply write the whole thing off as an inconsistent heap of inconsequential literature, because delving into the details will instead of showing the truth of the matter, only reveal the contradiction, due to one of the verses being corrupt and actually contradicting other scripture. This is the case most clearly in Mark 1:2, which in the NASB quotes a portion of Malachi 3 while claiming it is written in Isaiah. Yet if we searched the whole book of Isaiah we won't find the first part of the quote. It's only in Malachi. So, a provable contradiction. I don't expect a response to this and there isn't even a way to worm out of it.

>Don't you realize that the bible used by Mormons is literally a KJV?

Ok this is a new idea. However, it is completely beside the point however. Just because people can take the Bible out of context does not mean we can just go changing whatever we want since it somehow "doesn't matter anymore" because people can also take an uncorrupted Bible out of context. This is another absurd argument. It does not in the least bit follow that we are ok corrupting things because of this, and furthermore it has been shown beyond question that they have legitimately corrupted things. And it has been shown how they would abuse said corruptions.

>These things do matter to me, which is why I'm sitting here going back and forth with you about them. I fundamentally disagree with your standards and question their validity.

For reference, "These things," in my post refers, to the words of God and modern corruptions, it does not refer to my standards. Demoralized people do not care about what the words of God are nor about modern corruptions are out there. From his first post until now has simply been trying to downplay the differences. This shows an attitude of thinking the differences do not matter, not of thinking that they matter. And him responding to me after I already raised the point is a negative reaction, not a legitimate concern for the real differences. These things are constantly being downplayed as "minor" and "isolated" or "inconsequential," etc. This is exactly what I was talking about as being demoralized, saying that it doesn't matter, insisting that the existence of these things— these corruptions— do not matter. But to those who respect the word of God and see them as of actual consequence, they matter. The difference is in teaching that the word of God is consequential or else thinking its all just a game and being upset that someone, anyone at all, is actually taking it seriously.

Proverbs 29:27

An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.

It is an abomination to me that someone would downplay these differences, because I can't stand the unjust. That's how I get the wicked reacting to me. In other words, this person responding to me is wicked. I completely denounce every thing he has said.

>Where did I say that? Quote me.

Now he acts like what he said isn't even recorded in the thread. Even with his own words hanging over his head. And he denounces my church as dying, while admitting to the worst kinds of blasphemous amillenial false doctrines. It's no wonder after all this he keeps trying to attack me. Enough.

>>829164

>>829163

I'll just leave this here.

>>828881

Wanting Christ to rule is not a "totalitarian phase". It has nothing to do with something as petty as politics. And personally, I wouldn't even advocate "Muslim style" penalties. I don't support the death penalty at all. Or war. Or abortion. I do believe in harsh prison sentences and cultural rehabilitation, but I don't need to espouse a culture of death to do so.

>>829217

What do I have I have to with this? Can't I just be engaged on my own words? I don't know who these other anons are that you mentioned.

Not sure why any Christian would hold up Duterte anyways. He's bitter against the Church.

>>829220

>Jesus did, and He judges a people that tolerates evil.

I hate to point this out, since it would seem pretty obvious, but…. I'm not Jesus. I don't have the capacity to make judgements like this. And I never said anything about tolerating evil. I said harsh punishment and rehabilitation, but never anything about "tolerating evil". I only wish that those who are evil be saved from Hell. I won't expedite their trip there.

It's just dawning on me that someone is actually trying to "guilt" me because I don't want to kill people.

Maybe the other anon was right and this place is just a bunch of Duterte fetishists.

>>829222

>>829225

>I don't have the capacity to make judgements like this.

The government is given the sword by God to wield it against evil. Swords aren't meant for rehabilitating people. Some evil is so severe that it must be cut off in order to prevent it from spreading. It is not wise to bind the government's hands in this matter.

>>829221

>What do I have I have to with this? Can't I just be engaged on my own words?

Because when you took offence at the "totalitarian phase" stuff, you placed yourself with those guys.

>Not sure why any Christian would hold up Duterte anyways. He's bitter against the Church.

At the time, for a lot of people on this board(especially the /pol/tards), he seemed like some paragon strongman that will fight the degenerate drug dealers and other societal ills(further proof that allying with, and giving carte blanche to politicians that say they will "fight degeneracy" means jack s—, and you are highly likely simply to prop some crazy bastard that will turn on you).

>>829222

The death penalty for murder was established after the flood. It existed before the incarnation, and before the state.

>>829254

>They are eternally asshurt that the Whore of Babylon was never given a position of power in the US

It's true, but reminder that the Whore of Babylon, the Great City, was Jerusalem.

Revelation 18:24

<And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth.

Luke 13:33

<Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem.