bbf897 No.854387
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4202ea No.854395
Most of this board is Catholic, so they're not going to view a group like this kindly. As for me, I see them as misguided. Why leave the Catholic Church but retain the system of Popes? Why not just be Protestant? You can still keep the rites; just look at high church Lutherans and Anglicans? And if you want both the rites and the pope, just be a traditionalist Catholic. This is just bizarre to me. From my perspective, they're placing emphasis on all the wrong things. They're too focused on man made institutions, rather than on God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
940c8d No.854415
>>854395
I don't think most of us are papists
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
92d40b No.854452
>>854387
https://youtu.be/pGUQqNgffUM
Prelest or outright LARPers/fraudsters
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
98507f No.854463
>>854387
I heard about these guys. They literally have a completely re-written bible - not even a different translation like the JWs, but a different Bible.
They claim that Elijah spoke to their pope in a vision, telling them that the entire Biblical text was been corrupted and that it needs to be re-written. At this point they're bordering on the level of being Islam tier.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bbf897 No.854526
>>854395
Are they Christian though? Or just a cult?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854538
>>854463
All corruptions of the Bible are the same. I would put it on the same tier as the ESV, CSB NKJV and so forth.
The only difference is those are more harmful because more people are drawn in and allured by them and have their sin enabled by them.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
940c8d No.854542
>>854538
There is absolutely nothing in the ESV, CSB or NKJV that would lead you into error from a plain reading of the text as compared to the KJV
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854543
>>854538
>I would put it on the same tier as the ESV, CSB NKJV
>The only difference is those are more harmful
Yikes
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
98507f No.854557
>>854538
>All corruptions of the Bible are the same. I would put it on the same tier as the ESV, CSB NKJV and so forth.
It's literally a different Scripture. At least an inaccurate translation is actually responsible for translating something correct. The Palmarians just wrote a whole different book (albiet one that talks about the same subject matter as Scripture).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854566
>>854543
I think my post is better than your out of context post, anon. Do you work in media perhaps?
>>854557
>It's literally a different Scripture.
So is the critical text.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
940c8d No.854572
>>854566
name one false doctrine that is found in the critical text as opposed to the TR or Majority Text
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854573
>>854572
Sure, I'll name four. In Matthew 5:22 it says,
>But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:
Now in modern versions and the source for them, the original words that would be used for "without a cause" are removed, gone. Meaning it becomes an unconditional statement. Yet we see that Christ has righteous fury, as does God. He has wrath with a cause at times. The critical text therefore creates a false teaching in Matthew 5:22. Ephesians 5 says, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:"
Mark 10:24
"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!"
In the modern versions and their source text, the words indicating, "for them that trust in riches," is completely removed. Therefore, this changes the statement of Jesus Christ into an emphasis on how difficult it is for anyone at all to enter into heaven, whether or not they trust in riches. People could quote the false version of Mark 10:24 in modern versions. This changes the doctrine irrefutably.
Luke 2:33
>And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
In the modern versions, the words "Joseph and his mother" is changed to "his father and his mother." This is stated from the Gospel narrator, therefore implying in the modern version either that Joseph was the literal father of Jesus, or less likely, that God the Father marvelled at the things that were spoken of Christ. (Luke 2:43 is changed in the exact same way, and there it says "his parents" instead of the normal "Joseph and his mother")
John 1:18
>No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
In some modern versions, like the ESV and NET, the words for "only begotten Son" are changed to "the only God." This again is known to be a gnostic alteration to the text that has since 2001 been appearing in the ESV, a mainstream modern version. Now, if I had ten or twenty more examples to give right now I could show how many of the changes are systematic, and modify the same doctrines as these four. They routinely cut down the divinity of Christ in systematic ways.
Runner-up: Luke 23:42 where the thief on the cross confessing Christ as "Lord" is removed in the modern "critical text" version. The word is simply removed in modern versions and their sources. A few other changes I could have easily chosen instead are Matthew 6:13, 7:14 (in ESV, NLT, NET, NKJV), 9:13, 27:34, Mark 1:2, 1:41 (NIV), 9:42 (altered in NASB), 9:44,46 (both verses 100% removed in most versions except NASB), Luke 2:40, 4:4, 5:32 (NABRE), 24:53, John 5:16, 6:47, 9:4, 16:16. I won't get into the rest of the NT or other parts of the Gospels I still haven't covered but you see my point.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854574
>>854566
>So is the critical text.
This is what KJV cultists actually believe
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
940c8d No.854575
>>854573
>Matt 5:22
No interpreter reads it as an unconditional statement from critical translations. Everyone uses context. This is not a false doctrine found from the text.
>Mark 10:24
Again context solves this non-issue. This is not the interjection of a false doctrine. The people who hypothetically fall into this heresy do not exist.
>Luke 2:33
It is not a false doctrine to call Joseph a father of Jesus
>John 1:18
Jesus is the only God. Jesus and the Father are one, as with the Ghost. This is not a false doctrine. It's also ridiculous conjecture to allege gnosticism is in play.
>Luke 23:42
Not a false doctrine
I'll throw one back at you, only Luke has two cups at the last supper. Are the other gospels different scriptures or teaching false doctrine?
There is an argument for which manuscript source is preferable but this absolutism is not it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854576
>>854573
Now this is obviously all erroneous and undeserving of a thorough response, but the error concerning John 1:18 is very curious, I struggle to understand how even a KJV cultist could look at that and fail to see how the modern version is even clearer on the divinity of Jesus Christ. Apparently my brother, you look at the Son being declared to be the only God, and through some kind of inconceivable pretzel logic consider this to be both a "gnostic alteration" and "cutting down the divinity of Christ", and at the same time. Please, wake up and see you have been deceived.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854580
>>854575
>This is not a false doctrine found from the text.
Do you think anyone is going to take your word for it over the Bible? I will let every one judge for themselves.
>>854576
That version of John 1:18 is used by modalists. If you change it so that it no longer says Son, then they can take it to mean anything else they want. The verse no longer appertains to Him, so they think. And similarly, there are other changes where specific references to Christ, and Jesus acting as divinity are genericized. One example that comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 16:22.
>If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
Guess what the modern critical texts do? They remove the words "Jesus" and "Christ." Many more examples of this. 1 John 4:3 for instance. 1 Corinthians 15:47. Ephesians 3:14. I can think of some others but that should do for forming the general point here.
Back to John 1:18 though. That change is only in a small number of modern versions. Are you saying all versions except the ESV version are wrong then? Or did John write many different gospels, or it doesn't even matter to you?
Christ tells us, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854581
>>854580
>That version of John 1:18 is used by modalists
That verse proves modalism is false. How can the only God be at the Father's side if He is the Father?
>If you change it
God did not descend from heaven and give us the KJV. Being different from the KJV is *not* "changing" the bible.
>so that it no longer says Son, then they can take it to mean anything else they want
Perhaps we should remove every reference to His divinity so that they can't twist them? Socinians, Arians and the like prefer the KJV's rendering, does that mean the translators were all false teachers trying to change scripture by inserting heresy?
>Guess what the modern critical texts do? They remove the words "Jesus" and "Christ."
In Pauline literature "the Lord" refers to the Son and "God" refers to the Father. There is no ambiguity.
>That change is only in a small number of modern versions. Are you saying all versions except the ESV version are wrong then?
The translations are different because the manuscripts are different and unlike most places it is not instantly obvious which reading is original. I want you to understand something: the bible was not written in English. Bible scholars are not writing scripture. They do not pick readings based on which theology they prefer or which sounds better to them. It's not a question of being right or wrong, it's a question of what the apostles actually wrote. Do you want a bible that some random man from millennia after the fact wrote, or do you want a bible that ancient men wrote from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f79687 No.854582
I enjoy these arguments, and enjoy reading the same arguments from 1500 plus years ago. Nit picking passages meant and translated twice over for populations that were never intended to read them side by side. One gospel for the Jews, one for the Gentiles, one for the Greeks etc…
The crux of the matter is whether you love and believe in Jesus or Saul more. This is what makes the Incident and Antioch the most important event in understanding what happened. Saul was there at Stephan's stoning. The Apostles knew who Saul was back then. Therefore a deal was made to accept Saul's testimony that he had an encounter with the risen Lord and it was likely sweetened or contingent with the Gentile charity route collection since Early Christians had little interest in even mingling with Gentiles.
Saul and his friend/doctor Luke make up most of the new testament. The goal of the new testament is to close the old testament and bring Isiah's morality back into the religious leadership to the benefit of the Roman Empire and the sacrifice of Jesus was the holy seal of authenticity. The light chain around Saul was likely his protection as well, there were a lot of donations during the tougher farming years in Jerusalem. He always reveals the people and locations of the churches in people's homes in his epistles. A lot of people died horribly from this new order, but in the end the word of God rises above all earthy concerns and while humans scheme, kill, and betray and quit, the word is eternal. John knew it, perhaps that is why he lived so long. Mark would not write down all what Peter wanted him to and would not go far with Saul. Take the Mark 8:33 pill today.
There is the word of God and then there is the word of Man. There are no crucifixes lining the street as we walk to the store today. The barbarism was ended by the Word alone and woe to everyone who had ears and did not hear.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854583
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f79687 No.854584
>>854583
Do you think Jesus wanted his brother's face smashed by a club after he was thrown off the roof?
The Lord works in mysterious ways. I gladly wear the heretic badge as long as it is pinned on me by you. The truth of the Word and the growth of the seed are not mine to fuss over and feel important over. Enjoy your remaining time, if you can.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854585
>>854584
You should be more concerned with the true God whose name you blaspheme pinning it on you. You will stand before Him and be judged
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f79687 No.854586
>>854585
I don't blaspheme the Holy Spirit and you stand before Him everyday and are judged accordingly. Your sense of control to justify your deeds you hide was rocked, move past it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854587
>>854581
>Socinians, Arians and the like prefer the KJV's rendering,
Actually, Arians are the ones who most likely tried to remove 1 John 5:7 in the Greek, so no, they definitively do not prefer it. For proof that this has long been known to be true, see Johann Gerhard, Loci Theologici, vol. 1, ch. 16, p. 152. See also Johann Heinrich Heidegger, Corpus theologiae Christianae, vol. 1, ch. 4, article 33, p. 118, who writes
>Potius ergo corrupti Codices illi sunt, in quibus versus ille expunctus est, quod etiam Hieronymus ‘Prologo in Epist. Canon.’ observat, questus videlicet, ‘ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse in fidei veritate, Patris, Verbi ac Spiritus testimonium omittentibus,’ quod proin in Codicibus emendatioribus ille invenerit oportet.
Also… I always see nontrinitarians arguing against the verse 1 Jn. 5:7 coincidentally.
>does that mean the translators were all false teachers trying to change scripture by inserting heresy?
The people who originally created corrupted versions in the early years were clearly making systematic changes. We can see that today. Furthermore, God did not allow these versions, (since they were corrupt and not original), to be preserved the same way as His Word was preserved by special providence above every other thing (see 1 Peter 1:23-25). He did not allow the corruptions to be preserved which is why they are only recently being discovered piecemeal. That singles them out. Tischendorf only recently started to unearth fragments of it around 1859. No Bible on earth contained the version of Mark 10:24 I earlier discussed before that.
The translators today are nothing like the translators of the received text, which is the original Greek and Hebrew/Syriac. The people you are referring to want to exponentially change things more and more. The original job was the opposite of that: as starting with Tyndale, each successive project had more resources and time spent on making the translation accurate. Even today, the work of translating the received text into all languages in ongoing and I have met people that are doing it. These men are nothing like the self-reasoned "scholars" behind the critical text, who are looking to draw people in based on what they want the Bible to say, and not accuracy. That's why they also make generally poor translation choices a lot of time. They could do significantly better, but their audience is not very demanding of accuracy from them. You will notice also that around the time everyone started using these "modern" versions, things went more and more corrupt in society. This is squarely because of the modern version translators and the people with itching ears who fund them. As it says in 2 Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"
>Bible scholars are not writing scripture.
This is not even wrong. But false Bible scholars are making word changes deliberately in their translations, and not using the more accurate words that they easily could, and in the process they join the ranks of those who corrupt/tamper with the word. But they do their share of building off the corruptions of their ancient forebears in this regard as well.
>They do not pick readings based on which theology they prefer or which sounds better to them.
Have you heard of "eclecticism" anon?
>It's not a question of being right or wrong, it's a question of what the apostles actually wrote.
Well technically, this is the same thing. What God inspired is also what is right. But I agree with you here.
>or do you want a bible that ancient men wrote from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit?
Yes, that is why God said that his word shall never pass away. We never lost it, anon. God is real. Everything in history is part of God's plan, including the end times. The people who say his word was lost and rediscovered in modern times are just uncovering corrupted texts, and eclectically mixing up a million of their own varieties, which is why you see all these contradicting modern versions, none of which uses the original text which we have had all along. They just don't have faith in God to preserve his word. They think it's lost even now, and we only have a rough part of it. They want to reserve the right to make further changes, and are trying to get away with more and more. I've been watching them. And/or they just want you to think accuracy doesn't even matter. Hence degeneracy. Relativism — Eh, it could say that, or maybe not. Who cares? Etc.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854588
>>854587
>Arians are the ones who most likely tried to remove 1 John 5:7 in the Greek
They were highly successful then, because it does not even appear in any manuscript until well over 1,000 years after it was written. I don't believe we have ever been without any word of scripture, why do you?
>so no, they definitively do not prefer it
1 John 5:7 and John 1:18 are not the same verse. But good try at moving the goalposts
>Furthermore, God did not allow these versions, (since they were corrupt and not original), to be preserved the same way as His Word was preserved by special providence above every other thing (see 1 Peter 1:23-25). He did not allow the corruptions to be preserved which is why they are only recently being discovered piecemeal. That singles them out. Tischendorf only recently started to unearth fragments of it around 1859. No Bible on earth contained the version of Mark 10:24 I earlier discussed before that.
Your understanding of textual history leaves a lot to be desired, brother.
>You will notice also that around the time everyone started using these "modern" versions, things went more and more corrupt in society. This is squarely because of the modern version translators and the people with itching ears who fund them
That is not only false it is deranged. The downfall of our society starts about 200 years ago and it has *nothing* to do with which bible you read. The reason people today are so corrupt isn't because they followed the ESV, it's because they follow no bible at all.
>Have you heard of "eclecticism" anon?
What do you think that means?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854589
>>854588
>it isn't because they followed the ESV, it's because they follow no bible at all.
That is the same thing, unironically.
>They were highly successful then, because it does not even appear in any manuscript until well over 1,000 years after it was written.
Oh I see you have the collection of every word that was ever written from the 1st to the 11th centuries. Maybe you should invite some scholars over some time to research your collection, perhaps, anonymous.
>I don't believe we have ever been without any word of scripture, why do you?
This is a false accusation of me. However, as tempted as I might be in this particular case I will not respond in kind. I will not respond to a false accusation.
I am just glad at this point the rest of the posts are left standing and no one has any adequate response to them. Because if someone did, then I would be surprised.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d0f358 No.854590
>>854526
I mean, how do you define what a cult is? It's not such an easy question to answer because there isn't a universally agreed upon definition. There are multiple models covering a bunch of different aspects such as the BITE model, but I personally just don't know enough about the group to say. Going by what >>854463 said, however, I think it's safe to say that they're not really Christian.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854591
>>854589
>That is the same thing, unironically.
When I say that, I mean they might as well be reading anything else other than Scripture. Anything apocryphal. The problem though is this activity entirely replaces Scripture reading for a lot of people, but we learn that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, in Romans 10:17, so you really can't leave it out in the Christian life.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854593
>>854591
>>854591
Also, here are some extra cross-references to go along with 1 Peter 1:23-25 which I mentioned before.
Deuteronomy 12:32 —
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Deuteronomy 29:29 —
The secret things belong unto the Lᴏʀᴅ our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the Lᴏʀᴅ are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O Lᴏʀᴅ, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Proverbs 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Isaiah 30:8
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Isaiah 40:8
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 59:21
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lᴏʀᴅ; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lᴏʀᴅ, from henceforth and for ever.
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
John 10:35-36
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lᴏʀᴅ your God which I command you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854619
>>854589
>That is the same thing, unironically.
Big yikes
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854630
>>854619
>Big yikes
Prepare to stand by your words in the day of judgment, anon. I certainly know that what I have said here will be judged by the same standard.
Of course, you can always repent of your words here now, that is, if pride is not too much of an impediment for you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854631
>>854619
>>854630
I will be praying for the best.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
940c8d No.854632
>>854630
it's a sin to disagree with you?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854638
>>854632
Other anon, thank you for confirming my previous statements here by not contesting them.
To answer your question, no, I did not say that it was a sin to disagree with me. You and I both know, there is nowhere above where anything like that was ever said by me. I disavow it again here. I do not know where you get that idea. It is not a sin to disagree with me. In fact, I even said here >854589
that I was glad that nobody had tried to make any response to the truth that was stated here. If they did, then I would have been able to either 1) find some fault with the response or else 2) revise a mistake anywhere I had made it. I am glad to hear if someone actually has a correction that cannot be answered by something that has not already been stated above. I hope that this earnest reply is worth your sincere question, other anon, and I appreciate your comments. Please have a good day.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
940c8d No.854639
>>854638
that's really obnoxious but you didn't provide a counter argument, so by that logic you conceded to my argument
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a87798 No.854643
>>854588
>They were highly successful then, because it does not even appear in any manuscript until well over 1,000 years after it was written. I don't believe we have ever been without any word of scripture, why do you?
the only "addition" is just an explanation of the trinity. For there are three that bear record is found in the original manuscripts
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854644
>>854643
Thank you for bringing this up. I've been reminded of something here.
What I want to highlight about this is the inconsistency of those who, on the one hand want to tell us that Scripture is inconsistent - that is that it changes for the church over time, yet also want to pretend they are still somehow objectively judging things at the same time. They think it's some kind of an objective judgment that, what the church believes, specifically about Scripture, is subjective, based on what time you are from.
1 John 5:7 is just one prominent example. It is one indication of having much bigger problems for the modern versions ("multiple versions onlyist") philosophy. Another problem is that they want to, on the one hand act all objective about what they claim on certain matters, but on the other hand create comparison-charts that place things like the ESV and KJV side-by-side saying one is simply more or less "literal" than the other - implying to the reader that it were merely a difference in translation methodology between the two. This is since they want to sell people on their version - and tell the people that it doesn't really matter what these passages specifically say, to just "chill out" - but then when you press them, they suddenly turn around and act like one can be objective to say the KJV is wrong. Well… why place it side by side in a comparison graph then? It's utterly inconsistent and a sign of both hypocrisy, and utilizing strategies designed to deceive people based on misconceptions into going along with it. Trick people into thinking there's no difference with the new versions that've been pumped out recently.
But of course, what is likely the crowning act of hypocrisy and irony has yet to occur; This will be when the users of these versions get together and ban the KJV - based on some pretext like it being intolerant or whatever. Mainland China has already done something similar, after all. It's only a matter of time.
I would like very much to be wrong about this, but let's be realistic: accurate TR-based translations have already been targeted in some parts of the world.
That will a greater act of hypocrisy than what has been seen, because they certainly weren't arguing for that in the beginning. They were just saying it was all basically the same, so long as no man challenges them in being a multiple-versions onlyist. I'm trying to prepare myself for the day they start arguing that and holding the position that it's ok to ban the Holy Bible. I know this is so because I've already seen many of them show their true colors to me: a strong burning hatred for the Bible in its actuality. If only I could tell you in a word what I've seen.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854645
>>854644
The Palmarian church will probably be on board with banning the Bible as well.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854693
>>854643
Duh. I was obviously talking about the difference between the versions, not the entire verse.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854695
>>854644
I'm sorry you've been so deceived into this cult-like thinking anon, but the reason for what you're talking about is because all of these bible versions are mere translations of the scripture, they can have errors, they can contradict themselves and each other, and it would say nothing about the word of God. Insofar as they are an accurate representation of the truth, they can be considered the word of God, but they can never be seen as what men originally spoke from God. Hence, there are merits to the KJV and there are issues, just as there are merits and issues to every translation of scripture. The reason why people for lack of a better word 'attack' the KJV isn't because they hate it and want to ban it or are in any way opposed to it, it's because you put it on a pedestal above every other version and fall down before it as an idol.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b9cfeb No.854699
>>854695
>just as there are merits and issues to every translation of scripture.
And we get back to the fundamental problem here, because the "critical text" used by the modern versions is not Scripture. The corrupted texts and the people using them alike, are creating decoy versions.
What they have done is horrible, just horrible. What these people have done is on a level much worse than mass murdering people. Of course, any responsible person would be able to evade such tricks by the help of God. But regardless, these modern creators are not translators but more like alchemists, mixing and matching things they have no business dealing with, and it will cost them in the end. And of course, no matter how many times we may catch them slipping poison in people's food/drink by slipping in thousands of changes on basically every page, some of them of their own making, they always try to act nonchalant about what they have been doing to people. Like a very sly enemy feigning ignorance about what he has done when caught. But in the end, they won't get away with it.
This really has nothing to do with the KJV or any translation. It has to do with people of all times wanting to change the inspired word (which we know does happen and did as early as Marcion's time) using subtlety and craft to try to get away with it. But unfortunately for such plans, the Lord oversees us all. He has ensured that his word never passes away. It says so in his word, and this is what I choose to believe, not any manmade saying. I only want the best for others in warning them of all this. There is nothing for me personally to gain from this, I already have what I need but others are in danger and need to be saved from this attack by very clever deceivers who create these decoys such as the NIV, NASB, ESV. But that is only if they actually want to be saved from it. Many have heaped up teachers to themselves with itching ears, being not able to endure sound doctrine they have willingly chosen to use the falsified versions when the option of doing so was opened to them; They became "multiple version onlyists" who would tolerate no absolutes. Still - there may be some who would want to know they were being deceived.
God's word says the following:
"Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?" - Proverbs 22:20-21
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
795b64 No.854742
>>854387
I think the Palmarians are demonstrative of the fact that aesthetics alone don't make the faith, and similarly that the claim that traditional Catholics only care about aesthetics is false. If traditionalists only cared about such things, we could expect them to defect to the weird cult that that still has a "pope" who wears a triple crown.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a2d2d9 No.854759
>>854699
You typed out all those words and yet said absolutely nothing of substance
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.