What translations of the Bible should non-English speakers use? Seriously, how do KJV Onlyist get around this? Is the English language the only language currently that has the inspired word of God? Do you propose translating the KJV into other languages? But then if you did that it couldn't be the KJV because no language operates exactly like English, especially for archaic English words that have no meaning in other languages, how would your translate that? Best guesses? Manipulation of vocab? But that still wouldn't be perfect. Or should people who speak other languages use a Bible version that closely follows the manuscript traditions that the translators of the KJV used? I'm just curious as to how you further preform your mental gymnastics regarding this issue.
Question for KJV Onlyist
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
bible-researcher.com
twitter.com
KJV-onlyism applies to english bibles, not bibles in general, as far as I know.
Their meme pastor suggests the RVG 2010 Spanish NT for example, youtube.com
Coincidentally I've found no Spanish translations to best the Reina-Valera tradition. Namely the Reina-Valera Antigua and the 1960 revision.
Baptist translators have even made edits of it to conform more closely with the KJB.
The claims that KJOists give about texts sources in charts like these are unsubstantiable though since some of the supposed traditional texts may exhibit Alexandrian readings and vice versa including the Vulgate.
and toward the end of the 1st century and into the 2nd century, the Talmudic Jews were actively attacking the Greek Septuagint because it was predominately used by Christians.
these jews felt that they could discredit Christians merely for the reason that they used Greek, and at the same time, they began twisting the Hebrew Scriptures to try and disprove that Jesus was the true Messiah. This controversy roared on until at least the 4th and 5th centuries AD. One of the most famous examples of how the Jews attacked the Greek Septuagint regarded the word virgin. The particular verse in question is Isaiah 7:14, which reads in the Greek Septuagint:
"Therefore, the Master Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb, and will bring forth a Son, and you will call His Name Emmanuel."
In the Greek, the word for virgin is parthenos, and it literally means a virgin. In the Masoretic Text, however, the word is almah which means a young girl. The usual Hebrew word for virgin, and the word in every case translated virgin in the Revised Version, is bethuwlah. This verse is quoted from Isaiah in the Christian Scriptures in Matthew 1:23. The Jews attacked the Septuagint from the beginning because they claimed that it had been corrupted by the Christians....etc
Anyone using the masoretic text needs to be aware of the influences the talmudists have on their text so they won't be susceptible to their deviations and misrepresentations.
Whatever it was translated by a saint whose venerated pretty much transdenominationally. Heck much of the religious English terminology and vocab is probably inherited through translations. Without it Anglos might still have been using Germanic wizardry terms like foreteller for prophet.
Also the idea that Alexandria was some den of exotic pantheism while Antioch was some bastion of piety is ridiculous but perfectly apt for advancing the fears of paranoid xenophobic prudes.
I'm not a KJV Onlyist but I constantly get accused of being one. The answer is to use the received original language version to make a formal equivalence translation. No need to go through an intermediate language like English. But if you did the translation properly it will turn out to say the same thing as the KJV in that language, and it especially won't have random stuff removed due to using a "critical" text. That's the real sticking point for people like me.
Pretty sure the 1960 revision removes a ton of stuff via critical theory. Definitely use the Antigua.
Wouldn't it be better to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the OT and NT respectively in the original language so that there's no risk of anything getting lost in translation?
Strangely enough many people in Spain use the Reina Valera translation despite the country being 99,9% Catholic
0/b8
It's simply better being translated from the Greek in the NT but probably misses out on the Septuagintal readings in the OT by using the Masoretic text.
You can use other language translations but they won't be as accurate because Jesus spoke English.
when the apostles spoke tongues, it was actually KJV elizabethan english
And Cucklicks say Baptists always derail threads when its Cucklicks
The apostles were anglos
en.wikipedia.org
You honor us with your persecution.
Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were translated from the KJV
I don't think I've ever encountered this level of abysmal stupidity before. I think my brain just melted a little bit.
...
...
pathetic!
False flaggers bro. Haters gonna hate.
Stop with this Anglo supremacy. The real ethnic Israelites were seeded among Christian nations in general. No, I'm not referring to the SoS.
Strict KJV Onlyism does not have an answer to the question because its brain dead, but most KJV Onlyists are just self loathing Ecclesiastical text supporters.
Anything translated from the TR/Orthodox Patriarchal text, and Masoretic hebrew text are largely acceptable.
I'm willing to bet those were sarcastic comments friend.
I certainly hope so.
That's far too dismissive. Strict KJV onlyism comes in two forms. There's those that believe the KJV is perfect an divinely inspired in which case foreign translations should be made directly from it, and there's others that believe the KJV is the best translation available in English in which case foreign translations should be taken from the sources. The idea of KJV onlyism is completely logical. Limiting to one translation creates a bedrock from which to base doctrine.
If not look at the bright side, there's much worse hands such deranged people could be left in than a KJV.
I think I saw some of them at the St. Patrick’s parade.
Checkem
I don't really have anything against KJVO, most of my family believes it. I just think the Ecclesiastical text should be primary.
You're first definition is KJVO, your second is the Ecclesiastical text position with a preference to use the KJV in English.
It's better to ground doctrine on the original language text because that is what God immediately inspired.
Hey someone else has done research.
Hmm, if eventually when Israel returns to their home they come from the North, I wonder who they could be. I also don't know any Europeans who separate themselves from other Europeans by the name of Judah so Judah has completely joined with Israel as Jeremiah predicted. It's all in the Bible, frens. Be sure to read it (objectively) so you don't fall into the hands of the wicked zionists.
That's just it, the average person doesn't have time to learn khoning greek and ancient hebrew. They also don't trust other people just because they have, and there's no reason they should. There's been a slew of translations released in modern times to turn a quick profit. The KJV on the other hand has been around since the 1600s, admittedly with politics surrounding it at the time that could have influenced it. I do understand the Orthodox and Catholic frustration with the Protestant insistence on the KJV given how little evidence we really have there's anything special about this translation.
For me personally though I love the KJV and always will. The church didn't bring me to Christ, no living person did or could, the words printed down in an old beat up forgotten KJV brought me to Christ. I'll never forget that. To me what I read and what seeped so deep into me it changed the very nature of my being could only be the word of God.
The question then becomes who do you trust to translate that for you? None of us can read ancient hebrew and koine greek. How many different translations have come out in the past few decades? They can't all be right. It makes me angry that so many dare touch the word of God in this way.
I should admit I have an intense love for the KJV. I wouldn't listen to anyone.The book itself brought me to Christ because I couldn't deny the truths laid down in it. I do accept on the other hand I don't really know anything, I can only pray God forgives me for my confusion.
ignore the duplicate posts, it won't let me delete one. Probably a website hiccup but I'm going to blame the Catholic mod mafia none the less.
The average person shouldn't be reading the Bible in the first place. That is why we have priests.
Wow, cutting people off from the word of God. That's pretty severe.
Definitely not something a saved person would say or think.
"THE imagination must have great power over Huguenot understandings, since it persuades them so absolutely of this grand absurdity, that the Scriptures are easy to everybody, and that everybody can understand them. It is true that to bring forth vulgar translations with honour it was necessary to speak in this manner; but tell me the truth, do you think that the case really runs so? Do you find them so easy, do you understand them so well? If you think you do, I admire your credulity, which goes not only beyond experience, but is contrary to what you see and feel. If it is true that the Scripture is so easy to understand, what is the use of so many commentaries made by your ministers, what is the object of so many harmonies, what is the good of so many schools of Theology ? here is need of no more, say you, than the doctrine of the pure word of God in the Church. But where is this word of God? In the Scripture? And Scripture-is it some secret thing ? No-you say not to the faithful. Why, then, these interpreters and these preachers? If you are faithful, you will understand the Scriptures as well as they do; send them off to unbelievers, and simply keep some deacons to give you the morsel of bread and pour out the wine of your supper. If you can feed yourselves in the field of the Scripture, what do you want , with pastors? Some young innocent, some mere child who is able to read, will do just as well."
continued…
"Certainly S. Peter is not of your thinking, who assures us in his 2nd Epistle (iii.16) that in the letters of S. Paul there are certain points hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other Scripture to their own Perdition. The eunuch who was treasurer-general, of Ethiopia was certainly faithful.(Acts viii) since he came to adore in the Temple of Jerusalem; he was reading Isaias ; he quite understood the words, since he asked of what prophet that which he had read was to be understood ; yet still he had not the understanding nor the spirit of them, as he himself confessed: How can I, unless some one shows me? Not only does he not understand, but he confesses that he has not the power unless he is taught. And we shall see some washerwoman boast of understanding the Scripture as well as S. Bernard did! Do you not know the spirit of discord ? It is necessary to convince oneself that the Scripture is easy in order that everybody may drab it about, some one way, some another, that each one may be a master in it, and that it may serve everybody’s opinions and fancies. Certainly David held it to be far from easy when he said (Ps. Cxviii. 73) Give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments"
As St. De Sales argues, Sacred Scripture IS NOT MEANT FOR CASUAL READERS, it is not something anyone can just open and comprehend, SCRIPTURE ITSELF AFFIRMS IT, St. Paul warns us our own interpretation can corrupt us, even St. Peter explicitly warned against personal interpretation.
Yes, that's what 2 Peter 1:20-21 affirms for us. No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. So the only way to be taught is by the Holy Spirit himself. That's what John 14:26 makes clear and demonstrates.
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 16:13-14
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
1 Corinthians 2:9-14
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
He wasn't saved yet. After he got saved things were different.
So yeah, considering what Romans 10:17 says, that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That makes intentionally cutting someone off from the word of God a wicked, satanic thing to do as that's what they need to believe to be saved/indwelling of the Holy Spirit/knowledge of Christ Jesus.
And yet that's what he just did, order the word of God to be cut off from people. Very wicked and corrupt.
You cannot be saved unless you are part of the body of Christ which is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. If you're not then you cannot interpret scripture. Doesn't matter how many claims you make about how you "totally have the holy spirit". Half the epistles in the New Testament are directed at communities that are teaching incorrect doctrine because of bad interpretations of scripture.
Didn't I just say that it's the Holy Spirit who teaches all these things? So then logically that means it isn't me who's doing it. It's God. So speaking in general the man of God doesn't require some other intermediary to understand the word, he is saved.
John 14:16-17
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Luke 11:9-13
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
You have to be saved yourself then you can tell. Because it's all reliant on God. Some wicked man wants to cut off the word of God, but he is simply wrong and evil.
How do you even justify this level of retardation? Did the early churches in Corinth, Rome, Thessalonica and Ephesus lack the Holy Spirit because Paul had to send letters and his students to those places to correct their wrong interpretations and practices? The Church has always had a hierarchy and has always depended on people like the apostles and their students to carry the tradition that Jesus taught and keep others on the straight path. You would be the guy who would reject Jesus teachings and say "You're wrong and I know it because I have the Holy Spirit maaaaan!"
Its scary how many Catholics support that idea
They were completely right though. As soon as the Bible got into the hands of the laity they split Christendom into a million different shards. The Protestant Reformation was the worst thing that ever happened in European history, it caused a gaping spiritual wound from which it has never recovered and we have heretics like Anderson running around telling people retarded shit like the KJV is the infallible word of God
And now we have heretics spelling out retarded shit like papal infallibility
How can you be against Papal Infallibility when you believe in personal infallibility (If you have the Holy Spirit!) in interpreting scripture? Apparently one person sitting on the seat of St Peter having the ability to make authoritative statements about the faith is absurd but every single person on Earth having the ability to do the same thing is perfectly acceptable? At least Catholic Dogma is entirely based on scripture and tradition. Protestants simply pull shit out of their asses and say "Uh it actually means this because I have da Holy Spirit! I know I have da Holy Spirit because I think I'm right and my interpretation confirms my prior beliefs!"
Do you read your Bible? Do you own one?
...
Literally this
Im not a Andersonite but is that pic real or fake? I tried googlibg th and title but got nothing
Why wouldn't i be surprised he would say this, even if this, is photoshopped. I can unironically picture him just standing up there on his podium screetching. HE SPOKE CLEAR AND CONCISE MODERN DAY ENGLISH, NOT GREEK!!!!
No more than we need the same word of God today. They needed it too. And it would be wrong for someone to be a Diotrephes and cut off the word of God from reaching them.
It caused a political wound in the state church. So yes it was politically destructive. The Protestants were still pedobaptists who called for the death of baptists. They were already executing baptists in the 1520's.
Nice pic, that's what this thread today reminds me of. Bunch of pharisees trying to burn God's word so that less people will know what God says, and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
It's photoshopped, no false teacher is that blatant. Although I don't really know who that person is so I don't know if hes false teacher
idk but what english bible should catholics use and why does the DRA have so many verses completely in tact that they dispute today such as Acts8:37 and 1 John 5:7?
and if they couldnt be trusted to release an authoritative version then, why can they do it now?
no.
Umm, user according to acts 26:14-15
During the days of paul, Jesus clearly spoke with the hebrew tongue. Now that that's said, don't discount that God/Jesus, the creator of everything that is all knowing, can speak modern fluent english at His own will. It is indeed possible that God knew how to speak english back in 0 A.D since God knows everything. But according to the Bible Jesus spoke the hebrew tongue at that time.
Call no man on earth your father matthew 23:9.
Have you not read 2 peter 2:20-21?
These had already been saved as pertaining to the election romans 9/galatians 4:21-31, yet were entangled and overcome such as satan and other fallen angels. Are you saying satan or those who are overcame and were saved as pertaining to the election are apart of your so called synagogue?
Use the version that is of God as known by its fruits matthew 7:15-20.
Yes and I have actually tried this with automatic translators. Literally every online translator blocks even partial translations of the word of God from the KJV. Like if you take half a verse and translate out of the word of God it totally blocks it. But if you try translating a verse that is from a version that isn't true/would make God a liar if it were true then it translates just fine. Its a winnie the pooh conspiracy, go try it for yourself.
The same way the word of God affects languages, by inventing new words for said language.
Yes, which descended upon the Apostles during Pentecost, and they themselves told us to hold fast to their Christ-given traditions.
Cutting people off from the Word of God, is cutting them off from their Church, wherein they are given the Word along with Apostolic Tradition and CORRECT teaching.
We do not need "an authoritative English translation", we are not expected to personally interpret Sacred Scripture. Scripture itself affirms and justifies the need for TEACHING with TEACHERS.
This isn't the Apostolic teaching on the matter, disregarded.
speak clearly, your words are as confused as your mind.
and what are the fruits of the KJV, specifically? the Church existed, and still exists just fine without it.
you seem to be moved by the spirit of confusion, user
matthew 23:9
No you're just cutting off the word of God and now starting to making excuses and trying to squirm out of it. You're. Cutting. It. Off.
That act is evil and you should be ashamed to even show your face around here after arguing for it.
For 2,000 years since the Passion of Christ, we have always referred to our fathers as "father". If He were being literal here, this tradition would follow all through Christendom. No, not even you false teachers practice this. Or maybe you do, do you call your own father, "father", user?
His sayings as passed down and taught by the Apostles, not by you or your own sinful personal interpretations.
BZZT! Only the Septuagint and the Vulgate are considered inspired translations, the KJV being inspired is a man-made tradition.
You don't even know what you're saying. The Apostle's were inspired and taught first, the Gospels came from them, and their own students/apostolic successors.
You contradict history and scripture, the only shame is your own sin against the Apostles and the True Church.
...
Should be
Nothing but a confused mess of circular logic. As St. Francis De Sales would say, you have a spirit of confusion, rather than the Holy Spirit.
"But let us be frank. Do we not know that the Apostles spoke all tongues ? How is it then that their gospels and their epistles are only in Hebrew, as S -Jerome witnesses (Prol. in Matt.) of the Gospel of S. Matthew; in Latin, as some think concerning that of S. Mark; * (* In Pontificali Damasi. The Saint mentions the opinion, be he himself held the now universal sentiment of Doctors that S. Mark wrote in Greek.[Tr.]) and in Greek, as is held concerning the other Gospels? which were the three languages chosen at Our Lord’s very cross for the preaching of the Crucified. Did they not carry the Gospel throughout the world ? and in the world were there no other languages but these three ? Truly there were and yet they did not judge it expedient to vary their writings in so many languages. Who then shall despise the custom of our Church, which has for its warrant the imitation of the Apostles?"
As St. De Sales would say, where did the Apostles speak English? Where did Christ speak English? It's true what you say, God is not limited by time and space, He could have spoken perfect English…but He did not!
". An honest man, and one who in my opinion would not lie, has related to me that he heard a minister of this country, treating of the Nativity of Our Lord, assert that he was not born in a crib, and expound the text (which is express on the other side) figuratively, saying: Our Lord also says that he is the vine, yet for all that he is not one; in the same way, although it is said that he is born in a crib, yet born there he is not, but in some honourable place which in comparison with his greatness might be called a crib. The character of this interpretation leads me still more to believe the man who told me, for being simple and unable to read he could hardly have made it up. It is a most curious thing to see how this pretended enlightenment causes the Holy Scripture to be profaned. Is it not doing what God says in Ezechiel (xxxiv. 18): Was it not enough for you to feed upon good pastures; but you must also tread down with your feet the residue of the pastures?"
You follow the path of the Reformers. I do not know where your man-made tradition will lead you, but I suppose you shall follow wherever your KJV tradition leaves you.
...
Did you even read the full thing or just skim over it?
More and more circular logic, the Apostles did not leave you an english gospel, the Lord did not leave us the KJV as an inspired gospel and…the spirit of confusion is great in you. What else can I say? Are you mad? Is there a demon inside of you, twisting your sense of things? You exasperate me. Your false teachings endanger your salvation.
It's the Church Christ built on St. Peter, any Church that does not have St. Peter, is not the Church Christ built, and will be swept away with the rest of things that are not of Heaven.
Possibly a fool for Christ 1 corinthians 4:10 if anything.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
well
2 Peter 1:20
it is inevitable that the bible is meant to be read because no one person has interpretive authority over another. the only exception were the apostles that personally served under Jesus notwithstanding paul the apostle.
Were you a fool for Christ, you'd be part of the Church. Being not part of the Church, but of a man-made church, you are merely a fool.
Christ literally says, verbatim, His authentic Church will have a lineage from St. Peter.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Cephas means, "great rock, stone". Or does the KJV supersede the Vulgate and Septuagint?
Your fake teachings are reprobate.
You are blinded, and I do not think it is from the spirit of the Lord, but of a spirit of Babylon.
You left out this part to suite your own context:
"I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you."
Who baptizes you? The Holy Spirit. How are you baptized by the Holy Spirit, especially in the ancient, authentic Church of Jesus Christ? Through this Church. Even the Catholic Church still teaches and maintains that any (legit) baptized Christian is under their authority, as Christ left the keys of binding and unbinding to His Church.
And you yourself thus establish the importance of the Apostolic deposit of faith, and apostolic tradition.
a: that ended when the last literal apostle ever mentioned in canonical scripture died.
And where does Scripture say the authority of the Apostles ends with their death? Even the Gospels have two apostolic successors as their authors!
the message of the kingdom which says that all power and glory is given to Christ.
since youre claiming authority passes from apostle to non apostle, the proof is on you to prove that im under authority to anyone and what the corresponding consequences are according to clear scripture.
if you claim i withold authority from God by not acknowledging papal authority, the same punishment of ananias would be upon me. but alas it does not come to pass, so your presuppositions are jewish in nature as Jesus would have criticized.
luke and mark are not apostles, genius.
Which nowhere implies that the Apostolic powers bestowed upon them by Christ ever ended, for how could they have initiated Matthias to replace Judas?
Sure, Matthias was a non-apostle, whom was made Apostle by the authority of the Apostles, and there are several canonical New Testament works made by those not apart of the initial 12.
So you have said.
The end of your error is eternal damnation, and by the very authority I argue, you can repent before you die, and save yourself. So, repent.
obviously?
because the office was identified by a specific function which was to start the early churches. the office expired once the function was completed, but once the function was completed, then there is no one to succeed.
the other issue youre missing is when peter the apostle told cornelius not to bow before him, implying that he had equal authority
and have been saying for a while and will continue to say convicting the guilty.
then you are calling Jesus a liar.
Christ only started one Church with one Apostolic authority, you may have read some epistles from St. Paul explaining why exactly he spends a majority of his time visiting communities, rooting out heresy and preaching authentic teaching, you know, Romans and Corinthians, and etc etc.
And where is this ever stated?
What does this have to do with anything? Christ gave St. Peter the leave to bind and unbind teachings on Earth; St. Peter properly communicating that he does not supersede Christ's authority as God does nothing to contradict the Church.
In fact, it is by this authority that the Church makes Her proclamations.
Then don't be guilty. If you have been properly baptized, I'm in rights to admonish you.
???
tell that to the corinthians, the Thessalonians, the bereans, colossians, galatians, ephesians, rome, etc.
it is really weird, you referenced paul who wrote epistles to SPECIFIED churches, thus negating your presupposition. weird.
no YOU prove that so called apostles today have authority over me. im denying that declaration and appealing to natural law that there are no consequences, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
i shrug my shoulders at your declaration. it doesnt mean anything. lol
no, you cant. and since catholics dont even baptize properly because they neither immerse nor require a confession of faith prior to performing the sacrament, youre commenting on matters you neither know or understand because you have scales on your eyes.
and even if you were properly baptized, which you werent, what makes that he grounds to appeal of authority to admonish me?
ill withstand you to the face with scripture, lol?
"It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, (56-7) yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the (58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, (59-60) nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (62-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline."
bible-researcher.com
This 170 A.D. Christian would laugh at you.
And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
It's not I whom you defy.
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed:
15 Yet do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Not only is the Trinitarian Baptism mandated, but the command for the authentic Church - vouchsafed with Apostolic tradition - to go about the world preaching the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ.
"For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place:
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.
The authority of the Apostle's, through the Holy Spirit.
i reject anything that happened outside of the bible with equal authority to the bible, dude. sorry, not a respecter of persons nor of corresponding church traditions.
no, i literally am defying just you. i know you were just using rhetoric though.
im not worried about my baptism. i had a solid confession of faith prior to it, baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and i was immersed in water. im concerned about yours but im generally not disposed to being an ass about it.
who cares? im an american. speak to me in concepts, not vain and repetitious tradition.
???
but the apostles got their authority from the Holy Spirit. your own declaration within your argument is the rebuke. ultimately the authority is from God. God did not ordain anybody over me because only the Godhead and scripture have authority over me.
why else was paul earnest in demanding cornelius to stand before him as a man, rebuking him for bowing citing because he himself is also a man.
you what now? could you re-phrase this? the entire point of the fragment, is that the early Church recognized itself as One Church, and this is easily justified by Jesus Christ Himself, whom promised that His church built upon St. Peter would never fall.
I am providing no argument on my own authority, but the authority of the authentic Church, which is proclaimed authentic by Jesus Christ.
good
I don't get it, all I have posted is a mixture of scripture, argumentation based upon scripture, and a bit of history proving what the early Church thought.
Exactly, they received the Holy Spirit, and thus the importance of the Apostolic Succession is absolutely critical for any Church that refers itself as the one scripture and Christ preaches and prophecies of.
As Jesus Christ said: He will build His Church on Cephas, being St. Peter. Any Church without any lineage to Cephas, is not the Church of Jesus Christ.
And Jesus Christ and Scripture both affirm the authentic Church, which has the power to loose and bind things on Heaven and on Earth. Being in opposition to this church, is a grave sin, because it HAS AUTHORITY OVER YOU.
Because the authentic Church isn't sola scriptura, and does not use a circular argument to justify it's authenticity (scripture -> church -> scripture) it uses the authority of God the Father, on God the Son.
(Christ -> Apostles -> Church -> Scripture)
All authority comes from Jesus Christ alone.
Scripture is the word of God and you will respect it. And if you reject the word of God, and receive not that word as the authority, then you will be judged by it in the last day. Attempting to demote it below you is a low blow.
Also you're blatantly rewriting Matthew 16:18 and changing the words, be prepared to face the consequences.
And Scripture affirms:
1. All authority has been placed with Jesus Christ, from God, His Father.
2. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles (1st time)
3. Jesus proclaimed St. Peter the beginning of His Church
4. The Apostles received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (a second time!)
All in the Scriptures, but, why do you then deny it?
?
Sacred Scripture is of the same pillar as the Apostolic Tradition (which is sizeable chunk of the scriptures, being all of the NT, and the proper source of interpretation of the OT) and the Magisterium.
What? I won't get picked up at the rapture, or whatever nonsense it is?
Proverbs 30:6
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Matthew 16:18 (actual)
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The actual quote is in Greek, and Cephas mean rock.
Or do you mean to stay Christ said:
That's a strange, man-made teaching; the Church nor the Tradition has ever taught it.
doh! Cephas is Aramaic :)
no, dude. sola scriptura. your traditions are contrivances and have no relevance outside of yuropoor church live action roleplay.
You have cut yourself off from the Church of Jesus Christ out of vanity, and if not vanity, pure stupidity.
Consider this, if you had been born in the early ages, would you have been part of the true Church? Only God knows, yet, here you are, in defiance of the authentic Church! Is this not an occasion for fear and trembling?
(implying it is a small church…)
(…and yet the rcc is the biggest canaanite cult ever)
is it a big church or a small church? pick one.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue. Both Peter and Paul speak to different churches, yet lays out instructions for all. This understanding is historically traceable to 170 A.D.
bible-researcher.com
and more than defensible via scripture with Christ's promise to build the Church on St. Peter, and that this Church shall never fall.
Taking Christ's promise means that the mark of the true Church is the apostolic lineage to St. Peter.
ok so peter and paul lay out the instructions, and then the catholic church starting in about 340 proceeds to fail to comply for a little under 2 millennia.
objectively the state of the church is getting worse. so if the church as they are is currently failing, it stands to reason to drain the necrotic fluid from the fester so that recovery can commence.
that includes the roman catholic church started in 340 in the basilisk building in rome.
What language did you just write your OP post in?
KJV became the perfect translation about the time English started to become the lingua franca of the world. It happened at a time when the corruption had become too big (just like all corrections of the truth does).
The thing is that the KJV influenced English itself so that today we draw many definitions directly from it. How then can it be said by anyone to be wrong if this is so. Only if someone was trying to change the language to mean something else would it become "wrong," but only according to them. According to English as it actually exists, it's right.
So, I bought my first non-KJV Bible. I'm IFB, and my parents are involved in missions, sent by our Independent Baptist Church back home. I've been wanting the Apocrypha just to read and the NKJV just to compare (Yes, I've read Certainty of the Words and I know that the NKJV is baaaaad.)
I didn't know where to share it, so I thought I might as well here. Hey, I also have more books than the Gadoligs now!
KJV built on the tradition established by earlier translators so it wasn't exactly done from scratch. Credit should go to Tyndale and the like. The Norman French are mostly responsible for endowing English with its bulk of Romanic terminology.
Its hard to give "credit" to a single thing. Tyndale never finished his work, but out of the entire Bible it's estimated about 34% of the words remained from Tyndale, including parts that he never translated. In the end the Authorized version gave a fine balance in ecclesiastical language between what it was in Geneva and in Bishop's that we still see reflected in English today. Johnson acknowledged its subsequent influence that it would have in his dictionary in 1755, as it was the only Bible in use at the time. The ESV and others are struggling against the language now, trying to change what's already been set. They constantly have to change "fornication" to "sexual immorality" and things like that (or "go back to the Greek" and thereby invent new definitions from thin air) in order to redefine the language as everyone knows what fornication is and you can't get out of it. So to do that, they had to make new versions.
What I've seen also however is that the contemporary western understanding of the bible has been in part inherited through the Latin Catholic interpretation of it with the word "temptation" to give one example. I guess in earlier times as well as with the original tongues it had more of a meaning of "trial" but the meaning seems to have been scandalized in a sense and has become synonymous with "seduction" and "enticement" in the popular western mind. Old English had "costnunge" (costning).
You're saying they want to change fornication to something vaguer to avoid offending people? Please correct me if I misunderstand.
Fornication does seem to fit nicely as it resemble the Greek porneíā for some reason. It also similarly has connotations of sold sex as it's derived from "fornix" which is a brothel. Perhaps "prostitution" could even be an applicable substitute.
Yeah, that's one example. The purpose is to change the word used entirely to disassociate the passage with the word as it is defined in the English language, even if that word was defined as such based on its use in that passage in the KJV. Whether it's to avoid offending people, to make the scripture easy to reinterpret a certain way, or even to make it disagree with itself, there are many possible reasons why they would be changing the words, and none of those reasons are good ones.
As another example of this kind of change, the modern versions like to change Titus 3:10 to say "divisive." Yet in Luke 12:51, this is how Jesus described himself. There are endless examples you could find how they change language all over the place, and none for any good reason. If you ask them, they may try to take you "back to the Greek" and point you to a definition that some "scholar" made up himself in modern times and act like this is all objectively and impassive scholarship. When really, it's an industry of lies.