You know whats funny about the kjv?

you know whats funny about the kjv?

i wouldnt be so convinced that it was the best version if not for how quickly any and all of the “which version of the bible should inread” threads didnt almost automatically descend into attacks against it.

thank you Zig Forums for strengthening my faith in the word of God preserved in the English language: the 1611 authorized version.

peace and Godspeed. God save the King.

Attached: C1D93EC2-3CDC-44C3-99CB-DE20769DC43D.jpeg (220x167, 29.06K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia_(theology)
newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Is there any wonder why there is a deep anti-intellectual current running through Protestant denominations?

What's wrong with KJV?

What are the KJVs of their languages? I don't believe the word of god is preserved only in English as some people claim

Changes the lines referring to St. Mary from "full of grace" to "highly favoured", a deadly heresy.

see? seconded. be specific.

me neither
just look at how many heads rolled when erasmus pointed out that metanoia from the original greek isnt penance from the corrupted vulgate.
and on that note, if the roman catholic church couldnt be held responsible to publish the word of God then (douay rheims) what makes us think they can do it now?

Attached: 6F5776C5-EF56-4EDB-B0B0-C32176F98485.jpeg (1179x750, 536.63K)

how is that a “deadly” heresy?

It denies St. Mary Her importance, thus denying Jesus Christ His own. If you attack the one who bore Christ, you quite simply end up attacking Christ Himself.

Your pride will be your undoing.

i dont worship mary, i worship Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.
im sure mary was a wonderful woman who had a normal relationship with her husband joseph which included the consummate act of sexual intercourse after Jesus’ birth.
it has nothing to do with pride. please try to follow the rules and stick to edifying discourse, please.

This logic reminds me of people who quote: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first" in response to any critique pressed against them.

i think the KJV is fine, it even corrects its dubious masoretic manuscript at times, instead of saying 'young girl' it does say 'virgin' like the original sept would say.

Poor quality source documents led to several errors. It has translations that are outright wrong that lead to incorrect doctrine. For example it translates John 3:36 as:
But that is a flat out incorrect translation of the Greek, the correct translation is:
Note the change from "believeth not" to "he who does not OBEY the Son". This is important because KJV onlyists will use this verse to support their sola fide doctrine when the Greek contradicts what they're trying to support by saying that people who do not obey will not see life.

so silly.
in the bible Mary says "all generations shall call me blessed" but I hardly ever hear protestants even mention her, let alone her blessedness. The only times they talk about her is to confirm her sex life and to mock people who call her blessed for being idolaters

the importance of that verse is to clarify that faith is not merely mental assent, but also a form of allegiance. If you claim faith in something you should abide in it, ally with it, obey it.
Sola Fide is actually fine if we understand Fide in the biblical sense, not in the modern purely mental sense.

Don't you think that's an over overexaggeration of a mere difference in speech?

But they're literally the same thing said in different words.

Honestly this sounds like some sola scriptura nonsesne from you anons.

shes blessed because she bore Jesus because she was in the line of David for Jesus to fulfil that prophecy from the ot. it has nothing to do with anything innately more or less righteous than any other woman.

like the vulgate which had 1 john 5:7 and acts 8:37?
i think the dra sucks compared to the kjv but at least the dra has those verses in them unlike the shitty rsv
what, did God just let everyone think those verses were scripture and then let english become the longua franca so that incorrect verses that both catholics and muh 30000 peotestant denominations believed to be there for centuries?
sorry breh. thats dumb.

Attached: BD30CDA5-3FF0-4E4A-8772-0EBA9563C203.jpeg (720x404, 45.48K)

Absolutely not. "Full of Grace" is a huge theological difference from being merely "highly favoured".

It has everything to do with being more innately blessed and full of grace than any other woman, for this woman would bear Jesus Christ.

St. Mary is not full of grace because She is St. Mary, She is St. Mary because She bore Christ.

And Jesus Christ is the first-born of all creatures, known before all. St. Mary would then be…more than a bit blessed, right?

nobody is asking you to worship St. Mary, by venerating St. Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant, you are worshiping Jesus Christ.


Neither the Scripture or the Tradition teach this.


It has everything to do with pride.

no, Jesus is the second adam, the second person of the Godhead with no beginning or ending.
hes the firstFRUITS of the resurrection.
it just looks that way when youre talking to someone who is literate.

Attached: 57097648-762A-45DE-ACDB-3892B4FEA86D.png (529x498, 414.33K)

prots gonna prot

whats hilarious is the former prots turned larpordox trying to say that they have more in common with larpodox than cats? haha, haha, hahahaha oh right, tell me that again? hahahhah

Attached: 48AE4513-5145-47BB-9D11-1444D0CAEED8.jpeg (381x353, 45.39K)

How so?

That isn't faith
That isn't either. In the bible, saving faith is trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, strictly independent of any human deed, including obedience to Him in whom they believe. A man may rape and steal and murder and worship idols hundreds of times a day, but so long as he believes in Christ, he will be saved.

i hope one day i can understand the prot larper's pain. imagine being taught since you were a kitten that the catholic church is wrong blah blah… i'm sure it's hard to shake off.

im not sure i can speak to your degree of cognitive dissonance.
im in a great mood, actually. and i am very confident in my rejection of the roman catholic chvrch. thank you for your concern. your sincerity is very palpable. i can sleep better now.

literally no prot has ever been able to articulate anything coherent, but it's okay, i empathize with you, it can't be easy following a "church" (which one) with no roots, with literally random doctrine, and what's more the new thing is claiming, (no one has it perfect, we all have a bit of it) hahahaha

trust me i feel for you. i went to a protestant elementary school. i love you all. i pity you, but i love you all too.

that's mental assent, trust/confidence.
a mental "yes" will not save anything.
Faith is an abiding, a living, a form of existing in the world. Those that do not abide do not bear good fruit, those that bear no good fruit will be cut from the tree and thrown into the fire.

what does this even mean?
as a student or as a sexual assault perp?
what does “vatican ii” mean and how does it relate to protestantism?

Attached: A539C0C0-F392-431A-B4BB-995C126C6D77.jpeg (551x572, 73.47K)

the word repent is derived from the latin word “pensar” which means to think.
you sound like a calvinist or primitive baptist who accepts TULIP.

repent; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia_(theology)
Doctrines/understanding can't be extracted from etymology of one word though, so while a change of mind is required, the change has to be embodied in the heart and the person, how he manifests in the world.

Mere mental assent never saved anyone. You have to be born again, and that is transformation of the self.

calvinist adhere to the naive view of faith, as merely mental assent, it's so silly in fact that they think "saying yes" to historical facts about Jesus will "impute" righteousness on them. No such thing happens.

No, it isn't. You correctly defined mental assent the next sentence, a mental "yes". Mental assent is saying "yes these facts are true, these things happened". Faith is in the heart.
Not in the bible it isn't.
As you define it abiding and bearing good fruit are indistinct.

That would be justification by works of the law, since it denies the work of Christ is sufficient to save a man unless he meets a condition performs a penance work to add to it.
See how that's completely different from trust in His sacrificial work?

Romans 11:6
grace or works. pick one.

''Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. ''

justification by work is when a person believes he is earning salvation by his own power, through his actions. I am not saying that at all. By yourself you can do nothing.

We have to abide in him and then he will use us to bear good fruit, and to keep his commandments, and that is how we personally know our faith is salvific, because it is a work of God in us, and not our own.


grace requires allegiance, mental assent saves nothing and no one, even the demons can believe in historical facts and say "Jesus rose and paid for sins, I believe it".

or I should say 'grace requires cooperation' if we reject it and don't abide in Christ then we fall away and get thrown into the fire

It's being used simply as a verb of being (i.e. be, is, are etc.), particularly with Christ as its object, which is not how you used it
No, it is when a man believes he is at all contributing to his salvation in any way, shape, or form.
We abide in Him by faith alone.
Works it is then

Putting your trust is a work then, in your bizarre view of faith and salvation.

If you do not abide you will be thrown into the fire. Abiding is a verb.

Salvation comes from the power of God by grace into man, but man has to cooperate with that grace synergistically, because of free-will and because of love. Real love is cooperative, it is not forced upon you unwillingly. God saves you as long as you abide in his grace, abide in Christ.

here, let me put it this way.
i believe that Jesus Christ saved me on the cross at cavalry and there is nothing man can do or say to make me believe otherwise.
I know for a fact that Jesus saved me.
If God and Jesus Christ ask(s) me why i should be allowed into heaven, i will say “because i believed in you and trusted you.”
mods why did some of these posts get deleted?

Sounds like you're trying to turn away prots from the one true faith by acting like vainglorious asshole to tarnish the name of your church further than it already has been.
I really wonder who would do such a thing?

Attached: 5e2e8078eee28dafa8129fe144450b802eb20076391f6b1916ba97c3997ff7ca.png (23x585, 313)

Christ wants you to abide in him and be born again. Go get baptized while you're at it and obey the commandments.

already done, friend.

Jesus explicitly said to call no man on earth father.
and that christians were called christians first at antioch, not rome. not even jerusalem which is called spiritually sodom and egypt according to revelation.
you lot need to be born again.

I said further, user. Further.

Attached: laughing.jpg (413x290, 20.29K)

oh whoops! lol

No one says the Vulgate is a high quality source document. Also, the oldest and best copies of the Vulgate do not include those verses.

I don't know what you mean by "everyone" because outside of Latin manuscripts, the comma Johanneum is totally absent for over 1500 years. It doesn't appear in any Greek manuscript until that time, anyway.

Who cares? The NT was written in Greek.

1 John 5:7 specifically has basically always been disputed–even as far back as the Lateran council. It's not like this controversy appeared yesterday.

Not relying on the wealth of textual witnesses God gave is us dumb.

I would love to see you prove this. Not that demons can believe that Christ was God and that he died to save all men, but that demons are capable of trusting that Christ's death was sufficient to save their souls from damnation. Provide evidence.

. . . . . . wut? . . . . . . . .

Attached: 1302716399609.jpg (560x407, 71.03K)

you know whats funny about the Catholic Church?

i wouldnt be so convinced that it was the best Church if not for how quickly any and all of the “which denom should I join” threads didnt almost automatically descend into attacks against it.

peace and Godspeed. Deus Vult.

Attached: 1c61dd05384a4df8827f1ba7023a5ba8a7d702f2ee81b1b4f16be3f16d0781cc.jpg (298x298, 68.4K)

how about i just read the bible and believe it?
“deus vult”

Because we're not muslims

Trust all you want if you don't abide in Christ and keep his words you will be cut from the vine and thrown in the fire with the rest of the talkers and cheerleaders…christ wants disciples not just fans. Get baptized and get saved and continue to obey else you will lose it like Adam lost life.

if something is eternal it cannot be lost because that would contradict the definition of eternal. the thief on the cross wasnt baptized nor did he have any works.
when you look at works its talking about bodies of believers (churches). and since the churches are completely dead, i for one am glad that going to heaven isnt about works.
i mean, just look at the roman catholic church a great example.
their works are clearly of the devil. they molest children.

ok, and?

Someone has always been questioning the word of God. That's how I know they're wrong.

So basically are you suggesting that we had to wait for the discovery of the Alexandrian minority text in order to have the word of God? All the printers in the world didn't know it? The Westcott-hort New Testament was first created in 1881 from newly produced sources. That's where all the modern versions translate from; I guess nobody knew it before then. I'm trying to show you why this present-day concept is absurd.

How do you know? Scripture is silent on this.

because he is being crucified for being a thief?
what do you mean the scriptures are silent on this? one of the ten commandments is thou shalt not steal.

This is a new one.

The way an OSAS christian "loses" his salvation is by doing bad stuff, being enslaved to sin and realizing he wasn't saved to begin with, and his trust was nominal and just emotional, dead faith with no obedience, hopefully this happens before judgment so he can aquire actual faith which is active abiding in Christ. If this realization happens at judgment time you'll be in for a rude awakening.

and i, to you, hope that the scales are removed from your eyes so that you stop trying to justify your flesh because by your standards paul wasnt saved.
Romans 7

Scripture does not say whether he was baptized. It's entirely possible he was baptized, lapsed, and asked Jesus for forgiveness after.

The reason the KJV gets shit on is because the translators embellished some parts like changing goat into satyr and auroch into unicorn. The are also other parts that make no damn sense in the translation like when Daniel genocides the giants. As a poetic form of the bible it isn't to bad but it is a good idea to compare it to more direct translations.

Except she was special. Her mother was barren the Lord responded to the fasting and praying of her father by allowing them to conceive Mary her own birth is a Miracle. Mary then lived a pious life upholding all the Laws and Commandments set out and praying at all hours of the day the Lord seeing this choose her to be the vessel that would deliver the Savior into the World God could have choose any woman but he choose Mary. When the Angel Gabriel met her he told her "Hail Mary Full of Grace the Lord is With You Blessed are you Among Women." signifying that yes she is indeed special. Jesus performed his first public miracle at the urging of Mary and although Jesus rebuked her he still gave in because he loved her. On the Cross before death Jesus looked down at the Apostle present and told him to take care of his Mother who was there as well. At her death Mary was taken into heaven Body and Soul according to the witness of the Apostles something reserved for only a handful of people in the bible.

Do you REALLY not realize how important those small changes are? Scholars have made entire arguments over it.

Attached: 4wOHvFX.gif (650x450, 7.38K)

You don't "lapse" from a baptism. That concept doesn't even make sense.

If 1 John 5:7 was not written by the blessed apostle, it is not the word of God.

Not at all, but nice strawman. I am however suggesting that God gave us the resources necessary to correct and eliminate corruptions that worked their way into the text.

Let's do a small thought experiment.

Let's pretend the word of God was: "God bless America." These are the inspired words of God written down by a blessed apostle moved by the Holy Spirit.

What happens if, when copying this text 200 years later, I write "God bless America and Canada." Did we lose the word of God? No. Not at all, the divinely inspired words are still there. But The addition of "and Canada" is a corruption; it's not inspired. Should it not then be purged?

And you've failed. Relying on about a dozen, relatively young manuscripts from 600 years ago when we have much older and purer texts is absurd.

Good think I didn't say he "lapsed from a baptism" then, huh?

It actually was.

I wouldn't disagree at all. I would insist that we have always had the word of God and the corruptions never got into it.

The alexandrian texts add words to 1 Peter 2:2.

They're not pure.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Notice scripture says from this generation for ever.

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

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.

Every time I think how easy this would be if they just added the Didache to the bible and yes the early church considered it canon they didn't add it because it was basically a How to Be a Christian introduction Pack.

They didn't because they couldn't get away with it; they couldn't get away with adding whole books, if they had tried. It wasn't until the council of Trent that they tried.

Then why is it completely absent in every Greek new testament until the 1500s? Why don't any of the early Christians quote it when defending the trinity? Why does it only appear in Latin manuscripts and not other translations until about the year 1000? The facts make 1 john 5:7 of dubious reliability.

agreed
and the corruptions never got into it.
disagree.

Even assuming this was relevant to our discussion on 1 John 5:7, you'd insist on those added words in 1 peter being removed, right?

The manuscripts used for the KJV are demonstrably corrupt.

irrelevant.

Notice scripture doesn't say how God will preserve His words

God bless America and Canada

God bless America and Canada

God bless America and Canada

Sabellians who attack the trinity were using John 10:30 to argue their heresy. 1 John 5:7 says basically the same thing.

You don't have every Greek new testament that ever existed. So why are you acting like you do?

I could argue the exact same way just by demanding a 1st century copy of everything and not accepting any copies after that date. I could say there existed no 1st century scripture on the basis that we don't have any today. I could say give me the first century manuscripts and it would use all the same arguments, just change pre-earliest manuscript date you accept to an older time.

The fact is that God preserved his word through the TR and the copyists before them. They had access to resources that haven't survived to today, but it doesn't matter because the word reach us. It's not about trusting the dating of ink on some manuscript, it's about trusting God and the word of God. And I know that we've never lost it.

I told you, 1 Peter 2:2 in modern versions adds extra words. That's the opposite of cutting away. Also Mark 1:2 adds in the word Isaiah where it wasn't before.

Why do you think it would be sufficient? The Bible is clear that it's through his Church, Christ's Body, that God wants to bring us to himself.

newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/

Attached: Albrecht_Dürer_003 (1).jpg (4234x4658, 7.23M)

I've had a Mormon tell me this exact same thing.
It's interesting how counterfeit Christs all line up.

KJV is the Pope Francis of bibles.

Attached: DeS2WE7U0AEp2QG.jpg (622x600, 63.95K)

It is not. It is not a condition set by God that if men meet it, they will therefore be saved, and it is not something man of himself wills. Faith is created by God in the hearts of His elect people for their salvation, and does not properly justify, but only justifies insofar as it apprehends the righteousness of Christ, which alone properly justifies.

He is unable. Man is such a disgustingly wicked creature, that he is consumed in his soul with hatred for God and His just law, so that he will not come to repentance, unless God unilaterally raises him to spiritual life.

This didn't address my question.

I don't need every Greek new testament that ever existed. I only need the manuscripts God gave us. And the evidence God gave us leads me and the majority of Christians to conclude 1 John 5:7 is a forgery.

This is so stupid and fallacious I refuse to insult your intelligence by bothering to address it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no reason for me to believe this claim. The manuscripts Erasmus used to compile the TR don't even agree with each other!

And we have resources Erasmus and the translators of the KJV didn't have. Many more, in fact. I see no reason to rely exclusively on the fewer, younger manuscripts used in the KJV than the wealth that God has given us.

Textual criticism is not "about trusting the date of ink on some manuscript" either. It seems your position is based on ignorance.

God bless America and Canada

You didn't answer my question. Should we purge extra words added to the text that the blessed apostles did not write or should we keep them where they are? Should we remove "and Canada" ?

Because I'm right.

...

Look if you're taking some modern scholar and their fallible opinions as your final authority on truth, that's your own fault. Don't go extending that argument from a fallible authority on others. It doesn't matter how much he and the world promotes himself, he's still spreading misinformation and it's no use stubbornly clinging to the opinions of some scholar. I DID answer the questions, you just can't accept them and you don't get "another try." If you lack the fortitude to even ask clarifying questions and instead want to persist in your misunderstanding, perhaps because you're copying the questions you asked from someone else's book or blog, then you either have to accept the answer you're given or deal with it. Only choices available.

see what I mean?

...

"Your valid criticisms just strengthen my faith!
Isn't that what Christians do all the time?
:^)

...

If the KJV isn't the inspired word of God, then why did God write it and not all the other bibles?

Consider this. She had free will. The angel addressed her with the title before she gave an answer. She could have said no. So she was already blessed and graced before she ever bore Jesus, she was clearly not an ordinary woman that God just randomly chose and "blessed" with an invitation. She was not graced with the opportunity, she was graced thus she was worthy of the opportunity to bear Jesus.

Why did you dovetail from attacking protestants to attacking orthodox converts? Got a serious case of buttpain here.

ok there was nothing specifically special about saul becoming king.

They do it for the pope as well. It makes me sad, honestly.

the absolute state

Because one is saying Mary is literally sinless through the grace of God. While the other one is saying that she's favored in God's eyes. These two, obviously, have very distinct theological connotations that follow.

This is the absolute state of sola scriptura.

Wait here man. Your "sola fide" means there is NO one true faith. Your reduced "minimal requirements" theology has no basis of claiming One true faith/One true church. No apostolic succession, no tradition before 16th century….What does the term "one true faith" even means for you?
Trying to larp as catholic/orthodox?
If you truly are Protestant your "sola fide" denies the existence of one true faith. According to your "doctrine" just believing Jesus is the savior is enough.

where do you draw the line..your worldview eventually leads to "all religions lead to God"
How about listening to Christ when he talks about his church? He specifically says that it will prevail. Therefore it is logical why you should care about denomination

This.

Deus Vult brother.

Chill, he's quoting Colossians 1:15

How do you know the preserved word of God is the KJV (or Textus Receptus)? Why not some other translation or text?


Wow you can quote KJVToday

You think "not obey" and "not believe" mean the same thing in different wording? You have got to be kidding me.

Thanks for asking. To answer your question, it's the same reason I know the Koran is wrong.

I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that you know why you don't believe the Koran of islam. Well, by this same reasoning that's how I know the modern versions is false and inaccurate. It says false things.

I can back that claim up if needed.

What false things does the critical text say? It cuts out much more than it adds to the TR so I don't know what "errors" you can find in it.

...

Attached: product_8377385b.jpg (500x500, 16.93K)

It's an accurate translation. "κεχαριτωμένη" (Gabriel's greeting to her) It means grace or favor being bestowed on her. " πλήρης χάριτος" would more accurately describe a trait for someone with their own capacity to bestow grace themselves.