Because I have been vaccinated...I did - you just did not catch it...![]()
Because I have been vaccinated...I did - you just did not catch it...![]()
I did not make any such [specific] claim - you misread my post.Despite your claims...
Westcott and Hort NEVER TRANSLATED SCRIPTURES.
God is the reason I have a Bible in my hands today.Their preaching was instrumental in the Reformation and a reason why you have a Bible in your hands today.
Okay - provide - I will try to look at it sometime.Your first statement is correct, however the false bibles do not come from the oldest manuscripts. That is a lie that has been debunked. if you wish, I will happily provide the information, but this is just about Westcott and Hort.
Nothing circular about anything - just a reminder about information you have already been given in the past.Repeating the same claim does not validate it. Your quote from Waite is circular reasoning.
Yes - and, it plays a very large part in the promotion of all of the modern corrupted bible versions...Keep in mind, Satan has always had his fake news media within Christian circles.
Nope
@Bible_Highlighter is inventing things.
Genez said:Keep in mind, Satan has always had his fake news media within Christian circles.
Yes - and, it plays a very large part in the promotion of all of the modern corrupted bible versions...
Oh no....it is not confirmed by anyone EXCEPT for those promoting an ordinance of a KJVO Bible to obtain salvation.So you don't believe Westcott and Hort were responsible for the Modern Bible Movement we have today? You do not believe Westcott and Hort are responsible for heading up the Revised Version?
These facts are not under dispute even by Textual Critics on your side.
This is also a problem with the Left wingers in politics, too. As I said before, some are so deceived against basic facts or information that they think Socialism (Communism) is good (When history shows otherwise).
....
It is not common knowledge. It's a fiction created by KJV only proponents caught up in an echo chamber of their own making.Not true. Everything I said is verifiable with sources one can check for themselves by a basic internet search or ChatGPT, Perplexity. In fact, one point you recently denied is common knowledge by people on your own side. You seem to be in major denial of basic facts, my friend. If you are in doubt about anything I stated, I can show you sources. Just ask specifically what you think I said was not true, and I can show you sources for that.
....
Yes - and, it plays a very large part in the promotion of all of the modern corrupted bible versions...
Just reading is not enough.I do not belive the word of God is a secret code that has to be figured out, unlocked or decoded.
God is not a god of mystery, he is not a god of confusion.
He does not hide from us, but shows himself openly. He is like the morning star.
He's word is ment to be easy to understand.
I know Jesus talked in parables to people, but Jesus said this was done to fullfill prophecy.
I do not beleive you have to attend a University to learn the meaning behind God's word. I believe you just have to reach out and take the KJV, and read it.
Oh no....it is not confirmed by anyone EXCEPT for those promoting an ordinance of a KJVO Bible to obtain salvation.
I will NEVER succumb to such a notion. Not even the 1611 translators believed in such madness nor did Oxford translators or Cambridge translators who did slapped the name KJV on their work.
Their translation was NEVER POPULAR UNTIL A 1920'S MARKETING CAMPAIGN .
You are playing fast and loose with the two separate translations both dubbed the same name of KJV. The 1611 and the Oxford Cambridge Translation named KJV.Bruce Gordon, a professor of ecclesiastical history at Yale Divinity School, told Live Science, "the KJV didn't really succeed while James was alive." That's because the market for James' version didn't really arise until the 1640s, when Archbishop William Laud, who "hated the Puritans," suppressed the Geneva Bible that the Puritans followed.”
The article at Live Science who interviewed Gordon, goes on:
In short, the KJV's influence has waxed over the centuries because, Gordon said, it was the version that was most widely read and distributed in countries where English was the dominant language and that its translation was "never really challenged until the 20th century." In that time, the KJV became so embedded in the Anglo-American world that "many people in Africa and Asia were taught English from the KJV" when Christian missionaries brought it to them, Gordon said. "Many people weren't even aware that it was one of many available translations," he added, "they believed the King James Version was the Bible in English."
Source:
https://www.livescience.com/why-king-james-bible.html
Towards the end of the article, Gordon admits using other words that he is not a KJV-onlyist.
Then there is Kenneth Curtis’s article. He states in his article that the 1660s is when the KJV began to become popular in Britain. Kenneth Curtis, who founded the Christian History Institute said that the KJV did not truly become popular until the 1660s after the (Puritan Led) British Civil War in the 1640s, and 50s had ended.
Kenneth Curtis said, I quote:
“The King James did not finally begin to supplant the Geneva in its native land until the period of Restoration (1660s), and in Scotland the Geneva lasted even longer—as late as 1674 at least one Scottish parish was still using it in worship."
Again, keep in mind that Kenneth Curtis was not a KJV-onlyist.
Source:
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/no-overnight-success
In 1637, in America: The Antinomian controversy involving Anne Hutchinson in the Puritan church led to the Puritans eventually favoring the King James Bible over the Geneva Translation. By the 1700s, the KJV became the dominant Bible translation in America. This information comes by way of a Historian.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=religion_pubs
As for your claim that the King James Version (KJV) only became popular after a 1920s campaign:
Well, this claim is not accurate. While there was a resurgence of advocacy for the KJV during the early 20th century, the KJV had already been widely used and popular long before that.the claim that the King James Version (KJV) only became popular after a 1920s campaign is not accurate. While there was a resurgence of advocacy for the KJV during the early 20th century, the KJV had already been widely used and popular long before that.
…..
It is not common knowledge. It's a fiction created by KJV only proponents caught up in an echo chamber of their own making.
No it is NOT true. You haven't proven anything yet. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ANYTHING. no citations....no Wikipedia articles, no biographies....nada....zilch except for the standard KJV ONLY crap websites with crap evidence.Everything I stated about Westcott and Hort is true. You can verify this information by non-biased sources for yourself if you like. It’s not hard. Just do an internet search. But you appear to be stuck in your own echo chamber that not even your side would agree with. In fact, one guy on your side admits Westcott and Hort employed deception with the Revised Version of 1881. They simply do not care. I even have the screen shot of their post as proof if you want to see it.
Anyway, I have run into folks like you before. You are denier of even basic facts accepted on both sides of this debate. So your own side will not even take you seriously unless you do your own homework or something. But I do not get the impression you are the type to be corrected or seek out the truth on things. I say this because a true researcher (or truth seeker) would have already double checked what I said so far and admit they were wrong or they would have presented really convincing counter evidence to other claims that appear to be false.
So the ball is in your court. You can either back up your claim with sources, or you can just keep espousing your unsubstantiated opinions.
May God bless (even if we disagree).
…
If you really think that a Wikipedia article is all that is necessary to validate truth - I see another BIIIG problem here that is much greater...No it is NOT true. You haven't proven anything yet. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ANYTHING. no citations....no Wikipedia articles, ...
Just reading is not enough.
You must study. You must know how to study. You need to know the original meaning of every word as used in the original language. You need to know the context of the verse. You must study all related passages. Never base a doctrine/belief on One scripture. One of the most important things is to put aside what you think it means and allow the Word to tell you. Most important is you must be a child of God.
It takes a lot of prayer, and a lot of time.
Just reading is what has lead to so many false doctrines and beliefs.