The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.
- Thread starter Brasspen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
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).
....
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).
....
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.
....
....
I agree.
What is funny is that I was not originally a fan of Trump. So when I heard him say things like "Fake news" etcetera., I thought he was exaggerating. However, in reflection of living under a Trump term, vs. a Biden/Harris term and watching countless videos, I fully understand now why the Left Media is "fake news." It is so true. I never would have thought such a thing was possible. According to one employee at ABC (if true), they said that they noticed a change in unbiased reporting in 1996. But yes, I do see the parallel between the Left Media and the Modern Bible Movement. Both of them are not giving us the real facts.
While no president should ever be looked upon as some kind of savior (Because Jesus Christ is our Savior), I am praying he does get in office and that the Dems do not destroy us before he takes power. If Harris were to become president, it would simply be disastrous for our country. Never before have I seen such a stark contrast between good vs. evil before in the world of politics. Granted, Trump is not a perfect person by any means. But I know he would be better for our country, if it is the Lord's will and plan.
....
What is funny is that I was not originally a fan of Trump. So when I heard him say things like "Fake news" etcetera., I thought he was exaggerating. However, in reflection of living under a Trump term, vs. a Biden/Harris term and watching countless videos, I fully understand now why the Left Media is "fake news." It is so true. I never would have thought such a thing was possible. According to one employee at ABC (if true), they said that they noticed a change in unbiased reporting in 1996. But yes, I do see the parallel between the Left Media and the Modern Bible Movement. Both of them are not giving us the real facts.
While no president should ever be looked upon as some kind of savior (Because Jesus Christ is our Savior), I am praying he does get in office and that the Dems do not destroy us before he takes power. If Harris were to become president, it would simply be disastrous for our country. Never before have I seen such a stark contrast between good vs. evil before in the world of politics. Granted, Trump is not a perfect person by any means. But I know he would be better for our country, if it is the Lord's will and plan.
....
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 .
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 .
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.
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.
-
2
- Show all
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.
…..
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.
…..
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.
The 1611 was mandated to be chained in the public square of every town. But it wasn't that popular due to the typeset and lack of illustrations and lack of glosses. It was a bare bones translation. The Geneva Translation was over 100 years old at the time and the 100 year old wording was out of date.
However the bulk of the settlers in the "New Land" brought with them a new Bible (as was the custom) and they purchased the RSV. Which my family ancestors did before they settled into the South before the Civil War. Which we currently use for my family tree.
You aren't going to convince me because when you see visual evidence that agrees with the history outside of proponents of the KJV ONLY world....which also claim that salvation by God only happens through that Translation I just don't buy a word you selling.
I do a LOT of original language studies....your KJV by Oxford/Cambridge universities WAS a decent translation....once upon a time. It is no longer.
The 1611 was mandated to be chained in the public square of every town. But it wasn't that popular due to the typeset and lack of illustrations and lack of glosses. It was a bare bones translation. The Geneva Translation was over 100 years old at the time and the 100 year old wording was out of date.
However the bulk of the settlers in the "New Land" brought with them a new Bible (as was the custom) and they purchased the RSV. Which my family ancestors did before they settled into the South before the Civil War. Which we currently use for my family tree.
You aren't going to convince me because when you see visual evidence that agrees with the history outside of proponents of the KJV ONLY world....which also claim that salvation by God only happens through that Translation I just don't buy a word you selling.
I do a LOT of original language studies....your KJV by Oxford/Cambridge universities WAS a decent translation....once upon a time. It is no longer.
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).
…
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... 
Wikipedia should be pretty-much the last thing on earth you should trust when in a search for truth. It is only good for one thing - to see what "prevailing" liberal-minded opinion has been established.
Wikipedia should be pretty-much the last thing on earth you should trust when in a search for truth. It is only good for one thing - to see what "prevailing" liberal-minded opinion has been established.
Are you, yourself, qualified to know the original languages as required?
Unless you have that gift from God, and then dedicate your life to full time study from the original languages,
you will not be able to benefit from knowing that truth you stated.
I told others before.
If you want to learn from someone that God raised up for our time who had such a gift?
It can be yours - free of charge.
Too good to be true?
God can give us beyond what we can imagine or request.
Take a peek and see that you can begin learning the Scriptures as taught from the original languages.
It can be yours to have ... especially since you stated and know what is required to truly grow in understanding the Word of God.
Expository teaching is based on the original languages of Scripture in light of the historical context in which the Bible was written.
No money will be asked for!
Unless you have that gift from God, and then dedicate your life to full time study from the original languages,
you will not be able to benefit from knowing that truth you stated.
I told others before.
If you want to learn from someone that God raised up for our time who had such a gift?
It can be yours - free of charge.
Too good to be true?
God can give us beyond what we can imagine or request.
Take a peek and see that you can begin learning the Scriptures as taught from the original languages.
It can be yours to have ... especially since you stated and know what is required to truly grow in understanding the Word of God.
Expository teaching is based on the original languages of Scripture in light of the historical context in which the Bible was written.
No money will be asked for!