My KJV Debate with Jeffrey Dollar

[ResidentAlien]

It’s your belief that we do not have the word of God to live by today. Got it.

Dude, you're sounding very culty.

 

[John146]

Dude, you're sounding very culty.

Do you have access to the word of God? Instead of casting insults, please answer.

Would you consider the Thessalonians to be in a cult?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Do you have access to the word of God? Instead of casting insults, please answer.

I'm not casting insults, I'm trying to help you.

 

[Dino246]

God's Word was never intended only for Christians who lived in the past only but it is for believers today, as well.
If the Bible teaches that His Word is pure, and that it would be preserved forever, then it would apply also to us today, as well.
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Again, there are many things in the Bible that does not directly command you to do them, but we know not to do them because of indirect references or inferences by other Scripture verses.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, as all of that is irrelevant to my post.

 

[Dino246]

I already answered this point with you before in another KJV thread.
You can check that post out here.

I don't recall seeing that previously, but I looked at it now. It doesn't adequately address the issue. An artist's painting IS corruptible, so the comparison doesn't hold. Either the word of God is incorruptible (that means "cannot be corrupted") and therefore W&H could not corrupt it, or it is corruptible, and the KJV translators are potentially guilty of doing so. Simple logic permits no other options.

Again, Peter simply does not say that the word of God is incorruptible. He doesn't say anything about it in that verse. What he does say is that the seed is incorruptible. If you had done your homework, you would know that the word "corruptible" in that context does not mean "cannot be manipulated and changed", but rather, "will not rot or degrade".

In context, 1 Peter 2:2 says, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:"

So this is talking about the communicated Word of God.

Yes, 2:2 is talking about the communicated word of God, but that says nothing about 1:23. Meanwhile, 1:3-4 says,

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

That's a much better rhetorical basis for the statement in 1:23.

The meat of the Word is to discern between good and evil (See: Hebrew 5:13-14).

That's not what Hebrews 5:13-14 says.

Anyway, what makes this even more deceptive on the part of Modern Bibles is that they corrupt 1 Peter 2:2, as well.

This discussion is not about "Modern Bibles"; it's about the KJV. Don't try to change the subject.

 

[Dino246]

Peter didn’t need to because the context had been stated.

Are you claiming that Peter somehow applied the adjective, "incorruptible" to the subject, "the word of God"? If so, which verse states that? I'd really like you to tell me, because the Bible doesn't.

 

[Dino246]

Well, if you cannot understand the context of what is incorruptible is the seed, by the word of God, then it is you who does not understand the English language, or just strongly in denial.

You said it yourself: the seed is incorruptible. Thanks for confirming my position.

Then you quoted Revelation 22.

Because B-H plainly violated it right after quoting it. I'm merely pointing out his hypocrisy. This discussion is not about my views.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

@Dino246

Would you please answer the question that I asked you in post #11?

Thank you.

 

[Dino246]

@Dino246

Would you please answer the question that I asked you in post #11?

Thank you.

With respect, no, I will not answer here, because this discussion is about B-H’s debate and the statements he made therein.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

My condolences to KJV onlyists. I guess if I was going to choose just one it would be one in the original languages. I would then need to spend my life studying the culture of the times and places in which the 66 books were written to help understand the Word correctly.

I was convicted and saved after reading from the Living Bible. Can't get much worse than that one for a Bible but in my case God used it.

I believe a Christian can be saved by the gospel message from a Modern Bible. However, Modern Bibles can lead you astray into false doctrines (e.g., Jesus sinned, the Word was not eternal before becoming flesh, divorce is permitted later in marriage or for lying, you must marry the one who raped you, or you should wish castration upon some people). They can also cause you to fall for Modern Textual Criticism, leading to either altering God’s Word (facing God’s judgment in Revelation 22:18-19) or denying Jesus Christ (apostasy), as seen with Bart Ehrman and Rick Beckman. I believe a Christian can be saved by the gospel message from a Modern Bible. However, Modern Bibles can lead you astray into false doctrines (e.g., Jesus sinned, the Word was not eternal before becoming flesh, divorce is permitted later in marriage or for lying, you must marry the one who raped you, or you should wish castration upon some people). They can also cause you to fall for Modern Textual Criticism, leading to either altering God’s Word (facing God’s judgment in Revelation 22:18-19) or denying Jesus Christ (apostasy), as seen with Bart Ehrman and Rick Beckman.

As for the TLB or Living Bible:

No Hebrew or Greek was even consulted by Kenneth Taylor. The Living Bible was a paraphrase from the 1901 ASV.
So if you are for the Hebrew or Greek, this is the worst Bible to praise as getting you saved from.
While God can use such means to give you the saving gospel message, you should be warning others to stay away from the Living Bible because of the many problems that it contains, my friend.

As for your desire that if you can choose only one standard, it is the original languages:

So if you are for the original languages as your one standard, which Hebrew and Greek original languages? The Critical Text? That is constantly shape-shifting and it technically is an artificial text that did not exist until 1881 when Westcott and Hort made their own never-before-seen Greek text by trying to smash together Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. The church never used Westcott and Hort's artificial Greek text. Besides, Codex Sinaiticus contains an additional passage in Matthew 27:49 that says that Jesus was pierced with a spear before his death on the cross. Of course, Modern English Bibles do not follow this ridiclous reading. So, clearly it is not the best manuscript as scholars are claiming it is. Most of your Modern English Bibles are based to some large degree on the corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.


...

....

 

[Blain]

I believe a Christian can be saved by the gospel message from a Modern Bible. However, Modern Bibles can lead you astray into false doctrines (e.g., Jesus sinned, the Word was not eternal before becoming flesh, divorce is permitted later in marriage or for lying, you must marry the one who raped you, or you should wish castration upon some people). They can also cause you to fall for Modern Textual Criticism, leading to either altering God’s Word (facing God’s judgment in Revelation 22:18-19) or denying Jesus Christ (apostasy), as seen with Bart Ehrman and Rick Beckman. I believe a Christian can be saved by the gospel message from a Modern Bible. However, Modern Bibles can lead you astray into false doctrines (e.g., Jesus sinned, the Word was not eternal before becoming flesh, divorce is permitted later in marriage or for lying, you must marry the one who raped you, or you should wish castration upon some people). They can also cause you to fall for Modern Textual Criticism, leading to either altering God’s Word (facing God’s judgment in Revelation 22:18-19) or denying Jesus Christ (apostasy), as seen with Bart Ehrman and Rick Beckman.

As for the TLB or Living Bible:

No Hebrew or Greek was even consulted by Kenneth Taylor. The Living Bible was a paraphrase from the 1901 ASV.
So if you are for the Hebrew or Greek, this is the worst Bible to praise as getting you saved from.
While God can use such means to give you the saving gospel message, you should be warning others to stay away from the Living Bible because of the many problems that it contains, my friend.

As for your desire that if you can choose only one standard, it is the original languages:

So if you are for the original languages as your one standard, which Hebrew and Greek original languages? The Critical Text? That is constantly shape-shifting and it technically is an artificial text that did not exist until 1881 when Westcott and Hort made their own never-before-seen Greek text by trying to smash together Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. The church never used Westcott and Hort's artificial Greek text. Besides, Codex Sinaiticus contains an additional passage in Matthew 27:49 that says that Jesus was pierced with a spear before his death on the cross. Of course, Modern English Bibles do not follow this ridiclous reading. So, clearly it is not the best manuscript as scholars are claiming it is. Most of your Modern English Bibles are based to some large degree on the corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.


...

....

I would argue that unless your reading it in the original languages it was written then one can be lead astray but the word of God is the word of God translation doesn't matter because the spirit of God will lead one to all truths what bible you use doesn't matter because that is why we have the mediator the holy spirit.

lots is lost in translations from the original language and not even the king hames does it justice. I would becareful discounting the word just because of translation

 

[Jeremiah33v3]

16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

2 Timothy 3:17




16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
that means all scripture regardless of translation so if one is a kjv only person they are going against this scripture and honestly man doesn't get to decide if God's word is his word or not it is what it is.

You assume it means all translations...

So let's see... If God breathed all translations... John 7:8 and 10 in those new perversions say....

NASB

Go up to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet fully arrived.
But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as though in secret.

NIV

You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”
However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.

ESV

You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”
But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.

CSB

“Go up to the festival yourselves. I’m not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”
After his brothers had gone up to the festival, then he also went up, not openly but secretly.

RSV

Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."
But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.

Look at that each and everyone, Jesus says He will NOT go.... Then He goes... So Jesus lied!


Let's see what the word of God said.

Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

Notice the word YET there.
If someone asks "hey are you coming to the movies with us"
And you respond "I am not going"... Are you going? NO!

Now if they ask "hey are you coming to the movies with us"
and you respond "I am not going yet" Are you going? YES! Just not with them.


Funny how one little word yet is such a HUGE change.
So, you say those translations are breathed out by God.... Why does your god lie?
My God did not make those translations... John 8:44 explains who made them...

 

[John146]

I'm not casting insults, I'm trying to help you.

You’re helping me by telling me that it’s crazy, cultish to believe I have a Bible that I can trust.

 

[John146]

This discussion is not about my views.

The discussion is never about your views because no one knows what they are. You come on here regularly to point out other people’s faults, but never claim much truth of your own.

 

[Blain]

You assume it means all translations...

So let's see... If God breathed all translations... John 7:8 and 10 in those new perversions say....

NASB


NIV



ESV



CSB


RSV



Look at that each and everyone, Jesus says He will NOT go.... Then He goes... So Jesus lied!


Let's see what the word of God said.


Notice the word YET there.
If someone asks "hey are you coming to the movies with us"
And you respond "I am not going"... Are you going? NO!

Now if they ask "hey are you coming to the movies with us"
and you respond "I am not going yet" Are you going? YES! Just not with them.


Funny how one little word yet is such a HUGE change.
So, you say those translations are breathed out by God.... Why does your god lie?
My God did not make those translations... John 8:44 explains who made them...

it still says the same thing he says he will not go but ends up going the message is the same and no I am not assuming anything if the word of God says all scripture is God breathed then I take it as truth I don't add or take away from what is said any interpretation is not there you can take it as truth or try to make it say something it isn't but the fact is the scripture is plain and simple so yes even though some words are lost like I said before if the word of God says something I believe it.

 

[fredoheaven]

What do you believe the incorruptible seed is?

Hi if I may, this what I believe in the text of 1 Peter 1:23, that being born again is the work of the Holy Spirit using the word of God which according to Peter lives and abides for ever. That is meant when the scripture used the word "by" being an instrument or means and best described to be active and eternal. The word "incorruptible" which is " not of corruptible" means eternal. Actually, the KJB gives the exact definition of the word " incorruptible" that which abides for ever or eternal, hence the one being referred to the text is the word of God.
Now, the question is if the word of God is eternal can it be changed or can it be corrupted by W_H? In essence its a Yes and No. Yes, W-H demonstrably they did and scripture says even during the time of the Apostles tgat there are people who corrup the word of God 2 Cor. 2:17
2 Corinthians 2:17 KJV — For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
No. In the sense, we still hold in our hands the pure Bible, the KJb.
Blessings!

 

[ResidentAlien]

You’re helping me by telling me that it’s crazy, cultish to believe I have a Bible that I can trust.

" . . . but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Corinthians 13:11

 

[Jeremiah33v3]

it still says the same thing he says he will not go but ends up going the message is the same and no I am not assuming anything if the word of God says all scripture is God breathed then I take it as truth I don't add or take away from what is said any interpretation is not there you can take it as truth or try to make it say something it isn't but the fact is the scripture is plain and simple so yes even though some words are lost like I said before if the word of God says something I believe it.

It doesn't say the same thing!

THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME!


This is not rocket science!
Word of God KJV in 2 Corinthians 2:18 says

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

DO NOT CORRUPT THE WORD OF GOD!

What do all your modern perversions say?
NKJV

For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

NASB

For we are not like the many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.

NIV

Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.

ESV

For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

CSB

For we do not market the word of God for profit like so many. On the contrary, we speak with sincerity in Christ, as from God and before God.

LSB

For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, in the sight of God, we speak in Christ.

RSV

For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word; but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

WHAT DOES PEDDLE MEAN!!!!!

It means to SELL or GIVE AWAY!
Every single modern perversion is in violation of itself! They are ALL copyrighted FOR PROFIT!
Only the KJV is not!

So if your modern satanic perversions were correct, then they are all of Satan anyways because they are all copyrighted for PROFIT they peddle the word of God!!! ONLY THE KJV IS CORRECT!


And if the KJV is true with Corrupt, (which it is true) then all your modern perversions are CORRUPTED AND NOT THE WORD OF GOD!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I don't recall seeing that previously, but I looked at it now. It doesn't adequately address the issue. An artist's painting IS corruptible, so the comparison doesn't hold. Either the word of God is incorruptible (that means "cannot be corrupted") and therefore W&H could not corrupt it, or it is corruptible, and the KJV translators are potentially guilty of doing so. Simple logic permits no other options.

Okay, you are not getting it. Let me adjust the analogy a little. If there is an original piece of artwork out there that is not corrupted, and there is a counterfeit one, that does not mean that the original has been corrupted.

Again, Peter simply does not say that the word of God is incorruptible. He doesn't say anything about it in that verse. What he does say is that the seed is incorruptible. If you had done your homework, you would know that the word "corruptible" in that context does not mean "cannot be manipulated and changed", but rather, "will not rot or degrade".

The seed in the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:18-23) is the Word of God according to Luke 8:11.

Yes, 2:2 is talking about the communicated word of God, but that says nothing about 1:23.

There is no break in discussion here. It still talking about the same Word from 1 Peter 1:23.

Meanwhile, 1:3-4 says,

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

That's a much better rhetorical basis for the statement in 1:23.

The incorruptible seed in 1 Peter 1:23 refers to the Word of God, which brings spiritual life, while the incorruptible inheritance in 1 Peter 1:4 refers to the eternal reward reserved for believers. While they are related, they are not the same thing (If that is what you are implying).

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Hi if I may, this what I believe in the text of 1 Peter 1:23, that being born again is the work of the Holy Spirit using the word of God which according to Peter lives and abides for ever. That is meant when the scripture used the word "by" being an instrument or means and best described to be active and eternal. The word "incorruptible" which is " not of corruptible" means eternal. Actually, the KJB gives the exact definition of the word " incorruptible" that which abides for ever or eternal, hence the one being referred to the text is the word of God.
Now, the question is if the word of God is eternal can it be changed or can it be corrupted by W_H? In essence its a Yes and No. Yes, W-H demonstrably they did and scripture says even during the time of the Apostles tgat there are people who corrup the word of God 2 Cor. 2:17
2 Corinthians 2:17 KJV — For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
No. In the sense, we still hold in our hands the pure Bible, the KJb.
Blessings!

Well said.


…..