My KJV Debate with Jeffrey Dollar
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- 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.
Well that is your opinion but I see it differently ----and you haven't proven anything about the KJV as far as I am concerned ---as all Bibles if properly researched which you have no intention of doing in case you are proven wrong --all say the same thing --
---And I have proven that ---your this and that Greek is so far fetched that you keep spouting out is all a bunch of nonsense ----the only difference in the Greek you posted --is punctuation -and layout on paper --it had nothing to do with Scripture ----------and I did post that -----
---
Here we go ------this is the KJB in your Greek
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/KJV1611
Textus Receptus Bibles
King James Bible 1611
Matthew Chapter: 1
1:1The booke of the generation of Iesus Christ, the sonne of Dauid, the sonne of Abraham.
1:2Abraham begate Isaac, and Isaac begate Iacob, and Iacob begate Iudas and his brethren.
1:3And Iudas begate Phares and Zara of Thamar, and Phares begate Esrom, and Esrom begate Aram.
1:4And Aram begate Aminadab, and Aminadab begate Naasson, and Naasson begate Salmon.
Matthew 1 New International Version
The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah----
NOTE :======Posting NIV and yours underneath with the Textus Receptus text
1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Your Translation -above ---
1:1The booke of the generation of Iesus Christ, the sonne of Dauid, the sonne of Abraham.
No difference --say the same think
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,Isaac the father of Jacob,Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
your translation from above
1:2 Abraham begate Isaac, and Isaac begate Iacob, and Iacob begate Iudas and his brethren
--No different --say the same thing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezrom ,Hezron the father of Ram,
your Translation here ----
1:3And Iudas begate Phares and Zara of Thamar, and Phares begate Esrom, and Esrom begate Aram.
so one translation uses ----Hezron ---one uses -----Esrom -----Both are right --one uses Ram one Aram -----both right
i say ====Now here we see different names ----buy if you research this you will see that they say the same thing --------no difference
Esrom or Hezrom Matthew 1:3-----same for Ram and Aram -----
Strong's Lexicon
Aram: Aram -----
Meaning: Ram, son of Hezron
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,Amminadab the father of Nahshon,Nahshon the father of Salmon,
your from above
1:4 And Aram begate Aminadab, and Aminadab begate Naasson, and Naasson begate Salmon.
All saying the same thing
I could go on but my point is proven ------although I don't expect you to think so ------I think Satan as you duped -----
Now you have a great rest of the day ------
and May God clear your mind of your Text Dilemma--which doesn't exist by the way ------
---And I have proven that ---your this and that Greek is so far fetched that you keep spouting out is all a bunch of nonsense ----the only difference in the Greek you posted --is punctuation -and layout on paper --it had nothing to do with Scripture ----------and I did post that -----
---
Here we go ------this is the KJB in your Greek
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/KJV1611
Textus Receptus Bibles
King James Bible 1611
Matthew Chapter: 1
1:1The booke of the generation of Iesus Christ, the sonne of Dauid, the sonne of Abraham.
1:2Abraham begate Isaac, and Isaac begate Iacob, and Iacob begate Iudas and his brethren.
1:3And Iudas begate Phares and Zara of Thamar, and Phares begate Esrom, and Esrom begate Aram.
1:4And Aram begate Aminadab, and Aminadab begate Naasson, and Naasson begate Salmon.
Matthew 1 New International Version
The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah----
NOTE :======Posting NIV and yours underneath with the Textus Receptus text
1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Your Translation -above ---
1:1The booke of the generation of Iesus Christ, the sonne of Dauid, the sonne of Abraham.
No difference --say the same think
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,Isaac the father of Jacob,Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
your translation from above
1:2 Abraham begate Isaac, and Isaac begate Iacob, and Iacob begate Iudas and his brethren
--No different --say the same thing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezrom ,Hezron the father of Ram,
your Translation here ----
1:3And Iudas begate Phares and Zara of Thamar, and Phares begate Esrom, and Esrom begate Aram.
so one translation uses ----Hezron ---one uses -----Esrom -----Both are right --one uses Ram one Aram -----both right
i say ====Now here we see different names ----buy if you research this you will see that they say the same thing --------no difference
Esrom or Hezrom Matthew 1:3-----same for Ram and Aram -----
Strong's Lexicon
Aram: Aram -----
Meaning: Ram, son of Hezron
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,Amminadab the father of Nahshon,Nahshon the father of Salmon,
your from above
1:4 And Aram begate Aminadab, and Aminadab begate Naasson, and Naasson begate Salmon.
All saying the same thing
I could go on but my point is proven ------although I don't expect you to think so ------I think Satan as you duped -----
Now you have a great rest of the day ------
and May God clear your mind of your Text Dilemma--which doesn't exist by the way ------
You're welcome. Critical Text Christians have long loved to rub our noses in the fact that this Greek word was never used for a large structure (like a mansion) for many years.
A recent challenge in this thread inspired me to explore various AI chats, but I received no response. I ended up wrestling with Grok.ai for a couple of hours to get the answer. It was not easy, but I was able to obtain the results I desired. At first, this AI attempted to sneak in hypothetical answers based on the works of others, so I had to catch its subtle wording.
In any case, I was happy to finally get the results after persistently pushing it for a long time. But this kind of information would not have been easy to obtain in the past. AI is making information much easier to access.
I am amazed by this new way of obtaining information that would have been much more difficult to access before. As Daniel says, “...and knowledge shall be increased.” (Daniel 12:4 KJV).
Anyway, I included additional information in a new PDF on Mansions for the KJV to address the objections raised by this forum poster. You can check it out here. His objections are addressed at the bottom of the PDF.
May God bless you.
……..
A recent challenge in this thread inspired me to explore various AI chats, but I received no response. I ended up wrestling with Grok.ai for a couple of hours to get the answer. It was not easy, but I was able to obtain the results I desired. At first, this AI attempted to sneak in hypothetical answers based on the works of others, so I had to catch its subtle wording.
In any case, I was happy to finally get the results after persistently pushing it for a long time. But this kind of information would not have been easy to obtain in the past. AI is making information much easier to access.
I am amazed by this new way of obtaining information that would have been much more difficult to access before. As Daniel says, “...and knowledge shall be increased.” (Daniel 12:4 KJV).
Anyway, I included additional information in a new PDF on Mansions for the KJV to address the objections raised by this forum poster. You can check it out here. His objections are addressed at the bottom of the PDF.
May God bless you.
……..
So deception does not matter to you? Why would the Spirit of God bless deception like this?
As for your false claim that I worship the KJV as an idol:
Well, this is one of the many mindless scarecrow statements used by Originals-Only Christians that is simply not true.
Surely, we do not bow down to the KJV. Did Moses bow down to the perfect words of God on the tablets he held just because He believed he was carrying the perfect words of God? Surely not. So then why make such claims against us when you have no evidence that the majority of KJV advocates do such a thing?
The Word of God says we can cherish the words of God because they are pure.
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalms 119:140) (KJV).
Are you even aware of this verse in Scripture?
Well, if you have the wrong Modern Bible, it will say that God's Word has been tested and it is not very pure, instead.
....
As for your false claim that I worship the KJV as an idol:
Well, this is one of the many mindless scarecrow statements used by Originals-Only Christians that is simply not true.
Surely, we do not bow down to the KJV. Did Moses bow down to the perfect words of God on the tablets he held just because He believed he was carrying the perfect words of God? Surely not. So then why make such claims against us when you have no evidence that the majority of KJV advocates do such a thing?
The Word of God says we can cherish the words of God because they are pure.
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalms 119:140) (KJV).
Are you even aware of this verse in Scripture?
Well, if you have the wrong Modern Bible, it will say that God's Word has been tested and it is not very pure, instead.
....
Worship doesn't always include bowing down you can have an idol and that be a form of worship.
I don't think you worship the kjv but you do hold it up on a high mountain disregarding any other version as the pure word of God that is not worship that is just in error. after all regardless of translation since when is God limited by mans translation?
I don't think you worship the kjv but you do hold it up on a high mountain disregarding any other version as the pure word of God that is not worship that is just in error. after all regardless of translation since when is God limited by mans translation?
The scripture that says the Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth is John 16:13, which states, "However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth
In the King James Version of the Bible, John 16:13 says, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth
now do we believe this or not?
In the King James Version of the Bible, John 16:13 says, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth
now do we believe this or not?
Such a response simply shows a lack of education on your part involving the subject.
Before AI came out for public use, I used to think it was some kind of artificial intelligence like Skynet from Terminator (that needs to be feared). Such responses like yours today make my roll my eyes now because you simply do not know what it is and what it can do.
But I have come to realize it is just an advanced software program that helps you with various digital tasks, which can include searching out information on the internet.
In short, the information obtained has sources that it gave me, so if you have any problems with the information, you can simply check the sources if you doubt its validity. In fact, when Google launched in the late 1990s, many people were skeptical about its minimalist design and whether it could compete with established search engines like Yahoo!, AltaVista, and Lycos. At the time, most search engines prioritized portal-like homepages filled with news, weather, and ads, while Google had a simple white page with just a search bar and a few links. But if you want to live in the past, by all means. That is your choice, my friend.
In any event, may God bless you.
....
Before AI came out for public use, I used to think it was some kind of artificial intelligence like Skynet from Terminator (that needs to be feared). Such responses like yours today make my roll my eyes now because you simply do not know what it is and what it can do.
But I have come to realize it is just an advanced software program that helps you with various digital tasks, which can include searching out information on the internet.
In short, the information obtained has sources that it gave me, so if you have any problems with the information, you can simply check the sources if you doubt its validity. In fact, when Google launched in the late 1990s, many people were skeptical about its minimalist design and whether it could compete with established search engines like Yahoo!, AltaVista, and Lycos. At the time, most search engines prioritized portal-like homepages filled with news, weather, and ads, while Google had a simple white page with just a search bar and a few links. But if you want to live in the past, by all means. That is your choice, my friend.
In any event, may God bless you.
....
This has nothing whatsoever with “living in the past” and everything to do with your choice of words.
You said, “I was able to get the results I desired”. You looked for ‘X’, and AI provided you ‘X’.
If you look for information to confirm your hypothesis, and mention that AI provided that information, it sounds like you just accessed a vending machine to satisfy your addiction. It doesn’t suggest for a second that the information provided is sound, valid, and true.
You said, “I was able to get the results I desired”. You looked for ‘X’, and AI provided you ‘X’.
If you look for information to confirm your hypothesis, and mention that AI provided that information, it sounds like you just accessed a vending machine to satisfy your addiction. It doesn’t suggest for a second that the information provided is sound, valid, and true.
-
2
- Show all
So Moses was in a cult because He has the exact and pure words of God on tablets of stone?
See, this is what is silly about your KJV scarecrow statement.
A hundred years ago, Christians would not even be having this kind of discussion.
You guys are actually the new kids on the block and started the schism with the corrupted never-before-seen artificial Greek text by Westcott and Hort and has shape-shifted slightly with the Nestle and Aland. If Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are so good, then why do they disagree with each other in 3,000 places in the gospels alone? Why does Codex Sinaiticus have the additional phrase in Matthew 27:49 that Jesus was killed by a sphere? Why is it acceptable that Westcott and Hort fellowshipped with a Unitarian and had him on the committee on the ERV (Which is the first Modern English Bible in the Modern Bible Movement today)? How can we trust Modern scholarship today? Archaic Mark was in Category 1 and placed as very trustworthy. But today, we now know this is a fraud. The Dead Sea scrolls that the Bible Museum possessed were all discovered to be frauds. Granted, the Great Isaiah Scroll is manuscript from the Dead scrolls that have been tested and it is genuine. Sinaiticus was about to be tested but they stopped it from happening.
I am not surprised because the Modern Bible Movement is a billion dollar industry.
....
See, this is what is silly about your KJV scarecrow statement.
A hundred years ago, Christians would not even be having this kind of discussion.
You guys are actually the new kids on the block and started the schism with the corrupted never-before-seen artificial Greek text by Westcott and Hort and has shape-shifted slightly with the Nestle and Aland. If Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are so good, then why do they disagree with each other in 3,000 places in the gospels alone? Why does Codex Sinaiticus have the additional phrase in Matthew 27:49 that Jesus was killed by a sphere? Why is it acceptable that Westcott and Hort fellowshipped with a Unitarian and had him on the committee on the ERV (Which is the first Modern English Bible in the Modern Bible Movement today)? How can we trust Modern scholarship today? Archaic Mark was in Category 1 and placed as very trustworthy. But today, we now know this is a fraud. The Dead Sea scrolls that the Bible Museum possessed were all discovered to be frauds. Granted, the Great Isaiah Scroll is manuscript from the Dead scrolls that have been tested and it is genuine. Sinaiticus was about to be tested but they stopped it from happening.
I am not surprised because the Modern Bible Movement is a billion dollar industry.
....
As I said, the AI I used provided sources for the information.
Please feel free to challenge those sources if you don't believe them.
Just casting doubt by saying they are not true or trustworthy because I used an online software program (AI) to find the results is just shell game on your part.
Have you ever used a Google search before?
It really is not much different, except that you don't have to labor in sifting through lots of results all the time.
But again, if you want to live in the past, feel free.
By your response here, it just seems that you are skeptical of the information provided because it does not fit your narrative.
So the ball is in your court to back up your claims instead of trying to scare people that AI is some kind of untrustworthy SkyNet system determined to rule the world or some fumbling dumb digital robot that always makes mistakes.
Side Note: I am aware that AI searches can make mistakes. But that is why you have to confirm the findings with sources. Even doing a Google search and finding information has to sometimes be tested that the information is true.
If it makes you feel any better, ChatGPT and Perplexity AI do favor Modern scholarship and or the Critical Text perspective even though I have tried to correct its misunderstanding in this area many times. Either those who program it, or the overwhelming data leads it to draw false conclusions. Meaning, it appears to go off what is popular rather than what is true always. So yes, you do have to double check what it says and the narrative it wants to sell at times. A program is only as good as the one who programmed it. I am sure if Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were ever chemically date tested, this will destroy the billion dollar Modern Bible industrial complex and the AIs will then have no choice but to report on such a truth then. So it could be money that is influencing its results. It always comes down to the money.
....
Please feel free to challenge those sources if you don't believe them.
Just casting doubt by saying they are not true or trustworthy because I used an online software program (AI) to find the results is just shell game on your part.
Have you ever used a Google search before?
It really is not much different, except that you don't have to labor in sifting through lots of results all the time.
But again, if you want to live in the past, feel free.
By your response here, it just seems that you are skeptical of the information provided because it does not fit your narrative.
So the ball is in your court to back up your claims instead of trying to scare people that AI is some kind of untrustworthy SkyNet system determined to rule the world or some fumbling dumb digital robot that always makes mistakes.
Side Note: I am aware that AI searches can make mistakes. But that is why you have to confirm the findings with sources. Even doing a Google search and finding information has to sometimes be tested that the information is true.
If it makes you feel any better, ChatGPT and Perplexity AI do favor Modern scholarship and or the Critical Text perspective even though I have tried to correct its misunderstanding in this area many times. Either those who program it, or the overwhelming data leads it to draw false conclusions. Meaning, it appears to go off what is popular rather than what is true always. So yes, you do have to double check what it says and the narrative it wants to sell at times. A program is only as good as the one who programmed it. I am sure if Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were ever chemically date tested, this will destroy the billion dollar Modern Bible industrial complex and the AIs will then have no choice but to report on such a truth then. So it could be money that is influencing its results. It always comes down to the money.
....
You are going to find kooky in every camp of belief.
I am sure you can find Trinitarians, Bible alone believing Christians in the Modern Bible Movement that are cultic, too.
In other words, kooky believers really does not negate the truth of something.
Not all KJV-only or Core KJV Christians are a like, and believe the same thing.
There are many KJV-only Christians who do not think the KJV-only topic is a salvation issue.
But of course, there are some who like to paint us into a big camp as if we all believe the same thing.
Personally, I believe a Christian can be saved by the gospel message in a Modern Bible, and they can even use it on rare occasion for personal home study alone (if they are aware of the dangers of Modern Bibles), but they must use a KJV in church fellowship. I believe a Christian can navigate the pitfalls of Modern Bible Movement and be saved in the end. But I also beleive there are cases where a Christian can believe the false heretical doctrines found in Modern Bibles and this results in a loss of their salvation. I also believe if they get caught up in the web of Modern Textual Criticism, they can be potentially condemned for deleting from God's Word as warned Revelation 22:19, and or commit apostasy like Rick Beckman, and Bart Erhman.
....
I am sure you can find Trinitarians, Bible alone believing Christians in the Modern Bible Movement that are cultic, too.
In other words, kooky believers really does not negate the truth of something.
Not all KJV-only or Core KJV Christians are a like, and believe the same thing.
There are many KJV-only Christians who do not think the KJV-only topic is a salvation issue.
But of course, there are some who like to paint us into a big camp as if we all believe the same thing.
Personally, I believe a Christian can be saved by the gospel message in a Modern Bible, and they can even use it on rare occasion for personal home study alone (if they are aware of the dangers of Modern Bibles), but they must use a KJV in church fellowship. I believe a Christian can navigate the pitfalls of Modern Bible Movement and be saved in the end. But I also beleive there are cases where a Christian can believe the false heretical doctrines found in Modern Bibles and this results in a loss of their salvation. I also believe if they get caught up in the web of Modern Textual Criticism, they can be potentially condemned for deleting from God's Word as warned Revelation 22:19, and or commit apostasy like Rick Beckman, and Bart Erhman.
....
Jonathan Shelley of Stedfast Baptist has been having regular Bible burnings where they get the kids to throw non-KJV Bibles into a fire, then warn people that hell will be a lot hotter than their fire. I'm not sure where they're located at the moment; they were in Texas and Oklahoma but they move a lot. This group is part of Steven Anderson's Independent Fundamental Baptist sect.
-
1
- Show all
Yeah, this is the gist of the issue: thinking that a translation is "perfect". Especially a translation that came about because a certain king wanted to divorce his wife because he had already knocked up an adulteress.
The KJV-onlyists make a classic mistake: they are unbelieving. They do not believe that the word of God is in them (Romans 10:8 and John 15:7). This unbelief spurns all kinds of cult-like behavior: believing, instead, they must protect something external from themselves; outside of themselves, as if their very existence hinges upon it. They will even condemn brothers in the faith for their inability (or unwillingness) to believe as they do. By this, brother condemning brother, they think they do God a service not realizing they are pawns of evil and division. They share this same characteristics with the Muslims of Islam.
The Roman church and many of the old denominations do this, too. That's why finery, statues, vestments, certain liturgical practices, artifacts, etc. are so popular among their members: God is somewhere outside of them. Their unbelief has literally led to wars and genocide.
We should be thankful the KJV-onlyists don't have a standing army. They, no doubt, would kill others because of their own unbelief.
The KJV-onlyists make a classic mistake: they are unbelieving. They do not believe that the word of God is in them (Romans 10:8 and John 15:7). This unbelief spurns all kinds of cult-like behavior: believing, instead, they must protect something external from themselves; outside of themselves, as if their very existence hinges upon it. They will even condemn brothers in the faith for their inability (or unwillingness) to believe as they do. By this, brother condemning brother, they think they do God a service not realizing they are pawns of evil and division. They share this same characteristics with the Muslims of Islam.
The Roman church and many of the old denominations do this, too. That's why finery, statues, vestments, certain liturgical practices, artifacts, etc. are so popular among their members: God is somewhere outside of them. Their unbelief has literally led to wars and genocide.
We should be thankful the KJV-onlyists don't have a standing army. They, no doubt, would kill others because of their own unbelief.
-
1
-
1
- Show all