I doubt that Blue 155 will read this, but that is not my concern. He accuses me of not trusting God's word, but I can assure anyone who reads this that I do trust God's word. What I do not trust is mankind's distortion of God's word. God speaks to individuals, according to John, God's word is a person. Bibliolatry is a human thing, heavily Protestant. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us what scripture is. How many psalms are there for instance, 150, 155 or possibly more? Different Bibles give different answers. I have devoted over 50 years to studying scripture, I check in regularly with the teachers who teach our pastors and I get one of two responses from them. Mostly I hear that I am making more sense than any other biblical scholar they know, and I should continue. More rarely I hear that I am challenging tradition and thus must be wrong. In both the OT and NT, there were ones who challenged tradition and had their words remembered, but now tradition is sacred, even the traditions that say tradition become calcified and dead. So, I write on and will let God judge my work, not humans.
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- 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.
I ignored it because I find it highly illogical to try and convince a person to re-watch a movie they did not like.
I have no interest in re-watching it, no matter what you say to try to convince me otherwise.
I see it as no different than trying to convince a person that they must also like their favorite color, foods, clothes, and places they visit, etc. Actually, the more you talk about the film, the more it reminds me of what I did not like in it (Making me dislike the film even more). The only thing I like about the movie is that it can potentially lead a person to Jesus. That's it. However, seeing that there are better Christian films (IMO) that can also do that, I would recommend the ones I like (obviously).
As for the changed doctrines, between the KJV vs. Modern Bibles:
There are 77 Changed Doctrines I listed, and that list is going to only grow.
This list shows many doctrines that I believe are serious that are either changed, removed, or watered down.
Your average Christian is ignorant of these things.
I also do not expect many Christians to carefully examine all of the changed doctrines on my list with an open mind, either.
The conditioning, promotion, and marketing from the Modern Bible industrial complex is very compelling.
Just like a person who accepts radical left ideologies, like communism, open borders, etc.
Once that happens, it becomes hard to undo that kind of conditioning or brainwashing.
Do you even realize that the underlying Hebrew and Greek are different between the KJV vs. the Modern Bibles?
Do you realize that some of these underlying original language differences affect doctrine?
My other PDF, shown on the page with the animated fall leaves, goes into only some of these textual changes in the original languages.
Granted, I list both translation differences and textual differences. However, the point is that there are changes that are serious.
I go into showing patterns of changes like the watering down of verses on fasting, God rewarding His people, the blood atonement, the deity of Christ, and the substitutionary atonement. There are unique good doctrines that are exclusive to the TR/KJV that are removed, as well.
Note:
KJV Greek: The underlying Greek of the KJV is primarily the Beza 1598 (except for approximately 25 translatable differences). This is a part of the Textus Receptus tradition or Greek TR texts (which began with Erasmus, and was refined with Stephanus, and Beza) of which the 47 plus KJV translators looked to. These Greek printed editions exist because they primarily represent the collated Byzantine Greek manuscripts (MSS) in the received text tradition. While the KJV is not a perfect match exactly with the majority of Byzantine Greek MSS, it does align with them by a very high percentage. This is not the case with the Modern Bibles. Of course, some (not all) try to gaslight others into thinking the majority of Byzantine MSS backs up the Modern Bibles when this is clearly not the case. The whole point of Westcott and Hort's Lucian Rescension Theory was to show that they were not going with the majority of Greek MSS but the few Alexandrian manuscripts. Anyway, if a person desires to look at the Beza 1598 Greek, they can either just look at his printed edition online at Archive.org or they can download theWord7 Bible software (PC only) with the Beza add-on module (all for free) (See here: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AT1VcsZXB/).
KJV Hebrew: The underlying Hebrew of the KJV is the Ben Chayyim Masoretic printed edition (Which is from the Hebrew MSS). You can view this Hebrew by either looking at Archive.org (free) or by getting Sword Searcher Bible software (which is paid). This is for the PC only.
Modern Bibles Greek: The underlying Greek of the Modern Bibles is the Nestle Aland (currently in its 28th edition, with the 29th edition on its way at some point in the near future). You can view it here: https://www.die-bibel.de/en/bible/NA28/MAT.1 - Like the Westcott and Hort Greek 1881 (Which is the beginning of the Modern Bible Movement), the Nestle and Aland is primarily based upon Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (also known as Codex B and Aleph). While the Nestle and Aland Greek edition also looks at about 50 or so other manuscripts, these are minor, and the primary two manuscripts that are given preference for the main reading are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Keep in mind that this movement employed various deceptions in its origin with Westcott and Hort. These two men were supposed to do a simple update of the KJV, but instead they snuck in their never-before-seen Greek artificial text (i.e., the Westcott and Hort 1881 Greek) that smashed together Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. This was the text they used as a basis for their KJV update, which is the English Revised Version of 1881. The beginning of the ERV (or RV) says it is the version set forth in 1611, but it is not the case because it removes and alters many verses that are not found in the KJV. This is deception. They did not tell people of these changes and lied about it in the very edition itself. For example, the Revised Version removes the Johannine Comma. But what is deceptive is that they moved the last sentence in 1 John 5:6 and placed it in the spot where the missing Johannine Comma verse should be in 1 John 5:7. This deception was later continued by subsequent Modern Translations by their rewording the beginning of 1 John 5:8 and placing it where the missing Comma is in 1 John 5:7. This was no doubt done to not alert the new reader that the one and only direct verse on the Trinity was removed. Today, tons of Christians are conditioned to hate this verse, but they are never told of the deceptions like this. Also, Westcott and Hort had a Unitarian on the translation committee of the Revised Version of 1881. His name was George Vance Smith, and he wrote a book saying how theological doctrines were changed in the Revised Version. He was happy with these changes because they favored his Unitarianism. But what is worse is that Westcott and Hort also fellowship with George Vance Smith. This is the beginning of the Modern Bible Movement. There are horrible readings in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, like Jesus being stabbed by a spear before He died upon the cross. Of course, this embarrassing reading is not published in any English Modern Bible. There are corrections in Vaticanus. One scribe said to another with something like, "Fool and knave keep the old reading." Modern scholars used to think Archaic Mark (an Alexandrian manuscript) was one of the best witnesses that supported Vaticanus. But they later found out that it was a fake because it had Prussian blue ink in it (which is not an old ink).
Modern Bibles in Hebrew: The underlying Hebrew of the Modern Bibles is the Leningrad Codex, which is in the printed form of the BHS (with the apparatus updated in BHQ and will eventually be a replacement). You can check it here: https://www.die-bibel.de/en/bible/BHS/GEN.1 - The BHS differs from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic that underlies the KJV. While it does not have as many changes as the Greek texts when you compare the Nestle and Aland 28 with the Beza 1598 Greek, nevertheless, there are changes. In addition, select Modern Bibles will use the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) and one of the editions of the LXX (Note: Some in the Modern Bible Movement will refer to the LXX as if there is only one LXX, which is again a deception and not true). Also, some (not all) of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been proven to be fake by the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.
The NIV is actually considered a liberal translation even by James White. Nick Sayers, who is a Textus Receptus / KJV defender who lives in Australia, had met up with James White. Nick wanted to give him his book on defending Revelation 16:5 and said that he would never read a book like that. Why? Is he afraid it would destroy his narrative? So these people are not examining the facts from both sides fairly. Dan Wallace said that the English Revised Version by Westcott and Hort was based upon 2,000 manuscripts in the last 15 minutes of the John Ankerberg Show. This is a huge lie, and everyone who studied this issue knows that it is simply not true.
.....
I also document in my 77 Changed Doctrines PDF about how the NIV makes changes for the worse in one of its later editions and not for the better. It’s really, really bad.
…..
…..
B
Blue155
Guest
If we believe the Bible is God’s word, then we will believe God has preserved it to contain the truth.
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalms 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.
Psalms 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
Psalm 119:160 The entirety of Your word is truth,
And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
2 Samuel 7:28 And now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are true, and You have promised this goodness to Your servant
2 Tim. 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
the word of truth - Ps. 119:43
Thy word is true - Ps. 119:160
The word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth — 1 Kings 17:24
Thy word is truth - Jn. 17:17
the word of truth - 2 Cor. 6:7
the word of truth - Eph. 1:13
word of the truth - Col. 1:5
the word of truth - Jms. 1:18
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalms 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.
Psalms 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
Psalm 119:160 The entirety of Your word is truth,
And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
2 Samuel 7:28 And now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are true, and You have promised this goodness to Your servant
2 Tim. 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
the word of truth - Ps. 119:43
Thy word is true - Ps. 119:160
The word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth — 1 Kings 17:24
Thy word is truth - Jn. 17:17
the word of truth - 2 Cor. 6:7
the word of truth - Eph. 1:13
word of the truth - Col. 1:5
the word of truth - Jms. 1:18
For me, this is one of the reasons why the atheist should consider that the Bible is true. If God promised to keep His Word and we have it and that Word is attacked like back in garden with the serpent, then they should add this to their list of considerations or points in believing the Bible and accepting Jesus as their Savior.
The Bible is under attack by false modern Bibles and Modern scholarship. Changes in doctrine are affected more than people realize.
…
B
Blue155
Guest
And from my research, all the arguments of “man distorting the Bible” is over issues that look convincing on the surface, but a like so many that have been made, they are built upon mistaken beliefs and assumptions. Men can distort their handling of it, but not the truth of it, as the truth remains with those who rightly divide the word of God from man’s attempts to distort it. I have no doubt God expected that, which is why His word says to search the scriptures, test the spirits, prove all things, lean not on your own understanding, let God be true but every man a liar, scripture cannot be broken, the word of the LORD is right, etc.
The chain of custody of the Bible from beginning to end remains unbroken, no matter how many people attempt to “distort” the evidence.
A light bulb is either on or off. It can’t be both. The law of non-contradiction requires that one of the two claims be wrong. The law of excluded middle, excludes a middle ground between truth and false. Applied to the Bible, The Scriptures are either inspired of God, true from the beginning, is right or they are not inspired of God, not true from the beginning and are not right. There is no middle ground. Either the Spirit of truth guided the disciples/apostles/prophets into all truth when they penned the Bible, or He did not.
It is becoming apparent that you have no interest in having a discussion,
because you ignored my saying that I agree art is subjective but art appreciation classes
can increase one's appreciation, and again you complained about me trying to help you
appreciate the movie for your own enjoyment instead of answering my questions,
which one more time were these:
1. Which one movie would you recommend I obtain and view first?
2. What are the "changed doctrines" between these three KJV verses cited on your website and the NIV?
Col. 3:2, "Set your hearts on things above, not on earthly things."
Matt. 22:39, "Love your neighbor as yourself."
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
And now I add another question/request:
3. Please cite one or two of the 77 Changed Doctrines you listed between the KJV and original NIV for us to consider here.
Thanks,
Over...
B
Blue155
Guest
“the evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning… It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians” — Frederick Bruce
B
Blue155
Guest
Can anyone name one thing that we know the origin of, that has been created, that has a beginning, but is not dependent or contingent on someone or something else to continue to exist?
While there are more films mentioned in the thread that I would recommend, these are my top choices, listed in the order I would watch them (with number 1 being first). Meaning, watch Time Changer first, then Polycarp, etcetera.
1. Time Changer.
(Free to watch: Time Changer)
2. Polycarp
Free to watch:
3. Play the Flute.
4. Redemption of Henry Myers
Free to watch:
5. What If
6. The War Within
Free to watch:
7. Breakthrough
8. Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters
Free to watch:
9. 77 Chances.
(Free to watch: 77 Chances)
The rest of my recommendations can be found here:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-you-find-to-be-the-most-rewatchable.8055027/
I hope they may edify you.
You said:
Focusing on one or two verses misses the bigger picture or in that you will not see the overall pattern that Modern Bibles make changes for the worse and not for the better. Anyone can just pick a part a verse here and there. Simply download the PDF, and upload it to ChatGPT and have ChatGPT analyze it and give you the best ones or all of the ones that deal with the NIV. Have ChatGPT explain why it affects doctrine and the problems it can lead to. To get into this here is not something I am interested in doing because it would be too time consuming to do. I do have a debate I have to be ready for in the end of February.
....
Note: Some of the videos (like Time Changer) did not embed.
Simply click on the link called "Time Changer" to watch it for free on YouTube.
....
Simply click on the link called "Time Changer" to watch it for free on YouTube.
....
B
Blue155
Guest
We must learn to anticipate that the other side will make a persuasive, sincere, case. However, an argument is not proof. Just because the opposing side can formulate a defense doesn't mean we should be alarmed. Even in cases where our defendants are clearly (and even acknowledged) guilty, this frequently occurs in criminal trials. Prepare ahead of time for strong, persuasive, and well-spoken explanations. However, keep in mind that the ability of the opposing side to present a case does not imply that it is accurate.
I watched Time Changer and think it makes a good point. I say something similar in my site:
Atheists might try to practice the “Golden Rule”, but the key issue for them on judgment day will be explaining what good reason they had for rejecting God rather than glorifying Him as the One who determines what is good/golden.
Someone might wonder whether souls may be good or have good “hearts” and merit heaven without accepting Christ’s atonement. The NT says no, but does not consider whether a person might have a psychological excuse (such as being abused as a child by an unloving “Christian” father). Regardless of how a person behaved while alive, the fact they did not believe the Gospel of Jesus (assuming they had the opportunity) would make them evil for rejecting the only One who is good (Matt. 19:17), the source and Spirit of good, and its Rationale. God initiates; we cooperate, or not. IOW, “good” is not an objective natural entity that exists independently from God or prior to Him, determining His morality, but rather goodness is God’s creation/decision and determined by Him.
Again, the evidence of saving faith or satisfying GRFS is working faith, love or helping humanity (John 13:35). Disciples of Jesus (or Believers) tend to love and help others, not by virtue of their own goodness, but because they are moved or motivated by the loving Spirit of the Lord. Christians love everyone by reflecting God’s love (Matt. 5:44&48, 1Tim. 2:3-4, Rom. 5:5-8 & 1John 4:7-19). Humans can never become good enough to earn or merit salvation as a reward for right behavior. A person cannot be good by doing good. Those who try to attain heaven by imitating Christ-like behavior without accepting Christ’s Lordship and atonement do not merely fall short (Rom. 3:23) but actually go in the opposite direction (Gal. 5:4), so we should cooperate with God’s Way.
B
Blue155
Guest
Voir Dire for Christianity.
- “Are you willing to consider any and all admitted evidence without objecting, arguing, or dismissing it in advance? This includes taking the totality of the evidence, even if it is unfamiliar, surprising, or challenges your current beliefs.”
- “Are you open to cumulative cases, where multiple lines of evidence converge rather than relying on a single proof?”
- “Would you be willing to accept the truth, even if it had personal implications for your life?”
- “Can you evaluate historical documents, eyewitness testimony, fulfilled prophecy, and claims of extraordinary events as evidence, weighing each on its own merit rather than dismissing categories outright?”
- “If the historical evidence showed that Jesus truly rose from the dead, would that matter to you, or would you ignore it?”
- “Can you agree not to change the rules of what counts as evidence midway through the discussion?”
- “If evidence you initially dismissed later appears stronger than you expected, would you be willing to revise your view?”
- “If the evidence clearly supported the reliability of the Bible, the resurrection, the existence of God, would you accept it?”
- “Do you understand that, as a juror, you cannot object to evidence, argue with the lawyers, challenge admissibility, demand different kinds of proof, interrupt the presentation, or decide what counts as evidence?“
I thought I detected that you were not wanting discussion at this time. Perhaps after your debate you can share the bigger picture a frame at a time here for us to consider. In preparing for your debate, feel free to use any information I shared on this thread for refuting atheist arguments. Happy trails!
First, there is a difference between discussing and explaining things that do not take a lot of time, vs. faster discussions that are not as time-consuming. While I wish I had the superpower to freeze time and do many things that would normally take a very long time, a verse-by-verse examination with us, going back and forth over is going down a path that requires a lot of time that I do not have in the real world that we live.
Second, you are attempting to only examine one or two verses on my list that need to be dissected with a microscope, but missing the bigger picture or theme or pattern of evidence. The point of my write-up was not to have you look at a few and dismiss it (If that was your intention). The title of my PDF is 77 Changed Doctrines and its not called, 2 Changed Doctrines. Are you willing to look at all 77 points and more and examine them carefully? That's not up for me to walk you through every point and convince you of every one of them. The atheist will desire not to believe even if there is a large amount of evidence that supports the Bible, and yet they will like to focus on one or two weak links in the larger chain of evidence, rather than looking at the bigger picture or pattern. What I am trying to say is that if there are evidences for somebody being guilty for a crime, and a person who doubts that evidence just wants to focus on only one evidence or maybe just two, they miss the fact that there may be a larger pattern of evidence that convicts the criminal. I believe the larger body of evidence is on the side of the TR / KJV over the Critical Text / Modern Bibles. I have 100 reasons (Non-doctrinal) for believing in the KJV. There are 77 doctrinal reasons in addition to that, and that list is only growing. I can demonstrate a clear assault on the real Bible, and this is evidence for even an atheist to believe God's Word.
One time, an atheist had came up to Nick Sayers while he was street preaching in Australia, and they said to him that the Bible tells you to marry your rapist. At first, he thought they were making it up, but he got the reference and saw that it was in the Modern Bibles but not the KJV. In other words, the reading in the Modern Bibles was one of the excuses or reasons against coming to the faith. This is why the Modern Bibles are a problem. My writeup mentions this point, and there is an additional sub article that explains the KJV reading in more depth, as well.
Three, you may have missed my previous posts, but I said before that I am not into debating atheists. I see their belief as about as silly as believing in a flat Earth. So I do not see atheism as any kind of formidable position whereby they have any real case to make with me. To me, hearing their position is like listening to a bunch of nonsense because they refuse to accept any testimony or experiences that I have or consider any evidence for my position. They believe they came from an explosion and that they were once monkeys. How dumb is that? I do not want to consider or entertain their position or give it any kind of credence because it is ridiculous. Granted, I do debate others on other positions I disagree with but this is among brothers. I also want to communicate to the body of Christ that while we may have our disagreements, we can still be respectful and loving with each other. We can fellowship even if we do not agree on certain issues involving the Bible. This is to show that we love one another, as brothers and sisters in Christ which does speak to even the unbeliever.
Anyway, my debate proponent (fellow KJV believer) is Matthew Verschuur who is from Australia and runs the site called BibleProtector.com. He provides the KJV edition that is used at Biblehub.com. I agree with Matthew that the PCE (Pure Cambridge Edition - circa 1900) is that the final settled edition of the KJV, but where we disagree is whether Christians (who have access and time to do basic word studies on occasion with the original Hebrew and Greek that underlies the KJV). With the increase of technology with ai, and other tools, it is all the more easier to know certain Hebrew and Greek words and their meaning that is the English of the KJV does not fully convey. I am not saying that the Hebrew and Greek correct the English of the KJV. No, no. Never. I believe the KJV is God's perfect Word in 1600s English for God's people today. What I am saying is that the Hebrew and Greek can sometimes convey a deeper meaning that is not always present in the English of the KJV. The original languages can bless God's people along with the English in the KJV. Both line up together and are able to give us what God communicates. Matthew Verschuur believes that looking to the original languages are not required if one has access and time to them. While I am not calling all believers to be scholars or to invest their whole life to the original lanuguages, I do believe occasional word studies in the original languages is a must for several reasons. Nick Sayers is hosting and moderating the debate and if all goes well, it may be February 27th at 7:00PM New York Time (Eastern).
....
The movie is great because it sets up for interesting discussion involving God's Word (which I see has inspired you to express with God’s Word). It’s a really compelling film. I believe Time Changer has a really good message, and I also thought it had some really good comedy, too. I hope you enjoyed it. Polycarp is a very close second among my favorites. It also has a good biblical message that is needed today in the church.
....
I agree that morals alone without Jesus Christ is a real danger. A person may think they are good enough without God (Which is not true). While unbelievers can imitate in doing good things, I believe we cannot do pure good or real good without Jesus Christ moving through us after we have been saved by His grace. Jesus said we can do nothing without Him. God alone is good, and so believers need to exhibit or show forth that good. Believers are to shine forth the fruits of the Spirit and thus glorify the grace of Jesus Christ. An unbeliever doing good deeds is based on human motives apart from God and is only a hollow imitation compared to the real deal which is God doing the good work through the believer.
…..
The problem for the atheist is that there is no real moral standard that they can all agree upon, whereas the Christian is guided by a standard, which is God’s Word. The atheist may recognize injustice but they really cannot give a good explanation for it like the Bible does. What they offer is no hope, no meaning, and no purpose and no love. But God offers love, joy, peace, meaning, hope, and purpose. This is not merely a hollow statement but one can experience for themselves by having a relationship with Jesus Christ.
…..
…..
