Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[GWH]

See my posts here, and here (which includes verses).

When Google first launched, many people resisted using it. Critics complained it was too simple: just a blank search page with no content, unlike other search engines of the time. Similarly, early internet adoption faced resistance from people citing the same concerns now raised against AI: unfamiliarity, uncertainty, and distrust of new technology.

Yet like search engines and the internet before it, AI is simply a tool, one that requires the same critical thinking we should apply to any information source. AI can make errors, which is why using multiple AI platforms (like Perplexity.ai) and verifying sources is essential. But this standard should already apply to traditional Google searches too. Not all articles are truthful, and not all sources are unbiased, regardless of how you find them.

My own experience illustrates AI's practical value. I've used ChatGPT to upload a photo of my shaving blades and identify which trims the least from my goatee. When I needed replacement grill plates but didn't know which size to order, it analyzed a photo of the small print on my grill's back panel and directed me to the correct product on Amazon. During a vacation, my wife and I encountered an unlabeled stacked washer-dryer unit with 4 to 5 compartments. A photo helped ChatGPT identify which compartment was for detergent, and it worked. For Bible study, ChatGPT helps me locate hard-to-find verses in the KJV and provides word-by-word Greek analysis from Beza's printed edition, which I can verify against BlueLetter.

AI isn't replacing human judgment. It's augmenting it, just like every transformative tool before it.

Circumstantial evidence? Circumstantial in my view would not be overwhelming repeat patterns of corruptions. That goes beyond coincidence, my friend. Then again, you would have to maybe read my free PDFs several times for you to see what I am talking about here.

Like any biblical doctrine, I believe that God reveals the truth of that doctrine by His spirit. This would be an illumination or quite revelation from God. Its like realizing that the Bible alone is our final word of authority for all matters of faith and practice. Only God can reveal such a truth to a person.

Big ways to learn in this area is in 3 places.

Deeply familiarize yourself with:

#1. My two free PDFs at www.affectionsabove.com:​

(a) King James Bible vs. Modern Bibles; 77 Changed Doctrines.​

(b) KJV vs. Modern Bibles: A Side-by-Side Doctrinal and Textual Comparison​

​

#2. KJVCompare.com (Brandon Peterson's site)​

​

#3. Nick Sayers Revolution Debates YouTube Channel (Live Streams).​

https://www.youtube.com/@NickSayersRevolution/streams​

Nick is a street preacher in Australia and he has been talking about textual issues for a very long time. His testimony in coming to Christ is very powerful. I learned a lot from Nick's channel, even though I may not agree with everything he says or believes. His live stream videos are sometimes really long and they can go on for about 4 hours sometimes. If it is a stream I am interested in, and I am limited on time, I will watch in parts throughout the week or so. But if you really want to know the textual issues, he is probably the most entertaining and informative person on the topic right now on YouTube.

There are only two options today. Believe there is a settled text, which is the TR / KJV believer position, or you believe in a shape shifter text that never stops shape shifting or changing. Your Bible that you get to pick and choose readings in that exist only in your mind will differ from the other believer who holds to the same belief as you do. You will both disagree on what should be in or out of the Bible and that's not the impression we get when we hear Jesus and His followers refer to Scripture. This is why the "No Settled Text" belief is nonsense and highly illogical. You would not buy a house based on multiple conflicting contracts. It doesn't make any sense.

Chapter and verse. See, you are just going off your own thinking here. How do you know there was not any competing corrupted texts at the time? In fact, Paul said that there were those who had been corrupting the Word of God.

Yet, your modern Bibles say it was about peddling, or selling. See! Your Modern Bible is hiding what has actually happened. God's word had been corrupted (i.e., there was a parallel corrupted version in existence along with the pure and correct version).

This is my PDF and my site. You are free to talk about them.
It does not mean I will engage with you in all of them.
.....

Thanks, BH, those links are very helpful. Regarding #1,015&16, I replied in #1,017 that I agreed distinguishing the Godhead by roles (God the Father as creator or initiator per Gen. 1:1, God the Son as Messiah or mediator per 1Tim. 2:5, and God the Spirit as indweller per Rom. 5:5) is not meant to divorce divine unity, meaning the distinctions are "not an absolute pattern" and that "Jesus did not act independently" and that Scripture "does not limit indwelling to the Spirit alone" and that "the Father also indwells believers" and "the Son is also capable of indwelling believers".

I repeated this agreement regarding denoting the distinctions per Scripture by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13) and said it would be interesting to find out how many times each preposition is associated with each member of the Godhead.

Thus, I agreed with you, although you disagreed with me. Go figure!

Regarding creation, I agreed that pantheism is wrong, but I asked how you envision the connection between God and creation other than as omnipresence--for which I am awaiting your answer.

Regarding AI, I know how to google, but not much else/more.

Regarding illumination, I thought I saw you applying it to the transmission of GW for preserving accuracy, with which I agree, although I don't identify GW with the KJV. IOW, I think the process that resulted in the TR/KJV or MEBs was like making sausage, but the end result is profitable or sufficient for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, even though it is not perfectly dictated or written on stone by God Himself.

Re your PDF, as you saw, I commented on #1-10, so the ball is in your court if you want to engage.
I may check out Nick Sayers.

Over...

 

[rewriter]

Okay, and here are some other grains of sand or discrepancies in GW along with possible resolutions:

Jam. 2:24 justified by faith with works faith produces fruit (v. 14-19)
Rom. 3:28 justified by faith apart from law faith is followed by fruit (Gal. 5:6, Eph. 2:10)

Luke 23:46 last words were “Father, into…” Jesus said both, but witnesses heard or remembered
John 19:30 last words were “It is finished.” only one.

Mark 10:46 a blind man There were two, but the witness in Mark saw or
Matt. 20:30 two blind men remembered only one.

2Sam. 24:1 Lord incited David God allowed Satan to incite David.
1Chron. 21:1 Satan incited David

Gen. 2:17 die on day sin is committed “die” refers to spiritual death or separation from God
Gen. 5:5 lived 930 years before dying

Gen. 20:11-12 Sarah is Abraham’s half sister law was not given until time of Moses
Lev. 20:17 brother should not marry sister

John 20:22 disciples received the Holy Spirit received is not necessarily filling
Acts 2:1-4 disciples were filled by the H.S.

Matt. 5:44 love your enemies the latter speaks of not being pleased
Matt. 7:1 the Lord hated Esau

2Chr. 36:22-23 identical with Ezra 1:1-3a the copier needed coffee
Ezra 1:1-3a identical with 2Chr. 36:22-23

Yes, there are numerous "grains of sand". I first learned to look only at what is approved and found confirmation for what I had been taught and reasons to discredit what some others taught. Then I was reminded that advances in knowledge only occur when one looks at the difficult areas, not the well-studied ones and was encouraged by several professors to look at points that I found troublesome. Doing so I found a lot of evidence of a coverup, and excellent reason existing in the first few centuries of Christianity for such a coverup to exist. Now most professors who have reviewed the first part of my research proclaim that I am dealing with the problematic issues better and more consistently than they have ever seen before, although at the expense of tradition which would logically have developed from a very plausible coverup. I cite Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud, numismatics and recent archeological finds.
for instance, did you know that archeology knows of multiple Jewish temples existing at the same time and in communication with each other? It seems likely that over the 1100+ year history of Jerusalem temples there were maybe 2-300 years with only one Jewish temple, and the last Jewish temple was destroyed in 73 CE, three years after the 2nd Jerusalem temple? Likely about half the time there was only one temple, the temple was not in Jerusalem. And that is not considering all the "holy places" that have been found by archeology, many appearing to have been closed but not destroyed and many that were destroyed seem to have been destroyed by someone other than official Judaism.

And I especially love your explanation for the problem with 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-3a

 

[GWH]

Yes, there are numerous "grains of sand". I first learned to look only at what is approved and found confirmation for what I had been taught and reasons to discredit what some others taught. Then I was reminded that advances in knowledge only occur when one looks at the difficult areas, not the well-studied ones and was encouraged by several professors to look at points that I found troublesome. Doing so I found a lot of evidence of a coverup, and excellent reason existing in the first few centuries of Christianity for such a coverup to exist. Now most professors who have reviewed the first part of my research proclaim that I am dealing with the problematic issues better and more consistently than they have ever seen before, although at the expense of tradition which would logically have developed from a very plausible coverup. I cite Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud, numismatics and recent archeological finds.
for instance, did you know that archeology knows of multiple Jewish temples existing at the same time and in communication with each other? It seems likely that over the 1100+ year history of Jerusalem temples there were maybe 2-300 years with only one Jewish temple, and the last Jewish temple was destroyed in 73 CE, three years after the 2nd Jerusalem temple? Likely about half the time there was only one temple, the temple was not in Jerusalem. And that is not considering all the "holy places" that have been found by archeology, many appearing to have been closed but not destroyed and many that were destroyed seem to have been destroyed by someone other than official Judaism.

And I especially love your explanation for the problem with 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-3a

Well, the only cover-up to be concerned about is the one cited and refuted in Matt. 28:12-15.

Regarding the "coffee error", we must accept the fact that all involved with producing our extant Scriptures were fallible, and GW does not teach that anyone was conceived immaculately other than Jesus. (Even Paul had a few rough edges.)

 

[rewriter]

Well, the only cover-up to be concerned about is the one cited and refuted in Matt. 28:12-15.

Regarding the "coffee error", we must accept the fact that all involved with producing our extant Scriptures were fallible, and GW does not teach that anyone was conceived immaculately other than Jesus. (Even Paul had a few rough edges.)

I must thank you as I have sat here after reading your comment about "grains of sand", I was reminded on something I was taught by many people. To combine both, I would say if your research does not generate grains of sand that irritate you, are you really doing research or just confirming what you want to be true.

I suspect Paul had some serious rough edges. But I see plausible connections between Paul, John, Wisdom of Solomon, 4th Maccabees and Euripides. Those plausible connections are both a large grain of sand and potential evidence of a huge coverup. But they also allow for Acts 2, Luke's version of the parable of the wine skins, women's hair in Corinthians, virgin birth comments in Ephesians (and it must be Pauline) and 2 Tim 3:16, just to name a few.

I still don't have a good explanation for the missing Corinthian correspondence though, just that there must be at least one missing letter.

 

[GWH]

I must thank you as I have sat here after reading your comment about "grains of sand", I was reminded on something I was taught by many people. To combine both, I would say if your research does not generate grains of sand that irritate you, are you really doing research or just confirming what you want to be true.

I suspect Paul had some serious rough edges. But I see plausible connections between Paul, John, Wisdom of Solomon, 4th Maccabees and Euripides. Those plausible connections are both a large grain of sand and potential evidence of a huge coverup. But they also allow for Acts 2, Luke's version of the parable of the wine skins, women's hair in Corinthians, virgin birth comments in Ephesians (and it must be Pauline) and 2 Tim 3:16, just to name a few.

I still don't have a good explanation for the missing Corinthian correspondence though, just that there must be at least one missing letter.

Re bias confirmation: As an older teenager I was aware of claims that the Bible must be perfect,
so it was disconcerting to find sand as I read it completely through for the first time.
Being raised in a SBC church, one of the largest grains I found was that OSAS was contradicted by 16+ passages.
Considering all evidence and sides of an issue is what is called dialectical theology.

Regarding Paul's rough edges: He admitted in 1Cor. that some of what he taught was his own opinion,
and one of those teachings/opinions IMO was blaming Eve for the first sin when Gen.3 clearly portrays them as partners in crime.

Your references to the other items are too vague for me to comment, and I am not sure what coverup you mean.

Yes, there appears to be a missing epistle to the Corinthians and another to the Laodiceans.

 

[GWH]

Re bias confirmation: As an older teenager I was aware of claims that the Bible must be perfect,
so it was disconcerting to find sand as I read it completely through for the first time.
Being raised in a SBC church, one of the largest grains I found was that OSAS was contradicted by 16+ passages.
Considering all evidence and sides of an issue is what is called dialectical theology.

Regarding Paul's rough edges: He admitted in 1Cor. that some of what he taught was his own opinion,
and one of those teachings/opinions IMO was blaming Eve for the first sin when Gen.3 clearly portrays them as partners in crime.

Your references to the other items are too vague for me to comment, and I am not sure what coverup you mean.

Yes, there appears to be a missing epistle to the Corinthians and another to the Laodiceans.

 

[rewriter]

Re bias confirmation: As an older teenager I was aware of claims that the Bible must be perfect,
so it was disconcerting to find sand as I read it completely through for the first time.
Being raised in a SBC church, one of the largest grains I found was that OSAS was contradicted by 16+ passages.
Considering all evidence and sides of an issue is what is called dialectical theology.

Regarding Paul's rough edges: He admitted in 1Cor. that some of what he taught was his own opinion,
and one of those teachings/opinions IMO was blaming Eve for the first sin when Gen.3 clearly portrays them as partners in crime.

Your references to the other items are too vague for me to comment, and I am not sure what coverup you mean.

Yes, there appears to be a missing epistle to the Corinthians and another to the Laodiceans.

The coverup would have to do with what the attitude was of the Christians regarding the 1st Jewish War. Given how the rebelling Jews and Christians were treated during the conflict compared to how rebelling Britons were treated just a few years prior is suggestive. Then when other points from ignored history as well as what appear to be parallels between NT writings and various classical works are added in, there is excellent reason to deny some history. For one thing, Paul might not have made it back to Jerusalem in 58, he might have been sent to Rome under guard instead and then mercifully exiled to Spain by Nero, but such could not be admitted any more than the probable reason that Herod the Great lost his "friend of Rome" status or that Antipas was exiled. Agrippa I also seems to have run afoul of the same issue, as did Pilate, and Caiaphas. But full explanations take book chapters, not limited online postings.

The issue of just what "sin" is would be another extensive review. It does not appear to be a simple violation of what God says not to do. And there are other issues that are rather large grains of sand that I have run across in some 50 years of examining scripture and ancient records.

 

[Blue155]

People generally find what they want to find.

 

[rewriter]

True, if someone wants to find that tradition is correct, they can find tradition correct. That is why I make a point to consult with various other scholars to make certain that what I am seeing can be seen by others. Even when I am relying on things that have been seen by highly regarded scholars, by both liberal and conservative scholars, since the early 20th century. C.H. Dodd, early 20th century Johannine scholar, Rudolph Bultmann, mid 20th century Johannine scholar and Raymond Brown, late 20th century Johannine scholar all spotted the same inconvenient point that I use. What I do is to connect it to more material than they chose to, but no scholar I have consulted can point out an error in my connections, rather they are surprised that they missed it. But that's okay, these scholars are the ones who taught your teachers.

 

[NightTwister]

Yes, there appears to be a missing epistle to the Corinthians and another to the Laodiceans.

Are you suggesting that there was inspired scripture that wasn't preserved by God?

 

[rewriter]

GWH merely agrees with me, and with most biblical scholars, that there are references in Paul to letters he wrote that we know nothing about. And since we have no clear standard by which to determine is something was inspired, Paul's comment in 2 Tim 3:16 is vaguer than most people realize, I doubt anyone can say with certainty if the lost letters were inspired or not. Remember, Paul himself admits that he occasionally is giving his own words, not God's.

 

[Blue155]

The statement which says, “we have no clear standard” in regards to whether something is inspiration of God, all while immediately talking about judging whether lost letters were inspired, is contradictory. If there is truly no standard, then one cannot make any claim or doubt about what was inspired.

 

[Blue155]

John 16:12-13; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Peter 3:15-16.

 

[Blue155]

1 Corinthians 2:4-5; Galatians 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:8, 15.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Thanks, BH, those links are very helpful. Regarding #1,015&16, I replied in #1,017 that I agreed distinguishing the Godhead by roles (God the Father as creator or initiator per Gen. 1:1, God the Son as Messiah or mediator per 1Tim. 2:5, and God the Spirit as indweller per Rom. 5:5) is not meant to divorce divine unity, meaning the distinctions are "not an absolute pattern" and that "Jesus did not act independently" and that Scripture "does not limit indwelling to the Spirit alone" and that "the Father also indwells believers" and "the Son is also capable of indwelling believers".

I repeated this agreement regarding denoting the distinctions per Scripture by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13) and said it would be interesting to find out how many times each preposition is associated with each member of the Godhead.

Thus, I agreed with you, although you disagreed with me. Go figure!

You're not getting it. While you may agree with me now, at the time you made a statement that suggested or implied otherwise. Your previous statement was wrong to suggest that only the Spirit indwells believers while saying in the same sentence that the Son does not indwell believers, by the fact that He is only with them and not in them and that the Father is over all (and yet not in them).

Regarding creation, I agreed that pantheism is wrong, but I asked how you envision the connection between God and creation other than as omnipresence--for which I am awaiting your answer.

The view you described sounded like Pantheism. I know of no other in-between possession between that heretical doctrine and Omnipresence. Not sure if that is anything I want to explore, either. Really busy lately.

Regarding AI, I know how to google, but not much else/more.

I don't think it is something you can escape unless you become Amish. Ai's will be in all future computers, mobile devices, smart phones, etc.

Actually, Ai's make things easier to work a computer. You don't normally have to sign in to ask it questions. But setting up an account and signing in can help you to upload images and analyze them like I described in my previous post. It has already taken the place of the popularity of the old version of Google. In fact, you already use Ai if you use Google. However, Google's ai is not as good for general informational searches or learning biblical topics. You talk to it like you would talk to me. It's not complicated. The only danger is not asking for sources to confirm what it says when it comes to certain controversial topics. It can make mistakes but it is just a software program. It is a tool, just like the internet is a tool. Nothing more.

Regarding illumination, I thought I saw you applying it to the transmission of GW for preserving accuracy, with which I agree, although I don't identify GW with the KJV. IOW, I think the process that resulted in the TR/KJV or MEBs was like making sausage, but the end result is profitable or sufficient for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, even though it is not perfectly dictated or written on stone by God Himself.

Its a popular belief but it is not accurate because the commands are even different between the KJV vs. Modern Bibles.
These commands that are good are removed in the Modern Versions. For example, the command not to fellowship with believers who think gain is godliness is removed in Modern Bibles. But you would not know that unless you had a King James Bible.

Re your PDF, as you saw, I commented on #1-10, so the ball is in your court if you want to engage.

We already went over a few of them and you did not offer any counter evidence to show that my understanding on them was not true. You offered only opinion or possibility as truth and you are failing to see why these changes are actually really bad. It's not up to me to try and convince you. Only God can do that if you pray and ask Him to show you what I see on this topic. In other words, pray and then keep an open mind and then look at the list again (All of them).

I may check out Nick Sayers.

Just make sure you only check out his "Live" tab videos on his channel and not the videos tab.
All of his good videos are under this "Live" tab section. Granted, not all topics may interest you, but there are some really good ones, and you can comment live when he does a live stream as long as you are not overly antagonistic to the TR / KJV position.



Nick Sayers used to be an atheist like me before coming to Jesus Christ. Nick was radically changed by Jesus when he accepted him as His Savior. He has a really great story or testimony in His coming to Christ.




....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Thanks, BH, those links are very helpful. Regarding #1,015&16, I replied in #1,017 that I agreed distinguishing the Godhead by roles (God the Father as creator or initiator per Gen. 1:1, God the Son as Messiah or mediator per 1Tim. 2:5, and God the Spirit as indweller per Rom. 5:5) is not meant to divorce divine unity, meaning the distinctions are "not an absolute pattern" and that "Jesus did not act independently" and that Scripture "does not limit indwelling to the Spirit alone" and that "the Father also indwells believers" and "the Son is also capable of indwelling believers".

I repeated this agreement regarding denoting the distinctions per Scripture by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13) and said it would be interesting to find out how many times each preposition is associated with each member of the Godhead.

Thus, I agreed with you, although you disagreed with me. Go figure!

Regarding creation, I agreed that pantheism is wrong, but I asked how you envision the connection between God and creation other than as omnipresence--for which I am awaiting your answer.

Regarding AI, I know how to google, but not much else/more.

Regarding illumination, I thought I saw you applying it to the transmission of GW for preserving accuracy, with which I agree, although I don't identify GW with the KJV. IOW, I think the process that resulted in the TR/KJV or MEBs was like making sausage, but the end result is profitable or sufficient for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, even though it is not perfectly dictated or written on stone by God Himself.

Re your PDF, as you saw, I commented on #1-10, so the ball is in your court if you want to engage.
I may check out Nick Sayers.

Over...

Nick makes a good point in his recent video about Modern Textual Criticism compared to the Textual Criticism done by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza Greek Textus Receptus editions. These Textus Receptus editons ultimately led to the King James Bible.

....

 

[GWH]

The coverup would have to do with what the attitude was of the Christians regarding the 1st Jewish War. Given how the rebelling Jews and Christians were treated during the conflict compared to how rebelling Britons were treated just a few years prior is suggestive. Then when other points from ignored history as well as what appear to be parallels between NT writings and various classical works are added in, there is excellent reason to deny some history. For one thing, Paul might not have made it back to Jerusalem in 58, he might have been sent to Rome under guard instead and then mercifully exiled to Spain by Nero, but such could not be admitted any more than the probable reason that Herod the Great lost his "friend of Rome" status or that Antipas was exiled. Agrippa I also seems to have run afoul of the same issue, as did Pilate, and Caiaphas. But full explanations take book chapters, not limited online postings.

The issue of just what "sin" is would be another extensive review. It does not appear to be a simple violation of what God says not to do. And there are other issues that are rather large grains of sand that I have run across in some 50 years of examining scripture and ancient records.

I certainly do not desire for you to post more than a paragraph on each, but I would like a little more specificity regarding:
1. What was the attitude of what Christians that suggested what?
2. What ignored historical points and parallels provide excellent reason to deny what history?
3. Why should the possibility of Paul's exile to Spain be admitted?
4. Why does what happened to Herod, Agrippa, Pilate and Caiaphas matter?
5. What problematic definition of sin is in Scripture?
Thanks.

 

[GWH]

GWH merely agrees with me, and with most biblical scholars, that there are references in Paul to letters he wrote that we know nothing about. And since we have no clear standard by which to determine is something was inspired, Paul's comment in 2 Tim 3:16 is vaguer than most people realize, I doubt anyone can say with certainty if the lost letters were inspired or not. Remember, Paul himself admits that he occasionally is giving his own words, not God's.

Yes, Paul was inspired, but what is called "dynamically", meaning that not every word/point was perfectly dictated by God/Christ, such as Paul's blaming only Eve for the first sin (2Cor. 11:3, 1Tim. 2:14, vice Gen. 3:6-8, cf. 1Cor. 7:6-12, 25).

 

[GWH]

You're not getting it. While you may agree with me now, at the time you made a statement that suggested or implied otherwise. Your previous statement was wrong to suggest that only the Spirit indwells believers while saying in the same sentence that the Son does not indwell believers, by the fact that He is only with them and not in them and that the Father is over all (and yet not in them).

The view you described sounded like Pantheism. I know of no other in-between possession between that heretical doctrine and Omnipresence. Not sure if that is anything I want to explore, either. Really busy lately.

I don't think it is something you can escape unless you become Amish. Ai's will be in all future computers, mobile devices, smart phones, etc.

Actually, Ai's make things easier to work a computer. You don't normally have to sign in to ask it questions. But setting up an account and signing in can help you to upload images and analyze them like I described in my previous post. It has already taken the place of the popularity of the old version of Google. In fact, you already use Ai if you use Google. However, Google's ai is not as good for general informational searches or learning biblical topics. You talk to it like you would talk to me. It's not complicated. The only danger is not asking for sources to confirm what it says when it comes to certain controversial topics. It can make mistakes but it is just a software program. It is a tool, just like the internet is a tool. Nothing more.

Its a popular belief but it is not accurate because the commands are even different between the KJV vs. Modern Bibles.
These commands that are good are removed in the Modern Versions. For example, the command not to fellowship with believers who think gain is godliness is removed in Modern Bibles. But you would not know that unless you had a King James Bible.

We already went over a few of them and you did not offer any counter evidence to show that my understanding on them was not true. You offered only opinion or possibility as truth and you are failing to see why these changes are actually really bad. It's not up to me to try and convince you. Only God can do that if you pray and ask Him to show you what I see on this topic. In other words, pray and then keep an open mind and then look at the list again (All of them).

Just make sure you only check out his "Live" tab videos on his channel and not the videos tab.
All of his good videos are under this "Live" tab section. Granted, not all topics may interest you, but there are some really good ones, and you can comment live when he does a live stream as long as you are not overly antagonistic to the TR / KJV position.

View attachment 284517

Nick Sayers used to be an atheist like me before coming to Jesus Christ. Nick was radically changed by Jesus when he accepted him as His Savior. He has a really great story or testimony in His coming to Christ.
....

I agreed with you both now and then; do not add "only" to what I said then,
but if you disagree with saying they may be distinguished by roles,
please explain how you distinguish them.

Omnipresence is not pantheism.

Re AI, my son has helped me use Suno to put music to my poems, which we should have in postable format soon.

My NIV commands not partnering with nonbelievers (Eph. 5:7), but I am not sure what "command not to fellowship" you find in 1Tim. 6:3-11, although that is implied.

Yes, I commented on 10 of the 77, offering my understanding regarding them, which often agreed with yours.
Yes, I fail to see why some of the alternate translations "are actually really bad", especially those with footnotes re the KJV.
If you want to discuss some of them further, that is up to you. I may get around to more of them and Nick in time. Thanks for the info. TTYL, HAND, GWH(/BH)

 

[GWH]

Are you suggesting that there was inspired scripture that wasn't preserved by God?

Apparently per 1Cor. 5:9 and Col. 4:16.