The Cambridge Declaration

Drop it already? No sir! Isn’t this thread concerning following, preaching and believing the Bible? Scripture alone? I was merely addressing the huge issue DB7 has with the KJV.

You fight your battles and I’ll defend mine.

#eraofthenewversions 😀

"Huge issue"? Um, no. Disagreement with your position, perhaps.

Exactly what complaint(s) do you have with the Declaration that you would post the following?

In the era of these new versions since 1881, the Age of Laodicea, the Church has gone away from Scripture and is full of emotional blah and preachers who claim more authority than God’s word. Not only that, but the Church is not going out preaching the gospel like those of old.

I’ll give you an example of what I mean. Preacher reads scripture and follows that by saying, “a better way to say this is...or a better translation is...” This makes the preacher final authority rather than God’s word.

Final authority is lost with many versions.

In the era of these new versions since 1881, the Age of Laodicea, the Church has gone away from Scripture and is full of emotional blah and preachers who claim more authority than God’s word. Not only that, but the Church is not going out preaching the gospel like those of old.

I’ll give you an example of what I mean. Preacher reads scripture and follows that by saying, “a better way to say this is...or a better translation is...” This makes the preacher final authority rather than God’s word.

Final authority is lost with many versions.

If someone wants to take the position that newer translations are in error, I suggest that they learn both Hebrew and Greek.



I personally use the ESV and I think it is great. The NIV isn't bad either, as long as one considers that it is a thought-for-thought translation.

But, if others want to translate "fetch a compass" into modern English (it means to go around, so don't go rummaging through your drawers for a compass), feel free

If someone wants to take the position that newer translations are in error, I suggest that they learn both Hebrew and Greek.



I personally use the ESV and I think it is great. The NIV isn't bad either, as long as one considers that it is a thought-for-thought translation.

But, if others want to translate "fetch a compass" into modern English (it means to go around, so don't go rummaging through your drawers for a compass), feel free

How darest thou translate the exalted KJV into moderne English! Thou heathen, thou!

In the era of these new versions since 1881, the Age of Laodicea, the Church has gone away from Scripture and is full of emotional blah and preachers who claim more authority than God’s word. Not only that, but the Church is not going out preaching the gospel like those of old.

I’ll give you an example of what I mean. Preacher reads scripture and follows that by saying, “a better way to say this is...or a better translation is...” This makes the preacher final authority rather than God’s word.

Final authority is lost with many versions.

what makes you think this time started at 1881? what happened in that year?

Do you believe in sola scripture? Do you trust every word? If so, where is the Scripture that contains the whole truth and never lies?

A faithful witness will not lie.

If you claim the KJV and the Textus Receptus are inerrant, I feel sorry for you.

I know they are not inerrant.

Inerrancy is in the autographs (original documents). Scribal errors have crept in. We are able to get back to a reasonable level of accuracy through textual analysis.

Modern translations are based on much more manuscript evidence of an older nature, therefore they reflect the original documents better.

Even the Textus Receptus and KJV are not so bad that they are useless..they were state-of-the-art back when Erasmus and the KJV translators were living.

I will forgive the fact that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest who wrote romantic letters to men, and King James was into guys too.

I already covered this in another thread.

Can you post a verse out of the KJV which is a lie? And please don’t come with Easter, I’ve refuted this many, many times.

By your testimony, we have no word of God today that can be trusted since only the destroyed originals contained absolute truth.

I wonder what God thinks of the originals since He did not preserve them for all generations? We’re told to live by the words of God and yet, we don’t have them. Guess God will excuse us.

Show me your proof that pascha should be translated as "Easter", when all other references are translated "Passover".

As well, do you realize that Erasmus had no complete Greek manuscript to translate Revelation from? He back-translated part of it from the Vulgate, if I remember right...either that or a commentary. He did not have the last six verses.

And, no existing manuscript has the Greek that he used for Revelation.

By the way, I'm not going to spend time arguing with KJV/Textus Receptus Onlyists..I'll throw you a few bones out there, but I've heard them claim the most ridiculous stuff in order to maintain their belief system.

They are free to hold their view as an article of their faith. I'm not going to be convinced Guys like Steven Anderson, Gene Kim, Peter Ruckman, and Gail Riplinger have zero credibility to me. You can listen to their teachings in other areas and see that they are kooky.

Beginning of the revised version.

i dont know about the kjv... its a new version. i stick with the geneva bible

By the way, when you produce your evidence for Passover, ask yourself if your explanation conclusively proves that Easter is the proper translation before presenting it to me. If it is a "rescue device" (some explanation a KJVer has developed to maintain his belief system), I don't think you should present it to me because I'm likely to be able to refute it.

At the "time" when the Spirit "thought it good", to elicit such an unction, or decree, unto the Disciples and Apostles, unto the gentiles, and yea, even to the Jews to abstain from eating meat sacrificed unto idols?
God seen NO LAW as causing "man" to be "righteous" in His eyes! Save, the believing in Him, whom He sent. And Him, crucified. And Him, raised from the dead by His (God's) "Spirit." That "Him", being Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
No! I would not consider them "legalists", at all!
It must have been pretty hard, for the "faithful converted Jewish" Disciples, and Apostles in their coming up with "something" to give cause for "the gentiles" to be "physically seen"(outwardly), by their peers, as well as to the "Jewish converts" that they had "converted."
That, however, was 2,000+ years ago!
Molten "images", being able to be fashioned by mens hands, have changed "shapes" over the course of 2,000+ years since Jesus walked the earth.
Yet? They are STILL idols!
Are they not?
Granted! Harder in the "discerning."
Idols, just the same.


At that time? It would have made what Jesus just accomplished, just as guilty as the scribes and pharasees, and therefore to none effect.

Final authority is lost with many versions.

You don't want to use Sam Gipp's claim that it couldn't refer to Passover because it precedes the Days of Unleavened Bread.

The whole period was called the Passover, including Nisan 14-22, by the time of Jesus. The Passover was associated with the entire period.

Gipp is another weird one.

By the way, I find it amusing that Steven Anderson tries to distance himself from Gipp and Ruckman because he knows they are weird