Search results

Unfortunately you just engaged in eisegesis. There is nothing whatsoever in the text that speaks of “the faith of Jesus” or “His faith”. I would suggest you take off your preconception glasses and read it again. ;)

None of this commentary relates to the thread topic.

Wrong. I listen to people who don’t agree with me as well as those who do. Many people on this forum have stated that they find the archaic language of the KJV bothersome so they use a modern version. That has nothing to do with my “personal opinion”. As for “data”, this is a discussion...

Clearly, you don’t pay attention to anyone who doesn’t prefer the KJV.

Just when you thought you had the Trinity figured out, you discover this:

That’s inconsistent with both Scripture and the experience of millions of Christians. Read Acts 15.

This is a perfect example of unusual usage obfuscating meaning. I can think of several ways to explain why "faith in" is the better rendering... but I'm tired and not inclined to articulate them. In short, "faith of" is illogical and inconsistent with the whole counsel of Scripture.

I didn’t. I “labelled” it as “written in 16th-century English”, because it was written in 16th-century English, not because it contains strange words. Sheesh….

I wonder why anyone expects a non-Christian to make true statements about Christianity. ;)

As I provided an explanation with that statement, implying that “Yes, it is” was the whole argument is disingenuous.

Letter shapes and spelling have changed. Print runs in the last 100 years (at the very least) use updated form and spelling. I haven’t attempted to defend my point with, “Yes, it is” so your comment is baseless at best.

You arrogantly assume that most Christians don’t have the Holy Spirit. What you clearly do not understand is that those without the Holy Spirit are not Christians.

Which reinforces my point that it was written in 16th-century English. Why is this so hard for people to accept?

Who says the desire for a partner is "our own ambition over the Lords (sic) will"? Is it not possible, and even likely, that marriage is the Lord's will for most? Those who are called to celibacy are content in it because it is a specific gift from the Lord. Those not given that gift typically...

The men who penned the KJV were all mature adults by 1600, which is the beginning of the 17th century. They would have learned English during their formative years... in the 16th century. I'm confident they did not pander to linguistic fads only a decade old or less. ;)

I am not in need of explanations, thanks. I am also well aware of the reference material. The fact remains that the KJV was written in 16th-century English. That some and even most words have not changed is irrelevant. Many modern readers find it sufficiently incomprehensible as to reject it in...

The Pharisees were under the Law, as were all the Israelites at that time. Jesus spoke to them in their context. His words here were not prescriptive for Gentile Christians. Note also that they "ought to have done"... past tense. Jesus knew the Law had a time-limited applicability for believers.

Yes, it is. Why do you think it contains words strange to modern readers like "wimples", "beesom", and "thou"? It was penned by scholars who were already adults by the time the 16th century turned into the 17th, so their language was from the previous. If you think otherwise, I welcome you to...

With respect, you missed the point. Spiritual maturity is not dependent on the place one meets... at all, whether it's a house church, a Roman audience hall, a modern megachurch theatre, or a prison fellowship in a lunchroom. Your experience and mine are both irrelevant to the point.

The opening thread is not directed towards people who read the KJV every day.