Search results

You said it, but you don't see it. "God's righteousness which was the faith of Jesus Christ" ... as in "putting your faith in Jesus Christ". The text doesn't say, "For the faith of Christ is the end of the law...", but simply, "Christ is the end of the law...".

Yes... but faith in what? In Jesus' faith? No; faith in what we cannot see: the fulfillment of His promises.

Once again, in English?

No, you have faith in Jesus Christ therefore you are justified.

No, faith is the assurance of things not seen. Obedience is the outworking of faith, not the origin of it.

That isn't a start. It's not even an introduction. It's a link to a post on this site where you tout some book from D.A. Waite.

Faith "of" misleads you into thinking exactly what you think, instead of recognizing the intent of the passage which is to point you to Jesus as opposed to other potential "saviour" figures or belief systems.

The word, "begotten" is not a "doctrine". No doctrine is built on one word, or even one verse. Perhaps if you had learned proper hermeneutics you would make such silly claims.

Nope. Try again.

Nor in most other translations, because it's a poor choice of words that is misleading.

You spew a "reconciliation" for Ahaziah and reject EXACTLY THE SAME NATURE OF RECONILIATION for Goliath. Your hypocrisy disgusts me.

So many errors. The most blatantly obvious is "false dichotomy". There are more than the two options you provided. Your argument might seem plausible to the unthinking, but it's actually ridiculous. You're using an example of the original human author who again wrote the same words he was...

Clearly you still don't understand what a genetic fallacy is. Nor does "GRACE_ambassador" either, as he seconded your error.

This thread is not about the ESV. How old was Ahaziah when he became king? 22? or 42? Every word matters. How can you know the will of God if you don't have His perfect words?

Generally I agree with your post. One thing you might have clarified is that with the fall, the function of many microbial (and larger) entities was likely corrupted. I don't think God intended us to be plagued with mosquitos, fleas, and bedbugs.

Genetic fallacy. Invalid argument.

When you accept as valid the reconciliation of equivalent issues you find in other translations, we can discuss what I think of the reconciliation of issues in the KJV. You first.

Your point might be valid if this were a democratic issue, but it isn't. There are good reasons why the count of manuscripts in each type is what it is, and good reasons why the statistics are essentially irrelevant.

You have been told several times that your interpretation of this verse is faulty, but you continue to use this argument. That says much for you with regard to humility and integrity... none of it good.

The KJV has errors. Why do you refer to it as "God's word"? Would God's word have errors? Don't bother with "The KJV has no errors"; that's been solidly debunked. Just because you don't accept the reality of the errors present doesn't mean they aren't there for everyone (who isn't completely...