Search results

The ‘pope’ has no connection to Peter, and any ‘authority’ the Peter held certainly would not transfer to an apostate institution.

I see you share your fellow KJV-only proponent’s penchant for stupid and insulting questions.

There is no need for remission where there is no sin, and it is impossible for us regular humans to "atone" for sin, so your question is meaningless.

I see you're too stubborn to accept that you're simply wrong.

Don't be so arrogant to think that you are "enlightening" me about anything. You're merely supporting the assertions you made. The Living Bible is a paraphrase, and anyone doing serious study knows that. Claims that "modern Bibles" say this or that are not evidence; they are hearsay at best...

I accept that the semantic range of "occult" includes "magic". Do you accept that its semantic range includes "secret"?

What an utterly ridiculous comment!

Not the chapter and verse numbers; those were added no earlier than the 16th century. They are not part of the original-language text. There is no "Revelation 13:18 principle", and as the chapter and verse numbers are not "of divine origin", you have no sound basis on which to assume prophetic...

Neither can you. ;)

So two respected dictionaries provide different definitions. Does that mean either is "wrong", or does it mean that the usage in the UK is different than that in the US. And how does the difference justify your insulting comments?

Faith comes by hearing... "the Word of God", not "the word of the KJV translators". I suppose you like making unfounded assumptions about me. There's that donkey again. You can believe whatever you like, but that doesn't make it real. Another disrespectful assumption. What do the words...

The question is a thinly-veiled attack on my character and beliefs, not, as you claim, "honest and fair". I will conclude that you would like me to treat you "honestly and fairly". I can do that.

Dodge. Do you concede the point or not?

That's opinion, not fact, and is irrelevant to the thread subject. Um, no. The Holy Spirit brought about the Great Awakening through the preaching of His servants. God is indeed wise, but these facts are irrelevant. Where is that in Scripture? Great claims require great evidence. The Holy...

Irrelevant. You claimed that "testament" and "covenant" are not the same thing. I demonstrated that they are. Are you going to concede the point, or just end the conversation as is your usual practice when you are shown to be wrong?

Where is that in Scripture? Again, where is that in Scripture? Um, no, it's not. For the third time, where is that in Scripture? Fourth time. And... number five. You're on a roll. Any other unbiblical speculation you want to add, while you're at it?

Correct. As you prefer the KJV, I’m sure you can interpret my statement. I’m not going to bother trying to have a respectful conversation with you if you keep asking questions like that.

I didn’t say it was a dumb question. Read my post again.

See my above comment, part 1.

I'll let you in on a well-known "secret": I don't tolerate dumb-donkey questions. It's best to avoid them. No, because Jesus tells us the meaning of the number; we aren't told to waste our time speculating.