Search results

You believe that God can work even through people who haven't heard His word, but you don't believe He can work through a poor translation? Wow.

You twist my words. Read the Preface to the Reader from the 1611 KJV.

That's hogwash; a lie made up by a KJV-only proponent, no doubt. The truth is that the Holy Spirit can work with no words at all. He speaks to Moslems through dreams. He spoke to Naaman without the word. He is not as limited as you claim. The reality is that God's word is truth, and as the...

I suspect you didn’t intend it, but your closing comment is hilariously ironic. :)

Here we go… 🙄

That's all well and good for Americans. However, this is an international forum, and there are Christians under far less "tolerable" government systems.

Versions do not have motivations; that's a reification fallacy. Your inability to accept the presence of errors does not negate their existence. No, they are forms that are no longer in common usage. They may be precise, but they are no more correct.

You make a good point, and completely undermine it with your closing sentence, which introduces speculative condemnation. If you have evidence showing that particular "elites" have ulterior motives, then by all means share it, but don't smear every scholar with that brush.

You keep using this tired argument, and you still do not embrace the fact what God can do doesn't hold any evidentiary power. What God has done is what matters. God did not inspire the KJV translation, and your argument is fallacious.

Which is, in a word, foolish. Better to translate directly from the original languages.

In which verse? Who is criticizing people for that reason?

No, He didn't. If you knew the context in which Jesus spoke those words (and were able to see through the fog of your Catholic errors), you would understand what Jesus was saying. He was not appointing Peter as His vicar! You would do well to read Hebrews again regarding the nature and...

That's called "circular reasoning" and it is fallacious.

"Such ways"? Whatever. I don't insult people directly, but ideas are fair game for criticism. Being straightforward and direct is not a sin, nor is treating folly as it deserves to be treated.

What "English standard"?

I disagree with your comments and interpretations of Scripture.

Thanks for your opinion. I take it whence it comes.

It is testimony to the hypocrisy of the KJV-only position. They claim that the KJV is the perfect English words, but these English words clearly are not "perfect".

"Merited all graces" is not a biblical concept. God the Father is the ultimate source of divine grace.

I said, "Scripture says absolutely nothing whatsoever about Mary having a throne, in Luke 1:28 or anywhere else." These two concepts do not go together to make a "throne of grace". Gabriel's greeting to Mary was not in any way a recognition or conveyance of power to extend grace. It was a...