Search results

Bahahahahahahahahaha! What colour is the sky in your world? Are you so brainwashed that you can't see the contradiction?

Now... when will you develop the integrity to act on those words?

You haven't "debunked" it at all, ever. That's because it is impossible to "debunk" what is plainly evident: 2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel...

The rock in this case is the theological assertion that precedes this verse. Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others...

I'm not needing "help", but thanks for the effort. I pointed out this contradiction again because it is so patently clear and completely undermines John146's argument. One day, he might even admit it.

That's a gross misuse of the text and has nothing to do with the context.

Daniel 3:12 KJV "they serve not thy gods" Daniel 3:12 Hebrew palehin la lelahak (the last word is translated "your gods"). v. 14 KJV "do not ye serve my gods" v. 14 Heb the word is lelahay, clearly similar; v. 15 KJV "who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?" v. 15 Heb elah...

I have addressed this error before, more than once. Given that Nebuchadnezzar did not believe until later in the God of the Hebrews, and even then probably did not believe He is unique nor that He has a Son, it is extremely unlikely that he would say, "the Son of God", and highly likely that he...

Your argument doesn't hold water. There are two possibilities which, in the absence of other significant evidence, must be treated as equally likely: - that "and with fire" was added; or, - that "and with fire" was omitted. Without other significant evidence (theological importance wouldn't...

As you know, the KJV is internally inconsistent regarding the age of Ahaziah at his accession to the throne. Therefore, to your question, the KJV is not trustworthy. ;) Care to try again with a real consequence that arises from differences between the KJV and other translations? That is your...

Yet you are unable to demonstrate any actual consequences arising from any difference. You only have speculations.

Again, you misrepresent the facts. Differences are not "deviations from the Received Text". To be so, we would have to be certain that the Received Text matches the text penned by the apostles. We cannot be certain of that.

The presence of differences does not logically lead to the conclusion that the majority text is corrupted. On the basis of mere differences, it is equally valid to claim that the so-called "received text" is the corrupt one.

The first is KJV-only propaganda. I haven't watched the second.

Okay then. When you're ready to admit that the KJV is inadequate, let me know.

Or, be intentionally ignorant while throwing shade at those who humble themselves, do their homework, and learn the truth of the matter.

We weren't discussing the OT.

If you refuse to consider the original languages, and consequently don't understand the Scripture, that's your choice. Don't bother trying to tell others what it means.