Search results

I have proven that the KJV contradicts itself regarding Ahaziah’s age.

Q: Which Scripture told Abraham to move from Ur, or Elijah to go to Zarephath, or Philip to go to the Gaza road, or Paul to go to Macedonia? A: NONE. The Holy Spirit told these men to go where they went. The Holy Spirit still speaks to His people... outside of Scripture. So, the answer to...

You have "debunked" nothing. Rather, you have merely provided the explanations that satisfy you.

"Over and over"? That means several times in Scripture. Show us the evidence.

At least once, yes. While it is generally recognized among Christians that these texts have limited didactic value, remember that the Holy Spirit can speak to you through (or about) any passage of Scripture... and it is quite edifying when He reveals little nuggets of knowledge and wisdom when...

And "farthing" apparently, which also did not exist in 1st century Palestine (credit to PostHuman for pointing this one out). See Matthew 5:26, 10:29; Mark 12:42, or Luke 12:6.

And even where the word gives two different ages for Ahaziah when he started his reign. 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. 2 Chronicles 22:2...

That's your opinion, I disagree, and that's not my point anyway. "Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." "Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever." Preserve FROM THIS GENERATION. They (whether words or people) have been preserved...

Thanks. John146's argument relates to specific words, not the message in general. :)

We have discussed this passage at length. I’m surprised that you try to use it to defend your statement. You still don’t know what that verse says.

Where does God promise that His words (plural) will be preserved?

As I have stated clearly before, what God “can” do is quite thoroughly irrelevant. On this subject, what He “has” done is what matters.

It's only "added" in the sense that it is not mentioned in Scripture. Nor, as I mentioned, is electricity. Musical accompaniment is not a doctrinal issue. With respect, I think your position on this matter skirts the edges of ridiculous.

As your reasons for using the KJV, and defenses thereof, are not the same as those of John146, you may ignore my comments to him. :)

Preservation is not a "complete" thing; it's an ongoing thing, and it has nothing to do with English.

Which means you abdicate your responsibility to think to a group of 17th-century Englishmen... as noted previously. It's your choice, but it's no more right or holy than anyone else's different choice.

As you first introduced the idea of political tainting, you are welcome to present your evidence first. I don't accept your burden-of-proof reversal.

In your mind, does congregational singing of praise with instrumental accompaniment falls into the category of things "added"?

Correlation is not causation. You have to demonstrate a specific connection and motive for your criticism to be valid. I agree with the bolded statement. Of course. God is not a monster who demands something that is physically impossible. The supposed ambiguity only exists because of our...

There is certainly nothing unbiblical about using music in a worship setting, and the use of instruments is neither affirmed nor proscribed in the NT. I reject the "Church of Christ" model where everything must be specifically affirmed for it to have any place in church. Such a view would leave...