Search results

That's not adequate. You have not stated which translation, nor how these verses represent your claim.

I quoted the NASB. Your comments only reflect on you.

smh... there are no words.

The proponents of KJV-onlyism cause the disunity by making such claims and disparaging people who use modern translations.

Please provide three examples where "modern translations remain faulty in their execution of the language". Differences in content (words, phrases, passages) between the KJV and other translations do not meet your criteria.

Also, at least for the NT, the parts that were actually translated (rather than being adopted from previous English editions) were not translated from manuscripts but from printed Greek editions.

Your quotation and comment might be taken seriously if you never mocked or disparaged anyone else. As you do, frequently, you are a hypocrite.

Do you have anything substantial to say, or are you limited to playground retorts?

The issue is not that you believe the Holy Spirit teaches you. The issue is that you assume that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Scripture is not taught by Him, and you disparage them. You're wrong, and your behaviour is arrogant.

Like you have never done that? What a lark! Instead of throwing more shade and demonstrating your fragile ego to the world (again), consider your own behaviour. She concluded that you were female because of how you present yourself in your posts.

I am not adding anything. 1 Timothy 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife. 1 Timothy 3:12 Deacons must be the husband of one wife 1 Timothy 3:11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. As I stated in my...

You are confused. Your interpretation of Scripture is not Scripture. A verse taken out of context is a pretext. As will you. Next time, if you have comments to make about me, have the intestinal fortitude to make them directly to me, not to someone else.

Your claim to an “unction” is just delusional, self-righteous entitlement. What you completely fail to realize is that I can make exactly the same claim, with the same authority. I don’t, because I know that the “God told me” card holds no weight.

Get this through your thick head: You aren’t Him.

That is self-righteous hogwash intended to elevate your opinion to the level of evidence. I have news for you: it’s still just your opinion and still has no evidentiary value.

Your ideas are NOT the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Any more insipid speculations you'd like to post, while you're at it? I'm promoting faithfulness to the text, even where it makes the reader uncomfortable. The Bible is not intended to soothe you in your ignorance. Do you know what "satan" means? It's not a proper name. It's been well-known...

The fact that Phoebe was female and a deacon informs the qualifications given to Timothy. Paul could not possibly mean that deacons could only be male. The restriction is identical for deacons as for overseers: the men can only be one-woman men, and the text doesn't preclude female overseers.

Even though the word "deacon" does not appear anywhere in that passage. You still don't understand what "usurp" means. You make yourself look foolish when you use words that you don't understand. And still, you promote an unbalanced and unbiblical view of covering. That's already been...

Lucifer is not the correct translations. An incorrect translation cannot possibly be "more correct" than something that is a correct translation! There are two problems with "Lucifer": it's a Latin word, not an English word; and it's not a proper name. A faithful translation will give the...