Dr. Gene Kim

[Hugh_Flower]

Barbara those refutations are done by a Calvinist. Knox seems pretty solid to me. 

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, Barbara Ann said:

James Knox is a false teacher. A few examples of his false teachings:

https://www.zionismexposed.com/james-w-knox/

https://www.pdffiller.com/361510420-knoxrefutedpdf-James-Knox-false-teachings-on-election- 

https://www.steveschramm.com/gap-theory/

 

Don't think I'd go THAT far. 

[Jerry]

Gene Kim is very much like Robert Breaker (and is in the same crowd) - a hyperdispensationalist, a sensationalist, who adds to the Bible. I have watched some videos of his where he defines (or redefines) a word (such as meta, which is a word meaning beyond or after), then shows you that word in a Bible passages, and says "See, the book of Revelation is prophesying about the Metaverse!!" Very dangerous and outright heretical. You would seriously get sidetracked if you follow or listen to him.

James Knox does teach different salvation in different dispensations, the gap theory, against tithing, fallen angels mating with mankind in Genesis six creating the giants. He might have some good stuff, but he also teaches the same falsehoods on those areas that I avoid by the other hyperdispensationalists mentioned.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Jerry

[Barbara Ann]

9 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Barbara those refutations are done by a Calvinist. Knox seems pretty solid to me. 

I have not found any information about the author, Pedro Almeida.  His refutation of Knox is directly from Scripture. Where do you find he is a Calvinist?  I have attended Knox's church and he does not teach sound doctrine. For example, he teaches that the King James Version is inerrant and superior to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, because translations always lead to a better place, eg Enoch was translated to heaven.  I read the KJV but am Textus Receptus Only.  Knox dispenses with the originals and the KJV and actually teaches from the Talmud. Read this expose: https://watch-unto-prayer.org/TR-6a-talmud-kabbalah-only.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Barbara Ann

[Hugh_Flower]

You guys are going to have to prove why those are false hoods 

[Jerry]

Feel free to start one or more threads discussing these issues. I do feel this is too much to explain in one thread though, as there are multiple ways the conversation regarding each issue can go, and it can get confusing to tackle too many issues in one thread, unless only one or two were addressed at a time.

My point was to point out where I strongly believe he is off, and to warn others who do not accept those doctrines or viewpoints as Biblical. If you do believe them, that is up to you. If you care about the truth and want to discuss what the Bible does say on each issue, I look forward to the new threads you start to discuss each one in.

[SureWord]

On 5/12/2022 at 10:35 PM, Barbara Ann said:

I have not found any information about the author, Pedro Almeida.  His refutation of Knox is directly from Scripture. Where do you find he is a Calvinist?  I have attended Knox's church and he does not teach sound doctrine. For example, he teaches that the King James Version is inerrant and superior to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, because translations always lead to a better place, eg Enoch was translated to heaven.  I read the KJV but am Textus Receptus Only.  Knox dispenses with the originals and the KJV and actually teaches from the Talmud. Read this expose: https://watch-unto-prayer.org/TR-6a-talmud-kabbalah-only.

Have you ever read the TR? Not what do done says about it but have you say down and read the entire text? If you did, which edition?

I can read the KJV, not the TR. That there makes it superior to the TR in my book.

[Jordan Kurecki]

4 hours ago, SureWord said:

Have you ever read the TR? Not what do done says about it but have you say down and read the entire text? If you did, which edition?

I can read the KJV, not the TR. That there makes it superior to the TR in my book.

If by “superior” you mean “more profitable” then yes, if you mean “more accurate” than absolutely not. 

How can a translate be superior to it’s source? Unless you think the original words in Greek given by inspiration were somehow lacking, which would be an unbiblical doctrine. 

Just because from a pragmatic perspective, you can read English and not Greek, does not mean the KJV is superior to the Greek TR. There are people in Uganda who speak Lugbara and not English, and the Lugbara bible is based on the critical text and is more or less closer to the NIV or ESV, does their lack of English understanding mean the Lugbara bible is more superior to the English KJV? 

[Hugh_Flower]

On 5/14/2022 at 10:22 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

If by “superior” you mean “more profitable” then yes, if you mean “more accurate” than absolutely not. 

How can a translate be superior to it’s source? Unless you think the original words in Greek given by inspiration were somehow lacking, which would be an unbiblical doctrine. 

Just because from a pragmatic perspective, you can read English and not Greek, does not mean the KJV is superior to the Greek TR. There are people in Uganda who speak Lugbara and not English, and the Lugbara bible is based on the critical text and is more or less closer to the NIV or ESV, does their lack of English understanding mean the Lugbara bible is more superior to the English KJV? 

Conflating the issue. The Lugbara Bible in this context would be superior to the TR and the KJV for those people. The KJV is the superior version for the English, way better than the TR.

[Jerry]

I understand the point you are making - and for primarily English-speaking people, the KJV is certainly better and more useful than translations into other languages (referring specifically to TR-based literal translations). However, superior implies better quality - and that is how some people use it today as well in reference to the KJV - though the TR and the Masoretic Text are exactly the same in quality and content, so one cannot be "superior" to the other. Yes, more useful and profitable to individuals who only understand English or that is their primary language.

[Hugh_Flower]

Good luck preaching the gospel in a dead language

[Jerry]

17 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Good luck preaching the gospel in a dead language

What is that supposed to mean? I only preach and teach from the King James Bible. Though I do use the preserved text and associated resources (like Strong's Concordance) to dig in deeper, just as I also use Webster's 1828 Dictionary to help define the English words of my KJV.

In English, I only support/endorse the King James Bible, though I am not against using the underlying Greek and Hebrew text for studying purposes, nor am I against any sound TR-based translations into other languages. I do not use them myself, except mostly for comparison purposes (like if I was speaking with a spanish-speaking person and I wanted to point out something to them in Spanish, etc.). God did not inspire the underlying Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and then cast them aside - they are still useful today in some ways.

And for the sake of clarification, so no one can accuse me falsely: I HAVE NEVER NOR WILL EVER use the underlying texts or any Greek or Hebrew (or even English) language tools to correct, change or question the English text of my King James Bible, but only use them inasmuch as they help me understand and dig in deeper into the Word of God. If they contradict or question or change the KJV in any sense, I discard them inasmuch as they do so (and in some cases, discard them completely if needed).

I believe my King James Bible is (not was) God's inspired, inerrant Word for the English-speaking people today, and I am FULLY subject to its authority in my life. I do not question or doubt it in any sense, though I do study it to understand it more and apply it. I have no use for any other modern translations - not even any "updating" of the KJV, aside from checking them out to be fully aware of their flaws and how they fall short of God's preserved Word in English.

[Hugh_Flower]

Wasn’t towards you Jerry

[Jerry]

Ok, no problem. I just misunderstood you.

[Jerry]

On 5/12/2022 at 7:35 PM, Barbara Ann said:

I have attended Knox's church and he does not teach sound doctrine. For example, he teaches that the King James Version is inerrant and superior to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, because translations always lead to a better place, eg Enoch was translated to heaven.  I read the KJV but am Textus Receptus Only.  Knox dispenses with the originals and the KJV and actually teaches from the Talmud.

I have watched multiple videos by Knox in his Revelation series, and he is seriously off on some doctrine. He adds to the Bible, has some really weird interpretations of Bible passages and some doctrines, believes in the Gap Theory, is against tithing. I watched enough to determine for myself he is not trustworthy when it comes to interpreting the Bible. I do not need to listen to/read/watch someone who always seem to go off on tangents when it comes to Bible theology. (If it matters, I can give the specific examples of doctrinal error or questionable beliefs that made me stop listening to him.)

That being said, I do believe the King James Bible is inerrant - not greater than the underlying manuscripts, but corresponds exactly to what the preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts say.