Jump to content
Online Baptist

Publisher Whitaker House KJV Sword Study bible is NOT a true KJV


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 minute ago, Konstantin said:

The answer to your question is already below 👋🙂👇

The Bible has dual authorship. There are mistakes and inaccuracies in it because it was written by "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21). The text of the Bible is "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13), which is clear to everyone. KJV1611AV calls these men according to their names (the 47 persons).  But these men "were moued by the holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Therefore, the Author of the prophetic meaning of Bible verses is God. God's Word is "a more sure word of prophecie"(2 Peter 1:19), than "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13). The prophetic meaning of Bible verses is hidden from unbelievers. The Author of the Scripture uses the mistakes of the men of God to convey His words to people who seek the truth. The Bible of King 1611 is AV approved by the Author of the Scriptures. Bible publications 1769 and 1873 are not AV. Scripture says:

"Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth." (2Tim.2:15)

image.gif

In other words, you're avoiding actually answering...

That's fine. Carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No, I don't understand it because it is gibberish and makes no sense. I believe the Bible and what it says. I understand types and pictures, even allegory, but this is none of those, you have simply p

While there are clearly some differences that change meaning, shew and show are the same exact word, just different spellings, Shew is British spelling and show is American, also needs and needeth are

So, "he" is archaic, and a non-issue, and must be modernized in order to make the KJV readable? "Amen" is archaic, and is a non-issue, and must be modernized in order to make the KJV readable? "Twain"

Posted Images

  • Members
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  Difference between the hebrew & Greek readings.

“…Thou art my sonne, this day haue I begotten thee.” (Ps.2:7)

In this verse, Scripture speaks of the birth of Israel as the people of God at the beginning of the Millennium. It is said:

 “Israel is my sonne, euen my first borne” (Ex.4:22)

 “…Thou art my Sonne, to day haue I begotten thee.” (Heb.5:5)

This verse is about the birth of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ on the Day of Pentecost, about His enthronement (Rev. 11:17) in the future.

Edited by Konstantin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 5/31/2020 at 1:10 AM, Konstantin said:

The Bible has dual authorship. There are mistakes and inaccuracies in it because it was written by "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21). The text of the Bible is "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13), which is clear to everyone. KJV1611AV calls these men according to their names (the 47 persons).  But these men "were moued by the holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Therefore, the Author of the prophetic meaning of Bible verses is God. God's Word is "a more sure word of prophecie"(2 Peter 1:19), than "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13). The prophetic meaning of Bible verses is hidden from unbelievers. The Author of the Scripture uses the mistakes of the men of God to convey His words to people who seek the truth. The Bible of King 1611 is AV approved by the Author of the Scriptures. Bible publications 1769 and 1873 are not AV. Scripture says:

"Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth." (2Tim.2:15)

The 1611 Translators were not inspired by God to make a perfect English translation, as they made the best of their time, was a revision of those before them, and later editions did correct the mistakes an d errors made in the 1611!

On 5/31/2020 at 2:26 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

No, it doesn't.

No, there's not.

That's not what that verse says.

So...only the prophetic verses are from God?

...but weren't they also written down by the men whom you said made mistakes?

No, it's not just the prophetic meaning.

No, the Author uses his word to convey his word.

 

Please use this in your own life.

Wait...

...wasn't that also written by men who made mistakes? Wait...that's not prophetic either. Oh dear...

...and don't respond to this please. I've never seen such foolishness.

Only the Originals were fully inerrant and inspired!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
20 minutes ago, DaChaser said:

The 1611 Translators were not inspired by God to make a perfect English translation, as they made the best of their time, was a revision of those before them, and later editions did correct the mistakes an d errors made in the 1611!

No. Bible says the 1611 Translators were inspired by God to make a perfect English translation.

In 1603 King James I came into power. In the first year his reign he made a decree concerning the Bible.

‘…In the first year of James the king the same James the king made a decree concerning the Bible. We read (Еzra.6:3):

‘in the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.

The height and width indicates the ‘volume’ of the Book. Sixty to sixty cubits, prophetically are 66 God-inspired books. We read the commandment more:

With three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king’s house’ (Еzra.6:4).

The Bible includes the Old Testament -- ‘three rows of great stones’, and the New Testament -- ‘a row of new timber’. The Old Testament consists of three major sections: the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Jesus Himself has listed these three sections:

‘…all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.’ (Luke 24:44).

The Scripture says that the king of England Jacob not only have granted permission, but yet also have financed all the costs of this work ‘out of the king’s house’…’ ©

The books of the New Testament also have prophecies about KJV1611

'we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost'
 (Acts 21: 8-11)

Our period of time (about 2000 years) is divided into 5 parts. Four 'daughters, virgins, which did prophesy' are the Antiochian manuscripts. When the prophet Agabus came, there was no longer any need for these daughters to prophesy. 'The Prophet Agabus' came in 1611.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
2 hours ago, Konstantin said:

No. Bible says the 1611 Translators were inspired by God to make a perfect English translation.

In 1603 King James I came into power. In the first year his reign he made a decree concerning the Bible.

‘…In the first year of James the king the same James the king made a decree concerning the Bible. We read (Еzra.6:3):

‘in the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.

The height and width indicates the ‘volume’ of the Book. Sixty to sixty cubits, prophetically are 66 God-inspired books. We read the commandment more:

With three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king’s house’ (Еzra.6:4).

The Bible includes the Old Testament -- ‘three rows of great stones’, and the New Testament -- ‘a row of new timber’. The Old Testament consists of three major sections: the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Jesus Himself has listed these three sections:

‘…all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.’ (Luke 24:44).

The Scripture says that the king of England Jacob not only have granted permission, but yet also have financed all the costs of this work ‘out of the king’s house’…’ ©

The books of the New Testament also have prophecies about KJV1611

'we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost'
 (Acts 21: 8-11)

Our period of time (about 2000 years) is divided into 5 parts. Four 'daughters, virgins, which did prophesy' are the Antiochian manuscripts. When the prophet Agabus came, there was no longer any need for these daughters to prophesy. 'The Prophet Agabus' came in 1611.

None of that would be from the scriptures, as again, 1611 had known issues that were fixed and corrected in later editions of the Kjv!

Think final corrected form was 1873 Cambridge!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
7 hours ago, DaChaser said:

None of that would be from the scriptures, as again, 1611 had known issues that were fixed and corrected in later editions of the Kjv!

Think final corrected form was 1873 Cambridge!

Some people think the final version was the Authorized King James Version; Pure Cambridge Edition1900.  But the Bible says AVKJV1611 is the word of God.

 

God shows us another manner that divides our time into two parts as 4+1:
We read (John.19:23-24):
 
'Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.’

And it was fulfilled the prophecy: 'They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture' (Ps.22:18). The four parts of 'his garments' were as equivalent to each another, and the vesture was not a ‘patchwork’, it was ‘without seam’. The vesture was made, as a single whole, without seams, it was not subject to any division.

God 'at sundry times and in divers manners' (Heb.1:1) shows us his Word KJV 1611
 
Scripture says:

‘The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.’ (Ps.12:6-7).

Cambridge1900 and 1873 editions are fake versions FV

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

Um. No. Just no. 

First of all threescore is not 66 its 60.

Second of all this man conpletely ignored the literal, grammatical approach to scripture, instead allegorizing and eisegeting beliefs onto the biblical text.

I’m a King James guy, but not because of nonsensical reasoning like that posted by Konstantin.

 

 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
20 hours ago, Konstantin said:

No. Bible says the 1611 Translators were inspired by God to make a perfect English translation.

In 1603 King James I came into power. In the first year his reign he made a decree concerning the Bible.

‘…In the first year of James the king the same James the king made a decree concerning the Bible. We read (Еzra.6:3):

‘in the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.

The height and width indicates the ‘volume’ of the Book. Sixty to sixty cubits, prophetically are 66 God-inspired books. We read the commandment more:

With three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king’s house’ (Еzra.6:4).

The Bible includes the Old Testament -- ‘three rows of great stones’, and the New Testament -- ‘a row of new timber’. The Old Testament consists of three major sections: the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Jesus Himself has listed these three sections:

‘…all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.’ (Luke 24:44).

The Scripture says that the king of England Jacob not only have granted permission, but yet also have financed all the costs of this work ‘out of the king’s house’…’ ©

The books of the New Testament also have prophecies about KJV1611

'we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost'
 (Acts 21: 8-11)

Our period of time (about 2000 years) is divided into 5 parts. Four 'daughters, virgins, which did prophesy' are the Antiochian manuscripts. When the prophet Agabus came, there was no longer any need for these daughters to prophesy. 'The Prophet Agabus' came in 1611.

King of England, Jacob??? What? I think that was Cyrus, king of Babylon. 

 

This is an interesting view, but it makes absolutely no sense in the context you are applying it to. This is a complete and total fabrication that has not a single shred of bearing in reality. As said before, threescore is 60, not 66.  None of it makes any sense, save to try to pick and choose random facts to seek to fit a theory. Though I WOULD be interested to know where you got all of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

King of England, Jacob??? What? I think that was Cyrus, king of Babylon. 

 

This is an interesting view, but it makes absolutely no sense in the context you are applying it to. This is a complete and total fabrication that has not a single shred of bearing in reality. As said before, threescore is 60, not 66.  None of it makes any sense, save to try to pick and choose random facts to seek to fit a theory. Though I WOULD be interested to know where you got all of it. 

If you don’t understand anything, then why do you need to know where I got all of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Um. No. Just no. 

First of all threescore is not 66 its 60.

Second of all this man conpletely ignored the literal, grammatical approach to scripture, instead allegorizing and eisegeting beliefs onto the biblical text.

I’m a King James guy, but not because of nonsensical reasoning like that posted by Konstantin.

 

 

Hi, a King James guy. Here we are considering the prophetic meaning of verses, i.e. "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19), not literal ones, i.e. "not as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13

Edited by Konstantin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
5 hours ago, Konstantin said:

If you don’t understand anything, then why do you need to know where I got all of it?

I don't understand it, because doctrinally and theologically, it is complete gibberish.  It is like those who say that each day of creation is a thousand years, because in 2Peter 3:8 says that with the Lord a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years-the two have nothing to do with each other, as one is history, and the other speaks of prophecy. Though at least there, there is somewhat of a reason people mistake them, since both have to do with God and how He understands time, while yours have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

I am just curious of where you get it, because I'd be interested to see if there is any kind of logical joining of these completely disparate things by whoever interpreted it as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I don't understand it, because doctrinally and theologically, it is complete gibberish.  It is like those who say that each day of creation is a thousand years, because in 2Peter 3:8 says that with the Lord a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years-the two have nothing to do with each other, as one is history, and the other speaks of prophecy. Though at least there, there is somewhat of a reason people mistake them, since both have to do with God and how He understands time, while yours have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

I am just curious of where you get it, because I'd be interested to see if there is any kind of logical joining of these completely disparate things by whoever interpreted it as such.

Maybe you do not understand this, because you believe in the human sciences exegetics and hermeneutics?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, Konstantin said:

Hi, a King James guy. Here we are considering the prophetic meaning of verses, i.e. "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19), not literal ones, i.e. "not as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13

Charles Ryrie in his Systematic Theology has an excellent section in Bibliology about Interpretation of the Bible. 

Of course he mentions the different systems such as the Allegorical, Literal and Semi Allegorical. He of course advocates for the Literal Hermaneutic, he gives a few reasons:

1. The Need for Objectivity “If one does not apply normal interpretation, then objectivity is lost to the extent that he does not use it consistently. Switching the hermeneutic base from literal to allegorical or to semi allegorical… inevitably results in different, inconsistent, and often contradictory interpretations.” 

2. The example of the Bible. “The prophecies of the first advent of Christ were all fulfilled literally. This obvious but extremely significant fact argues for the validity and the use of literal hermeneutics in all of biblical interpretation... It is said that over 300 such prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled…”

Ryrie does go on to acknowledge that “some prophecies of the Old Testament are given a typical fulfillment in the New, and certain of those prophecies are cited by non literalists as biblical sanction for a nonliteral hermeneutic… However, of the approximately twenty four prophecies which the New Testament gives typical fulfillment, only seven  are cited as examples of nonliteral hermeneutic (and of course not all agree that these seven prove this)…remember, however, that we are not just comparing seven out of a total of twenty four, but seven out of a total of hundreds, for almost all Old Testament prophecies are clearly fulfilled literally in the New Testament..”

Now, I think most relevant discussion however for us is what Ryrie says later in his section on Objections to Normal Hermeneutics: 

“The most frequent objection by Evangelicals to normal interpretation points out that since the New Testament uses the Old Testament in a non literal sense we also may interpret Old Testament Prophecies (about the millennium for example) in a non literal sense. Or to put it more simply: since the New Testament spiritualizes the Old Testament, so can we… The rule is that they [New Testament Authors] interpreted the Old Testament plainly, exceptions are rare and typological”

Now, the point Ryrie makes next I think is spot on:

“The crux of the matter is this: can we as interpreters follow the example of the biblical writers in these rare exceptional uses of the Old Testament that seem to be non literal? Of course the answer is yes, if we want to. But if we do, we do so without apostolic authority, only with personal authority, and comparatively, that is not much authority. Any and all uses of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers made were made under divine inspiration and were therefore done properly and authoritatively. If we depart from the plain sense of the text we do so improperly without such authority. What the biblical writers wrote was infallible; the work of all interpreters is fallible.” 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
12 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Charles Ryrie in his Systematic Theology has an excellent section in Bibliology about Interpretation of the Bible. 

Of course he mentions the different systems such as the Allegorical, Literal and Semi Allegorical. He of course advocates for the Literal Hermaneutic, he gives a few reasons:

1. The Need for Objectivity “If one does not apply normal interpretation, then objectivity is lost to the extent that he does not use it consistently. Switching the hermeneutic base from literal to allegorical or to semi allegorical… inevitably results in different, inconsistent, and often contradictory interpretations.” 

2. The example of the Bible. “The prophecies of the first advent of Christ were all fulfilled literally. This obvious but extremely significant fact argues for the validity and the use of literal hermeneutics in all of biblical interpretation... It is said that over 300 such prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled…”

Ryrie does go on to acknowledge that “some prophecies of the Old Testament are given a typical fulfillment in the New, and certain of those prophecies are cited by non literalists as biblical sanction for a nonliteral hermeneutic… However, of the approximately twenty four prophecies which the New Testament gives typical fulfillment, only seven  are cited as examples of nonliteral hermeneutic (and of course not all agree that these seven prove this)…remember, however, that we are not just comparing seven out of a total of twenty four, but seven out of a total of hundreds, for almost all Old Testament prophecies are clearly fulfilled literally in the New Testament..”

Now, I think most relevant discussion however for us is what Ryrie says later in his section on Objections to Normal Hermeneutics: 

“The most frequent objection by Evangelicals to normal interpretation points out that since the New Testament uses the Old Testament in a non literal sense we also may interpret Old Testament Prophecies (about the millennium for example) in a non literal sense. Or to put it more simply: since the New Testament spiritualizes the Old Testament, so can we… The rule is that they [New Testament Authors] interpreted the Old Testament plainly, exceptions are rare and typological”

Now, the point Ryrie makes next I think is spot on:

“The crux of the matter is this: can we as interpreters follow the example of the biblical writers in these rare exceptional uses of the Old Testament that seem to be non literal? Of course the answer is yes, if we want to. But if we do, we do so without apostolic authority, only with personal authority, and comparatively, that is not much authority. Any and all uses of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers made were made under divine inspiration and were therefore done properly and authoritatively. If we depart from the plain sense of the text we do so improperly without such authority. What the biblical writers wrote was infallible; the work of all interpreters is fallible.” 

Mr. Charles Ryrie draws in his conclusions according to the sciences invented by people exegetics and hermeneutics. Therefore, his conclusions cannot correspond to the word of God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Konstantin said:

Mr. Charles Ryrie draws in his conclusions according to the sciences invented by people exegetics and hermeneutics. Therefore, his conclusions cannot correspond to the word of God.

Sorry but no, He draws his conclusions from how the scriptures themselves interpret them and according to logic. 

Your method of interpretation of scripture is arbitrary and you do as the Gods word says "wrest the scriptures". 

The method of handling the scriptures you have have shown here in this thread is one in which you abuse the use of language and you make authoritative statements that the Bible itself does not make. You make numbers like 60 to somehow mean 66, and you substitute words and phrases at your own discretion and pleasure. In a sense you have set yourself up as the authority when God has not given you the authority to do so. You are no prophet and have NO authority to claim that when God said 60 he somehow meant 66. 

It would seem that you are the one drawing in conclusions according to your own interpretation that was invented by yourself, and frankly sir you have no authority over the word of God. in fact sir, your handling of God's word is more akin to that of Satan in which he says "hath God said". You twist God's words like Satan did in the garden of Eden. God clearly told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good in evil, and he said so in plain language. When God said tree, he meant tree, when he said not to eat of it, he meant not to eat of it.

"Humility before the truth of Scripture, and before the authority of Christ, demands submission to logical consistency. If you abuse logic, what are you expecting your people to base their agreement on? You can’t answer, “Scripture,” unless you are committed to logically consistent explanations that your conclusions actually come from Scripture. Scripture will only have authority in your preaching if your appeal to Scripture can be seen to be a valid appeal. If you draw invalid inferences from Scripture, it won’t matter how loud you protest your belief in biblical inerrancy; you will not be helping your people base their lives on Scripture. You will be expecting them to base their lives on your faulty inferences from Scripture. That is not humble. It is proud. And it jeopardizes the authority of Christ, who speaks through true, and valid inferences from Scripture” -Expository Exhultation John Piper

 

 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
59 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

...You make numbers like 60 to somehow mean 66, and you substitute words and phrases at your own discretion and pleasure. In a sense you have set yourself up as the authority when God has not given you the authority to do so. You are no prophet and have NO authority to claim that when God said 60 he somehow meant 66... 

You probably do not read carefully. Scripture says:  the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

You probably do not read carefully. Scripture says:  the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.
 

The height is 60 and the width is 60.

Apparently you can neither read nor do you know numbers. Do you know how to count? 

How do you get 66 from 60 and 60? 
60+60=120  

60+60 does not equal 66. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
21 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

The height is 60 and the width is 60.

Apparently you can neither read nor do you know numbers. Do you know how to count? 

How do you get 66 from 60 and 60? 
60+60=120  

60+60 does not equal 66. 

Should we not have units and measures updated to let us know what they are in today's vernacular?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
16 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

The height is 60 and the width is 60.

Apparently you can neither read nor do you know numbers. Do you know how to count? 

How do you get 66 from 60 and 60? 
60+60=120  

60+60 does not equal 66. 

 the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits

 

Yes, I know how to count. 👋 🙂👇

If you consider this verse "as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13, then 60 + 60 = 120. If we consider this place as "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19) then 66.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Konstantin said:

 the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits

 

Yes, I know how to count. 👋 🙂👇

If you consider this verse "as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13, then 60 + 60 = 120. If we consider this place as "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19) then 66.

 

Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV
[5] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV
[2] Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.


2 Peter 3:16 KJV
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
11 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 

Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV
[5] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV
[2] Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.


2 Peter 3:16 KJV
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 

Thanks. I have a Bible.👋🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 6/3/2020 at 8:15 PM, Konstantin said:

Maybe you do not understand this, because you believe in the human sciences exegetics and hermeneutics?

No, I don't understand it because it is gibberish and makes no sense. I believe the Bible and what it says. I understand types and pictures, even allegory, but this is none of those, you have simply pulled together a bunch of things from scripture and wrested them into your own idea of what they mean. It is vain babblings with no profit to them, and t is time to put it to bed.

 

I am closing this thread, as it has become vain and worthless. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 115 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online


  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
  • Popular Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      27,464
    • Total Posts
      279,277
  • Topics

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...