Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It is vitally important, that every Christian believes that the Bible that they hold in their hands is PERFECT.  But this is something that Satan just will not sit still for.

Therefore, lets establish what makes a Bible IMPERFECT!

I will start,
First of all, “typos don’t count”!  Half of the KJBs I own, have typos, but they are still perfect, because they don’t stop me searching “that which is Spiritual”(1 Cor. 2:13), and finding the truth.

What does count, in making a Bible imperfect, are those Bibles that have had verses or passages changed or removed, by some scholar: Who feels he has the authority to correct God’s Word.

I am open, for more suggestions.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So when you say it’s vitally for every Christian. Do you mean English speakers? What about the foreign language speakers who’s only bibles are missing verses like 1 John 5:7?

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hello Jordan Kurecki

You asked.....
So when you say it’s vitally for every Christian. Do you mean English speakers? What about the foreign language speakers who’s only bibles are missing verses like 1 John 5:7?

This is a good question, (Or set of questions).

First of all, I don’t believe in “double inspiration”, therefore the KJB, is a perfect Bible for English speaking people.

But what I am talking about is “what people believe” about their Bibles(of any language).  It is not a perfect world, so we can’t eliminate all those NIV’s etc. that are out there.  But any BELIEVER, who uses even one of these Bibles, is much better off if they BELIEVE their Bible to be perfect.

The problem is, all of us are being taught, that “no Bible is perfect”!  Even though some Bibles are “less perfect” than others, a Christian is harmed, by being told that they can’t trust God’s Word.

Have a good night.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

A different SPELLING of the same word does NOT change the perfect trustworthiness of a Biblical translation.

Whether we spell the word "saviour" or the word "savior" (with the "u" or without it), it is still the SAME word.  And various examples could be provided in addition to this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 10/8/2018 at 7:04 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

A different SPELLING of the same word does NOT change the perfect trustworthiness of a Biblical translation.

Whether we spell the word "saviour" or the word "savior" (with the "u" or without it), it is still the SAME word.  And various examples could be provided in addition to this one.

Ironically I was just moments ago thinking about a King James Bible I have that changes the spelling of the names of the OT prophets to the regular equivilent Esaias to Isaiah, Jeremias to Jeremiah, etc. 

On 10/7/2018 at 10:46 PM, Donald said:

Hello Jordan Kurecki

You asked.....
So when you say it’s vitally for every Christian. Do you mean English speakers? What about the foreign language speakers who’s only bibles are missing verses like 1 John 5:7?

This is a good question, (Or set of questions).

First of all, I don’t believe in “double inspiration”, therefore the KJB, is a perfect Bible for English speaking people.

But what I am talking about is “what people believe” about their Bibles(of any language).  It is not a perfect world, so we can’t eliminate all those NIV’s etc. that are out there.  But any BELIEVER, who uses even one of these Bibles, is much better off if they BELIEVE their Bible to be perfect.

The problem is, all of us are being taught, that “no Bible is perfect”!  Even though some Bibles are “less perfect” than others, a Christian is harmed, by being told that they can’t trust God’s Word.

Have a good night.

 

So you are saying that if a Christian has a translation that has mistranslations, is missing verses, etc that it's good that they believe that it is perfect and without any error? 

So are you saying it's good for someone to believe something even if it isn't true? How is that good?

And what do you mean "less perfect" that's two adjectives that contradict each other, an oxymoron if you would. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hello again Jordan Kurecki

You asked.....
 So you are saying that if a Christian has a translation that has mistranslations, is missing verses, etc that it's good that they believe that it is perfect and without any error?
So are you saying it's good for someone to believe something even if it isn't true? How is that good?
And what do you mean "less perfect" that's two adjectives that contradict each other, an oxymoron if you would.
 
------------------------
You will notice, that I prefaced this with an acknowledgment that “this is not a perfect world”, so things won’t always be the way we want them to be.

For instance, there are lots of languages that have no Bible at all and many other languages that may only have the book of John or Romans translated.  Therefore one of the things that I am saying, is that these people are better off having a single book, rather than no Bible at all.  

As for those that may be reading a bad translation, like the NIV, etc
The circumstance by which these Bibles are “good” for these people, is when these individuals, BELIEVE God’s Word to be PERFECT!  Believing that God preserved His Word, is GOOD.

The rest of the story(with these people), is the “doctrine of light”: The Doctrine taught all over the Bible, that “if a person uses the light God gives them, than He will give them more light”!  I trust, that our Sovereign creator, is able to correct any wrong conclusions that these bad translations, may give a believer: If that believer is truly searching for the understanding.
------------------------
Also you asked...
“what do you mean less perfect"

It’s kind of like the “mustered seed”: If a person has a Bible that is 75% accurate(like the NIV), than God can use the few verses that are correct in that version, to minister to that believer. Bringing them to the understanding, that the Bible is a Supernatural book, that no man is qualified to correct or update. Until they come to this understanding, they may continue to worship at their Pentecostal or their Methodist Church.

See you later

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I believe in the Biblical definition of Preservation. God has preserved his word from generation to generation. Currently, the KJV is the only translation that follows the doctrine of preservation and therefore is the best translation for English Speaking individuals. When I hold my KJV, I can clearly say that I am holding the Preserved Word of God.

Now with that said, I believe that one day we may see a modern translation that follows the same process that the translators in 1611 did and we could hold that up and also say it is the Preserved Word of God. I reject the modern translation because they do not follow the doctrine of preservation and therefore have many errors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

But..... my hopes for a new English translation(that I can trust as much as I do the KJB), are dampened, when I am reminded of 2 Timothy 3:13
"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."

It would be nice, if I could see a hopeful future for my grandchildren in this world; But unless I am misinterpreting, this and other passages of Scripture, the Earthly future of the Church, does not look bright!

Note: If anyone can correct this view, PLEASE do so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

A perfect Bible is a Bible that keeps all the doctrines of the faith secure and complete. There is really only one Bible that I know of that does that for the English-speaking people. The Authorized 1611 King James Bible.

I can pick that Bible up and know that I am going to see the absolute virgin born Son of God,  and I can see the doctrine of salvation presented by grace without works to a lost and dying world, I can know when I read about the future I will see a premillennial, dispensational scenario where Israel is still Israel and the church is still the church. When I pick up my KJB I will see that sin is an abomination against God, and not merely a mistake. With this Bible I have absolute assurance that it is my final authority, and I do not need to worry that scribal mistakes somehow crept in. My King James Bible is a product of faithful men that carefully protected their copies of the Word from the day that they were written until the day that they were gathered together in one Book. I can also be assured that my Bible did not come out of some trash pile sitting in St. Catherine's Monastery where Tischendorf made off with them.

I'd say that fits the description of perfect for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:55 PM, Donald said:

It is vitally important, that every Christian believes that the Bible that they hold in their hands is PERFECT. 

Therefore, lets establish what makes a Bible IMPERFECT!

I will start,
First of all, “typos don’t count”! 

 

 

How is determined whether something is a "typo"? 

What standard do you use to determine what should be considered a "typo"?

Would a "typo" or printing error be considered a perfection or an imperfection?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It has been a long time....

But you asked a good question.
The answer to this question, has to do with the “intent” of the person printing that Bible.

What I mean is “a typo”, is a “mistake” that is not intentionally put their by the publisher.  Therefore, you can have small typos and large typos.

Here is an example of a mid-sized typo........

(Joshua 19:2)
“And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, and Sheba, and Moladah,”

Half of my King James Bibles say, “Beersheba, and Sheba, and Moladah,”
and the other half say.... “Beersheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,”

Now since Beersheba and Sheba are the same city, than the former is a “typo”.

This is further established four verses later in.....
(Joshua 19:6)
“And Bethlebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities and their villages:”

Counting the cities from verse 2 through verse 6, comes to 13, when verse 2 is printed right.
------------------------
A little more, on what I mean by the “intent” of the publisher.

Second Timothy chapter 3, is all about the “last days” and how wicked people are going to be.
In the last 5 verses of this chapter, we have a wonderful example of an “evil intent” and how we can keep our "intent" right.
The first of these 5 verses says.......
(2 Timothy 3:13)
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

These evil men and seducers, will include men like “Westcot & Hort”, etc
(Respected scholars, who hated any Bible, that allows regular people to study God’s Word and takes "scholars", out of the loop.)

What is interesting about this passage, are the last two verses.........
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)
V.16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
V.17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

------------------------
It is almost as if, the LORD knew the kind of attacks that were going to be launched against the Bible, in these last days; And reminded all of us about “Verbal Inspiration”.

Thanks for the question.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Donald said:

 

But you asked a good question.
The answer to this question, has to do with the “intent” of the person printing that Bible.

What I mean is “a typo”, is a “mistake” that is not intentionally put their by the publisher. 

 

How are readers to know whether a difference in editions of the KJV was unintentionally or intentionally put there by a publisher or printer?

Would readers need to be able to read the minders of others in order to know for certain what their intentions were?

Would it not be possible for a printer to have the good intention of correcting what he considered an error in an earlier edition when it possibly was not an error?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 11:02 AM, Pastorj said:

I believe in the Biblical definition of Preservation. God has preserved his word from generation to generation.

Jim Taylor maintained that preservation is not “an attribute” but that it “is a process” (In Defense of the Textus Receptus, p. 40).  Jim Taylor asserted that “translations are not preserved because preservation is not an attribute” (Ibid.).  Taylor noted:  “Add to this the fact that God preserved what he gave.  God gave us his words in Greek and Hebrew and thus, he preserves his words in those languages” (Ibid.). 

Tim Fellure observed:  “Obviously, it’s not required that preservation extends to a translation if the Word of God has been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew text” (Neither jot nor tittle, p. 71). 

Thomas Corkish acknowledged that “it is true that He [God] has not promised to preserve versions” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 210). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2).  The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets.  The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17).  The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets.  The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12).  Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)?  Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)?  It would be sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15).  The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them.   The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12).  The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16).  The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14).  “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). 

 

The Lord Jesus Christ stated:  “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.  But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47).  In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26).  The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them.  The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it.  The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11).  When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them.  Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

 

     A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages.  The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures.  Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions?  These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language.  Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages.  These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth.  These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages.  These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it.  These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration.  For when a king [or whoever] copied them, he would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them to be able to “keep all the words” (Deut. 17:18-19). 

 

     A copy of Scripture should have the exact, same words as the source from which it was copied, and it could be tested or evaluated by its source (Exod. 34:1, Deut. 10:2, 4, Deut. 17:18, Deut. 27:8, Jer. 36:28, John 17:8, Jer. 23:28).   Jesus gave the exact same words to the apostles or disciples that God the Father gave to Him (John 17:8, John 14:24, John 12:50). 

 

     Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the preserved original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11).  Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)?  Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47).  Unless the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority, norm, and standard for Bible translations, there would be no sound, true criteria for distinguishing between a good, accurate translation and a poor, inaccurate translation.  Would not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God and preserved by God be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing? 

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

I do not consider applying scriptural truths soundly and justly straining at a gnat.   Advocating scriptural truths is not being a blind guide.

Luke 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much:  and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

It is obvious you don't consider it so, but Jesus certainly did. I firmly believe that the words preserved for me in the Bible were the mechanism that brought me to Christ.

Romans 10:17 (KJV) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It should be obvious that I actually accept and believe what the Scriptures themselves state and teach about preservation.   I believe what the Lord Jesus Christ taught concerning the Scriptures.  I properly and soundly explain what I mean by preservation while many seem to be unclear in what they mean by preserve or they do not define the term or do not use it with the same exact meaning.  My statements were clearly based on what the Scriptures state and teach.

 Exact word preservation would mean that the actual exact same original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would be the words that had to be preserved.   Different words in a different language would not preserve the exact same words as was given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Any suggestion that the words in the KJV preserve the original-language Scriptures would have to refer to some type "meaning" preservation since the KJV does not actually have the exact same words as were given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.    Sometimes the KJV may give a dynamic equivalent meaning instead of a literal word-for-word meaning.    Those who use the term preservation to refer to the KJV do not demonstrate that they are actually soundly teaching what the Scriptures teach about the preservation of what God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  

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

Exact word preservation would mean that the actual exact same original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would be the words that had to be preserved.   Different words in a different language would not preserve the exact same words as was given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Actually, this is a precisely correct statement.  

Do we believe in the doctrine of preservation?  I believe that we would declare - YES!!!  So then, what are the precise details of the doctrine of preservation as taught by God's Own Word?  Indeed, what precisely does God's Own Word promise to preserve?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in a "jot and tittle" manner?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures through translations?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in all languages of the world?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in any particular language or languages?  

Now, if we are to answer these questions correctly, we must provide the answers from God's Own Word on the matter.

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

Actually, this is a precisely correct statement.  

Do we believe in the doctrine of preservation?  I believe that we would declare - YES!!!  So then, what are the precise details of the doctrine of preservation as taught by God's Own Word?  Indeed, what precisely does God's Own Word promise to preserve?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in a "jot and tittle" manner?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures through translations?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in all languages of the world?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in any particular language or languages?  

Now, if we are to answer these questions correctly, we must provide the answers from God's Own Word on the matter.

These are really solid questions for people to think through. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I heard someone say this years ago,
and it is still just as truthful today, as it was then.
"The Bible that I hold in my hand, is God's infallible word."

 

Now, it is not hard to find scriptural support for this statement.
Just choose any of the verses in Psalms 119.

 

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

I heard someone say this years ago,
and it is still just as truthful today, as it was then.
"The Bible that I hold in my hand, is God's infallible word."

 

Now, it is not hard to find scriptural support for this statement.
Just choose any of the verses in Psalms 119.

 

To play devils advocate here 

I know one Ugandan language that has a Bible that is missing the comma in 1st John 5:7.

Can that Ugandan use Psalm 119 as proof that the bible he holds in his hand is infallible? 

What about the many other language translations that are also missing 1 John 5:7?

You have two options here

1. Admit that God failed to keep his promises in Psalm 119 that everyone would have a perfect translation of the scriptures

2. Re-examine what Gods promises about his word really are. Pastor Markle gave some excellent questions to think through earlier in this thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

H. D. Williams asserted:  “Translations of the Words of God are words that have been ’tooled’ by men [Exod. 20:25, Deut. 27:5].  Words declared pure by God in the received Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, which were made available throughout the generations of men for translations, have not been ’tooled’ by man (2 Pet. 1:19-21)” (The Pure Words of God, pp. 29-30).  Williams claimed:  “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic or prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them” (p. 63).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 108 Guests (See full list)

  • 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...