Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sure that Reckart has already written her out of the Bible in the version that he's putting together (and, lest TJ try and say that's not true, Reckart wrote on 2 August 2013 "After careful study of all the manuscripts before the KJV that existed before 1000AD, make corrections." Revise the Bible, based on errors you imagine to be in there. Absolute lunacy.)

What is lunacy is to be KJV only when Jesus and many others did/do not use the KJV.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
What, you're claiming to have the reincarnation of Isaiah and Jeremiah as current members of your cult?

Do not be silly. Just because Esaias and Jeremias are no longer living does not mean they are no longer a part of the Church. We still have their ministry through their writings.

So in your "fivefold ministry", there's a living pastor, a living evangelist, a living teacher, a living apostle and a dead prophet as members? It's "Gary, James, TJ, Steve and Isaiah"?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sure that Reckart has already written her out of the Bible in the version that he's putting together (and, lest TJ try and say that's not true, Reckart wrote on 2 August 2013 "After careful study of all the manuscripts before the KJV that existed before 1000AD, make corrections." Revise the Bible, based on errors you imagine to be in there. Absolute lunacy.)

What is lunacy is to be KJV only when Jesus and many others did/do not use the KJV.

I wasn't aware that Jesus used any version of the New Testament

By your logic, no one should use the New Testament.

And, no, I'm not a "King James only" person, obviously.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sure that Reckart has already written her out of the Bible in the version that he's putting together (and, lest TJ try and say that's not true, Reckart wrote on 2 August 2013 "After careful study of all the manuscripts before the KJV that existed before 1000AD, make corrections." Revise the Bible, based on errors you imagine to be in there. Absolute lunacy.)

What is lunacy is to be KJV only when Jesus and many others did/do not use the KJV.

There was no NT when Jesus was alive.

Hello McFly.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And, no, I'm not a "King James only" person, obviously.

Then you are being hypocritical. Condemning us for things translators of other versions have done.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And, no, I'm not a "King James only" person, obviously.

Then you are being hypocritical. Condemning us for things translators of other versions have done.

I'm not condemning you, I'm criticizing you for changing the Bible because you've arbitrarily decided something in there doesn't agree with you.

Reckart is not a scholar of Hebrew or Greek, and has been demonstrated to invent "facts" about those languages, so he can hardly be considered a valid translator. Translators work from Greek or Hebrew manuscripts, they don't just read an English version of the text and change it because they disagree with what is there.

reply to post by truejew


They never were a part of the "church". The church was born at Pentecost.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sure that Reckart has already written her out of the Bible in the version that he's putting together (and, lest TJ try and say that's not true, Reckart wrote on 2 August 2013 "After careful study of all the manuscripts before the KJV that existed before 1000AD, make corrections." Revise the Bible, based on errors you imagine to be in there. Absolute lunacy.)

What is lunacy is to be KJV only when Jesus and many others did/do not use the KJV.

There was no NT when Jesus was alive.

Hello McFly.

I did not say there was. I was showing the craziness of being KJV only and showing how Adjensen is being a hypocrite for condemning us for doing as other translators do.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And, no, I'm not a "King James only" person, obviously.

Then you are being hypocritical. Condemning us for things translators of other versions have done.

I'm not condemning you, I'm criticizing you for changing the Bible because you've arbitrarily decided something in there doesn't agree with you.

Reckart is not a scholar of Hebrew or Greek, and has been demonstrated to invent "facts" about those languages, so he can hardly be considered a valid translator. Translators work from Greek or Hebrew manuscripts, they don't just read an English version of the text and change it because they disagree with what is there.

We do not change things just because it doesn't agree with us. For example, The name "Jehovah" did not exist in the Septuagint, it therefore has been added to versions such as the KJV. We are simply restoring the scriptures by taking it back out.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sure that Reckart has already written her out of the Bible in the version that he's putting together (and, lest TJ try and say that's not true, Reckart wrote on 2 August 2013 "After careful study of all the manuscripts before the KJV that existed before 1000AD, make corrections." Revise the Bible, based on errors you imagine to be in there. Absolute lunacy.)

What is lunacy is to be KJV only when Jesus and many others did/do not use the KJV.

There was no NT when Jesus was alive.

Hello McFly.

I did not say there was. I was showing the craziness of being KJV only and showing how Adjensen is being a hypocrite for condemning us for doing as other translators do.

You do realize that the MSS the KJV is based upon is different than all modern ve rllrsions? You do realize many Christians reject the Westcott and Hort Greek translations?

You tell me about a different translation not based on the W&H text or the Alexandrian/Gnostic MSS.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

They never were a part of the "church". The church was born at Pentecost.

They became part of the Church when the Church began. They are not lost. They won't be in hell.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

They never were a part of the "church". The church was born at Pentecost.

And I would think that Isaiah might be a little offended by being co-opted by these guys who say that he's a member of their "fivefold ministry", whether he likes it or not.

Originally posted by truejew
We do not change things just because it doesn't agree with us. For example, The name "Jehovah" did not exist in the Septuagint, it therefore has been added to versions such as the KJV. We are simply restoring the scriptures by taking it back out.

The Septuagint has the Tetragrammaton in it, as we've shown you in the past, and I'm betting dollars to donuts that you're not putting that in there, so, no, you aren't "restoring" anything -- you're rewriting the Bible to suit your needs.

And please stop saying that you are translating it. One does not translate from English to English.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

They never were a part of the "church". The church was born at Pentecost.

They became part of the Church when the Church began. They are not lost. They won't be in hell.

I never said they were lost. I said they were never a part of the church. They are merely the elect. Jesus explained this briefly when he said the OT elect ended with John the Baptist. And the least in the church was greater than John. You have a very poor understanding of Ecclesiology.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sure that Reckart has already written her out of the Bible in the version that he's putting together (and, lest TJ try and say that's not true, Reckart wrote on 2 August 2013 "After careful study of all the manuscripts before the KJV that existed before 1000AD, make corrections." Revise the Bible, based on errors you imagine to be in there. Absolute lunacy.)

What is lunacy is to be KJV only when Jesus and many others did/do not use the KJV.

There was no NT when Jesus was alive.


Hello McFly.

Exactly NTT, Jesus' teachings were passed down orally. God's revelation includes the oral Word of God, not everything is written in the Bible. So why do you believe in the heresy of Sola Scriptura?

Can you show historically that the Bible is a Protestant book? You accept Pope Damasus choices in 382. Less the 7 books (what a shame), Luther tossed out in 1517.

You gotta toss the KJV out. There are thousands of changes made to it. King James and his hired translators were not of God. I came across one verse yesterday on the Feast of the Assumption. Common sense, Our Lord would not leave His beloved mother on earth. The oral tradition passed down shows Jesus brought His mother to Heaven, body and soul. The Assumption is prefigured in the OT.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, she carried God inside her.


Psalm 131:8
Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified

That verse is 132 in the KJV. Wow, look at the change.

Psalm 132:8
Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength.


John 20:30
Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

www.drbo.org...

reply to post by colbe

Exactly NTT, Jesus' teachings were passed down orally. God's revelation includes the oral Word of God, not everything is written in the Bible. So why do you believe in the heresy of Sola Scriptura?

Red herring.

I told you many pages ago that I'm not going to get into that argument with you. We all know you are against sola scriptura, great, wonderful, now time to move on.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

Exactly NTT, Jesus' teachings were passed down orally. God's revelation includes the oral Word of God, not everything is written in the Bible. So why do you believe in the heresy of Sola Scriptura?

Red herring.

I told you many pages ago that I'm not going to get into that argument with you. We all know you are against sola scriptura, great, wonderful, now time to move on.

Then do not make statements in this thread that show Sola Scriptura is false. Bible Alone came from Martin Luther's head not God. Why do you cling to it?

Doesn't it make you sick seeing the thousands of changes to the KJV? It is completely altered by some evil
men paid by an evil man, King James. NTT, don't you long to read the words closest to Our Lord's words?
St. Jerome gave you them, from the original writings. Except, written in Latin, the common language of the
time. The English translation of the first Bible is the Douay-Rheims Bible.

www.drbo.org...


Continue with the endless argument, is this how you want to spend your time? It comes down to no
authority. God gave the Church the authority to interpret Scripture not every person reading it. The footnotes
in the Douay-Rheims will help you understand tough verses and help you see why the Church teaches what she does.


blessings,


colbe

reply to post by colbe


Nothing was "changed" Col be, the KJV comes from the Antioch manuscript and the modern versions come from a completely different set of manuscripts, the Alexandrian MSS. The Gnostics at Alexandria expurgated big portions of the text that didn't align with their Gnostic doctrines. So nothing was "changed", it comes from a completely different manuscript altogether.

reply to post by colbe


Nothing was "changed" Col be, the KJV comes from the Antioch manuscript and the modern versions come from a completely different set of manuscripts, the Alexandrian MSS. The Gnostics at Alexandria expurgated big portions of the text that didn't align with their Gnostic doctrines. So nothing was "changed", it comes from a completely different manuscript altogether.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

Nothing was "changed" Col be, the KJV comes from the Antioch manuscript and the modern versions come from a completely different set of manuscripts, the Alexandrian MSS. The Gnostics at Alexandria expurgated big portions of the text that didn't align with their Gnostic doctrines. So nothing was "changed", it comes from a completely different manuscript altogether.

Come on this is pure nonsense. Pope Damasus decided which writings or as you say "manuscripts" were divinely inspired. When you have to paste a term like "expurgated." I just posted one verse out of thousands that were altered in the KJV. Read Psalm 131:8 in the Douay Rheims and it is Psalm 132:8 in the KJV.

There had to be an original Bible, history shows you it is the Latin Vulgate.

Gnosticism is an early heresy, that's not what we're talking about. Luther threw out the books that went against his new heresies, he claimed the Palestinian Jews did the same. He was such a goof, the Palestinian Jews rejected Christ. They removed the verses Jesus and the Apostles most quoted from the OT. They were afraid of new Christianity. The Alexandrian Canon kept Our Lord's words, the Septuagint. Closer to our time, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm Pope Damasus choices for the Canon and show the Alexandrian OT Canon is correct.

King James rejected the faith for his own personal reasons, sins, actually. He rejected the faith because of his adultery. There are 30,000 changes, adding to, taking away from...found in the KJV.

If you go by the Church, her God given authority to interpret Scripture, not one verse in the Old or New conflict
with another. Read the Douay-Rheims if you can't read Latin. My beloved Mom could....

How many pages are you going to keep arguing? Proves private judgment is heresy, not of God.


love,

colbe