Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 25th, 2016, 5:47 pm #11

Donnie's "examples" mostly concern the Trinity or whether Jesus is God. Now since Donnie denies that Jesus is God and denies that F,S,HS are the Trinity, then his bias compels him to brand those passages as "incorrectly translated."
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Check out your New Testament Greek. You'll see.

Carefully study why "F,S,H.S." is mentioned only once and many, many passages mention "in the name of Jesus Christ -- whether in reference to baptism or healing. Investigate why God gave the name of Jesus Christ as "the name ABOVE all names" (Philippians 2:9).

Maybe you need to remind God that He forgot to give "the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" as "the name above all names."[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Visitor (Rancor)
Visitor (Rancor)

November 25th, 2016, 6:32 pm #12

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Research for evidences for or against is very significant. Accepting the truth is not the issue. It's accepting man-made beliefs blindly, without question and verification, that is the issue.

God's Word is inerrant. But as I said, scribes and translators are as human as Bill and Donnie. And you don't even see the error-prone nature of humankind. We're not changing the KJV. When there are variations in hundreds of Bible versions and translations, it is time to look into the original manuscripts. The earliest, original manuscripts are older than all modern-day translations of 1611 and forward.[/color]
I think I will stick with the KJV Bible. Praise God!



Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

November 25th, 2016, 6:36 pm #13

The KJV has sustained the test of time since 1611. However, when some people find that certain KJV passages do not suit their peculiar theology, they brand those passages as "improperly translated" or as "spurious" and deny them or seek ways to get around them.

Persuading the Christian world that the KJV is in error is about as futile as persuading the Christian world to stop celebrating Christmas. Yes, we know there are detractors of the KJV and of Christmas among us, but the KJV and Christmas have both been around so long that it would be virtually impossible to change either one. Both are here to stay.
The 1611 version has been changed many times. However, no one in recorded history has added "Jesus the Son is the Father."

Neither has anyone been so bold as to add:

"SINGING to yourselves NEVER USING Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." You have to procure a Simony degree for that.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

November 25th, 2016, 6:40 pm #14


I think I will stick with the KJV Bible. Praise God!



NOW, if you can just find a preacher who READS more than verse 3d before speaking their own version. Let us know when and where.
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

November 25th, 2016, 7:19 pm #15

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Check out your New Testament Greek. You'll see.

Carefully study why "F,S,H.S." is mentioned only once and many, many passages mention "in the name of Jesus Christ -- whether in reference to baptism or healing. Investigate why God gave the name of Jesus Christ as "the name ABOVE all names" (Philippians 2:9).

Maybe you need to remind God that He forgot to give "the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" as "the name above all names."[/color]
Maybe Donnie needs to be reminded that "in the name of the F,S,HS" means "by the authority of the F,S,HS," just like "Halt in the name of the law" means "Halt by the authority of the law." The law has no "name," just as F,S,HS are not "names." F,HS,HS are designations. Therefore, "in the name of Jesus" means "by the authority of Jesus." The same parallel applies there.

Donnie is still playing the "numbers game" by stating that "F,S,HS" is mentioned only once, whereas "in the name of Jesus" is mentioned more often. The Baptists play the same numbers game when they say the number of "salvation by faith only" passages far exceed the number of "salvation by baptism" passages, so they say baptism is not essential for salvation, whereas only faith is.

The Bible is not based on "the majority of like passages rules." A biblical passage is just as valid if it occurs only once or a thousand times. Therefore, baptism in the name of (by the authority of) F,S,HS is just as valid as baptism in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus.

Since Donnie believes his previous baptism in the name of F,S,HS is still valid and that he need not be rebaptized in the name of Jesus (even though he now promotes baptism in the name of Jesus and denounces F,S,HS baptism), then his arguments on that subject seem superfluous and have no merit.
Quote
Share

Visitor (Rancor)
Visitor (Rancor)

November 25th, 2016, 7:24 pm #16

The 1611 version has been changed many times. However, no one in recorded history has added "Jesus the Son is the Father."

Neither has anyone been so bold as to add:

"SINGING to yourselves NEVER USING Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." You have to procure a Simony degree for that.
Sorry Ken, sounds like you have issues with the KJV Bible. Some people find "Singing" or lack of, at the Catholic Church bible. You need to check it out.

Quote
Share

Visitor (Rancor)
Visitor (Rancor)

November 25th, 2016, 7:37 pm #17

The 1611 version has been changed many times. However, no one in recorded history has added "Jesus the Son is the Father."

Neither has anyone been so bold as to add:

"SINGING to yourselves NEVER USING Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." You have to procure a Simony degree for that.
NOPE..every thing changed!

Better down the road, KEN.



Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 25th, 2016, 8:35 pm #18

Maybe Donnie needs to be reminded that "in the name of the F,S,HS" means "by the authority of the F,S,HS," just like "Halt in the name of the law" means "Halt by the authority of the law." The law has no "name," just as F,S,HS are not "names." F,HS,HS are designations. Therefore, "in the name of Jesus" means "by the authority of Jesus." The same parallel applies there.

Donnie is still playing the "numbers game" by stating that "F,S,HS" is mentioned only once, whereas "in the name of Jesus" is mentioned more often. The Baptists play the same numbers game when they say the number of "salvation by faith only" passages far exceed the number of "salvation by baptism" passages, so they say baptism is not essential for salvation, whereas only faith is.

The Bible is not based on "the majority of like passages rules." A biblical passage is just as valid if it occurs only once or a thousand times. Therefore, baptism in the name of (by the authority of) F,S,HS is just as valid as baptism in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus.

Since Donnie believes his previous baptism in the name of F,S,HS is still valid and that he need not be rebaptized in the name of Jesus (even though he now promotes baptism in the name of Jesus and denounces F,S,HS baptism), then his arguments on that subject seem superfluous and have no merit.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Nope:

1. All power (authority) was given by GOD Himself to Jesus Christ and to no one else -- that power (authority) was not given to your perceived three-Gods-in-one (the pope's Trinity). That means that God did not give ALL power: (1) 1/3 to God the Father Himself, (2) 1/3 to Jesus Christ, (3) 1/3 to the Trinity's version of the Holy Ghost.

2. This I can agree with you: Therefore, "in the name of Jesus" means "by the authority of Jesus." So, it is not by the authority of the Catholic Trinity's three-Gods-in-one.

3. The number of "saved by faith only" passages found in the Bible is zero. To use that Baptist analogy is illogical -- it must be your own logic.

4. Baptism is for the "remission of sins," however the baptizer pronounces it. In fact, Acts 2:38, which is the main passage that churches of Christ refer to in defense of salvation clearly indicates so. Bill, read it: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."[/color]

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 25th, 2016, 9:10 pm #19


I think I will stick with the KJV Bible. Praise God!



[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Me, too, Rancor.

Not only that "I think"; but also that "I will stick with the KJV Bible." Considering some of the passages imperfectly translated.

However, I will continue to research as to why some of the passages in modern versions of the Bible were/are not properly translated in accordance with the original/earliest manuscripts. For example:

1. God's Word is inerrant as: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God."
2. So, there came the earliest, original manuscripts.
3. Then, the scribes and reproduction of manuscripts.
4. Then, man-made doctrines formed: the Trinity dogma and other creeds.
5. Then, the printing press was invented.
6. Then, there were translators and modern translators of the Bible.

Have you not realized that translators are human and error-prone even though God's Word is inerrant? Doctrines were already formed prior to translations. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Some passages have been translated with doctrinal biases and prejudices. Good examples are John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6. We have covered these issues many times already in various threads. But we'd be glad to discuss them here again.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 25th, 2016, 9:31 pm #20

NOPE..every thing changed!

Better down the road, KEN.



[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Is this Pope Francis singing:

"Holy! Holy! Holy! ... God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity"?

Wishing that the leaders of the Restoration Movement of the church of Christ in America were here to watch and listen to the pagan-influenced, Roman Catholic-invented Trinity dogma. Christ and His apostles as well.

"Worship Leaders" and "Praise Teams" perhaps can emulate the performances of the musical Pope?[/color]
Quote
Like
Share