Forum: empire-en
Board: [942] US Migration Content - Community
Topic: [321485] FCO: War of the Bibles VS Apostasy
[-321485]
Enow (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 16, 2016, 3:05 p.m.
John 14:23 Jesus
answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words:
and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our
abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. KJV
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. KJV
Jesus said this because there will be a need for believers to discern which Bible loves Him in keeping His words.
The Greek documents that made up the Textus Receptus originated from Antioch where His disciples were first called christians. The King James Bible and the Geneva Bible and the other earlier ones stemmed from the Textus Receptus.
Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The Greek documents that most of the modern Bibles are translated from, originated from Alexandria where poetic licensing & gnosticism has been known to exists.
Now between these two sources, which do you think you should lean on more as having the correct translation & messages that He wants us to have?
How can we tell if changes have been made by those that did NOT love Him & His words? Considering the gnostic influence in the Alexandrian region, since believers could not have a collection of the scripture for their own personal use, but generally read at the assembly, then all gnostics have to do is change enough of His words that they would use in reference to support their gnostic teachings which includes denying the deity of Christ.
Although you can find many references in the NIV referring to the deity of Christ, there are many references that have been changed enough by the gnostics to support their gnostic teachings whereas the scripture source from Antioch would expose them as not loving His words in keeping them.
There are other changes in the modern Bibles from the KJV that supports apostasy as well.
They change the testimony of the Son to being a testimony of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:27 of Romans 8:26-27 on how the Holy Spirit's unspeakable intercessions are made known when it is the Son that searches our hearts & knows the mind of the Spirit in interceding for the saints in according to the will of God. See more at this link to that thread in the Off Topic section of this forum below;
https://community.goodgamestudios.com/empire/us/discussion/321243/fco-how-gods-official-prayer-system-actually-works/p1
Knowing the truth on how the Holy Spirit will speak and not speak is key to being able to discern that tongues without interpretation as being promoted to seek after by seeking to receive the Holy Spirit "again" is paramount in exposing it as not of Him but apostasy.
They have ALSO changed testimony of the Son in how He is our faithful Creator in doing a good job "as in well doing" in the keeping of our souls while we suffer in 1 Peter 4:19 of the KJV to be about the believer doing good while they suffer in modern Bibles. Some modern Bible version implies the believer's being committed to doing good while they suffer thus supporting apostasy of a believer making and keeping the commitment to follow Christ as if doing the best you can is how we live as His in following Him when we can only follow Him by faith in Jesus Christ as our Good Shepherd for He will help us to follow Him. See more on this crisis of faith at this link below:
https://community.goodgamestudios.com/empire/us/discussion/321020/fco-what-does-commitment-mean-to-you/p1
So while some may see these changes as minor in changing the testimony of the Son Whom we are to love, a few do not see them as minor but a grievous offense.
Psalm 119:157 Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158 I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word.
So you have to ask yourself, why you are not offended when they declined from the testimonies of the Son, thus the modern Bibles have not kept His words thus proving the origin source as those that claimed to have loved Him, did not love Him nor His words, because the Father says so when they did not keep His words to prove that they loved Him as Jesus testified of the Father in John 14:23-24 above.
Indeed, as many critics of the KJV are in abundance, yet they continue to fail to see how modern Bibles support the two major apostasies of these latter days where faith is hard to find, and it is usually because they see nothing wrong with those apostasies.
Yet Jesus's own words testify that those that loved Him will keep His words and so those that loved Him, will see that the KJV is the Bible to rely on when discerning good and evil in these latter days where faith is hard to find.
John 5: 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
So when in doubt about who the scripture should be testifying about in seeking the glory of, it will be the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ; not the glory of the Holy Spirit since He seeks to glorify the Son;
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: ....
Nor glorify the believer in anything he or she is committed to do FOR the Lord as if testifying of themselves in seeking their own glory.
John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
2 Corinthians 3: 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
2 Corinthians 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
John 3: 28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. 29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease.
So which Bible loves Him and His words to keep the spotlight on Jesus in seeking His glory that the indwelling Holy Spirit is doing as those that are the disciples of Jesus Christ should be doing by His grace & by His help? The King James Bible. May He help you to see that.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. KJV
Jesus said this because there will be a need for believers to discern which Bible loves Him in keeping His words.
The Greek documents that made up the Textus Receptus originated from Antioch where His disciples were first called christians. The King James Bible and the Geneva Bible and the other earlier ones stemmed from the Textus Receptus.
Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The Greek documents that most of the modern Bibles are translated from, originated from Alexandria where poetic licensing & gnosticism has been known to exists.
Now between these two sources, which do you think you should lean on more as having the correct translation & messages that He wants us to have?
How can we tell if changes have been made by those that did NOT love Him & His words? Considering the gnostic influence in the Alexandrian region, since believers could not have a collection of the scripture for their own personal use, but generally read at the assembly, then all gnostics have to do is change enough of His words that they would use in reference to support their gnostic teachings which includes denying the deity of Christ.
Although you can find many references in the NIV referring to the deity of Christ, there are many references that have been changed enough by the gnostics to support their gnostic teachings whereas the scripture source from Antioch would expose them as not loving His words in keeping them.
There are other changes in the modern Bibles from the KJV that supports apostasy as well.
They change the testimony of the Son to being a testimony of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:27 of Romans 8:26-27 on how the Holy Spirit's unspeakable intercessions are made known when it is the Son that searches our hearts & knows the mind of the Spirit in interceding for the saints in according to the will of God. See more at this link to that thread in the Off Topic section of this forum below;
https://community.goodgamestudios.com/empire/us/discussion/321243/fco-how-gods-official-prayer-system-actually-works/p1
Knowing the truth on how the Holy Spirit will speak and not speak is key to being able to discern that tongues without interpretation as being promoted to seek after by seeking to receive the Holy Spirit "again" is paramount in exposing it as not of Him but apostasy.
They have ALSO changed testimony of the Son in how He is our faithful Creator in doing a good job "as in well doing" in the keeping of our souls while we suffer in 1 Peter 4:19 of the KJV to be about the believer doing good while they suffer in modern Bibles. Some modern Bible version implies the believer's being committed to doing good while they suffer thus supporting apostasy of a believer making and keeping the commitment to follow Christ as if doing the best you can is how we live as His in following Him when we can only follow Him by faith in Jesus Christ as our Good Shepherd for He will help us to follow Him. See more on this crisis of faith at this link below:
https://community.goodgamestudios.com/empire/us/discussion/321020/fco-what-does-commitment-mean-to-you/p1
So while some may see these changes as minor in changing the testimony of the Son Whom we are to love, a few do not see them as minor but a grievous offense.
Psalm 119:157 Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158 I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word.
So you have to ask yourself, why you are not offended when they declined from the testimonies of the Son, thus the modern Bibles have not kept His words thus proving the origin source as those that claimed to have loved Him, did not love Him nor His words, because the Father says so when they did not keep His words to prove that they loved Him as Jesus testified of the Father in John 14:23-24 above.
Indeed, as many critics of the KJV are in abundance, yet they continue to fail to see how modern Bibles support the two major apostasies of these latter days where faith is hard to find, and it is usually because they see nothing wrong with those apostasies.
Yet Jesus's own words testify that those that loved Him will keep His words and so those that loved Him, will see that the KJV is the Bible to rely on when discerning good and evil in these latter days where faith is hard to find.
John 5: 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
So when in doubt about who the scripture should be testifying about in seeking the glory of, it will be the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ; not the glory of the Holy Spirit since He seeks to glorify the Son;
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: ....
Nor glorify the believer in anything he or she is committed to do FOR the Lord as if testifying of themselves in seeking their own glory.
John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
2 Corinthians 3: 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
2 Corinthians 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
John 3: 28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. 29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease.
So which Bible loves Him and His words to keep the spotlight on Jesus in seeking His glory that the indwelling Holy Spirit is doing as those that are the disciples of Jesus Christ should be doing by His grace & by His help? The King James Bible. May He help you to see that.
[4594622]
outlaw_always (US1) [US1]
:: Oct. 16, 2016, 3:09 p.m.
Heh... and what would you know about ancient scripture translations and customs when your Church wasn't even around...
Only that Catholic Church was around then. If I ever wanted to know about this old stuff I would go to my Catholic friends :P I'm surprised each one of your modern branches of "christianity" don't each have their own bible.. oh wait,.... they DO! Yeah good luck explaining why yours is better than everyone elses :P
Only that Catholic Church was around then. If I ever wanted to know about this old stuff I would go to my Catholic friends :P I'm surprised each one of your modern branches of "christianity" don't each have their own bible.. oh wait,.... they DO! Yeah good luck explaining why yours is better than everyone elses :P
[4594632]
Enow (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 16, 2016, 3:23 p.m.
When trying to reprove those believers that think they have to work for their salvation or to work to keep their salvation, you may find it challenging when the ESV makes living the christian life as hard.
Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. ESV
The NASB & the NIV use the word "small" instead of hard, but the KJV has it in this wise.
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. KJV
Strait is the word used here as Jesus is referring to that singular invitation on how any one can approach God the Father by.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. KJV
Jesus is the only way; He is the only door in relating to God the Father by.
This is what Jesus is referring to; it is not about how hard the christian life is, thus feeding the false teaching that it is on the believer in doing the best they can, even by keeping that commitment to follow Jesus and so the KJV has it right.
Otherwise, how can anyone apply this precious promise from God of our rest in Him that even little children can come to Him?
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. KJV
Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. ESV
The NASB & the NIV use the word "small" instead of hard, but the KJV has it in this wise.
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. KJV
Strait is the word used here as Jesus is referring to that singular invitation on how any one can approach God the Father by.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. KJV
Jesus is the only way; He is the only door in relating to God the Father by.
This is what Jesus is referring to; it is not about how hard the christian life is, thus feeding the false teaching that it is on the believer in doing the best they can, even by keeping that commitment to follow Jesus and so the KJV has it right.
Otherwise, how can anyone apply this precious promise from God of our rest in Him that even little children can come to Him?
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. KJV
[4594636]
outlaw_always (US1) [US1]
:: Oct. 16, 2016, 3:32 p.m.
Yeah I'm sorry this is the Catholic version
Matthew 7:13: "Intrate per angustam portam: quia lata porta, et spatiosa via est, quae ducit ad perditionem, et multi sunt qui intrant per eam."
:P just try proving how that isn't original...
Matthew 7:13: "Intrate per angustam portam: quia lata porta, et spatiosa via est, quae ducit ad perditionem, et multi sunt qui intrant per eam."
:P just try proving how that isn't original...
[4594647]
Amnesiac Lapp (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 16, 2016, 3:48 p.m.
My point exactly.outlaw_always (US1) said:Heh... and what would you know about ancient scripture translations and customs when your Church wasn't even around...
Only that Catholic Church was around then. If I ever wanted to know about this old stuff I would go to my Catholic friends :P I'm surprised each one of your modern branches of "christianity" don't each have their own bible.. oh wait,.... they DO! Yeah good luck explaining why yours is better than everyone elses :P
The only bible i have ever read from in school is the Catholic Bible. I dont see how this "King James Bible" is any better. maybe some stories are out of your Bible, but the Catholic Bible is the oldest and probably most accurate depicition of what(or what didn't if this is all untrue) happened
[4594859]
danielbannister (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 16, 2016, 8:17 p.m.
Enow, the Textus Receptus wasn't based on Antioch translations at all. It was based on 3 Greek texts that Erasmus found in nearby monasteries in Europe, not Antioch. Someone has sold you a bill of goods if you think it's based on Antioch translations. We don't have anything even remotely close to that age in manuscripts.. Additionally, there was an abundance of heresy in Antioch as well as Alexandria. Heresy was everywhere. The reason the majority of the greek texts that have survived are from the Antioch tradition, are because they are newer, and therefore more error prone, copies of the original Greek. Islam moved into the Alexandria region well before Constantinople fell and burned as any manuscripts as they could, which is why fewer of the Alexandrian copies exists.
Also, Rev. 22, The KJV is not based on any Greek text whatsoever as Erasmus didn't have a copy of that last page of the BIble, the copy of Revelation he had was missing that page and as a result, he made the Textus Receptus from the Latin version, not the greek and made some Greek words that are found in not one Greek text, including the phrase Book of life, which in every Greek translation in existence, including the Antioch and Alexandrian versions, records as Tree of life. Therefore the KJV is in error as it is based on not one Greek language copy we have.
There are many modern version which accurately convey the Greek manuscripts, incluing the ESV and the NASB, which are far more literal.
For instance, the KJV in ROm 6:1 doesn't give nearly as harsh a condemnation against sin as the ESV and NASB do, which are far better literal translations than the KJV, which is more of a dynamic equivalent translation. Is the KJV heretical because it doesn't condemns sin as it should? No, just inferior in that one place.
Disclaimer: I have a degree in ancient Bible manuscripts and collect them for a living.
Also, Rev. 22, The KJV is not based on any Greek text whatsoever as Erasmus didn't have a copy of that last page of the BIble, the copy of Revelation he had was missing that page and as a result, he made the Textus Receptus from the Latin version, not the greek and made some Greek words that are found in not one Greek text, including the phrase Book of life, which in every Greek translation in existence, including the Antioch and Alexandrian versions, records as Tree of life. Therefore the KJV is in error as it is based on not one Greek language copy we have.
There are many modern version which accurately convey the Greek manuscripts, incluing the ESV and the NASB, which are far more literal.
For instance, the KJV in ROm 6:1 doesn't give nearly as harsh a condemnation against sin as the ESV and NASB do, which are far better literal translations than the KJV, which is more of a dynamic equivalent translation. Is the KJV heretical because it doesn't condemns sin as it should? No, just inferior in that one place.
Disclaimer: I have a degree in ancient Bible manuscripts and collect them for a living.
[4594924]
Enow (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 16, 2016, 9:31 p.m.
Thank you for sharing, Daniel, however, the point of the source origin is where His words had originated from. Naturally, any beginning documents at that time in Acts 11:26 is going to be worn out from extensive use, but I maintained that the Lord saw to it to get the truth of His words into the TR.
In spite of the many documents burned in Alexandria, it did serve as a source documents for many other documents from which the modern Bibles were translated from.
The saying "the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts" is not a valid argument when His words dictate that those that loved Him, would love His words. They would be worn out from extensive use and therefore requiring replacements. Those oldest manuscripts are all of Alexandrian origin and one has to wonder how much they loved His words when it is collecting dusts on the shelf. One report was that one was found in a wastebasket.
So to me, changes were made just enough to support gnosticism in the Alexandrian region as they teach prayer, fasting, meditation, more than likely on their changed verses in scripture, while they look within themselves for secret knowledge from God in speaking to them rather than on the whole of scripture, otherwise, those monks would not be allowing the gnostics to get away with it when their changed scripture was obviously going against scripture in their days if they were reading all of the scripture as the disciples were doing at Antioch.
Scripture has testified that the disciples in Antioch taught the word; and so in spite of the heresy that was there, one can see how they were able to stand against it, because I do not see how that can happen in Alexandria or from those that had their source material from Alexandria.
Then we have the end result; modern Bibles declining from the testimony of the Son to be a testimony about the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:27 or a believer being committed to do good works while they suffer in 1 Peter 4:19.
I have read the argument about the tree of life in Revelation 22, but I submit this for your discernment; since the book of life and tree of life can be found in Revelation in any modern Bible, example; Revelation 3:5, then it is more than likely that whosoever copied Revelation 22 got cross eyed from verse 14's tree of life with what it was supposed to be written when it is supposed to be book of life in verse 19.
The proof is in verse 18 because of the punishment for doing a similar thing in messing around with His words which did not involve taking away his part out of the book of life for removing His words in verse 19. The punishment for adding to His words, was to add to them in getting the plagues. So when you look at both of these punishment, it is referring to punishment received in the land of the living as a final judgment;
That final judgment cannot be in the end at the end of the milleniel reign of Christ when those generations coming out of that 1000 year reign of Christ after the last defeat of Satan, will be eating from the tree of life as it is for the healing of the nations. It is of that time where death & hell will be cast into the lake of fire along with Satan and his followers. There can be no plagues for those people to suffer that punishment for adding to His words when they will be in the lake of fire.
So this warning is for the translators living in these times now. The consequence is to be left behind at the pre trib rapture event where plagues will exists in the great tribulation for adding to His words in the Book of Revelation; and believers that get left behind, are having their part removed from the Book of life where they could have lived in the city of God above. I submit that the part removed is their place in the city of God which is mentioned in the same verse. Therefore it cannot be about the tree of life, but the book of life.
Revelation 3:5 holds a double negative where Jesus is promising believers that He would never remove their names out of the book of life. BUT not every one will be ready for the Bridegroom when He comes. This is why there are 2 vessels in His House; 2 Timothy 2:19-21 And those that look to Him for help in preparing themselves in discerning good & evil by His words in the KJV for Him to expose the works of darkness by them, will be able to ask Him for help in departing from those iniquities in order to be received as a vessel unto honor in His House.
Those that do not look to their Good Shepherd for help in preparing themselves, run the risk of being left behind, and their part in the book of life in living in that city of God is removed. Like the prodigal son that has lost his first inheritance to wild living, they are still His, but as vessels unto dishonor in His House to receive their terrestriel inheritance after the great tribulation where they will serve the King of kings for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ all over the world.
So as I understand this from Him, Revelation 22:19 is not tree of life, but book of life. This wisdom can only come from the Lord as only He can help you see the truth in His words as it is supposed to be.
As for Romans 6:1, I fail to see any difference to show the KJV as not being harsh against sin, even with verse 2.
Romans 6:1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? KJV
Romans 6:1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? NASB
Romans 6:1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? ESV
The message is the same, but to me, in verse 2, God forbid, sounds harsher on sin than the NASB & ESV.
I understand that you have a degree, but have you used discernment and wisdom from the Lord on what they were trying to teach you when it is based on available information which is to say, not all information is available?
I can see how believers, educated and even with a degree, can lose sight of Him when researching for background information, but the problem is, not everything is known and thus being taught for this background to lead any believer to a conclusion as to which Bible they should be relying on. What is written as in what scripture says it is supposed to be written has to come into play for discernment, and any scripture that declines from the testimony of the Son in giving that testimony to another, has to be circumspect, especially when other scripture in that modern Bible is supporting apostasies in these latter days where many are falling away from the faith.
In spite of the many documents burned in Alexandria, it did serve as a source documents for many other documents from which the modern Bibles were translated from.
The saying "the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts" is not a valid argument when His words dictate that those that loved Him, would love His words. They would be worn out from extensive use and therefore requiring replacements. Those oldest manuscripts are all of Alexandrian origin and one has to wonder how much they loved His words when it is collecting dusts on the shelf. One report was that one was found in a wastebasket.
So to me, changes were made just enough to support gnosticism in the Alexandrian region as they teach prayer, fasting, meditation, more than likely on their changed verses in scripture, while they look within themselves for secret knowledge from God in speaking to them rather than on the whole of scripture, otherwise, those monks would not be allowing the gnostics to get away with it when their changed scripture was obviously going against scripture in their days if they were reading all of the scripture as the disciples were doing at Antioch.
Scripture has testified that the disciples in Antioch taught the word; and so in spite of the heresy that was there, one can see how they were able to stand against it, because I do not see how that can happen in Alexandria or from those that had their source material from Alexandria.
Then we have the end result; modern Bibles declining from the testimony of the Son to be a testimony about the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:27 or a believer being committed to do good works while they suffer in 1 Peter 4:19.
I have read the argument about the tree of life in Revelation 22, but I submit this for your discernment; since the book of life and tree of life can be found in Revelation in any modern Bible, example; Revelation 3:5, then it is more than likely that whosoever copied Revelation 22 got cross eyed from verse 14's tree of life with what it was supposed to be written when it is supposed to be book of life in verse 19.
The proof is in verse 18 because of the punishment for doing a similar thing in messing around with His words which did not involve taking away his part out of the book of life for removing His words in verse 19. The punishment for adding to His words, was to add to them in getting the plagues. So when you look at both of these punishment, it is referring to punishment received in the land of the living as a final judgment;
That final judgment cannot be in the end at the end of the milleniel reign of Christ when those generations coming out of that 1000 year reign of Christ after the last defeat of Satan, will be eating from the tree of life as it is for the healing of the nations. It is of that time where death & hell will be cast into the lake of fire along with Satan and his followers. There can be no plagues for those people to suffer that punishment for adding to His words when they will be in the lake of fire.
So this warning is for the translators living in these times now. The consequence is to be left behind at the pre trib rapture event where plagues will exists in the great tribulation for adding to His words in the Book of Revelation; and believers that get left behind, are having their part removed from the Book of life where they could have lived in the city of God above. I submit that the part removed is their place in the city of God which is mentioned in the same verse. Therefore it cannot be about the tree of life, but the book of life.
Revelation 3:5 holds a double negative where Jesus is promising believers that He would never remove their names out of the book of life. BUT not every one will be ready for the Bridegroom when He comes. This is why there are 2 vessels in His House; 2 Timothy 2:19-21 And those that look to Him for help in preparing themselves in discerning good & evil by His words in the KJV for Him to expose the works of darkness by them, will be able to ask Him for help in departing from those iniquities in order to be received as a vessel unto honor in His House.
Those that do not look to their Good Shepherd for help in preparing themselves, run the risk of being left behind, and their part in the book of life in living in that city of God is removed. Like the prodigal son that has lost his first inheritance to wild living, they are still His, but as vessels unto dishonor in His House to receive their terrestriel inheritance after the great tribulation where they will serve the King of kings for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ all over the world.
So as I understand this from Him, Revelation 22:19 is not tree of life, but book of life. This wisdom can only come from the Lord as only He can help you see the truth in His words as it is supposed to be.
As for Romans 6:1, I fail to see any difference to show the KJV as not being harsh against sin, even with verse 2.
Romans 6:1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? KJV
Romans 6:1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? NASB
Romans 6:1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? ESV
The message is the same, but to me, in verse 2, God forbid, sounds harsher on sin than the NASB & ESV.
I understand that you have a degree, but have you used discernment and wisdom from the Lord on what they were trying to teach you when it is based on available information which is to say, not all information is available?
I can see how believers, educated and even with a degree, can lose sight of Him when researching for background information, but the problem is, not everything is known and thus being taught for this background to lead any believer to a conclusion as to which Bible they should be relying on. What is written as in what scripture says it is supposed to be written has to come into play for discernment, and any scripture that declines from the testimony of the Son in giving that testimony to another, has to be circumspect, especially when other scripture in that modern Bible is supporting apostasies in these latter days where many are falling away from the faith.
[4594930]
Amnesiac Lapp (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 16, 2016, 9:51 p.m.
I read through your post and my response to you is based solely off of the last paragraph.Enow (US1) said:Thank you for sharing, Daniel, however, the point of the source origin is where His words had originated from. Naturally, any beginning documents at that time in Acts 11:26 is going to be worn out from extensive use, but I maintained that the Lord saw to it to get the truth of His words into the TR.
In spite of the many documents burned in Alexandria, it did serve as a source documents for many other documents from which the modern Bibles were translated from.
The saying "the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts" is not a valid argument when His words dictate that those that loved Him, would love His words. They would be worn out from extensive use and therefore requiring replacements. Those oldest manuscripts are all of Alexandrian origin and one has to wonder how much they loved His words when it is collecting dusts on the shelf. One report was that one was found in a wastebasket.
So to me, changes were made just enough to support gnosticism in the Alexandrian region as they teach prayer, fasting, meditation, more than likely on their changed verses in scripture, while they look within themselves for secret knowledge from God in speaking to them rather than on the whole of scripture, otherwise, those monks would not be allowing the gnostics to get away with it when their changed scripture was obviously going against scripture in their days if they were reading all of the scripture as the disciples were doing at Antioch.
Scripture has testified that the disciples in Antioch taught the word; and so in spite of the heresy that was there, one can see how they were able to stand against it, because I do not see how that can happen in Alexandria or from those that had their source material from Alexandria.
Then we have the end result; modern Bibles declining from the testimony of the Son to be a testimony about the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:27 or a believer being committed to do good works while they suffer in 1 Peter 4:19.
I have read the argument about the tree of life in Revelation 22, but I submit this for your discernment; since the book of life and tree of life can be found in Revelation in any modern Bible, example; Revelation 3:5, then it is more than likely that whosoever copied Revelation 22 got cross eyed from verse 14's tree of life with what it was supposed to be written when it is supposed to be book of life in verse 19.
The proof is in verse 18 because of the punishment for doing a similar thing in messing around with His words which did not involve taking away his part out of the book of life for removing His words in verse 19. The punishment for adding to His words, was to add to them in getting the plagues. So when you look at both of these punishment, it is referring to punishment received in the land of the living as a final judgment;
That final judgment cannot be in the end at the end of the milleniel reign of Christ when those generations coming out of that 1000 year reign of Christ after the last defeat of Satan, will be eating from the tree of life as it is for the healing of the nations. It is of that time where death & hell will be cast into the lake of fire along with Satan and his followers. There can be no plagues for those people to suffer that punishment for adding to His words when they will be in the lake of fire.
So this warning is for the translators living in these times now. The consequence is to be left behind at the pre trib rapture event where plagues will exists in the great tribulation for adding to His words in the Book of Revelation; and believers that get left behind, are having their part removed from the Book of life where they could have lived in the city of God above. I submit that the part removed is their place in the city of God which is mentioned in the same verse. Therefore it cannot be about the tree of life, but the book of life.
Revelation 3:5 holds a double negative where Jesus is promising believers that He would never remove their names out of the book of life. BUT not every one will be ready for the Bridegroom when He comes. This is why there are 2 vessels in His House; 2 Timothy 2:19-21 And those that look to Him for help in preparing themselves in discerning good & evil by His words in the KJV for Him to expose the works of darkness by them, will be able to ask Him for help in departing from those iniquities in order to be received as a vessel unto honor in His House.
Those that do not look to their Good Shepherd for help in preparing themselves, run the risk of being left behind, and their part in the book of life in living in that city of God is removed. Like the prodigal son that has lost his first inheritance to wild living, they are still His, but as vessels unto dishonor in His House to receive their terrestriel inheritance after the great tribulation where they will serve the King of kings for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ all over the world.
So as I understand this from Him, Revelation 22:19 is not tree of life, but book of life. This wisdom can only come from the Lord as only He can help you see the truth in His words as it is supposed to be.
As for Romans 6:1, I fail to see any difference to show the KJV as not being harsh against sin, even with verse 2.
Romans 6:1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? KJV
Romans 6:1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? NASB
Romans 6:1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? ESV
The message is the same, but to me, in verse 2, God forbid, sounds harsher on sin than the NASB & ESV.
I understand that you have a degree, but have you used discernment and wisdom from the Lord on what they were trying to teach you when it is based on available information which is to say, not all information is available?
I can see how believers, educated and even with a degree, can lose sight of Him when researching for background information, but the problem is, not everything is known and thus being taught for this background to lead any believer to a conclusion as to which Bible they should be relying on. What is written as in what scripture says it is supposed to be written has to come into play for discernment, and any scripture that declines from the testimony of the Son in giving that testimony to another, has to be circumspect, especially when other scripture in that modern Bible is supporting apostasies in these latter days where many are falling away from the faith.
people are falling away from "faith" because atheism is becoming more popular. The bible is rather complex, so rather than "believing it", people try to "understand" it(especially john's gospel. seriously though, that thing is confusing as all hell.)
[4594933]
Enow (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 16, 2016, 9:58 p.m.
If you have not read my reply to you before this one, please do, Daniel.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow, the Textus Receptus wasn't based on Antioch translations at all. It was based on 3 Greek texts that Erasmus found in nearby monasteries in Europe, not Antioch. Someone has sold you a bill of goods if you think it's based on Antioch translations. We don't have anything even remotely close to that age in manuscripts.. Additionally, there was an abundance of heresy in Antioch as well as Alexandria. Heresy was everywhere. The reason the majority of the greek texts that have survived are from the Antioch tradition, are because they are newer, and therefore more error prone, copies of the original Greek. Islam moved into the Alexandria region well before Constantinople fell and burned as any manuscripts as they could, which is why fewer of the Alexandrian copies exists.
Also, Rev. 22, The KJV is not based on any Greek text whatsoever as Erasmus didn't have a copy of that last page of the BIble, the copy of Revelation he had was missing that page and as a result, he made the Textus Receptus from the Latin version, not the greek and made some Greek words that are found in not one Greek text, including the phrase Book of life, which in every Greek translation in existence, including the Antioch and Alexandrian versions, records as Tree of life. Therefore the KJV is in error as it is based on not one Greek language copy we have.
There are many modern version which accurately convey the Greek manuscripts, incluing the ESV and the NASB, which are far more literal.
For instance, the KJV in ROm 6:1 doesn't give nearly as harsh a condemnation against sin as the ESV and NASB do, which are far better literal translations than the KJV, which is more of a dynamic equivalent translation. Is the KJV heretical because it doesn't condemns sin as it should? No, just inferior in that one place.
Disclaimer: I have a degree in ancient Bible manuscripts and collect them for a living.
Also, what do you say about this site that shows why 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture?
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
I do not agree with everything at this web site, and even on this page where the first proof that 1 John 5:7 existing was not really that good a proof, because Tertullian could have been commenting about the Triune God, and not necessarily quoting 1 John 5:7, HOWEVER, the other proofs on that list are indeed supporting that 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture because they referred to it as scripture.
This is an example about losing sight of the truth in His words, doing research and having doubts when we can ask Him if 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture. If you read from verse 6 to verse 9, for verse 9 to be true, it has to show at least Two witnesses for God's testimony of the Son to be greater than men's.
John 8:17 testify that the witnesses of two men is true.
Jesus said that two or three other witnesses is required when confirming a true testimony or a true witness: Matthew 18:16
Paul said that two or three witnesses was needed to confirm what is true about him. 2 Corinthians 13:1
So without the background information, thanks to Jesus Christ for confirmation, I know that 1 John 5:7 belongs in there because by removing the 3 Witnesses from Heaven, you take away how the witness of God is greater then men's in verse 9.
[4594960]
varg vikernes (US1) [US1]
:: Oct. 16, 2016, 10:48 p.m.
Putting stuff about the bible on here is gay
[4594990]
outlaw_always (US1) [US1]
:: Oct. 17, 2016, 12:21 a.m.
Enow.... look, look buddy, if you think that Jesus' words are important, then wouldn't the closest translation of his words be the best?
Do you have ANY idea of how many versions of the Bible there are? That's why Catholicism makes sense... wherever you go, there's a Catholic Church with the SAME bibles, SAME rites, SAME things that all Catholics do. Like when you go to Germany do you have your little Baptist Church there? Nope.... So I guess only Americans can be Baptist. Sounds great
Do you have ANY idea of how many versions of the Bible there are? That's why Catholicism makes sense... wherever you go, there's a Catholic Church with the SAME bibles, SAME rites, SAME things that all Catholics do. Like when you go to Germany do you have your little Baptist Church there? Nope.... So I guess only Americans can be Baptist. Sounds great
[4595158]
danielbannister (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 17, 2016, 11:58 a.m.
Enow (US1) said:If you have not read my reply to you before this one, please do, Daniel.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow, the Textus Receptus wasn't based on Antioch translations at all. It was based on 3 Greek texts that Erasmus found in nearby monasteries in Europe, not Antioch. Someone has sold you a bill of goods if you think it's based on Antioch translations. We don't have anything even remotely close to that age in manuscripts.. Additionally, there was an abundance of heresy in Antioch as well as Alexandria. Heresy was everywhere. The reason the majority of the greek texts that have survived are from the Antioch tradition, are because they are newer, and therefore more error prone, copies of the original Greek. Islam moved into the Alexandria region well before Constantinople fell and burned as any manuscripts as they could, which is why fewer of the Alexandrian copies exists.
Also, Rev. 22, The KJV is not based on any Greek text whatsoever as Erasmus didn't have a copy of that last page of the BIble, the copy of Revelation he had was missing that page and as a result, he made the Textus Receptus from the Latin version, not the greek and made some Greek words that are found in not one Greek text, including the phrase Book of life, which in every Greek translation in existence, including the Antioch and Alexandrian versions, records as Tree of life. Therefore the KJV is in error as it is based on not one Greek language copy we have.
There are many modern version which accurately convey the Greek manuscripts, incluing the ESV and the NASB, which are far more literal.
For instance, the KJV in ROm 6:1 doesn't give nearly as harsh a condemnation against sin as the ESV and NASB do, which are far better literal translations than the KJV, which is more of a dynamic equivalent translation. Is the KJV heretical because it doesn't condemns sin as it should? No, just inferior in that one place.
Disclaimer: I have a degree in ancient Bible manuscripts and collect them for a living.
Also, what do you say about this site that shows why 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture?
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
I do not agree with everything at this web site, and even on this page where the first proof that 1 John 5:7 existing was not really that good a proof, because Tertullian could have been commenting about the Triune God, and not necessarily quoting 1 John 5:7, HOWEVER, the other proofs on that list are indeed supporting that 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture because they referred to it as scripture.
This is an example about losing sight of the truth in His words, doing research and having doubts when we can ask Him if 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture. If you read from verse 6 to verse 9, for verse 9 to be true, it has to show at least Two witnesses for God's testimony of the Son to be greater than men's.
John 8:17 testify that the witnesses of two men is true.
Jesus said that two or three other witnesses is required when confirming a true testimony or a true witness: Matthew 18:16
Paul said that two or three witnesses was needed to confirm what is true about him. 2 Corinthians 13:1
So without the background information, thanks to Jesus Christ for confirmation, I know that 1 John 5:7 belongs in there because by removing the 3 Witnesses from Heaven, you take away how the witness of God is greater then men's in verse 9.
Going back to Rev 22....you claim that that Antioch Bible tradition is more trustworthy, and then in the same paragraph you reject the Antioch tradition of the Bible. EVERY Antioch tradition manuscript in existence states that Rev 22 says Tree of life, not Book of life. There is not a single Greek manuscript that says otherwise. You cannot logically state that the Antioch tradition is better and then reject it when it disagrees with what you believe. Doing so destroys any basis of your argument. Stating that someone was crosseyed when they put tree of life isn't an argument either. It's pretty clear that Erasmus, which was one single man who made the Textus Receptus, who was a Catholic, who was an apostate by the way, made the mistake by putting Book of Life instead of Tree of Life.
Why would you claim that the manuscripts from Alexandria (which are very few in number because they were all worn out from use, the claim they were found in the trashcan is an absolute myth) are inferior to the Antioch tradition because of apostasy being in Antioch when the Textus Receptus was made by a Catholic heretic? If the Alexandrian manuscripts are not trustworthy because of heresy then the TR is even more untrustworthy. I don't accept that there was heresy behind the Alexandrian manuscripts. In fact, I bet you are not aware that they haven't found a single manuscript in Alexandria. IN fact, the manuscripts you call Alexandrian were actually found closer to Antioch than the so called Antioch manuscripts. lol
[4595330]
outlaw_always (US1) [US1]
:: Oct. 17, 2016, 3:19 p.m.
Where did you hear that Erasmus was an Apostate?
[4595387]
danielbannister (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 17, 2016, 4:11 p.m.
outlaw_always (US1) said:Where did you hear that Erasmus was an Apostate?
I am speaking from Enow's definition of apostate.....since Enow is not a Catholic, he is likely to regard all Catholics as apostates. Since he rejects anything that comes from Alexandria, even though the manuscripts he rejects didn't come from there, he must also reject Erasmus, since he regards Catholics as apostate.
He is not presenting a consistent argument for the KJV if he rejects Alexandrian family manuscripts due to the supposed apostasy there but accepts the Textus Receptus which was written by a Catholic man.
10 to 1 odds state that he will say something about the TR still being better because it was preserved by God and agrees with his theology....which is backwards because our theology should be derived from Scripture, not our Scripture derived from our theology.
I am a conservative Christian. I hold to inerrancy, but I do not accept that the KJV is superior as it has serious flaws with it. The KJV only folks often mean well, but they are usually unaware of where the Bible came from. Iv'e found they usually just repeat half truths they have heard before, like the one where Modern Translations are based on manuscripts found in the trash, which has absolutely no basis in history.
[4595395]
danielbannister (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 17, 2016, 4:16 p.m.
outlaw_always (US1) said:Heh... and what would you know about ancient scripture translations and customs when your Church wasn't even around...
Only that Catholic Church was around then. If I ever wanted to know about this old stuff I would go to my Catholic friends :P I'm surprised each one of your modern branches of "christianity" don't each have their own bible.. oh wait,.... they DO! Yeah good luck explaining why yours is better than everyone elses :P
And actually, the Catholic church, as we know it today, didn't get it's start until the 5th or 6th centuries. There were several centers of Christianity in the early centuries, Rome was a minor player in the beginning but gradually grew stronger and stronger as the various councils generally had outcomes that agreed with the Roman position until Rome grew all powerful.
The Catholic Church didn't exist for quite some time and certainly was not around when the Alexandrian copies were being disseminated in the 2nd-4th centuries.
[4595565]
outlaw_always (US1) [US1]
:: Oct. 17, 2016, 7:04 p.m.
Given that Christ died around 33 AD, there was hardly any development of the Church as far as specific universal customs... I mean you read in Acts everything that happened during that period till around 80-90 AD. New testament was then written from 50 AD to 100 AD. There is a "dark age" afterwards with the persecutions of the Christians under the Roman Government, so, no, the Greek Translations of the Old Testament were done by Hellenistically influenced Jews for the most part. The edict of Milan in 313 and the Nicene creed in 325 began what we recognize as the Modern Church. The church then split into Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic in the year 1054. Both of which are considered valid by the Catholic Church now, but it wasn't that way for a long time, until St. John Paul II and Vatican II.
[4595773]
Amnesiac Lapp (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 17, 2016, 11:44 p.m.
Honestly, its easier to say this, in a simplified mannar.
Catholic church existed longer, and so did their bible. They have more things in their bible than protestants. They all have one bible, and there are several protestant bibles with differences. Therefore, simply by inferring(you don't need a bibical degree to figure this out lol), the Catholic bible is most likely the most accurate depiction of what(or what didn't) happen.
Catholic church existed longer, and so did their bible. They have more things in their bible than protestants. They all have one bible, and there are several protestant bibles with differences. Therefore, simply by inferring(you don't need a bibical degree to figure this out lol), the Catholic bible is most likely the most accurate depiction of what(or what didn't) happen.
[4595780]
danielbannister (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 18, 2016, 12:47 a.m.
jeethBOSS-1 (US1) said:Honestly, its easier to say this, in a simplified mannar.
Catholic church existed longer, and so did their bible. They have more things in their bible than protestants. They all have one bible, and there are several protestant bibles with differences. Therefore, simply by inferring(you don't need a bibical degree to figure this out lol), the Catholic bible is most likely the most accurate depiction of what(or what didn't) happen.
The differences between the Catholic Bible and nearly every honest Protestant Bible would fit on one page. Plus, the Catholic BIble has had several revisions, it has most definitely not remained constant through the centuries. The Douay Rheims Bible underwent several revisions, as did the Old Latin Vulgate, and in fact, hundreds of variants exist in the Vulgate just like the Protestant Bibles, but the differences are so minute as to almost not matter really.
[4595782]
outlaw_always (US1) [US1]
:: Oct. 18, 2016, 12:48 a.m.
Most of the bibles the "Church" is spitting out today aren't actually approved by the vatican :P they're just bookstores trying to make money....
[4595793]
Enow (US1) [None]
:: Oct. 18, 2016, 2 a.m.
I have to wonder where you get your information, but if you want to rely on man's teaching then rely on the Lord to confirm to you which is the correct message, there really isn't much I can share with you on that point.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow (US1) said:If you have not read my reply to you before this one, please do, Daniel.danielbannister (US1) said:Enow, the Textus Receptus wasn't based on Antioch translations at all. It was based on 3 Greek texts that Erasmus found in nearby monasteries in Europe, not Antioch. Someone has sold you a bill of goods if you think it's based on Antioch translations. We don't have anything even remotely close to that age in manuscripts.. Additionally, there was an abundance of heresy in Antioch as well as Alexandria. Heresy was everywhere. The reason the majority of the greek texts that have survived are from the Antioch tradition, are because they are newer, and therefore more error prone, copies of the original Greek. Islam moved into the Alexandria region well before Constantinople fell and burned as any manuscripts as they could, which is why fewer of the Alexandrian copies exists.
Also, Rev. 22, The KJV is not based on any Greek text whatsoever as Erasmus didn't have a copy of that last page of the BIble, the copy of Revelation he had was missing that page and as a result, he made the Textus Receptus from the Latin version, not the greek and made some Greek words that are found in not one Greek text, including the phrase Book of life, which in every Greek translation in existence, including the Antioch and Alexandrian versions, records as Tree of life. Therefore the KJV is in error as it is based on not one Greek language copy we have.
There are many modern version which accurately convey the Greek manuscripts, incluing the ESV and the NASB, which are far more literal.
For instance, the KJV in ROm 6:1 doesn't give nearly as harsh a condemnation against sin as the ESV and NASB do, which are far better literal translations than the KJV, which is more of a dynamic equivalent translation. Is the KJV heretical because it doesn't condemns sin as it should? No, just inferior in that one place.
Disclaimer: I have a degree in ancient Bible manuscripts and collect them for a living.
Also, what do you say about this site that shows why 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture?
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
I do not agree with everything at this web site, and even on this page where the first proof that 1 John 5:7 existing was not really that good a proof, because Tertullian could have been commenting about the Triune God, and not necessarily quoting 1 John 5:7, HOWEVER, the other proofs on that list are indeed supporting that 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture because they referred to it as scripture.
This is an example about losing sight of the truth in His words, doing research and having doubts when we can ask Him if 1 John 5:7 belongs in scripture. If you read from verse 6 to verse 9, for verse 9 to be true, it has to show at least Two witnesses for God's testimony of the Son to be greater than men's.
John 8:17 testify that the witnesses of two men is true.
Jesus said that two or three other witnesses is required when confirming a true testimony or a true witness: Matthew 18:16
Paul said that two or three witnesses was needed to confirm what is true about him. 2 Corinthians 13:1
So without the background information, thanks to Jesus Christ for confirmation, I know that 1 John 5:7 belongs in there because by removing the 3 Witnesses from Heaven, you take away how the witness of God is greater then men's in verse 9.
Going back to Rev 22....you claim that that Antioch Bible tradition is more trustworthy, and then in the same paragraph you reject the Antioch tradition of the Bible. EVERY Antioch tradition manuscript in existence states that Rev 22 says Tree of life, not Book of life. There is not a single Greek manuscript that says otherwise. You cannot logically state that the Antioch tradition is better and then reject it when it disagrees with what you believe. Doing so destroys any basis of your argument. Stating that someone was crosseyed when they put tree of life isn't an argument either. It's pretty clear that Erasmus, which was one single man who made the Textus Receptus, who was a Catholic, who was an apostate by the way, made the mistake by putting Book of Life instead of Tree of Life.
Why would you claim that the manuscripts from Alexandria (which are very few in number because they were all worn out from use, the claim they were found in the trashcan is an absolute myth) are inferior to the Antioch tradition because of apostasy being in Antioch when the Textus Receptus was made by a Catholic heretic? If the Alexandrian manuscripts are not trustworthy because of heresy then the TR is even more untrustworthy. I don't accept that there was heresy behind the Alexandrian manuscripts. In fact, I bet you are not aware that they haven't found a single manuscript in Alexandria. IN fact, the manuscripts you call Alexandrian were actually found closer to Antioch than the so called Antioch manuscripts. lol
But just in case the Lord is ministering anyway;
Only the pre raptured saints get to have a place in the city; John 14:1-3 This is the first inheritance; the celestiel one; the vessels unto honor; the abiding bride of Christ received by the Bridegroom.
The unrepentant saints left behind do not have a place in the city of God above. Their part is taken out of the book of life; for not being ready, they will have their "portion" with the unbelievers left behind on earth to face the coming fire on the earth ( Luke 12:40-49 ) that will burn up one third of the earth which will be the cause for the new world order to tempt all on the earth during the great tribulation to receive the mark of the beast in order to buy & sell in order to survive at which times, the plagues will hit as well. Think of the saints left behind as the prodigal son that gave up his first inheritance for wild living because this is where the vessels unto dishonor in His House comes from. 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 shows that "destruction" from being that vessel unto honor to being damned as vessels unto dishonor; thus having no inheritance; no place in the city of God no longer. This is that PART that was taken out of the Book of Life for which they were supposed to receive as their names are in it, but it was taken away, even though their names are still in that Book of Life.
There is no way to fit tree of life for what it is for which is for the healing of the nations for the coming generations out of the milleniel reign of Christ to line up with the punishment of the plagues for adding to God's words in Revelation 22:18. Those that partake of the tree of life are doing so after the great tribulation; and thus with the King of kings among them, it cannot serve as a punishment for those that mess with His words in the Book of Revelation NOW when the King of kings is living among men.
Once you see the point of the warning in how it ties in with the rest of scripture, Revelation 22:19 cannot be about the tree of life.
So you say that Erasmus had no Greek documents and I say... how can they say that when he made a protest about 1 John 5:7 when they had produced those few Greek documents that seemed relatively "new"? Supposedly, he even written a protest regarding it, and you are trying to tell me he said nothing about Revelation 22:19 if there was no Greek document?
You have to question that.
Look. I took a Liberty Home Bible Institute Course. I did not agree with everything they had taught as the Lord led me to question and prove those questionable things by the scripture of the KJV. They even handed out their Liberty Annotated King James Version for me to use and in the footnotes, supposedly supported by educated Biblical scholars with degrees that the behemoth was a hippo, but you & I can read His words in Job 40th chapter that the behemoth has a tail like a cedar, which is a tree, and that is plain as day testifying to dinosaurs living with mankind.
Now... if you want to use your education to continue to blind you from reading His words plainly and go with the degree people, then I guess you will see the behemoth as a hippo too.
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth......
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Thanks for sharing, brother, but I do hope the Lord is ministering here.