Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Do you obey the WHOLE Gospel?

[Justaned]

Justaned wrote "That is a crock"

Ok Ed ok. Wow what an intelligent and graceful reply. You need to learn how to debate points properly instead of troll ... This really doesn't deserve a reply lol

If you read the rest of my post I tell you exactly why this is a crock.

[scottae316]

Billy, is it possible you want certain versus taken out because you don't agree with those versus? I was talking to a Muslim and he said he did not like the KJV because it was to Christian, to Trinitarian, and to deity of Christ. He liked the newer versions because of this That is what finely pushed me over the edge about this. Just something to think about remember the Muslim said the KJV was to "Christian" "Trinitarian" "Deity of Christ" for his taste.. Because those beliefs are Christian.

It is also possible to say that the KJV had 120+ verses added to it that are not contained in the oldest manuscripts

I know this seems to be the popular view now days, But I believe it to be a futile attempt to justify entire scriptures taken out of the Bible. I mean, don't you guys see what going on here? People(Christians) are actually trying to justify this.

I don't see it as justifying anything. You state that verses are taken out of the Bible, I simply stated that the reverse could be said. You are of the opinion that the verses are taken out, others view them as additions or scribal comments that were added later.

[branham1965]

it was from a Professor Tischendorf's list.around 1900??
i saw the verse in both the KJV and NASB.
i eat crow on those 120 verses.my bad.i was WRONG.its a dangerous thing to remove things from the Bible.i agree with you Rocky.

the last verse in John's Gospel is an interpolation.

Who told you that? Is not the Bible sacred any more.

[Justaned]

I don't see it as justifying anything. You state that verses are taken out of the Bible, I simply stated that the reverse could be said. You are of the opinion that the verses are taken out, others view them as additions or scribal comments that were added later.

Scott
I totally agree with you on this.

In my opinion there is no way to prove the validity of the verses in question, however none present new doctrine or contradict existing scripture. I try to treat these verses in question as questionable and avoid using them to establish doctrine or to defend existing doctrine. In other words they are there and I hold them but I don't use them because they are questionable.

Never had a problem except from people that focus on the verses as some kind of test of the validity of your Christianity.
However I have also learned that most people that do this have no idea what true Christianity really is.

[bibleman]

I don't see it as justifying anything. You state that verses are taken out of the Bible, I simply stated that the reverse could be said. You are of the opinion that the verses are taken out, others view them as additions or scribal comments that were added later.

Scott
I totally agree with you on this.

In my opinion there is no way to prove the validity of the verses in question, however none present new doctrine or contradict existing scripture. I try to treat these verses in question as questionable and avoid using them to establish doctrine or to defend existing doctrine. In other words they are there and I hold them but I don't use them because they are questionable.

Never had a problem except from people that focus on the verses as some kind of test of the validity of your Christianity.
However I have also learned that most people that do this have no idea what true Christianity really is.

God's Word is questionable???

I would disagree. Man's word in questionable but NOT God's.

That is a new one for me. I think I will let that one go on by.

[Justaned]

I don't see it as justifying anything. You state that verses are taken out of the Bible, I simply stated that the reverse could be said. You are of the opinion that the verses are taken out, others view them as additions or scribal comments that were added later.

Scott
I totally agree with you on this.

In my opinion there is no way to prove the validity of the verses in question, however none present new doctrine or contradict existing scripture. I try to treat these verses in question as questionable and avoid using them to establish doctrine or to defend existing doctrine. In other words they are there and I hold them but I don't use them because they are questionable.

Never had a problem except from people that focus on the verses as some kind of test of the validity of your Christianity.
However I have also learned that most people that do this have no idea what true Christianity really is.

God's Word is questionable???

I would disagree. Man's word in questionable but NOT God's.

That is a new one for me. I think I will let that one go on by.

I didn't say God's word was questionable I said there are verses that do not appear in the earliest manuscripts that are now in the KJV. Where they simply missing from the early manuscripts that we have or were they later added is the question. Writting style and word usage in some cases suggest some were added rather than missing. However that can not be proven or disproven at this point.

However none of them introduce new doctrine nor do any of them contradict existing doctrine so to me they are not a problem. Yet a lot of people waste a lot of time arguing over them, instead of being about the master's business.

[branham1965]

REVED
i threw that list away.
id be afraid to omit these verses.Rev 22 says dont do it.1 John 5:7 is covered in the Dake notes.no one went there.
what version do you preach out of if i may ask please.

I don't see it as justifying anything. You state that verses are taken out of the Bible, I simply stated that the reverse could be said. You are of the opinion that the verses are taken out, others view them as additions or scribal comments that were added later.

Scott
I totally agree with you on this.

In my opinion there is no way to prove the validity of the verses in question, however none present new doctrine or contradict existing scripture. I try to treat these verses in question as questionable and avoid using them to establish doctrine or to defend existing doctrine. In other words they are there and I hold them but I don't use them because they are questionable.

Never had a problem except from people that focus on the verses as some kind of test of the validity of your Christianity.
However I have also learned that most people that do this have no idea what true Christianity really is.

God's Word is questionable???

I would disagree. Man's word in questionable but NOT God's.

That is a new one for me. I think I will let that one go on by.

I didn't say God's word was questionable I said there are verses that do not appear in the earliest manuscripts that are now in the KJV. Where they simply missing from the early manuscripts that we have or were they later added is the question. Writting style and word usage in some cases suggest some were added rather than missing. However that can not be proven or disproven at this point.

However none of them introduce new doctrine nor do any of them contradict existing doctrine so to me they are not a problem. Yet a lot of people waste a lot of time arguing over them, instead of being about the master's business.

[scottae316]

I don't see it as justifying anything. You state that verses are taken out of the Bible, I simply stated that the reverse could be said. You are of the opinion that the verses are taken out, others view them as additions or scribal comments that were added later.

Scott
I totally agree with you on this.

In my opinion there is no way to prove the validity of the verses in question, however none present new doctrine or contradict existing scripture. I try to treat these verses in question as questionable and avoid using them to establish doctrine or to defend existing doctrine. In other words they are there and I hold them but I don't use them because they are questionable.

Never had a problem except from people that focus on the verses as some kind of test of the validity of your Christianity.
However I have also learned that most people that do this have no idea what true Christianity really is.

God's Word is questionable???

I would disagree. Man's word in questionable but NOT God's.

That is a new one for me. I think I will let that one go on by.

Who's questioning God's Word? I see no one here questioning God's Word, who is it Leon? What I do see is an honest disagreement as to wether some verses were added or not. As a side question what belief or doctrine is changed that is not taught elsewhere in God's Word?

[Justaned]

Billy
I love the NASB but it is nearly impossible for me to preach from, as I often get tongue tied because of the sentence structure. So I use the NKJV to preach from. If I'm preaching to new believers or 'English is a second language' listener I use the NLT.

For personal study I always used the NASB but since I notate my Bible and I don't want to miss those notes when I'm preaching I tend to study from my NKJV more and more.

However in truth I do a lot of study in Wordsearch using many many translations and making notes that can appear in any translation.

In effect I had the NKJV Dake bible years ago since Wordsearch allows Dake's notes to be seen in any translation you pick. So I can have Dake's notes, MacArthur's notes, Jack Hayford notes and my own notes in front of me for every Bible verse. Bible software is great!!!!!!!!!!

REVED
i threw that list away.
id be afraid to omit these verses.Rev 22 says dont do it.1 John 5:7 is covered in the Dake notes.no one went there.
what version do you preach out of if i may ask please.

I don't see it as justifying anything. You state that verses are taken out of the Bible, I simply stated that the reverse could be said. You are of the opinion that the verses are taken out, others view them as additions or scribal comments that were added later.

Scott
I totally agree with you on this.

In my opinion there is no way to prove the validity of the verses in question, however none present new doctrine or contradict existing scripture. I try to treat these verses in question as questionable and avoid using them to establish doctrine or to defend existing doctrine. In other words they are there and I hold them but I don't use them because they are questionable.

Never had a problem except from people that focus on the verses as some kind of test of the validity of your Christianity.
However I have also learned that most people that do this have no idea what true Christianity really is.

God's Word is questionable???

I would disagree. Man's word in questionable but NOT God's.

That is a new one for me. I think I will let that one go on by.

I didn't say God's word was questionable I said there are verses that do not appear in the earliest manuscripts that are now in the KJV. Where they simply missing from the early manuscripts that we have or were they later added is the question. Writting style and word usage in some cases suggest some were added rather than missing. However that can not be proven or disproven at this point.

However none of them introduce new doctrine nor do any of them contradict existing doctrine so to me they are not a problem. Yet a lot of people waste a lot of time arguing over them, instead of being about the master's business.

[bibleman]

Billy
I love the NASB but it is nearly impossible for me to preach from, as I often get tongue tied because of the sentence structure. So I use the NKJV to preach from. If I'm preaching to new believers or 'English is a second language' listener I use the NLT.

For personal study I always used the NASB but since I notate my Bible and I don't want to miss those notes when I'm preaching I tend to study from my NKJV more and more.

However in truth I do a lot of study in Wordsearch using many many translations and making notes that can appear in any translation.

In effect I had the NKJV Dake bible years ago since Wordsearch allows Dake's notes to be seen in any translation you pick. So I can have Dake's notes, MacArthur's notes, Jack Hayford notes and my own notes in front of me for every Bible verse. Bible software is great!!!!!!!!!!

REVED
i threw that list away.
id be afraid to omit these verses.Rev 22 says dont do it.1 John 5:7 is covered in the Dake notes.no one went there.
what version do you preach out of if i may ask please.

I don't see it as justifying anything. You state that verses are taken out of the Bible, I simply stated that the reverse could be said. You are of the opinion that the verses are taken out, others view them as additions or scribal comments that were added later.

Scott
I totally agree with you on this.

In my opinion there is no way to prove the validity of the verses in question, however none present new doctrine or contradict existing scripture. I try to treat these verses in question as questionable and avoid using them to establish doctrine or to defend existing doctrine. In other words they are there and I hold them but I don't use them because they are questionable.

Never had a problem except from people that focus on the verses as some kind of test of the validity of your Christianity.
However I have also learned that most people that do this have no idea what true Christianity really is.

God's Word is questionable???

I would disagree. Man's word in questionable but NOT God's.

That is a new one for me. I think I will let that one go on by.

I didn't say God's word was questionable I said there are verses that do not appear in the earliest manuscripts that are now in the KJV. Where they simply missing from the early manuscripts that we have or were they later added is the question. Writting style and word usage in some cases suggest some were added rather than missing. However that can not be proven or disproven at this point.

However none of them introduce new doctrine nor do any of them contradict existing doctrine so to me they are not a problem. Yet a lot of people waste a lot of time arguing over them, instead of being about the master's business.

Hi Ed,

You have "Dake's notes, MacArthur's notes" on your computer side by side!

Wow that really covers the gamut of theological studies. From Dake the literal Bible believer to MacArthur the idiot Charismatic hater.