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

[branham1965]

YOU OBSERVED THE PASSOVER ON ALL MY POINTS.
ATHANASIUS NEVER QUOTED JOHN ONCE AT NICEA.WHY DIDNT HE??I THINK THERES A FAIR CHANCE IT WAS NOT THERE.IF IT WAS HE WOULD HAVE USED IT.IT WAS NOT USED IN 381 EITHER.NOW THATS ODD.

PROPOSITION :THE MAJORITY OF ALL MODERN VERSIONS OMIT 1 JOHN 5:7...THE NIV,NASB,ASV,ESV,HCSB,RSV,NRSV,NAB,AMPLIFIED,YOU NAME IT.WHAT SAY YOU ROCKY????


where did i say there is no Trinity????

Well you never said it directly. That's why I said "for example". And no the AMPLIFIED does not omit the verse. But, I don't care which translation omits it. I think newer translation are lacking in a lot of areas anyway, this must be known and understand by the bible student. I am not KJV only but It is the standard for me, or rather the Textus Receptus is the standard . I have studied on bible translations for about 6 years so. At first I did it to try to prove my self right as you are doing, I was such an advocate of modern versions, that I set out trying to show the KJV only position is nuts(Now I admit some of it is) Through my study I discovered that these newer translation are ok but lacking. Billy I know you are anti-Trinitarian, that's why you are making these claims, I cant help you there, some one planted that seed in you along time ago. You have the tools around you to learn the truth, but maybe pride or something else wont let you be taught any thing different. No matter what any one says or posts I will not be convinced that 1 John 5:7 was added, So you definitely will be beating a dead horse with me on this

Rocky
In your mind what makes the Textus Receptus more accurate than the other translations into Greek?

Does the fact that draws heavily on Catholic Latin Translations bother you in any way?

Does the advances in understanding ancient Greek that have been recently made influence you at all?

Does the advances made in our ability to better understand all that was involved in bringing one translation forward bother you at all?

Does the fact that God clearly stated His word was inspired but never mentioned the translation or interpretation of His word being inspired, does that bother you at all?

I understand you call it a dead horse I'm just wondering on what basis do you declare the horse dead?

These are very rhetorical questions. But here goes. Ok first of all I know all the catholic conspiracy theories. And, so two anti Trinitarian British scholars are considered advances In understanding greek? Oh and I Never said I believe the Textus Receptus or that the KJV is inspired in of itself, I just believe that God preserved his written word, Sorry I don't trust the newer translation as much as I use to. I am not saying to throw them away, I use them for certain things as well. I am well aware of all of the conspiracy theories and so forth. I use to advocate for the newer translations and your rhetorical questions are the same ones I use to use, you know been there done that bought the t shirt then threw it away, and the horse is dead and he isn't getting back up, ever

Rocky
You said a lot but really didn't say anything other than I asked rhetorical questions.
'
What makes you think the Textus Receptus is more reliable that other works of the orginal translated into Greek?

No rhetoric just a simply question. No conspiracies. No trumpted up charges.

Just a simple question.

Do you believe that 1 john 5:7 was added as well as well? Sorry that I am KJV bias, I just am. I wasn't always but I am now. Any way Not much for the Westcott & Hort Translations or the Nestle-Aland text Codex Alexandrinus or the Codex Vaticanusor most of these are used for the newer translations. Even the UBS texts were used I think to some extent. It was shocking to see how many verses were removed from these. But all of this traces back to the alexandrian and the antioch texts.I tend to be more bias to the Antioch texts so to speak. Wow talk about some old rehash here, haven't thought about this in a while, and I promised my self not to get into these discussions because they are redundant. But any way, yeah I do read out some of the newer translations and have read the niv and the nasb and the amplified and the NKJV in their entirety and I do realize the wording is easier to understand. But most of them are derivatives of the Codex Alexandrinus. And I am also aware of the agendas and beliefs of Westcott & Hort and their magic eraser lol..

[Justaned]

PROPOSITION :THE MAJORITY OF ALL MODERN VERSIONS OMIT 1 JOHN 5:7...THE NIV,NASB,ASV,ESV,HCSB,RSV,NRSV,NAB,AMPLIFIED,YOU NAME IT.WHAT SAY YOU ROCKY????


where did i say there is no Trinity????

Well you never said it directly. That's why I said "for example". And no the AMPLIFIED does not omit the verse. But, I don't care which translation omits it. I think newer translation are lacking in a lot of areas anyway, this must be known and understand by the bible student. I am not KJV only but It is the standard for me, or rather the Textus Receptus is the standard . I have studied on bible translations for about 6 years so. At first I did it to try to prove my self right as you are doing, I was such an advocate of modern versions, that I set out trying to show the KJV only position is nuts(Now I admit some of it is) Through my study I discovered that these newer translation are ok but lacking. Billy I know you are anti-Trinitarian, that's why you are making these claims, I cant help you there, some one planted that seed in you along time ago. You have the tools around you to learn the truth, but maybe pride or something else wont let you be taught any thing different. No matter what any one says or posts I will not be convinced that 1 John 5:7 was added, So you definitely will be beating a dead horse with me on this

Rocky
In your mind what makes the Textus Receptus more accurate than the other translations into Greek?

Does the fact that draws heavily on Catholic Latin Translations bother you in any way?

Does the advances in understanding ancient Greek that have been recently made influence you at all?

Does the advances made in our ability to better understand all that was involved in bringing one translation forward bother you at all?

Does the fact that God clearly stated His word was inspired but never mentioned the translation or interpretation of His word being inspired, does that bother you at all?

I understand you call it a dead horse I'm just wondering on what basis do you declare the horse dead?

These are very rhetorical questions. But here goes. Ok first of all I know all the catholic conspiracy theories. And, so two anti Trinitarian British scholars are considered advances In understanding greek? Oh and I Never said I believe the Textus Receptus or that the KJV is inspired in of itself, I just believe that God preserved his written word, Sorry I don't trust the newer translation as much as I use to. I am not saying to throw them away, I use them for certain things as well. I am well aware of all of the conspiracy theories and so forth. I use to advocate for the newer translations and your rhetorical questions are the same ones I use to use, you know been there done that bought the t shirt then threw it away, and the horse is dead and he isn't getting back up, ever

Rocky
You said a lot but really didn't say anything other than I asked rhetorical questions.
'
What makes you think the Textus Receptus is more reliable that other works of the orginal translated into Greek?

No rhetoric just a simply question. No conspiracies. No trumpted up charges.

Just a simple question.

Do you believe that 1 john 5:7 was added as well as well? Sorry that I am KJV bias, I just am. I wasn't always but I am now. Any way Not much for the Westcott & Hort Translations or the Nestle-Aland text Codex Alexandrinus or the Codex Vaticanusor most of these are used for the newer translations. Even the UBS texts were used I think to some extent. It was shocking to see how many verses were removed from these. But all of this traces back to the alexandrian and the antioch texts.I tend to be more bias to the Antioch texts so to speak. Wow talk about some old rehash here, haven't thought about this in a while, and I promised my self not to get into these discussions because they are redundant. But any way, yeah I do read out some of the newer translations and have read the niv and the nasb and the amplified and the NKJV in their entirety and I do realize the wording is easier to understand. But most of them are derivatives of the Codex Alexandrinus. And I am also aware of the agendas and beliefs of Westcott & Hort and their magic eraser lol..

I asked a question and you respond by asking me a question.

I assume though you didn't say you believe the scholarship of the Textus Receptus is superior to the scholarship of the other translations? Is that correct? Could I then ask on what you base your opinion or is wrapped up in rhetoric about magic erasers and things like that?

[branham1965]

THE TEXUS RECEPTUS WAS IS OUTDATED.ITS 400 YEARS OLD!!!
THE WHAT OLDSTERS CALLED THE REVISED VERSION THE BRITISH OF 1885 THE YANKS OF 1901 ARE FAR MORE ACCURATE AND LITERAL.
THE NASB IS THE MODERN VERSION OF THIS.
ONLY A CONSPIRACY THEORY NUT WOULD OPPOSE THE BETTER NEW VERSIONS.

PROPOSITION :THE MAJORITY OF ALL MODERN VERSIONS OMIT 1 JOHN 5:7...THE NIV,NASB,ASV,ESV,HCSB,RSV,NRSV,NAB,AMPLIFIED,YOU NAME IT.WHAT SAY YOU ROCKY????


where did i say there is no Trinity????

Well you never said it directly. That's why I said "for example". And no the AMPLIFIED does not omit the verse. But, I don't care which translation omits it. I think newer translation are lacking in a lot of areas anyway, this must be known and understand by the bible student. I am not KJV only but It is the standard for me, or rather the Textus Receptus is the standard . I have studied on bible translations for about 6 years so. At first I did it to try to prove my self right as you are doing, I was such an advocate of modern versions, that I set out trying to show the KJV only position is nuts(Now I admit some of it is) Through my study I discovered that these newer translation are ok but lacking. Billy I know you are anti-Trinitarian, that's why you are making these claims, I cant help you there, some one planted that seed in you along time ago. You have the tools around you to learn the truth, but maybe pride or something else wont let you be taught any thing different. No matter what any one says or posts I will not be convinced that 1 John 5:7 was added, So you definitely will be beating a dead horse with me on this

Rocky
In your mind what makes the Textus Receptus more accurate than the other translations into Greek?

Does the fact that draws heavily on Catholic Latin Translations bother you in any way?

Does the advances in understanding ancient Greek that have been recently made influence you at all?

Does the advances made in our ability to better understand all that was involved in bringing one translation forward bother you at all?

Does the fact that God clearly stated His word was inspired but never mentioned the translation or interpretation of His word being inspired, does that bother you at all?

I understand you call it a dead horse I'm just wondering on what basis do you declare the horse dead?

These are very rhetorical questions. But here goes. Ok first of all I know all the catholic conspiracy theories. And, so two anti Trinitarian British scholars are considered advances In understanding greek? Oh and I Never said I believe the Textus Receptus or that the KJV is inspired in of itself, I just believe that God preserved his written word, Sorry I don't trust the newer translation as much as I use to. I am not saying to throw them away, I use them for certain things as well. I am well aware of all of the conspiracy theories and so forth. I use to advocate for the newer translations and your rhetorical questions are the same ones I use to use, you know been there done that bought the t shirt then threw it away, and the horse is dead and he isn't getting back up, ever

Rocky
You said a lot but really didn't say anything other than I asked rhetorical questions.
'
What makes you think the Textus Receptus is more reliable that other works of the orginal translated into Greek?

No rhetoric just a simply question. No conspiracies. No trumpted up charges.

Just a simple question.

Do you believe that 1 john 5:7 was added as well as well? Sorry that I am KJV bias, I just am. I wasn't always but I am now. Any way Not much for the Westcott & Hort Translations or the Nestle-Aland text Codex Alexandrinus or the Codex Vaticanusor most of these are used for the newer translations. Even the UBS texts were used I think to some extent. It was shocking to see how many verses were removed from these. But all of this traces back to the alexandrian and the antioch texts.I tend to be more bias to the Antioch texts so to speak. Wow talk about some old rehash here, haven't thought about this in a while, and I promised my self not to get into these discussions because they are redundant. But any way, yeah I do read out some of the newer translations and have read the niv and the nasb and the amplified and the NKJV in their entirety and I do realize the wording is easier to understand. But most of them are derivatives of the Codex Alexandrinus. And I am also aware of the agendas and beliefs of Westcott & Hort and their magic eraser lol..

I asked a question and you respond by asking me a question.

I assume though you didn't say you believe the scholarship of the Textus Receptus is superior to the scholarship of the other translations? Is that correct? Could I then ask on what you base your opinion or is wrapped up in rhetoric about magic erasers and things like that?

[Rocky]

I asked a question and you respond by asking me a question.

Oh the irony, I just thought I would show you what you do to most of us on here Ed lol

[Rocky]

THE TEXUS RECEPTUS WAS IS OUTDATED.ITS 400 YEARS OLD!!!
THE WHAT OLDSTERS CALLED THE REVISED VERSION THE BRITISH OF 1885 THE YANKS OF 1901 ARE FAR MORE ACCURATE AND LITERAL.
THE NASB IS THE MODERN VERSION OF THIS.
ONLY A CONSPIRACY THEORY NUT WOULD OPPOSE THE BETTER NEW VERSIONS

Wow all caps again. Ok Billy ok. Have your anger and believe what you want.

[branham1965]

quit reading those nutty books!!!!!
good men died and were burned alive by the man of Sin -the Papacy to give us the BOOK OF BOOKS.

THE TEXUS RECEPTUS WAS IS OUTDATED.ITS 400 YEARS OLD!!!
THE WHAT OLDSTERS CALLED THE REVISED VERSION THE BRITISH OF 1885 THE YANKS OF 1901 ARE FAR MORE ACCURATE AND LITERAL.
THE NASB IS THE MODERN VERSION OF THIS.
ONLY A CONSPIRACY THEORY NUT WOULD OPPOSE THE BETTER NEW VERSIONS

Wow all caps again. Ok Billy ok. Have your anger and believe what you want.

[Justaned]

I asked a question and you respond by asking me a question.

Oh the irony, I just thought I would show you what you do to most of us on here Ed lol

But you still didn't tell us why you think Textus Receptus is superior and what made it way in your view.

[Rocky]

quit reading those nutty books!!!!!
good men died and were burned alive by the man of Sin -the Papacy to give us the BOOK OF BOOKS.

Huh???

[branham1965]

i thought you were reading those books that have the ASV revisers killing Lincoln and stuff like that.

quit reading those nutty books!!!!!
good men died and were burned alive by the man of Sin -the Papacy to give us the BOOK OF BOOKS.

Huh???

[Rocky]

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.