|
| Page 1 | Page 4 · Found: 169 user comments posted recently. |
|  | |  |
|
|
 10/5/08 4:47 PM |
| ml | |  |  |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote:
Jim Lincoln -
Thanks for the encouragement.
I'm battling the KJVO Fundies the best I can by the grace of God, of course. I guarantee you that every last one of them are freewill Arminian, pre-Mill Dispies. Not all KJVO are fundies, freewill arminians, pre-mill dispies. Some of us are from the reformed camp. |
|
|
 10/5/08 2:46 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Pastor Gary Click wrote:
Baptists were never a part of the church of Rome. We have no history there. "This claim of modern Baptists is made in effort to remain apart from any historical connection with the Roman Catholic Church, even if that connection is via the Protestant Reformers. But even that effort is futile, for virtually all of the early Anabaptist leaders themselves came either from Protestantism or from Romanism itself. A brief list of names will suffice to establish this point: Balthasar Hubmaier, a converted Roman Catholic Priest; Hans Denck, Lutheran headmaster of the renowned St. Sebald School in Nuremberg; Menno Simons, a Roman Catholic Priest in Friesland; Thomas Munster, a Roman Catholic? Lutheran? Communist? --scholars debate; Melchior Hoffman, a Lutheran missionary; Wilhelm Reublin, a Roman Catholic Priest; Johannes Brottli, Roman Catholic Priest; George Blaurock, a Roman Catholic Monk; Simon Stumf, Roman Catholic Priest; Conrad Grebel, Zwingli's protege in Zurich; Felix Manz, Roman Catholic (illegitimate son of a Roman Catholic Priest) and later associate of Zwingli; etc..."[URL=http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/ecclesiology/baptism.htm]]]http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/ecclesiology..[/URL] |
|
|
| 9/30/08 11:53 AM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
John UK wrote:
ml
Hi!
Just to ask you if you believe that Christ Jesus was fully God, as well as fully Man. Hi John, yes I believe that Christ Jesus was fully God and fully man. As to Christ's blood being divine I agree with what DJC49 posted earlier in response to you. |
|
|
| 9/29/08 4:51 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
ENGINEER wrote:
ml
this got buried, and I did want to know-
do YOU think Cairns,
Paisley,etc are antichrist(s)? No, I don't think they are antichrists but I do think they are in great error regarding this very important matter. |
|
|
| 9/29/08 4:26 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
“How did Jesus become fully one with us? And, how did Jesus become fully one with us, yet remain free from sin?”“Owen's answer was that the Son of God really shared our humanity [Heb. 2:14]. He rejected all forms of Docetism. The holy humanity of Jesus was real humanity. It was earthly, not heavenly. The virgin Mary was truly 'the mother of my Lord' [Lk. 1:43], not merely the channel through which the humanity of Jesus entered this fallen world… By the Spirit, Jesus came from among us. But, having given this affirmation of the reality of Christ's humanity, Owen was careful to avoid the pseudo-logical deduction sometimes drawn from it-that the Son of God must therefore have assumed sinful humanity. No, says Owen, Scripture teaches us that through the overshadowing of the Spirit, that which was born was holy [Lk. 1:35], the Son of God. At the very moment of conception and assumption, the Holy Spirit sanctified the human nature of Jesus equipping him as Son of God to be the Saviour of men. Consequently Jesus was not only (in a negative sense) separate from sinners, he was positively endowed with all appropriate grace, and was holy and harmless, as well as undefiled [Heb. 7:26].” (John Owen On The Spirit In The Life Of Christ
by Sinclair B. Ferguson) |
|
|
| 9/26/08 6:11 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
DJC49 and Neil,Neil is right; the teaching of the ‘incorruptible blood of Christ’ as taught by the fundamentalists does have implications for Christology. I was under this teaching for many years not realizing the error of it until I came across that article written by Martyn McGeown. Neil wrote "It does seem to put Dr. P at odds with the WCF, but then, many Presby denoms *claim* they conform to the WCF! Right again.
BTW DJC49 I am a her  |
|
|
| 8/21/08 8:23 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote:
So I take it that you WILL not (or CAN not) cite just ONE "false doctrine" professed by those who use so-called perverted bible translations? One false doctrine taught in the modern versions is found in Rev 19:8 where they tell us that the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS OF THE SAINTS whereas the fine linen is actually CHRIST’S RIGHTEOUSNESS. Are they not teaching salvation by works!KJV Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. Gill “…the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints…” NASB: It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS OF THE SAINTS. ASV: And it was given unto her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS OF THE SAINTS. Catholic NAB: She was allowed to wear a bright, clean linen garment." (The linen represents the RIGHTEOUS DEEDS OF THE HOLY ONES.) NIV: Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear." (Fine linen stands for the RIGHTEOUS ACTS OF THE SAINTS.) |
|
|
| 8/21/08 7:15 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote:
Would you be so gracious as to name just ONE "false doctrine" which the users of so-called perverted bible translations espouse? Just one will suffice. [And I'm not referring to the New World translation here either.]
BTW ... which bible version did the Waldensians use? And the Huguenots? It was a quote from Ralph Ovadal, listen to his sermon. |
|
|
| 8/21/08 7:11 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
"Royalty, Rumors and Racists" BY STEPHEN A. COSTON, SR. AUTHOR OF THE NEW BOOK: KING JAMES
The VI Of Scotland & I Of England
Unjustly Accused? "Critics of King James VI & I are fond of inferring from the above that King James VI & I engaged in the "French kissing" of his "favorites." They then use this assumption as yet another "proof" to support their contention that King James VI & I was indeed truly a "homosexual." "What the detractors of King James VI & I utterly fail to realize; however, (to their detriment) is the fact that the accounts responsible for popularizing this characterization were penned by individuals who hated not only King James VI & I as a Scot, but the whole country of Scotland as well. They were some of the most militant racists of the time of the most vicious type. Some of their contemporaries knew this and railed against them and defended King James VI & I and it is quite the mystery why modern critics seem not to know this..." [URL=http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/was_king_james_a_homosexual.htm]]]http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/was_king_jame..[/URL] |
|
|
| 8/19/08 1:27 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Jim Lincoln wrote:
...the AV has many errors and they had to be corrected. Even minor revisionists such as Noah Webster...could see obvious errors that were not pointed out by earlier sources of Scripture than what the KJV used. It seems as though the ASV has some of the same 'errors' as the KJV. Jim I have noticed that you sometimes quote from the ASV. Webster's Revision of the KJV (1833) “Creeping animal for creeping thing…but its application to an animal is improper, and vulgar. Indeed, such application often implies contempt …Gen. 1.24, 26, &c.” ASV Gen 1:24 …creeping things…
ASV Gen 1:26 … every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Webster “Diffuse. “The lips of the wise disperse knowledge.” Prov. 15.7. To disperse is to dissipate or scatter so as to destroy the thing. This cannot be the meaning of the author...” ASV Pro 15:7 The lips of the wise DISPERSE knowledge; But the heart of the foolish doeth not so. Webster “God forbid… It is several times used in the version, and without any authority from the original languages …I cannot think it expedient to suffer the phrase “God forbid,” to stand in the text…” ASV Rom 3:4 God forbid… The ASV uses this term several times also. |
|
|
| 8/16/08 2:48 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote:
Where was God's Word preserved BEFORE the 1611 KJV? Was it in the Geneva Bible? The Tyndale Bible? The Wycliffe Bible? The Latin Vulgate? Where was the word of God before 1611 and where is it today? [URL=http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html]]]http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.h..[/URL] DJC49, do you believe we have the Word of God today and if so where? Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7
by Martin A. Shue [URL=http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/wallace.html]]]http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/wallace.htm..[/URL] |
|
|
| 8/15/08 7:19 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote:
The KJV Mark 7:6,7 quote more closely reads similarly to the Septuagint ESAIAS 29:13 text ... it's undeniable. Septuagint Isaiah 29:13 And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.KJV Mark 7:6-7 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. I believe as John Owen did that “THE APOSTLE TOOK NOT HIS WORDS FROM THE TRANSLATION OF THE LXX, BUT HIS WORDS WERE AFTERWARDS INSERTED INTO THAT TRANSLATION.” |
|
|
| 8/15/08 4:22 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
"It is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX, as we intimated is by some pleaded... Should he [Paul] have had any respect unto that translation [LXX], it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth... And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, THE APOSTLE TOOK NOT HIS WORDS FROM THE TRANSLATION OF THE LXX, BUT HIS WORDS WERE AFTERWARDS INSERTED INTO THAT TRANSLATION... Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear, so no reason can be assigned why the LXX - IF ANY SUCH LXX THERE WERE - who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text." (John Owen Exposition Of Hebrews, Vol I, Exercitation V.) |
|
|
| 8/15/08 1:12 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
rogerant wrote:
Ahhhh... The mythological LXX!!! Would you be referring to the mythological Septuagint? Both Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint and the original Hebrew text!!! No LXX (Greek Septuagint)[URL=http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html]]]http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.htm..[/URL] [URL=http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXTwo.html]]]http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXTwo.htm..[/URL] [URL=http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.html]]]http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.h..[/URL] [URL=http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.html]]]http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.ht..[/URL] |
|
|
| 8/10/08 4:33 PM |
| ml | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote:
In each instance, the NASB has it right and more accurately translates the KJV boo-boos as "Him," "Himself," "Himself," and "He" respectively. Versions that agree with the KJB rendering of John 1:32. Why????John 1:32 … and it abode upon him. ASV John 1:32 … and it remained on him. ESV John 1:32 …. and it abode vpon him, GENEVA John 1:32 …and it abode upon him. RV John 1:32…and it abode upon him. DARBY TRANSLATION John 1:32…It abode upon Him. 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) John 1:32 …and it dwelt on Him [never to depart]. Amplified Bible (AMP) John 1:32 … and it abode upon him. WEBSTER’S BIBLE John 1:32 … and it remained upon Him. Weymouth New Testament John 1:32… and it remained on him World English Bible John 1:32… and it remained on him Young's Literal Translation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
