Bibical Texts: to be or not to be

[His_disciple3]

Actually, though they don't literally mean the same thing, they're pretty similar. Lucifer is the Latin name for the morning star, and Epiphoskei refers to the period of night right "before the light" of the dawn. But, that's neither here nor there.

It remains the fact that Lucifer is the morning star - Venus, when it appears before the dawn. Also, the terms "morning star" and "Lucifer" are never applied to Satan by the scriptures. You are raising a bizarre interpretation of Isaiah 14 above scripture.

go ahead

 

[Epiphoskei]

go ahead

Go ahead and what?

 

[ChrisHolland619]

You are raising evangelism above our worship of God.

Explain to me how you are worshipping God. And that's a serious, genuine question, not a witty attempt at a smartalic retort. I actually want to know.

 

[His_disciple3]

Paul wrote Galatians. See, that took no time at all.

WOW and all this time I thought God wrote Galatians!!!!!

 

[His_disciple3]

Go ahead and what?

Go ahead and use Jesus and satan by the same name, that's you

 

[Epiphoskei]

Explain to me how you are worshipping God. And that's a serious question, not a witty attempt at a smartalic retort.

This afternoon I examined closer the matter of the composition of Daniel. It caused me to meditate on the matter of God's sovereignty over the composition of his word, and aided me in reverencing God himself as he revealed himself through his oracles, rather than falling into the error we Protestants so frequently fall into of reverencing the volume, the edition, or the human author, given that in the case of Daniel, all of these are rather suspect.

 

[Hentenza]

WOW and all this time I thought God wrote Galatians!!!!!

Nope. Paul wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God did not dictate the scriptures. Mechanical dictation is another false doctrine.

 

[ChrisHolland619]

This afternoon I examined closer the matter of the composition of Daniel. It caused me to meditate on the matter of God's sovereignty over the composition of his word, and aided me in reverencing God himself as he revealed himself through his oracles, rather than falling into the error we Protestants so frequently fall into of reverencing the volume, the edition, or the human author, given that in the case of Daniel, all of these are rather suspect.

Praise God for that.

But that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who all they do is obsess and speculate and pointlessly debate over fickle things that do not matter. Refer to my quote from Titus.

I don't think that's what you're doing. Not in that specific example.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Go ahead and use Jesus and satan by the same name, that's you

I don't call Jesus and Satan by the same name. Nor does the Bible. The bible simply calls Jesus and the king of Babylon "morning star" in two entirely separate contexts and understandings. The king of Babylon is being sarcastically portrayed as being so glorious that people thought he looked like the most glorious star in the night sky, but he was chopped down to size. Jesus is actually being compared to the most glorious star in the night sky in a serious tone.

If you cannot hear the derision the author has for a man who thought he would exalt himself over God, I suggest to you that you need to re-read the text. The author is not seriously comparing the king of Babylon to the glory of the pre-dawn appearance of Venus (which the Romans named the Lucifer)

You have this way of insisting that everyone shares certain preconceptions of yours, even after we specifically disclaim them. I do not believe that the term "morning star," which in Latin is "Lucifer," was at any time applied to Satan by scripture. You did the same thing when we were discussing "if," insisting that I was implying that it meant possibility, when I had said it doesn't a half dozen times.

 

[His_disciple3]

Explain to me how you are worshipping God. And that's a serious, genuine question, not a witty attempt at a smartalic retort. I actually want to know.

Let me handle this one ! we are worshipping God by keeping Him high and lifted up in the beginning was the Word, we keep God lifted up by keeping His name and His Word Holy, was Jesus not honouring God when He cleaned out His Temple, He had a zeal to keep it Holy such as should be the same with His Word, I don't agree with Epiphoskei, and the text they use, but I admire them for wanting to keep it Holy, and not have anyone to speak bad of It. So we Lift God Up by defending His testamony, His Word is His testamony. He is a God that can not lie, His word will not have any contradictions in it, and we as Children of God should defend it even with our very life!!

 

[Hentenza]

and satan's job got a lot easier for people picking books full of lies and calling them the Holy Bible, don't you see. the new modern translations are working all toward the one world religion. The Holy Bible for 350 years was the KJB that they picked up when they wanted to read the Holy Bible, but now they spend more time tearing down the KJB, so they can justify why they use a version of the Word of God. they will turn an incorruptable God into a corruptable how will they do this by changing His Holy Word by attacking the 400 year old Bible, saying it is no good for us anymore, My My open your eyes people !! and again let me say that the Holy Word of God and the attack on it from amongst the Church is not a laughing matter

Heiferdust. There has been a bible since the end of the first century when the last book of scripture was written by John. There were bibles before the KJV. The KJV is not even the first translation to English. There are millions of Christians around the world reading bibles in thousands of languages. Don't come here to spread the false message that the KJV, written 1500 years after Christ, is the ONLY word of God. Many a Christian has read the scriptures in other translations and languages and they ARE reading the word of God.

 

[ChrisHolland619]

Let me handle this one ! we are worshipping God by keeping Him high and lifted up in the beginning was the Word, we keep God lifted up by keeping His name and His Word Holy, was Jesus not honouring God when He cleaned out the His Temple, He had a zeal to keep it Holy such as should be the same with His Word, I don't agree with Epiphoskei, and the text they use, but I admire them for wanting to keep it Holy, and not have anyone to speak bad of It. So we Lift God Up by defending His testamony, His Word is His testamony. He is a God that can not lie, His word will not have any contradictions in it, and we as Children of God should defend it even with our very life!!

Are you insinuating that God isn't powerful enough to keep His word holy without our help? That somewhere down the line, we've 'surprised' God? That God was "thrown off" by our dissection and evisceration of His holy word?

 

[His_disciple3]

Heiferdust. There has been a bible since the end of the first century when the last book of scripture was written by John. There were bibles before the KJV. The KJV is not even the first translation to English. There are millions of Christians around the world reading bibles in thousands of languages. Don't come here to spread the false message that the KJV, written 1500 years after Christ, is the ONLY word of God. Many a Christian has read the scriptures in other translations and languages and they ARE reading the word of God.

did you not see that I put a 400 year time period on what I was speaking on. I said nothing about any time before that time period. So I didn't see anything false about what I said , I didn't even include the KJb being the choice Bible after 1950 thus 350 years and this is when all the new modern perversions came onto the scene. so you can retract this post of yours if you would like! but again let me say that this would be Your CHOICE!!

 

[Hentenza]

did you not see that I put a 400 year time period on what I was speaking on. I said nothing about any time before that time period. So I didn't see anything false about what I said , I didn't even include the KJb being the choice Bible after 1950 thus 350 years and this is when all the new modern perversions came onto the scene. so you can retract this post of yours if you would like! but again let me say that this would be Your CHOICE!!

Nope. I am not going to retract what I said simply because it is still true. There are still millions of Christians around the globe today and since the 17th century that have read the scriptures using a different bible translation and language than the KJV and they are STILL reading the word of God. A Chinese convert to Christianity does NOT have to learn archaic English to read the word of God, nor does an aborigine nor a Turk, nor a Russian, etc. etc.

God gave us His word, preserved it through the extant mss, so that we could translate it into every language in the world to fulfill the promise of spreading the gospel to the ends of the world. The KJV, since it is strictly an English translation, can not accomplish this task and, consequently, is but one limb that makes up the whole.

 

[His_disciple3]

Are you insinuating that God isn't powerful enough to keep His word holy without our help? That somewhere down the line, we've 'surprised' God? That God was "thrown off" by our dissection and evisceration of His holy word?

did I say all that ?? but I will say that as Children of God we are to keep ourselves Holy and we do this by Loving God; His name and His Holy Word , and His Holy House/temple, then we love one another, we have to keep God first, so if we see anyone defiling His Name, His Word or His temple we should be ready to fight for Him, either you are for Him or against him, if you are for Him that means His Word and Temple and His Name, once you became a Christian do you still name His name in vain, so why say that His Word is messed and His house is no good either, are you saying that God can't not speak to people out of Heaven like He did when paul got converted so why do we preach, why did He tell us to preach are you insinuating thta God can't spread His word without our help??? come on please would you just read what you post before you post it!!

 

[Epiphoskei]

If by "his word" you mean the exact phrasing of the KJV, to argue it isn't messed up you have to argue that other entire languages are devoid of the "undefiled" word of God. The Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, and Greek languages have Bibles going back centuries before English ever had one, and none of these languages have a version that meshes with the KJV to the degree you're picky.

 

[His_disciple3]

If by "his word" you mean the exact phrasing of the KJV, to argue it isn't messed up you have to argue that other entire languages are devoid of the "undefiled" word of God. The Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, and Greek languages have Bibles going back centuries before English ever had one, and none of these languages have a version that meshes with the KJV to the degree you're picky.

I am sorry, I don't make myself plain enough sometimes I said that I do not do greek, I speak English so with that I am only referring to the english translations since the KJB came about nothing before that, not any other languages. now I can show You websites that may cover some of the text and/or manuscripts that our English translations come from, and I do know how to use the hebrew and greek concordances, so when I say that I believethat the KJB is the one to use, I am not meaning this against Spanish, latin or any other different translation in other tongues. and thank for saying I am picky, for I would rather be picky for the Lord than loose for the devil anyday

 

[Epiphoskei]

Yes, but if you believe it's the only one to use, then it follows that if other languages don't have versions that say the same thing as the KJV, but instead agree with the versions you don't approve of, then the entire language does not have access to a version you approve of.

If my version says X, where yours says Y, and in Syriac, hypothetically, there are no versions of any kind that say Y, they all say X, then you cannot disapprove of my X without disapproving of all Syriac versions.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Let's get specific. There aren't Coptic Bibles that contain the Johanine Comma of I John 5:7, "and there are three who testify in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Nor are there Syriac. There are only a few late Greek manuscripts, Latin manuscripts, and Armenian manuscripts.

To assert that an English Bible is wrong to diverge from the KJV on the matter of the Johannine Comma, you must assert that all Coptic and Syriac Bibles are likewise defective.

 

[His_disciple3]

Yes, but if you believe it's the only one to use, then it follows that if other languages don't have versions that say the same thing as the KJV, but instead agree with the versions you don't approve of, then the entire language does not have access to a version you approve of.

If my version says X, where yours says Y, and in Syriac, hypothetically, there are no versions of any kind that say Y, they all say X, then you cannot disapprove of my X without disapproving of all Syriac versions.

I don't believe that there are other Languages that don't have Bibles that are translated from good manuscripts, For the Word promises that God will preserve His word, we shouldn't play "what if" with the word of God, just trust God to do what He says He will do