The Doctrine of Baptisms.

[Der Alte]

As for the Hebrew and Greek words in the KJV:
Again, the problem today is that you got many so-called Hebrew and Greek experts when they do not know even one tenth of what the translators of the KJV did. Many of the KJV translators knew the languages enough to speak, write, and read them. Most today do not know how to do that and they are only going off Modern scholarship that is affected by Rationalism. They use dictionaries and Lexicons that are tainted by those who were into altering the Bible or who have no belief in the preservation and infallibility of God’s Word. People today who do not like the Bible can just change, add, or delete words as they see fit in the Bible. There is no respect for the Word of God anymore. Example: You just changed the English word “baptize” to “baptizer.” This is wrong. You are NOT a Greek expert and nor do you on the level of the KJV translators. You are acting like you know Greek based on some Modern dictionary tainted by Rationalism. Also, again, you cannot go to Ethiopia to learn Chinese correctly by using an Ethiopian to Chinese dictionary. You go to China to learn Chinese properly. However, Christians should not waste their entire lives learning the original languages by going to those countries and gleaning it from the locals. Instead, believers should get busy with living out faith by God’s Word by simply submitting to it instead of correcting It.
***

Balderdash. You are merely uncritically repeating what your so-called pastors, teachers, leaders etc. have told. You simply accept it as truth. Here is the definition of "baptisma" from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich [BDAG] one of, if not the, most highly accredited Greek lexicons currently available. BDAG represents 120-160 years of combined scholarship. Blue highlights indicates the sources the scholars consulted in determining the correction definition. Note, it is NOT "baptizer."

βάπτισμα, [Baptisma] ατος, τό (s. βαπτίζω; found only in Christian writers; ApcSed 14:6 [p. 136, 7 and 9 Ja.]; Just., D.; Mel., Fgm. 6 al.)​

① the ceremonious use of water for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship w. God, plunging, dipping, washing, water-rite, baptism​

ⓐ of John’s rite [not John himself] (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 44, 13 al. [T. Jesus]) Mt 3:7; 21:25; Mk 11:30; Lk 7:29; 20:4; Ac 1:22; 10:37; 18:25; 19:3; β. μετανοίας Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3 (in these two passages with εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν [proclaiming] a baptism-with-repentance to receive forgiveness of sins) Ac 13:24; 19:4; GEb 13, 74.​

ⓑ of Christian rite β. φέρον ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν B 11:1; β. εἰς τὸν θάνατον Ro 6:4 (s. βαπτίζω 2b). ἓν β. Eph 4:5. The person baptized is at the same time buried w. Christ Col 2:12 v.l.; 1 Pt 3:21 (s. ἀντίτυπος). Compared to a soldier’s weapons IPol 6:2. τηρεῖν τὸ β. ἁγνὸν καὶ ἀμίαντον 2 Cl 6:9. Ritual directions D 7:1, 4.​

② an extraordinary experience akin to an initiatory purification rite, a plunge, a baptism.​

ⓐ metaph. of martyrdom Mk 10:38f; Lk 12:50; Mt 20:22f v.l. (s. GDelling, NovT 2, ’58, 92–115, and βαπτίζω 3c).​

ⓑ metaph. of salvation β. ἐν σωτηρίᾳ Ἀχερουσίας λίμνης b. in the saving waters of the Acherusian lake ApcPt Rainer 1, 4f (s. Ἀχερούσιος; EPeterson, Frühkirche, Judentum u. Gnosis ’59, 310ff).—M-M. TW.​

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 165.​

 

[Der Alte]

Duplicate post deleted.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

...or more likely you do not support your posts with credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical, lexical etc. evidence.
Probably something like "this guy said 'this' that guy said 'that' some other guy said 'something else.'"
Let me show you what I mean about such sources. Here from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich [BDAG] lexicon of NT

I already pointed out how Bauer was a heretic. Most who created Lexicons or dictionaries are a part of Rationalism and held to beliefs that are liberal or unorthodox. This is not to say that they cannot be right at times, but their false beliefs no doubt you consider credible is just a smoke screen to say the least. Try Googling up the names of the creators behind these Lexicons and dictionaries. Check out to see if they held to any false beliefs. I say this because Jesus says a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

In other words, please take no offense, but I see Modern scholarship as sipping the Kool-aid.
In fact, who would have been the respected scholars of Jesus day?
Think. It would have been those who crucified Jesus.

Greek the definition of the Greek word "aionios" which you will note is correctly translated "eternal" in the NT.. You may further note 80+ grammatical, lexical etc. sources highlighted in blue, reviewed by the scholars in determining the correct definition. That is scholarship! If you can't match/supersede that don't bother.

You just love to talk about this topic. Last I checked the thread is about baptism.

αἰώνιος (ία Pla., Tim. 38b; Jer 39:40; Ezk 37:26; OdeSol 11:22; TestAbr A; JosAs 8:11 cod. A; 2 Th 2:16; Hb 9:12; mss. Ac 13:48; 2 Pt 1:11; AcPl BMM recto 27=Ox 1602, 29; Just., A I, 8, 4 al.; B-D-F §59, 2; Mlt-H. 157), ον eternal (since Hyperid. 6, 27; Pla.; ins, pap, LXX, En, TestSol, TestAbr A, Test12Patr; JosAs 12:12; GrBar 4:16; ApcEsdr; ApcMos 29; Ps.-Phocyl. 112; Just.; Tat. 17, 1; Ath., Mel.; standard epithet for princely, esp. imperial, power: OGI index VIII; BGU 176, 12; 303, 2; 309, 4; Sb 7517, 5 [211/12 a.d.] κύριος αἰ.; al. in pap; Jos., Ant. 7, 352).​

① pert. to a long period of time, long ago χρόνοις αἰ. long ages ago Ro 16:25; πρὸ χρόνων αἰ. before time began 2 Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2 (in these two last pass. the prep. bears the semantic content of priority; on χρόνος αἰ. cp. OGI 248, 54; 383, 10).​

② pert. to a period of time without beginning or end, eternal of God (Ps.-Pla., Tim. Locr. 96c θεὸν τ. αἰώνιον; IBM 894, 2 αἰ. κ. ἀθάνατος τοῦ παντὸς φύσις; Gen 21:33; Is 26:4; 40:28; Bar 4:8 al.; Philo, Plant. 8; 74; SibOr Fgm. 3, 17 and 4; PGM 1, 309; 13, 280) Ro 16:26; of the Holy Spirit in Christ Hb 9:14. θρόνος αἰ. 1 Cl 65:2 (cp. 1 Macc 2:57).​

③ pert. to a period of unending duration, without end (Diod S 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 δόξα αἰ. everlasting fame; in Diod S 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their αἰ. οἴκησις; Arrian, Peripl. 1, 4 ἐς μνήμην αἰ.; Jos., Bell. 4, 461 αἰ. χάρις=a benefaction for all future time; OGI 383, 10 [I b.c.] εἰς χρόνον αἰ.; EOwen, οἶκος αἰ.: JTS 38, ’37, 248–50; EStommel, Domus Aeterna: RAC IV 109–28) of the next life σκηναὶ αἰ. Lk 16:9 (cp. En 39:5). οἰκία, contrasted w. the οἰκία ἐπίγειος, of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1. διαθήκη (Gen 9:16; 17:7; Lev 24:8; 2 Km 23:5 al.; PsSol 10:4 al.) Hb 13:20. εὐαγγέλιον Rv 14:6; κράτος in a doxolog. formula (=εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) 1 Ti 6:16. παράκλησις 2 Th 2:16. λύτρωσις Hb 9:12. κληρονομία (Esth 4:17m) vs. 15; AcPl Ha 8, 21. αἰ. ἀπέχειν τινά (opp. πρὸς ὥραν) keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cp. Job 40:28). Very often of God’s judgment (Diod S 4, 63, 4 διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐν ᾅδου διατελεῖν τιμωρίας αἰωνίου τυγχάνοντα; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40; Da 12:2; Ps 76:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 13:15) κόλασις αἰ. (TestReub 5:5) Mt 25:46; 2 Cl 6:7; κρίμα αἰ. Hb 6:2 (cp. κρίσις αἰ. En 104:5). θάνατοςB 20:1. ὄλεθρον (4 Macc 10:15) 2 Th 1:9. πῦρ (4 Macc 12:12; GrBar 4:16.—SibOr 8, 401 φῶς αἰ.) Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jd 7; Dg 10:7 (cp. 1QS 2:8). ἁμάρτημα Mk 3:29 (v.l. κρίσεως, κολάσεω, and ἁμαρτίας). On the other hand, of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰ.; Diod S 8, 15, 3 life μετὰ τὸν θάνατον lasts εἰς ἅπαντα αἰῶνα; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3;PsSol PsSol 3:12; OdeSol 11:16c; JosAs 8:11 cod. A [p. 50, 2 Bat.]; Philo, Fuga 78; Jos., Bell. 1, 650; SibOr 2, 336) in the Reign of God: ζωὴ αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3) Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30; J 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2f; Ac 13:46, 48; Ro 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f; Gal 6:8; 1 Ti 1:16; 6:12; Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1J 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jd 21; D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also βασιλεία αἰ. 2 Pt 1:11 (ApcPt Rainer 9; cp. Da 4:3; 7:27; Philo, Somn. 2, 285; Mel., P. 68, 493; OGI 569, 24 ὑπὲρ τῆς αἰωνίου καὶ ἀφθάρτου βασιλείας ὑμῶν; Dssm. B 279f, BS 363). Of the glory in the next life δόξα αἰ. 2 Ti 2:10; 1 Pt 5:10 (cp. Wsd 10:14; Jos., Ant. 15, 376.—SibOr 8, 410 φῶς αἰῶνιον). αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης 2 Cor 4:17; σωτηρία αἰ. (Is 45:17; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9; short ending of Mk. Of unseen glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια 2 Cor 4:18.—χαρά IPhld ins; δοξάζεσθαι αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186–201; JvanderWatt, NovT 31, ’89, 217–28 (J).—DELG s.v. αἰών. M-M. TW. Sv.[1]​

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 33.​

Anyone can copy and paste. I used to believe in Total Depravity and had a long list of verses to support such a belief. Now, I believe that such a belief is unbiblical because those verses were being taken out of context. In other words, one should be able to use their own words to explain things with Scripture. That is what good Bereans do.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Balderdash. You are merely uncritically repeating what your so-called pastors, teachers, leaders etc. have told.

Not sure how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks in, but I have no pastors, teachers, or leaders. I am not a part of any official church organization. I believe I am a part of a faithful few who take Scripture seriously in what it says and not what the scholars say. I just plainly read the Bible asking God to send the Spirit to give me the understanding on His Word, comparing Scripture with Scripture. No need for the scribes (scholars, lexicons) to act as some kind of priest or code key to get the supposed spiritual meaning.

You simply accept it as truth. Here is the definition of "baptisma" from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich [BDAG] one of, if not the, most highly accredited Greek lexicons currently available. BDAG represents 120-160 years of combined scholarship. Blue highlights indicates the sources the scholars consulted in determining the correction definition. Note, it is NOT "baptizer."

Where on Earth did I argue that it was baptizer? I think you have me confused with Dan Perez. I support the reading in the King James Bible, and it does not say baptizer.

 

[Der Alte]

Not sure how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks in, but I have no pastors, teachers, or leaders. I am not a part of any official church organization. I believe I am a part of a faithful few who take Scripture seriously in what it says and not what the scholars say. I just plainly read the Bible asking God to send the Spirit to give me the understanding on His Word, comparing Scripture with Scripture. No need for the scribes (scholars, lexicons) to act as some kind of priest or code key to get the supposed spiritual meaning. * * *

Oh, even worse a self made "expert" who undoubtedly gets direct regular communications from God Himself. You, as many others, apparently assume that the KJV was divinely inspired and the KJV translation is absolutely perfect. Before continuing down that path of briars and thorns you should read the KJV translator's preface. They made no claim for divine intervention for the translation of the KJV themselves and even apologized for any errors.
Link:

King James Version (KJV) original preface [1611} free online

FYI I have been active at this forum since 2000 and have replied to many, many posts. I don't remember everyone I have replied to.
.....Another FYI re: the "infallibility" of the KJV. In Phil 2:6 is a Greek word ἁρπαγμὸν/"arpagmon." sometimes pronounced "harpagmon." It is incorrectly translated as "robbery" in the KJV. The correct meaning was not known until about 1972 because no other occurrence of the same form of the word was known. In '72 a database was created in Irvine Cal. containing virtually every known ancient Greek document. Scholars all over the world could now conduct more accurate word studies, Some occurrences of the word "arpagmon" were found and it was learned the word means something someone already possesses which may be used to one's advantage.

 

[Der Alte]

I already pointed out how Bauer was a heretic. Most who created Lexicons or dictionaries are a part of Rationalism and held to beliefs that are liberal or unorthodox. This is not to say that they cannot be right at times, but their false beliefs no doubt you consider credible is just a smoke screen to say the least. Try Googling up the names of the creators behind these Lexicons and dictionaries. Check out to see if they held to any false beliefs. I say this because Jesus says a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit.
In other words, please take no offense, but I see Modern scholarship as sipping the Kool-aid.
In fact, who would have been the respected scholars of Jesus day?
Think. It would have been those who crucified Jesus.
You just love to talk about this topic. Last I checked the thread is about baptism.
Anyone can copy and paste. I used to believe in Total Depravity and had a long list of verses to support such a belief. Now, I believe that such a belief is unbiblical because those verses were being taken out of context. In other words, one should be able to use their own words to explain things with Scripture. That is what good Bereans do.

Sorry, I am not interested in the unsupported opinions of every anonymous poster on this forum and there are many. I have heard these erroneous, baseless arguments many, many times. Not bragging but I can read the Bible in 5 languages with varying degrees of comprehension.
I would not take legal advice from someone who does not have a legal license. I would not seek medical treatment from someone who does not have medical license. Likewise financial advice from someone without an accounting license. So I'm certainly not going to accept any spiritual advice from some anonymous person online.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry, I am not interested in the unsupported opinions of every anonymous poster on this forum and there are many.

That’s like the pot calling the kettle black. You would be an anonymous poster from the perspective of many other posters on the forum. In other words, to criticize anonymous posters without hypocrisy, you must not be anonymous yourself. Granted, I do not mean to offend you. I love you in Christ, but I simply do not agree with your approach as a Christian.

I have heard these erroneous, baseless arguments many, many times. Not bragging but I can read the Bible in 5 languages with varying degrees of comprehension.

The proof is not in boasting in such things, but the proof is in living it and knowing what the good book actually says. From my experience, I see you violating many verses in their plain reading. I say this not to wound you, but to guide you to understanding in love. "For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." (Galatians 6:3).

I would not take legal advice from someone who does not have a legal license. I would not seek medical treatment from someone who does not have medical license. Likewise financial advice from someone without an accounting license. So I'm certainly not going to accept any spiritual advice from some anonymous person online.

So then we shouldn’t listen to Peter’s wrings because he never claimed to have a scholar degree and or a plaque on the wall saying he was a doctor in theology, etcetera?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh, even worse a self made "expert" who undoubtedly gets direct regular communications from God Himself.

You boasted in your knowledge of the Bible in a previous post, but by your above response, you do not appear to be aware of the verse below.

1 John 2:27
”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.“

You, as many others, apparently assume that the KJV was divinely inspired and the KJV translation is absolutely perfect.

I am not allowed to discuss this particular point.
Thread rules prevent me and other Christians from discussing it here.

Before continuing down that path of briars and thorns you should read the KJV translator's preface. They made no claim for divine intervention for the translation of the KJV themselves and even apologized for any errors.

Yeah, this is old news for me.
But again, I am not allowed to discuss this particular point in any kind of detail.
Thread rules prevent me and other Christians from discussing it here.
My hands are tied. Sorry.

Link:

King James Version (KJV) original preface [1611} free online

FYI I have been active at this forum since 2000 and have replied to many, many posts. I don't remember everyone I have replied to.
.....Another FYI re: the "infallibility" of the KJV. In Phil 2:6 is a Greek word ἁρπαγμὸν/"arpagmon." sometimes pronounced "harpagmon." It is incorrectly translated as "robbery" in the KJV. The correct meaning was not known until about 1972 because no other occurrence of the same form of the word was known. In '72 a database was created in Irvine Cal. containing virtually every known ancient Greek document. Scholars all over the world could now conduct more accurate word studies, Some occurrences of the word "arpagmon" were found and it was learned the word means something someone already possesses which may be used to one's advantage.

There is absolutely no way for you to know it is translated incorrectly unless you had a Time Machine.
But it is pointless to bring up this kind of discussion. I cannot discuss the KJB issue here in detail. I have said this to you several times before, and you appear to not be getting the message. Why keep pushing the issue when you know I will not discuss the topic in detail? It makes no sense.

 

[Der Alte]

You boasted in your knowledge of the Bible in a previous post, but by your above response, you do not appear to be aware of the verse below.

Incorrect! There is a difference between informing and boasting. I inform when people challenge my knowledge.

1 John 2:27
”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.“

You are not one of the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking. All scripture is "for us" not necessarily "to us." You are misapplying this unless you do everything Jesus told His disciples to do, which I know you are not doing..

I am not allowed to discuss this particular point.
Thread rules prevent me and other Christians from discussing it here.

That should tell you something.

Yeah, this is old news for me.
But again, I am not allowed to discuss this particular point in any kind of detail.
Thread rules prevent me and other Christians from discussing it here.
My hands are tied. Sorry.

You can answer a question. What posters cannot do is promote KJV only.

There is absolutely no way for you to know it is translated incorrectly unless you had a Time Machine.

Guess what amigo I'm certain you cannot, but I can get closer to the truth through scholarship than people who rely on "divine inspiration." There are several religious groups around all of which claim they have the "true truth" via "divine inspiration," They can all be wrong but they can't all be right. So claims of divine inspiration are not very reliable. The Jewish people have never ceased to exist, and they never forgot their language. Same for the Greeks. They know whether the original is correctly translated.

But it is pointless to bring up this kind of discussion. I cannot discuss the KJB issue here in detail. I have said this to you several times before, and you appear to not be getting the message. Why keep pushing the issue when you know I will not discuss the topic in detail? It makes no sense.

See previous reply, above.

 

[Der Alte]

That’s like the pot calling the kettle black. You would be an anonymous poster from the perspective of many other posters on the forum. In other words, to criticize anonymous posters without hypocrisy, you must not be anonymous yourself. Granted, I do not mean to offend you. I love you in Christ, but I simply do not agree with your approach as a Christian.

I think the difference is, unlike others, I don't rely on "divine inspiration" to understand the Bible but scholarship the same I do with anything. I think I remember reading somewhere. "Study to show yourself approved."

The proof is not in boasting in such things, but the proof is in living it and knowing what the good book actually says. From my experience, I see you violating many verses in their plain reading. I say this not to wound you, but to guide you to understanding in love. "For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." (Galatians 6:3).

As I said I don't boast I inform when my knowledge/understanding is challenged by those who rely on "divine inspiration."

So then we shouldn’t listen to Peter’s wrings because he never claimed to have a scholar degree and or a plaque on the wall saying he was a doctor in theology, etcetera?

Deliberately twisting my words. Peter is not an anonymous person online. Neither Peter nor any other Bible writer required a degree to write or teach in their native language. OTOH we do unless we speak, read and write Hebrew and Greek as our native languages. I'm pretty sure you don't.
Here is a little anecdote re my language knowledge. I happened to be stationed in Germany the same year Elvis was. I was in my teens I had learned to speak, read and write German about 5 years earlier. I was a cook and had to supervise civilian workers in the place where soldiers ate, called a mess hall. Germany, civilians so I assumed they were German so I spoke German to them. One day one said to me. "You speak good German we not German we Greek." I said "So, teach me Greek." He pointed at a table and said "trapezi" pronounced "trah pay zee." For the next year or so I learned more Greek not knowing about 2 decades later I would study Greek at the graduate level.
Again, I am informing not boasting.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Incorrect! There is a difference between informing and boasting. I inform when people challenge my knowledge.

Perhaps it is best to get a second opinion on that. I know you will not believe me by any means.

You are not one of the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking. All scripture is "for us" not necessarily "to us." You are misapplying this unless you do everything Jesus told His disciples to do, which I know you are not doing..

So where in the text indicates that 1 John 2:27 was not written to us but only to them?
Please make your case biblically. If not, then you are just blowing smoke.

You can answer a question. What posters cannot do is promote KJV only.

No. I cannot answer any questions on that topic. I tried that already. It didn’t work.
But you can disagree until you are blue in the face if you like.
Your not going to convince me to talk about it so I can rack-up points, etcetera.
Maybe you like living on the edge in getting points. I don’t.

Guess what amigo I'm certain you cannot, but I can get closer to the truth through scholarship than people who rely on "divine inspiration." There are several religious groups around all of which claim they have the "true truth" via "divine inspiration," They can all be wrong but they can't all be right. So claims of divine inspiration are not very reliable. The Jewish people have never ceased to exist, and they never forgot their language. Same for the Greeks. They know whether the original is correctly translated.

I have a sub article in my write-up about patterns of evidence that actually make it obvious. But most have too much to lose by switching sides. It’s not popular to simply believe the Bible plainly these days. Everybody does what is right in their own eyes.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think I remember reading somewhere. "Study to show yourself approved."

2 Timothy 2:15. I prefer that reading as I am sure you can imagine. I can only guess as to your position on that. Many Christians today pretty much hate the King James Bible by their actions because they make it their mission to attack it. They employ the blast and praise syndrome with the KJB (Which sounds like one has a split personality or they have a love and hate relationship with the Bible).

Deliberately twisting my words. Peter is not an anonymous person online.

You still don’t get it.
How in the world do you not see yourself as not being anonymous poster in the eyes of others here?
Again, that would be like you wearing a black shirt, and then criticizing others for wearing a black shirt.
Have you even any remote understanding when Jesus said "cast out the beam out of thine own eye“?

Neither Peter nor any other Bible writer required a degree to write or teach in their native language. OTOH we do unless we speak, read and write Hebrew and Greek as our native languages. I'm pretty sure you don't.

You are missing the point. Peter was a simple fisherman and not a scholar. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, right? (See: 2 Timothy 3:16). So Peter proves that one does not need to be a scholar in order to understand God’s Word.

In addition, the apostle Paul did not write to the Gentiles in Hebrew because it was an older and better language. Paul wrote in the world language of his day (Greek). This is again a pattern. We see God speaks in the language of the day. Nowhere does Scripture teach you have to go back to some dead language to understand God. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Here is a little anecdote re my language knowledge. I happened to be stationed in Germany the same year Elvis was. I was in my teens I had learned to speak, read and write German about 5 years earlier. I was a cook and had to supervise civilian workers in the place where soldiers ate, called a mess hall. Germany, civilians so I assumed they were German so I spoke German to them. One day one said to me. "You speak good German we not German we Greek." I said "So, teach me Greek." He pointed at a table and said "trapezi" pronounced "trah pay zee." For the next year or so I learned more Greek not knowing about 2 decades later I would study Greek at the graduate level.
Again, I am informing not boasting.

You already boasted in this story before. You are repeating yourself. Your promotion of your abilities is getting tiresome. Boast in the Lord and not your abilities. Again, if any man thinks himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. We should desires to uplift Christ and never ourselves. All glory to Jesus, right? Well, thats not the impression I get when we talk. You keep repeating the same ole stories of uplifting yourself. Yep. That’s boasting. I am sure you will again disagree and say it about informing as if you have the power to change reality or something. Your mind is not open to criticism of yourself. I am open to criticism of my character. I try to look at myself always with a critical eye and realize I could do so much more I am currently doing now for the Lord. But it is only by His strength and power and never of my own power. Glory be to Jesus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

He wrote in Hebrew because he was inspired by the Creator directly to write in Hebrew. It was changed in a relatively short time for purposes hidden for now.

Scripture verse? Historical reference?

 

[Der Alte]

2 Timothy 2:15. I prefer that reading as I am sure you can imagine. I can only guess as to your position on that. Many Christians today pretty much hate the King James Bible by their actions because they make it their mission to attack it.

Irrelevant bloviation omitted .I don't hate the KJV BUT I don't consider it the ultimate authority on anything for reasons already stated. Primarily because the KJV translators themselves did not consider it such.

You still don’t get it.
How in the world do you not see yourself as not being anonymous poster in the eyes of others here?
Again, that would be like you wearing a black shirt, and then criticizing others for wearing a black shirt.
Have you even any remote understanding when Jesus said "cast out the beam out of thine own eye“?

Never claimed otherwise that is why I don't present myself as an authority instead I quote the authorities. But some folks seem to think they know more than the authorities. Speaking of beams before you lecture on beams better make sure you remove that log in your eye.

You are missing the point. Peter was a simple fisherman and not a scholar. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, right? (See: 2 Timothy 3:16). So Peter proves that one does not need to be a scholar in order to understand God’s Word.

Still talking nonsense. Since you don't need a scholar etc. tell me what this says. ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. It has been mentioned in this thread.

In addition, the apostle Paul did not write to the Gentiles in Hebrew because it was an older and better language.

Irrelevant supposition.

Paul wrote in the world language of his day (Greek). This is again a pattern. We see God speaks in the language of the day. Nowhere does Scripture teach you have to go back to some dead language to understand God. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Not relevant to anything in this thread.

You already boasted in this story before. You are repeating yourself. Your promotion of your abilities is getting tiresome.

I don't boast I inform so that others do not make the mistake of trying dispute my references to Greek and Hebrew.

[Irrelevant lecturing omitted.]

 

[Der Alte]

Perhaps it is best to get a second opinion on that. I know you will not believe me by any means.

You got that right amigo.

So where in the text indicates that 1 John 2:27 was not written to us but only to them?
Please make your case biblically. If not, then you are just blowing smoke.

Read the previous vs. and other vss. which clearly reference John's immediate audience. e.g. 1 Jn 2:1, 1 Jn 2:7, 8, 1 Jn 2:12, 1 Jn 2:19, 1 Jn 2:21

I have a sub article in my write-up about patterns of evidence that actually make it obvious. But most have too much to lose by switching sides. It’s not popular to simply believe the Bible plainly these days. Everybody does what is right in their own eyes.

I have heard/read it all before. OBTW what is a wimple or a tyre?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Irrelevant bloviation omitted .I don't hate the KJV BUT I don't consider it the ultimate authority on anything for reasons already stated. Primarily because the KJV translators themselves did not consider it such.

I can imagine how you may think that way, but there is another way to look at the facts of things.
But my hands are tied to go into any kind of detail about that.
My future writeups will answer this kind of thing, Lord willing.

Never claimed otherwise that is why I don't present myself as an authority instead I quote the authorities.

Stop and think a moment. Don’t you think there would be scribes (scholars) of our day that would be similar to the scribes and pharisees that Jesus had to deal with? They no doubt would sound convincing because they made it appear like they knew Scripture and they were regarded as the authorities back then. But Jesus showed how they were not authorities. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun. Who would be the scribes or pharisees of today? They would have to be those who appear to be authorities, right?

But some folks seem to think they know more than the authorities. Speaking of beams before you lecture on beams better make sure you remove that log in your eye.

You are steering away from the point to go down some other rabbit trail to avoid the issue.
Do you consider yourself to be anonymous poster In the eyes of other people on this forum?
Yes? Or no?

Meaning, is your life an open book for all to see here on the forum? If not, then you are also an anonymous poster.
Therefore, if you are an anonymous poster, then you cannot judge others for being anonymous posters because you are one yourself.
I say this because the Bible condemns hypocritical judgment.
Have you even ever admitted you were wrong on the forums before?
I have. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. However, I just don’t get that impression from you.
You appear to be one of those people who is afraid to admit publicly that they could ever be wrong about anything.
If I am misjudging you on this point and you can give me an example at CF, then you have my humble apologies (of course).

Still talking nonsense. Since you don't need a scholar etc. tell me what this says. ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. It has been mentioned in this thread.

First, show me in the Bible where God requires us to go back to the ancient language to understand His Word. God would speak to us today and if we had to go back to the original languages as a part of God’s plan today, then the Bible would talk about that. But it doesn’t. So your approach is unbiblical. We know God spoke in the languages of the people and not some dead language.

Second, there is no THE Greek as if there is only one text. There is no such animal. That is deception you are promoting without you even realizing it. There are many Greek manuscripts that all differ from one another. Are you following the Byzantine, or the Alexandrian? Did you read all 5,800 Greek TR texts? There are different editions of even the TR. What about Beza? Did you read that, too? Did you compare the differences? What about the Alexandrian line? There are differences even between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (Which are Alexandrian in text type). How would you decide which one is superior over another? Oh, wait. You just let the scholars of today decide? But what if they are the scribes that Jesus warned us about? Are you willing to take that risk?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You got that right amigo.

Good, then get a second opinion.

Read the previous vs. and other vss. which clearly reference John's immediate audience. e.g. 1 Jn 2:1, 1 Jn 2:7, 8, 1 Jn 2:12, 1 Jn 2:19, 1 Jn 2:21

I have heard/read it all before. OBTW what is a wimple or a tyre?

So by this logic, then none of the Scriptures can be applied to us because they were spoken to respective churches or groups of other believers that are not us. Again, nothing in these verses suggest that the message was ONLY for them. Is not ALL Scripture profitable for doctrine? How exactly is 1 John 2:27 profitable for doctrine?

Isaiah 34 would be in reference for us today. However, for the New Testament Scriptures: There are a lot of places in the New Testament that do not specifically speak to future believers like us. So how can you truly say what is for us and what is not for us? Most of the NT writings were written to Christ followers. There was no divisions like you are making it out to be. Have you not read how there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ?

Yes, I do realize there are some things that appear to be for the early church and not for today. Example: I believe tongues and miraculous sign gifts was for the early church, but I can actually make my case with good verses that actually sound like it makes this point. The verses you brought up do not really say anything like this…

“These were select believers in Christ who would have this special gifting of the Spirit, and no other believer after them will be able to have such anointing of the Spirit.” (1 John 2 Imaginary Bible Verse).

I get no impression of that from John’s 1st epistle. Simple fact of the matter is that you don’t like 1 John 2:27 and so you have to make an excuse that it simply only applies to the believers John was writing to and not us. That is what you are really doing here.

 

[Der Alte]

Good, then get a second opinion.

You too amigo!

So by this logic, then none of the Scriptures can be applied to us because they were spoken to respective churches or groups of other believers that are not us.

I didn't say that and you know it.

Again, nothing in these verses suggest that the message was ONLY for them. Is not ALL Scripture profitable for doctrine? How exactly is 1 John 2:27 profitable for doctrine?

Have you gone down to Jerusalem yet? There is a difference between doctrine and actions

Isaiah 34 would be in reference for us today. However, for the New Testament Scriptures: There are a lot of places in the New Testament that do not specifically speak to future believers like us.

That's what I said. But you seem to pick and choose which these are.

So how can you truly say what is for us and what is not for us? Most of the NT writings were written to Christ followers.

Simple, general sayings vs. specific. Are you going to build an ark?

There was no divisions like you are making it out to be. Have you not read how there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ?

"No Jew or gentile" not relevant to the instant discussion.

Yes, I do realize there are some things that appear to be for the early church and not for today.

That is what I said, General vs. specific.

Example: I believe tongues and miraculous sign gifts was for the early church, but I can actually make my case with good verses that actually sound like it makes this point. The verses you brought up do not really say anything like this…

I have heard "tongues" which sounds like a language to me. I have also heard "tongues" which decidedly did not. The vss. I mentioned apply specifically to people of John's time. You didn't read them in-context.

“These were select believers in Christ who would have this special gifting of the Spirit, and no other believer after them will be able to have such anointing of the Spirit.” (1 John 2 Imaginary Bible Verse).

That is correct as far as it goes.

I get no impression of that from John’s 1st epistle. Simple fact of the matter is that you don’t like 1 John 2:27 and so you have to make an excuse that it simply only applies to the believers John was writing to and not us. That is what you are really doing here.

Is this vs. directed to you personally?

1 Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us.​

Since it obviously does not, why would a vs. a little bit later, written to the same audience, apply to you specifically? Picking and choosing.

 

[Der Alte]

I can imagine how you may think that way, but there is another way to look at the facts of things.
But my hands are tied to go into any kind of detail about that.
My future writeups will answer this kind of thing, Lord willing.

If you possessed the knowledge you think you do you could think of a way to say what you want to say without violating forum rules.

Stop and think a moment. Don’t you think there would be scribes (scholars) of our day that would be similar to the scribes and pharisees that Jesus had to deal with? They no doubt would sound convincing because they made it appear like they knew Scripture and they were regarded as the authorities back then. But Jesus showed how they were not authorities. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun. Who would be the scribes or pharisees of today? They would have to be those who appear to be authorities, right?

Not relevant to this discussion.

You are steering away from the point to go down some other rabbit trail to avoid the issue.
Do you consider yourself to be anonymous poster In the eyes of other people on this forum?
Yes? Or no?

Yes I do consider myself another anonymous poster that is why I do not present myself as an authority. I quote authorities. I do not think the KJV "translators" were prefect. They did the best they could with what they had and they said so themselves. Read their preface. And nothing in the entirety of scripture says any different.

Meaning, is your life an open book for all to see here on the forum? If not, then you are also an anonymous poster.

No argument here. But the same applies for you and every other poster here.

Therefore, if you are an anonymous poster, then you cannot judge others for being anonymous posters because you are one yourself.

I can and do decline to accept the unsupported opinions of any and all "anonymous posters." And expect the same from them, that is why I quote , grammars, lexicons, historical documents etc. For example some folks argue that the word "hell" does not occur in the Bible. That is true since "hell" is an English word. What "hell" might have meant in some other country centuries ago is irrelevant.
E.g. The English word "truck" originally meant vegetables. When someone says "truck" today they mean a large boxy vehicle for carrying heavy loads not cucumbers.
The 1906 Jewish encyclopedia [JE] documents that before and during the time of Jesus there was a significant belief in a place of fiery eternal punishment which they called both Ge hinnom and sheol which were written in the 225 LXX and the NT as Gehenna and hades., In the JE Sheol and gehenna are equated with "hell" 22 times. See link.

GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

I say this because the Bible condemns hypocritical judgment.
Have you even ever admitted you were wrong on the forums before?

Many times.

If I am misjudging you on this point and you can give me an example at CF, then you have my humble apologies (of course).

Accepted.

First, show me in the Bible where God requires us to go back to the ancient language to understand His Word. God would speak to us today and if we had to go back to the original languages as a part of God’s plan today, then the Bible would talk about that. But it doesn’t. So your approach is unbiblical. We know God spoke in the languages of the people and not some dead language.

2 Timothy 2:15
(15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
John 5:39
(39) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.​

The Bible does not specify any particular "version" or language. And there is not and never will be a perfect translation. See "arpagmon" below.

Second, there is no THE Greek as if there is only one text. There is no such animal. That is deception you are promoting without you even realizing it. There are many Greek manuscripts that all differ from one another. Are you following the Byzantine, or the Alexandrian? Did you read all 5,800 Greek TR texts? There are different editions of even the TR. What about Beza? Did you read that, too? Did you compare the differences? What about the Alexandrian line? There are differences even between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (Which are Alexandrian in text type). How would you decide which one is superior over another? Oh, wait. You just let the scholars of today decide? But what if they are the scribes that Jesus warned us about? Are you willing to take that risk?

When most folks say "the Greek" or "the Hebrew" they don't mean a specific manuscript but "the Greek/Hebrew " texts vs. a translation.
Most of this is uninformed gobbledy gook deliberately intended to promote a particular translation. And I think you know that. As I have said more than once there is no, zero, none translation which the translator's deemed to be perfect and the translator's themselves acknowledge that.
Once again in 1972 a database of virtually all known Greek manuscripts was created. Scholars world wide can access manuscripts which they couldn't before. Before this the manuscripts had been scattered all over the world. Via this database it was learned that the word "arpagmon" incorrectly translated "robbery" in Philp 2:6 was found to mean "something which one already has which can be used to their advantage." It never means robbery in any context.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If you possessed the knowledge you think you do you could think of a way to say what you want to say without violating forum rules.

This is not a contest between us in who is smarter. I am nothing. You are nothing. Christ is everything. This is what you do not seem to understand.

Yes I do consider myself another anonymous poster that is why I do not present myself as an authority. I quote authorities. I do not think the KJV "translators" were prefect.

In one sentence you said you are not an authority and so you post other authorities and then in the very next sentence you use the word “I.” This sounds contradictory to me.

Again, if you judge others by saying they are anonymous posters and you believe you are one, then you are judging hypocritically. Nobody should ever listen to you any time you say “I.”

Granted, I do not think God created us to be mindless and to just follow the crowd mindlessly. I believe God does want us to use our brains instead of just mindlessly following the crowd because they sound good or they have impressive credentials, etcetera.

I can and do decline to accept the unsupported opinions of any and all "anonymous posters."

Again, this would be hypocritical judgment.
Hypocritical judgment is condemned in the Bible in several places.
Sounds like you need to brush up on these particular verses more until they sink in.

And expect the same from them, that is why I quote , grammars, lexicons, historical documents etc. For example some folks argue that the word "hell" does not occur in the Bible. That is true since "hell" is an English word. What "hell" might have meant in some other country centuries ago is irrelevant.

You just love this topic.
It’s not the topic of this thread, though.

E.g. The English word "truck" originally meant vegetables. When someone says "truck" today they mean a large boxy vehicle for carrying heavy loads not cucumbers.
The 1906 Jewish encyclopedia [JE] documents that before and during the time of Jesus there was a significant belief in a place of fiery eternal punishment which they called both Ge hinnom and sheol which were written in the 225 LXX and the NT as Gehenna and hades., In the JE Sheol and gehenna are equated with "hell" 22 times. See link.

GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

God does not call us to waste our lives trying to learn dead languages our whole life.
I believe God wants us get busy with living out the faith in loving God and others.
Unless you can show a Bible verse that shows otherwise, your mode of thinking that we must go back to some ancient language is actually not biblical.

Many times.

Accepted.

2 Timothy 2:15​

(15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.​

You posted the verse, but that’s not really a comment on your opinion of it in regards to what I asked you.

John 5:39​

(39) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.​

Jesus by no means is showing a lack of regard for His own Word. He is merely saying that the Pharisees missed seeing Him in the Scriptures. Liberals basically twist this verse to suggest that the Word is not that important and it is more about what they feel when they pray, etcetera.

The Bible does not specify any particular "version" or language.

The Bible does not refer to textual variants. The Bible always refers to things like, “It is written…“
If there was multiple versions of the Word of God, then one could not say, It is written. One would say, "one variant set of readings say“

And there is not and never will be a perfect translation.

Then you or the scholar gets to sit in the seat of God and speak and or write for God when one uses their carnal limited brain when they believe there is a mistake, when there may not really be one. The warning in Revelation about adding or taking away from His word must be buried in the sand and or twisted to say something else.

See "arpagmon" below.

The RCC used to play that game with their followers.
Only the priests could tell the little stupid people what the Bible said.

When most folks say "the Greek" or "the Hebrew" they don't mean a specific manuscript but "the Greek/Hebrew " texts vs. a translation.

Which translation? There are many. Also, again. Your way is not everybody else’s way. This is not Burger King. You don’t seem to get it. There are many Greek and Hebrew texts. Which one do you follow? That’s the point. Many today act like there is only ONE when that is a lie. Your world is not the world of others. Other people follow other different manuscripts. So again, it is deceptive to say “THE“ Greek, etcetera. There is no singular Greek set of manuscripts. You need to be specific. Which Greek? The first edition of the TR or the third edition? The Westcott and Hort garbage?

Most of this is uninformed gobbledy gook deliberately intended to promote a particular translation. And I think you know that.

Are you a Majority Text guy?
Or are you a Westcott and Hort Only guy?
Or are you a Nestle and Aland Only guy?
Or some other group?
You must pick and choose which one.
So you are not without your own preferences, as well.

As I have said more than once there is no, zero, none translation which the translator's deemed to be perfect and the translator's themselves acknowledge that.

James White disagrees with Daniel Wallace. Everyone then does what is right in his own eyes. You’ve got folks having competing phantom bibles that exist only in their own minds. There is no real standard but in their own minds. That’s not really and kind of standard. That’s not really the Book of the Lord as mentioned in Isaiah 34:16.

Once again in 1972 a database of virtually all known Greek manuscripts was created. Scholars world wide can access manuscripts which they couldn't before.

But it does not mean anything because most of them do not believe in following all of the manuscripts. Most are for the Nestle and Aland which is a certain line of manuscripts (Which are Alexandrian in text type). This is where most of your so-called authorities prefer. Majority text folks are not as popular. They only came into existence after the creators of the NKJV started that movement. They also only collated 500 or so out of the thousands of manuscripts. So its not even really a Majority Text.

Before this the manuscripts had been scattered all over the world. Via this database it was learned that the word "arpagmon" incorrectly translated "robbery" in Philp 2:6 was found to mean "something which one already has which can be used to their advantage." It never means robbery in any context.

You have chosen your side.
The lines have been drawn.
There is a spirit at work that leads men to not see what I am talking about here.