What About Progressive Sanctification?

BTW, in regards to the Problem of Evil, solving the issue of Adam, as I have done, is only Part 1 of 2. The second part is explaining why an infinitely self-sufficient God would make a world of potential suffering in the first place. Here too, the church has yet another self-contradictory stance. (Too many contradictions in historic theology to cover in one thread, it seems).

JAL said:

Sort of like some of the Reformed ideas were foreign to most Christians at the time of the Reformation? That kind of problem is what you are complaining about? Just to be clear?

Click to expand...

If I believed that the basic theological positions of the Evangelical Reformation were foreign from the historic catholic faith, I wouldn't be Lutheran.

Don't confuse serious theologians like Luther and Chemnitz et al--trained pastors, theologians, and biblical exegetes--with simply making stuff up because it sounds good to you.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Your "definition of Adam" is unbiblical

Click to expand...

And yet Paul wrote:

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1Cor 15:22)

What is the nature of "in"? The question here is whether this immanence is of type:
(1) Federal/representational. The Reformed view.
(2) Ontological. My view.

For starters, the Federal/Representational view can be dismissed out of hand. To claim that Adam was my representative literally contradicts every chapter of the Bible. How so? Representation means that my sins have no judicial status - my status is only that of my rep. And yet every chapter of the Bible DOES regard the sins of every individual as reprehensible. In those chapters God never says, "Your sins don't matter, I only punish people according to what Adam did." '

Amazing - and unconscionable - that the Reformers managed to widely propagate a position that flatly contradicts every chapter of the Bible.

Moving on to #2. What is the ontological view? Although Christ is omnipresent, I did not experience His Presence prior to conversion. In other words at that time I was not "in" (the keyword at issue here) His Presence in a palpable sense.

So here's the ontological reading of 1Corin 15:22:
(1) All "in Adam" (in the literal, palpable sense of having been in his body) are subject to sin and death.
(2) All "in Christ" (in the literal, palpable sense of being immersed in His Presence) will be made alive.

In "rebuttal" to this argument, someone once claimed that we are "in Adam" in the sense of inheriting his sin. But nobody talks that way. (Exegesis is invalid if the interpretations of the words lack clear precedents). For example a man who genetically inherited a disease from grandfather Sam would never say, "I am sick because I am in Sam."

Whereas ontological speech is something we use every day. Example. "The dirty dishes are in the sink."

So going back to your statement:

ViaCrucis said:

Your "definition of Adam" is unbiblical

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. MY view (ontological) is exegetically solid in Scripture. The Reformed view is not.

ViaCrucis said:

If I believed that the basic theological positions of the Evangelical Reformation were foreign from the historic catholic faith, I wouldn't be Lutheran.

Click to expand...

Deflection. The objection wasn't about what YOU believe today.

Don't confuse serious theologians like Luther and Chemnitz et al--trained pastors, theologians, and biblical exegetes--with simply making stuff up because it sounds good to you.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

As noted earlier, I can't win. In this case you are berating me for NOT accepting the conclusions of noted scholars. Earlier in this thread, whenever I showed scholarly support for my conclusions (such as my theory of Adam), they berated me for appealing to authority.

Just resolve the alleged contradictions, please. (We can debate the merits of scholars at a later time, I suppose). Oh that's right, you CANNOT resolve the contradictions, you can only walk in denial.

For me, original sin is best defended by the fact that Jesus had a virgin birth. Hebrews 7:26 says, “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;” Sin is passed down by the male seed. It's why Jesus was born of a virgin. He is holy, and separate from sinners because He was not tainted by being born of the male seed (By which the sin of Adam is passed down upon). It's why Adam and Eve did not know they were naked until Adam ate of the wrong tree. Adam was the Federal Head of the human race. We can say it is unfair that God would punish the descendants of Adam who did not do anything evil, but God's Word is saying that we are a part of Adam (and that means we sinned in Adam). Hebrews 7:9 says, “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.”

Levi was not born when Abraham was alive. Yet, Levi paid tithes in Abraham. For Hebrews 7:10 says, “For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.”

In other words, we are a by-product of Adam. Some part of us had sinned in Adam because genetically we can all be traced to Adam.

In fact, the reason why all have sinned is proof that we were by nature children of wrath as Scripture says. For if we all were faced in the same situation Adam was in, we would have done the same thing. Why? Because we are a part of Adam.

Bible Highlighter said:

For me, original sin is best defended by the fact that Jesus had a virgin birth.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear I am not denying Original Sin. I'm merely providing the only version of it, in 2000 years, that is devoid of contradictions.

He is holy, and separate from sinners because He was not tainted by being born of the male seed (By which the sin of Adam is passed down upon).

Click to expand...

Sin passed down biologically/genetically? I already refuted the biological/genetic claim in a recent post. In fact I refuted the idea that a taint can be passed down in any sense at all. That concept doesn't even make sense, for reasons that I provided.

Adam was the Federal Head of the human race.

Click to expand...

I just proved in post 503 that Federalism/Representation contradicts every chapter of the Bible. That is the wrong view of Adam.

We can say it is unfair that God would punish the descendants of Adam who did not do anything evil, but God's Word is saying that we are a part of Adam (and that means we sinned in Adam).

Click to expand...

But spewing forth words without clear meanings is not helpful. In precisely what sense did we sin in Adam? My definition of Adam provides the only feasible answer.

Hebrews 7:9 says, “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.”
Levi was not born when Abraham was alive. Yet, Levi paid tithes in Abraham. For Hebrews 7:10 says, “For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.”

In other words, we are a by-product of Adam. Some part of us had sinned in Adam because genetically we can all be traced to Adam.

Click to expand...

Personally I'm not convinced that Hebrews is saying that Levi literally paid tithes in Abraham. Do you expect God to verbally commend Levi, at the throne of judgment, for having paid tithes in Abraham? I think the passage is focused more on exalting Melchisedec than in explaining the ontology of the human race.

Some part of us had sinned in Adam because genetically we can all be traced to Adam.

Click to expand...

As demonstrated in recent posts, it is not logically coherent to anchor the concept of sin in biology/genetics.

In fact, the reason why all have sinned is proof that we were by nature children of wrath as Scripture says. For if we all were faced in the same situation Adam was in, we would have done the same thing. Why? Because we are a part of Adam.

Click to expand...

Using language like "we are a part of Adam" isn't helpful if you are not terribly clear on precisely what that means. One part of your statement was more clear:

For if we all were faced in the same situation Adam was in, we would have done the same thing

Click to expand...

But this claim is a problem for three reasons.
(1) If we all act exactly alike, the fault lies with the Creator who designed us.
(2) Free beings do NOT necessarily behave the same way. For example SOME of the angels disobeyed God, others remained faithful.
(3) If we all behave exactly alike, then our "seemingly" variant behavior is an illusion, and therefore God should TREAT us all the same way - meaning for example if I were to rape someone, and God punishes me for it, then He should punish you for that same act because you and I are always behaving alike.

RickReads said:

What About Progressive Sanctification?

I don`t really believe in it.

Tell me why you do.

Click to expand...

Of course sanctification is progressive (although I do not know what others have put on definition wise to this term). To me progressive sanctification is a work of a lifetime of believing and following Gods' Word and growing in the knowledge and Grace of God's Word. The more we learn about God the more he reveals in our lives that need changing. 2 Peter 1:2-11 possibly say this better than I can so I will just start off by posting these scriptures here...

2 PETER 1:2-11
[2], Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
[3], According as his divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that has called us to glory and virtue:
[4], Whereby are given to us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
[5], And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
[6], And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
[7], And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
[8], For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that you shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[9], But he that lacks these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and has forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
[10], Why the rather, brothers, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if you do these things, you shall never fall:
[11], For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The scriptures above show progressive sanctification. You can see as we learn more about God he changes us and progressively adds more virtues to our character making us more godly or Christ like as we continue to learn God's Word and believe and follow what God says. We are all at different walks with the Lord and at the second coming according to the scriptures just before the second coming JESUS will proclaim...

REVELATION 22:11-12
[11], He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. [12], And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

We are all only held accountable to what we know not what we do not know *James 4:17. I believe the scriptures teach that sanctification is a work of a lifetime for those who believe and follow God's Word *. There is known sin that we repent and confess before we are cleanses *1 John 1:9; 1 John 2:1-2. This said when we are new in Christ we do not really know much and in times of ignorance God winks at and does not hold us accountable for sin until he gives us a knowledge of the truth of his Word. At this time he calls all men everywhere to believe and follow his Word *Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31; James 4:17. God's salvation is from sin *John 8:31-36. God's salvation is not to continue in known unrepentant sin *Hebrews 10:26-31. Anyone continuing in known unrepentant sin does not know God and needs to be born again *John 3:3-7; 1 John 3:6-9. Those who are born again do not practice known unrepentant sin *1 John 3:6; 1 John 2:3-4.

God bless.

JAL said:

Just to be clear I am not denying Original Sin. I'm merely providing the only version of it, in 2000 years, that is devoid of contradictions.

Sin passed down biologically/genetically? I already refuted the biological/genetic claim in a recent post. In fact I refuted the idea that a taint can be passed down in any sense at all. That concept doesn't even make sense, for reasons that I provided.
I just proved in post 503 that Federalism/Representation contradicts every chapter of the Bible. That is the wrong view of Adam.

But spewing forth words without clear meanings is not helpful. In precisely what sense did we sin in Adam? My definition of Adam provides the only feasible answer.

Personally I'm not convinced that Hebrews is saying that Levi literally paid tithes in Abraham. Do you expect God to verbally commend Levi, at the throne of judgment, for having paid tithes in Abraham? I think the passage is focused more on exalting Melchisedec than in explaining the ontology of the human race.


As demonstrated in recent posts, it is not logically coherent to anchor the concept of sin in biology/genetics.


Using language like "we are a part of Adam" isn't helpful if you are not terribly clear on precisely what that means. One part of your statement was more clear:

But this claim is a problem for three reasons.
(1) If we all act exactly alike, the fault lies with the Creator who designed us.
(2) Free beings do NOT necessarily behave the same way. For example SOME of the angels disobeyed God, others remained faithful.
(3) If we all behave exactly alike, then our "seemingly" variant behavior is an illusion, and therefore God should TREAT us all the same way - meaning for example if I were to rape someone, and God punishes me for it, then He should punish you for that same act because you and I are always behaving alike.

Click to expand...

Yes, Levi literally paid tithes in Abraham. If this is not the case, then it is simply a disbelief of Hebrews 7:9-10. In Hebrews 7:26, it says that Jesus is holy and separate from sinners. This is not only referring to how He lived, but it is referring to His very being as a human. This explains why Jesus had a virgin birth. In your view: There would be no need for a virgin birth.

I mean, I get it. It does not seem logical to you or in God's fair justice to punish the descendants for simply being born in Adam on the account of his disobedience, but as the Scriptures say, Levi paid tithes in Abraham. This means that we are genetically a part of our family line. We inherited not only the physical traits of our family, but we also inherited traits from their behavior or personality, too. God does not consider family to be separate entirely as you suggest. In fact, when we are born again by Jesus Christ, and we abide in Jesus, the imputed righteousness of Christ is placed upon us. We are sons of the living God. The door swings both ways. If one fails to understand the imputed righteousness of Christ, they fail to understand that salvation comes by Jesus Christ and what He has done for us. Even when we walk in the light, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin according to 1 John 1:7. We learn in James 2:23 that it says: “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” Romans 4:3 says, “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Genesis 15:6 says, “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” This was in regards to believing the words of the Lord in how he would have a child who would be heir to be like the descendants as numerous as the stars of the sky. This was a trust in what God said, and it was imputed to Abraham as righteousness. There was no work in this instance. Faith or trust does lead to the eventual work of faith, but Abraham believed GOD and it was imputed to him as righteousness.

18 "And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 That is, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and has committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
- 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." - Hebrews 2:9.

The whole concept of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection is nullified if Jesus did not die in my place and conquer the grave on my behalf.

Hebrews 7:25 says, “he ever liveth to make intercession for them."

This is what the good news is all about.
In human history, when the Word was made flesh, He came so as to reverse the curse of Adam upon all of humanity. For in Adam, all die, but in Christ, all shall be made alive. When we first believe in Jesus, His righteousness is imputed to us. This belief or faith continues in the work of faith. But it plays a part in the imputed righteousness of Jesus. Why? Because without Christ imputing His righteousness to us, we would all be doomed. To not understand this is to not understand the heart of the gospel.

But today in these last days, everyone is quick to take that which is good, but when something bad comes upon them, they quickly feel it is unfair and they did not deserve it.

JAL said:

Just to be clear I am not denying Original Sin. I'm merely providing the only version of it, in 2000 years, that is devoid of contradictions.

Sin passed down biologically/genetically? I already refuted the biological/genetic claim in a recent post. In fact I refuted the idea that a taint can be passed down in any sense at all. That concept doesn't even make sense, for reasons that I provided.
I just proved in post 503 that Federalism/Representation contradicts every chapter of the Bible. That is the wrong view of Adam.

But spewing forth words without clear meanings is not helpful. In precisely what sense did we sin in Adam? My definition of Adam provides the only feasible answer.

Personally I'm not convinced that Hebrews is saying that Levi literally paid tithes in Abraham. Do you expect God to verbally commend Levi, at the throne of judgment, for having paid tithes in Abraham? I think the passage is focused more on exalting Melchisedec than in explaining the ontology of the human race.


As demonstrated in recent posts, it is not logically coherent to anchor the concept of sin in biology/genetics.


Using language like "we are a part of Adam" isn't helpful if you are not terribly clear on precisely what that means. One part of your statement was more clear:

But this claim is a problem for three reasons.
(1) If we all act exactly alike, the fault lies with the Creator who designed us.
(2) Free beings do NOT necessarily behave the same way. For example SOME of the angels disobeyed God, others remained faithful.
(3) If we all behave exactly alike, then our "seemingly" variant behavior is an illusion, and therefore God should TREAT us all the same way - meaning for example if I were to rape someone, and God punishes me for it, then He should punish you for that same act because you and I are always behaving alike.

Click to expand...

The best real world example of original sin I can give you is that of a son who inherits the tendency to do drugs because his father did drugs. The child did not deserve to inherit the bad traits from his father, but it happened nonetheless. The good news is that Jesus is the cure. Jesus reversed the curse of Adam at calvary and with His resurrection. You can say it is unfair that God would condemn all of mankind on the account of Adam's one time disobedience. But God looks at humanity as one big family. Besides, God is righteous. He would not have let all of humanity perish in Adam. That is why He had to send the Promised Savior to save all of mankind. What the Lord did for us when He was made flesh was bigger than what you imagine.

RickReads said:

What About Progressive Sanctification?

I don`t really believe in it.

Tell me why you do.

Click to expand...

2 Corinthians 3:18.
We are being transformed.
Romans 12:1-2
We are transformed by the renewing of our minds; this does not happen in an instant.

RickReads said:

The Peter verses show what Paul really meant in 2 Corinthians 7. You just didn`t perceive the rebuttal.

Click to expand...

Again, verse 18 is clearly referring to Christ's physical death and resurrection, and it is not referring to a spiritual regeneration or the receiving of the Holy Spirit. It is highly unlikely Peter was promoting Spirit baptism to his fellow Messianic Jews at this point (even though Paul was doing so with the Gentile believers). Peter refers to Noah and the flood as a part of his talk on baptism. Water was involved in the flood. To say that Spirit baptism is not a salvation issue is silly. For receiving the Spirit is a part of the salvation package.

13 “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:13-14).

The Spirit cleans us up as a part of eternal life. For if we put to death the misdeeds of the body through the power of the Holy Spirit, we will live.

“For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” (Romans 8:13).

So we must conclude that Peter was referring to water baptism in 1 Peter 3:21.

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:” (1 Peter 3:21).

It says the like figure whereunto even baptism does now save us. What like figure? Verse 20 refers to the global flood and how Noah was saved through water on the Ark. This is a picture of water baptism. Being water baptized does not put away sin, but it is an answer of one having an already clean conscience towards God, which is only made possible the resurrection of Christ. For when we rise out of the water in water baptism, it is symbolic of the resurrection with the old man being crucified below in the waters (when we first submerged in the water in our water baptism). Water baptism was symbolic of the upcoming real baptism (i.e. Spirit baptism).

Bible Highlighter said:

Yes, Levi literally paid tithes in Abraham. If this is not the case, then it is simply a disbelief of Hebrews 7:9-10. In Hebrews 7:26, it says that Jesus is holy and separate from sinners. This is not only referring to how He lived, but it is referring to His very being as a human. This explains why Jesus had a virgin birth. In your view: There would be no need for a virgin birth.

Click to expand...

(1) You "seem" to speak with conviction here but yet conveniently ignored my question, "Do you really think that Christ, on His judgment seat, will commend Levi for having paid tithes?"
(2) You're underestimating the flexibility of my system. The physical soul is spread throughout the human body - remember that Eve was a product of Adam's ribs - and can be reused by God in subsequent generations (for example each of us is Adam). If Hebrews is claiming this happened with Abraham via Levi, then Levi SHOULD be commended for paying tithes, at the judgment seat of Christ. I didn't deny this possibility, I just expressed some skepticism about it. I'm not going to perpetually dispute with you a possibility that I myself am quite open to.

I mean, I get it. It does not seem logical to you or in God's fair justice to punish the descendants for simply being born in Adam on the account of his disobedience, but as the Scriptures say, Levi paid tithes in Abraham. This means that we are genetically a part of our family line. We inherited not only the physical traits of our family, but we also inherited traits from their behavior or personality, too. God does not consider family to be separate entirely as you suggest.

Click to expand...

Now here you go awry again. Again, you cannot legitimately base things like punishment, retribution, consequences, or even rewards on biology/genetics, as I have shown. God won't commend Levi for his genetics but for his soul paying tithes by free will inside Abraham's body, if his physical soul was in fact part of Abraham's physical soul and did in fact do so.

I myself am too verbose but you seem even more long-winded. You spend a lot of time covering points not in dispute here, such as the reality of Original Sin, the efficacy of the atonement, and justification by faith. So I cut your post short a bit here - the following are the more salient points:

Bible Highlighter said:

The imputed righteousness of Christ is placed upon us. We are sons of the living God. The door swings both ways. If one fails to understand the imputed righteousness of Christ, they fail to understand that salvation comes by Jesus Christ... For in Adam, all die, but in Christ, all shall be made alive....

But today in these last days, everyone is quick to take that which is good, but when something bad comes upon them, they quickly feel it is unfair and they did not deserve it.

Click to expand...

Here you are intersecting with, or perhaps even rearticulating, a common argument made by Reformed scholars in defense of their claim that Adam was our Federal/Representative head. Their argument goes like this:
(1) Christ represented us on the cross.
(2) Therefore it is equally legitimate for Adam to be our representative.

A few refutations here - for one thing I refuted point #2 (I think it was post 503) when I showed that representation flatly contradicts every chapter of Scripture.

Secondly, Christ did NOT "represent" us on the cross. Atonement and representation are two radically different forms of jurisprudence. If Christ were our rep, no need to die or even be incarnated! Recall what representation means - it means that my status is the status of my rep. As long as He is holy, I am counted holy. By all accounts, furthermore, representation is fundamentally unjust and thus, if used in theology, becomes an area of logical inconsistency. It is unjust to claim, for example, "The individual sins of Adam's descendants are irrelevant because all that matters is his role as rep."

Now let's contrast this with atonement. THAT is a concept that we all recognize to be just. Suppose for example my son came to me with a speeding ticket. I pay it for him. What have I done? Same kind of thing Christ did on the cross. I earned that money with my own blood, sweat, and tears, and used THAT effort, voluntarily (itself a key factor), to pay (atone) for my son's transgression. Atonement is thus perfectly consistent with the human concept of justice. Whereas representation would look like this - it is my son going into the tax collector's office and saying, "I am innocent of any and all transgressions because my father is my rep, he is lucky enough to have diplomatic immunity."

While diplomatic immunity is politically expedient/useful, it is NOT a valid form of justice in the strictest possible sense. For example Christ will not, on His judgment seat, automatically pardon those with diplomatic immunity.

Representation leads to bizarre jurisprudence. For example, if Adam were our rep, Eve should have murdered him before he had a chance to sin because as long as the rep dies innocent, we are all innocent by representation, and thus can forever "sin" as much as we want, by virtue of diplomatic immunity. Totally bizarre.

To summarize, representation leads to a fundamental contradiction.

(1) Is Adam indeed our official rep? Then we are still guilty!
(2) Is Christ our official rep? Then we were NEVER guilty!

I just don't see how you can have two reps, with one continually sinning, and the other righteous. My status is supposed to be the status of my rep. But if I have two reps behaving differently, then my status is indeterminate. This is nonsense.

RickReads said:

The water represents the Holy Spirit i.e. living water, One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Water or Spirit? Which for you? I`ll take the one that will raise me from the dead.

Click to expand...

Amen some think there is something magical about water baptism and the other sacrament the bread and wine, they are symbolic of a much greater truth or reality behind them which is the Holy Spirit and the Son. They are types just as in the OT Temple and all that was in it pointed to the substance which is Christ. The same is true with water baptism and the elements of communion, the bread and the wine.

Bible Highlighter said:

I believe Sanctification will be more effective for our lives if we use God's Holy and pure Word (the KJB). There are two lines of manuscripts or two vines. One good, and one bad. There is the TR or the Textus Receptus line (the KJB), and there is the Alexandrian (Egyptian) line. If we know anything about the Bibe, we know that Egypt was spoken in a negative light in the Bible. So a line of manuscripts that come from out of Egypt is not good. This is not just history, but one can see the differences between these two line of manuscripts. The Trinity, holy living, the blood atonement, the deity of Christ are all attacked in the TR line of manuscripts that leads up to the KJB.

Westcott and Hort are two men who were known occultists who created the first departure away from the KJB (the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts). Westcott and Hort (with the help of a large team) created a Greek text based on a Catholic possesed document and an Orthodox possessed document (Alexandrian in origin). Granted, Nestle and Aland revised their work and created yet again another Greek manuscript, but they used Westcott and Hort's work as the basis for their textual criticism. So Westcott and Hort are responsible for most of all the Modern Translations you see today. Their work was based upon manuscripts that were Egyptian in origin (i.e. Alexandrian).

I made some comparisons between the KJB vs. the NAS (NASB) in this post here.
You will see the changes are for the worse and not for the better.
In fact, in the thread link I provided, I created 30 reasons that support the truth that the KJB is the pure Word of God for our day.

Anyways, I would also check out Gipp's 7 mini movie episodes on YouTube in defense of the KJB.


Here are all seven episodes + a bonus video.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdD7_B3zweu0qi_gUHA9W_0JxSM_jT0zj

Click to expand...

From what I’m seeing the Alexandrain codex is decades older than the textus receptus dating back to the 5th century and originated in Alexandria one of the oldest Christian churches in the history of the Christian Church. Alexandria being in Egypt is completely irrelevant as any basis for its authenticity. Like I said before the newer versions had additions that weren’t in the older manuscripts and the post you provided supports this by showing the missing verses from the newer versions that are present in the KJV. If these added verses are not in the older manuscripts then where did the translators get this new information that was added in the newer manuscripts? The only way to confirm that anything was removed from the older manuscripts would be to provide even older texts showing that these verses were present before then we could conclude that these verses were removed. But there are no older texts confirming the validity of these added verses. So I have to stand firm on my original assessment that the KJV has added content that was not present in the older texts because I can’t conclude that these verses were removed from the Alexandrian codex unless I have older manuscripts showing that these verses were present before the Alexandrian codex.