Born Crucified

From the TR: It is quite obvious that there are more words here than just "There are three that bear record in Heaven. and there are more words than just "the Spirit, the water, and the blood"

Hmmmm, possibly a diamond or trapezoid. "4 corners of Earth" = points along hemispherical/equitorial lines of the globe? "4 corners of Earth" = nonliteral expression? I was joking, Gauntlet. I do not believe the earth is rectangular, square, diamond or trapezoid shaped.

Everybody knows the earth is either retangular or square in shape. Hmmmm, possibly a diamond or trapezoid.

now I am confused. do you own one of the 24 hand-written Wycliffe Bibles of 1384 or do you own a copy of the Wycliffe Bible of 1384? I own a copy

A person cannot be saved apart from the Word of God. One cannot lead another to Christ without presenting to that person a portion of the Bible. Even if only by memory, the Bible is the tool that must be used to lead another to the Lord.

yes, I do. when was it printed? The Wycliffe Bible was hand-written in 1384. There are only a known 24 in existance. and you own one of the 24? I own a copy.

yes, I do. when was it printed? The Wycliffe Bible was hand-written in 1384. There are only a known 24 in existance.

yes, I do.

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary was not written by Wycliffe, but by people of the late 20th Century.

The claim that verse 8 was not there until the 16th Century is a false claim by someone trying to push a false doctrine. In the fourteenth Century, Wycliffe translated from the Greek and Hebrew and his version had verse 8: It is false claims such as the one purporting that there was no verse 8 until the 1500's that cause most Bible believers to go on the defensive when it comes to other versions. and paraphrases.

glorywatch, There are several different versions that remove "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" from verse 7 and remove "There are three that bear record in Heaven" from verse 8. When read from these versions, you get the false the deception is obvious Take for instance, the ESV: 1 John 5:7-8 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. Here is the ASV: 1 John 5:7-8 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. (Notice, the Father and the Word do not bear witness in this version, thereby not a good translation either)

Is God double-minded? Why would He tell some people "There are three that bear record in heaven; the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost," and tell others "There are three that bear record in Heaven; the Spirit, the water and the blood"?

I beg to differ. Paul, as well as many others had the writings of the Prophets. Jesus Himself read from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue. Philip was said to have ministered to the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading from Isaiah. They had their Bible. It was Old Testament Scripture, but it still pointed to Christ. I do not deny this. They had the Tanakh. And as we see, all the Old Testement writings that pointed to Jesus, were read by the same people who denied Christ. But, How than, did the Apostles and disciples in that time teach people about Christs coming and lessons? Did they hand them a bible? No. They preached the word. The gospels were documented after Christs resurrection. The rest of the books we have are simply letters to the church. Do you think that the Church of Corinth was reading Romans 8:23 on the Sabbath? Of course not, they didn't have that. Disciples went out and verbally spread the word...This was also the reason for the true "gift of tongues". It was a language between two cultures in order for them to understand each other thus the spread of the gospel. The gospel being that the Messiah had come. Not to mention, look at the churches that were written to. These were gentiles for the most part. They didn't even study the Tanakh. I'm sorry...but the very scriptures that you aim to protect via the KJV are the very scriptures you are destroying by taking them out of context. This just goes to show...it's better to have a different version, with an understanding of the scriptures in their entirity If one can't understand and grasp the KJV. A different version that in some verses denies the virgin birth? A different version that is some verses remove the deity of Christ? A different version that in some verses removes the blood? A different version that in some verses removes the suffering that Christ went through and instead gives Him a black eye? No thanks.

I beg to differ. Paul, as well as many others had the writings of the Prophets. Jesus Himself read from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue. Philip was said to have ministered to the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading from Isaiah. They had their Bible. It was Old Testament Scripture, but it still pointed to Christ.

Many could translate who are not guided by the Holy Spirit, but one who is unsaved may not translate correctly. Take for instance, when God's Word speaks of 'qadesh', the KJV translates 'sodomite.' Other versions translate it as 'temple prostitute.' Does this mean God is not against prostitution except in the Temple? Other translations say 'cult prostitute.' Does this mean that as long was one is not in a cult, one can be a prostitute? There are many translations of the Bible out there. I myself own 62 different translations. Which is right? Sodomite? Temple Prostitute? Cult Prostitute? Idolatress? or one of the many other translations? You see, therein lies the problem. God's Word is right, and for a translation to be right, one would have to have to be guided by the Holy Spirit in the translation or there is confusion. God is not the author of confusion. His Word declares that those who love and make lies shall in no way enter His Kingdom. Who is right? which translation is right? they all cannot be right when they all say different things and lead to differing thoughts.