Guest Butero Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 48 minutes ago, Yowm said: Here is just one example of a civil discussion of the debate, something they are able to do without calling the other brethren a liar. http://www.reformationtheology.com/2011/06/understanding_romans_81.php I said you told two lies, and you haven't been able to show I was wrong. I didn't call you a liar. I have no idea if it was mistaken or on purpose, but I proved what you said was false, and you haven't done anything to show otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christine Posted February 27, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,058 Content Per Day: 0.41 Reputation: 1,031 Days Won: 5 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Butero said: That is not true. I have already proven it to be a lie by referencing the fact that it was included in the Geneva Bible, that predates the KJV Bible of 1611. In addition to that, it was part of the Biblical canon. so those who make these claims are promoting an open canon. This is an assault of God's Word. Any Bible that shortens verses, removes them or discredits them is of the devil. I would be terrified of God's wrath coming down on me if I did that or promoted that. Hello @Butero, The margin of my KJV informed me of the fact that the words of the latter part of Romans 8:1 was not included in the original text. It's rightful place is in verse 4, as you will see. Thank you for responding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Christine said: Hello @Butero, The margin of my KJV informed me of the fact that the words of the latter part of Romans 8:1 was not included in the original text. It's rightful place is in verse 4, as you will see. Thank you for responding. That was added to your KJV Bible if it says that. I have a 1611 reprint that says no such thing, and I have several Authorized versions that say no such thing. How exactly is it worded in your KJV Bible and who is the publisher? I have a NKJV Bible that says it is not included in the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts, not that it is missing in the original text, so that is why I want the exact wording. I want to know the publisher of your KJV edition Bible so I can see what servant of Satan would make that claim in a KJV Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sower Posted February 27, 2018 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 14 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,252 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 5,860 Days Won: 1 Joined: 07/09/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Butero said: I am not sure what you are responding to, and this is yet another topic of discussion. It would be fairly involved if you are wanting my opinion, and different people will give you different responses, so I would need to know specifically who you are talking to and which post you are asking about? adjective: facetious treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant. synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Yowm said: I had written up a lengthy response to your whole post and lost it all. (Partly why I hate responding to long posts). I will attempt to address this part. He does not only say in Jn 5:24 are not condemned but also ' hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.' Is passed, is in the perfect tense.../a completed action, hence no condemnation of Rom 8:1. Belief on Him, 'makes possible'?? That is a recipe for a works salvation. James is not talking about salvation but good works to be seen of men. Thank you but I've been studying the Bible 43 years. 43 years? Wow! You should have studied the real Bible and you would understand it better. I have been studying the real Bible 35 years and read it cover to cover more than 15 times. I utterly reject your interpretations of what you have called a subjective text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 5 minutes ago, Gary Lee said: adjective: facetious treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant. synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous I was being serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 16 minutes ago, Gary Lee said: adjective: facetious treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant. synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous If you are seriously wanting my opinion on how you can lose your salvation, it would mean you were not really of God's elect, but thought you were saved. That is why we are told to make our calling and election sure. If you fall away and die in that condition, you will go to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4LdKHVCzRDj2 Posted February 27, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,453 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 1,453 Days Won: 6 Joined: 11/02/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/23/1991 Share Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Yowm said: How would you know which ones are the most accurate? By the Spirit? It is obvious that this part: "who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." - Romans 8:1 Is true. Only those who do not have the Spirit would oppose it. "So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." - Romans 8:8 And take care, do not trust in your flesh for interpretation of Scriptures. I have seen some of this forum that clearly discern things according to the flesh and they are deceived, with no truth in them. Glory to God! Amen. Edited February 27, 2018 by 4LdKHVCzRDj2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christine Posted February 27, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,058 Content Per Day: 0.41 Reputation: 1,031 Days Won: 5 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Butero said: That was added to your KJV Bible if it says that. I have a 1611 reprint that says no such thing, and I have several Authorized versions that say no such thing. How exactly is it worded in your KJV Bible and who is the publisher? I have a NKJV Bible that says it is not included in the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts, not that it is missing in the original text, so that is why I want the exact wording. I want to know the publisher of your KJV edition Bible so I can see what servant of Satan would make that claim in a KJV Bible? Hello @Butero My Bible is the KJV 1611 version, published by Kregel publications. It says it is not found in any of the texts. I should be very careful before you call anyone a servant of Satan. My Bible is called, 'The Companion Bible'. I hope this information is sufficient for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Christine said: Hello @Butero My Bible is the KJV 1611 version, published by Kregel publications. It says it is not found in any of the texts. I should be very careful before you call anyone a servant of Satan. My Bible is called, 'The Companion Bible'. I hope this information is sufficient for you. Thank you so much Christine. I am a bit curious about something though, if you can help me with this. You said the Bible says it is KJV 1611 Version. When you read from the text, are the words spelled like they are today, or in very old English? The reason I am asking you that is because the 1611 Edition isn't the same as the Authorized King James Bible we have today. The text is the same with one exception. The 1611 Edition has words spelled different, so if your Bible is called KJV 1611 Edition, and it is actually an Authorized KJV Bible, they are misrepresenting it. Is it an exact quote, "it is not found in any of the texts?" That sounds odd. It clearly is found in some of the texts or it wouldn't be in the Geneva Bible of 1599, the 1611 KJV Bible, the Authorized KJV Bible and the NKJV Bible. Is that what it says exactly? Regardless, thank you so much for getting back to me about this. You don't know how helpful you have been. This may be the only real reason I was in this thread today. I have been compiling information about how the Bible is under attack, and this is something I was unaware was happening, the enemy actually adding things to discredit the text of the KJV Bible in KJV Bibles. I must say, that is very clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts