Why Is There Many Religious and Only One KJV Or Bible?

[Alive]

12 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

 

There is a real Scriptural distinction between salvation from sin and eternal life, and by your remark you show that you confuse the two. "Law keeping" as you say doesn't have to do with salvation, on that point you are absolutely correct. However, according to Scripture, not the false doctrines of men, you maintain abiding in Christ by walking in obedience to Christ. That is not only Scripture, that is how God ordained it to be since salvation and eternal life are both covenant gifts. Perhaps you do not understand Biblical covenants and their principles of operation; God patterned His Biblical covenants after those principles so man can understand His Word.

 

 

According to Scripture, your life is only "hidden in Christ" as long as you remain abiding in Christ. If you cease to do so - again, according to Scripture - then you are no longer in Christ. There are a plethora of passages that teach that Biblical truth contrary to the false teachings of men.

 

 

Yes...I could only read a few lines, because it full of calvinistic nonsense doctrines. I have a far better understanding of Scripture since I discovered those doctrines as false years ago, but thanks anyway.

I pray God will bless you with understanding.

 

I get it. What I have done in response to your post is to suggest what I see in scripture.

What you have done is to assign anything other than your interpretation of scripture as 'doctrines of men'. Easy to do--not so easy to pull off.

Although I have read Calvin and own his entire commentary in my bible software, I have never even considered being a Calvinist. I simply don't relate that way. What I have done is to study scripture for long time and have come to the understanding that I have of the work of God in Christ in the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension and how we relate to those historical realities. I counsel you to forget your Calvin bias and read what I wrote---it may add something to your understanding...or not.

[Bro.Tan]

On 1/27/2021 at 8:20 AM, Chicken coop2 said:

There are millions of Christians all over the world for whom English is not their first language.  I don't think that they should be obligated to read a bible written in archaic British English. 

With the technology today shouldn't they be able to convert English to their language?  

 

 

 

 

[SwordMaster]

4 hours ago, Alive said:

I get it. What I have done in response to your post is to suggest what I see in scripture.

What you have done is to assign anything other than your interpretation of scripture as 'doctrines of men'. Easy to do--not so easy to pull off.

 

Actually, that is not what I have done. I can demonstrate in Scripture anything that I claim. This is why it is so important to interpret Scripture utilizing a complete Biblical hermeneutic, because that is what prevents one from allowing carnal thoughts and ideas from entering the final outcome.

 

4 hours ago, Alive said:

Although I have read Calvin and own his entire commentary in my bible software, I have never even considered being a Calvinist.

 

In understand completely...and yet many who do not claim to be calvinist hold to different calvinist doctrines. For example, many who do not claim calvinism hold to the calvinist doctrine that a man gets saved the moment he chooses to believe in Christ. Others who claim not to be calvinist hold to the false doctrine that they are not responsible for maintaining their stand in Christ as having eternal life. And what I read yesterday that you wrote, even though you claim not to be a calvinist, you hold to the false doctrine that God maintains our state of being in Christ, when Scripture directly contradicts such an idea.

That is what I mean...a person can not hold to all points of calvinism, yet cling to false doctrines that originated from calvinism.

 

4 hours ago, Alive said:

What I have done is to study scripture for long time and have come to the understanding that I have of the work of God in Christ in the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension and how we relate to those historical realities.

 

I understand. I have studied Scripture since I was 16 (actually, even before that), and came to understand at the age of 21 that unless we study Scripture according to a complete Biblical hermeneutic, listening to the moving of the Spirit, then the chances of one coming to the Spirit's intended meaning of a text is severely hampered. 

I have met others who claim to have studied Scripture for years...and yet still their interpretations were more false than true because they failed to understand that critical point of a complete Biblical hermeneutic. Its like a cosmologist studying cosmology while failing to include the laws of physics in his studies - and that is no exaggeration.

The historical realities of the cross, for example, are firmly based in the atonement given to Moses by God. When people fail to understand that key point of interpretation, they usually butcher the point and purpose of the cross...as many on this site that I have read do.

 

4 hours ago, Alive said:

I counsel you to forget your Calvin bias and read what I wrote---it may add something to your understanding...or not.

 

I reign in my biases, I have learned to many years ago, but thanks for the advice. 

As for what you wrote, I did read most of them later, and it added nothing to my understanding of Scripture, but gave me a perfect picture of where you are coming from.

Blessings.

..

 

[Alive]

11 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

 

Actually, that is not what I have done. I can demonstrate in Scripture anything that I claim. This is why it is so important to interpret Scripture utilizing a complete Biblical hermeneutic, because that is what prevents one from allowing carnal thoughts and ideas from entering the final outcome.

 

 

In understand completely...and yet many who do not claim to be calvinist hold to different calvinist doctrines. For example, many who do not claim calvinism hold to the calvinist doctrine that a man gets saved the moment he chooses to believe in Christ. Others who claim not to be calvinist hold to the false doctrine that they are not responsible for maintaining their stand in Christ as having eternal life. And what I read yesterday that you wrote, even though you claim not to be a calvinist, you hold to the false doctrine that God maintains our state of being in Christ, when Scripture directly contradicts such an idea.

That is what I mean...a person can not hold to all points of calvinism, yet cling to false doctrines that originated from calvinism.

 

 

I understand. I have studied Scripture since I was 16 (actually, even before that), and came to understand at the age of 21 that unless we study Scripture according to a complete Biblical hermeneutic, listening to the moving of the Spirit, then the chances of one coming to the Spirit's intended meaning of a text is severely hampered. 

I have met others who claim to have studied Scripture for years...and yet still their interpretations were more false than true because they failed to understand that critical point of a complete Biblical hermeneutic. Its like a cosmologist studying cosmology while failing to include the laws of physics in his studies - and that is no exaggeration.

The historical realities of the cross, for example, are firmly based in the atonement given to Moses by God. When people fail to understand that key point of interpretation, they usually butcher the point and purpose of the cross...as many on this site that I have read do.

 

 

I reign in my biases, I have learned to many years ago, but thanks for the advice. 

As for what you wrote, I did read most of them later, and it added nothing to my understanding of Scripture, but gave me a perfect picture of where you are coming from.

Blessings.

..

 

There is no use in continuing further on these things...we have encountered one another before.

I can understand your POV in the main, which is not at all novel. Where you lose me is when you assert that salvation doesn't occur until water baptism---or perhaps I read you incorrectly.

Did I also read you to espouse that water baptism in 'Jesus name only'?

 I am familiar with with both of those teachings.

[SwordMaster]

5 hours ago, Alive said:

There is no use in continuing further on these things...we have encountered one another before.

I can understand your POV in the main, which is not at all novel. Where you lose me is when you assert that salvation doesn't occur until water baptism---or perhaps I read you incorrectly.

Did I also read you to espouse that water baptism in 'Jesus name only'?

 I am familiar with with both of those teachings.

 

"POV?" I am not familiar with what that stands for.

 

No, you understood that correctly, but let me be more detailed - according to a STRICT reading of Scripture, without any biased intervention, a person only comes to salvation when they come to God on His terms, which are faith, repentance, and receiving water baptism into Christ, which is (again) the only Biblical means of entering into Christ according to Scripture. That being said, there is one exception, and we see that in the thief on the cross...he did not have opportunity to come down off the cross to be baptized.

But again, the only way we come to the full conclusion of Scripture, is by taking the whole Word of God together...taking a passage like Acts 16:31 by itself, and declaring that this is how one gets saved, is a juvenile way of looking at things (not saying that is what you do, just using this verse as an example of how Scripture is not fully examined for truth).

And, no to the other question...I believe that arguing over "Jesus" or "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is also a very juvenile (immature) thing to do. Jesus is God in the flesh, thus when one invokes His name, one invokes the whole of the person of God which includes all of the trinity.

 

Blessings.

..

[Bro.Tan]

On 1/28/2021 at 10:43 AM, Chicken coop2 said:

The bible has been translated into over 1000 different languages.  From original sources.  Just like KJV was. 

By man not technology.  Computer translations between different languages can be a mess that looks like randomly selected words and no meaning. 

To use a computer program to translate, for example KJV to French would produce nonsense. 

If into Korean, for example, even worse. 

For a simple lesson on how computers can't translate let's consider how you would translate the simple sentence in English to French: It's cold. 

1. Il fait froid.

2. Il est froid. 

3. Il a froid. 

1. Verb faire for weather 

2. Verb être for inanimate objects, coffee 

3. Verb avoir for people or animals, so it might have been a dog.

 

I understand what saying

[Leonardo Von]

Quote

Why Is There Many Religious and Only One KJV Or Bible?

Indeed, there is only one religion.

To be more precise, there are two paths:

• The path of life: (Jesus Christ).
• The path of death: the religion. From the moment that the person doesn't have personal relationship with Jesus (the Living God), the person is praising, worshipping, studying and praying to a dead god (and this, for definition, is spiritualism, something that is condemned by the Holy Scripture).