Positive identification microchip?
(archive.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
https://youtu.be/BVXjw4jd61M
A critique of the book by a Christian apologist with hundreds of moderated debates defending the faith under his belt.
Thank you, I’ll check it out tonight, mind open. It does look like a lot of things in the book are taken out of context with a lot of ... between quotes.
I just want to make sure the Bible I’m reading contains the closest thing to the true word of God.
He said "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my word will never pass away". His promises are always kept. the Word isn't going anywhere :)
Also beware King James Onlyism. I used to be one. Transmission of text is of course important.
If you want more sources let me know.
Jesus is Lord, God and King.
Thanks. I watched 4 of the videos you linked and see why you said “Ugh” about her... it really sounds like she took most everything out of context to make her points.
As for King James Only-ism, I have been looking into both sides of that debate a tiny bit, and it sounds like the original sources either types (KJV source vs NIV,NSB,etc) used have claims against their accuracy.
But the gist I get from non-KJV only people is that pretty much all of the commonly accepted translations have the same basic messages and lessons and instructions.
Let’s say KJVonlyism didn’t exist. Would the KJV be considered a good version to read as long as the reader makes the effort to understand it?
What is your opinion on parallel bibles as a way of expanding your understanding?
I believe it would be yes. But as one caller noted, the preface of the 1611 KJV Bible the translators insisted that as language changed, so would the need for newer translations of the Bible. That was the basis for the existence of the KJV Bible itself, to update it to, then, modern English.
If we want to take the KJV Only'ist to their logical conclusion that the KJV is the only true Bible translation, then we have to assume that there was no true Bible prior to the KJV.
I will link the discussion that was talked about by Dr White before the video started, the john Ankerberg Show from 1995, they discuss KJV Only'ism with people both, for and against.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI7fbQc1Oyw&list=PL5641953C984053E0
A KJVO will charge you with believing that God hasn't preserved His word. This is because they are looking for the perfect translation and believe this to be the KJV. God preserved His word, not in a single translation of the Bible, but by using a system of a decentralized multiple attestation. 2.5 miles high of Manuscripts from as early as the first century scattered all over the Old World, some still being discovered today. Dr Dan Wallace in the video playlist I linked above goes into this. You could recreate the entire New Testament with the exception of the words 'the' and 'of', in some places. This exercise he named "the Gospel according to snoopy".
KJV Only'ists have another issue... which version of the King James? the 1611 or the 1769 revision? The Oxford or the Cambridge version? (I am using their vernacular "version" instead of Translation")
But of course when you tell them all this they still come at you with a very cultish "So where is Gods preserved Word then?" They are looking for 1 specific book, instead of a method. You can't help them, only God can.