Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how "modern" institutions use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. John 10:19
Biblically, historically, the actions of Jesus Christ caused and causes division. With the presentation of Truth comes the confrontation of choice:
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Revelation 18:4
So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Textus Receptus? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus, one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism and reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, of the tablets of Egyptian Sun Worship and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating and reading the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit, understanding the gift of prophecy, and receiving aid from the archeologist's spade. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who or what is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how "modern" institutions use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. John 10:19
Biblically, historically, the actions of Jesus Christ caused and causes division. With the presentation of Truth comes the confrontation of choice:
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Revelation 18:4
So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Textus Receptus? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus, one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism and reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, of the tablets of Egyptian Sun Worship and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating and reading the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit, understanding the gift of prophecy, and receiving aid from the archeologist's spade. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how "modern" institutions use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. John 10:19
Biblically, historically, the actions of Jesus Christ caused and causes division. With the presentation of Truth comes the confrontation of choice:
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Revelation 18:4
So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Textus Receptus? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus, one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism while reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, of the tablets of Egyptian Sun Worship and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit and being aided by the spade of the archeologist. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how "modern" institutions use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. John 10:19
Biblically, historically, the actions of Jesus Christ caused and causes division. With the presentation of Truth comes the confrontation of choice:
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Revelation 18:4
So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Textus Receptus? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus, one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism while reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, the tablets of Egyptian Sun Worship and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit and being aided by the spade of the archeologist. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how "modern" institutions use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. John 10:19
Biblically, historically, the actions of Jesus Christ caused and causes division. So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Received Texts? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus: one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism while reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, the tablets of Egyptian Sun Worship and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit and being aided by the spade of the archeologist. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how modern "institutions" use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. John 10:19
Biblically, historically, Jesus caused and causes division. So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Received Texts? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus: one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism while reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, the tablets of Egyptian Sun Worship and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit and being aided by the spade of the archeologist. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how modern "institutions" use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. John 10:19
Biblically, historically, Jesus caused and causes division. So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Received Texts? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus: one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism while reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, the tablets of Egyptian Mithraism and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit and being aided by the spade of the archeologist. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how modern "institutions" use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. John 10:19
Biblically, historically, Jesus caused and causes division. So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Received Texts? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus: one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism while reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, the tablets of Egyptian Mithraism and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit and being aided by the spade of the archeologist. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
There are only two choices, and which choice to make is left to the individual.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how modern "institutions" use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. John 10:19
Biblically, historically, Jesus caused and causes division. So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Received Texts? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus: one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism while reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, the tablets of Egyptian Mithraism and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit and being aided by the spade of the archeologist. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
There are two choices, and that choice is left up to the individual.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups. Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how modern "institutions" use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. John 10:19
Biblically, historically, Jesus caused and causes division. So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Received Texts? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus: one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism while reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, the tablets of Egyptian Mithraism and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit and being aided by the spade of the archeologist. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? There are two choices, and that choice is left up to the individual.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13