Christian Answers Repository

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Isn't that a contradiction, if you believe we are born as sinners, or naturally sinful; then surely those who don't follow "the word of God" are inferior to those who do?

None of us were born following God or His Word.

All of us are sinners. You either have repentant sinners or unrepentant sinners.

Doesn't matter, we are all sinners.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Because human population since 1900 has exploded in an exponential curve.

That would mean though that between 1611 and 1900, if God's word is preserved in one language, there were people's all across Europe and the Middle East that couldn't read God's Word because it was stuck on a little island to the northwest of Europe.

I guess God shot himself in the omniscient foot?

Kinda is a testament, (again), to God's omniscience. He knew today with the massive human population explosion, that His word would best reach around to all the nations and cultures in English, not French.

Fact is though, reaching people of all nations and cultures around the world is not best done in English. The overwhelming majority of people today do not speak English; even though we're told in America that they do. People may know enough to say, "Hi, how are you?" but to have a theological discussion? Yeah right.

I'm going to be teaching the youth tomorrow night at my church here in Germany. I would get so many blank stares from the kids if I decided that I wanted to teach in English instead of German. I'd get even more blank stares if I were to, say, go to South America and try to reach the average Joe with the KJV in my hand and English coming out of my mouth.

Which Greek? KJBO people complain that the Greek used by modern Bible translations is the Greek texts that emerged from the Alexandrian schools that mixed Mysticism and Gnosticism with Christianity. The Textus Vaticanus and Textus Sinaticus.

Those people expurgated a great deal of scripture that didn't align with their Gnostic doctrines and beliefs.

That simply isn't true. Yes, there are some verses not there; but that's because the texts are older! That aside though, there is no doctrine denied by a modern translation that can be taught from the KJV. None. I challenge you to prove to me that that's the case.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

then surely those who don't follow "the word of God" are inferior to those who do?

No, why would they be inferior? All humans are created in the image of God. Whether or not someone follows Christ or not doesn't change that.

why would you follow Christianity?

Because Christ has made a way that we can have peace with God the Father and have a relationship with him.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Eskimoes?

aboriginal Tribes?

Sinners, right?

reply to post by octotom

That would mean though that between 1611 and 1900, if God's word is preserved in one language, there were people's all across Europe and the Middle East that couldn't read God's Word because it was stuck on a little island to the northwest of Europe.

Stop and think WHY it is that a majority of nations either speak English or have it as a second language. It's because of the British Empire and the massive territory the "owned" during that time. It's not because of Rosetta Stone software.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You're missing the point that not everyone speaks English! Taking English in school for a few years doesn't make someone an English speaker! In fact, the overwhelming majority of people can't speak English beyond simple conversations! Have you ever been outside the United States? If so, have you tried to have conversations with people? It's not as easy as you think!

reply to post by octotom

That simply isn't true. Yes, there are some verses not there; but that's because the texts are older!

1. "Older is better" is a fallacy. Let me ask you, which would have a better chance of survival till today? A text that was used repeatedly and had to be re-copied (by hand) at the time, or a text that sat on a shelf and was rarely used?

2. First century apostolic fathers and ante-Nicean father QUOTE portions of the texts that the Gnostic Christians at Alexandria expurgated from the texts. This means that they were removed from the texts and not added later by scribes as some claim. Most notably the last verses of Mark.

This video series will explain all of those details and will include the works written by the apostolic fathers and ante-Nicean fathers who quoted these verses that apparently were "added" centuries later. It's bollocks.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You're missing the point that not everyone speaks English! Taking English in school for a few years doesn't make someone an English speaker! In fact, the overwhelming majority of people can't speak English beyond simple conversations! Have you ever been outside the United States? If so, have you tried to have conversations with people? It's not as easy as you think!

I haven't said that everyone speaks English.

What was the landscape like centuries ago when the British Empire controlled much of the known world?

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Eskimoes?

aboriginal Tribes?

Sinners, right?

What part of "all" don't you get?

Glad you brought up Aboriginal tribes though, because when missionaries went to the Aboriginal regions of Australia they already knew about God and His Son Jesus but didn't know His name. My God is big enough to reveal himself to those without a written Bible.

He did it for thousands of years after Adam and before Moses.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Let me ask you, which would have a better chance of survival till today? A text that was used repeatedly and had to be re-copied (by hand) at the time, or a text that sat on a shelf and was rarely used?

In this situation they both would! One is being used and the other is being recopied! [With the recopying process giving scribes the chance to make mistakes and add their commentary in the margins!]

This means that they were removed from the texts and not added later by scribes as some claim. Most notably the last verses of Mark.

Scholars know though that the last verses of Mark were added later. That's why there are three or four different endings to Mark floating around.

Scholars know as well when virtually all of the additions to the MT and TR were added. For example, 1 John 5:7 was added in the tenth century or something like that.

Saying that it's bollocks is silly.

Also, I still challenge you to show me what teaching of Christianity is denied, left out, or what ever from the modern translations or the current critical texts. You're not going to find one, which just shows that this "Anti-Alexandria" thing going on in KJVO circles is baseless.