All Discussion PAGE 906

When studying the Bible have you ever wondered what causes or perhaps WHO might cause you to recognize what seems to be a error in the scripture or translation?

There's no perfect translation.

Part 7.

These words are also lacking in all of the ancient translations of the New Testament. The only exception to this is Latin. However, the oldest Latin manuscripts do not contain this passage. In the manuscripts which do have them we find that the wording is different.

Add to this, there is no evidence of this verse in the writings of early Christians who commented on this book of Scripture. Neither do we find it cited in any of the Trinitarian debates of the fourth century. If it existed at this time it is inconceivable as to why it was not cited in the debates. Indeed, it would seem to settle the issue.

Thus, this particular verse should not be used as support for the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. However, we must emphasize that the doctrine of the Trinity does not stand or fall on this verse alone. Indeed, there is sufficient evidence in Scripture for the Trinity doctrine without appealing to 1 John 5:7. Therefore, it is best to ignore this verse in discussions about this subject.

Article by Don Stewart.

The word of God is inspired by God.

There's human error in translating from one language to another but those errors doesn't thwart God's plan or message to the world.

God's message to us doesn't hinge on one verse! It's integrated!

Nor does it depends on the perfection of Man.

God can use a prophet like Balaam and a talking Donkey to bring his word.

Again the King James is the bible I use and believe it is very accurate but not perfect.

What's important is to get and know the truth out of what is accurate.

God bless.

There's no perfect translation.

Part 6.

How Did This Verse Get into Certain Printed Texts?

There is one final question. If these words were not original with John then how did they become included in certain Latin manuscripts of First John? What led to their inclusion? While nobody knows for certain the best answer seems to be that they were placed as a marginal note in some early Latin manuscripts. Later, certain Latin copyists then placed them into the text of First John. Eventually, in the sixteenth century, they came to be viewed as part of the original text by some in the church. Yet, as we have seen, there is no real evidence that these were the words John originally composed.

Whatever the case may be, the evidence for their placement as part of First John is sadly lacking. Trinitarians should not cite this verse to support their case. Indeed, the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity is overwhelming without quoting this passage.

For one thing, these words are missing from all of the ancient manuscripts of First John. The manuscripts of First John which have this particular verse are few and they are very late. Indeed, the earliest is from the fourteen century. Even this manuscript does not read the same as the text that we find in the King James Version. The earliest manuscript that reads exactly the same as we find it in the King James Bible comes from the sixteenth century. In other words, there is no real evidence that these words were part of the text of First John.

In addition, only nine Greek manuscripts of First John contain this verse. Furthermore, only five of them have it in the text while the other four have it written in the margin. Because of the lack of evidence for its inclusion, almost all textual scholars reject it as being original with John. Thus, the external evidence is just not there.

See Part 7.

There's no perfect translation.

Part 5.

It is missing from the writings of Christians such as Irenaeus (died about A.D. 200), Clement (died about A.D. 210), Tertullian (who died around A.D. 220) and Athanasius (who died in A.D. 373). If this verse were found in the text of First John it would have been the primary verse used in these debates but it was never cited!

OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

After looking at the facts surrounding the inclusion of these disputed words in First John we can make the following observations:

1. THIS VERSE DOES NOT BELONG IN SCRIPTURE.

Although this verse clearly does teach the doctrine of the Trinity, as we have seen, there is serious question as to whether it belongs in Holy Scripture. Indeed, the evidence for its inclusion in the New Testament is almost nil. In fact, almost every modern translation of Scripture, with good reason, rejects its authority. We should make the same conclusion.

2. REJECTION OF THIS PASSAGE IS NOT A REJECTION OF THE TRINITY

Contrary to what some have written and said, the rejection of this verse has nothing to do with any conspiracy to keep the Deity of Christ, or the Trinity, out of the Bible. The reason for its rejection is the lack of evidence for its inclusion; it is not some sinister plot to remove parts of God's Word. Indeed, an objective look at the evidence would lead one to conclude that these words were not part of the original text of First John.

3. IT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ARGUE FOR THE TRINITY

Consequently, this verse should not be used in discussion about the Trinity. As we have repeatedly emphasized, there is sufficient evidence in the Scripture to support the doctrine of the Trinity without appealing to these words in 1 John 5:7. The Trinity doctrine does not depend upon this verse. It never has. This must be understood.

See Part 6.

There's no perfect translation.

Part 4

In addition, the way text reads in this particular manuscript is different from the Greek text which was used in translating the King James Version. In fact, the earliest Greek manuscript which reads exactly as the text which was used to translate this verse in the King James Bible is from the sixteenth century!

Furthermore, these few Greek manuscripts which contain the reading in the text are not actually copies of the Greek text but rather translations of the Latin text into Greek. Therefore, they are not independent witnesses to the original Greek text.

In other words, the manuscript evidence for the inclusion of this verse is just not there. This is the main reason as to why these words are not placed in the text of First John.

2. THIS PASSAGE IS MISSING FROM ALL ANCIENT VERSIONS

There are more problems with this passage. Indeed, the words in question are missing from all of the ancient translations, or versions, of the New Testament. This includes the following languages: Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Slavonic. The only exception to this is Latin. While the words in dispute are found in certain Latin manuscripts they are not found in the oldest ones. This is important to realize. The words did begin to become part of the Latin text of First John until about the fifth century. Even so, the wording of the passage was different than what became the basis for the King James Version.



3. THE PASSAGE WAS NEVER CITED IN THE TRINITARIAN DEBATES

There is something else which must be appreciated. If this verse was actually part of First John, it is inconceivable that it would not have been used in the Trinitarian debates of the fourth century. However, it is never cited, by either side, as reference to the Trinity.

See part 5.

There's no perfect translation.

Part 3.

Since these disputed words appeared in the later editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament, as well as other printed Greek texts immediately after his time, including Beza's, they were used as the basis for the English translation in First John. Thus, we find these words in 1 John 5:7 which describe the various members of the Trinity as well as testifying that they are "one." In brief, this explains how the words became part of the English Bible.

However, this is not the end of the story. When an authorized revision was made of the King James Version in 1880 these words in First John were omitted. Almost all English translations since that time do not have these words as part of the text. The reasons can be stated as follows:

Why This Passage Is Rejected?

There are a number of reasons as to why this passage is rejected as being part of Holy Scripture. We can simply state them as follows:

1. THE PASSAGE IS FOUND IN ONLY A FEW LATE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

Since the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the Greek manuscripts are our primary means of reconstructing the original text. The main reason for doubting these words were originally composed by John is the fact that they are only found in a few Greek manuscripts. Furthermore, as we examine these few manuscripts which do contain this passage we find that there are serious questions as to its authenticity.

Indeed, of the over three hundred Greek manuscripts which contain First John we find that only nine of them have this verse listed. Yet, of the nine, four of them have the verse in the margin while only five have it in the actual text.

There is more. These five manuscripts which do have this verse in the text are very late. None of the early manuscripts of First John contain it. Indeed, the first Greek manuscript that contains this verse in the actual text of First John comes from the fourteen century.

See part 4.

There's no perfect translation

Part 2.

Earlier printed versions of the New Testament were in Latin. Thus, the copying to the text of the New Testament covered some fifteen centuries.

How the Verses Became Part of the Printed Greek Text and King James Bible.

At the beginning of the sixteenth century, a man named Erasmus was the first to publish a printed Greek text of the New Testament. In putting together the text for this edition, Erasmus consulted all of the Greek manuscripts which he could find. In the Greek manuscripts of First John which Erasmus examined, these words about the Trinity were not found. Consequently, his first printed edition of his Greek New Testament, issued in 1516, did not contain these words. This omission caused a real problem among the people of that day since these words were found in the Latin text with which they were familiar. Erasmus defended himself by saying that these words were absent from the Greek texts which he had consulted and thus should not be placed into the text of the New Testament.

When Erasmus issued a second printed edition of his Greek New Testament it too was without these words in First John 5:7. However, before his third edition of the Greek New Testament was issued in 1521 a Greek manuscript was found which did contain this disputed passage. The problem was that this particular manuscript was actually composed around 1520! Yet, to quell the uproar caused by the omission of these words, Erasmus placed them in the third edition of his Greek New Testament. This reading remained in all future editions of Erasmus' printed text.

This printed Greek text of Erasmus was basically the same text used by the translators of the King James Bible in 1611. It appears that the Greek text which the translators of the King James Version most relied upon was the 5th edition of the printed text of Theodore Beza. This was issued in 1598. This text is similar, but not exactly the same as that of Erasmus.

See Part 3.

There's no perfect translation.

Part 1

There is a passage in the New Testament that seems to be an extraordinarily clear statement about the doctrine of the Trinity, 1 John 5:7. To many, the question as to the existence of the Trinity is settled by this verse.

What Does 1 John 5:7 Say?

First John 5:7 reads as follows in the King James Version:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The way this verse reads in the King James Version is a clear description of the Trinity. Indeed, it says that there are three that bear witness or bear record in heaven. These three are the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. In addition, it says that these three are one. Why then, is there any controversy about this issue of the doctrine of the Trinity? These words could not be clearer!

The Problem Stated

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Indeed, there has been a question about the authenticity of this passage. We will give a brief history of the problem as well as make some observations.

The New Testament Documents Were Originally Written in Greek

To begin with, we must note that the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek. When they were first composed each of them were written upon perishable material. Immediately, copies were made of these original writings (called the autographs). These hand-written copies of the Greek autographs, called manuscripts, were then copied and recopied.

By the middle of the second century A.D., the books of the New Testament began to be translated and then copied into languages other than Greek. This hand-copying of the text in Greek, as well as in these other languages, continued until the invention of the printing press (about 1450). Furthermore, even some time after the printing press was invented the text was still copied by hand. In fact, it was not until the sixteenth century (1516) that a Greek New Testament was printed and published.

(Part 2):

Jimbob,

Did you know that there were other English translations before the KJB? Were they also corrupt? Were the KJB translators King James Onlyists? Did they think that their translation alone was the word of God. Did they think that all previous translations were corrupt? Did they think that any translation written after theirs should be automatically discarded and labeled as being corrupt? I think these are valid questions. Can you please answer these?

You also ask me how would I know the difference between a corrupt translation and one that can be trusted? First of all, I will say that I trust the KJB. But there is no way that I can tell you that the KJB is a perfect word for word (no errors) translation without taking the same materials the translators used and testing putting them to the test. After all, we are told to test all things. But since I am not the one trying to prove that the KJB is the only translation that is the pure perfect word of God, and that all others are corrupt, perhaps maybe you can take this task on? And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but 2 Timothy 4:3-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, and Jeremiah 23:36 have nothing to do with bible translations. You are also misapplying those verses.

Blessings to you also!

Hello Jimbob,

(Part 1):

Yes, I did contradict myself in what I said. I'm sorry for confusing you. I actually noticed it after I posted and later re-read my post. The first thing that popped into my mind was that you would catch that, and sure enough, you caught it. I thought about deleting that part and re-posting but decided to leave it as is. But since it confused you, I can repost that part if you would like me to?

You're asking me that if the holy men of God were the prophets of old, the apostles, and a few others as you said, will I please provide Scripture as proof of that?

Jimbob, the proof is in the same verse that you continue to misapply ( 2 Peter 1:21). One thing that I notice in the words "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," are the words "spake" and "were." Peter is showing past tense, not future tense. So, it makes much more sense to believe that Peter was speaking of the prophets and apostles, not the King James translators. To say that Peter is speaking about the KJB translators in 2 Peter 1:21 is totally false.



I stand by my statement that the KJB was not written as a standard to be used to prove the validity of other Bible translations." So, your question to me is "What if the KJB is the True Inspired Word of God?"

I'll give you the same answer I have given you before. The true inspired word of God was already in existence long before the KJB was published. If you don't believe it was, what did the translators use to produce the KJB? It is a translation, so it had to be translated from something. What did the translators use? Did they use anything written before 1600?

The dangers of humanism.

Our walk with Christ involves our spirit testifying with His Spirit that we are indeed children of God ( Romans 8:16). In actuality, I have that verse quoted backwards but it helps to bring home the message. Campus Crusade for Christ used to have as part of it's 4 points to the Gospel that our feelings should never be at the head of our decisions but faith in God. Christ is the captain of our salvation ( Heb. 2:10). Be thou my vision is an old hymn which typifies this concept. In our love for Christ and being part of His Body (the church) we should indeed have agape for one another; feelings as it were of love that is above and beyond this world and it's affections hence tranforming our minds. ( Romans 12:2).

Experientially; however we are prone to look at some nostalgia that somehow we can return to an Edenic state of innocence; as God has put eternity in our hearts. However; to live for ourselves is of course antithetical to living for Christ whichinvolves dying to self. However; the example of Christ being fully God and fully man demonstrates how real emotions of sadness or grief and indignation can be expressed as He sympathizes with us as our High Priest ( Heb. 4:14-16).

In a sense; we have the future hope in resurrection and the glory of the future rule and reign of Christ where we put our treasure. All things are good indeed if blessed by God; whether finding a wife; or meats etc. But sacrifice is something foreign to human nature; if we do such a deed in our own strength it is either to fulfill some longing we have; or for pride or some sort of satisfaction. What doesn't jive with humanism is revealing the root cause of sin; our sin nature and being willing to expose death so that indeed His chosen ones can have life. In the flesh we are only attracted to what our minds are attracted to with our five senses; the Lord operates outside that but we still react to it as vessels of His temple in us ( 1 Cor. 3:16-17).

Where in the bible does it talk about having an organism with yourself

Ephesians 1

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory

Dear "John ray" Don't think about the text. In fact, we all should be careful and not say too much.

We are comforted by Jesus Christ in all things. You are loved by the Lord, for I am constantly reminded of you in my prayers.

Remember that you are valuable, it is easy to forget it. At least when we are out among non-believers. We can even be harmed by it. But never to death. My advice is that you take up on u the full armor of God on a daily basis. Ephesians 6 chapter. Never be discouraged, many depend on you.

God cares for you, He wants you to see it. And that you know it. We pray, I love u in Christ Jesus. Hallelujah God is good always.

Luke 24:20-22

Adam figure it up in months.

Chris ( Dan. 5:18) Daniel is speaking to Belshazzar who is the son of Nebuchadnezzar ( Dan. 5:2) Daniel tells Belshazzar "the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour". ( Dan. 5:19-20) v20 "But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him". (His kingdom was taken away from him) In ( Dan. 5:21) Daniel is telling of Nebuchadnezzar being driven from his kingdom till he knew that the most High God ruled in the kingdom of men. Here is when that happened in ( Dan. 4:34-37) v34 "I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever" v36 "At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and mine counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me" ( Dan. 4:37) Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven".

Now back to Daniel speaking to Belshazzar, he tells him in ( Dan. 5:22) "O Belshazzar, hast no humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this"

Daniel tells him he knew all about his father being driven from his kingdom until he knew that the most High ruled in the kingdom of men.

Nebuchadnezzar did praise and honour God in ( Dan. 4:34,37) His son knew all this and still ( Dan. 5:22-23) v23 "But thou lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven" he also said "and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, and brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified". These were his gods. That explains why Belshazzar said "the spirit of the gods".

Not my assumption or my private interpretation Chris.

Thanks and God Bless.

Apparently the word tithe is not used in the New Testament. Originally, it was used to bring certain gifts to the Temple; and often was grain or other offerings other than money itself. It was brought during certain times of the year; and sometimes every few years.

I find it interesting to the see reasoning for offerings today in comparison with tithes in the O.T. All the offerings in the O.T. were utilized (i.e. consumed as food by the priests); the focus of course being tied in with the Temple sacrifices whether necessary or "freewill" extra offerings. The support of the church today; as noted especially among the Corinthians is important for spreading the Gospel. We see how Paul "robbed other churches" ( 2 Cor. 11:8-9). If we follow the principle of giving out of our earnings; I would say that most can give ten percent. The issue today; of course is all the credit people have with interest or usury to pay off which is against Biblical principles for God's people.

I do believe the concept of sowing and reaping is valid; but obviously those who are greedy for gain in the televangelism world are using this concept for "filthy lucre" as the scriptures indicate. Money to the church should be as James put it minister as pure religion to the widow and orphan; as well as the practical needs of the congregation. This allows those in need to be helped; those who don't help their own are called worse than an infidel ( 1 Tim. 5:8). This holds churches accountable; as well as the laypersons to provide for their families if able.

As part of the Body of Christ the needs of those who are ministering should be first and foremost (the workman is worthy of his hire). Financial transparency needs to be straightforward with a church budget; we shouldn't take "on faith" what we are told as there are Judas types around who want a piece of the action for themselves.

Apparently it is the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator. It is supposed to be tied into Psychology; particularly Carl Jung.

The first thing that we have to do is to not allow the basic premise of Psychology be a tenet for guiding our lives. Frued; as you are probably aware had all kinds of conclusions as to the sensual aspects of man with a very limited set of those he studied. Obviously there is the bias that we are all like animals; hence all our actions are based on instincts with the idea of the survival of the fittest and other concepts that supposedly has allowed man to evolve to the state they are in now from the apes and other so called ancestors of man.

What is to be noted here is the enneagram which is basically a New Age concept along with other things that are supposed to determine what type of person we are. That is tied in with this philosophy. Basically; our behaviors are supposed to be conforming to our individual temperment; which is focusing on a man centered idea rather than submitting to Christ and thus dying to self with Christ making us into a new man.

The Lord gives spiritual gifts to those and distributes them according to His will ( 1 Cor. 12:11). I would say that He still tends to give us traits that mirror somewhat our individual nature; which although flawed and sinful originally was created by God who had us fearfully and wonderfully made as Psalm 139 states. In the Body of Christ; however we are transformed and therefore our affections as set to things above ( Colossians 3:2). We are given gifts in order to praise God and edify one another. We therefore do well to associate with others that have a different set of gifts; which is opposed to the "me first" mentality of those who have a humanistic world view and chiefly are concerned about satisfying their own wants and not focused on giving his life for his friends ( John 15:13).

Basically one concept exalts fallen man and the other focuses on Christ and His Kingdom.

Recently in the U.K. there have been babies born that have been genetically engineered with 3 lots of DNA instead of the normal 2 , one from each parent . This is no joke , read about it , it's all done in the name of medical science . Man thinks he's better than God , Man thinks he can improve on God's wonderful works . In the UK in 2022 between May and December , there were 32,000 that's thirty two thousand unexpected excess deaths . That means that in that time frame 32,000 more people died than what is usual for that time frame . I wonder how many of them had been vaccinated against Covid . I'm guessing they won't release that information .

please remember me and my family in your prayers today

Page 3. Jimbob.

And as far as the Greek NT is concerned, the translators are generally found in two camps. Those using the older Alexandrian manuscripts & those using the later Byzantine m/s (the Majority Text), of which the Textus Receptus (TR) comes. It is my understanding that the older m/s were not as reliable at the TR (from which we get our KJB), because of their inconsistencies, deletions & amendments. Even though this bodes well for the KJB, can we truly believe the KJB is a perfect Word, rather, one of the better translations to hand today? If we tenaciously hold onto the KJB as the faultless Bible from God, then we will miss those errors, however minor, in translation, inadvertently accepting error for Truth. And it is those errors, even in punctuation or incorrect word usage, that relegates all Bible translations into a place where much study & reference to the original languages is needed, which can only help us get closer to the Truth.

As for 2 Peter 1:21, I have to agree with bro Jesse, that this verse doesn't refer to Bible translators but to those men of God who were moved by God to record these precious words for us. Every blessing.

Page 2. Jimbob.

Should we then compel such folk as these Pakistani believers to learn English first, and 18th Century English at that, so that they would be subject only to the KJV & not be left in ignorance & in corrupted thought by reading their particular version? I think that would be an impossibility & therefore one should ask, 'why then should people who understand their own language, or even an easier English version, be side-lined for doing so'? If the KJV is the only true & correct Bible version fully inspired by God, then there are a great number of people all over the world who are unable to receive the Truth. Rather, God can take up His Own Word, however much other translations fall short of the true, & minister to hearts & lives.

And the KJV itself can never be that perfect translation since no modern language can always capture the intended meaning, nuances, grammar differences, etc. from the original. The KJV can come close to the original Scriptures, as does the LSV (Literal Standard Version) & its sister, Young's Literal Translation (YLT), but none are perfect. Then the question: 'how many differences must we allow between the original writings & the translated works, to make one believed to be the pure Word of God & the other a corrupt version'? This then becomes an extremely moot argument with each side basing their beliefs on what they've learnt or what they've been told to believe. Only an intensive examination will show the degree of departure from the original writings, but would both sides of the debate be willing to acquiesce to the other when based on facts?

Page 1.

To your comment now Jimbob. Your reference to the direct Words of the LORD ("Thus saith the LORD", and others): indeed, when such phrases are used, we know that the first recorders were compelled to write them down verbatim, or else the LORD would soon correct them (even as we see an example in Ezekiel 13:1-8). So here there is no problem. But what happens when these recorders such as Daniel, write down what they heard from those Babylonian kings? Do they need Divine Guidance to write, though certainly in need of God's Help to remember if the writing took place sometime after those events. So Divine Inspiration or even God's Word being wholly true & pure, must mean that God superintended over these recordings, ensuring that the recorders wrote exactly what God spoke or what they had seen or heard from others.

Now when it comes to translating the original writing to another language, it is true that God can still enable men, however much they might be lacking in some of the exacting skills to do the work, but the end product can only be the best that both language & abilities allow. A case in point but with a question first: how would you feel about the Bible (say the KJV) being translated into another language aside from English? I'm a little familiar with the Urdu Bible (the one used by Christians in Pakistan). When sharing from the Word & going through my message with my interpreter, I checked the verse 1 John 4:10 with him. I asked, 'What word would he use for 'propitiation' (a difficult seldom-used word) & what did that word mean to him & others? He said, 'the word in Urdu was 'kafara' & meant 'atonement'. I then asked if there could be any further meaning or thought to this word & he gave a definite No. I then explained to him the proper meaning of propitiation & he admitted that he had never heard of this explanation & there was no word in Urdu to describe the 'Anger of the LORD being turned aside or averted'. That was a fruitful time for all.

Adam You got that just about right but I would add something to that.

This is really interesting.

Figure up how old o bamah was when he left office.

Born 8-4-61

Left 1-20-17

Don't forget to add the 29th day of February.

( Rev. 13:16-18)

Thanks Jimbob. Now I see what you're referring to here. You're speaking of Belshazzar, the son (some indicate, grandson) of Nebuchadnezzar (I had written Nebuchadnezzar incorrectly) & particularly in relation to Daniel 5:14. Yet, Belteshazzar was the name that Nebuchadnezzar gave to Daniel (I believe that you agree with this).

You mentioned here, "Nebuchadnezzar had a son to reign after him who did not know God". In light of what you wrote just before this, is it your assumption that Nebuchadnezzar did know the true God? Maybe I have again misunderstood you, given a verse such as Daniel 2:2. True, after Daniel interpreted the king's dream, the king developed a new understanding of Daniel's God, but in Daniel 2:47, it would be difficult for me to believe that the king rejected all his gods to believe in & serve the True God. I guess this would fall into the category of one's personal interpretation of that passage.

So Daniel 5:14 still remains confusing; as to why the LORD would permit 'the spirit of the gods' to be written here & in Daniel 3:25 He should permit "the Son of God" - regardless of which king was referred to.

I'll now get to your other comment Jimbob.

Please pray for the invasion today that the illegal Biden administration is allowing to happen at the southern border. He wants to destroy the country and is actually doing a good job of that. He might just be a puppet of Obama who was born in Kenya according to his grandmother, a biography article before he got into politics, and based on his fake certificate. The democrat leaders probably hate God and loves his worldly woke cult religion and enjoys murdering babies through abortion. This is very wrong and is sick that Christians could even vote for that. I think its a sin to vote for killing an innocent baby that God created, let alone the millions that have already been killed. I think God will punish the USA soon and it may soon cease to exist- as China and Russia could absolutely obliterate this country no problem. USA meanwhile is grooming innocent kids to be trans and commit sodomy and other sins and that is evil. USA is evil and the leaders have no moral compass. They are atheists who have no clue what they are doing. That is why they contradict themselves so much. Pray for this country.

Hi,

Yes, all this is Definity happening today. fo instance the book of Matthew 24 the rumors of wars and wars we can see that increasing Infront of eyes. Earth quick and many things.

in the book of John 4:181

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

hence, we see the raise of the false preacher but in droves.

So, all this is happening, and others will happen Amen.

Chris again thank you for your response. You said "Therefore to believe that the KJB is a prefect translation direct from God cant be true. No translation ever is, whether of the Bible or any other work". No offence Chris but that is your opinion that has no way of being proven.

There were the manuscripts in Hebrew for the Old Testament. Right? They were written down, documented. (Thus saith the LORD) (The word of the LORD came unto me, saying) (Then came the word of the LORD) (Thus saith the LORD of hosts) (Thus saith the LORD God) The LORD spoke to them personally to document His Words.

What about the Greek the New Testament? We don't have them other than in the Bibles that we use?

God preserved His Word "from this generation for ever" so the final generations would have those pure, preserved, Inspired Words of God. The only way we could have those pure Words today is if God used men to translate those Words into another language, like the English language. (holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost)

The reason the KJB is the most printed book is because God was and is in control of His Words being translated, ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) and distributed for this time period, or else we would have nothing but deception in this time period. Satan would have a field day deceiving people without the TRUE Inspired Word of God.

( Ps. 12:6-7) v6 His Words are pure. v7 His Words are preserved for ever.

( Prov. 30:5-6) v5 Every Word of God is pure. v6 Add thou not unto His Words. (If we are told to "Add thou not unto His Words, then we would have to have His Words, Right)?

( Rev. 22:18-19) These verses clearly tell us we should not add to, nor take away from the words of the book of this prophecy.

( Jn. 17:17) "thy word is truth"

( Jn. 14:23) "If a man love me, he will keep my words"

( Rev. 1:3) "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear ((the words of this prophecy)) and keep those things ((which are written therein))"

Thank you again, Blessing to you Chris.

p 2 Jesse Again thank you for your response. You said "The KJB was not written as a standard to be used to prove the validity of other Bible translations". What if the KJB is the True Inspired Word of God? What then Jesse?

You asked me "But what would you say if you found out that the KJB is not the bestselling translation?"

I would say the Word of God is being fulfilled more everyday. These verses tell us that will happen in the Lastdays.

( 2 Tim. 4:3-4) and also ( 1 Tim. 4:1)

You said "I do believe there are some "corrupt" translations out there (not ALL as you say) I also believe there are some good translations out there that can be trusted"

My question to you would be this, How do you know the difference then between the two?

We have to use the Word of God to show us the Truth from the deception. The difference between the good and the bad. If there are doctrines of devils, and doctrine that is not "sound doctrine" then we should rely on God's Word to show us the difference between His True Word, and the doctrine thats not sound!

Thats what I'm doing when I use ( Jer. 23:36) Any Scripture that changes their words would be corrupt, not sound doctrine.

Its not my opinion its from the Word of God.

And ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) The (prophecy) came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If this is the translators in 1611 (which it is) (bringing forth) the (prophecy, the pure, preserved Word of God) then that makes the KJB the True Inspired Words of the LORD preserved for ever.

( 2 Tim. 3:16) Tells us All ((Scripture is given by inspiration of God)) (Scripture)) (is God breathed). If the KJB is that Scripture then that makes all other scripture corrupt words, or changed words of men. Those men were not inspired by God but they were (moved) by the Holy Ghost. The word (moved) is #5342; it means to "bear" or carry, bring (forth).

They brought forth the Words of the LORD in the KJB.

Blessing to you Jesse.

Jesse thank you for your response. I'm a little confused by your comments, you said "I believe all God's Word is true" you also said "And yes, I agree that all scripture given by inspiration of God would be considered sound doctrine".

Then later on you said speaking of ( Dan. 3:25) neither the KJB nor the Niv is considered sound doctrine. You even said the book of Daniel is not doctrine? The word (doctrine) is either #1319 or 1322 in Greek; 1319; means instruction (the function or the information) doctrine, learning, teaching. 1322; means instruction (the act or the matter) doctrine, hath been taught.

So (doctrine) is our instruction, what we learn from, what we teach from. Our doctrine is the Bible we use and get instruction from. The book of Daniel is doctrine, it has a lot of prophecy in it even for the Lastdays.

You have said several times that I keep "misapplying" ( 2 Pet. 1:21) This verse tells us "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"

The word (prophecy) is #4394; it means ("prophecy") prediction (scriptural or other). How much (prophecy) would you say is in the New Testament? The book of Daniel also has much (prophecy) wouldn't you say Jesse?

This (prophecy) is what the holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The word (spake) is #2980; it means to talk, utter words, speak (after) to lay forth, (fig) relate in words (usually of systematic or set discourse) describe, put forth. Jesse if the holy men of God were the prophets of old, the apostles, and a few others as you said, will you please provide Scripture as proof of that?

You said I have not provided Scripture showing All modern versions are corrupt.

I have provided many verses but this one proves it Jesse. ( Jer. 23:36) The word (perverted) is #2015; it means (TO CHANGE) In context this verse is saying they changed the Words of the living God! ALL modern versions are guilty!

p2 soon. Blessings.