Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10
1
Actually, there is no such thing as "soul winning" but whatever makes you feel good, or less guilty, as the case may be.
I try not to get hung up on terminology or even methods for that matter, but surely you believe we have a command to share the gospel with others?

Call it witnessing, evangelism, sharing the gospel, soul winning, outreach, teaching or preaching, the purpose is the same.

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

Mark 16:15 - And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Luke 14:23 - And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel [them] to come in, that my house may be filled.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Acts 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Romans 15:20  Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundations

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Acts 13:47  For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.


Great list!  If someone believes the Bible you'll get no argument.   You are correct - we can bicker over terminology , method and so on, but the scriptures (God) commands the church to go and proclaim.

I believe the point bruin boy was trying (lamely) to make is that evangelism is not ‘saving people’...it is telling them they need to be saved and how they can be saved.
2
Actually, there is no such thing as "soul winning" but whatever makes you feel good, or less guilty, as the case may be.
I try not to get hung up on terminology or even methods for that matter, but surely you believe we have a command to share the gospel with others?

Call it witnessing, evangelism, sharing the gospel, soul winning, outreach, teaching or preaching, the purpose is the same.

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

Mark 16:15 - And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Luke 14:23 - And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel [them] to come in, that my house may be filled.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Acts 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Romans 15:20  Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundations

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Acts 13:47  For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.


Great list!  If someone believes the Bible you'll get no argument.   You are correct - we can bicker over terminology , method and so on, but the scriptures (God) commands the church to go and proclaim.
3
"Thank you, God bless you, for being a friend." Anybody remember that one?

I get that every time I change a bedpan.
4
The Fighting Forum / Re: Greek or English?
« Last post by Anon1379 on October 14, 2019, 06:50:42 PM »

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?
I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

Quote
That didn't answer the question.
Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.
Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I asked you that question earlier and you said you had to read Greek and then be put in that time period. There isn't a perfect Greek text outside of the originals, but that does not make me doubt the Bible for one second. Just as man's failures in translation do not negate all of God's Word, a failure for man to perfectly copy through hand writing each manuscript for a thousand years and making mistakes does not mean God did not preserve it. I can't point you to a single Greek text and state that it is perfect, but I know for a fact in the Greek manuscripts that we have today we have every single word of God. He has perfectly preserved it, not in one manuscript in thousands. You may not like the Alexandrian text, and neither do I, but I'm glad we have it today because along with those manuscripts and the early papyri we know for a fact nobody had a chance to collect all of God's word and change it. To me the scribes of Alexandria were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine and made mistakes in copying, but their text gives testament that we have a text that goes all the way to Christ.
Well, at least we agree on something.  The Byzantine manuscripts were, in general, what I believe God used to preserve His Word for Centuries and not in the Alexandrian... Although, I don't believe He just revealed His inerrant Word to the original writers and then deserted it.

So where do place the Alexandrian-derived Nestle and Wescott & Hort Greek texts?  And the Septuagint, which is a deceptive farce?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ill admit I havent not studied out the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text enough to say for sure one definitely better than the other. There are to many manuscripts on both sides and quite frankly I just don't care. Id much rather spend time actually studying his word then getting bogged down with comparing manuscripts. I believe the Hodges and farstad Byzantine text along with Wilbur pickering's to be the most accurate, but if someone were to question me I couldn't necessarily give an adequate defense. But I believe God has preserved it and it is hard for me to believe that the Alexandrian is the best representative when it was seemingly not used for many years. I also have problems with large number of differences between the Alexandrian manuscripts which I why I state the scribes were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine. I don't believe it was done in an attempt to change the text, as we have no evidence and I believe God to be sovereign enough to allow any manuscripts that were purposely changed to be trashed and destroyed. But as I said earlier I'm glad we have the Alexandrian because without we have no greek evidence before the 4th century aside from the patrine sources.
I wasn't referring in my question to the BYZ or ALX themselves, but rather the two major modern Greek translations of the 19th Century that have been passed off as "the original Greek" by almost every single "bible scholar" and Seminary professor in the past 125+ years - and from whence all modern translations came, excluding the NKJV.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Yeah I understand your distrust for the modern Greek texts, but most modern translations put the Byzantine or majority reading in the margin. The LEB for instance almost always does it and I have found that it quite often stands with the Byzantine text in textual issues, while other modern translations depart to follow the Alexandrian. So when these issues come up just go with the Byzantine readings. Also the nkjv follows the TR which is a good representative of the Byzantine and the WEB follows the Byzantine majority text. But most kjvo reject those because it's simply not the KJV.
5
The Fighting Forum / Re: Greek or English?
« Last post by HammondCheese on October 14, 2019, 06:42:13 PM »

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?
I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

Quote
That didn't answer the question.
Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.
Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I asked you that question earlier and you said you had to read Greek and then be put in that time period. There isn't a perfect Greek text outside of the originals, but that does not make me doubt the Bible for one second. Just as man's failures in translation do not negate all of God's Word, a failure for man to perfectly copy through hand writing each manuscript for a thousand years and making mistakes does not mean God did not preserve it. I can't point you to a single Greek text and state that it is perfect, but I know for a fact in the Greek manuscripts that we have today we have every single word of God. He has perfectly preserved it, not in one manuscript in thousands. You may not like the Alexandrian text, and neither do I, but I'm glad we have it today because along with those manuscripts and the early papyri we know for a fact nobody had a chance to collect all of God's word and change it. To me the scribes of Alexandria were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine and made mistakes in copying, but their text gives testament that we have a text that goes all the way to Christ.
Well, at least we agree on something.  The Byzantine manuscripts were, in general, what I believe God used to preserve His Word for Centuries and not in the Alexandrian... Although, I don't believe He just revealed His inerrant Word to the original writers and then deserted it.

So where do place the Alexandrian-derived Nestle and Wescott & Hort Greek texts?  And the Septuagint, which is a deceptive farce?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ill admit I havent not studied out the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text enough to say for sure one definitely better than the other. There are to many manuscripts on both sides and quite frankly I just don't care. Id much rather spend time actually studying his word then getting bogged down with comparing manuscripts. I believe the Hodges and farstad Byzantine text along with Wilbur pickering's to be the most accurate, but if someone were to question me I couldn't necessarily give an adequate defense. But I believe God has preserved it and it is hard for me to believe that the Alexandrian is the best representative when it was seemingly not used for many years. I also have problems with large number of differences between the Alexandrian manuscripts which I why I state the scribes were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine. I don't believe it was done in an attempt to change the text, as we have no evidence and I believe God to be sovereign enough to allow any manuscripts that were purposely changed to be trashed and destroyed. But as I said earlier I'm glad we have the Alexandrian because without we have no greek evidence before the 4th century aside from the patrine sources.
I wasn't referring in my question to the BYZ or ALX themselves, but rather the two major modern Greek translations of the 19th Century that have been passed off as "the original Greek" by almost every single "bible scholar" and Seminary professor in the past 125+ years - and from whence all modern translations came, excluding the NKJV.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

6
The Fighting Forum / Re: Greek or English?
« Last post by Anon1379 on October 14, 2019, 06:38:06 PM »
Now about the septuagint that is another subject but every single early church father believed in the septuagint. We have septuagint fragments in the dead sea scrolls and many many quotes about the septuagint. The KJV translators believed Christ quotes from it. J Edward hills stated it to have been used by Christ. Pretty much everyone stated that until Ruckman and riplinger. The evidence they presented is laughable at best. But you are forced to accept that position cuz if the disciples and Christ really did quote from it and there are textual differences between the septuagint and the Hebrew MT then it blows this retarded perfect version crap out the window. But again you don't have anyone spouting this hate for the septuagint until we have people claiming the kjv to be perfect. It is the next logical step, in that position. You are forced to ignore history and logic in an attempt to assert Christ did not use it or that there was not a Greek text before Christ.
7
The Fighting Forum / Re: Greek or English?
« Last post by Anon1379 on October 14, 2019, 06:31:07 PM »

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?
I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

Quote
That didn't answer the question.
Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.
Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I asked you that question earlier and you said you had to read Greek and then be put in that time period. There isn't a perfect Greek text outside of the originals, but that does not make me doubt the Bible for one second. Just as man's failures in translation do not negate all of God's Word, a failure for man to perfectly copy through hand writing each manuscript for a thousand years and making mistakes does not mean God did not preserve it. I can't point you to a single Greek text and state that it is perfect, but I know for a fact in the Greek manuscripts that we have today we have every single word of God. He has perfectly preserved it, not in one manuscript in thousands. You may not like the Alexandrian text, and neither do I, but I'm glad we have it today because along with those manuscripts and the early papyri we know for a fact nobody had a chance to collect all of God's word and change it. To me the scribes of Alexandria were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine and made mistakes in copying, but their text gives testament that we have a text that goes all the way to Christ.
Well, at least we agree on something.  The Byzantine manuscripts were, in general, what I believe God used to preserve His Word for Centuries and not in the Alexandrian... Although, I don't believe He just revealed His inerrant Word to the original writers and then deserted it.

So where do place the Alexandrian-derived Nestle and Wescott & Hort Greek texts?  And the Septuagint, which is a deceptive farce?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ill admit I havent not studied out the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text enough to say for sure one definitely better than the other. There are to many manuscripts on both sides and quite frankly I just don't care. Id much rather spend time actually studying his word then getting bogged down with comparing manuscripts. I believe the Hodges and farstad Byzantine text along with Wilbur pickering's to be the most accurate, but if someone were to question me I couldn't necessarily give an adequate defense. But I believe God has preserved it and it is hard for me to believe that the Alexandrian is the best representative when it was seemingly not used for many years. I also have problems with large number of differences between the Alexandrian manuscripts which I why I state the scribes were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine. I don't believe it was done in an attempt to change the text, as we have no evidence and I believe God to be sovereign enough to allow any manuscripts that were purposely changed to be trashed and destroyed. But as I said earlier I'm glad we have the Alexandrian because without we have no greek evidence before the 4th century aside from the patrine sources.
8
"Thank you, God bless you, for being a friend." Anybody remember that one?
9
The Fighting Forum / Re: Greek or English?
« Last post by HammondCheese on October 14, 2019, 06:23:34 PM »

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?
I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

Quote
That didn't answer the question.
Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.
Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I asked you that question earlier and you said you had to read Greek and then be put in that time period. There isn't a perfect Greek text outside of the originals, but that does not make me doubt the Bible for one second. Just as man's failures in translation do not negate all of God's Word, a failure for man to perfectly copy through hand writing each manuscript for a thousand years and making mistakes does not mean God did not preserve it. I can't point you to a single Greek text and state that it is perfect, but I know for a fact in the Greek manuscripts that we have today we have every single word of God. He has perfectly preserved it, not in one manuscript in thousands. You may not like the Alexandrian text, and neither do I, but I'm glad we have it today because along with those manuscripts and the early papyri we know for a fact nobody had a chance to collect all of God's word and change it. To me the scribes of Alexandria were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine and made mistakes in copying, but their text gives testament that we have a text that goes all the way to Christ.
Well, at least we agree on something.  The Byzantine manuscripts were, in general, what I believe God used to preserve His Word for Centuries and not in the Alexandrian... Although, I don't believe He just revealed His inerrant Word to the original writers and then deserted it.

So where do place the Alexandrian-derived Nestle and Wescott & Hort Greek texts?  And the Septuagint, which is a deceptive farce?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

10
The Fighting Forum / Re: Greek or English?
« Last post by Anon1379 on October 14, 2019, 06:02:49 PM »

If someone else says the Lord confirmed to him/her that the NIV is His inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed words, is it true?
I would have far more respect for them than someone who DENIES the fact that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence in 2019... 

...Someone like Anon1379.

Quote
That didn't answer the question.
Actually, I raised the stakes of your hypothetical, loaded, "what if" question...

YOU obviously believe God either lied about His Word or simply failed to preserve it, so there is no basis on which to discuss any further.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you can't answer the question, and you are wrong about what I believe. With no answer and false accusations on your part, you are correct about there being no basis on which to discuss any further.
Okay, prove that my accusations are false.  Do you believe that there is an inerrant, divinely preserved, God-breathed Bible in existence today?  Not "best effort"...  Perfect.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Based off of that definition, no. But you can't show that God has done that either. You have yet to show where this perfect inerrant Bible was before 1611. You have yet to show me any quotes of people before 1611 believing the passages you quote about preservations allows for perfect translations. The KJV is essentially perfect. As I said, man's mistakes do not take away from God's word. Anybody with a brain knows and understands that man mistranslating the Greek does make the Greek wrong. God gave his word perfectly for us in Greek. Me mistranslating God's perfect word does not detract from his message. It just means I'm a flawed human being who makes mistakes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Okay, so which Greek is perfect?  And I am not being disingenuous by asking, as I know the lineages of the Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I asked you that question earlier and you said you had to read Greek and then be put in that time period. There isn't a perfect Greek text outside of the originals, but that does not make me doubt the Bible for one second. Just as man's failures in translation do not negate all of God's Word, a failure for man to perfectly copy through hand writing each manuscript for a thousand years and making mistakes does not mean God did not preserve it. I can't point you to a single Greek text and state that it is perfect, but I know for a fact in the Greek manuscripts that we have today we have every single word of God. He has perfectly preserved it, not in one manuscript in thousands. You may not like the Alexandrian text, and neither do I, but I'm glad we have it today because along with those manuscripts and the early papyri we know for a fact nobody had a chance to collect all of God's word and change it. To me the scribes of Alexandria were not nearly as careful as the Byzantine and made mistakes in copying, but their text gives testament that we have a text that goes all the way to Christ.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10