Proves nothing.

And I will say it again



KJV contains translation errors. There.

The only perfect version is the original written texts, which are no longer with us

It's not difficult to find. In fact didn't you did that a while back by trying to prove the 'imperfection" of the kjb? If you want to find its so easy. There's going Google right

BTW. No time to entertain you. The way you speak in the previous post is actually similar to how atheist discredits the Bible. I know it's going to be a Merry go round whereby once you are proven wrong, you just disappear.


I believe I have already PMed you etc and if you dun get it, maybe heaven is not meant for you.

So you do not believe that the following verse then

Matthew 24:35

Again, you are talking nonsense.

I've seen the KJV onlyist's list of variant readings. No doctrine was built on one word or one verse alone.

You can have many variant readings but the same understanding.

All the translations (kjv, esv, nasb) preserved the message of salvation.

Of course I believe in




Did God convey His message in olde English?

Nah dun want to debate anymore.

Everytime you lose the debate you just run away like a coward.

From the words you have written, you are not saved.

But then by your previous post, you just admitted that God never preserve his words.

Actually KJV is not in old English.

Compare shakespearean English with KJV. There's a huge difference.

Wow you talk so aggressive.

How come you are not that aggressive when I have proven you wrong and wrong again in personal Pms.

Until you account for all of our previous exchanges. Then I will answer your concerns. Otherwise just remain lost.

By the way. Believing in the wrong Christ damns. Just to let you guys know.

I guess you probably think just a mere confession of Christ save. No matter what version of Christ that person believes in. So my question now is, is say you profess in the Islamic version of Christ and repent, will you get saved?

Before we continue, we should make things clear right?

But you probably do not have the material and guts to continue on right?

Such a simple explanation, what does it even means?

Why are we arguing this? Christ in the Bible is clear isn't it?

Depends on the Bible version actually.

If you are interested in this subject. Go and read new age bible version by Gail Riplinger or you can watch her videos.

Just a quick one. The new versions lowers the deity of Christ and make him to be like a man. Of course this is one of the things they do. In fact as thomasthai pointed out, they even remove entire sections of the Bible which describes the ressurection of Christ. Many of those people who produces the new versions are textual critics who determines what should be in the bible and what should not. And you trust bible that are written by those people?

If you are really seeking the truth you will find it. But then if you are just like anyone else, well, all I can say is, well, there is a high chance you will be facing judgement.

Even if one verse differs, shouldn't it be a concern? But I guess when people like thomasthai treats truth in a flimsy way. It probably does not matter. That's the thing. The Jesus he believes in is not the one in the Bible. It's the one in his head. If you look at his previous post. He even admits it.

That's why I implied in my pm to you. I dun trust many people.

This post has been edited by TheRant: Sep 4 2019, 06:10 PM

There are conversial version but common version like esv, king James should be ok, eh don't la use a cult version

You like to read extra into what people write, don't you?

The original 1611 AV KJV is shakespearean olde English. Did God use this language to deliver His revelation?

And yes, there are mistranslations in KJV too.

This post has been edited by prophetjul: Sep 4 2019, 09:53 PM

Then show everybody here how is the Christ in NASB, ESV different from the Christ of the KJV.

Show us how the words and verses can lead to false Christ and ultimately no salvation?

You can't because no doctrines were formed from a single word or verse.

The other important principle from the Reformation is this: scriptura es sui interpres, which means the scripture explains scripture in latin. (scripture is its own interpreter)

Even if someone tries to alter a part of scripture, other parts will contradict and correct it.

Even if scribes try to change the whole new testament, the old testament can be a witness against that. The old testament is the new concealed, and the new is the old revealed. There's no way scribes can muck up the new testament without any external witness.

I believe this is how God preserved His word.

You believe that in order for God to preserve His word, He has to divinely and mechanically control all the scribes again and again to that no one makes any mistake in copying scriptures, which I find that will be very hard to prove because ultimately, the original autograph is gone.

But whatever, you can believe what you want.

This post has been edited by thomasthai: Sep 5 2019, 06:21 AM

Actually scripture interpret scripture is rather Jewish.

I see the main problem of interpreting scriptures is this.
Most of us are not literate in the original language of the scriptures.
We are not conversant with the Jewish culture with all pictorial alphabets, its idioms and figures of speech.
We either mis interpret, reinterpret into the translations, miss out all together in its intent, etc.

Origen, when he was forming the LXX tried to change the OT to be inclusive of Paul's writings, not knowing that the Jewish rabbis likes to take a bit of verses from the OT to from their argument. He thought that Paul used whole passages in his thesis. So he rewrote the whole passage from the NT into the OT!

Haha. You really sure can change definitions as you go along right? In the past, people still have integrity to ensure that even if the verses differs there will be questions. It's not just a change in the wordings. It's a change in the entire meaning. But it's OK. You want to pretend right?

There is a definite change in the doctrines and it's easy for you to find out. I think you dun need me to spoonfeed you right? But even if there is not, them if it is all about doctrines, then write the doctrines down instead of reading the Bible then. You are already undermining God by your very own challenge.

Do you think I have so much time to spoon feed you? You are already acting like a certain person here and I an sure you will come to the same conclusion as him one day which will then confirm your condemnation. Different spots but the same leapord.

Can see that you are already sweating like the narcissist you are. Based on your statements, why were you attacking the kjb then? Also, you know that entire passages were removed from the kjb.

That's the thing. You never had any integrity and you will be judge for that one day.

Speaking of this, the issue of baptism comes to mind.

People always question why are the Presbyterians so stubborn to not do immersion baptism.

If you do a greek lexicon study of the word baptism and how it was used by people in those days, you will come to a conclusion that baptism is by immersion.

But if you study the original Hebrew rendering of baptism from the OT, you will find the baptism can mean wash, submerge, dip, sprinkle.

Amd then you find 1st century Christian art where they drew people in the river with, with water pouring over their heads, you will understand why Presbyterians insist on sprinkling.

The irony here is clear for everyone to see.

The one claiming to be the only true Christian, while everyone else who uses a different bible translation is a heretic and going to hell, condemns, insults, slanders and name calling.

When asked to provide proper arguments, scolds others for wanting to be spoonfed, and presumes everyone knows what he is talking about.

You are a disgrace to the Lord Jesus Christ.