Best English Language Bible?

Hey, Mr Original Baptist Church, what do you think about 20th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council. You guys are the only legit Christians, who adhere to doctrine and practices of the NT church, so your church follows this right? (this council preceded the compilation of the scriptures known as the bible, so I don't want to hear any "it was an innovation")
In my early days when I converted back to Christianity, I thought that Baptists and similar Evangelical sects were spot-on because they adhered to biblical teachings. After two years I came to know better. Nowhere is the Bible described as the "Word of God", and calling the Holy Scriptures as such is blasphemy. By calling the Bible as "Word of God" you equate God's perfect natural order and Son, Jesus Christ, with the Bible, which is lunacy. Even the Bible is not perfect, not even in its original manuscripts that you can find, because man is not perfect, not even the holy men who wrote the Scriptures.

I had several arguments with one Baptist, who equated the Bible with Jesus, yet denied it when I proved his fallacy. He said that the verse in Revelation that mentions nothing should be added to this book means the whole Bible, though the Bible (as we know it) was not canonized as of yet in that time. When I said to him that this verse refers only to the book of Revelation, he became offended.

Protestants and Evangelicals, who are mad at the Catholic and Orthodox Church are basically mad at their mother (church).

In no place does the NT ever override the OT (outside of basic dietary things, and inclusion of the gentiles) Christ didn't say much politically because the basic structure of beliefs was already laid out by the prophets, he walked in the same path as the prophets and was the culmination of them.
Christians who say that the NT is above the OT are usually implying that the God of the OT is evil, and the God of the NT is good. This is pure Gnosticism and they don't even know it. Or they are implying God's given order changed somehow. How can God be perfect if He changes what was perfect?
 

Samuel

Pigeon
I like the Southern Baptists but its current leadership is being corrupted. That is the problem with denominations. They get infiltrated and subverted at the top and then the board spreads its poison and slowly corrupts the denomination as a whole. The Methodists were founded by holy men like John Wesley,John Fletcher and Adam Clarke. But now the methodists are liberal progressives just like nearly every other protestant denomination besides the Baptists. But now even the Baptists are going towards liberalism. The Catholic Church was great for the most part ( I believe priests should marry) until the popes became corrupt and started changing its doctrines. Now they have an extremely evil pope. The Orthodox Church isn't perfect either but I think it is much better than the alternatives.

Indeed debominations are a major stumbling block for the church. It is also apparent that they are unbiblical, as you will see from the Scriptures referring to ‘the church at Ephesus’ or ‘the church in Laodicia’ each church is ‘local’, with the Pastor directly accountable to God, not some council.

Amongst baptists there is an Independant Fundamentalist movement that takes this approach, losely affiliated based on faith and doctrine. It seems to me that this is the only way to secure true liberty. If a church goes bad, leave. It shouldnt spread beyond one lump , as a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

What I like about baptists is that the bible is seen as the ultimate authority, my Pastor will submit to any clear teaching from the bible, and will not teach something he isnt sure of. If I can show him something that contradicts what he teaches, he is willing to be corrected. We are not bound by traditions of men or church fathers etc as Jesus clearly taught against these.

I wonder how you would square these two verses in regards to the Orthodox church, I mean can it be any clearer?

Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Mark 12:38
And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
 

Samuel

Pigeon
In my early days when I converted back to Christianity, I thought that Baptists and similar Evangelical sects were spot-on because they adhered to biblical teachings. After two years I came to know better. Nowhere is the Bible described as the "Word of God", and calling the Holy Scriptures as such is blasphemy. By calling the Bible as "Word of God" you equate God's perfect natural order and Son, Jesus Christ, with the Bible, which is lunacy. Even the Bible is not perfect, not even in its original manuscripts that you can find, because man is not perfect, not even the holy men who wrote the Scriptures.

I had several arguments with one Baptist, who equated the Bible with Jesus, yet denied it when I proved his fallacy. He said that the verse in Revelation that mentions nothing should be added to this book means the whole Bible, though the Bible (as we know it) was not canonized as of yet in that time. When I said to him that this verse refers only to the book of Revelation, he became offended.

Protestants and Evangelicals, who are mad at the Catholic and Orthodox Church are basically mad at their mother (church).


Christians who say that the NT is above the OT are usually implying that the God of the OT is evil, and the God of the NT is good. This is pure Gnosticism and they don't even know it. Or they are implying God's given order changed somehow. How can God be perfect if He changes what was perfect?
Obviously God doesnt change, and Christ came to fulfill the law. But because the priesthood changed, some things in the law changed -
Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

I love the OT, I use it to understand Gods character and learn more about His will. It is also full of great spiritual truths. My church preaches from both and consider them to as much Scripture as NT.
However we consider the OT in light of the clear teachings of the NT.

Baptists are distinct from Protestants,(protestors) in that we believe there has always existed a righteous remnant outside of Catholisism, and that never partook of her fornication with the kings of the earth. rather we would say we trace our faith straight back to John the Baptist and the disciples.
As Luther said ‘I never left the catholic church, she left me.
I would submit that catholicism is a mother of abominations, and all the protestant debominations are her little harlots.

Revelation 17:5
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Can you explain what Jesus meant here if you deny that Jesus is the Word made flesh -
John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
I generally like the ESV, which is the main translation used by most serious evangelical protestants these days. NIV used to be good and very readable, but it's been cucked by progressives introducing anachronistic gender inclusive language and that sort of thing.

Main weakness of the ESV is that it can be clunky, especially in dealing with complicated sentence structure in Paul's letters - it's not great for memorizing, but great for serious study. ESV is good about including footnotes about variations between different texts, such as in the Septuagint, and the translators are conservative. The ESV Study Bible is supposed to be great, but I haven't used it. If they made an ESV version of the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (with notes by the terrific Craig Keener in the New Testament), this would be my top recommendation to everyone looking for an all-round Bible.

I also like the HCSB and think it's pretty underrated. It's a bit more easily readable than ESV. KJV is easily the best, from a literary perspective. I've always found the KJV Only movement pretty silly and the sort of thing really fundamentalist independent Baptists tend to be into when they're not inviting weirdos like Kent Hovind to church. But it's not a bad translation, it's beautifully written, and I don't think you're missing much by using it exclusively.
 
In my early days when I converted back to Christianity, I thought that Baptists and similar Evangelical sects were spot-on because they adhered to biblical teachings. After two years I came to know better. Nowhere is the Bible described as the "Word of God", and calling the Holy Scriptures as such is blasphemy. By calling the Bible as "Word of God" you equate God's perfect natural order and Son, Jesus Christ, with the Bible, which is lunacy. Even the Bible is not perfect, not even in its original manuscripts that you can find, because man is not perfect, not even the holy men who wrote the Scriptures.

I had several arguments with one Baptist, who equated the Bible with Jesus, yet denied it when I proved his fallacy. He said that the verse in Revelation that mentions nothing should be added to this book means the whole Bible, though the Bible (as we know it) was not canonized as of yet in that time. When I said to him that this verse refers only to the book of Revelation, he became offended.

Protestants and Evangelicals, who are mad at the Catholic and Orthodox Church are basically mad at their mother (church).


Christians who say that the NT is above the OT are usually implying that the God of the OT is evil, and the God of the NT is good. This is pure Gnosticism and they don't even know it. Or they are implying God's given order changed somehow. How can God be perfect if He changes what was perfect?

Proverbs 30:6 commands us not to add to God's word. Then we have 2 Timothy 3:16, which says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.
 

Aboulia

Robin
In my early days when I converted back to Christianity, I thought that Baptists and similar Evangelical sects were spot-on because they adhered to biblical teachings. After two years I came to know better. Nowhere is the Bible described as the "Word of God", and calling the Holy Scriptures as such is blasphemy. By calling the Bible as "Word of God" you equate God's perfect natural order and Son, Jesus Christ, with the Bible, which is lunacy. Even the Bible is not perfect, not even in its original manuscripts that you can find, because man is not perfect, not even the holy men who wrote the Scriptures.

I had several arguments with one Baptist, who equated the Bible with Jesus, yet denied it when I proved his fallacy. He said that the verse in Revelation that mentions nothing should be added to this book means the whole Bible, though the Bible (as we know it) was not canonized as of yet in that time. When I said to him that this verse refers only to the book of Revelation, he became offended.

Christians who say that the NT is above the OT are usually implying that the God of the OT is evil, and the God of the NT is good. This is pure Gnosticism and they don't even know it. Or they are implying God's given order changed somehow. How can God be perfect if He changes what was perfect?

You're preaching to the choir. I've had similar experiences. Logic and reason doesn't hold water with most people, it's all emotions and posturing. That said, I do understand, where people are coming from while figuring it out. I too, had baseless incorrect opinions at the Protestant stage.

Protestants and Evangelicals, who are mad at the Catholic and Orthodox Church are basically mad at their mother (church).

The Orthodox have nothing to do with this. The mother church of Protestantism is the RC church. With the introduction of the Filioque, it changed the Pope from a bishop to the arbiter of truth, since, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and, if the pope is the "Vicar of Christ", then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the pope, and the Protestant conception is that the reader decides what the bible says and declares himself to be the pope. Martin Luther was right to be angry about abuses in the papal church, but he went about it in the wrong way, he went to the Jews instead of the Orthodox.

I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great pope, Self.
- Martin Luther

Baptists are distinct from Protestants,(protestors) in that we believe there has always existed a righteous remnant outside of Catholisism, and that never partook of her fornication with the kings of the earth. rather we would say we trace our faith straight back to John the Baptist and the disciples.
As Luther said ‘I never left the catholic church, she left me.
I would submit that catholicism is a mother of abominations, and all the protestant debominations are her little harlots.

You can say whatever you want, doesn't make it true. Baptists are of the very same root. For they have the exact same stance as other Prots that they can read and understand the bible for themselves, and not according to a historical interpretation that was handed down. If the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 who couldn't understand the scriptures without a teacher, why on earth do you think you can, while living ~2000 years later in a culture completely alien to that of Christ's time.

If Baptists are really the original Christians, and the translation is of immense importance, why don't you have your own "Baptist Bible™".
Why don't you stand all service on Sundays as outlined by Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Council?
If you're separate, why is it that your do not include the deuterocanonical books and go with the Protestant canon of scripture?

Proverbs 30:6 commands us not to add to God's word. Then we have 2 Timothy 3:16, which says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

The book of Proverbs was by no means the last book of the bible written, does it follow then that all those who wrote after Solomon are to be ignored? Maybe that passage doesn't mean what you think it means.
As for the passage from Paul to Timothy, Why then do are spiritually profitable books like the book of Tobit excluded from Protestant canon?
 

Samuel

Pigeon
You can say whatever you want, doesn't make it true. Baptists are of the very same root. For they have the exact same stance as other Prots that they can read and understand the bible for themselves, and not according to a historical interpretation that was handed down. If the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 who couldn't understand the scriptures without a teacher, why on earth do you think you can, while living ~2000 years later in a culture completely alien to that of Christ's time.


-


If Baptists are really the original Christians, and the translation is of immense importance, why don't you have your own "Baptist Bible™".
Why don't you stand all service on Sundays as outlined by Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Council?
If you're separate, why is it that your do not include the books and go with the Protestant canon of scripture?






The book of Proverbs was by no means the last book of the bible written, does it follow then that all those who wrote after Solomon are to be ignored? Maybe that passage doesn't mean what you think it means.
As for the passage from Paul to Timothy, Why then do are spiritually profitable books like the book of Tobit excluded from Protestant canon?

My friend, if you are digging around in the book of Tobit for spiritual edification, I am afraid for your soul.

The ethiopian eunach passage is about an unsaved man recieving the gospel.
He wasnt saved, so of course he couldnt understand the bible.
Romans 10:14
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Once saved, a man is ‘born again’, he becomes the Temple of the Holy Ghost indwelling him. Now he can read and understand the bible himself - a teacher can make understanding quicker, but one could discern doctrine with just the Holy Spirit guiding him.
1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Im not sure what books you are referring to here in regards Protestantism friend, but I did make it clear that I see a distinction between Protestants and baptists, they are not the same. As far as a ‘baptist bible’, that is the kind of thing cults do.
I do believe for instance that the Catholic Church holds tradition and the Latin Vulgate superior to the original manuscripts, and that the Pope has authority to change scripture?
I care nothing for ecumenical Councils and church traditions, I only care what the bible says.
Mark 7:7-8
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
 
Last edited:

Spartan85

Pigeon
I like the Southern Baptists but its current leadership is being corrupted. That is the problem with denominations. They get infiltrated and subverted at the top and then the board spreads its poison and slowly corrupts the denomination as a whole. The Methodists were founded by holy men like John Wesley,John Fletcher and Adam Clarke. But now the methodists are liberal progressives just like nearly every other protestant denomination besides the Baptists. But now even the Baptists are going towards liberalism. The Catholic Church was great for the most part ( I believe priests should marry) until the popes became corrupt and started changing its doctrines. Now they have an extremely evil pope. The Orthodox Church isn't perfect either but I think it is much better than the alternatives.
The major problems with the Catholic Church go back to at least the 1300's. Wealth and power tends to corrupt. But there are many great Catholic people. I really liked Bishop Fulton Sheen. E Michael Jones is based...There is a lot of common ground with the Baptists and the Orthodox. I am definitely considering joining a based local Baptist church for fellowship. I just cant right now because of my job.
I generally like the ESV, which is the main translation used by most serious evangelical protestants these days. NIV used to be good and very readable, but it's been cucked by progressives introducing anachronistic gender inclusive language and that sort of thing.

Main weakness of the ESV is that it can be clunky, especially in dealing with complicated sentence structure in Paul's letters - it's not great for memorizing, but great for serious study. ESV is good about including footnotes about variations between different texts, such as in the Septuagint, and the translators are conservative. The ESV Study Bible is supposed to be great, but I haven't used it. If they made an ESV version of the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (with notes by the terrific Craig Keener in the New Testament), this would be my top recommendation to everyone looking for an all-round Bible.

I also like the HCSB and think it's pretty underrated. It's a bit more easily readable than ESV. KJV is easily the best, from a literary perspective. I've always found the KJV Only movement pretty silly and the sort of thing really fundamentalist independent Baptists tend to be into when they're not inviting weirdos like Kent Hovind to church. But it's not a bad translation, it's beautifully written, and I don't think you're missing much by using it exclusively.
My friend, if you are digging around in the book of Tobit for spiritual edification, I am afraid for your soul.

The ethiopian eunach passage is about an unsaved man recieving the gospel.
He wasnt saved, so of course he couldnt understand the bible.
Romans 10:14
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Once saved, a man is ‘born again’, he becomes the Temple of the Holy Ghost indwelling him. Now he can read and understand the bible himself - a teacher can make understanding quicker, but one could discern doctrine with just the Holy Spirit guiding him.
1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Im not sure what books you are referring to here in regards Protestantism friend, but I did make it clear that I see a distinction between Protestants and baptists, they are not the same. As far as a ‘baptist bible’, that is the kind of thing cults do.
I do believe for instance that the Catholic Church holds tradition and the Latin Vulgate superior to the original manuscripts, and that the Pope has authority to change scripture?
I care nothing for ecumenical Councils and church traditions, I only care what the bible says.
Mark 7:7-8
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
You should read a book called Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells by Matthew Gallatin. It is written by a former protestant who converted to Orthodoxy. It will at the very least help you understand the Orthodox Christian perspective on the role of the Church and the Bible in a Christ-follower's life.
 

Samuel

Pigeon
The major problems with the Catholic Church go back to at least the 1300's. Wealth and power tends to corrupt. But there are many great Catholic people. I really liked Bishop Fulton Sheen. E Michael Jones is based...There is a lot of common ground with the Baptists and the Orthodox. I am definitely considering joining a based local Baptist church for fellowship. I just cant right now because of my job.


You should read a book called Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells by Matthew Gallatin. It is written by a former protestant who converted to Orthodoxy. It will at the very least help you understand the Orthodox Christian perspective on the role of the Church and the Bible in a Christ-follower's life.

I found a deep well already, so I wouldnt consider myself as thirsting for God, rather drinking at the well that never runs dry.
John 4:14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Curious why your job prevents you going to a baptist church...

But anyhow a friend of mine has a church in Texas, hes a super guy and may be able to direct you to something decent nearer you.
Johnathen Shelly
(682) 253-4066
 

Samuel

Pigeon
I generally like the ESV, which is the main translation used by most serious evangelical protestants these days. NIV used to be good and very readable, but it's been cucked by progressives introducing anachronistic gender inclusive language and that sort of thing.

Main weakness of the ESV is that it can be clunky, especially in dealing with complicated sentence structure in Paul's letters - it's not great for memorizing, but great for serious study. ESV is good about including footnotes about variations between different texts, such as in the Septuagint, and the translators are conservative. The ESV Study Bible is supposed to be great, but I haven't used it. If they made an ESV version of the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (with notes by the terrific Craig Keener in the New Testament), this would be my top recommendation to everyone looking for an all-round Bible.

I also like the HCSB and think it's pretty underrated. It's a bit more easily readable than ESV. KJV is easily the best, from a literary perspective. I've always found the KJV Only movement pretty silly and the sort of thing really fundamentalist independent Baptists tend to be into when they're not inviting weirdos like Kent Hovind to church. But it's not a bad translation, it's beautifully written, and I don't think you're missing much by using it exclusively.


To say that the ESV is ‘conservative’ is somewhat paradoxical, considering the ESV was an updated version of the widely unpopular RSV, and released by Crossway Publishers in 2001, It was intended to be more conservative in regards its gender-inclusive than its liberal contemporaries, however the word “man/ men” is “neutered” in the ESV 968 times. The masculine pronoun, “he, him, his” is neutered 1832 times! And the new-age, evolutionist, neuter buzz-word “human” is employed 63 times.
It was also released in Protestant and Catholic editions, which goes to show just how conservative it is - the only apparent difference being the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Catholic edition.
Now If all you have to do to make your Bible Catholic is add the apocrypha, doesn’t that make your Bible a Catholic one, just without the apocrypha?

One of the more plain errors of the ESV is the fact that Elhanan is said to be the slayer of Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19, even though any child who attended Sunday school knows that it was David.
Additionally, a total of 14 verses are either abridged or omitted from the text of the ESV (Matthew 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; 1 John 5:7).
And the ESV removes the precious name of “Jesus” 18 times! And believe it or not – it removes “Jesus Christ” 51 times!
And that’s not all. . . The ESV removes the word “Christ” 39 times. The “Lord” 66 times. And “God” 38 times.
Not to mention the ESV omits approx 33000 words in the NT alone, when compared with the KJV.

The real kicker though, is that these errors and ommissions affect key
Doctrines, like salvation, Christs person, hell, the Trinity, and im sure there a multitude more -
An example would be 1 corinthians 1:18, compare the ESV;
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God

To the KJV;
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Thats a big difference there my friend. I dont know about you, but I aint ‘being saved’, I am saved!!

If your Bible has even one error/contradiction then it is immediately disqualified from being the word of God.

 
Last edited:

Spartan85

Pigeon
I found a deep well already, so I wouldnt consider myself as thirsting for God, rather drinking at the well that never runs dry.
John 4:14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Curious why your job prevents you going to a baptist church...

But anyhow a friend of mine has a church in Texas, hes a super guy and may be able to direct you to something decent nearer you.
Johnathen Shelly
(682) 253-4066
[
 
Last edited:

Spartan85

Pigeon
I work the weekend shift at my job. I grew up Pentecostal and then joined the Baptists in my 20's and then I left the faith. I didnt abandon my faith in Christ but my faith in the religion. Growing up in Texas I thought that as a Christian you had two options: Be Catholic or join one of hundreds of Protestant denominational churches. Later I found a "non-denominational" pentecostal church in Arlington pastored by a heretical lying snake. I now know that everyone should be under some type of authority and should be held accountable. Non-denominational churches where the pastor is the head and has no one over him are more like cults than churches. It wasnt until my 30's that I discovered Orthodoxy. My suggestion was for you to read the book to help you understand what Orthodoxy is all about and why so many former protestants including several Baptists such as Hank Hannegraff have converted. After reading the book you might remain Baptist which is fine. At least you will then understand where I am coming from. I also dont believe in Calvinist theology which most Baptists do. I am not sure if Steven Anderson is a calvinist. He might not be...I grew up drinking from a very shallow well and became frustrated by all the denominational nonsense. Christ prayed in John 17 for the church to be one and united. We should impact the culture instead of creating more "social club" churches. The denominations are endlessly debating over theological minutia while the world grows darker.
 

Samuel

Pigeon
I work the weekend shift at my job. I grew up Pentecostal and then joined the Baptists in my 20's and then I left the faith. I didnt abandon my faith in Christ but my faith in the religion. Growing up in Texas I thought that as a Christian you had two options: Be Catholic or join one of hundreds of Protestant denominational churches. Later I found a "non-denominational" pentecostal church in Arlington pastored by a heretical lying snake. I now know that everyone should be under some type of authority and should be held accountable. Non-denominational churches where the pastor is the head and has no one over him are more like cults than churches. It wasnt until my 30's that I discovered Orthodoxy. My suggestion was for you to read the book to help you understand what Orthodoxy is all about and why so many former protestants including several Baptists such as Hank Hannegraff have converted. After reading the book you might remain Baptist which is fine. At least you will then understand where I am coming from. I also dont believe in Calvinist theology which most Baptists do. I am not sure if Steven Anderson is a calvinist. He might not be...I grew up drinking from a very shallow well and became frustrated by all the denominational nonsense. Christ prayed in John 17 for the church to be one and united. We should impact the culture instead of creating more "social club" churches. The denominations are endlessly debating over theological minutia while the world grows darker.

Good news, there are wednesday evening services in most baptist churches.
As for lying snakes, the only way to avoid those is remove yourself entirely from society.
Remeber even Jesus had one in his ‘church’.

2 Peter 2:1

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.

It isnt a church hierachy that will protect you from these, and if history teaches anything it is that centralisation of power is the biggest danger to the freedom of the people.
The only way to discern false prophets is to ‘prove all things’, most people are decieved because they are lazy.

I dont mean to be rude, but to someone who actually knows the bible, Orthodoxy is so patently absurd from a biblical standpoint that it would never even enter my mind that there was anything to be gained their spiritually, other than by exposing their damnable heresy.

Perhaps that makes me sound arrogant, but I consider it rather to be conviction, and further a commandment directly from God to ‘hate evil’ -
Proverbs 8:13
The fear of the LORD is to hate evil:
pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way,
and the froward mouth, do I hate.

As for your desire for unity in the ‘church’, that is only possible within a local church of likeminded believers, there is no universal church; because a church is an ‘assembly’ or congregation. The best we can hope for is fellowship with likeminded believers, until jesus comes -
Matthew 10:34-36
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

A lot of people fail in the Christian life for exacly this reason, they get tired of fighting.

As for Pastor Anderson, I know him personally, and I can assure you, there a few men who hate Calvanism more than him.

 
Last edited:

Spartan85

Pigeon
I am more of a big picture guy. Satan is subverting the church and from my perspective it is mainly the Orthodox that are putting up a fight. Like I said before I dont think we should argue about theological minutia. What matters is the Nicene Creed. The Orthodox,the Roman Catholics and the Baptists as well as many from other mainline denominations confess the creed.
 

Samuel

Pigeon
I am more of a big picture guy. Satan is subverting the church and from my perspective it is mainly the Orthodox that are putting up a fight. Like I said before I dont think we should argue about theological minutia. What matters is the Nicene Creed. The Orthodox,the Roman Catholics and the Baptists as well as many from other mainline denominations confess the creed.

God however, is interested in minutia -
Matthew 10:29-30
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

If God numbers our very hairs, it is obvious he cares about little details; of which there are many examples -
Leviticus 10:1-2

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

What did these two do wrong? Werent they worshipping God? They were probably even saved men, devout in their faith, but The road to hell (so to speak) is paved with good intentions...

The Orthodox is a tool of the Russian state, in the East at least, I hardly think they are ‘putting up a fight’ against Putin.
The true fight is for the Word of God
 

Spartan85

Pigeon
I am more of a big picture guy. Satan is subverting the church and from my perspective it is mainly the Orthodox that are putting up a fight. Like I said before I dont think we should argue about theological minutia. What matters is the Nicene Creed. The Orthodox,the Roman Catholics and the Baptists as well as many from other mainline denominations confess the creed.
I just saw the Mt Athos video. It really is a shame that one of the holiest places in Christendom is being attacked by Christians. At least I am assuming it was a Protestant Christian who posted up that video on youtube. It just shows how ignorant many Protestants are in regards to church history and the traditions.
 
The Orthodox have nothing to do with this.
Not directly, though the Orthodox and Catholic Church were united until 1054. Protestants reject not only Catholicism, but, in its core, Orthodoxy.

Truly, it is a shame how hate-fueled some Protestants are towards Tradition and don't see the importance of it. Could you build a community and culture solely on the Bible? Yes. Should you reject churches that preserve their culture and nationality if they still exist? No. What I see in the IFB movement and some other non-denominational Christians, is that they argue and think like unbelievers. They can quote and read the Scriptures until the cows come home, though I don't believe that some are filled with God's Holy Spirit. Either are they too weak, overcompensating their lack of masculinity, stiff-necked, prideful, unloving etc. What I like about Catholics and Orthodox is that they don't expect everybody to be a scholar or monk and let you be. The excessive legalism in these Protestant churches makes one severely repressed in action and thought.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
You should read a book called Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells by Matthew Gallatin. It is written by a former protestant who converted to Orthodoxy. It will at the very least help you understand the Orthodox Christian perspective on the role of the Church and the Bible in a Christ-follower's life.

This sounds like exactly what I've been looking for. Thanks for the recommendation.

To say that the ESV is ‘conservative’ is somewhat paradoxical, considering the ESV was an updated version of the widely unpopular RSV, and released by Crossway Publishers in 2001, It was intended to be more conservative in regards its gender-inclusive than its liberal contemporaries, however the word “man/ men” is “neutered” in the ESV 968 times. The masculine pronoun, “he, him, his” is neutered 1832 times! And the new-age, evolutionist, neuter buzz-word “human” is employed 63 times.
It was also released in Protestant and Catholic editions, which goes to show just how conservative it is - the only apparent difference being the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Catholic edition.
Now If all you have to do to make your Bible Catholic is add the apocrypha, doesn’t that make your Bible a Catholic one, just without the apocrypha?

Not impressed by this kind of disingenuous argument. The ESV tries to accurately capture the nuance of the original text - in places where "man" is supposed to mean a non-gender specific person, it's translated as "human." Where it does specifically refer to a male person, "man" is kept. That's the difference between ESV and TNIV - TNIV indiscriminately uses non-gendered pronouns everywhere for political correctness, not accurate translation. The ESV is very clear about this approach to the translation in the preface in every ESV Bible.

I shouldn't have to point out how silly it is to call "human" a "new-age, evolutionist, neuter buzz-word." Also, I don't consider Catholics the enemy, so I don't really care if my Bible is similar to theirs. I wouldn't expect it to be much different. And maybe "man" is "neutered" 968 times, but at least 99% of the time the change affects nothing of any significance.

One of the more plain errors of the ESV is the fact that Elhanan is said to be the slayer of Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19, even though any child who attended Sunday school knows that it was David.

Explanation here, essentially some translation preserve a hiccup in the Hebrew text, while others correct it. Bibles should have a footnote about this sort of thing, but it's no more than a "gotcha!" for skeptics who think a scribe's flub in copying a manuscript somehow discredits the Bible. I don't.

And the ESV removes the precious name of “Jesus” 18 times! And believe it or not – it removes “Jesus Christ” 51 times!
And that’s not all. . . The ESV removes the word “Christ” 39 times. The “Lord” 66 times. And “God” 38 times.
Not to mention the ESV omits approx 33000 words in the NT alone, when compared with the KJV.

I've seen all these arguments from the KJV-only crowd before and they're emotionally manipulative appeals that don't stand up to any serious scrutiny. "Oh no! Modern translations remove the name of 'Jesus'? They must be trying to censor the Bible!" Uh, no. These are almost universally cases where, for example, the KJV says "Jesus Christ" and the original text just says "Christ." Or KJV says "The Lord God" and ESV says "The Lord." It's just a different philosophy in translation, there's zero impact to meaning in these naming cases.

And of course the ESV is shorter than the KJV! The latter prioritizes literary beauty over the most concise-possible translation. Which is a perfectly valid approach to translation. Just don't say that it's the only one.

Additionally, a total of 14 verses are either abridged or omitted from the text of the ESV (Matthew 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; 1 John 5:7).

This is just dishonest. I looked up some of these "examples" and they're all there, in footnote form saying "some manuscripts contain { verse } before/after this verse." Usually it's because there's some minor discrepancy between manuscripts where the verse appears before or after another. The translators' philosophy is simply to emphasize the earliest versions of the manuscripts. The minor textual variations and occasional verse omitted from some manuscripts are still on the page, and I've never gotten the impression that such verses are "untrue." This is nitpicking from critics with an axe to grind.

The real kicker though, is that these errors and ommissions affect key
Doctrines, like salvation, Christs person, hell, the Trinity, and im sure there a multitude more -
An example would be 1 corinthians 1:18, compare the ESV;
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God

To the KJV;
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Thats a big difference there my friend. I dont know about you, but I aint ‘being saved’, I am saved!!

I know this might come as a shock, but don't you realize English has changed in the 400+ years since the KJV was created? This can lead to implications when read today that weren't there in the early 17th century, as in this example you gave above (which, I must say, is making a mountain out of a molehill.)

Here's an example that illustrates this well:

Matthew 19:14, KJV: But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:14, ESV: But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

Words and nuances change over time. One translation is not suitable until the end of time for everyday usage (not to mention that we have more manuscripts available now than in the 17th century.) This is why new translations are still being made.

If your Bible has even one error/contradiction then it is immediately disqualified from being the word of God.

Neither I nor the vast majority of conservative Christians believe this. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is much closer to the view I hold (and well worth a read for anyone interested in the subject of inerrancy), in that it states that the original manuscripts were infallible, and that the Bible is inerrant in all that it teaches. So minor textual variations and inconsequential "contradictions" that fedora-tipping atheists enjoy don't keep me up at night.

Here's a good article on the KJV-only debate.

God however, is interested in minutia -
Matthew 10:29-30
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

This is terrible reasoning. You're taking a Bible verse about God's care for us out of context to explain why we should all be fighting each other. For someone who spends a lot of effort nitpicking translations to argue that the KJV is "so superior" and all others are corrupted by Satan or whatever, your actual understanding of the Bible is... unimpressive.

What I see in the IFB movement and some other non-denominational Christians, is that they argue and think like unbelievers. They can quote and read the Scriptures until the cows come home, though I don't believe that some are filled with God's Holy Spirit. Either are they too weak, overcompensating their lack of masculinity, stiff-necked, prideful, unloving etc. What I like about Catholics and Orthodox is that they don't expect everybody to be a scholar or monk and let you be. The excessive legalism in these Protestant churches makes one severely repressed in action and thought.

Well said. This type of IFB follower treats the Bible like a hammer for smashing opponents, rather than medicine for the sick.
 
I always took the verse about doing unto others (ie the golden rule) as to be the most important phrase in the bible. In a way I think Jesus referred to it several times as being 'the one and only rule' above all else (but not the only rule, just the most important one.)
If you're beating the crap out of another christian metaphorically for interpreting the same bible (or another variant of it) differently than you, I imagine you're not following the most important rule.

What I like most about the KJV is you open it it, and page 1 is genesis.
What I don't like about newer printed bibles is you open it, and page 1 is a publication page. Pages 2-4 are probably some other crap printed for corporate reasons and man-made legal rights of those corporate entites who printed the physical book. Then around page 5, you might get the table of contents or genesis.
Page 1 in a lot of newer bibles will have the words 'printed in china' somewhere towards the bottom. China persecutes Christians in their own country and censors pop culture in America; it's highly likely they mess with bibles they print.

The last page specifically says 'do not add or remove pages from this book' (regardless of how you want to take the context of the word 'book' I'm sure God could have intended it to have more than one context, being eternal and us being mortal)

What I like most about newer printed bibles is they're easier to read; but I don't want spiritual understanding to come easily. I don't think it's meant to. I think it's meant to come over the course of a lifetime and grow over it with the person understanding it.
We always think of these things as events rather than journeys. But we are thinking of these concepts from our mortal life and the perspective that it limits us with.
If the princples of the original ministry of Christ are preserved, then I think we can adjust the words used to explain them. That being said, I prefer the KJV overall because I was good at shakespeare in highschool. I had a bit of an obsession with knights, dragons, and ye olde english. It might have structured sentances in a different order than modern english, but it really did a better job of using words to paint a clear picture (assuming you understand what the words meant)
 

Samuel

Pigeon
This sounds like exactly what I've been looking for. Thanks for the recommendation.



Not impressed by this kind of disingenuous argument. The ESV tries to accurately capture the nuance of the original text - in places where "man" is supposed to mean a non-gender specific person, it's translated as "human." Where it does specifically refer to a male person, "man" is kept. That's the difference between ESV and TNIV - TNIV indiscriminately uses non-gendered pronouns everywhere for political correctness, not accurate translation. The ESV is very clear about this approach to the translation in the preface in every ESV Bible.

I shouldn't have to point out how silly it is to call "human" a "new-age, evolutionist, neuter buzz-word." Also, I don't consider Catholics the enemy, so I don't really care if my Bible is similar to theirs. I wouldn't expect it to be much different. And maybe "man" is "neutered" 968 times, but at least 99% of the time the change affects nothing of any significance.



Explanation here, essentially some translation preserve a hiccup in the Hebrew text, while others correct it. Bibles should have a footnote about this sort of thing, but it's no more than a "gotcha!" for skeptics who think a scribe's flub in copying a manuscript somehow discredits the Bible. I don't.



I've seen all these arguments from the KJV-only crowd before and they're emotionally manipulative appeals that don't stand up to any serious scrutiny. "Oh no! Modern translations remove the name of 'Jesus'? They must be trying to censor the Bible!" Uh, no. These are almost universally cases where, for example, the KJV says "Jesus Christ" and the original text just says "Christ." Or KJV says "The Lord God" and ESV says "The Lord." It's just a different philosophy in translation, there's zero impact to meaning in these naming cases.

And of course the ESV is shorter than the KJV! The latter prioritizes literary beauty over the most concise-possible translation. Which is a perfectly valid approach to translation. Just don't say that it's the only one.



This is just dishonest. I looked up some of these "examples" and they're all there, in footnote form saying "some manuscripts contain { verse } before/after this verse." Usually it's because there's some minor discrepancy between manuscripts where the verse appears before or after another. The translators' philosophy is simply to emphasize the earliest versions of the manuscripts. The minor textual variations and occasional verse omitted from some manuscripts are still on the page, and I've never gotten the impression that such verses are "untrue." This is nitpicking from critics with an axe to grind.



I know this might come as a shock, but don't you realize English has changed in the 400+ years since the KJV was created? This can lead to implications when read today that weren't there in the early 17th century, as in this example you gave above (which, I must say, is making a mountain out of a molehill.)

Here's an example that illustrates this well:

Matthew 19:14, KJV: But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:14, ESV: But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

Words and nuances change over time. One translation is not suitable until the end of time for everyday usage (not to mention that we have more manuscripts available now than in the 17th century.) This is why new translations are still being made.



Neither I nor the vast majority of conservative Christians believe this. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is much closer to the view I hold (and well worth a read for anyone interested in the subject of inerrancy), in that it states that the original manuscripts were infallible, and that the Bible is inerrant in all that it teaches. So minor textual variations and inconsequential "contradictions" that fedora-tipping atheists enjoy don't keep me up at night.

Here's a good article on the KJV-only debate.



This is terrible reasoning. You're taking a Bible verse about God's care for us out of context to explain why we should all be fighting each other. For someone who spends a lot of effort nitpicking translations to argue that the KJV is "so superior" and all others are corrupted by Satan or whatever, your actual understanding of the Bible is... unimpressive.



Well said. This type of IFB follower treats the Bible like a hammer for smashing opponents, rather than medicine for the sick.
This sounds like exactly what I've been looking for. Thanks for the recommendation.



Not impressed by this kind of disingenuous argument. The ESV tries to accurately capture the nuance of the original text - in places where "man" is supposed to mean a non-gender specific person, it's translated as "human." Where it does specifically refer to a male person, "man" is kept. That's the difference between ESV and TNIV - TNIV indiscriminately uses non-gendered pronouns everywhere for political correctness, not accurate translation. The ESV is very clear about this approach to the translation in the preface in every ESV Bible.

I shouldn't have to point out how silly it is to call "human" a "new-age, evolutionist, neuter buzz-word." Also, I don't consider Catholics the enemy, so I don't really care if my Bible is similar to theirs. I wouldn't expect it to be much different. And maybe "man" is "neutered" 968 times, but at least 99% of the time the change affects nothing of any significance.







Neither I nor the vast majority of conservative Christians believe this. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is much closer to the view I hold (and well worth a read for anyone interested in the subject of inerrancy), in that it states that the original manuscripts were infallible, and that the Bible is inerrant in all that it teaches. So minor textual variations and inconsequential "contradictions" that fedora-tipping atheists enjoy don't keep me up at night.

Here's a good article on the KJV-only debate.



This is terrible reasoning. You're taking a Bible verse about God's care for us out of context to explain why we should all be fighting each other. For someone who spends a lot of effort nitpicking translations to argue that the KJV is "so superior" and all others are corrupted by Satan or whatever, your actual understanding of the Bible is... unimpressive.



Well said. This type of IFB follower treats the Bible like a hammer for smashing opponents, rather than medicine for the sick.

If you like your bible verses relegated to footnotes and cast aside as ‘may or may not be accurate’,
I guess that is a reflection of how highly you esteem the wisdom of man over God, likewise for your distain for the ‘name above all names’, as if removing the name of our precious Lord and Saviour isnt one of the most blasphemous acts anyone could do.

1 Corinthians 16:22
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Good luck ‘being saved’ my friend - whenever I deal with the ‘conservative’ scholastic types who favour themselves wise, and love to use logic, reason and appeal to church tradition to explain all the error and contradictions in their bibles, I am reminded of
Luke 18:17
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

As far as using scripture as a hammer -

Jeremiah 23:29
Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

I for one am happy to hear the rebuke of the wise, I want to grow in wisdom and understanding, I want to learn doctrine and be corrected when I am wrong.
But please, use scripture to do it, not the wisdom of men.

1 Corinthians 1:20-24
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, 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.
 
Last edited:
Top