Don't Confuse "the Word of God" with "the word of God" *

[daqq]

Actually I answered that, but I'm not looking it up for you right now. I said something along the lines of - Whether its testament or covenant and whether the word new is there or not - the news is new. A new testament and covenant. You see chasms where the KJB explains perfectly.

PS - I also thing shed is a better word than poured

I was not speaking of my first post but rather my second post that shows the gaping hole in the doctrine of the KJV which neither you nor the OP responded to. The first post, (which you did respond to) was merely the opening question. After the OP responded to my first post I showed from the very passage that was quoted why the Textus Receptus, and therefore the KJV, is in catastrophic error concerning New Covenant doctrine. In addition to that, what has not yet been mentioned, is that Paul clearly tells us which cup he speaks about in the previous chapter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 10:15-18 KJV
15. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Herein Paul clearly states that he speaks to the wise, that is, to those who know and understand the truth. The first cup of the Passover Seder is called the cup of sanctification. The second cup of the Seder is called the cup of plagues, (remembrance of the plagues performed upon Egypt). The third cup of the Seder is called THE CUP OF BLESSING which is exactly what Paul calls it in the above passage. It is very clear to those willing to see it. The KJV suffers from critical and catastrophic error because whoever inserted kainos-new into the Seder in the Matthew and Mark accounts clearly did not understand these facts about the multiple cups in the Passover Seder.

 

[patrick jane]

I was not speaking of my first post but rather my second post that shows the gaping hole in the doctrine of the KJV which neither you nor the OP responded to. The first post, (which you did respond to) was merely the opening question. After the OP responded to my first post I showed from the very passage that was quoted why the Textus Receptus, and therefore the KJV, is in catastrophic error concerning New Covenant doctrine. In addition to that, what has not yet been mentioned, is that Paul clearly tells us which cup he speaks about in the previous chapter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 10:15-18 KJV
15. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Herein Paul clearly states that he speaks to the wise, that is, to those who know and understand the truth. The first cup of the Passover Seder is called the cup of sanctification. The second cup of the Seder is called the cup of plagues, (remembrance of the plagues performed upon Egypt). The third cup of the Seder is called THE CUP OF BLESSING which is exactly what Paul calls it in the above passage. It is very clear to those willing to see it. The KJV suffers from critical and catastrophic error because whoever inserted kainos-new into the Seder in the Matthew and Mark accounts clearly did not understand these facts about the multiple cups in the Passover Seder.

So are you saying there's no new covenant ? I'll have to go back and read the whole thread maybe.

 

[patrick jane]

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 quotes from Luke 22:19-20 which does indeed have the word kainos-new in all the important manuscripts and codices. However now you have a gaping hole of a problem because there is more than one cup at the Passover Seder and, in the Luke passage, one may clearly discern at least TWO of the Passover Seder cups. You now therefore have TWO "New Covenants" in the KJV because in the Textus Receptus, (AV-KJV) someone apparently decided to conflate Matthew and Mark with the Luke passage by inserting kainos where it does not belong so as to make the passages agree when they are NOT actually speaking of the same cup. The first cup is received with the bread and is called the Covenant FOR MANY, (Daniel 9:27) and confirms the Noachic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic, but the cup of the kainos-New Covenant only comes AFTER the principle meal and is ONLY for the disciples because they had been with the Master throughout his ministry. Yeshua says likewise that he had shown his disciples the name of the Father and that they had kept the word of the Father, (John 17:6) and therefore he says to them alone concerning the New Covenant in the Luke passage below: This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is shed FOR YOU.

Luke 22:15-20 KJV
15. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

TWO DIFFERENT CUPS ~ TWO DIFFERENT COVENANTS

In one fell swoop your entire paradigm has crashed and burned though you will surely deny it.

So much for the "KJV ONLY" heresy . . . :crackup:

C'mon dagg, one is old and one is new. simple

 

[patrick jane]

And it is spurious according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Catholic ?

 

[jamie]

Hi Jamie.Yes, the Greek word paska means Easter just as much as it means Passover.

Passover and Easter are never on the same date, so should Christians observe both?

Why was Jesus raised on the first day of the week?

 

[aikido7]

Don't Confuse "the Word of God" with "the word of God" *

Bible agnostics ( a = not + gnostic = to know) who do not know for sure what God may or may not have said in literally hundreds of different places in the same verses of todays Bible Babble Buffet versions on the market often confuse these two Biblical terms - "the Word of God" and "the word of God". *

I have seen this so many times that I finally decided to write an article about it so I can repost it instead of having to type out the same response again and again.

Note - If you think you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and are not a bible agnostic, then take The Bible Agnostic Test and see if you know for sure what God wrote in His Book.

See "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy = just more Evangelical mumbo jumbo signifying nothing"

http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm*

And if you think (as many affirm) that no doctrines are changed, then see Fake Bible Versions DO teach false doctrines - Links to examples

http://brandplucked.webs.com/fakebiblesdoctrine.htm*

*One such bible agnostic and unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language recently posted the following:*

*"Where do you get the thought that the Word of God is a "real, tangible, in print, hold it in your hands and read, Book"? This is why KJV Only people can not have a logical discussion on the matter.* For you it must be a single hard copy book. The reality is that God gave us His very Word in other languages than English, this necessitates either learning Greek and Hebrew (I have studied Hebrew myself for 10 years and hope to start Greek soon) OR translating the original languages into our language." [End of comments]

*

There is so much muddle headed thinking in this man's statement that it is tough to know where to begin addressing his points.* First of all "the Word of God" is NOT the same as "the word of God".* The title "the Word" is found in the King James Bible 7 times; only 6 times in most modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc.


*It is found in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..."

1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life."

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Revelation 19:13 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

The term "the Word" with a capital W refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the blessed Trinity. The Word existed from eternity, was incarnated as the Son of man/Son of God, lived a perfect life for 33 years on this earth, He gave us the words His Father had given him, was crucified on a cross at Calvary where He bore the sins of His people and paid for them with His own shed blood, rose from the dead three days later and ascended into heaven where He now sits at the right hand of God the Father. And He is coming again in power and glory to raise His redeemed saints from the dead and to set up His kingdom on this earth.

*
But "the word of God" did none of these things and is not a Person.* The "word of God" is His inspired, written revelation of both Who this Word of God is and what He did to redeem His people. And contrary to what our Bible critic said, it IS a real, tangible, hard copy Book you can actually hold in your hands, read and believe is the very words of the living God.

The written words of God tell us of our desperate need for a Saviour from sin, hell and damnation.* They also record Gods' dealings with His people and the surrounding nations during their long history and it tells us many things about future events. We know NOTHING about Who the Word of God is or what He did for us, apart from the written word of God; nothing.

Now, let's address a couple of other things this shallow thinking bible agnostic said in his post.* He stated "The reality is that God gave us His very Word in other languages than English, this necessitates either learning Greek and Hebrew."*

*
This man is a very confused individual. First of all, the Word is the Lord Jesus Christ and He is not a language like English or any other language. He is a Person revealed to us by means of God's written words in many languages.* I agree that the gospel (the written revelation of the saving grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ) is found in ANY bible version out there, no matter how corrupt it may be in many other ways. *

God can and does use any bible version to bring His people to faith in the Saviour - the Word of God.* But nobody seriously believes that versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Holman Standard etc. are the complete and inerrant words of God. Nobody, not even the people who keep churning them out one after another.

Secondly, this man who has NO complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language (and he knows he doesn't) now tells us that we need to learn Greek and Hebrew.* It seems that "The Blatantly Obvious" needs to be pointed out to these people over and over again, and hopefully, it will finally get through to them.*
*
THERE ARE NO "original autographs”. They do not exist and everybody knows that.* When Bible agnostics refer to "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, they always fail to mention WHICH "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek they are referring to.

The Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. often reject the clear Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places. If you look at the footnotes in versions like the NIV or ESV you will see note after note telling us things like "Some Hebrew mss. read...." or "One Hebrew mss. reads...." or "Most Hebrew mss. read...." or "The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain."*

And when we come to "the Greek" their case really begins to fall apart.* There are at least 30 different "the" Greek texts out there like those of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Westcott-Hort, the ever changing UBS/Nestle-Aland (now in its 28th edition and working on their 29th), Tischendorf, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover or the Hodges - Farstad or perhaps the Robinson - Pierpoint Majority Texts - take your pick.* And none of them agree with each other, and several of them disagree by literally THOUSANDS OF WORDS.
*
It should also be pointed out that both the ancient biblical Hebrew and the biblical Greek are themselves archaic languages written in a form that is NOT spoken today in either Israel or Greece; the Hebrew speaking Jews and the native Greek speakers can understand them, but they do not speak or write that way today.

You will have to learn an entire new alphabet and language just to get half way proficient. They are also A LOT harder to understand that anything you are going to find in the English text of the Authorized King James Bible, and you are STILL going to end up with NO complete and inerrant Bible to believe in!

Do these bible agnostics ever bother to think their position through and follow the logic of where there arguments will lead them?* It seems they do not.

Only God knows for sure which readings, names, numbers, phrases and entire verses are the ones He originally inspired to be in His Book and only God can work in history to bring about the publication and printing of His written words in this book we call the Bible. *

We believe He has done this and can tell anyone where to get a copy of it for themselves. The bible agnostics and the "we need to learn Hebrew and Greek" promoters do not believe such a Book exists and certainly cannot tell you where to get one.

My advice, along with thousands of other born again, blood bought saints of God, is this - Get yourself a copy of the King James Holy Bible. It is the only one that has stood the test of time and that God has clearly set His marks of approval on as being His complete, inspired and inerrant "word of God" which tells us the whole truth about "the Word of God." *

All of grace, believing the Book - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.* Don't settle for an inferior substitute. *

Will Kinney *

For further thoughts on this topic, may I recommend the article showing many "coincidences" of history where God clearly sets His mark of approval on the King James Bible. It is called "God's Persistent Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth = the King James Holy Bible."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm*

*

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

*

I think your post needs clarification.

There is literally no such thing as the "Word" of God. Rather, all we have are the "words" of God as interpreted through the ages by inspired human beings.

Every version and translation of the Bible found on bookshelves today gives a lie to the medieval idea that God's presence and power is perfectly captured by the writings of men. People are finite; God is infinite.

It simply cannot be done.

We cannot apprehend God directly. We can only apprehend our own interpretation of him.

If we still insist the Bible is "inerrant" then we should also never admit that our understanding of it is also inerrant.

 

[chair]

It seems that some people, deep down, need an absolute authority. Anything less than absolute doesn't fulfill that need in their souls.

Since there is a notable lack of reliable prophets today, they have no choice but to turn a book into an Authority. It makes no difference at all that the book in question is a human translation of an ancient text that itself has problems. They need an authority, and they will create one.

 

[aikido7]

It seems that some people, deep down, need an absolute authority. Anything less than absolute doesn't fulfill that need in their souls.

Since there is a notable lack of reliable prophets today, they have no choice but to turn a book into an Authority. It makes no difference at all that the book in question is a human translation of an ancient text that itself has problems. They need an authority, and they will create one.

They have made both Jesus and the Bible into idols.

And idolatry is one of the basic sins of Christianity and Judaism.

 

[daqq]

So are you saying there's no new covenant ? I'll have to go back and read the whole thread maybe.

C'mon dagg, one is old and one is new. simple

Once upon the flicker of a flame there was a proselyte sojourner of the name Judas Simon Baker who sat down one evening with a few of his friends to partake of a principle meal. And as the House Master delayed he was watching his watch thinking, "Man, I'm really gonna be runnin late!" Finally the House Master brought forth the bread and wine; but as the first cup was passed around Judas Hatrick refused, saying, That one isn't for me, and besides, I'm really running late, can we hurry up the sup? Wazzzup? And when the next cup was passed around he refused once again, saying, C'mon man, was I there when Egypt was plagued? And finally the third cup was passed around, the cup of the blessing and new understanding, and with a gulp, Judas said, Thanx guys, gotta go, and rushed out the door of the house. And it was night, the darkest blackest night of all nights, like the blackness of the darkness forever: and though he thought it just a little strange, yet he continued on his merry way to his appointment with the chief priests and rulers of the city.

:devil:

 

[oatmeal]

The word of God is God's words, that is, scripture.

Jesus Christ is referred to the word of God because he lived it.

He is the perfect example of someone who lived the written words. Thus he is the word of God in the flesh. John 1:14

Of course, God is the word He authored His word, God breathed, II Timothy 3:16, and it was written that we might decide to love and serve Him according to those words.