Amen. What? Is he doing this again (Jason)? Tell him.
Posted from the TOL App!
New International PerVersion
- Thread starter Truster
- Start date
Amen. What? Is he doing this again (Jason)? Tell him.
Posted from the TOL App!
Jason0047
Member
It's not that I am doing it again as if I keep going back and forth between believing one way and then another way. I have always believed in Conditional Salvation (Without knowing the official name) since I was born again in 1992. Even before I knew about Conditional Salvation actually was before I had backslidden in my faith, I knew deep down that doing wrong (and not confessing of it and turning from that wrong) did not put me in a right relationship with God. Later, in 2010 when I renewed my faith in the Lord, I started to truly study God's Word and theology and that is when I discovered what Conditional Salvation was by name.
However, make no mistake, though; People who believe they can do evil and think they are in God's good graces and or that they are going to Heaven are only deceiving themselves or they have seared their conscience because of their love for sin. But Jesus would say to them that he would wish they were hot or cold and not luke warm. In other words, it is better if a person is cold (unbelieving) because they will then recognize their need for a Savior under the right conditions. Which is true repentance. A repentance that does not end with a one time prayer but it is a repentance of one's life completely turning around and surrending one's all to God (putting away sin (with confession & asking the Lord for help to stop) and living a fruitful for God).
Last edited:
Jason0047
Member
I mean, think about it. Is not having Jesus (God) living within you the source of salvation? (1 John 5:12) So salvation is a loving relationship with God. It is not a super power that is given to you.
So if salvation is a loving relationship with the Lord, what loving relationship in the real world is not based on it being conditional?
Can a husband cheat on his wife (with her knowing) and say that he loves her and still be accepted by her?
Can a man keep kicking and hurting his pet dog and expect that dog to love him in the same way as the other person who treats their dog good?
Is not your love for sin (or the lack of not confessing one's sin or by refusing to say you are sorry) cheating on God?
So if salvation is a loving relationship with the Lord, what loving relationship in the real world is not based on it being conditional?
Can a husband cheat on his wife (with her knowing) and say that he loves her and still be accepted by her?
Can a man keep kicking and hurting his pet dog and expect that dog to love him in the same way as the other person who treats their dog good?
Is not your love for sin (or the lack of not confessing one's sin or by refusing to say you are sorry) cheating on God?
Last edited:
Jason0047
Member
This is why believing in a perfect Word of God for our day is so important. One will not say to themselves that the Scriptures that talk about "Condtional Salvation" are a mistranslation. For one should let the Word of God correct them and not the other way around. For we know that not all versions of the Bible say the same thing. These changes are subtle to influence you ever so slightly away from the pure Word that has been preserved for our day (i.e. the KJV).
For example: the NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NET, GWT, ASV, CEV, GNT, and other translations take out the words "walk... after the Spirit" in Romans 8:1 KJV. This it the whole thrust or climax to Paul's argument at the end of Romans chapter 7. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace (Romans 8:6).
In other words, it is not a coincidence that all your Modern Translations (Taken from Westcott and Hort's Greek texts) have watered down certain passages that can make one believe that they can live however they like and still be saved. It's not a coincidence. The devil hates God's Word and he will do everything in his power to deceive people into not obeying God's Word.
For example: the NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NET, GWT, ASV, CEV, GNT, and other translations take out the words "walk... after the Spirit" in Romans 8:1 KJV. This it the whole thrust or climax to Paul's argument at the end of Romans chapter 7. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace (Romans 8:6).
In other words, it is not a coincidence that all your Modern Translations (Taken from Westcott and Hort's Greek texts) have watered down certain passages that can make one believe that they can live however they like and still be saved. It's not a coincidence. The devil hates God's Word and he will do everything in his power to deceive people into not obeying God's Word.
Last edited:
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Heiferdust!
All I can say is I love my NIV. To date nobody has been able to prove that it us inferior to the KJV. People have posted lots of lists of differences but that us all they are: differences. Saying one is better than the other is nothing more than a statement of preference.
Terry Watkins is the worst of the KJVO movement and it's most vocal and vehement. He has NO cred whatsoever. This misanthropic individual is typical of those that THINK they have a unique message from God.
Here is what Daniel Wallace, a REAL and proven credentialed scholar, has to say about the KJV.
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
Daniel1611
New member
I recommend the films New World Order Bible Versions and A Lamp in the Dark. They should both be on YouTube. And also the book Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite.
But most importantly I recommend the KJV Bible. The word of God is sharper than any two edged sword.
But most importantly I recommend the KJV Bible. The word of God is sharper than any two edged sword.
Daniel1611
New member
It is not. Do some research on the Textus Receptus and the Masoreric and compare it to Codex Varicanus and Codex Sinnaiticus. The TR and Masoreric texts are superior to the N/A texts. The translation if the KJV is also superior to that of the NIV. Read the book Translators Revisited.
I have. Lots of differences but nothing that definitively proves one is better than the other. Your preference is noted, but useless.
Mocking You
New member
Why does the KJV teach that God doesn't keep His promises?
Num. 14:34--"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." [KJV]
Num. 14:34--For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.’ [NIV]
Num. 14:34--"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." [KJV]
Num. 14:34--For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.’ [NIV]
Mocking You
New member
Why does the KJV teach not to oppose idolatry?
Ex. 22:28--"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." [KJV]
Ex. 22:28--"Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people." [NIV]
Ex. 22:28--"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." [KJV]
Ex. 22:28--"Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people." [NIV]
Mocking You
New member
How old was Ahaziah when he became king?
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign [KJV] II Kings 8:26
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign [KJV] II Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king [NIV] II Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king [NIV] II Chronicles 22:2
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign [KJV] II Kings 8:26
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign [KJV] II Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king [NIV] II Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king [NIV] II Chronicles 22:2
Mocking You
New member
Naughty figs? Jeremiah 24:2
...and the other basket had very naughty figs [KJV]
...the other basket had very bad figs [NIV]
...and the other basket had very naughty figs [KJV]
...the other basket had very bad figs [NIV]
Mocking You
New member
How many stalls of horses? 1 Kings 4:26,
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. [KJV] 1 Kings 4:26
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. [KJV] II Chron. 9:25
26 Solomon also had four thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horses. [NIV] 1 Kings 4:26
25 Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horses [NIV] II Chron. 9:25
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. [KJV] 1 Kings 4:26
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. [KJV] II Chron. 9:25
26 Solomon also had four thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horses. [NIV] 1 Kings 4:26
25 Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horses [NIV] II Chron. 9:25
YOU, obviously know NOT of what you speak. The NA is a standard today and has been for years. The "critical texts" are what ALL modern English translations have used for the last 65 years, as the TR was demonstrated to clearly be inferior to the "critical texts'.
Daniel1611
New member
Please explain why a text like Sinnaiticus is superior to the TR. There is one copy of Sinnaiticus. There are many copies of the TR. If every copy of the TR says one thing and Codex Sinnaiticus says another, why should I trust the one off text? The critical texts are joke translated by apostates. No thanks. Keep the HIV if you want but I would throw it in the trash.
Daniel1611
New member
So Solomon had 40 thousands stalls for horses for his chariots. 4 thousand were used to hold horses AND chariots. There is no contradiction. I'll make a full thread to answer your pretend errors from the KJV when time allows. Throw away the HIV though. It was translated by unbelievers and homosexuals