I live 30 min. from Detroit in a small city . Now If I meet people that are not familiar with Michigan, I will tell them that I live in the Detroit area. So when the BOM says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem, wouldn't you say that Bethlehem, being about 6 miles away, is in the same area or land?
You started to make some good points but you did not develop them well enough. It takes more than 7 minutes to refute something like this. If you showed this to the mormons you would probably get buried. I suggest making more than one video on this and more study on the religion itself, I really don't think you know enough about it to argue against it. It's important we know and understand subjects well before speaking on them.
I probably know more about the mormon religion than most mormons. I have witnessed to tons of mormons, including many missionaries in my house. I have had missionaries in tears questioning their religion. I made this brief and to the point. Of course a mormon wont agree with it, and even if you had a two hour long video they still wont even spend time watching five mins of it.
If you have an abundance of knowledge on the Mormon religion you sure do not give that impression in this video you made. My point is if your going to state facts you need to back them up somehow(list verse references, site links, anything!) don't assume some of us have not spoken to mormons also. The younger ones can be more inclined to listen but the ones who are more mature and know their stuff are not so easy to convince. If you take offense at this I am sorry for that. God bless!
LAME video - copycat anti-mormon arguments already been answered time and time again.
Let me see...God's word (The Bible)contradicts the Book of Mormon?
Can't because God cannot contradict himself - BECAUSE the BOOK OF MORMON is his word...read 2 Nephi 33 (The WHOLE chapter).
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. If you want to ask me any questions feel free to ask - right here - anytime, but be prepared to answer my questions regarding apostate christianity.
:) Entertaining. But tired and boring arguments found on all your run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon websites.
Broaden your horizons.
I am always amused by Baptists like yourself who spend so much time and effort criticizing members and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Baptists continue to flock to Mormonism in droves so it is understandable that such an aggressive tone would be taken.
Check out:
fairlds . org
Every single one of your arguments have been refuted.
You never mentioned one contradiction in the book of mormon and the Bible. the only one you could find was in a place it refers to bethlehem as jerusalem (and is true, bethlehem is part of the greater city of jerusalem).
Thanks you for judging and saying I am not a Christian. I believe in the Christ that was hung on a cross and died for me. I know that through Jesus Christ my sins can be forgiven. You have no right or authority to decide who is a Christian and who is not. Most fanatical "Christians" spend there time telling others how wrong they are without looking in a mirror.
Please don't change the subject. You said, "My KJV is perfect and preserved by God. And you will find no mistakes in it." yet there are many contradictions in it. Why?? Plus don't say things without reference. Your like Faux news, say it for the drama, but only take a small clip of what was accually said.
Knew nothing of either cities. PLEASE for the last time read and learn before spouting. The first chapters of the Book of Mormon tell of the indians ancestors leaving Jerusalem. So they had a good idea about it. So in that logic, your agument does not work. But I'm not here to argue just clear up ideas about my religion that others that call themselves "Christian" decide they need to call others out on. Read the Bible and see how Christ taught, then see what you are doing.
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal 1:6-8
"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:51-53
Your condition is that of verse 54 - notice the mention of "ANGELS" in this too?
There are different types of prophecy. Revelatory prophecy from God's messengers was until the time of John the Baptist marking the end of the OT era. See Matt 11:13, Luke 16:16, Heb 1:1-2.
The verse you gave me was speaking of the time when Jesus' apostles were alive. If someone were to speak in the name of the Lord today, it had better be in line with what the Bible says. Isa 8:20.
The Lord tells us who he is in the Word. Mormons make God in the likeness of corruptible man. The Lord has told us in the Bible when prophets spoke. Read the verses I gave you again. To trust in the Lord is to also trust His Word, the Bible, not a book such as the BoM, PGP, or D&C which have absolutely nothing to substatiate them as God's word. The Bible is there for our protection against deception. It tells us how to test spirits, prophets, doctrine, gospels, and Christs.
johnyjamie's quote: "The Lord tells us who he is in the Word."
My reply: First, obviously you don't read the scriptures in context. Second, you don't address my comments I posted earlier - why?
Now I find this first part of your comment funny - why?
The Lord DOES tell us who he is - how?...it was by those very PROPHETS and APOSTLES... you keep rejecting...but you hold tenaciously to a book of papers(like an idol) which you worship as GOd himself.
johnyjamie's quote: "The Lord has told us in the Bible when prophets spoke."
My reply: Who said that the LORD told us he would NO LONGER speak to us by prophets...don't mis-quote that scripture out of context...it was only for that time when Christ was on the EARTH that he was the one GiVING those words we needed - THINK man..THINK...does that not include the VERY scripture it is qyoted in? I mean it was given/written AFTER Christ was GONE by an APOSTLE and MORE words were given via them.
THINK...use that mind the LORD gave you man and THINK...what about ALL the books of the NEW TESTAMENT - Christ did not write them - who did? the Prophets and paostles that's who..when?---WAY after those words you are claiming to say that there would be NO MORE porphets afdter him...you are a PRODUCT of protestant theology which is HUGELY influenced by FALSE doctrines - Satan has FOOLED you into thinking no more revelation...even though the scriptures talk about prophets in the last days.
johnyjamie's quote: "To trust in the Lord is to also trust His Word, the Bible, not a book such as the BoM, PGP, or D&C which have absolutely nothing to substatiate them as God's word."
My reply: How did you get your scriptures? it was believing in the words of those very prophets and apostles - how do you know they are from God?...how do you know that those prophets were from God? I will tell you I know the same way I know that the prophets and apostles today are - through the Spirit.
"The law and the prophets"—referring to Old Testament Scriptures—were preached until John the Baptist began his special ministry. After John's mission was over, Jesus began proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom of God.
Keep it in context again...this just means that the OLD testament (an those prophets) all declared his coming - this does not exclude any future prophets as evidenced by the many that came later...THINK man... stop thinking like a protestant.
This was the scripture I was talking about...do what the Saviour asked..."he who hath ears to hear...hear...and HEARTS (yes that burning in the bossom you all make fun of us for).
Matt. 13: 15 For this peoples heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
johnyjamie's quote: "To trust in the Lord is to also trust His Word, the Bible, not a book such as the BoM, PGP, or D&C which have absolutely nothing to substatiate them as God's word."
My reply: To trust in the Lord is to trust in his servants he sends...because believe it or not...that is how you got your BIBLE...did they just appear out of nowhere?...um...I'm guessing not...so how then did you get them?..um...through prophets and apostles...so how do you know they were true men of God?
One CANNOt use the bible to define itself..it was NEVER written with that intent...they are a collection of letters and testimonies.
If one argues that one needs the bible and ONLY the bible then you make a poor argument as the christians DID NOT have the bible for the first 2 almost 3 centuries - so where they then NOT Christians? You are a PRODUCT of Martin Luthers "solo scriptura" garbage that came WAY later.
So how was the church run? - by prophets and apostles - that's how.
Looking at your profile here I read almost word for word EVERYTHING that Martin Luther brought into apostate christianity...NONE of that EXISTED prior to him. As I mentioned - the EARLY Christians believed and PRACTICED both FAITH and WORKS (i.e. a bad tree cannot bring forth fruits..meaning...one does /acts/keeps the commandments, etc) not just a believe in Jesus for even the devils believe and it does not save them.
We saw that christianity was not based on the "Bible" but on following the church's leaders counsel via letters that they admonished them to KEEP the COMMANDMENTS - they were NOTexorted to just believe...but to keep from sinning.
OK. I listened for about 45 second before stopping this. Please think for yourself before spouting thing you know nothing about. For one, the whole Jerusalem and Bethlehem thing. If I was in France talking to someone and told them I was born in Parker, they would have no idea where that was. Now if I said Denver they might have a better idea. But if I was in Colorado I could say Parker because people know where it is in the local area. Get it?
Also in one of your comments you said, "My KJV is perfect and preserved by God. And you will find no mistakes in it.". Please learn your bible before saying things like this. If you did a simple search you would find many contradictions in the Bible because of language translations over 2 thousand years. Also I am a Mormon and wont post videos telling people they are wrong and stupid, not very Christlike, right?
WELL TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHICH ONE DO I BELIEVE. The KJV has NOT changed its wording to fit into this feel good religion that is sweeping our nation, the NIV, NKJV, BOM. All are wrong because they take things out because they don't "fit". Why fi something that never was broken in the begin with! But then whats Revelation 22:19 then? HELLO PEOPLE WAKE UP! Also the morman religion was founded by a Warlock so that is a red flag for me! As it should be for you, if you dont want hell! DUH!!
p.s. I'm bored with your pee-sized brain and intellect. all you want to do is quote from some silly book that you claim to be from god but can't prove. Take care. Good luck getting all of us poor, unhappy sinners into the fold.
There are lots of books that claim to be the word of god. How is your stupid little bible any different? I don't need to prove anything because I'm not going around telling people that they are going to hell. You are. You christians are all alike, telling others they are going to hell "because the bible says so." So what. It's fiction. Until you can prove otherwise, do us all a favor and mind your own damned business.
Mormons have faith that their religion is God's religion. Mulsim's have faith that their religion is God's religion. Budhists have faith that their religion is God's religion. And so on and so on. Well, you and I agree on one thing. The BOM is fiction. Guess what, so is the bible. Get off your high horse. At least the Mormons are more educated and open-minded than you.
Dude, come on now. That's a ridiculous circular argument. You can't say the bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god. The BOM says it is the word of god too. Does that make it so? No. How is the bible any different?
what?? You aren't making any sense. I agree, the BOM does contradict the bible in many places. However, you didn't answer my question. What makes the Bible the word of god??
So what if the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. You are making a very large assumption here - that the Bible is the Word of God. How do you know the Bible is the "Word of God"?
Marcoinacio1, was that meant to be a Reply to me? You didn't post it as such.
Yes, I know what that passage says. The question is, whose version of the Gospel is the same as what they received back then, and who is teaching another Gospel?
Yes, an angel (Moroni) was involved in the LDS origins. But the Galatians passage doesn't say that ANY Gospel brought by an angel from heaven MUST be false (and said angel accursed) — only if it is ANOTHER Gospel.
Your fairy tale is just as stupid as everyone else's fairy tale. Every Mormon I have ever met has been genuinely kind and has tried to help people. Have you done anything to help anybody? Instead of spending your time bickering about scriptural interpretations that are not relevant to today, why don't spend some time studying the first four books of the New Testament and just focus on the Christ character.
Secondly, the Bible says Noah built an ark and preserved every different species while he covered the Earth with a flood. However, modern science tells us that there is no evidence to suggest that this global flood ever occurred. Also, if this were true, did Noah fill the ark with Tyrannosaurus and Terradactyls? Because if Noah supposedly built this ark before the ice age ever occurred he would have had to have done so. Here's my point to all this...
Did you know that science is actually now claiming several catastrophic events like floods to explain the fossils? They won't accept the Bible, but they have to make something up to account for the evidence for a global flood. And, yes, Noah took dinosaurs on the ark. Most dinosaurs were only the size of sheep. Some were bigger, but all he had to do was take babies. All together, he had about 16,000 animals max. They would have taken up about 1/3 of the the ark.
The Bible claims the Earth was made by God in Seven days which I have heard some religious morons like yourself say those days were equivalent to a thousand years, which would make it seven thousand years old before man appeared. I will assume that is correct and say that Modern science says that the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old. I thought the Bible was perfect so why would there be an error in the numerical calculations here?
God created in 6 literal 24 hour days. There are no errors in the Bible. When you look at the evidence, it actually confirms the Bible. Problem is, most people assume evolution is true and look at the facts with that mindset. However, evolution cannot account for many things-how did life get here? Where did the matter and information come from? Why do we still see comets, if the earth is billions of years old? Why are there no transitional fossils? Just a few problems with the evolution theory.
To which verse are you referring? When qualified by a number (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), or the word evening or morning (or both) it is always a 24 hour day.
"To which verse are you referring? When qualified by a number (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), or the word evening or morning (or both) it is always a 24 hour day."
I was referring to the only places in Genesis Chapter 2 that mention the word "day."
Since you just said that it's ALWAYS a 24-hour day, then God must be a liar, because He told Adam re: the Tree and its Fruit of Knowledge, "For in the *DAY that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt SURELY DIE." Adam lived nearly a millennium afterwards.
Actually, Adam did die spiritually, that is what God meant. He also began to die physically that day.
However, you must not have realized what I said. I said when it is qualified by a number or the term evening and morning, it is always a 24 hour day. I know there are places where it is not a 24 hour day, but rather a period of time. You quoted me right, and then misquoted me. I guess mormons are so used to twisting and perverting things you just do it naturally.
Nope. The Hebrew word translated "die" there meant PHYSICAL death and physical death ALONE. The Old Testament doesn't even have the CONCEPT of spiritual death until much, much later.
As for the misinterpretation, I had to re-read to see what you meant. I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
So, you pick and choose which "day" is 24 hours, based on qualifiers?
How could there even be "days" as such before the SUN was created, since "day" is *DEFINED* BASED ON THE SUN!?
Just like everything else, you read the context to see what the word means. Many words have more than one meaning, and the context tells us what the meaning is. It is very simple.
GOD defined a day by giving us the sun, so He could tell us how long a day was even before He created the sun! Your argument really makes no sense when you are talking about the all-powerful God who made everything (including our way of measuring days, years, etc). Your problem is you just don't believe the Bible.
Yeah, but this isn't just a word, but whole phrases and sentences that are their own context.
Please explain how "EVEN AS WE ARE ONE." and "Let them all be on IN US, AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE" mean anything other than what they plainly say.
KJVtruth: "However, evolution cannot account for many things-how did life get here?"
You're right. Evolution does not account for that — because THAT'S *NOT* WHAT IT'S ABOUT! Each scientific theory is about ONE thing, and Darwinism / Neo-Darwinism are about HOW SPECIES EVOLVE, *NOT* about how life STARTED. Darwin's book was titled, "On the Origin of THE SPECIES," NOT "On the Origin of LIFE."
The origin of life from non-life theory is called ABIOGENESIS, NOT evolution. Different theory.
Time for another analogy: imagine that you are a mathematician, and I'm someone who has no math training but still insists, for religions or whatever reasons, that everything math people thing is wrong.
My insistence is that there are no numbers that have more than one digit to the right of the decimal point. I believe that there are GAPS in the NUMBER LINE.
I challenge you, Mr. Mathematician, to show me a number BETWEEN, say, 2.5 and 2.6. I say that there are NO SUCH NUMBERS.
I just saw that you did answer the questions (sort of). The Oort cloud has never been proven; therefore it is not a scientific fact. It is just another theory that people came up with to support their axiom, so they did not have to accept the Bible and God's authority.
No, actually all fossils are not transitional. Where are all the supposed transitional species between the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods?
The Oort Cloud is the valid answer to your question about comets (not all comets are believed to come from there — only the really fast ones).
It's quite obvious that comets vary considerably in age (or, at least, in damage from passing near the sun). Some are still big and bright (e.g. Hale-Bopp). Some are so small and dim now that the main visual benefit we get from them each year is a meteor shower (Temple-Tuttle).
There is no evidence for the Oort cloud. It is, like I said before, simply a speculation that was made to rescue the theory of the earth and universe being billions of years old. (Which it doesn't even do, as it is just a theory that has never been proven.)
Sure there is evidence for it: fast comets coming moving way too fast to be coming from the inner clouds.
It is FAR from the only hypothesis that supports the age of the universe being billions of years old. And it was NOT formed in response to Creationists pointing to comets as "evidence" for a "young" universe, and so is not to "rescue" ANYthing.
How about you answer the question I asked yesterday? Do you REALLY BELIEVE Genesis 9:8-17 LITERALLY? "Let your answer be yea, yea, or nay, nay."
Oh, and if you don't like the Oort Cloud, try Kuiper Belt. That one is NOT speculative, and we HAVE DIRECTLY OBSERVED it.
Same basic principle: bodies in the Kuiper Belt can be dislodged from their orbits and, if they head inward, become comets. In the case of the Kuiper Belt, we have the specific fact that Neptune crosses its path, and is thus a significant cause of such disruptions.
So, the existence of non-aged comets doesn't contradict an old solar system, let alone universe.
I realize that evolution is not necessarily about how life started, but most people who believe in evolution do not believe that God created (although there are some who think He used evolution, etc.). I was simply listing a few of the many problems with the evolution and big bang theories. Which you didn't give any answers for, by the way. Of course, as a mormon, you are not born again anyways, even if you don't believe that God created the heaven and earth.
"Of course, as a mormon, you are not born again anyways, even if you don't believe that God created the heaven and earth."
As I said before, I was born again as a youth at a Billy Graham convention long before I became LDS. If you believe in Once Saved, Always Saved, then even by YOUR definition, I'm saved. Gone astray, perhaps, but still saved.
Now, maybe you don't believe in Once Saved, Always Saved. If so, good. Neither do I.
And I DO believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
If you were born-again, you would not be mormon. Mormons do not believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, or salvation by grace (and many other biblical doctrines).
And yes, I do believe once saved, always saved. It is biblical. However, the question is, did someone really get saved? In your case, obviously not.
Yes, I was saved, whether you believe it or not. And yes, the LDS do believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Does the Jesus of the LDS differ from that of mainstream Christianity? Yes, but OURS is the Jesus of the Bible.
The Bible does NOT mention the word "Trinity" in ANY form nor variant. Only one verse flatly states a doctrine like the Trinity, and it's I John 5:8. It rests on the definition of "one" as used by John.
Now read John 17 (the WHOLE CHAPTER) and note his use of "one" therein.
Mormons believe: 1.Jesus was married, 2.Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, 3.Jesus is not God. No Bible to back these beliefs up. Jesus is God, was not married, and was not Lucifer's brother.
Read John 1:1 and 14, John 10:30, 1 John 5:7, Zech. 12:10 and John 19:37.
And Ex. 3:14 with John 8:58. I AM is a name reserved for God alone.
And for the Trinity, it is actually 1 John 5:7-these three are ONE (not one in purpose, ONE). The doctrine is there even though the word is not.
1. We don't say for sure whether Jesus was married.
2. Jesus and Lucifer are both spirit children of God the Father, so yes, they are brothers in that sense. (At least we use the KJV and not the NIV that says that Jesus *IS* Lucifer!)
3. We DO believe that Jesus is God. God the Son, the Creator of the entire physical Universe and everything in it, the Savior and Redeemer. He is YHWH "The LORD" God of Israel, the God of most of the Old Testament (wherever the KJV says "the LORD" in small caps).
As for I John 5:7 (sorry for the typo), did you read John 17 (the WHOLE CHAPTER) like I asked you to?
REPEATEDLY therein, Jesus asks God the Father (and how could He even PRAY to God the Father in the FIRST place if He IS the SAME PERSON as God the Father?) that first the Eleven Non-Son-of-Perdition Apostles, and then all who come to believe through their word, "may become one in us EVEN AS WE ARE ONE." "Even as THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, and I IN THEE." REPEATEDLY He says this.
That is VERY plain: Jesus prays for the Apostles and ALL SAVED CHRISTIANS to become "one" IN THE EXACT SAME SENSE that He and His Father are one! That they would become "one IN US"!
To keep the Trinity in the face of that, you'd have to go WAY beyond the LDS belief that men can become gods. You'd have to believe that men can become GOD. *THE* GOD.
Hinduism's Nirvana is a similar belief, in which enlightened souls lose their identity and become one with the One God Brahman.
1. Orson Hyde stated about the wedding at Cana, "...no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion..."
2. Show me from the Bible that Jesus and Lucifer are both spirit children. It is not in there!
3. Mormons do NOT believe that Jesus Christ is God. They teach that He is "a God", the first born son of God the Father, whereas the Bible teaches He IS GOD.
1. Orson Hyde was not a prophet. His opinion is his opinion.
2. Wanna disprove Mormonism? Find EVERY ONE of our teachings in the Bible. Unlike most any other Christian sect, if you could find ALL of our teachings in the Bible, that would DISprove Mormonism!
3. Yes, we do. YOU don't decide what WE believe. Jesus is God the Son, the Creator of the physical Universe. He is YHWH, Jehovah, the LORD God. We have ALWAYS taught this.
Just letting you know I am done debating with you, as you are denying what your church teaches. I guess you must be ashamed of it or something, since you won't admit they teach Jesus was married and that He is not God.
No, I'm denying what YOU THINK my church teaches. There is a difference. Again: YOU don't decide what MY church teaches or what I believe. Neither do the anti-LDS books you've read.
Yes, many LDS, including people in authority, believe that Jesus was married, but that has never been actual OFFICIAL DOCTRINE of the Church.
And we have NEVER taught that Jesus is not God. We do teach that He is not God THE FATHER. He is God THE SON. But still God. The Creator. The LORD (YHWH) God of Israel.
I must say, KJVTruth, you would've made a great Pharisee. They used that same tactic: make up some false teaching that sounds similar to an actual teaching of Jesus, and then condemn Him for denying that He taught it.
"He said He would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days!"
They were also big on believing that they already had all of the Scripture that God was ever going to reveal: "We HAVE Moses [Torah] and the Prophets [Tanach — the rest of the O.T.] — what do we need YOU for?"
Oh, one last thing: so, if I don't outright admit that the whole intended goal of your debate with me is correct, then you take your ball and go home? I hope you don't think that you can declare victory that way. On the contrary — you just conceded defeat.
Your "debating" tactics are like changing just one little rule in, oh, say, basketball: if ANYone on EITHER team shoots the ball into EITHER basket, then YOUR team gets 2 points and the opponent gets none!?
Can you tell me of an error in the King James Bible? There are none, God's Word is pure (Prov. 30:5, 2 Tim. 3:16).
And yes, most dinosaurs were the size of sheep. Obviously, there were some larger ones, but many of them were actually smaller than most people realize. Dinosaurs seem more interesting if they are huge, so that is how the media portrays them. And, like I said, Noah only needed a total of about 16,000 animals that would have taken up about 1/3 of the ark.
"Can you tell me of an error in the King James Bible?"
Why, yes, yes, I can.
II Kings 8:26: "Two and twenty [22] years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." -- all Bible versions agree here, though they may word it differently.
II Chronicles 22:2: "Forty and two [42] years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." -- ONLY the KJV (and a few other Masoretic Text-based Old Testament versions) say this. All others say 22, just like II Kings 8:26. Even modern KJVs specify 22 as a footnote!
I know, I know. The usual KJV Onlyist Stock Answers:
"His daddy King Jehoram gave him a PRACTICE REIGN 20 years earlier. That's what II Kings is referring to."
Or:
"His mommy Queen Athaliah instigated a COUP and put her son on the throne early briefly, and that's what II Kings is referring to."
Don't even bother trying to use those, because I can show that they don't work JUST from II CHRONICLES, without even having to refer to II Kings! II Chronicles contradicts ITSELF in the KJV!
For starters, the practice reign: II Chronicles 22:1 (just one verse before where it mentions his age) says that Ahaziah was the YOUNGEST son of King Jehoram. As alluded to there and in more detail in the previous chapter (21:16-17), the Arabians carried away (21) or slew (22 — another contradiction!) all his older brothers (these passages also disagree on his NAME!). This happened a mere two years before Jehoram died (hideously cursed by God, who hated Jehoram's guts — LITERALLY! 21:18-19).
So, all of Ahaziah's big brothers were still alive twenty years previously, when this alleged "practice reign" would've occurred.
But, youngest sons don't GET "practice reigns." Because youngest sons don't get to reign at all, unless all of the older brothers are rendered unavailable. At the time, there was no INKLING that that would happen.
The OLDEST son is the Marked/Crown Prince, the Heir Apparent to the Throne. Only HE would need a "practice reign." MAYBE the #2 son, just in case.
But Ahaziah had LOTS of big brothers, since his daddy had multiple wives! At that time, NOBODY had ANY IDEA that ALL of them except Ahaziah (or was it Jehoahaz?) would be captured (or was it slain?)! So WHY would the YOUNGEST son out of, what, DOZENS!? be given a PRACTICE REIGN!?
But that's not the BIG problem, and it wouldn't hurt the "Queen Athaliah's Coup" hypothesis. But the BIG problem DOES destroy that AS WELL as the Practice Reign.
And not just that last verse of Chapter 21. This is stated TWICE, in verse 5 as well as 20!
King Jehoram was 32 ("Thirty and two") years old when he BEGIN to reign, and he reigned eight years (which ITSELF destroys ANY earlier 20-year-ago "practice reign" OR "coup" since Jehoram's WHOLE reign was less than ½ that time!) and then he died.
Do the math: 32 (age at ascension) + 8 (duration) = 40 (age at death).
A mere TWO VERSES LATER, his YOUNGEST SON takes the throne at age *42*!?
So, we have here THE MOST EVIL king of Judah, cursed by God Himself with THE most agonizing death in the Old Testament (arguably worse than the Crucifixion! That at least was over in hours, instead of TWO YEARS!).
And yet, God gives him a blessing that NOBODY ELSE got, one that puts even the VIRGIN BIRTH to shame for its sheer miraculousness, yet the Bible makes no mention of its miraculous nature?
His YOUNGEST SON was TWO YEARS **OLDER** THAN HIM!?
YouTube rarely indents Replies properly on the first comments page of a video (and often not the other pages either). Plus, lauriettifan wasn't even TALKING about KJV errancy, so why would I assume that? I was the only one who was recently.
Oh, so you're still playing that hilariously pathetic "I won't play chess with you any more because you REFUSE to do the Fool's Mate opening to allow me to checkmate you in two moves!" (or the debating equivalent thereof) game?
The only reason — the ONLY reason — that you refuse to debate me is because you CAN'T. Even your CLAIMED reason for not debating me is because I won't just up and HAND you victory on a silver platter.
So, YOU ASKED for a KJV error. I have plainly shown one. Can you refute it or not?
Oh, and unlike you, I'll accept responses even from the people I didn't specifically "reply to."
So, any OTHER KJV Onlies wanna take a shot at this? 1611baptist? KingsDaughter1611? RevivalIsNeeded? Anyone? ANYone?
I am NOT going to "admit" to something that FLATLY ISN'T TRUE. That would make me a LIAR. Are you ACTUALLY trying to entice me to SIN? That's SATAN'S work!
The LDS has NEVER, *EVER* taught that Jesus is not God. Whoever told you that, wherever you read it, is WRONG.
Furthermore, your whole argument is trying to prove that we believe that. Therefore, by your requiring that I ADMIT it before you will even debate me is the same as requiring a chess player to checkmate his own king first.
On your second paragraph: that's (A) your opinion, and (B) flatly contradictory to your claimed "once saved, always saved" position (which is itself flatly contradictory to the Bible). Many LDS are converts from mainstream Christianity, and many of those, including myself, were "saved" by accepting Jesus Christ as Personal Savior. In my case, it was under the hands of Billy Graham himself, in person.
So we went to a Catholic church that gave us a bag of canned goods and some saltine crackers. However, unknowingly, our neighbor was a Mormon and contacted her church leaders who came to our aid with 300 dollars worth of groceries every month and they paid for all of my Father's prescriptions until his Medicaid kicked in. Yeah. You MIGHT be right about the BoM not being what Mormons seem to think it is but let me ask you a question...
You think you are one smug little asshole, don't you? I will tell you what I think. I think the Bible and the BoM are both fairy tales. Why? I won't get into that because it doesn't really matter. But I will say this. My father had cancer and passed away last Ocotber. He was sick for about two years. He couldn't work and he had no insurance. We pleaded to a number of Christian churches that tried to help us. There was not a single Christian Evangelical church that helped us in anyway....
You contradict yourself. You obviously don't believe in Christ. You say the Bible is a fairy tale and then say to study the first four books of the New Testament? That is sad about your Dad. Are you Mormon now?
Well, I've read the New Testament many times. I have tried reading the Old Testament and I really can't get pass Mosaic Law. It just seems like a bunch of bullshit. Anyway, everything I have read about Christ leads me to believe that he was never a part of that social institution. (church) His teachings transcended Mosaic Law and made them menaingless. Whether or not Christ existed his teachings are still pretty relevant and I like them for the most part.
See, the problem is that either Christ was true, everything He did and said and all that is in the Bible, or He was just a good teacher which in reality would make Him a liar as He said He was God. You can't just take some of His teachings and say the rest are no good. And if you are not saved, it will be hard to understand some things. It says "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... 1 Cor. 2:19. I am not trying to be mean here but an unsaved person will not understand.
True, when I read the New Testament I interpret things differently than you but what makes you think that your interpretation is more accurate than mine or anyone else's? I am not trying to be combative with you. I am trying to understand. So much of the Bible is shrouded in tradtitions that seem rather ridiculous and irrelevant to real life. The KJV of the Old Test is only a good read if you read with the intention of mastering the English Language. Other than that I don't see how a person
can benefit at all from reading it. The New Test is different when you read it and examine the teachings of Christ, which are not all that mysterious. Plus, I really don't see how believing that Christ is God is important. I mean, if JC was God and he wanted me to know that he was he would manifest his will for me so that I would have an inclination to believe. Its not that way though. Life is what it is and nature obeys its own law regardless of my will for myself. I accept that or I die.
Believing that Jesus Christ is God is very important. If He isn't God, then He has no power to save us. Jesus Christ is the only way to be forgiven of our sins, and the only way to Heaven (John 14:6). He said over and over that He was God. John 10:30, John 8:58, etc.
I've heard it explained that being saved is "Accepting JC as Lord and Savior and asking him to remove my sins." But that's just talk and doesn't really mean anything. The standards the Bible expects people to live up to are unrealistic and make no sense. Many things that the Bible views as "sin" are unavoidable and they are things EVERYONE encounter. Being "saved" will not make us any less susceptible to death or keep us anymore free from the inclination to do what comes naturally to us.
To me, its very simple. Do what's right bc you FEEL/KNOW as though its right, not bc some text written 2,000 years ago tells you to blindly accept it. Even the most widely accepted theories are still theories. But these theories are used bc they work and that's all that matters. When I read the teachings of Christ it feels good and I accept them as being true bc they enrich the quality of my life when executed. What will change if I am saved?
The reason I say this is bc I see no relevance in being "saved" bc I don't see how it works. Christian people are just as screwed up as everyone else. They divorce/do drugs/have premarital sex, etc... So what makes your formula for success better than everyone else's?
It isn't my formula for success. God made you and you will stand before Him one day and you will be judged. It is not about what everyone else has done but what you have done with Jesus Christ. Some people mess up. I can't speak for them. But Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life and He died on a cross to pay for your sins. You have to look to Him and Him alone. Just because one apple is bad doesn't mean you don't eat anymore apples.
You say you accept the teachings of Christ but do you accept where He says you must be born again? It is a very important decision. You have the choice to reject Jesus Christ and then burn forever in an eternal Hell or you can choose to repent of your sins, and trust Him as your Lord and Saviour. But like I said, it is very serious because if you were to accept Him, He would change your life. Please think about it seriously. I can't stress it too much. Y
Well, being "born again" means changing your lifestyle. Anyone has the ability to do that regardless of what religion they are or God they worship. Even an athiest can wake up one day when are 40 years old and realize that their entire life as been lived gratifying vain and empty pleasures. After this a consciouss decision can be made to live a more selfless life rather than a self-centered one. I think people find that the this enevitably leads to a more happy life.
If that is not what you are talking about then I admit that I don't understand the concept of being "born again." From the way you describe it, it appears as though the term holds some kind of magical or mystical significance. I personally don't believe in things that are magical or mystical simply because they are usually ideas or concepts that foriegn to me in the reality I occupy. If I cant personally experience something then what is the point of believing in it? It is irrelevant.
It isn't mystical. It is spiritual. You could personally experience it if you would get saved. It would make your life so much better. Christ came to give us not only eternal life but life here more abundantly. He gives joy, peace, comfort, etc without all the sin of the world. It is a totally different life.
And realize that as an unsaved person you are not going to understand some things. Yes we will sin after we are saved but it is not going to be our lifestyle. The Holy Spirit lives inside a saved person and we are guided by the Bible. Being saved means that I can look death in the face and I might have some fear but God has taken away the sting of death, for a saved person, because they know where they are going after they die. What about you? What do you have to look forward to after death?
See, you say you do not fear death but from where Im looking it seems like your entire life revolves around your fear of death. You fear it so much that you hold your Bible so close to your heart and cry if someone attempts to disparage it in any form. KJVtruth is an example. COMAlite and KJV seem to be engaged in some sort of logical debate over the particulars of the established doctrines contained the OLd test of KJV. He has made some good points and when confronted he/she withdraws.
That is why Evangelical Christianity has never appealed to me. The proponents of Evangelical Christianism teach a philosophy that is sprung from fear and people are enticed to join it by appealing to their fears. Just like you tried to do with me when you asked me what I have to look forward to after death. Atleast Mormons seem to have it right. They practice their religion out of love and compassion. And to answer your question...
As for what I have to look forward to? I HONESTLY do not know. But I am not afraid of death because I have accepted the fact that I will die. I have reached a point where I can say that death now empowers me more than it drives me into isolation and fear. I came to that point when I finally realized that the most important thing I will ever know is that I know NOTHING because, by myself, I am nothing. I am only one member of the human race, a living system within a vast zoological garden.
What death now empowers me to do is to forget myself and be a more selfless person. Selflessness, afterall, was the primary attribute of JC. I am not this way because my fear of death leads me to be. I am this way because I see life for the horror that it really is and I am full of compassion for those that suffer and I am full of gratitude for the things I have.
Again, I don't mean to be combative. You seem like an intelligent and extremely nice person. I am sure you are doing the things you are doing bc you genuinely fear for the welfare of my eternal soul but don't fear for me. Because, if there is a God in heaven and this God will throw me in a firey lake of acid forever bc I was never "born again" then I don't realy care to involve myself with his dictatorship. My advice to you is to allow yourself to think freely and see where that takes you.
When I say "teachings" I mean the basic philosophies that come from Christ which are okay as far as I'm concerned. I really don't know what to believe beyond that and in truth I don't see how it much matters.
As far as Mormons go... No. I am not one but I've never encountered a Christian religion where the people were as genuinely caring as those involved in the Mormon church are. This guy is just a little asshole that has no idea what he's talking about.
It does matter. If you would only see that your eternal destiny lies in how you act on what the Bible teaches. Where you spend your eternity rests on whether you repent and believe the Gospel or you don't. You have to see that. Otherwise you will die in your sins and go to Hell. This person has put this video up because he cares and wants to show people the differences between the Mormon Church and the Word of God.
I think you misinterpreted what laurettifan was asking. S/He was talking about the things that Christ DID (or was said to have done in the Gospels). His CHARACTER. His ACTIONS. Whether He actually existed, or was the Son of God or Messiah or not, fairy tale or not, He is still a very good role model, and those who claim to be Christian should do more as He did, as I understand laurettifan's intent.
Careful Baptist, because "as you are now, so once was I." And, if you continue down this predatory path of reason, "as I am now, you shall become." If it is the meek who inherit the earth, then "abandon all hope..." Mormons are easy prey to logic, reason, and philosophies of man. If you are man of faith, you'd do well to "Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!", for "If you stare into the Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back into you."
If The Bible is the word of God and the word "Bible" means word, and John 1:1-2 NKJV is accurate, making God the word also, and if the capital H of He in verse 2 refers to God, then...I'm paraphrasing here, isn't it also true that, "The Word(B) is The Word(w) of The Word(G), and in the beginning was The Word(G) and The Word(G) was with The Word(G), and The Word(G) was The Word(G). The Word(G) was with The Word(G) in the beginning." Stop preaching division. Come together, right now, over me.
I want everyone here to bear witness that Street Preacher James Layman aka "revivalisneeded" engaged me in a debate on one of his own videos (v=AXR1PAnKyt8). I pointed out his lies, he called me a coward for refusing to break a promise I made to God, and then when I had him on the ropes, he blocked me without telling others on the thread that he was doing so, giving the false impression that I had given up.
And the funnier thing was, we told them that we don't believe in the rule of no sex before marriage and one of them (the hottest one there, a tall, blue-eyed cutie from California) who was also at least 25, said that he was still a virgin and we all burst out laughing. I'm sorry, he had to have been lying.
LMFAO okay this is sort of random, but one time, these Mormons came up to my friends and I, trying to sell us their book. During so, they asked for our numbers so they could call us and preach to us, so my friend gave them a wrong random number.
"Mormons believe that you have to repent and be baptized and live a life of good works."
Why yes, yes they do. So does Jesus:
"If ye love me, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS."
"Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into my kingdom, but he that DOETH THE WILL of my Father which is in heaven."
See also the Parable of the Two Houses (wise man / rock vs. foolish man / sand) and what Jesus Himself said that those two men, the builders of the houses, actually represented.
See also Matthew 25:31-46 — an entire paragraph in the Koine Greek of the Textus Receptus, and so NOT taken out-of-context. Verse 46 is the last verse of Chapter 25.
In this passage, Jesus Himself (red text in a Red Letter Edition) describes IN DETAIL the FINAL "Great White Throne" JUDGMENT, and says EXACTLY who WILL, and who will NOT, be SAVED, and *WHY* in both cases. And He says NOT ONE WORD about accepting Him as Personal Savior.
Read what He DOES say. Your very salvation DEPENDS on it.
Jesus didn't say that you had to live a life of good works to be saved. Your works will not get you to heaven. Ephesians 2:8 explains it clearly. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God". That is clear. Not works.
If you take the words of Paul to be more important than those of Jesus CHRIST, then, BY DEFINITION, you are NOT a CHRISTian. You're a PAULian.
I challenge you to show me an unequivocal statement of salvation by grace alone, with works having no part, that is the DIRECT WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST. NOT PAUL. Not anyone else. JESUS. CHRIST.
RED TEXT in a "Red-Letter Edition." Black text need not apply.
Again, I STRONGLY recommend you read Matthew 25:31-46. That is NOT out-of-context.
So, do you only use the red letter? What about when Jesus quotes the Old Testament? Or when He says they have read the Scriptures? You don't use any black text at all?
No, I asked YOU to show me where JESUS says that salvation is by grace alone. The red-letter thing is just so that you can tell the difference between the words of Jesus and the words of somebody else, since the last time I asked you this you quoted Paul instead.
That is the challenge. Answer it if you can, or admit that you cannot, and either way I will then answer your challenge about the "different Jesus." But I asked mine first, so you have to answer it (or concede defeat on it) first.
John 3:18 is pretty clear on that. Believe or not believe. Eternal life or not. John 5:24. Not works, believe and you have everlasting life. Mark 1:15, repent and believe the Gospel. In the Bible the works coma after you are saved to show that "if you love me, keep my commandments." I also believe the Bible where it says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Timothy 3:16). All not just the red letter. And I believe II Peter 1:21.
John 3:16-18 is not the words of Christ, but of the writer, namely, John.
Did you HONESTLY think that I was unaware of John 3:16 and its followup verses? REALLY!? That's EASILY the most famous passage in the N.T. in terms of both reference and content!
The Greek word "believe" translated therein carries a much stronger connotation than the English word "believe." It mean to trust in, rely on, FOLLOW, and OBEY, not merely believe. "The devils also believe, and tremble. Does that save them?"
John 5:24 is indeed Jesus, but same caveat re: "believe." See also a mere 5 verses later, verses 28-29: "...they that have DONE GOOD unto the resurrection of life, and they that have DONE EVIL unto the resurrection of damnation." This is part of the VERY SAME DISCOURSE of Jesus to the Jewish leaders (who condemned Him for healing a man on the Sabbath and stating that God was His Father) as your verse 24!
Mark 1:15 says to believe the GOSPEL. What IS the Gospel? It also says to REPENT.
But repentance is not works! Your problem is you do not believe in the inspired Word of God. Sure you use the King James but only as far as it is translated correctly. And guess who gets to translate it...you guys. You can't just take the Bible alone and get your Mormon doctrine. And the Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection as recorded in 1 Cor. 15:1-3. Yes, it says "repent ye and believe the Gospel".
No, the LDS don't translate the Bible. Joseph Smith STARTED a translation, but never finished it. The LDS use the KJV, and they use it just as you have it.
The LDS do NOT believe that the KJV nor any other Bible version AS WE HAVE IT TODAY is complete, nor the TOTALITY of the word of God.
Why would an INFINITE God have only FINITE word?
The Bible itself mentions WELL OVER a DOZEN books BY NAME in about TWO dozen mentions (some more than once) as PART of itself, but are NOT in today's Bibles.
Example: in "I" Ephesians (full title: "The `FIRST' Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the EPHESIANS"), Chapter 5, verse 9, we read:
"I [Paul] wrote [PAST TENSE!!] unto you [the Corinthians] IN AN EPISTLE [WHAT!? Before THIS one!? But THIS is the *FIRST* Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, isn't it? ISN'T IT!?!?] not to company with fornicators."
Now, granted, Paul went on to say that what he said previously was easily misunderstood, so he was clarifying it now.
Yes, sorry about saying "Ephesians" instead of "Corinthians" in the first paragraph. It was late, and another such example IS from Ephesians ("as I wrote afore in a few words").
A much better example is Colossians 4:16, though. Paul HIMSELF places this Epistle to the Laodiceans on an ABSOLUTELY EQUAL FOOTING with the Epistle to the Colossians, yet implies that it has something important in it NOT found in Colossians (or else he wouldn't've insisted that they read it).
But, I guess those Third Century Catholic Councils that assembled the New Testament Canon knew BETTER than PAUL HIMSELF did which of HIS OWN EPISTLES was inspired, important, and unique enough to be considered scripture, huh?
Of course I don't use the KJV the same way you do. You and other KJVonlyists, especially the Ruckmanites, elevate the KJV to the status of a New Revelation, just like what the LDS do wiht the Book of Mormon. Ruckmanites place the KJV ABOVE the Greek and Hebrew original documents!
The Bible CONTAINS the words of God, but is NOT *THE* Word (capital W) of God. Saying so is BLASPHEMY and IDOLATRY. John Chapter 1 makes it clear that JESUS is The Word. NO mere BOOK is.
The Bible specifically warns against those who "worship the creature more than the Creator."
God is the Creator of the scriptures. The scriptures (Bible and any others that may or may not exist) are His creations, or creatures, just as everything else that exists is.
To place the KJV or any other book on that lofty a pedestal, as the SOLE SOURCE of ALL truth, is to place the creature ABOVE the CREATOR, which is EXPRESSLY forbidden.
I can show you specific contradictions found ONLY in the KJV, in which the KJV contradicts ITSELF — problems NOT FOUND in most other Bible versions.
I can show you where the writers of the Gospels and other New Testament Bible books AS FOUND IN THE KJV use Old Testament source books OTHER THAN the ones used in the KJV Old Testament (notably, Luke definitively quotes from the Septuagint aka LXX in his genealogy of Jesus in Chapter 3, while the KJV uses the Masoretic Text).
Okay, just this once, your KJV-specific contradiction for the day:
II Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was 22 when he became King. II Chronicles 21:2 says that he was 42, but ONLY in the KJV (and a very few others). Most say that he was 22 in both passages.
PLEASE say that it was because his daddy Jehoram gave him a "practice reign" 20 years previously or that his mother Athaliah did a coup earlier or some such stock "explanation" from a KJV-Onlyist apologist!
That is in context to a brother ignorant one. Keep revealing your ignorance. You are no brother, but a hell-bound idolater with a false gospel that is sending you to hell.
No, it's not. Saying to one's brother "Raca" is, but not "thou fool." He said that "WHOSOEVER SHALL SAY, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Note that He did NOT specify "to his brother" for THAT.
Are you adding words to scriptures in violation of Revelation 22:18, the very same passage you guys use so often against the LDS?
That's practically the dictionary definition of "hypocrisy." Jesus wasn't exactly fond of that, IIRC.
I live 30 min. from Detroit in a small city . Now If I meet people that are not familiar with Michigan, I will tell them that I live in the Detroit area. So when the BOM says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem, wouldn't you say that Bethlehem, being about 6 miles away, is in the same area or land?
sumactrail5219 2 years ago
You started to make some good points but you did not develop them well enough. It takes more than 7 minutes to refute something like this. If you showed this to the mormons you would probably get buried. I suggest making more than one video on this and more study on the religion itself, I really don't think you know enough about it to argue against it. It's important we know and understand subjects well before speaking on them.
JDavid0334 2 years ago 2
I probably know more about the mormon religion than most mormons. I have witnessed to tons of mormons, including many missionaries in my house. I have had missionaries in tears questioning their religion. I made this brief and to the point. Of course a mormon wont agree with it, and even if you had a two hour long video they still wont even spend time watching five mins of it.
1611baptist 2 years ago
If you have an abundance of knowledge on the Mormon religion you sure do not give that impression in this video you made. My point is if your going to state facts you need to back them up somehow(list verse references, site links, anything!) don't assume some of us have not spoken to mormons also. The younger ones can be more inclined to listen but the ones who are more mature and know their stuff are not so easy to convince. If you take offense at this I am sorry for that. God bless!
JDavid0334 2 years ago
LAME video - copycat anti-mormon arguments already been answered time and time again.
Let me see...God's word (The Bible)contradicts the Book of Mormon?
Can't because God cannot contradict himself - BECAUSE the BOOK OF MORMON is his word...read 2 Nephi 33 (The WHOLE chapter).
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. If you want to ask me any questions feel free to ask - right here - anytime, but be prepared to answer my questions regarding apostate christianity.
imtherealthing 2 years ago
You've convinced me. I'm converting to Mormonism.
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago
:) Entertaining. But tired and boring arguments found on all your run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon websites.
Broaden your horizons.
I am always amused by Baptists like yourself who spend so much time and effort criticizing members and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Baptists continue to flock to Mormonism in droves so it is understandable that such an aggressive tone would be taken.
Check out:
fairlds . org
Every single one of your arguments have been refuted.
DefendingMormonism 3 years ago
You never mentioned one contradiction in the book of mormon and the Bible. the only one you could find was in a place it refers to bethlehem as jerusalem (and is true, bethlehem is part of the greater city of jerusalem).
bclarke3 3 years ago
are you saying jesus was never a man? what the heck
nzrayallen 3 years ago
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2KI 2:11)
"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (JOH 3:13)
I have a whole list written down from study. If you want more, I'll dig them up and your comments will be flooded.
arcticsoft 3 years ago
Thanks you for judging and saying I am not a Christian. I believe in the Christ that was hung on a cross and died for me. I know that through Jesus Christ my sins can be forgiven. You have no right or authority to decide who is a Christian and who is not. Most fanatical "Christians" spend there time telling others how wrong they are without looking in a mirror.
arcticsoft 3 years ago
Please don't change the subject. You said, "My KJV is perfect and preserved by God. And you will find no mistakes in it." yet there are many contradictions in it. Why?? Plus don't say things without reference. Your like Faux news, say it for the drama, but only take a small clip of what was accually said.
arcticsoft 3 years ago
Knew nothing of either cities. PLEASE for the last time read and learn before spouting. The first chapters of the Book of Mormon tell of the indians ancestors leaving Jerusalem. So they had a good idea about it. So in that logic, your agument does not work. But I'm not here to argue just clear up ideas about my religion that others that call themselves "Christian" decide they need to call others out on. Read the Bible and see how Christ taught, then see what you are doing.
arcticsoft 3 years ago
Why do LDS ignore verses such as....
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal 1:6-8
johnyjamie 3 years ago
Why are you so convinced that it's a refrence to the Mormons, how come you so readily assume that its not a refrence to yourself?
bclarke3 3 years ago
Paul wrote Galatians to attack against the gospel of works & legalism and defend the true gospel of faith.
Mormons are known to have a system of faith plus works & legalism in place (10% tithe, baptism, word of wisdom, etc.)
LDS are under the curse of the law. Gal 3:10
When under legalism, Christ profits you nothing. Gal 5:2
The true gospel of Christ that Christians adhere to has been around for almost 2000 years.
Joseph Smith's perverted gospel has been around for less than 200 years.
johnyjamie 3 years ago
"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:51-53
Your condition is that of verse 54 - notice the mention of "ANGELS" in this too?
imtherealthing 2 years ago
There are different types of prophecy. Revelatory prophecy from God's messengers was until the time of John the Baptist marking the end of the OT era. See Matt 11:13, Luke 16:16, Heb 1:1-2.
The verse you gave me was speaking of the time when Jesus' apostles were alive. If someone were to speak in the name of the Lord today, it had better be in line with what the Bible says. Isa 8:20.
johnyjamie 2 years ago
johnyjamie
DO NOT think YOU can tell the LORD when HE can give revelation - WHO are YOU to be so arrogant to know the MIND of the LORD?
Do you realize that you put so much emphasis on the Bible as the jews of old did with the OT that it BLINDED them to NEW revelation - the NT.
Like them you REJECT the LORD'S servants the Prophets and more revelation.
Who are YOU to COUNSEL the LORD?
imtherealthing 2 years ago
The Lord tells us who he is in the Word. Mormons make God in the likeness of corruptible man. The Lord has told us in the Bible when prophets spoke. Read the verses I gave you again. To trust in the Lord is to also trust His Word, the Bible, not a book such as the BoM, PGP, or D&C which have absolutely nothing to substatiate them as God's word. The Bible is there for our protection against deception. It tells us how to test spirits, prophets, doctrine, gospels, and Christs.
johnyjamie 2 years ago
johnyjamie's quote: "The Lord tells us who he is in the Word."
My reply: First, obviously you don't read the scriptures in context. Second, you don't address my comments I posted earlier - why?
Now I find this first part of your comment funny - why?
The Lord DOES tell us who he is - how?...it was by those very PROPHETS and APOSTLES... you keep rejecting...but you hold tenaciously to a book of papers(like an idol) which you worship as GOd himself.
Think like an early christian
imtherealthing 2 years ago
johnyjamie's quote: "The Lord has told us in the Bible when prophets spoke."
My reply: Who said that the LORD told us he would NO LONGER speak to us by prophets...don't mis-quote that scripture out of context...it was only for that time when Christ was on the EARTH that he was the one GiVING those words we needed - THINK man..THINK...does that not include the VERY scripture it is qyoted in? I mean it was given/written AFTER Christ was GONE by an APOSTLE and MORE words were given via them.
imtherealthing 2 years ago
THINK...use that mind the LORD gave you man and THINK...what about ALL the books of the NEW TESTAMENT - Christ did not write them - who did? the Prophets and paostles that's who..when?---WAY after those words you are claiming to say that there would be NO MORE porphets afdter him...you are a PRODUCT of protestant theology which is HUGELY influenced by FALSE doctrines - Satan has FOOLED you into thinking no more revelation...even though the scriptures talk about prophets in the last days.
imtherealthing 2 years ago
See Matt 11:13, Luke 16:16, Heb 1:1-2.
God gave you His answer. Now trust Him. I have to sign off now. Peace.
johnyjamie 2 years ago
johnyjamie's quote: "To trust in the Lord is to also trust His Word, the Bible, not a book such as the BoM, PGP, or D&C which have absolutely nothing to substatiate them as God's word."
My reply: How did you get your scriptures? it was believing in the words of those very prophets and apostles - how do you know they are from God?...how do you know that those prophets were from God? I will tell you I know the same way I know that the prophets and apostles today are - through the Spirit.
imtherealthing 2 years ago
Matt 11:13
Here it talks about how all the prophets including John had prophesied Jesus coming (they all taught about his coming)...keep it in context.
no exclusion of further prophets...as we know there will be tow dead prophets in the streets (Rev. 11:18)..guess those are false prophets then huh?
imtherealthing 2 years ago
Luke 16:16
"The law and the prophets"—referring to Old Testament Scriptures—were preached until John the Baptist began his special ministry. After John's mission was over, Jesus began proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom of God.
Keep it in context again...this just means that the OLD testament (an those prophets) all declared his coming - this does not exclude any future prophets as evidenced by the many that came later...THINK man... stop thinking like a protestant.
imtherealthing 2 years ago
Heb 1:1-2.
This was the scripture I was talking about...do what the Saviour asked..."he who hath ears to hear...hear...and HEARTS (yes that burning in the bossom you all make fun of us for).
Matt. 13: 15 For this peoples heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
imtherealthing 2 years ago
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in TIME PAST unto the fathers by the prophets.
johnyjamie 2 years ago
johnyjamie's quote: "To trust in the Lord is to also trust His Word, the Bible, not a book such as the BoM, PGP, or D&C which have absolutely nothing to substatiate them as God's word."
My reply: To trust in the Lord is to trust in his servants he sends...because believe it or not...that is how you got your BIBLE...did they just appear out of nowhere?...um...I'm guessing not...so how then did you get them?..um...through prophets and apostles...so how do you know they were true men of God?
imtherealthing 2 years ago
One CANNOt use the bible to define itself..it was NEVER written with that intent...they are a collection of letters and testimonies.
If one argues that one needs the bible and ONLY the bible then you make a poor argument as the christians DID NOT have the bible for the first 2 almost 3 centuries - so where they then NOT Christians? You are a PRODUCT of Martin Luthers "solo scriptura" garbage that came WAY later.
So how was the church run? - by prophets and apostles - that's how.
imtherealthing 2 years ago
Looking at your profile here I read almost word for word EVERYTHING that Martin Luther brought into apostate christianity...NONE of that EXISTED prior to him. As I mentioned - the EARLY Christians believed and PRACTICED both FAITH and WORKS (i.e. a bad tree cannot bring forth fruits..meaning...one does /acts/keeps the commandments, etc) not just a believe in Jesus for even the devils believe and it does not save them.
imtherealthing 2 years ago
We saw that christianity was not based on the "Bible" but on following the church's leaders counsel via letters that they admonished them to KEEP the COMMANDMENTS - they were NOTexorted to just believe...but to keep from sinning.
Think on this:
John 14:15
"If ye love me, keep my commandments."
now...if "JESUS" meant for just believing in him was critical for salvation - then he should have said it this way:
"If ye love me, believe in me"
Sorry ...he didn't plain and simple
imtherealthing 2 years ago
OK. I listened for about 45 second before stopping this. Please think for yourself before spouting thing you know nothing about. For one, the whole Jerusalem and Bethlehem thing. If I was in France talking to someone and told them I was born in Parker, they would have no idea where that was. Now if I said Denver they might have a better idea. But if I was in Colorado I could say Parker because people know where it is in the local area. Get it?
arcticsoft 3 years ago
Also in one of your comments you said, "My KJV is perfect and preserved by God. And you will find no mistakes in it.". Please learn your bible before saying things like this. If you did a simple search you would find many contradictions in the Bible because of language translations over 2 thousand years. Also I am a Mormon and wont post videos telling people they are wrong and stupid, not very Christlike, right?
arcticsoft 3 years ago
WELL TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHICH ONE DO I BELIEVE. The KJV has NOT changed its wording to fit into this feel good religion that is sweeping our nation, the NIV, NKJV, BOM. All are wrong because they take things out because they don't "fit". Why fi something that never was broken in the begin with! But then whats Revelation 22:19 then? HELLO PEOPLE WAKE UP! Also the morman religion was founded by a Warlock so that is a red flag for me! As it should be for you, if you dont want hell! DUH!!
Gus0089 3 years ago
p.s. I'm bored with your pee-sized brain and intellect. all you want to do is quote from some silly book that you claim to be from god but can't prove. Take care. Good luck getting all of us poor, unhappy sinners into the fold.
cicampbe 3 years ago
Again, what you are saying is circular.
There are lots of books that claim to be the word of god. How is your stupid little bible any different? I don't need to prove anything because I'm not going around telling people that they are going to hell. You are. You christians are all alike, telling others they are going to hell "because the bible says so." So what. It's fiction. Until you can prove otherwise, do us all a favor and mind your own damned business.
cicampbe 3 years ago
Mormons have faith that their religion is God's religion. Mulsim's have faith that their religion is God's religion. Budhists have faith that their religion is God's religion. And so on and so on. Well, you and I agree on one thing. The BOM is fiction. Guess what, so is the bible. Get off your high horse. At least the Mormons are more educated and open-minded than you.
cicampbe 3 years ago
Dude, come on now. That's a ridiculous circular argument. You can't say the bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god. The BOM says it is the word of god too. Does that make it so? No. How is the bible any different?
cicampbe 3 years ago
what?? You aren't making any sense. I agree, the BOM does contradict the bible in many places. However, you didn't answer my question. What makes the Bible the word of god??
cicampbe 3 years ago
So what if the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. You are making a very large assumption here - that the Bible is the Word of God. How do you know the Bible is the "Word of God"?
cicampbe 3 years ago
maybe do u think if something form the bible is in the book of mormon is to remind us that thing because its important....
2t3 3 years ago
ignorant, completely ignorant.....sad
keltontrey 3 years ago
No, not ignorant. The Bible is right and the Mormon Church is accursed because they teach false doctrine. Are you Mormon?
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
please read gal 1:7-9
marcoinacio1 3 years ago
Marcoinacio1, was that meant to be a Reply to me? You didn't post it as such.
Yes, I know what that passage says. The question is, whose version of the Gospel is the same as what they received back then, and who is teaching another Gospel?
Yes, an angel (Moroni) was involved in the LDS origins. But the Galatians passage doesn't say that ANY Gospel brought by an angel from heaven MUST be false (and said angel accursed) — only if it is ANOTHER Gospel.
See Revelation 14:6.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Your fairy tale is just as stupid as everyone else's fairy tale. Every Mormon I have ever met has been genuinely kind and has tried to help people. Have you done anything to help anybody? Instead of spending your time bickering about scriptural interpretations that are not relevant to today, why don't spend some time studying the first four books of the New Testament and just focus on the Christ character.
laurettifan 3 years ago
Secondly, the Bible says Noah built an ark and preserved every different species while he covered the Earth with a flood. However, modern science tells us that there is no evidence to suggest that this global flood ever occurred. Also, if this were true, did Noah fill the ark with Tyrannosaurus and Terradactyls? Because if Noah supposedly built this ark before the ice age ever occurred he would have had to have done so. Here's my point to all this...
laurettifan 3 years ago
Did you know that science is actually now claiming several catastrophic events like floods to explain the fossils? They won't accept the Bible, but they have to make something up to account for the evidence for a global flood. And, yes, Noah took dinosaurs on the ark. Most dinosaurs were only the size of sheep. Some were bigger, but all he had to do was take babies. All together, he had about 16,000 animals max. They would have taken up about 1/3 of the the ark.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
The Bible claims the Earth was made by God in Seven days which I have heard some religious morons like yourself say those days were equivalent to a thousand years, which would make it seven thousand years old before man appeared. I will assume that is correct and say that Modern science says that the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old. I thought the Bible was perfect so why would there be an error in the numerical calculations here?
laurettifan 3 years ago
God created in 6 literal 24 hour days. There are no errors in the Bible. When you look at the evidence, it actually confirms the Bible. Problem is, most people assume evolution is true and look at the facts with that mindset. However, evolution cannot account for many things-how did life get here? Where did the matter and information come from? Why do we still see comets, if the earth is billions of years old? Why are there no transitional fossils? Just a few problems with the evolution theory.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
KJVTruth, six literal 24-hour days? So, the word "day" in Genesis Chapter 1 means a literal 24-hour period, does it?
Does the SAME HEBREW WORD translated as "day" ALSO mean a literal 24-hour period in Genesis Chapters 2 and 3? If not, why not?
Think carefully before you answer.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
To which verse are you referring? When qualified by a number (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), or the word evening or morning (or both) it is always a 24 hour day.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
"To which verse are you referring? When qualified by a number (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), or the word evening or morning (or both) it is always a 24 hour day."
I was referring to the only places in Genesis Chapter 2 that mention the word "day."
Since you just said that it's ALWAYS a 24-hour day, then God must be a liar, because He told Adam re: the Tree and its Fruit of Knowledge, "For in the *DAY that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt SURELY DIE." Adam lived nearly a millennium afterwards.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Actually, Adam did die spiritually, that is what God meant. He also began to die physically that day.
However, you must not have realized what I said. I said when it is qualified by a number or the term evening and morning, it is always a 24 hour day. I know there are places where it is not a 24 hour day, but rather a period of time. You quoted me right, and then misquoted me. I guess mormons are so used to twisting and perverting things you just do it naturally.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
Nope. The Hebrew word translated "die" there meant PHYSICAL death and physical death ALONE. The Old Testament doesn't even have the CONCEPT of spiritual death until much, much later.
As for the misinterpretation, I had to re-read to see what you meant. I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
So, you pick and choose which "day" is 24 hours, based on qualifiers?
How could there even be "days" as such before the SUN was created, since "day" is *DEFINED* BASED ON THE SUN!?
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
God did NOT tell Adam, "For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely BEGIN to die," nor did He say, "... THY SPIRIT shalt surely die."
Better read Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18 again, since you guys love to use those against the LDS so much.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Just like everything else, you read the context to see what the word means. Many words have more than one meaning, and the context tells us what the meaning is. It is very simple.
GOD defined a day by giving us the sun, so He could tell us how long a day was even before He created the sun! Your argument really makes no sense when you are talking about the all-powerful God who made everything (including our way of measuring days, years, etc). Your problem is you just don't believe the Bible.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
Yeah, but this isn't just a word, but whole phrases and sentences that are their own context.
Please explain how "EVEN AS WE ARE ONE." and "Let them all be on IN US, AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE" mean anything other than what they plainly say.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
KJVtruth: "However, evolution cannot account for many things-how did life get here?"
You're right. Evolution does not account for that — because THAT'S *NOT* WHAT IT'S ABOUT! Each scientific theory is about ONE thing, and Darwinism / Neo-Darwinism are about HOW SPECIES EVOLVE, *NOT* about how life STARTED. Darwin's book was titled, "On the Origin of THE SPECIES," NOT "On the Origin of LIFE."
The origin of life from non-life theory is called ABIOGENESIS, NOT evolution. Different theory.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
"Where did the matter and information come from?"
Again, not evolution. The Big Bang Theory is from a completely different field of science altogether: COSMOLOGY, NOT BIOLOGY.
"Why do we still see comets, if the earth is billions of years old?"
Again, completely different field of study: ASTRONOMY. But, this one has an easy answer anyway: Google "Oort Cloud."
"Why are there no transitional fossils?" FINALLY an actual EVOLUTION question! Answer: EVERY fossil is transitional.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Time for another analogy: imagine that you are a mathematician, and I'm someone who has no math training but still insists, for religions or whatever reasons, that everything math people thing is wrong.
My insistence is that there are no numbers that have more than one digit to the right of the decimal point. I believe that there are GAPS in the NUMBER LINE.
I challenge you, Mr. Mathematician, to show me a number BETWEEN, say, 2.5 and 2.6. I say that there are NO SUCH NUMBERS.
Prove me wrong.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
I just saw that you did answer the questions (sort of). The Oort cloud has never been proven; therefore it is not a scientific fact. It is just another theory that people came up with to support their axiom, so they did not have to accept the Bible and God's authority.
No, actually all fossils are not transitional. Where are all the supposed transitional species between the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods?
KJVTruth 3 years ago
The Oort Cloud is the valid answer to your question about comets (not all comets are believed to come from there — only the really fast ones).
It's quite obvious that comets vary considerably in age (or, at least, in damage from passing near the sun). Some are still big and bright (e.g. Hale-Bopp). Some are so small and dim now that the main visual benefit we get from them each year is a meteor shower (Temple-Tuttle).
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
There is no evidence for the Oort cloud. It is, like I said before, simply a speculation that was made to rescue the theory of the earth and universe being billions of years old. (Which it doesn't even do, as it is just a theory that has never been proven.)
KJVTruth 3 years ago
Sure there is evidence for it: fast comets coming moving way too fast to be coming from the inner clouds.
It is FAR from the only hypothesis that supports the age of the universe being billions of years old. And it was NOT formed in response to Creationists pointing to comets as "evidence" for a "young" universe, and so is not to "rescue" ANYthing.
How about you answer the question I asked yesterday? Do you REALLY BELIEVE Genesis 9:8-17 LITERALLY? "Let your answer be yea, yea, or nay, nay."
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Oh, and if you don't like the Oort Cloud, try Kuiper Belt. That one is NOT speculative, and we HAVE DIRECTLY OBSERVED it.
Same basic principle: bodies in the Kuiper Belt can be dislodged from their orbits and, if they head inward, become comets. In the case of the Kuiper Belt, we have the specific fact that Neptune crosses its path, and is thus a significant cause of such disruptions.
So, the existence of non-aged comets doesn't contradict an old solar system, let alone universe.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
I realize that evolution is not necessarily about how life started, but most people who believe in evolution do not believe that God created (although there are some who think He used evolution, etc.). I was simply listing a few of the many problems with the evolution and big bang theories. Which you didn't give any answers for, by the way. Of course, as a mormon, you are not born again anyways, even if you don't believe that God created the heaven and earth.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
Typo there, I meant even if you do believe God created.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
"Of course, as a mormon, you are not born again anyways, even if you don't believe that God created the heaven and earth."
As I said before, I was born again as a youth at a Billy Graham convention long before I became LDS. If you believe in Once Saved, Always Saved, then even by YOUR definition, I'm saved. Gone astray, perhaps, but still saved.
Now, maybe you don't believe in Once Saved, Always Saved. If so, good. Neither do I.
And I DO believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
If you were born-again, you would not be mormon. Mormons do not believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, or salvation by grace (and many other biblical doctrines).
And yes, I do believe once saved, always saved. It is biblical. However, the question is, did someone really get saved? In your case, obviously not.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
Yes, I was saved, whether you believe it or not. And yes, the LDS do believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Does the Jesus of the LDS differ from that of mainstream Christianity? Yes, but OURS is the Jesus of the Bible.
The Bible does NOT mention the word "Trinity" in ANY form nor variant. Only one verse flatly states a doctrine like the Trinity, and it's I John 5:8. It rests on the definition of "one" as used by John.
Now read John 17 (the WHOLE CHAPTER) and note his use of "one" therein.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Mormons believe: 1.Jesus was married, 2.Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, 3.Jesus is not God. No Bible to back these beliefs up. Jesus is God, was not married, and was not Lucifer's brother.
Read John 1:1 and 14, John 10:30, 1 John 5:7, Zech. 12:10 and John 19:37.
And Ex. 3:14 with John 8:58. I AM is a name reserved for God alone.
And for the Trinity, it is actually 1 John 5:7-these three are ONE (not one in purpose, ONE). The doctrine is there even though the word is not.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
1. We don't say for sure whether Jesus was married.
2. Jesus and Lucifer are both spirit children of God the Father, so yes, they are brothers in that sense. (At least we use the KJV and not the NIV that says that Jesus *IS* Lucifer!)
3. We DO believe that Jesus is God. God the Son, the Creator of the entire physical Universe and everything in it, the Savior and Redeemer. He is YHWH "The LORD" God of Israel, the God of most of the Old Testament (wherever the KJV says "the LORD" in small caps).
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
As for I John 5:7 (sorry for the typo), did you read John 17 (the WHOLE CHAPTER) like I asked you to?
REPEATEDLY therein, Jesus asks God the Father (and how could He even PRAY to God the Father in the FIRST place if He IS the SAME PERSON as God the Father?) that first the Eleven Non-Son-of-Perdition Apostles, and then all who come to believe through their word, "may become one in us EVEN AS WE ARE ONE." "Even as THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, and I IN THEE." REPEATEDLY He says this.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
That is VERY plain: Jesus prays for the Apostles and ALL SAVED CHRISTIANS to become "one" IN THE EXACT SAME SENSE that He and His Father are one! That they would become "one IN US"!
To keep the Trinity in the face of that, you'd have to go WAY beyond the LDS belief that men can become gods. You'd have to believe that men can become GOD. *THE* GOD.
Hinduism's Nirvana is a similar belief, in which enlightened souls lose their identity and become one with the One God Brahman.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
I dare say that it would be news to most Christians that the Bible teaches something that similar to a Hindu-style Nirvana!
The only way it doesn't is if the Trinity doctrine is indeed a heretical falsehood as the LDS believe it to be.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
1. Orson Hyde stated about the wedding at Cana, "...no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion..."
2. Show me from the Bible that Jesus and Lucifer are both spirit children. It is not in there!
3. Mormons do NOT believe that Jesus Christ is God. They teach that He is "a God", the first born son of God the Father, whereas the Bible teaches He IS GOD.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
1. Orson Hyde was not a prophet. His opinion is his opinion.
2. Wanna disprove Mormonism? Find EVERY ONE of our teachings in the Bible. Unlike most any other Christian sect, if you could find ALL of our teachings in the Bible, that would DISprove Mormonism!
3. Yes, we do. YOU don't decide what WE believe. Jesus is God the Son, the Creator of the physical Universe. He is YHWH, Jehovah, the LORD God. We have ALWAYS taught this.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Just letting you know I am done debating with you, as you are denying what your church teaches. I guess you must be ashamed of it or something, since you won't admit they teach Jesus was married and that He is not God.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
No, I'm denying what YOU THINK my church teaches. There is a difference. Again: YOU don't decide what MY church teaches or what I believe. Neither do the anti-LDS books you've read.
Yes, many LDS, including people in authority, believe that Jesus was married, but that has never been actual OFFICIAL DOCTRINE of the Church.
And we have NEVER taught that Jesus is not God. We do teach that He is not God THE FATHER. He is God THE SON. But still God. The Creator. The LORD (YHWH) God of Israel.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
I must say, KJVTruth, you would've made a great Pharisee. They used that same tactic: make up some false teaching that sounds similar to an actual teaching of Jesus, and then condemn Him for denying that He taught it.
"He said He would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days!"
They were also big on believing that they already had all of the Scripture that God was ever going to reveal: "We HAVE Moses [Torah] and the Prophets [Tanach — the rest of the O.T.] — what do we need YOU for?"
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Oh, one last thing: so, if I don't outright admit that the whole intended goal of your debate with me is correct, then you take your ball and go home? I hope you don't think that you can declare victory that way. On the contrary — you just conceded defeat.
Your "debating" tactics are like changing just one little rule in, oh, say, basketball: if ANYone on EITHER team shoots the ball into EITHER basket, then YOUR team gets 2 points and the opponent gets none!?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Dinosaurs the size of sheep in Noah's ark? No errors in the Bible? You GOT to be kidding me, man!
laurettifan 3 years ago
Can you tell me of an error in the King James Bible? There are none, God's Word is pure (Prov. 30:5, 2 Tim. 3:16).
And yes, most dinosaurs were the size of sheep. Obviously, there were some larger ones, but many of them were actually smaller than most people realize. Dinosaurs seem more interesting if they are huge, so that is how the media portrays them. And, like I said, Noah only needed a total of about 16,000 animals that would have taken up about 1/3 of the ark.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
"Can you tell me of an error in the King James Bible?"
Why, yes, yes, I can.
II Kings 8:26: "Two and twenty [22] years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." -- all Bible versions agree here, though they may word it differently.
II Chronicles 22:2: "Forty and two [42] years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." -- ONLY the KJV (and a few other Masoretic Text-based Old Testament versions) say this. All others say 22, just like II Kings 8:26. Even modern KJVs specify 22 as a footnote!
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
I know, I know. The usual KJV Onlyist Stock Answers:
"His daddy King Jehoram gave him a PRACTICE REIGN 20 years earlier. That's what II Kings is referring to."
Or:
"His mommy Queen Athaliah instigated a COUP and put her son on the throne early briefly, and that's what II Kings is referring to."
Don't even bother trying to use those, because I can show that they don't work JUST from II CHRONICLES, without even having to refer to II Kings! II Chronicles contradicts ITSELF in the KJV!
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
For starters, the practice reign: II Chronicles 22:1 (just one verse before where it mentions his age) says that Ahaziah was the YOUNGEST son of King Jehoram. As alluded to there and in more detail in the previous chapter (21:16-17), the Arabians carried away (21) or slew (22 — another contradiction!) all his older brothers (these passages also disagree on his NAME!). This happened a mere two years before Jehoram died (hideously cursed by God, who hated Jehoram's guts — LITERALLY! 21:18-19).
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
So, all of Ahaziah's big brothers were still alive twenty years previously, when this alleged "practice reign" would've occurred.
But, youngest sons don't GET "practice reigns." Because youngest sons don't get to reign at all, unless all of the older brothers are rendered unavailable. At the time, there was no INKLING that that would happen.
The OLDEST son is the Marked/Crown Prince, the Heir Apparent to the Throne. Only HE would need a "practice reign." MAYBE the #2 son, just in case.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
But Ahaziah had LOTS of big brothers, since his daddy had multiple wives! At that time, NOBODY had ANY IDEA that ALL of them except Ahaziah (or was it Jehoahaz?) would be captured (or was it slain?)! So WHY would the YOUNGEST son out of, what, DOZENS!? be given a PRACTICE REIGN!?
But that's not the BIG problem, and it wouldn't hurt the "Queen Athaliah's Coup" hypothesis. But the BIG problem DOES destroy that AS WELL as the Practice Reign.
Read the next (and final) verse of Chapter 21.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
And not just that last verse of Chapter 21. This is stated TWICE, in verse 5 as well as 20!
King Jehoram was 32 ("Thirty and two") years old when he BEGIN to reign, and he reigned eight years (which ITSELF destroys ANY earlier 20-year-ago "practice reign" OR "coup" since Jehoram's WHOLE reign was less than ½ that time!) and then he died.
Do the math: 32 (age at ascension) + 8 (duration) = 40 (age at death).
A mere TWO VERSES LATER, his YOUNGEST SON takes the throne at age *42*!?
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
So, we have here THE MOST EVIL king of Judah, cursed by God Himself with THE most agonizing death in the Old Testament (arguably worse than the Crucifixion! That at least was over in hours, instead of TWO YEARS!).
And yet, God gives him a blessing that NOBODY ELSE got, one that puts even the VIRGIN BIRTH to shame for its sheer miraculousness, yet the Bible makes no mention of its miraculous nature?
His YOUNGEST SON was TWO YEARS **OLDER** THAN HIM!?
THAT's a NEAT TRICK, even for the BIBLE!!
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
I'm not talking to you, I am talking to laurettifan. If you hadn't noticed, I replied to laurettifan's comment, not yours.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
YouTube rarely indents Replies properly on the first comments page of a video (and often not the other pages either). Plus, lauriettifan wasn't even TALKING about KJV errancy, so why would I assume that? I was the only one who was recently.
Oh, so you're still playing that hilariously pathetic "I won't play chess with you any more because you REFUSE to do the Fool's Mate opening to allow me to checkmate you in two moves!" (or the debating equivalent thereof) game?
You're not fooling anybody.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
The only reason — the ONLY reason — that you refuse to debate me is because you CAN'T. Even your CLAIMED reason for not debating me is because I won't just up and HAND you victory on a silver platter.
So, YOU ASKED for a KJV error. I have plainly shown one. Can you refute it or not?
Oh, and unlike you, I'll accept responses even from the people I didn't specifically "reply to."
So, any OTHER KJV Onlies wanna take a shot at this? 1611baptist? KingsDaughter1611? RevivalIsNeeded? Anyone? ANYone?
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
No, I am done talking to you because you won't even admit to what your church teaches.
You are hell-bound unless you repent and get saved, which would mean leaving the mormon church.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
I am NOT going to "admit" to something that FLATLY ISN'T TRUE. That would make me a LIAR. Are you ACTUALLY trying to entice me to SIN? That's SATAN'S work!
The LDS has NEVER, *EVER* taught that Jesus is not God. Whoever told you that, wherever you read it, is WRONG.
Furthermore, your whole argument is trying to prove that we believe that. Therefore, by your requiring that I ADMIT it before you will even debate me is the same as requiring a chess player to checkmate his own king first.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
On your second paragraph: that's (A) your opinion, and (B) flatly contradictory to your claimed "once saved, always saved" position (which is itself flatly contradictory to the Bible). Many LDS are converts from mainstream Christianity, and many of those, including myself, were "saved" by accepting Jesus Christ as Personal Savior. In my case, it was under the hands of Billy Graham himself, in person.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
So we went to a Catholic church that gave us a bag of canned goods and some saltine crackers. However, unknowingly, our neighbor was a Mormon and contacted her church leaders who came to our aid with 300 dollars worth of groceries every month and they paid for all of my Father's prescriptions until his Medicaid kicked in. Yeah. You MIGHT be right about the BoM not being what Mormons seem to think it is but let me ask you a question...
laurettifan 3 years ago
You think you are one smug little asshole, don't you? I will tell you what I think. I think the Bible and the BoM are both fairy tales. Why? I won't get into that because it doesn't really matter. But I will say this. My father had cancer and passed away last Ocotber. He was sick for about two years. He couldn't work and he had no insurance. We pleaded to a number of Christian churches that tried to help us. There was not a single Christian Evangelical church that helped us in anyway....
laurettifan 3 years ago
You contradict yourself. You obviously don't believe in Christ. You say the Bible is a fairy tale and then say to study the first four books of the New Testament? That is sad about your Dad. Are you Mormon now?
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
Well, I've read the New Testament many times. I have tried reading the Old Testament and I really can't get pass Mosaic Law. It just seems like a bunch of bullshit. Anyway, everything I have read about Christ leads me to believe that he was never a part of that social institution. (church) His teachings transcended Mosaic Law and made them menaingless. Whether or not Christ existed his teachings are still pretty relevant and I like them for the most part.
laurettifan 3 years ago
See, the problem is that either Christ was true, everything He did and said and all that is in the Bible, or He was just a good teacher which in reality would make Him a liar as He said He was God. You can't just take some of His teachings and say the rest are no good. And if you are not saved, it will be hard to understand some things. It says "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... 1 Cor. 2:19. I am not trying to be mean here but an unsaved person will not understand.
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
True, when I read the New Testament I interpret things differently than you but what makes you think that your interpretation is more accurate than mine or anyone else's? I am not trying to be combative with you. I am trying to understand. So much of the Bible is shrouded in tradtitions that seem rather ridiculous and irrelevant to real life. The KJV of the Old Test is only a good read if you read with the intention of mastering the English Language. Other than that I don't see how a person
laurettifan 3 years ago
can benefit at all from reading it. The New Test is different when you read it and examine the teachings of Christ, which are not all that mysterious. Plus, I really don't see how believing that Christ is God is important. I mean, if JC was God and he wanted me to know that he was he would manifest his will for me so that I would have an inclination to believe. Its not that way though. Life is what it is and nature obeys its own law regardless of my will for myself. I accept that or I die.
laurettifan 3 years ago
Believing that Jesus Christ is God is very important. If He isn't God, then He has no power to save us. Jesus Christ is the only way to be forgiven of our sins, and the only way to Heaven (John 14:6). He said over and over that He was God. John 10:30, John 8:58, etc.
KJVTruth 3 years ago
I've heard it explained that being saved is "Accepting JC as Lord and Savior and asking him to remove my sins." But that's just talk and doesn't really mean anything. The standards the Bible expects people to live up to are unrealistic and make no sense. Many things that the Bible views as "sin" are unavoidable and they are things EVERYONE encounter. Being "saved" will not make us any less susceptible to death or keep us anymore free from the inclination to do what comes naturally to us.
laurettifan 3 years ago
To me, its very simple. Do what's right bc you FEEL/KNOW as though its right, not bc some text written 2,000 years ago tells you to blindly accept it. Even the most widely accepted theories are still theories. But these theories are used bc they work and that's all that matters. When I read the teachings of Christ it feels good and I accept them as being true bc they enrich the quality of my life when executed. What will change if I am saved?
laurettifan 3 years ago
The reason I say this is bc I see no relevance in being "saved" bc I don't see how it works. Christian people are just as screwed up as everyone else. They divorce/do drugs/have premarital sex, etc... So what makes your formula for success better than everyone else's?
laurettifan 3 years ago
It isn't my formula for success. God made you and you will stand before Him one day and you will be judged. It is not about what everyone else has done but what you have done with Jesus Christ. Some people mess up. I can't speak for them. But Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life and He died on a cross to pay for your sins. You have to look to Him and Him alone. Just because one apple is bad doesn't mean you don't eat anymore apples.
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
You say you accept the teachings of Christ but do you accept where He says you must be born again? It is a very important decision. You have the choice to reject Jesus Christ and then burn forever in an eternal Hell or you can choose to repent of your sins, and trust Him as your Lord and Saviour. But like I said, it is very serious because if you were to accept Him, He would change your life. Please think about it seriously. I can't stress it too much. Y
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
Well, being "born again" means changing your lifestyle. Anyone has the ability to do that regardless of what religion they are or God they worship. Even an athiest can wake up one day when are 40 years old and realize that their entire life as been lived gratifying vain and empty pleasures. After this a consciouss decision can be made to live a more selfless life rather than a self-centered one. I think people find that the this enevitably leads to a more happy life.
laurettifan 3 years ago
If that is not what you are talking about then I admit that I don't understand the concept of being "born again." From the way you describe it, it appears as though the term holds some kind of magical or mystical significance. I personally don't believe in things that are magical or mystical simply because they are usually ideas or concepts that foriegn to me in the reality I occupy. If I cant personally experience something then what is the point of believing in it? It is irrelevant.
laurettifan 3 years ago
It isn't mystical. It is spiritual. You could personally experience it if you would get saved. It would make your life so much better. Christ came to give us not only eternal life but life here more abundantly. He gives joy, peace, comfort, etc without all the sin of the world. It is a totally different life.
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
And realize that as an unsaved person you are not going to understand some things. Yes we will sin after we are saved but it is not going to be our lifestyle. The Holy Spirit lives inside a saved person and we are guided by the Bible. Being saved means that I can look death in the face and I might have some fear but God has taken away the sting of death, for a saved person, because they know where they are going after they die. What about you? What do you have to look forward to after death?
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
See, you say you do not fear death but from where Im looking it seems like your entire life revolves around your fear of death. You fear it so much that you hold your Bible so close to your heart and cry if someone attempts to disparage it in any form. KJVtruth is an example. COMAlite and KJV seem to be engaged in some sort of logical debate over the particulars of the established doctrines contained the OLd test of KJV. He has made some good points and when confronted he/she withdraws.
laurettifan 3 years ago
That is why Evangelical Christianity has never appealed to me. The proponents of Evangelical Christianism teach a philosophy that is sprung from fear and people are enticed to join it by appealing to their fears. Just like you tried to do with me when you asked me what I have to look forward to after death. Atleast Mormons seem to have it right. They practice their religion out of love and compassion. And to answer your question...
laurettifan 3 years ago
As for what I have to look forward to? I HONESTLY do not know. But I am not afraid of death because I have accepted the fact that I will die. I have reached a point where I can say that death now empowers me more than it drives me into isolation and fear. I came to that point when I finally realized that the most important thing I will ever know is that I know NOTHING because, by myself, I am nothing. I am only one member of the human race, a living system within a vast zoological garden.
laurettifan 3 years ago
What death now empowers me to do is to forget myself and be a more selfless person. Selflessness, afterall, was the primary attribute of JC. I am not this way because my fear of death leads me to be. I am this way because I see life for the horror that it really is and I am full of compassion for those that suffer and I am full of gratitude for the things I have.
laurettifan 3 years ago
Again, I don't mean to be combative. You seem like an intelligent and extremely nice person. I am sure you are doing the things you are doing bc you genuinely fear for the welfare of my eternal soul but don't fear for me. Because, if there is a God in heaven and this God will throw me in a firey lake of acid forever bc I was never "born again" then I don't realy care to involve myself with his dictatorship. My advice to you is to allow yourself to think freely and see where that takes you.
laurettifan 3 years ago
When I say "teachings" I mean the basic philosophies that come from Christ which are okay as far as I'm concerned. I really don't know what to believe beyond that and in truth I don't see how it much matters.
As far as Mormons go... No. I am not one but I've never encountered a Christian religion where the people were as genuinely caring as those involved in the Mormon church are. This guy is just a little asshole that has no idea what he's talking about.
laurettifan 3 years ago
It does matter. If you would only see that your eternal destiny lies in how you act on what the Bible teaches. Where you spend your eternity rests on whether you repent and believe the Gospel or you don't. You have to see that. Otherwise you will die in your sins and go to Hell. This person has put this video up because he cares and wants to show people the differences between the Mormon Church and the Word of God.
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
I think you misinterpreted what laurettifan was asking. S/He was talking about the things that Christ DID (or was said to have done in the Gospels). His CHARACTER. His ACTIONS. Whether He actually existed, or was the Son of God or Messiah or not, fairy tale or not, He is still a very good role model, and those who claim to be Christian should do more as He did, as I understand laurettifan's intent.
Do I have that right, laurettifan?
There would be no contradiction there.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Yes. That is correct.
laurettifan 3 years ago
Great Video, 5 Stars
openrebuker 3 years ago
Careful Baptist, because "as you are now, so once was I." And, if you continue down this predatory path of reason, "as I am now, you shall become." If it is the meek who inherit the earth, then "abandon all hope..." Mormons are easy prey to logic, reason, and philosophies of man. If you are man of faith, you'd do well to "Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!", for "If you stare into the Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back into you."
EternalXBlight 3 years ago
If The Bible is the word of God and the word "Bible" means word, and John 1:1-2 NKJV is accurate, making God the word also, and if the capital H of He in verse 2 refers to God, then...I'm paraphrasing here, isn't it also true that, "The Word(B) is The Word(w) of The Word(G), and in the beginning was The Word(G) and The Word(G) was with The Word(G), and The Word(G) was The Word(G). The Word(G) was with The Word(G) in the beginning." Stop preaching division. Come together, right now, over me.
EternalXBlight 3 years ago
who are you?
thelordiswatching 3 years ago
A man who thinks the confusion must stop. Men resort to the most heinous acts under the banners of Truth, Knowledge, God, Belief and Faith.
Why won't God heal amputees?
"See with your eyes, hear with your ears. Nothing in the world is hidden; what would you have me say?" ~Zen Master Tenkai
EternalXBlight 3 years ago
I want everyone here to bear witness that Street Preacher James Layman aka "revivalisneeded" engaged me in a debate on one of his own videos (v=AXR1PAnKyt8). I pointed out his lies, he called me a coward for refusing to break a promise I made to God, and then when I had him on the ropes, he blocked me without telling others on the thread that he was doing so, giving the false impression that I had given up.
Go to that video and see for yourselves.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
And the funnier thing was, we told them that we don't believe in the rule of no sex before marriage and one of them (the hottest one there, a tall, blue-eyed cutie from California) who was also at least 25, said that he was still a virgin and we all burst out laughing. I'm sorry, he had to have been lying.
Nattycat13 3 years ago
LMFAO okay this is sort of random, but one time, these Mormons came up to my friends and I, trying to sell us their book. During so, they asked for our numbers so they could call us and preach to us, so my friend gave them a wrong random number.
I say, TAKE THAT, MORMONS.
Nattycat13 3 years ago
"Mormons believe that you have to repent and be baptized and live a life of good works."
Why yes, yes they do. So does Jesus:
"If ye love me, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS."
"Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into my kingdom, but he that DOETH THE WILL of my Father which is in heaven."
See also the Parable of the Two Houses (wise man / rock vs. foolish man / sand) and what Jesus Himself said that those two men, the builders of the houses, actually represented.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
See also Matthew 25:31-46 — an entire paragraph in the Koine Greek of the Textus Receptus, and so NOT taken out-of-context. Verse 46 is the last verse of Chapter 25.
In this passage, Jesus Himself (red text in a Red Letter Edition) describes IN DETAIL the FINAL "Great White Throne" JUDGMENT, and says EXACTLY who WILL, and who will NOT, be SAVED, and *WHY* in both cases. And He says NOT ONE WORD about accepting Him as Personal Savior.
Read what He DOES say. Your very salvation DEPENDS on it.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Jesus didn't say that you had to live a life of good works to be saved. Your works will not get you to heaven. Ephesians 2:8 explains it clearly. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God". That is clear. Not works.
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
I said JESUS, *NOT* PAUL. PAUL wrote Ephesians (and Romans and Corinthians and all the other "saved by grace alone" passages you care to bring up).
JESUS said the opposite.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
If you take the words of Paul to be more important than those of Jesus CHRIST, then, BY DEFINITION, you are NOT a CHRISTian. You're a PAULian.
I challenge you to show me an unequivocal statement of salvation by grace alone, with works having no part, that is the DIRECT WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST. NOT PAUL. Not anyone else. JESUS. CHRIST.
RED TEXT in a "Red-Letter Edition." Black text need not apply.
Again, I STRONGLY recommend you read Matthew 25:31-46. That is NOT out-of-context.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
So, do you only use the red letter? What about when Jesus quotes the Old Testament? Or when He says they have read the Scriptures? You don't use any black text at all?
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
No, I asked YOU to show me where JESUS says that salvation is by grace alone. The red-letter thing is just so that you can tell the difference between the words of Jesus and the words of somebody else, since the last time I asked you this you quoted Paul instead.
That is the challenge. Answer it if you can, or admit that you cannot, and either way I will then answer your challenge about the "different Jesus." But I asked mine first, so you have to answer it (or concede defeat on it) first.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
John 3:18 is pretty clear on that. Believe or not believe. Eternal life or not. John 5:24. Not works, believe and you have everlasting life. Mark 1:15, repent and believe the Gospel. In the Bible the works coma after you are saved to show that "if you love me, keep my commandments." I also believe the Bible where it says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Timothy 3:16). All not just the red letter. And I believe II Peter 1:21.
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
John 3:16-18 is not the words of Christ, but of the writer, namely, John.
Did you HONESTLY think that I was unaware of John 3:16 and its followup verses? REALLY!? That's EASILY the most famous passage in the N.T. in terms of both reference and content!
The Greek word "believe" translated therein carries a much stronger connotation than the English word "believe." It mean to trust in, rely on, FOLLOW, and OBEY, not merely believe. "The devils also believe, and tremble. Does that save them?"
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
John 5:24 is indeed Jesus, but same caveat re: "believe." See also a mere 5 verses later, verses 28-29: "...they that have DONE GOOD unto the resurrection of life, and they that have DONE EVIL unto the resurrection of damnation." This is part of the VERY SAME DISCOURSE of Jesus to the Jewish leaders (who condemned Him for healing a man on the Sabbath and stating that God was His Father) as your verse 24!
Mark 1:15 says to believe the GOSPEL. What IS the Gospel? It also says to REPENT.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
But repentance is not works! Your problem is you do not believe in the inspired Word of God. Sure you use the King James but only as far as it is translated correctly. And guess who gets to translate it...you guys. You can't just take the Bible alone and get your Mormon doctrine. And the Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection as recorded in 1 Cor. 15:1-3. Yes, it says "repent ye and believe the Gospel".
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
No, the LDS don't translate the Bible. Joseph Smith STARTED a translation, but never finished it. The LDS use the KJV, and they use it just as you have it.
The LDS do NOT believe that the KJV nor any other Bible version AS WE HAVE IT TODAY is complete, nor the TOTALITY of the word of God.
Why would an INFINITE God have only FINITE word?
The Bible itself mentions WELL OVER a DOZEN books BY NAME in about TWO dozen mentions (some more than once) as PART of itself, but are NOT in today's Bibles.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Example: in "I" Ephesians (full title: "The `FIRST' Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the EPHESIANS"), Chapter 5, verse 9, we read:
"I [Paul] wrote [PAST TENSE!!] unto you [the Corinthians] IN AN EPISTLE [WHAT!? Before THIS one!? But THIS is the *FIRST* Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, isn't it? ISN'T IT!?!?] not to company with fornicators."
Now, granted, Paul went on to say that what he said previously was easily misunderstood, so he was clarifying it now.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Sorry, but you must mean Corinthians? Christ had put in the Bible what He wanted in it. It was preserved the way He wanted it. You are just wrong.
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
Yes, sorry about saying "Ephesians" instead of "Corinthians" in the first paragraph. It was late, and another such example IS from Ephesians ("as I wrote afore in a few words").
A much better example is Colossians 4:16, though. Paul HIMSELF places this Epistle to the Laodiceans on an ABSOLUTELY EQUAL FOOTING with the Epistle to the Colossians, yet implies that it has something important in it NOT found in Colossians (or else he wouldn't've insisted that they read it).
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
But, I guess those Third Century Catholic Councils that assembled the New Testament Canon knew BETTER than PAUL HIMSELF did which of HIS OWN EPISTLES was inspired, important, and unique enough to be considered scripture, huh?
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
That's o.k.
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
You don't use the KJV as I do or you wouldn't be a Mormon. The Bible is the preserved Word of God whether you say it is or not!
KingsDaughter1611 3 years ago
Of course I don't use the KJV the same way you do. You and other KJVonlyists, especially the Ruckmanites, elevate the KJV to the status of a New Revelation, just like what the LDS do wiht the Book of Mormon. Ruckmanites place the KJV ABOVE the Greek and Hebrew original documents!
The Bible CONTAINS the words of God, but is NOT *THE* Word (capital W) of God. Saying so is BLASPHEMY and IDOLATRY. John Chapter 1 makes it clear that JESUS is The Word. NO mere BOOK is.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
The Bible specifically warns against those who "worship the creature more than the Creator."
God is the Creator of the scriptures. The scriptures (Bible and any others that may or may not exist) are His creations, or creatures, just as everything else that exists is.
To place the KJV or any other book on that lofty a pedestal, as the SOLE SOURCE of ALL truth, is to place the creature ABOVE the CREATOR, which is EXPRESSLY forbidden.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
I can show you specific contradictions found ONLY in the KJV, in which the KJV contradicts ITSELF — problems NOT FOUND in most other Bible versions.
I can show you where the writers of the Gospels and other New Testament Bible books AS FOUND IN THE KJV use Old Testament source books OTHER THAN the ones used in the KJV Old Testament (notably, Luke definitively quotes from the Septuagint aka LXX in his genealogy of Jesus in Chapter 3, while the KJV uses the Masoretic Text).
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
SHOW ME THEN FOOL! Show me the "contradictions."
revivalisneeded 3 years ago
Okay, just this once, your KJV-specific contradiction for the day:
II Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was 22 when he became King. II Chronicles 21:2 says that he was 42, but ONLY in the KJV (and a very few others). Most say that he was 22 in both passages.
PLEASE say that it was because his daddy Jehoram gave him a "practice reign" 20 years previously or that his mother Athaliah did a coup earlier or some such stock "explanation" from a KJV-Onlyist apologist!
PRETTY please!?
MAKE MY DAY!!!
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Oh, and regarding the specific insult that you called me when you asked for a contradiction:
Matthew 5:22.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
That is in context to a brother ignorant one. Keep revealing your ignorance. You are no brother, but a hell-bound idolater with a false gospel that is sending you to hell.
revivalisneeded 3 years ago
"That is in context to a brother ignorant one."
No, it's not. Saying to one's brother "Raca" is, but not "thou fool." He said that "WHOSOEVER SHALL SAY, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Note that He did NOT specify "to his brother" for THAT.
Are you adding words to scriptures in violation of Revelation 22:18, the very same passage you guys use so often against the LDS?
That's practically the dictionary definition of "hypocrisy." Jesus wasn't exactly fond of that, IIRC.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago