Here once again is another response to a non-sensical, illogical argument made by KJV onlyist that only the KJV got the translation right in Proverbs 30:28. "empirical evidence" ? What evidence is he talking about ? hmmmm…. Dealing with this kind of twisted logic is such a waste of time, but I won’t let this get away so that everybody may know how the KJV Only camp employs twisted kind of logic such as this just to prove something. Let this be a showcase of KJV Onlyisms sick logic. The argument of the above meme can be presented syllogistically as follows: Argument 1: Premise 1: There are 1 million spiders per acre of land on earth Premise 2: 100% of homes in North Carolina has spiders in them Conclusion : It is easy for Kings to have a lizard free palace, but not so for spiders as EVERYBODY HAS HOUSE SPIDERS. Not everybody has house lizards. Argument 2: Premise 1: Everybody has house spiders Premise 2: Not everybody has house lizards Conclusion: The King … [Read more...]
Response to KJV onlyist arguments on Proverbs 18:18
In my usual interaction with KJV onlyist online, I saw this (once again very annoying and misinformed) meme alleging that the New King James Version is a defective translation as opposed to the King James Version. The problem issue is actually with the Hebrew word “laham” (לָהַם)This Hebrew word could either mean to burn in, ranke – wound or could mean swallow greedily, swallowed, dainties, delicacies, choice morsels, dainty morsels. As in any word with multiple meanings, context is therefore the key to drawing out the right meaning of this word in this particular context. The verse says “Prov. 18:8 The words of a talebearer are like ___________, And they go down into the inmost body.” Now which would make sense ? Wounds going down into the inmost body or dainties, delicacies, choice morsels, dainty morsels ? Take note that whatever is likened to is likened to the “words of the talebearer.” Obviously, dainties, delicacies, choice morsels, dainty … [Read more...]
Why do protestants disagree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in the Lord’s supper ?
There are differing views among the various Christian denominations with regards to “Real Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. This is a controversial issue; so controversial that even Protestants among themselves have differing views, however none of the Protestants adopt the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation although Luther’s view while rejecting transubstantiation, is regarded as that closes to the Roman Catholic view among the Protestant views. For the sake of Protestants not familiar with the term, transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic doctrine that changes the substance or essence of the bread and wine offered during the mass. Roman Catholics believe that the bread is transformed into the body of Christ while the wine is transformed into His blood. As in other matters, Roman Catholicism goes beyond the bounds of Scriptures and holds on to transubstantiation. Why do the Protestants disagree with the Roman Catholic church’s position regarding … [Read more...]
Response to KJV onlyist arguments on Acts 8:37
Here’s another refuting the false logic and unscriptural position of KJV Onlyist. This time the text in question is Acts 8:37. Here is the false and illogical accusation of a KJV Onlyists on this particular text: “Acts 8:37 – Unbeliever’s Baptism And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (KJV) Omitted. (ESV and other Vaticanus-based versions) The KJV refutes infant baptism. It is omitted or bracketed as spurious by the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and modern translations, thereby providing support for baptizing people who have not believed, such as infants and the dead. Phillip said baptism was contingent on saving faith when the Ethiopian eunuch asked if he could be baptized immediately: And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (Acts 8:36) Baptizing adults who professed faith in Christ … [Read more...]
My take on Infralapsarianism, Sublapsarianism, or Supralapsarianism
Among the theological topics I am interested in, soteriological issues pique my interest. As a theologian who holds to Calvinistic soteriology, I get to be asked a lot of questions on Calvinism. In this post we will tackle a somewhat technical question related to Calvinism, Infralapsarianism, Sublapsarianism, or Supralapsarianism. My response is stated below after the question. Question: First off, I want to affirm that I believe in God's Sovereignty. I have no problem with that. And yes, God could save everyone and yes, he's not oblige to. But you and I know that Universalism is not taught in the Bible. When you said he chose to save some, when did that chosing occur? Before or after the Fall? Which sysretem do you follow? Infralapsarianism, Sublapsarianism, or Supralapsarianism? When you said He "leave others to the consequences of their sin," you mean damned others to go to Hell even before they were born, right? Let me address the issue you brought up in your second to … [Read more...]
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 11
- Next Page »