Відео

Each time he found the resolve to get up and work through the wall, the creature following him had already blocked the way back. If he didn't think to bring the shovel with him the first time, he wouldn't have thought to bring it with any other time, considering he was living through the same thought processes over and over.

You only talked about attitudes in your last comment, but didn't explain which part was false.

No claim was made in the video except that you were insulting, which you've just shown yourself to be. No part of the video was inaccurate.

@@peterengland8131 Lair, just like your mentor. Shame on you.

What part was misinformation? Did you not have, on Twitter three years ago, the attitude described? I trust people can change, but when you call it "lies" i don't think you accepted Dr. White's advice. It is true that it is easy to be emotional, and difficult to lay serious and respectful groundwork to prepare for evangelistic conversations.

@@peterengland8131 So you are of the same rude, disrespectful, judgemental, dishonest and deceptive mindset as White. Again, make sure you check the facts before spreading lies and look like a weak minded gossip. Your sin of posting something out of context about someone you don't know and about circumstances you know nothing about make you a gossip, check yourself before you wreck yourself. Leave gossip to unregenerate girls, act like a man and don't be a busybody.

FOR CLARAAA!!!!!

Thank you for the links. I like to let people see what both sides say. I even use some of the Ripplinger response in the next video, linked in the description.

That makes no sense. Even soda contest winners are only 1 in 12, and they happen more frequently than spontaneous generation. The chances of an occurance being one would mean it happens each time possible. It doesn't. Your presumption is showing.

@@peterengland8131 It doesn't make sense because you don't understand what you're talking about. First of all, spontaneous generation was debunked by several scientists, most notably, Pasteur. Let's not conflate the development of life from organic chemistry with spontaneous generation or the natural formation of amino acids. The probability that you will win the lottery may be 1 in 10 billion. The probability that someone will win the lottery is 1. We know that amino acids form naturally, we have even discovered them in meteorites. Therefore, the probability of amino acids forming in nature is 1.

Nope, just using the words.

Modern Christian Scholars are very interested in what the apostles wrote, We want to keep the whole counsel of God. But if some transcripts ended up with extra copies of verses, or phrases in the wrong place, or extra-biblical commentary... Then removing them or putting them in a footnote doesn't leave scripture lacking anything. The King James Bible contains the word of God, and so do many modern translations.

@@peterengland8131 the niv has left out ( completely ) 17 verses. Mainly on baptism, Acts 8:37 the enuch ask Phillip there is water why can't I be baptized, Phillip responded and said if thou believe you can. (I am paraphrasing here ) the Catholic Church believe in infant baptism, so it was left out to suit others to sell more copies. As Phillip said you have to believe to be baptized. Chick.com has great information on the King James vs other perversions. Hope this helps. God bless you.

@@covertocoverbookreviews6721 How do you know the NIV left out those verses, rather than the KJV adding those verses?

@@curtthegamer934 good question, based on the textus reseptus with is a collection of over ten thousand original manuscripts they all agree with each other word for word without even spelling differences except for names . (Like Peter\Pedro ECT.) The King James is copied from these manuscripts. All other Bibles are based off of three manuscripts from the Alexanderian manuscripts which was three manuscripts that do not even agree with each other. They are a good translation of a bad book. I hope this helps.

@@covertocoverbookreviews6721 That is incorrect. The Byzantine family of manuscripts (which the Textus Receptus is compiled from) contains numerous variation as well as missing verses. In fact, Erasmus (the guy who compiled the Textus Receptus) couldn't even find a Greek manuscript that included 1 John 5:7 until he released the third or fourth printing (I can't remember which) of the Textus Receptus. If all of those manuscripts agreed with each other, they would have all contained that verse. Also, regarding the Alexandrian family of manuscripts, while it's true that three of them in particular are the most studied and examined, the Alexandrian family of manuscripts is much larger than just three, and the whole family of them was compiled into a printed text similar to the Textus Receptus (only with the Alexandrian manuscripts) and the printed text (Nestle/Aland text) was used for translation. So it is just plain incorrect to say that the newer translations are based on only three manuscripts. I'm thinking you're probably just repeating what you heard someone else say, rather than researching the matter yourself.

James White does not believe that God can inspire and preserve His Word in a translation as God has done since 1611 only in the King James Bible. Instead of the back & forth with James White just read both his book, The King James Only Controversy ( which I have read thoroughly and carefully ) and Peter Ruckman's conquering answer to that book.. The Scholarship Only Controversy ( which I have also read thoroughly and carefully.) I have tried not to respond to James White as he really doesn't matter because you see he is not qualified to speak about Biblical Revelation / Inspiration / Translation and Illumination. But when he attacked Gail Riplinger, Dr. Sam Gipp my friend and the voice for the King James Bible for years Dr. Peter Ruckman he insulted his own self. If he would spend as much time researching and reading the historicity of the english Bibles as he does talking about the vast grave full of perverted translations he would be better qualified to speak. It just takes about 10 to 20 years to do this. Then I would like to hear James White speak after he honestly read the material for the Universal Text or Majority Text. Go ahead Mr. White.... And post something then. I dare you!

It's time to Conquer EARTH!!!

Are you asking 'who made god'? Claiming infinite regression on your side leaves the same unanswered question, except (in the now) theists have cause to predict complexity. Note, a word for God is Elohim, which is recognized as plural. There's interaction between the Father and Son.

Chaplain Bob Walker B. Th. Do you have a citation for the "666 versions" claim, or just being facetious? Yes, I listen to James' interaction with Muslims, and he refutes Islamic beliefs and shares the gospel. Knowing about what other people call "errors" is an important part of Christian apologetics. We're not saying we know it is wrong, we're saying we know why it is right despite variants.

so is your christ the morning star who fell from heaven in Isaiah 14? You know Jesus the Morning star of Revelation 22. You know modern Bibles that white defends. Do not know what I am writing about? do your own research. Oh and English is at least 20% based on Latin words.

@@ChaplainBobWalkerBTh Morning star is a term used to refer to any heavenly being. The KJV itself uses morning star in the plural to refer to a group of angels at one point.

@@curtthegamer934 make sure you tell Jesus it is OK to refer to him as falling to the pit of Hell. what does a GAMER know about the Bible anyways as opposed to one with a masters in Bible studies at Bible college. besides you most likely serve the devil anyways.

@@ChaplainBobWalkerBTh Now, would God really want you to be stereotyping somebody just because they're a gamer? There's nothing in scripture that says "Thou shalt not play video games." Being a gamer does not disqualify me from being a true follow of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, nor does it give my arguments any less of a point. Truth is truth, no matter who it comes from. I don't believe Jesus went to Hell. I believe that the being referred to in Isaiah is in fact Satan. Lucifer is literally Latin for "shining one," and is intended to have the same meaning that "morning star" or "day star" does (it's from the Latin Vulgate). If you look at the first edition KJV, which had marginal notes, there is a note after the word "Lucifer" which says "or 'day star.'" This shows that even the KJV translators themselves believed that "day star" or "morning star" was a valid translation in this passage. "Morning star" is not a term exclusive to Jesus. It means shining one. Angels shine, and Satan was a fallen angel. Jesus shines, as he is the Light of the World. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Job 38:7 (KJV) "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" That is quoted directly from the KJV, which you believe to be God's inerrant word. Does the the KJV say in this verse that there are multiple Jesus's? No? Why not? You said "morning star" was a term that can only refer to Jesus. I guess you were wrong. There is more than one morning star, because there is more than one being that shines. Angels shine. Jesus also shines. But there is only one Jesus, only one God. Jesus is God, my Lord and Savior.

Richard Vass I don't remember if it is this video, Dr. White mentions the KJV translators, in their foreword, say that they aren't perfect and, what we call textual criticism, would still play a part in future translations. The message of most Bible translations (NIV, NASB, ESB) are the same, one's personal discernment can notice changes that cults specifically make to the gospel's message in obviously corrupted versions.

You really mean to tell us that non-scholars can produce a translation out of ancient languages? All the translators, from Wycliffe to Tyndale, the KJV, AND the modern translators were the top linguistic scholars if their day. The KJV onlyism of Riplinger and others like her is unbiblical and cultic, and should be avoided like the plague.

FWIW one the KJV translators, Robert Long got loaded before “work.” I think I prefer modern, SOBER, godly people on my Bibles translation committee

I've read her book in her entirety. It's full of errors and deliberate misquotations from beginning to end.

More KJVO lies, misrepresentation, & vitriolic diatribe

I think you mean my attitude, I'm the one who actually added the video clips. And this video is really just an introduction to how ridiculous Gail Riplinger's argumentation can be. And remember, we're not shaming those who use the KJV, we're defending Christians who don't want to constantly read Scripture in a Shakespearean dialect. (Trust me, I'm against NIV-Onlyists too.)

@Noah Jordan couldn't be said any better, well done.

@Noah Jordan wow. God bless you brother.

Bill Armstrong If you watched the video, you'd know we're not attacking the KJV, and both James and I have ministries that don't rely on debating this topic.

James spends 99% of his time debating Muslims, Catholics, atheists, etc ... the KJVO is merely a blip on the radar

herbbearingseed , according to what standard? I'd encourage you to watch a couple other videos I've posted, where James talks about defining beliefs which allow him to call people "brethren", even if they believe a little different.

You bash James because his FACTS “hurt your feelings.”

Who are you to judge that? Are you a holier-than-thou legalist appointed by God himself to execute judgment?

I have utilized much of Mr. Hovind's anti-evolution material in the past as well as Mr. White's literature. However, Mr. Hovind is clearly in the wrong by hanging out with cultists and accusing Mr. White falsely, and needs to repent and apologize. The cultic, rabid fundamentalism of Riplinger is dangerous and destructive, and he needs to renounce it and distance himself from it.

@@jeffdollar1646 white is a devil in disguise and if you have no discernment maybe you are as well.

@@ChaplainBobWalkerBTh Please show me in the Scriptures were I must use only a 1611 KJV English translation of the Word of God. I will most willingly cease using any other if that can be done. My conscience is captive only to the Word of God, not to the opinions of misguided men.

@@ChaplainBobWalkerBTh but the authority of Scripture is everything. Again, show me your scriptural basis commanding me to use only the KJV. Comparing English translations with each other means nothing - compare it to the Greek and Hebrew, and how it deviates from that, then you have an argument. Wasn't Erasmus one of those "sodomite priests" too?

@@jeffdollar1646 which Greek? the vatican or the Greeks? I do not care, you are most likely just a deceiver who comes to spread lies and discord. Honoring Jesus means nothing to most of your type

And you are?

@@herbbearingseed So it's OK for you to proclaim that James White isn't saved but you condemn another's opinion of someone not being holy and idiots in their opinion? What a hypocrite.

The story was 1 second Of eternity

Can you specify a point? Are you KJVOnly? I haven't read that book, but I've been taught, and agree that the one who claims to be "the human head of the church" is the antichrist. This vid is really a side issue, how the cultic attitude thinks and argues. Check out the other vids linked in the description for a more complete statement about KJVonlyism. It doesn't help that the author of the book you mentioned has a prominent "Donate" button(s) on his home page (a similarity with a known cult's page I viewed the other day).

KJV Only? You bet. You can get Vatican Assassins as a FREE pdf. The book is very much a compilation of others material with extensive footnotes & sources. If I would have had the ambition to put such a book together I would likely also post a donate button. Read the book and perhaps you will figure out just WHO is behind all the versions & translations. or watch a playlist titled "Total Onslaught" and read the (complete) Jesuit Oath of Induction if you have not yet. HalleluYAH & Maranatha. joachim.

Besides publishers who don't want to pay copyright fees, the only people working on other versions are scholars who want to know what the original authors wrote before things got added due to tradition. (You may think new versions remove verses, but it is like having 100 extra pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzle. All of the original message is there.) What new or different doctrines does that book say are in the new versions? (not counting cult-specific versions like JW's) These vids that I clipped are short, but on his show 'The Dividing Line' Dr. White has taken much time explaining the inconsistency of KJVO or Textus Receptus-only positions. I like some vids by Walter Veith, but 35 hour-long vids are a bit much (not like I haven't watched 20+ hours of seminars before). I might get to it, but it seems to be a diverse list of vids, and I've already heard many hours specifically on KJVO. I think we'd end up where we are, agreeing on 98% of Christianity, and still disagreeing on this. Watch my other KJVO vids, I've got nothing against the KJV, this is adiaphora.

How did it begin 300+ trillion cycles ago?

Peter England you'll have to ask Ben Shapiro, he is the one who says there as to be an uncaused cause. I'm saying if this is true why can't the universe be the uncaused cause.

The uncaused cause can't be the same type of physicality as what is caused. That's like saying a random computer code created the computer chips. God's spiritual "code" can create physical "reality" (I like the theory of Philotics), but trying to understand origins only materially is like studying hurricanes without knowing about butterflies around the world. (chaos theory) Even things that appear to pop in and out at random have/had a cause.

Peter England you said _"The uncaused cause can't be the same type of physicality as what is caused. "_ Why? The particles that make up the universe could be in a constant state of moving from one form to another but never change themselves. Just like water can change from gas to solid to liquid but the molecule that makes it (H20) doesn't change. You said _"but trying to understand origins only materially"_ I am not doing that I am looking at both the materialistic and supernatural possibilities. I just have not been given a convincing reason why materialistic explainiton have been written off by you. Based on our current knowledge it seems as good an answer as anything else.

H2O molecules are physically acted upon to physically change. A computer simulation is the best analogy I can think of that describes one existence (digital) relying on a completely different existence (circuits) that it itself cannot examine. If simulated people were programmed to see themselves with full biological forms, including DNA, they'd never know the code that truly originated them. Just because we can see molecules doesn't mean we weren't spiritually originated. You said "Based on our current knowledge it seems as good an answer as anything else." Dark matter popping in and out at random? That's why Ben said "if you believe in a predictable universe with laws that govern it... if you do not believe we live in a chaotic universe without meaning." Sure "dark matter" pops in and out, but originally, it must have been caused, and directed, to form progenitors.

Ellie Timpson you must be one helluva a bird.

@@An_excellent_UA-cam_account personally I think thats a long time.

Amen

God is alive and He is ruling and reigning therefore repent and trust in JESUS CHRIST 👍

Alki Malk AMEN TO THAT

You sound just like an EVITE, playing the game of "I PREFER" arbitrarily against the pure words of God. As if it is evil to believe the bible really IS the bible. How sinful. You scholarship onlyites are complete culters, attacking the very words of God.

Same with me

Sorry I took so long, here it is; you can also search the AOmin channel for "Riplinger" for others. ua-cam.com/video/KRsLtMBcLrA/v-deo.html