Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All

QuoteSum (1 day ago)
That is from the King James Bible! That verse is called the 'Comma Johanneum'. Though still used by the KJV, almost every single other bible has removed it from their texts.

If you read the history of your bible, that verse is not even in the original text! Bible scholars dont know how it made its way into the bible, so they discard it as an interpretation that somehow was later written in. Surely the cholars are more knowledgeable than you. Will you then discard that verse?

I am using the Geneva Bible which preceded the KJV historically.

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

Noah Webster's Bible declares:

"For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

City-on-a-hill

Hi Peter,

I wanted to share with you the following comments. I hope you might correct me if I have departed from the truth in some manner.

Several years ago, I purchased a paperback book of the Reformed tradition. I don't recall the author but it challenged me to reconsider the Millenium. In it I was informed that Jesus is currently reigning and that we reign with him at this moment. We are seated with Christ spiritually in heavenly places.

I assume you know that members of the Orthodox Presbyterians and Reformed are "Amillennialists." As I understand the term: they believe that Christ is reigning now and will establish his kingdom in fullness when he returns. Consequently, Ellis' position wasn't totally new to me.

While studying Scripture, I noticed Jesus declaring "How can a man plunder the strong man's house unless he first bind the strong man!"

I memorized Isaiah 53 and while meditating on those verses this particular verse captured my attention:

Isaiah 53:12 "Therefore will I give him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul unto death; and he was counted with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, and prayed for the transgressers."

Satan was bound at Jesus' victory at the cross and the birth of the Gentile church is evidence of "plundering the strong man's house."

Christians with whom I am acquainted have difficulty with the concept that Satan has been bound. I attempt to explain to them the manner in which he was bound.  We read in Revelation that he was loosened to deceive the nations clearly indicates that he was 'bound from deceiving that nations.'

Jesus had authority over the demons as "the last Adam" The Centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant understood "authority." Philippians explains to us that Jesus "made himself of no reputation , and took on the form of a servant, and was made like unto men, and was found in the shape of man."

He was completely obedient and submissive to His father's will and purposes. He was a man under authority. Therefore as the "last Adam," the sinless obedient Adam; he had authority over demons."

Eventually, he gave that authority to his disciples who in submission and obedience to Him cast out demons in his name and authority.

Furthermore, evidence that Jesus bound Satan at the cross and was vindicated at his resurrection was when Peter preached to the Gentiles at Cornelius' home.

The Gentile nations were no longer deceived by Satan for Jesus bound and robbed the strong man.

Even the disciples were amazed that the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentile believers of Cornelius' house.

My friends have a difficult time understanding "how Satan could be bound."

I think the problem is that they misunderstand the nature of "being bound" and "loosened."

When I turn to the book of Job; it appears to me that Satan was permitted to do certain things but was "bound" from transgressing a "border." God gave him permission to do this, and that, but was not permitted to take Job's life.

In the Book of Job, Satan was loosened to do certain things but bound from doing other things.

Please tell Ellis, I pray for him. I am most thankful to God for the two of you.

Sometimes it gets really lonely knowing the truth of what you and Ellis have been declaring. So many friends have embraced the darkness of Darby/Lacunza/Scofield. They have a difficult time turning from the strong current.

God bless you,
City-on-a-hill (Clint)

P.S. Did you know the meaning of "Clint"? My name means "from the headland estate or town." It actually means one from a "City-on-a-hill"

Hi Pete,

In the past; I have used the NASB which I enjoyed reading. Thanks for posting the important information concerning several "translations" of the Bible including the comments about the NASB.

More recently, I've been listening to CDs of Alexander Scourby's spoken audio of the King James Version.

I have recently purchased an edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible published by Toll Lege Press 2006-2007. The second Bible which I have been using is Noah Webster's "The Webster Bible" which was published by Baker Book House Company.

The publisher's preface of the Webster Bible states: "The "Webster Bible" as it came to be known, is a precise tailoring of the majestic King James Version especially for American readers. With reverent restraint, Webster produced an edition in which he preserved the integrity of the KJV but reshaped some phrases and updated some vocabulary - making it possible for Americans young and old, to read God's Word comfortably and understand its message clearly as never before." Despite the "glowing puffery" of the current publisher; what I wish to know is if the current work is the actual work of Webster unadorned with contemporary tampering?

Is Webster's work worthy of study or is it to be listed among those more recent Bibles of which the former posts address?

Is the current printing of the Geneva Bible worthy of the historic name it bears? Have there been alterations of which I should be aware or is it still a fine accurate translation?

Virtue, Liberty, and Independence
City-on-a-hill