Should a Christian accept the NWT as a version of the Bible?

[Dylan569]

Your translation has lied to you -

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness (G4190).​

- 1 John 5:19 KJV

LINK to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for G4190 -

A. oppressed by toils,​

Indeed the whole world lies oppressed by toils. (Because you people can't get your act together.)

But if you're content to embrace a translation that misrepresents what was written, according to your faith so be it.

Rhema

Rhema, just in case anyone is fooled by your false scholarship, I give 3 literal translations, then a complete explanation of the 1 Jn 5:19 by Albert Barnes, then from John Trapp the Puritan. Following this is the Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT. Therefore, unless you are arrogant enough to claim better scholarship than all of these men, the quote I gave from the NRSVue is the correct translation.

George Ricker Berry: Textus Receptus Greek-English Interlinear with the KJV, ©1897
1 Jn 5:19 "We know that of God we are, and the whole world in the wicked [one] lies."

Alfred Marshall's Literal Translation used in several Interlinear NTs, 1958
1 Jn 5:19 "We know that of God we are, and the whole world in the evil one lies."

The New Greek/English Linear NT with the NA28/NRSV, Tyndale House Publishers, ©2020
1 Jn 5:19 "We know that of God we are and the whole world in the evil one lies."

Albert Barnes Commentary on 1 Jn 5:19 with the KJV
"Lieth in wickedness - “In the wicked one,” or under the power of the wicked one - ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ en tō ponērō. It is true that the word πονηρῷ ponērō may be used here in the neuter gender, as our translators have rendered it, meaning “in that which is evil,” or in “wickedness;” but it may be in the masculine gender, meaning “the wicked one;” and then the sense would be that the whole world is under his control or dominion. That this is the meaning of the apostle seems to be clear, because:
(1) the corresponding phrase, 1Jo 5:20, ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ en tō alēthinō, “in him that is true,” is evidently to be construed in the masculine, referring to God the Saviour, and meaning “him that is true,” and not that we are “in truth.”
(2) it makes better sense to say that the world lies under the control of the wicked one, than to say that it lies “in wickedness.”
(3) this accords better with the other representations in the Bible, and the usuage of the word elsewhere. Compare 1Jo 2:13, “Ye have overcome the “wicked” one;” 1Jo 5:14, “ye have overcome the “wicked” one;” 1Jo 3:12, “who was of that “wicked” one.” See also the notes at 2Co 4:4, on the expression “the god of this world;” Joh 12:31, where he is called “the prince of this world;” and Eph 2:2, where he is called “the prince of the power of the air.” In all these passages it is supposed that Satan has control over the world, especially the pagan world. Compare Eph 6:12; 1Co 10:20. In regard to the fact that the pagan world was pervaded by wickedness, see the notes at Rom 1:21-32.
(4) it may be added, that this interpretation is adopted by the most eminent critics and commentators. It is that of Calvin, Beza, Benson, Macknight, Bloomfield, Piscator, Lucke, etc. The word “lieth” here (κεῖται keitai) means, properly, to lie; to be laid; to recline; to be situated, etc. It seems here to refer to the “passive” and “torpid” state of a wicked world under the dominion of the prince of evil, as acquiescing in his reign; making no resistance; not even struggling to be free. It lies thus as a beast that is subdued, a body that is dead, or anything that is wholly passive, quiet, and inert. There is no energy; no effort to throw off the reign; no resistance; no struggling. The dominion is complete, and body and soul, individuals and nations, are entirely subject to his will. This striking expression will not unaptly now describe the condition of the pagan world, or of sinners in general. There would seem to be no government under which people are so little restive, and against which they have so little disposition to rebel, as that of Satan. Compare 2Ti 2:26."

John Trapp's Commentary, Puritan, born 1601 AD
1 Jn 5:19 ".....is under the power and vassalage of the devil...." This Puritan in the 17th century knew what the KJV meant!

Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT
G4190 "πονηρός, -ά, -όν of persons .... especially of Satan, the evil one,... 1 Jn:18-19"

It takes considerable time to refute your misrepresentations, therefore, I like many others don't frequently bother with you. You post so much with your wild and crazy claims, that it would bog down a person to expose you on each of your very many posts! I suppose that is your intention.

 

[Rhema]

You not so schmart, eh? The KJV has never been copyrighted, while your wannabee 'scholars' have indeed died.

"Schmart" enough to know what I"m talking about. You just can't help sticking your foot in your mouth...

(Copy) Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press.​

https://www.cambridge.org/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/rights-and-permissions-kjv

That's why the original printer added the word "Authorized," because he had been granted "patent" (copyright permission) by the crown to print the book.

Keep up the great work,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

It takes considerable time to refute your misrepresentations,

Not so much to refute yours...

but

That says it all...

It is true that the word πονηρῷ ponērō may be used here in the neuter gender, as our translators have rendered it, meaning “in that which is evil,” or in “wickedness;” but it may be...

Dylan, you haven't refuted anything. All you did was show that some people might think otherwise. (And waste all your time on a "but".)

ALL THOSE BOOKS, and no wisdom.

It's truly a shame,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Rather, it's your ESV and its clones

You look funny with your fingers sticking in your ears....

It ain't MY ESV. Don't use it. Never read it.

I told you, I read the New Testament in its Greek, the way it was written.

Rhema

 

[backNforth]

(Copy) Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press.

WOW, Rhema, you LIE, yet again. You added your own word "(Copy)" to the posted source, making it appear that the KJB was "copyright." You are truly doing the work of your father, the devil. Thus, whether you are cognizant of being a deceiver or not, your deceptions will be exposed and you will be treated as follows:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 The. 3:6).

For the rest of us, here is the actual source:

Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. (source) -- no mention of any copyright!

Further, the citation mentions the Crown's patentee (not "copyright holder").

Folks, double check Rhema's posted (and since deceptively libelled) source again, for your own honest piece of mind:

https://www.cambridge.org/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/rights-and-permissions-kjv

So how does the letters patent / copyright issue play out, for us honest folk?

I have in my hand The Holy Bible, the actual title of the King James Bible. Neither on its indicia page, nor elsewhere, is the word “copyright” found. It is in the public domain.

Conversely, modern translations are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the men who claim to own these derivative works. And different publishers have different terms.

There are fundamental differences between a “copyright” and a “letters patent."

Copyright: "The legal protection given to authors and artists to prevent reproduction of their work without their consent. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, copy and sell the material covered by the copyright." The New Standard Encyclopedia, volume 3, page 565.

LETTERS PATENT. The name of an instrument granted by the government to convey a right to the patentee; as, a patent for a tract of land; or to secure to him a right which he already possesses, as a patent for a new invention or discovery; Letters patent are a matter of record. They are so called because they are not sealed up, but are granted open. Vide Patent. Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, 1856.

A Letters Patent is about preservation; a copyright is about restriction.

So this is how it plays out in the real world:

Obviously the KJB's crown patent is not the same as a copyright, as it was created before copyright laws. The proof is in the pudding, as anyone may reproduce the text, throughout the world, freely. God had his Bible done before the invention of the copyright. The crown patent simply related to the care and control of printing an accurate text back then and was overseen by the government which 'authorized' the text. That same government, although now liberal, still has the responsibility of guarding the veracity of the text within England. They have always allowed anyone in the world to print it, and consequently could never go back and change their mind and not allow this. Even if one wanted to say it had a copyright, that copyright would be null and void, because they have set the precedent of allowing it to be printed worldwide. One of the legal caveats about current 'copyright' law is that if you do not restrict people from printing your material, you lose your right to come back later and insist that they do. So either way, the KJB, as the word of God, unlike Rhema's plethora of modern copyrighted versions of the KJB, is not bound.

God made certain that the historic English Bible (e.g. KJB) had the correct "equivalency" long before copyright laws were created worldwide. He makes certain that the antique Queen's Patent is never enforced to curtail its spread in Great Britain.

I told you, I read the New Testament in its Greek, the way it was written.

But you're not Greek, and this isn't Greece, and Greek is not the common language, even as God has preserved his words for us forever. Meanwhile, you've lost yourself in a whited sepulchre, of your own digging, full of dead men's bones.

You not so schmart...

 

[Rhema]

WOW, Rhema, you LIE, yet again. You added your own word "(Copy)" to the posted source, making it appear that the KJB was "copyright."

The website is British, bNf, (BRITISH) and by "RIGHTS" copyright is presumed. The Crown still holds the copyright to the KJV in the UK, and always has. European and American laws are different as is British law. I guess you really do need this explained to you.

But your claim that the KJV was never copyrighted is patently absurd.

I have in my hand The Holy Bible, the actual title of the King James Bible. Neither on its indicia page, nor elsewhere, is the word “copyright” found. It is in the public domain.

Which year? Published in which country? As of 2024, in the US, neither the word copyright nor it's associated symbol is required to be put on all copyrighted materials. The copyright is presumed. You'll never see "copyright" on any Picasso painting or Andy Warhol work (or even my own art). And as another example, you'll never see the word copyright or the symbol (c) on the 1972 Yes album "Close to the Edge." You will see a (P) mark, though. That's because Yes (owned back then by Chris Squire) holds the copyright to the music, but Atlantic Records owned the Publishing & Distribution rights of that specific album.

I'm sorry if things are a bit too complicated for you to understand.

It is in the public domain.

Perhaps in the US. Not the UK. I haven't had time to consult my legal team. I own numerous US copyrights and one functional patent.

But your claim was that the KJV was never under copyright, and that's just plain wrong. But I know that people with NPD just cannot admit their mistakes.

Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, 1856.

That? You're going to use an 1856 Law dictionary to explain British law from 1611?

The first copyright privilege in England bears date 1518 and was issued to Richard Pynson, King's Printer, the successor to William Caxton.​

​

The practice was continued until the Statute of Monopolies was enacted in 1623, ending most monopolies, with certain exceptions, such as patents; after 1623, grants of letters patent to publishers became common.​

​

As the "menace" of printing spread, governments established centralized control mechanisms, and in 1557 the English Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books." The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers in the city of London, which had 53 printing presses.​

As the English took control of type founding in 1637, printers fled to the Netherlands. Confrontation with authority made printers radical and rebellious, and 800 authors, printers and book dealers were incarcerated in the Bastille before it was stormed in 1789​

​

In England the printers, known as stationers, formed a collective organisation, known as the Stationers' Company. In the 16th century, the Stationers' Company was given the power to require all lawfully printed books to be entered into its register. Only members of the Stationers' Company could enter books into the register. This meant that the Stationers' Company achieved a dominant position over publishing in 17th-century England​

(For the feeble minded, "reproduction" means "copying.")

King James Version​

​

Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. The reproduction by any means of the text of the King James Version is permitted to a maximum of five hundred (500) verses for liturgical and non-commercial educational use, provided that the verses quoted neither amount to a complete book of the Bible nor represent 25 per cent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, subject to the following acknowledgement being included:​

​

Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press​

​

When quotations from the KJV text are used in materials not being made available for sale, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, presentation materials, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required but the initials KJV must appear at the end of the quotation.​

​

Rights or permission requests (including but not limited to reproduction in commercial publications) that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to the Permissions Department, Cambridge University Press, University Printing House, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS, UK (https://www.cambridge.org/about-us/rights-permissions) and approved in writing.​

FROM-

https://www.cambridge.org/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/rights-and-permissions-kjv.

And I've not asked my legal department if the US has any current treaty with the UK that would extend the power of the Crown patentee to the States.


Here's a shovel for you to keep digging....

It's fun watching the mess you make, but I gotta go do something worthwhile.

 

[Garee]

One of the most significant issues with the NWT is its deliberate alterations to support Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. For example, in John 1:1, most reputable translations state, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and .........c.” However, the NWT changes this to “the Word was a god,” diminishing Christ’s deity and aligning with the Jehovah’s Witness belief that Jesus is a lesser god, not fully divine. Similarly, in Colossians 1:16-17, where most translations affirm that Christ created “all things,” the NWT inserts the word “other” (“because by means of him all other things were created”), implying that Christ Himself was created. This contradicts the biblical doctrine of His eternal existence.

I would offer.

In that case neither the NWT “the Word was a god", or the idea of the word was God could apply ..

You would have to ask which single word was God or a god. God???

The invisible Holy Spirit Christ is not a man as us. Satan would have mankind believe God is a Jewish man as King of kings .

His words plural "Let there be" were needed to introduce his invisible glory.

Words not word (one) "Let there be light" .

God is light and not that he can only create it. . . . day four temporal under the Sun.

The let there be light will return on the last day the Sun and moon the temporal corruption time keepers will vanish there will be no more night

In the beginning the living word "Let there be" created the temporal things seen the) Law of faith) believing, trusting the eternal things not seen

 

[Dylan569]

Not so much to refute yours...


That says it all...


Dylan, you haven't refuted anything. All you did was show that some people might think otherwise. (And waste all your time on a "but".)

ALL THOSE BOOKS, and no wisdom.

It's truly a shame,
Rhema

You wrote: "Your translation has lied to you" in reference to the NRSVue that I quoted. I clearly demonstrated that it was you who lied, not the NRSVue. The KJV seems to be the last major translation to translate the verse thus:

We knowe that we are of god and that the worlde is altogedder set on wickednes. (1John 5:19 Tyndale)

We knowe that we are of God, and this whole world lieth in wickednesse. (1John 5:19 Geneva)

We knowe that we are of God, & the whole worlde lieth in wickednesse. (1John 5:19 Bishops)

We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness. (1John 5:19 DRC) *The Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Latin Vulgate

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. (1John 5:19 KJV)

Starting with the English Revised Version, translators of the standard English Bibles began translating thus:

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one. (1John 5:19 ERV)

The standard translations make it the "evil one" or similar wording of the same meaning:
ASV, RSV, NRSV, NRSVue, REB, GNB, ESV, AMP, HCSB, ISV, NASB, NLT ....

Even the NKJV changed from the 1611 Edition and translated: "the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one." It is not a question of the manuscripts, there are no Textual Variants that make this questionable.

I suppose all of those translations listed "lied" as well, according to you?

 

[backNforth]

The website is British, bNf, (BRITISH) and by "RIGHTS" copyright is presumed. The Crown still holds the copyright to the KJV in the UK, and always has. European and American laws are different as is British law. I guess you really do need this explained to you.

As I documented, you added your own word to your posted source. IOW, you lied - which means you are a liar, not by slur but by scriptural definition. A liar is one who speaks against the truth, as you have done. You subverted the truth, the facts of the matter, with your own libellous spin, as you are wont to do.

Folks, as Rhema is educated beyond his spiritual maturity, Satan is having a field day with his lack of discernment and discipline and common sense. Rhema's propensity to obfuscate, deceive, prevaricate and gaslight has severely handicapped him, and I refuse to wrestle with such a crippled dupe.

A cursory examination of merely a few of his posts quickly becomes problematic, as the spirits of religion, scholism and rebellion/witchcraft run rampant throughout them. And there are other unclean spirits there, as well. Who here will pray for the spiritual well-being of Rhema? Who here is waging ongoing spiritual warfare in his own life?

It matters not to us believers whether Rhema is consciously aware of the damage he attempts to inflict here. This is not about Rhema personally but about how Rhema is being manipulated by satanic forces to act against the body of Christ.

We're not to settle for a bible study in the basement of the brothel; rather, we are commanded to set our own city on a hill! Thus, we're not to join in the turmoil crafted by Rhema's pettifogging and sophistry. Check your physical reaction before posting your spiritual reply. Claim the higher ground and avoid partaking of those dog piles posing as gourmet food. Be mindful of others who are also reading. It is not our job to convict anyone of anything; that is the Holy Spirit's doing.

The true believer's responsibility is to not partake of the rotten fruits Rhema incessantly dumps in these threads, but to expose those stink bombs to the light of the truth. We are commanded by the Father to reprove the works of darkness, and I, for one, will continue to remain obedient to that command.

 

[Garee]

Albert Barnes Commentary on 1 Jn 5:19 with the KJV
"Lieth in wickedness - “In the wicked one,” or under the power of the wicked one - ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ en tō ponērō. It is true that the word πονηρῷ ponērō may be used here in the neuter gender, as our translators have rendered it, meaning “in that which is evil,” or in “wickedness;” but it may be in the masculine gender, meaning “the wicked one;” and then the sense would be that the whole world is under his control or dominion. That this is the meaning of the apostle seems to be clear, because:

I would think not to look for meaning from the apostles but the one source of faith as it is written the living word of God by which they are empowered to believe and do the will of the Holy Father just as us today

Not one apostle against another. Jesus against Paul, or Paul against James .

The word world is in respect to the whole world not just the Jewish world.

Satan has no spiritual or gospel understanding .It is hid in parables.

 

[backNforth]

.
Further to Rhema's lies re: the selective 'editing' of her source (i.e. libel and prevarication), and referencing the same source as Rhema (which he conveniently failed to provide a link to), here is the truth of the matter:

"...an important early piece of legislation was the Copyright Act 1710, also known as the Statute of Anne, after Queen Anne. The act came into force in 1710 and was the first copyright statute. Its full title was "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned".

The enforcement of the Statute of Anne in April 1710 marked a historic moment in the development of copyright law. As the world's first copyright statute it granted publishers of a book legal protection of 14 years with the commencement of the statute."

Obviously, the 1611 Bible is not copyrighted - in spite of Rhema's pettifogging.

And I've not asked my legal department if the US has any current treaty with the UK that would extend the power of the Crown patentee to the States.

You should. They, like the rest of us, would tell you that a letters patent is not a copyright.

Rhema might prevent further embarrassment by reading up on Letters Patent (wikipedia) (where the word "copyright" does not appear - even for Rhema).
.

 

[Rhema]

I suppose all of those translations listed "lied" as well, according to you?

This is where modern theology wags the tail of the dog by back inserting theological beliefs into the text. ALL the translations you find saying "wicked one" are later than 1881. (But one would need wisdom to see this.)

I suppose all of those translations you quoted as saying "wickedness" lie according to you?

Was Wycliffe a liar then?

Wycliffe's Bible (1382)
(1 John 5:19 WYC) We know, that we be of God, and all the world is set in evil [and all the world is put in wicked].

We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness. (1John 5:19 DRC) *The Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Latin Vulgate

Which only proves that modern theology back-translated the text. Truly? You're going with "Guilt by Association"?

All those books and no wisdom,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

As I documented, you added your own word to your posted source

A clarification of British meaning for the American audience.

A wise man would stop digging his own hole.

It matters not to us believers whether Rhema is consciously aware of the damage he attempts to inflict here. This is not about Rhema personally but about how Rhema is being manipulated by satanic forces to act against the body of Christ.

And your polemic exceeds your wisdom.

But keep on using that shovel,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Obviously, the 1611 Bible is not copyrighted - in spite of Rhema's pettifogging.

King James Version

Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press.

https://www.cambridge.org/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/rights-and-permissions-kjv

"Rights" include copyright. Sorry if this is too hard for you to understand.

 

[Dylan569]

This is where modern theology wags the tail of the dog by back inserting theological beliefs into the text. ALL the translations you find saying "wicked one" are later than 1881. (But one would need wisdom to see this.)

I suppose all of those translations you quoted as saying "wickedness" lie according to you?

Was Wycliffe a liar then?

Wycliffe's Bible (1382)
(1 John 5:19 WYC) We know, that we be of God, and all the world is set in evil [and all the world is put in wicked].


Which only proves that modern theology back-translated the text. Truly? You're going with "Guilt by Association"?

All those books and no wisdom,
Rhema

Rhema, you are a blathering idiot! You know better but prefer to lie and distort the truth.

The Puritan John Trapp (1601- 1669) Comment on 1 John 5:19 --

"Lieth in wickedness — As a lubber in a lake, as a carcase in its slime. In fermento tota iacet uxor, My wife lies down entirely drunk, saith he in Plautus. "This people is wholly set upon wickedness," said Aaron, Exodus 32:22 , is under the power and vassalage of the devil; Nil mundum in mundo. Nihil aliud est totus mundus ante conversionem, nisi aut hara porcorum, aut colluvies rabidorum canum, saith Austin. The whole world, before conversion, is not better than a filthy hog sty, or a kennel of mad dogs."

The Puritan Matthew Poole (1624-1679) Comment on 1 John 5:19 -

"And this he doth not exclusively assume to himself, but expresses his charitable confidence of them to whom he writes, that it was their privilege, in common with him, to be thus of God, or born of him; notwithstanding the generality of men were under the power of that before-mentioned wicked one, (as that phrase may be read), or in the midst of all impurity and malignity."

The Baptist theologian, John Gill (1697-1771) Comment on 1 John 5:19 (I do not believe he was infected with modern theology) -

"and the whole world lies in wickedness; that is, the men of the world, the greater part of the inhabitants of it, who are as they were when they came into it, not being born of God; these are addicted to sin and, wickedness; the bias of their minds is to it, they are set upon it, and give themselves up to it, are immersed in it, and are under the power of it: or "in the wicked one"; Satan, the god of this world; they are under his influence, and led according to his will, and they are governed by him, and are at his beck and command; and this is known, by sad experience, it is easy of observation;"

All three of these respected men of God were using the KJV!

 

[Rhema]

Rhema, you are a blathering idiot! You know better but prefer to lie and distort the truth.

Sure, come unglued, since ad hominem is all ya got.

So... we are to believe that for 1,800 years the church was just flat out wrong?

All three of these respected men of God were using the KJV!

Respected by whom? God is not a respecter of persons.

Satan, the god of this world;

Doesn't matter who believes this, it's still a lie of the Devil himself.

Paul had no problem using the name Satan. He did so three times in his epistle. But in this verse, he was speaking of the Roman Emperor - in a very shrewd way.

Yet you make a good point. ALL of your scholars reject the very words of Christ.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power/authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth.​

(Matthew 28:18 KJV)

Why are you too blind to see this?

Rhema

John Gill (1697-1771) Comment on 1 John 5:19 (I do not believe he was infected with modern theology) -

You mean the hellfire and brimstone nonsense? Gill would have burned gay people at the stake you know. He just wanted to be a Protestant Rabbi and create a Christian Talmud. Amazing that anyone would have respect for him.

 

[backNforth]

All three of these respected men of God were using the KJV!

Amen.

 

[Rxlx]

Respected by whom? God is not a respecter of persons.


Doesn't matter who believes this, it's still a lie of the Devil himself.

Paul had no problem using the name Satan. He did so three times in his epistle. But in this verse, he was speaking of the Roman Emperor - in a very shrewd way.

Your friend Satan is delighted you say he does not rule Earth despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Garee]

So... we are to believe that for 1,800 years the church was just flat out wrong?

It's not the church (confederacy) that we must agree with.

Are you saying Satan is not the god of the lust this world under the Sun?

 

[Dylan569]

Sure, come unglued, since ad hominem is all ya got.

So... we are to believe that for 1,800 years the church was just flat out wrong?


Respected by whom? God is not a respecter of persons.


Doesn't matter who believes this, it's still a lie of the Devil himself.

Paul had no problem using the name Satan. He did so three times in his epistle. But in this verse, he was speaking of the Roman Emperor - in a very shrewd way.

Yet you make a good point. ALL of your scholars reject the very words of Christ.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power/authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth.​

(Matthew 28:18 KJV)

Why are you too blind to see this?

Rhema


You mean the hellfire and brimstone nonsense? Gill would have burned gay people at the stake you know. He just wanted to be a Protestant Rabbi and create a Christian Talmud. Amazing that anyone would have respect for him.

From John Gill's Commentary -

Rm1:26 in his comment concerning homosexuality in Romans -
for even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; either by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature {h}; or by making use of such ways and methods with themselves, or other women, to gratify their lusts, which were never designed by nature for such an use: of these vicious women" (This is the ONLY place in the Bible where some can see "lesbianism', so there is no condemnation of women having sex with women anywhere in the Bible. John Gill points out in his first comment, it refers to women having sodomitical conduct with men, not other women)

Rhema, I doubt that your trolling will be praised by anyone after 300 years have passed!!

From the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
"Gill, JohnD.D., an eminent Biblical scholar, was born at Kettering, England, November 23, 1697. He received his education at the grammar-school in his native town. But the tuition of the school was only one of the means of education that he availed himself of. "As sure as that John Gill is in the bookseller's shop," became a proverbial expression. He left school and began preaching at the age of nineteen, and was pastor successively of the Baptist churches in Higham-Ferrers and Kettering. In 1719 he was settled at Horsleydown, Southwark, where he ministered for fifty-one years. He died October 14,1771. Short as was his term of preparatory study, he must have laid a good foundation, and have been diligent in his subsequent studies. He made himself an excellent Latin and Greek scholar, and a learned Orientalist. His Rabbinical studies were extensive and profound. The fruits of his learning are chiefly deposited in his commentary, a work valuable to consult, but so heavy and prolix in style as to repel any but very courageous readers. He was a voluminous author. For a time he exerted a commanding influence in his own denomination, and enjoyed high consideration with the religious public generally. In theology he was a Calvinist of the Supralapsarian type, and his peculiar doctrine concerning the relation of Christians to the law of God occasioned, though it scarcely justified, the charge of Antinomianism."

From CredoMagazine -
"When John Gill (1697-1771) died he was widely recognized as the greatest Baptist theologian of the eighteenth century. While pastoring the same congregation for nearly fifty-two years, Gill more than earned the nickname, “Dr. Voluminous,” by publishing more than ten thousand pages during his lifetime! Gill holds the distinction of being the first Baptist to write a systematic theology, as well as being the first Baptist to write a verse-by-verse commentary on the entire Bible. No wonder that Augustus Toplady predicted shortly after Gill’s death that: “While true religion and sound learning have a single friend remaining in the British Empire, the works and name of GILL will be precious and revered.”

Written on the Memorial of John Gill -
"In this Sepulchre are deposited the remains of John Gill, professor of Sacred Theology. A man of unblemished reputation, a sincere disciple of Jesus, an excellent preacher of the gospel, a courageous defender of the Christian faith. Who, adorned with piety, learning and skill, was unwearied in works of prodigious labour for more than fifty years. To obey the commands of his great master, to advance the best interests of the church, to promote the salvation of men, impelled with unabated ardour, he put forth all his strength. He placidly fell asleep in Christ, the 14th day of October, in the year of our Lord, 1771, in the 74th year of his age."

The Life And Death Of John Gill

John Gill was born at Kettering, in Northamptonshire, Nov. 23,1697. His mind was seriously impressed with divine things when he was about twelve years of age. Mr. Wallis, of Kettering, having preached a sermon from Gen. 3:9, “And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him where art thou?”...

www.baptists.net