Jump to content

Photo

Dorightchristians - James White On Luke 23:34-Jesus Didn’T Forgive Them


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Dr James Ach

Dr James Ach

    Resident Wolf Hunter

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • LocationTel Aviv, Israel

Posted 24 November 2013 - 02:49 AM

By Will Kinney [Editor's Note: The following is exactly why the ANTI KJVO "scholars" make LOUSY apologists.  The Muslims and atheists are well aware of the corruption in the modern versions and they capitalize on it to prove that the Bible in ANY version is fallible because you have folks like White who lump all […]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpre...ans&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" />

View the full article

#2 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:23 AM

Interesting that White now comes out with this proclamation that Luke 23:34 is not inspired around the same time Bill O'Reilly's book Killing Jesus comes out saying the same thing, i.e. that Jesus could not have said "Father forgive them...." on the cross. 



#3 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,418 posts
4,809
Excellent

Posted 24 November 2013 - 07:22 AM

If our Scripture is flawed, who is wise enough to discern between that which is inspired and that which man has added? It seems those who want to change what the Word says are the self appointed ones who believe they can determine what parts of the Bible are true and what isn't. How convenient.

 

We wouldn't have so many problems like this if there were not so many greedy and corrupt folks continually creating new "translations" for the sake of copyrights they can make money from and for the sake of promoting an agenda not of God.

 

When I attended university and worked at university from the late 80s to mid-90s, I had the opportunity to witness to Muslims, including some Black Muslims, and to speak with them. One of the first things they bring up is that their "holy book" is pure because they all include the original Arabic along with whatever other language it's been translated into, and the "inspired" Arabic takes precedence over any translation. Meanwhile, they look at Christians who have so many translations one can't hardly count them, and they are not in agreement, which gives them the opening to declare we don't have the true Word of God, but they do.

 

With those willing to actually have a conversation, I would halt that argument by stating I only use the KJB and don't consider the many other versions worthy of discussion. That, and sometimes going a little more indepth, would typically move them away from their argument in that area and we could discuss other things.



#4 swathdiver

swathdiver

    Surrendered

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,980 posts
1,231
Excellent
  • LocationTreasure Coast

Posted 24 November 2013 - 09:19 AM

White should stick to exposing the errors of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

To delve into being an MV scholar, knowing about all the differences between them, while supporting them, is just plum crazy and a big waste of time.



#5 Dr James Ach

Dr James Ach

    Resident Wolf Hunter

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • LocationTel Aviv, Israel

Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:23 PM

Interesting that White now comes out with this proclamation that Luke 23:34 is not inspired around the same time Bill O'Reilly's book Killing Jesus comes out saying the same thing, i.e. that Jesus could not have said "Father forgive them...." on the cross. 

That's a good observation, I never thought about that. O-Reilly also upheld the same balogna story from the Warren Commission too on JFK.

 

White maintains that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. He thinks there's a difference from the so-called "moderates" and completely ignores that universal Muslim belief in the Q'uyriash method (lie to your enemies until you have the advantage). Moderates never condemned the 911 attacks, they never complain about US policies toward Israel and are silent about all the Jihad's around the world. So nice of White to give them an assist on their bogus appearance to the rest of the world not to mention encouraging their doubt about the Book. 



#6 Dr James Ach

Dr James Ach

    Resident Wolf Hunter

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • LocationTel Aviv, Israel

Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:28 PM

White should stick to exposing the errors of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

To delve into being an MV scholar, knowing about all the differences between them, while supporting them, is just plum crazy and a big waste of time.

What's really funny about "scholars" like White is that when arguing with a KJVO, they will point out all of the supposed errors and variants, but when trying to prove to an atheist or Muslim about the infallible history of the Bible, they will use those exact same arguments to support the history of the Bible to THEM. No so-called scholar can give a history of the Bible without using the Majority Text or Textus Receptus because they are the only manuscripts that have ALL 31,000 verses. I've seen Josh McDowell do this repeatedly (arguing for the infallibility of the Bible by using the MT/TT) and yet when the conversation is amongst professed believers, those same manuscripts are "full of errors". Hypocrites.



#7 Dr James Ach

Dr James Ach

    Resident Wolf Hunter

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • LocationTel Aviv, Israel

Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:31 PM

If our Scripture is flawed, who is wise enough to discern between that which is inspired and that which man has added? It seems those who want to change what the Word says are the self appointed ones who believe they can determine what parts of the Bible are true and what isn't. How convenient.

 

We wouldn't have so many problems like this if there were not so many greedy and corrupt folks continually creating new "translations" for the sake of copyrights they can make money from and for the sake of promoting an agenda not of God.

 

When I attended university and worked at university from the late 80s to mid-90s, I had the opportunity to witness to Muslims, including some Black Muslims, and to speak with them. One of the first things they bring up is that their "holy book" is pure because they all include the original Arabic along with whatever other language it's been translated into, and the "inspired" Arabic takes precedence over any translation. Meanwhile, they look at Christians who have so many translations one can't hardly count them, and they are not in agreement, which gives them the opening to declare we don't have the true Word of God, but they do.

 

With those willing to actually have a conversation, I would halt that argument by stating I only use the KJB and don't consider the many other versions worthy of discussion. That, and sometimes going a little more indepth, would typically move them away from their argument in that area and we could discuss other things.

That is wise, and is always a show-stopper. They are used to arguing against the White style of defense of the "Bible". But when you limit the argument to the KJV they are at a loss for words.



#8 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,772 posts
427
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:47 PM

Why should a "calvinist" object to Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. ?

 

Can Jesus' prayers be refused by his Father? In context, the prayer is for the soldiers, one of whom confessed him & presumably the others. Also, many of the crowd that shouted "Crucify him" soon repented - were pricked in their heart - & were baptised in the name of Jesus. 



#9 Dr James Ach

Dr James Ach

    Resident Wolf Hunter

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • LocationTel Aviv, Israel

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:10 PM

Why should a "calvinist" object to Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. ?

 

Can Jesus' prayers be refused by his Father? In context, the prayer is for the soldiers, one of whom confessed him & presumably the others. Also, many of the crowd that shouted "Crucify him" soon repented - were pricked in their heart - & were baptised in the name of Jesus. 

Well I can see why a Calvinist would not want this verse in here because that argument eliminates their accusation that the Jews were solely responsible for the death of Christ. You only need forgiveness when you've done something wrong and if the soldiers were not responsible for the death of Christ there would be no need for them to be forgiven whether the acts were deliberate or through ignorance. Numbers 15:22-36

 

The ones "in the crowd" that shouted "crucify him" were JEWS:

"But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.

 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?

 And they cried out again, Crucify him." Mark 15:11-13

 

The Romans never called Jesus "King of the Jews". Their king was Caesar, and it would have been instant death for a Roman to refer to any other king but Caesar as king.

 

" Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.

 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.

 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed." Luke 23:20-23.

 

Thus when Jesus said "Father forgive THEM" He was referring to all involved, Jews and Romans alike. If He was not, then no Jew after the cross would have been saved, but all 3,000 people that received Christ in Acts 2 were JEWS.

 

However, this thread had nothing to do with a Calvinist view of Luke 23 (particularly since the article was written BY a Calvinist), but was about the corruption of the verse in modern versions and the defending of the verse by James White.


Edited by Dr James Ach, 24 November 2013 - 04:13 PM.


#10 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:20 PM

 

White maintains that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. He thinks there's a difference from the so-called "moderates" and completely ignores that universal Muslim belief in the Q'uyriash method (lie to your enemies until you have the advantage). Moderates never condemned the 911 attacks, they never complain about US policies toward Israel and are silent about all the Jihad's around the world. So nice of White to give them an assist on their bogus appearance to the rest of the world not to mention encouraging their doubt about the Book. 

Yes, Muslims have a teaching called "taqiyya" where they are allowed to lie, live like an infidel and even blaspheme Allah in order to fit in until the time is safe for the real Muslim to come out. A lot of these silly and unstable white women who marry Muslim men and have children with them find this out when they head back to Arabland. That's when they discover whom they really married.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500