Search results

What do you want the copyright from? The 1611 King James? I don’t know what you’re asking. The copyright of the Septuagint? Can you actually be specific for once?

You still haven’t explained who the tortured men are, genius. 2 Maccabees 7 is still the best and only option. You literally have not explained anything.

That literally has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Do you believe Shem outlived a bunch of his descendants? Did you even listen to my argument in the video?

I just don’t think Shem outlived a bunch of his sons and grandsons. That’s ridiculous.

Are you accusing me of taking numbers out of the genealogies in the Bible, and then publishing my own translation? Hmmm... sounds crazy to me. I’ve never done that.

I believe the Bible

That’s exactly right. The marginal note in the King James is merely what pointed me in the right direction. After I read 2 Maccabees 7 for myself, I’m able to use my own brain to make the connection, and see that Hebrews 11:35 fits perfectly with the story in 2 Maccabees 7, independent of any...

I was making the point that the Apocrypha is referenced in the New Testament, disproving the claim that they’re not. I never made the claim that everything mentioned in the New Testament comes from the Old Testament. The New Testament speaks of Jannes and Jambres, two names not found in the...

Origen never referred to them as scripture. Show the reference, why don’t you? And the New Testament books that I accept are the ones declared to be scripture at the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Those are the very same councils you look to in order to know which books belong in the...

You like to repeat yourself allot. You like to repeat yourself allot. You like to repeat yourself allot.

If the timeline I presented is so obviously wrong, then why did the greatest of church historians defend it? Eusebius agrees with my timeline, down to the exact same number of 650 years.

Motives? Maybe you need to watch my video on the Pyramids and the Flood. The unbelieving Jews clearly tampered with the Hebrew Scriptures. My motive was to provide an answer for the atheists who asked, not to attack the Jews. The fact that the Jews tampered with the text is just a fact. Like it...

Yea, there was a debate because the unbelieving Jews poisoned the minds of Christians into thinking those books don’t belong. Truth is, if the church has not declared these books scripture and preserve them, the Jews would have no stories to read during Hanukah, because they would all be lost...

You’re missing the point. When people say the Apocrypha is not scripture, they say that the main REASON WHY is because the New Testament does not reference it. But it does. And Hebrews 11 references 2 Maccabees as a part of Biblical history. I went to grade school and I know what context is...

Penaickled, What in the world are you talking about? You’re not showing any examples of someone quenching the flames [emoji91] of fire by faith. You’re just repeating stuff that happens in the tabernacle [emoji554]️. Hebrews 11:34 is a reference to the book of Daniel. There’s nothing else it...

Pinneculled, Who was it who by faith quenched the flames of fire? It has to be Old Testament. Hebrews 11 specifies that.

Did I say everybody?

You got that right. I mean, I’ve found some things that the KJV gets right that modern versions get wrong. But nonetheless, it’s still vastly different than the Bible of the early church.

I mean, it’s not the Bible that was used by the early church. In fact, it’s radically different than the Bible of the early church. Why should this 17th century translation be placed on such a high pedestal? Shouldn’t the Bible of the early church be the revered translation?