GM based freaks of the Electric. Enjoy yer breakfast.

Thank God He has saved you, what if you did marry her? Divorce court sounds worse. "Rejection is God's protection."

So is liberal Lutheranism and that’s never stopped us.

I TOLD THEM I WAS GOING TO GO TO A BLACK SCHOOL AND KILL AS MANY SAVAGE CHILDREN AS POSSIBLE

The Old Testament yes

It has support but is not explicitly in Holy Scripture. Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinity because they can't find it in their bibles.

Jesus didn't write the New Testament. His followers did, and *all of* His teachings were believed before they were written.

>Christianity predates the Bible

In the sense that Adam and Eve were Christians, sure. But if you're suggesting the Bible was created by the Church, your own councils disagree with you. Vatican I explicitly condemns what you're trying to say. The Church is a witness to something that already existed, nothing more.

>Additionally, the original KJV includes the deuterocanon

I know, mine does too. It has books that the Council of Trent removed, like 3 Esdras. Why would the Pope remove books from the Bible?

>My point stands that KJVOnlyism is a subset of Sola Scriptura

They literally aren't the same thing. They're two completely unrelated claims. I'm also not a strict KJVO in the way someone like Steven Anderson, but it's undoubtedly the most important English version, for more reasons than you can count on one hand.

I make it a point not to argue sola scriptura. Not because it's wrong, understood properly, but because people on both sides refuse to understand it properly, so it's a useless hill to die on.

>The Latin never changes

Buy a critical edition. It does. You have old Latin, and tons of variation within the Latin tradition, often referred to as the Western text type. It's actually famous for being the most inaccurate text family that gets any serious consideration.

In current day, Latin editions have the exact same problems as modern Greek critical texts. Though an Old Vulgate only position will get you better results than following modern text critics, due to the nature of what a translation is, it's inherently inferior to my position. Eastern Orthodox have it better, they have their own version of a Greek Received Text that's different from ours, although on internal analysis, it doesn't hold up as well. Romans has a false ending after chapter 14, for example. It's also missing the Comma.

>that full translation predates the Canon

Roman Catholics really need to read the studies of Roger Beckwith. This idea is disproven. The Old Testament canon was decided 200 years before Christ was born. The fact that later Christians (and some jews) were misinformed and got it wrong does nothing to disprove this. Although most of the early Fathers actually do agree that the canon is only 22 books (by the Hebrew numbering) so no matter how you look at it, the Roman Catholic theory of canon doesn't hold up. Nevermind the blatant historical errors in the books.

>Original manuscripts of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew are not always available, so when they aren't we always have the Latin.

The Latin is better than nothing, but once printed editions become a relatively affordable thing, there's no reason to use it as a primary source anymore. It has a lot of problems.

>"biblical study" is not Christianity

It's literally the word of God. It doesn't encompass the entirety of the Christian life, but you can't have orthodoxy without it.

The word is for conversion. Always.

And the Verb of God has always existed. Then He was made into flesh to be the word of His changes into the world.

I remember my nearly shocked state when I really absorbed that the Church predated the Bible. It didn’t drop from the sky all ready to go, then birth the Church. The Church wrote the New Testament. The Church selected the canon. The Church, who clearly from the early fathers, was sacramental (real presence, maybe stated differently), bishops, deference to Rome. All there, first.

I am completely justified in being mean when arguing with Papists because I actually know what I’m talking about. I have spent years doing nothing in my free time but reading and listening to sources.

They can complain that I’m “trolling” all they want. Maybe if they weren’t dumb uneducated liars, I wouldn’t be mean to them.

I’ll have to read it later, but usually, the Old Testament prophets aren’t talking about eschatology, they’re talking about events within the years following their predictions, and then later people anachronistically apply every little thing to the end of the world.

There are some exceptions to this but as a general rule, I’m skeptical when anyone says an Old Testament prophet is talking about current events.

It is feasible for other nations to force Israel to surrender her sovereignty without mass violence. It's just a matter of actually doing it.

You can say that's not feasible, but neither is the current conflict. Everyone knows Hamas is going to loose, it's just a matter of how many civilians they're going to take with them.