Jump to content

Romans_14.12

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And here's an article about HB Pratt, one of the guys that worked on the Reina-Valera 1865: https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/apts/00091/apts-00091.html#:~:text=Biographical note-,Rev.,Princeton Theological Seminary in 1855.
  2. "Go and read what this ministry (this website) on what they believe. It says it clearly, THE KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH, not Spanish, not any other language." I'm aware of that, but I'm also aware of this video. Are you? https://youtu.be/ud4vwLiX7oE
  3. "Hello, clearly we are not the ones taking a translation and using another language to "correct it" that is you." If you think that's dishonesty or disrespect for Spanish, then you don't know what dishonesty and disrespect for Spanish is.
  4. "You are not measuring with the KJV, you are measuring using religion, traditions of men, using the KJV to condemn other languages solely because they are not English. If you were measuring you will have respected where Valera 1865 came from and not try to twist it and man handle it." Nonsense! if I didn't respect the 1865, I'd be sayin' that it's just another satanic, Vatican version, which I don't believe. And I find it funny how that in other posts, you pro-1865 people have to resort to Alexandrian language like "KJV Onlyist", and militantly defend readings that line up with the V
  5. "Be honest, if you really want to do this its because you don't respect the Spanish" No that's dishonesty.
  6. Version 1.0.0

    0 downloads

    El título del artículo no significa que Gail Riplinger cree que el Texto Recibido es perfecto, y sin error, pero sí muestra en el artículo que las versiones Vaticanas son de Satanás. The title of this article doesn't mean that Gail Riplinger believes that the Received Text is perfect, and without error, but she does shew in this article that the Vatican versions are of Satan.
  7. Version 1.0.0

    1 download

    In this article, Gail Riplinger shews how God translated John 1:1 in the most spoken languages worldwide.
  8. Version 1.0.0

    3 downloads

    Although Manny Rodriguez may be wrong in his stance on the RVG2010, he does prove conclusively that Jeff McArdle is a mentally ill hypocrite in his beliefs about the Bible.
  9. Version 1.0.0

    0 downloads

    Juan de Valdés was born and died in the 1500s, and yet his Salterio (book of Psalms) was never published until 1880.
  10. And I thought of another thing to do concerning this project: where there are readings in the Reina-Valera that are not in the King James Bible, but are necessary for the Spanish Bible to make sense, I'll put 'em in in italics.
  11. @Rico Did you know that Jeff McArdle wasn't tellin' the truth when he claimed to believe the King James Bible? I have the proof of that in my files. As a matter of fact, I just published it on the forum. Want a link to it?
  12. "You want to compare them language to language, which is meaning to meaning." Amen. That's the whole purpose of the Spanish Bible that I intend to publish.
  13. Nope. There are many times that people come to the same conclusions on their own without realizin' it. But that doesn't prove that they either copied each other, or were bein' copied by somebody else. Take 2 Timoteo 2:15, for example. Robert Viper assumed that Humberto Gómez copied the Purificada in that passage, but Manny Rodriguez, in an article where he exposed Viper's hypocrisy and mental illness (unfortunately I can't find the article at the moment. Sorry about that.), had to clarify that Humberto Gómez came to that conclusion on his own without even knowin' about the Purificada.
  14. Here's one: the word humano in the 1865 (as a matter of fact, in ALL Reina-Valeras). I used to think the same way that you do about this word, that it may be a serious problem in English, but not in Spanish. But the Lord brought Proverbs 18:13 to my mind to convict me, and tell me, "How do you know that "mano" can never mean any thing but the hand? Why don't you look up all the possible definitions of the word to see if it is so?" And that's what I did, and here's what I found: So the same problem that exists in the English language with the word "hu-man" exists in Spanish with "hu-m
  15. If what I call into question is what's in agreement with the Vatican versions-and therefore contrary to the King James Bible-then I will never change. I don't care about Greek or Hebrew (as my YouTube picture says, My King James Version Corrects Your Greek Text", 'cause I believe that all the way), but if it's not in agreement with the new versions, and it means the same exact thing as what the King James Bible says, then yes, I'll admit to bein' wrong. Keep that in mind.
×
×
  • Create New...