Amen. Thank you kind sir.

Testify!! praise the king.JESUS! 👑 ❤️❤️

Thank you so much Dr. Lawson!! 🙏🏽🙏🏾🙏🏿🙏🏾🙏🏽☘️🍀☘️sooo great is your Bible study !!!

This is amazing expository preaching

Thank you Dr. Lawson for those closing comments. I have two aunts in their 70’s, one baptist the other Pentecost, that believe in the Holy Spirit brings revelation through dreams, inner-voice and tongues, healing through the laying of hands and apostles. I have been trying to show them through Bible that this is is not of God. And that they need to re-examine this profession of salvation and go attend a Bible/Truth Preaching church. Your ending comments have provided me a very simple way of bring it home.

Is a transcript available of Luther’s last sermon?

Really unfortunate that the proper KJV text was not used in this preaching though. I love your preaching Steven, but the NASB uses the faulty Alexandria based critical text and removes a very important portion of Scripture here defining the Trinity, which should read: 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

@eclipsesonic

4 ай бұрын

It's important to keep in mind that it's not just the Alexandrian manuscripts that lack the Comma Johanneum (which is the phrase used for the longer reading of 1 John 5:7-8 found in the KJV and NKJV), but also the vast majority of Greek manuscripts don't contain it either, as well as ancient translations into other languages, like Coptic, Syriac, Old Latin, Armenian, Georgian, etc, also lack it. It only appears in several very late Greek manuscripts (in the main text itself and not as a later marginal addition) and the first two editions of Erasmus' Textus Receptus didn't even contain it. The only reason he included it is because he was pressured by the Catholic Church to include it, as it appears in late Latin Vulgate manuscripts. I wish I could agree with you that it was originally part of 1 John, but the manuscript evidence is strongly against its inclusion. Even some of the English translations that predate the KJV, like Tyndale's 1534 , the Coverdale Bible 1535, Matthew's Bible 1537, Great Bible 1539 and Taverner's Bible 1539 all have it in brackets, as they too questioned its authenticity. Interestingly, in the Taverner's Bible, it has a marginal note about it saying: "This that is printed in other characters after the judgment of Erasmus in his annotations be not the words of John, the writer of this Epistle, but came to be put in, of some other."