What Happens if you are Not KJB only?

[Charles Meadows]

Will,

Thanks for the honest answer!

My problem:

I have found (in my mind) in using the tools of "higher" criticism that the assertion of the KJV being the LITERAL WORD FOR WORD REVELATION just seems unlikely. Too many manuscripts, too many revisions etc. You know as well as I all of the details of the TR, the Elzivier brothers, Erasmus, the polyglot etc so I won't refer specifically to any of them.

What do you think of this:

God did preserve His word - His "imrah" as Ps 12 says. But we do not have a "word for literal word" bible - we have the essence of His word preserved in multiple (but not all) English versions. There are small discrepancies (different words here and there) between various versions but this would be expected given translation itself and human hands.

I'd love to have Paul's original papyrus (or maybe vellum) in my hands - but we don't have one. I'm a big fan of the KJV and I would not hesitate to support its exclusivity if the facts supported it but they just don't. We've got what God wants us to have.

That's my position. Now I'll probably get summarily blasted by someone wearing his/her heart on the sleeve!

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
How exactly does it "bring dishonour" to Jesus?

The Law in Leviticus Chapter 12 required purification ONLY for the mother -- NOT the child, NOT the father. </font>[/QUOTE]You still haven't answered my question. How does that "bring dishonour" to Jesus?

 

[gb93433]

In the first church I pastored there was actually a man who said, "Do you know the reason why people are going to hell today? They don't read the King James Bible any more."

I told him I use the Greek and Hebrew and he never said another word about it again. God did remove him to about 500 miles away.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I am interested in God only.

It is your oral only, not action. </font>[/QUOTE]And how in the world would you know???? This is very poor technique on your part to accuse me of not wanting to know God, or of not being interested in God only. Very very poor.

The result -- I see and you did not see. Study the Acts!

Please show the place in Acts where these two places are called schools. Should I wait until you find it?? YOu will have to go outside of your final authority to prove that. The reality is that everyone who reads the book of Acts will see that the text and translation issue is never connected with Alexandria or Antioch. That is bad "scholarship" because it asserts something not proven from the text, and it indeed has no basis in fact whatsoever.

So I challenge you to show us what you saw, namely that Alexandria and Antioch are called "schools" by Scripture.

Well, who are textual crtics that said the KJV has errors?

Way to many to list here. Everyone who has objectively read the KJV and compared it with the Greek texts knows this to be the case. It is not rocket science. It doesn't take a lot of degrees in different fields. And it isn't a problem for those who hold to biblical doctrine.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Most people who have died for the faith have not died for the KJV.

They died for the WORD OF GOD because they were faithful to the Word of God. Therefore they had absolute faith. </font>[/QUOTE]The question wasn't their faith. Did you so soon forget what we were talking about??? They did die for the word of God. They did not die for the KJV. Which shows that the word of God includes things other than the KJV, which is what we ahve said all along.

Get with the program here Askjo. Don't keep repeating this nonsense.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
How exactly does it "bring dishonour" to Jesus?

The Law in Leviticus Chapter 12 required purification ONLY for the mother -- NOT the child, NOT the father. </font>[/QUOTE]In those days, almost every baby was nursed, mostly by the mother, sometimes by a "wet nurse". As an infant, Jesus was like every other Jewish male infant. He had to be cared for in the same manner. He was most likely with Mary almost all the time, so He was privy to the prohibitions of the law of purification that Mary obeyed, thus the statement "THEIR purification".

It was asked of you, "How does that dishonor Jesus?"

 

[GrannyGumbo]

What I see happening is a wide-spread famine.(Amos 8:11)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
What I see happening is a wide-spread famine.(Amos 8:11)

And we are combatting that famine by trying to direct people back to God's word as the authority rather than the man made food of Ruckman, Waite, Gipp, Chick, and others who are depriving God's people of the meat of his truth.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Well, howdy there, Pastor Lar!

Ya know what? You don't?

Before I first came to the beloved BB, I never ever heard of those names you mentioned, but I always had a "straight stick".

I don't do the research of the things that are talked about here; but just use that 66-caliber Big Gun which shoots gun-barrel straight every time!

Good seeing ya again! (Betta store 'u'self plenty o'water; you'se gonna need it!)

 

[robycop3]

Well, ya might wanna do a little research. I do, so I know when to fire 66 rounds of armor-piercing bullets, or high-explosive shells-or a mixed load.

 

[Ed Edwards]

God gave us over 200 different versions
of His Written Word: the Holy Bible.
Some admit they are all God's Written Word.
Some say only three different versions
contain God's inerrant Written Word:
KJV1611, KJV1769, KJV1873. Some say only
the KJV1769 is. Where is the famine likely
to start? Among the 200+? Among the three?
Among the one?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Before I first came to the beloved BB, I never ever heard of those names you mentioned, but I always had a "straight stick".

You certainly did. But you have missed a great blessing by not realizing that you have that straight stick in your own language. You don't have to speak an old fashioned language to have that straight stick. I got a great joy out of preaching the straight stick twice yesterday. What a blessing to have a new convert come up and ask me some questions about the straight stick. It is a wonderful thing.

I don't do the research of the things that are talked about here;

It never is too late to begin to learn the truth.

Betta store 'u'self plenty o'water; you'se gonna need it!)

For what??

 

[HankD]

Dear askjo,

Didn't you read all of Archangel's post concerning Jesus and His baptism?

Matthew 3
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

That Jesus was "purified" or "baptised" was not a problem for Jesus here on earth during the days of His flesh.

Hebrews 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

HankD

 

[Pastor_Bob]

NOTICE: This thread will be closed no earlier than 10:00 P.M. EST this evening. You have until then to wrap it up.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
How exactly does it "bring dishonour" to Jesus?

"Their" means that Jesus was a sinner.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
How exactly does it "bring dishonour" to Jesus?

"Their" means that Jesus was a sinner. </font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely not. How do you figure?

 

[Askjo]

D.A. Waite wrote: Mary is the only one in need of purification in order to fulfill the Law of Moses stated Lev. 12:2-6. Jesus was separate from sin. He was perfect and had no need for purification."

Liberty University (W/H University) has its commentary. See what it said: "Mary's Purification...."

Their purification is incorrect.

Her purification is correct.

[ January 13, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Askjo ]

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Askjo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

How exactly does it "bring dishonour" to Jesus?

"Their" means that Jesus was a sinner. </font>[/QUOTE]No it doesn't. "Their" means Jesus, who had no sin, submitted to the law "to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus also submitted to John's baptism of repentance -- does that also mean Jesus was a "sinner?"

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Askjo:
D.A. Waite wrote: Mary is the only one in need of purification in order to fulfill the Law of Moses stated Lev. 12:2-6. Jesus was separate from sin. He was perfect and had no need for purification."

Liberty University (W/H University) has its commentary. See what it said: Mary's Purification...."

Their purification is incorrect.

Her purification is correct.

Personally, from a purely internal perspective, I believe that to "mesh" properly with Lev 12, "her" is the best reading. However, I also note that the purification described in Lev 12 has nothing to do with sin - unless you're saying it's sinful to give birth. Is that your point? If not, how does the purification mean it is for sin?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Personally, from a purely internal perspective, I believe that to "mesh" properly with Lev 12, "her" is the best reading. However, I also note that the purification described in Lev 12 has nothing to do with sin - unless you're saying it's sinful to give birth. Is that your point? If not, how does the purification mean it is for sin?

You are right and wrong.

On KJV these passages agreed each other reflecting "her" purification.

Modern versions contradicted each other on these passages.

Jesus did not need the purification.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Askjo:
You are right and wrong.

Cool.

You still haven't explained how "their purification" means Jesus was a sinner, if the purification wasn't for sin in the first place.

Brian