I fear

[Skandelon]

Out of curiosity, what if archeologists uncovered an original of...let's say Mark's gospel... and several errors in translation and or duplication were proven to have been made. Like the last part of Mark which is said not to be in some of the older more reliable manuscripts. Would you be willing to submit to the original greek manuscript or stick with the 1611 KJV?

 

[Winman]

It has absolutely nothing to do with your faith.

You really say some dumb things, and this is one of the dumbest things you have ever said. Again, you say the dumbest things. You must be a kid and think the internet always existed. I got saved in 1965, there were no personal computers and internet then. I did my detailed study on the different versions of the Bible in the 70's, again there was no internet or internet forums then. You probably weren't even born yet. Dumb.[/quote]
What has this got to do with the OP?
Speaking the truth in love is a command of Scripture. Please give heed.

 

[Andy T.]

It has been the dominant Bible for almost 400 years now, and has been the version primarily used to evangelize the world.

I didn't realize when missionaries went to the remote tribes of the world that they had to first teach them 17th century English before preaching the Gospel to them.

 

[Rippon]

You really say some dumb things, and this is one of the dumbest things you have ever said.

You believe that the KJV is the accurate word of God (in contrast to all other versions). But having that opinion is not the substance of the Christian faith Winman.

I guess when it comes to the scriptures you believe man is more powerful than God. When it comes to the actual scriptures you have little or no faith in God.

Absolutely untrue Winman. You should be ashamed of yourself.

... you believe since that time God has been slack and let his Word go to ruin.

More shameless remarks.

And Jesus is the Word of God as I have shown you in Revelations 19:13.

And I agreed. I even said that John 1:1 says that Jesus is the Word of God. And Rev. 19:13 is most certainly not speaking of the KJV!

Perhaps you believe Jesus was not perfect, perhaps you believe he was an ordinary man who made many mistakes.

It shows that you edited this post of yours -- but you fell quite short. You have a lot of gall.

I feel sorry for folks that believe as you do, you really have no strong foundation for your faith. You say you believe the Bible, but you think it is full of errors and the writings of men.

You know that lying is against the Scripture, don't you Winman?

How much faith can a person really have in a corrupt Bible? None. You would never be sure if you are reading God's word, or something a wicked man had inserted into the text.

So far you have said nothing which corresponds to my beliefs. Cease your sinful campaign.

However, it was very easy to see immediately that Calvinism is absolutely unscriptural.

We're waiting to see your set of proofs.

You trust the Catholic church?

I had said that the Vulgate has been around a lot longer than the KJV's. It was around for about 1,000 years or so before the Anglican Version of 1611. Many believers used it with spiritual benefit until the Latin language was not understandable. That's just factual. It has no bearing on me trusting the Roman Catholic Church. I don't.

And Calvinism came out of the Catholic church as well, it is the doctrines of Augustine. Good luck with that.

The Reformed doctrines (which brought the Bible to light after centuries of darkness) are in stark contrast to Roman Catholicism. Yes, a lot of Calvinism has intersection with the doctrines of grace which Augustine taught ceturies before John Calvin came on the scene. All of Augustine's teachings were not accepted in the 1500's. He was in error on a number of issues. But the Lord used him mightily as He did Calvin and other Reformers of the 16th century. You owe a debt to the Protestant Reformation.

Again, you say the dumbest things. You must be a kid and think the internet always existed. I got saved in 1965, there were no personal computers and internet then. I did my detailed study on the different versions of the Bible in the 70's, again there was no internet or internet forums then. You probably weren't even born yet. Dumb.

I'll let your own words condemn you.

 

[Robert Snow]

Well, if you were to listen to Calvinists, then you know God is not very skilled at expressing himself accurately. When he says "For God so loved the world" he really meant only the elect. When God said he is not willing that "any" should perish, he really meant only the elect, and he is indeed quite willing that multitudes perish.

We are so fortunate to have these scholars to tell us what God really intended to say.

Like I have said before, the only way Calvinism works is to twist the Scripture into something other than what God said.

 

[Robert Snow]

To have faith in a "Translation" of the original, which itself is not the original, is to be an idolater.

The Archangel

Imagine Winman, he accuses you of not "speaking the truth in love" and then calls you an idolater. :laugh:

 

[rsr]

This is not the proper forum to discuss Bible versions per se. Please keep to the original topic.

Thank you.

 

[Rippon]

So, getting back to the OP -- do you still harbor that fear Mr. Snow? Or have you recognized the error of your ways?

For instance, do you now acknowledge that many or most so-called 5-point Calvinists are just that -- Calvinists -- and not Hyper-Calvinists?

 

[saturneptune]

You believe that the KJV is the accurate word of God (in contrast to all other versions). But having that opinion is not the substance of the Christian faith Winman.





Absolutely untrue Winman. You should be ashamed of yourself.



More shameless remarks.



And I agreed. I even said that John 1:1 says that Jesus is the Word of God. And Rev. 19:13 is most certainly not speaking of the KJV!



It shows that you edited this post of yours -- but you fell quite short. You have a lot of gall.




You know that lying is against the Scripture, don't you Winman?



So far you have said nothing which corresponds to my beliefs. Cease your sinful campaign.




We're waiting to see your set of proofs.




I had said that the Vulgate has been around a lot longer than the KJV's. It was around for about 1,000 years or so before the Anglican Version of 1611. Many believers used it with spiritual benefit until the Latin language was not understandable. That's just factual. It has no bearing on me trusting the Roman Catholic Church. I don't.



The Reformed doctrines (which brought the Bible to light after centuries of darkness) are in stark contrast to Roman Catholicism. Yes, a lot of Calvinism has intersection with the doctrines of grace which Augustine taught ceturies before John Calvin came on the scene. All of Augustine's teachings were not accepted in the 1500's. He was in error on a number of issues. But the Lord used him mightily as He did Calvin and other Reformers of the 16th century. You owe a debt to the Protestant Reformation.




I'll let your own words condemn you.

Regardless of your supposed stance on the doctrines of grace and sovereignty, you need to learn what the words respect, manners, and common sense mean.

 

[saturneptune]

Out of curiosity, what if archeologists uncovered an original of...let's say Mark's gospel... and several errors in translation and or duplication were proven to have been made. Like the last part of Mark which is said not to be in some of the older more reliable manuscripts. Would you be willing to submit to the original greek manuscript or stick with the 1611 KJV?

If a grasshopper had a machine gun, the birds would not eat him.

 

[Robert Snow]

So, getting back to the OP -- do you still harbor that fear Mr. Snow? Or have you recognized the error of your ways?

For instance, do you now acknowledge that many or most so-called 5-point Calvinists are just that -- Calvinists -- and not Hyper-Calvinists?

I still have severe doubts as to the validity of Calvinism, especially those of the five-point variety. But, I know it is fruitless to attempt to change their minds, so I just don't attend their churches or read their books.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I still have severe doubts as to the validity of Calvinism, especially those of the five-point variety. But, I know it is fruitless to attempt to change their minds, so I just don't attend their churches or read their books.

Sad. You are missing out on a lot.

 

[olegig]

I still have severe doubts as to the validity of Calvinism,......

I know what you mean for there are a few questions that continue to linger in my mind.

- If one accepts that men are elected, then why are they told to believe and not just told to listen?
- If they have no choice in the matter, why does scripture give them a choice?
- Is one to suppose that Adam and Eve only ate half the meal? Did they only learn the knowledge of evil and not of good?
- Is it that the only two Calvinist that were ever on the face of the earth are the two before the fall?

 

[Rippon]

Regardless of your supposed stance on the doctrines of grace and sovereignty, you need to learn what the words respect, manners, and common sense mean.

I know you like to do a drive-by shooting every once in a while SN. But you really need to do some more reading. Winman's original post numbered 142 was truncated to approximately one sixth its size because of his extremely disprespectful remarks. You shoot from the hip and then say "Sorry". That wears thin. Take your time. Read in context and don't be so quick on your trigger.

 

[Rippon]

I still have severe doubts as to the validity of Calvinism, especially those of the five-point variety.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think 5-point Calvinists are actually Hyper-Calvinists?

But, I know it is fruitless to attempt to change their minds, so I just don't attend their churches or read their books.

Maybe if you knew the subject better you wouldn't be confused. And not reading books by Calvinists will certainly not assist your learning curve. attding one of "their churches" might end up blessing your soul.

 

[Winman]

Originally Posted by Skandelon
Out of curiosity, what if archeologists uncovered an original of...let's say Mark's gospel... and several errors in translation and or duplication were proven to have been made. Like the last part of Mark which is said not to be in some of the older more reliable manuscripts. Would you be willing to submit to the original greek manuscript or stick with the 1611 KJV?

This wouldn't sway me, how do you know if the discovered text is original? How do you know it is accurate? Corrupt texts have always existed, the scriptures speak numerous times of false prophets that existed in the OT. Corrupt texts have been found many times, there were many texts that were rejected when the scriptures were compiled.

Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

As Jeremiah had the words of God recorded in a book and presented them to the people, it is safe to assume that false prophets also did the same, so finding ancient writings that appears as scripture would not be proof that it was accurate or the word of God.

Has anyone ever considered that the same arguments made today about the accuracy of scripture could and I am sure were always made?
Do you not think that some men challanged the accuracy of scripture in OT times? So, in the end it comes down to a matter of faith, believing that God would preserve his true word in the midst of corrupt men.

 

[Skandelon]

So, in the end it comes down to a matter of faith, believing that God would preserve his true word in the midst of corrupt men.

With this I do agree, with one little caveat, "God would preserve his true Word in the midst of the corruption of even the scriptures."

I believe Christ is the Word and he abides in us. The scriptures are the means to introduce us to Him. Scripture is not the WORD, they are the inspired words meant to introduce us to the Word, Christ. You can take my leather bound book but you can't take my Word!

 

[Winman]

With this I do agree, with one little caveat, "God would preserve his true Word in the midst of the corruption of even the scriptures."

I believe Christ is the Word and he abides in us. The scriptures are the means to introduce us to Him. Scripture is not the WORD, they are the inspired words meant to introduce us to the Word, Christ. You can take my leather bound book but you can't take my Word!

I disagree.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I don't believe scripture is hidden like Easter eggs in the yard of men's writings. The scriptures say "all scripture" is given by inspiration of God.

As I wrote before, I believe Rev 22:18-19 argues that God's true word can be known and identified.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God gives very serious warning here to any man who would add or take from his word. Now how in the world could any man know if words had been added or taken from God's word unless God's word could be known and identified?

You can't, it would be impossible.

 

[Robert Snow]

Sad. You are missing out on a lot.

You may be right, but I cannot make myself believe what I think is contrary to what the scripture teaches.

I don't mind listening to some Calvinistic preachers as long as they aren't discussing Calvinism. Same thing with books, I will not read a book in which the subject is Calvinism. However, I will read a book written by a Calvinist that is for instance a commentary on a book of the bible.

 

[Robert Snow]

You didn't answer my question. Do you think 5-point Calvinists are actually Hyper-Calvinists?

Much of what I have read seems to say that, yes, 5-point Calvinist are Hyper-Calvinist. However, only a specific person knows whether or not they fall into this category. I cannot judge individuals as to what is in their hearts and minds.

Maybe if you knew the subject better you wouldn't be confused. And not reading books by Calvinists will certainly not assist your learning curve. attending one of "their churches" might end up blessing your soul.

Maybe you are correct, but I guess I am just too hard-headed. I attend Uvalde Baptist Church and really don't have time to attend other churches and work the hours I do, so in a way it is a moot point. I would visit a Calvinist church I guess, but it would probably be more out of curiosity than anything else.