Are There Actual 'Fundamentals" In Theology for Fundamentalists?

I don't. I prefer the KJV over the NIV. But I did not make the claim that one of these versions is "abominable". Since you did, I pointed out that you ought to support such a claim. You did not.

 

Once again you misrepresent KJVO (and I'll once again remind you that I am KJVP). The vast majority of KJVO claim that KJV is God's Word for English speakers. They do not claim that it is superior to the originals. You take a very fringe group and attempt to apply it to the whole. Maybe you should do some of that research you are always talking about instead of relating your very limited personal experience?

 

Well, the KJV is the Word of God; Calvinism is a doctrine that twists the Word of God into many heretical teachings. Just look at John 3:16. The KJV says:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."


Calvinism twists this into a lie stating that God didn't really love the world and that whosoever really cannot come to him. In my book that is calling God a liar, which is heresy.

There are several other like passages, but if you fail to believe God here, it really doesn't matter how you feel about the other passages.

 

Thank you Robert Snow for not remaining silent and for speaking out against the heresy that is Calvinism. Calvinism is a dark, twisted, evil theology straight from the pits of Hell. It is the #1 tool of Satan against Christianity today.

 

This thread is spiraling down hill remarkably fast.

Luke and matt, you both are saying crazy things.

-Seriously? Calvinism is doing more harm than the multitudes in mainline denominations who are rejecting or re-interpreting the very divinity of Jesus and the authority of God over our lives at all? More damage than the complete abandoning of commitment to marriage by our culture and even by those in conservative evangelical churches? I can tell you my church is filled with people who's lives have been damaged by divorce and adultery...and it is also filled with the empty places where those who have committed adultery and left their spouses used to sit, some of them for 20-30 YEARS before their sudden and sinful departure. (I can't think of anyone who would give testimony that calvinism has shipwrecked their faith or life, as they might about the breakup of marraiges).

Calvinism is not Heresy, it came about by people trying to make sense of some very difficult passages of scripture which could easily be interpreted to say God chooses people for salvation. People who try to honestly wrestle with these verses are not heretics.

-Matt is correct that most KJVO simply believe that the KJV is the best english translation, some because of the TR; and a few who may even think it is itself inerrant. They may be mistaken, but they are not heretics. It is not heresy to think God may have preserved his word and guided the translators who translated it.

 

I have done the research and you are wrong.

Most KJVO believe the words of the KJV are infallible- without error.

How, Matt, is this possible?

BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE GOD INSPIRED IT.

That brings into question the fundamentalist view on inspiration- plain and simple.

 

And again you just make claims with no support.

You might as well say the flying spaghetti monster is perched on your rooftop.

Making a claim without support is a pointless waste of your time.

These things you say are not true just because you state them, Robert.

I know that GOD speaks to you and you don't need any man to teach you anything- but even so, intelligent people will always require more of you than unsupported claims.

See, this is a DEBATE site. We make A R G U M E N T S on a debate site.

You know what arguments are, don't you?

Look it up. It would be very helpful for you.

 

You're wrong, 12 strings. And what do you BASE this claim on? I do not think you base it on anything. It is just conjecture and it is wrong.

There have been NUMEROUS books written on this subject. Have you looked at a single one?

Read James Whites' book- The King James Only Controversy.

These people believe the KJV is INFALLIBLE.

You saying otherwise is the crazy thing, 12 strings.

 

It is pointless to attempt to discuss anything with you. Along with your sidekick P4t, I through responding to you. You should spend time learning how to talk to others. Bye! :wavey:

 

And yet another claim without support.

Is that what you do all day? Make statements for which you have absolutely no support whatsoever and then expect that they are worth something JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY THEM???????
:laugh:

 

Since No Mod Has Seen Fit To ...

Is Jesus Lord? Leaving out Lordship! Ha!

The shorter reading has the best manuscript support.

No,the TR added it in. It's a scribal expansion borrowed from 24:44 as per Comfort.

The TR reading is an expansion. The NIV rendering has much better manuscript support.

The NIV rendering is superior because it is based on much better testimony.

"The WH NU reading has early and diverse testimony." (Comfort p.178) No other major translation aside from KJV and NKJV have the extra words.

Again,the WH NU reading (which the NIV follows here) has better manuscript support.The "scribes could not resist adding 'the Christ.' The expansion became part of TR and KJV tradition." (p.180)

You are confused. The TR added it in without any Greek manuscript support.

Again,scribal expansions seeking to harmonize portions of the so-called Lord's prayer in Matthew 6.

See above.

What a sinful thing for you to say. How can he address Jesus and tell of His kingly power and yet deny His Lordship?!
The NIV (based on superior documentary attestation) is best here. The TR based reading is inferior.

Your charge is silly. Actually most of this screed (of yours?) is silly.

What were you saying earlier about the NIV leaving out the personal pronoun regarding the Father? The NIV has our,the KJV has just the.

 

If it is not infallible, then how can we believe it? If some of it is the true Word of God, and some isn't, then how do you decide which is which?

IMHO, if I can't believe ALL of it then I can't believe any of it.

Now, as far as the "inspired" part of the argument. Yes, I believe the translators of any language (Greek to English, Hebrew to Russian, ect) must be inspried by God to correctly translate it.

If a man sat out to translate a Bible for the Chinese, he would have to have the inspiration and guidance of the HS to correctly convey the messege of the Word.

Their are many that see Bible translating as merely an academic endeaver, needing only the education of a linguist. I submit to you that a person trying to rightly divide the Word of God from the original texts cannot do so correctly with simple human intelligence.

I am not saying that God has not already inspired a correct modern translation, I am saying though that I am not convinced of it at this time.

Has anyone read "The Message"? It is a new version straight from the pits of Hell. Anyone who says that ALL modern versions are the Word of God needs to read this one.

John

 

Rippon, please don't make this personal by calling me silly. Why do you always resort to name-calling?

I am in no way saying that you should not use the NIV, I am merely giving examples of why I prefer the KJV.

Take the chip off of your shoulder, I am not your enemy. There is only one person on here that I consider an enemy, and that is because he is tearing down the bonds between Christians and causing strife among the bretheren. Please don't be like him.

John

 

It was you on another thread who said that every word in the Bible was important. :smilewinkgrin:

The longer reading is in the vast majority of extant manuscripts including FWIW two dating back to the 5th Century.

Prove it! Once again, it is in the vast majority of the extant mss. It is far morelikely that a scribe accidently missed it out.

Same as above. It's far more likely that a scribe accidently omitted it.

More important is the fact that the NIV leaves out 'with tears.' Tears are very precious to the Lord Jesus (2Kings 20:5; Psalm 6:8; Isaiah 25:8; Luke 7:13; Rev 7:17etc.). When I come to write my 1,000 page thesis :laugh: on tears in the Bible, I shall certainly be including this verse. 'With tears' has excellent manuscript support.

Since there is no doubt that the Lord Jesus did use those words, or something very similar (Matt 4:10), and they are in the huge majority of extant mss, it seems perverse to leave them out.

Once again, an inattentive scribe missed out the important words. Fortunately they are preserved in the vast majority of extant mss.

Here undoubtedly the words should be in italics to show that they are not part of the original. However, there is no question that the Lord did not say the words, so there is no confusion.

The C.T. mutilates the Lord's Prayer most barbarously. Praise God that the expanded form is found in the large majority of the MSS.

See above.

If the thief had actually used our Lord's name without any title, he would have been the only person in the whole NT to do so. In fact, of course, he acknowledged Him as Lord (cf. Rom 10:9) as the huge weight of extant mss so eloquently testifies.

I think there is a important point here. Surely we should assume that the most exalted, God-honouring text is the correct one? Why should we suppose that the Holy Spirit, whose great task it is to bring glory to the Lord Jesus (John 16:14) would fail partially in His task?

Steve

 

By studying the original.

I used to hold that opinion and it was anything but humble. I used to preach that very thing with clinched fist. But if I'd been TRULY humble I would have done the appropriate study required to understand the truth on that matter BEFORE I went around preaching it.

NOBODY and I mean NOBODY in the field of reputable scholars in the HISTORY of the church before a hundred years ago EVER purported that translations are inspired.

That ought to be enough for you right there- at least enough for you to be willing to consider that you may be bad wrong on this issue.

What do you BASE this on. Where are you pulling this statement out of??

Making claims without support is pointless.

Where is your supporting arguments for this claim?

again...

Then stop calling yourself KJVP (if that is indeed what you call yourself). You are KJVO. You are only convinced that the KJV is the Word of God in English.

I am telling you that that position is heresy or pretty darn close.

Who has said ANYTHING about The Message? Who has EVER said that ALL modern versions are the Word of God?

 

You are a true gentleman, and a joy to converse with.

Have a nice day

John

BTW, i don't call myself anything but a Christian. You are the one that labels me an IFBer, Arminian, KJVO, Ignorant, and full of darkness (which to me means evil).

What I am is a sinner that is saved by Grace.

 

First of all, my goal is not always gentility. There are times when addressing some situations with gentleness is sin. Being a gentleman when God expects you to be otherwise is not good.

Secondly, you need to provide ACTUAL quotes rather than misrepresent me like you do here.

I have tried to help you on this before.

Listen. It is a SIN for you to misrepresent people. It is LITERALLY the breaking of one of God's TEN COMMANDMENTS. It is bearing false witness against your neighbor.

You have taken the things that I did say (like: you are ignorant ON THIS SUBJECT, etc..) and twisted them to make me look a certain way.

If you did that on purpose- it is evil.

 

No matter how you twist it, you still called me ignorant.....and you called me all of the other things too

John

 

If you think that the way you treat people is godly and good, then you don't just have spiritual problems....You've got mental probelms

John

 

I guarantee you that you will not provide the quotes.