The KJV is sufficient for me

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
Thank God, I have what I believe to be the Word of God, the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But why do you believe it? Did somebody tell you to believe it or you would be kicked out of your church? If you have no reason to believe what you believe, how are you different from those who do not believe and have no reason for not believing, they just don't? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that is where we have to trust God for the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Amen! I believe so too! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe the KJV is the Bible for the English speaking people, I believe that the modern versions are pre-versions of the Scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, why do you believe that? Do you have a reason? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will stand on the foundation of the KJV, even if I continue to be ridiculed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why? Can you articulate a reason for believing the KJV is superior to other versions? You keep saying "I believe what I believe and what I believe is what I believe." But you have not, as yet, told us why you believe what you believe. Is your faith blind, or is it informed?

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[QB]Why? Can you articulate a reason for believing the KJV is superior to other versions? You keep saying "I believe what I believe and what I believe is what I believe." But you have not, as yet, told us why you believe what you believe. Is your faith blind, or is it informed?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:Again I say: I believe in the blood atonement and the virgin birth, which is fully brought out in the KJV and not left out or hidden like in the modern versions. That is sufficient for me!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, are you saying you judge the bible by what you already believe? If not, where does your belief in the blood atonement and the virgin birth come from? Does it not come from the bible? If so, you have made the logical error of circular reasoning. Your presupposition and your conclusion are the same! If teaching the blood atonement and virgin birth are your criteria for believing a bible is the "perfectly preserved word of God" then you are also forced to believe the New World Translation is the "perfectly preserved word of God" as it teaches both the doctrinal criteria you presuppose. Not to mention the ERV, ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, NKJV, CEV, TLB, and a host of others.

I don't believe a bible because of what doctrine it teaches. I formulate my doctrine by what the bible teaches. It seems you me you have your source/conclusions backward. So, you still have not told us why you believe the KJV, and the doctrine it teaches, is the perfectly preserved word of God. Once more around the block?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Is your faith blind, or is it informed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to throw a stick in the wheel, but was Abram's faith blind or informed when God told him to leave Ur and go to a land that He would show him? Not only was it blind, but God counted it unto him as righteousness.

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


God speed.

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
Not to throw a stick in the wheel, but was Abram's faith blind or informed when God told him to leave Ur and go to a land that He would show him? Not only was it blind, but God counted it unto him as righteousness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am sorry, Joey, but you are comparing apples and oranges. Abraham received his revelation directly from God. From the mouth of God to the ear of Abraham.

We do not receive direct revelation from God today, we have His written word. As the copies of God's written word are transmitted down through the ages of church and ecclesiastical history, it is up to us to make sure they are copied properly, and make sure the transmission process is correct. The church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth. God said, "My word os truth."

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
... was Abram's faith blind or informed when God told him to leave Ur and go to a land that He would show him? Not only was it blind, but God counted it unto him as righteousness.

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if your redundantly repeated assertion is true-- that the KJV is the preserved Word of God to the exclusion of other translations-- then you have no faith in that Word, as it is SEEN, and the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 concerns what is "not seen." Nor, since the KJV does in fact exist, is it "hoped for." The KJV is neither the substance nor the evidence of faith, according to your cited passage.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So if your redundantly repeated assertion is true-- that the KJV is the preserved Word of God to the exclusion of other translations-- then you have no faith in that Word, as it is SEEN, and the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 concerns what is "not seen." Nor, since the KJV does in fact exist, is it "hoped for." The KJV is neither the substance nor the evidence of faith, according to your cited passage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I never said I believed the KJV was the only or the perfectly preserved word of God. That Word is preserved in our hearts through the Holy Spirit. I was merely making a point that faith is blind and not informed.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
That Word is preserved in our hearts through the Holy Spirit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a fundamental error. The Word is not preserved in our hearts; it is preserved in over 5000 manuscripts. Your statement sounds very pious but has no basis in reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was merely making a point that faith is blind and not informed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps your faith is blind but mine most certainly is not. Mine is an informed faith -- informed by the Word, by the World, by the image of God in me,and by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in illumination and regeneration. A blind faith is the worst kind to have.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps your faith is blind but mine most certainly is not. Mine is an informed faith -- informed by the Word, by the World, by the image of God in me,and by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in illumination and regeneration. A blind faith is the worst kind to have. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes mine is informed by those things also, things which cannot be seen. Cannot be proven to be true without a shadow of a doubt in the worlds eyes. Yet we believe. I know you know what I meant, but you just seek to fuind errors in ones words and don't look at what they were saying. If faith is totaly informed and not blind then the we should thow out Hebrews chapter 11 along with many other books of the Bible.


Chapter 11

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 8By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. 11Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Now you call it what you will, but that is blind faith. Trusting God though we can't see the promise as of yet.

God speed.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This is a fundamental error. The Word is not preserved in our hearts; it is preserved in over 5000 manuscripts. Your statement sounds very pious but has no basis in reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You yourself have admitted time and again that there are errors in these mss. For not any two agree completely in the other. However I can attest to the fact that the Holy Spirit has never lie to me nor led me in error, which does live inside of me, He indwells me, therefore the perfect Word, and that's Captial Word lives inside my heart. I could care less if it sounds pious, it is the truth, and the truth of the matter is that if He is not in your heart or anyone elses for that matter, your not saved. All who are saved are indwelt with the Holy Spirit ie. God, ie. the Word.

God speed.

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:


No your statement is a false statement.
Most of the mss which the MV's are written from came from Egypt and Alexandria.

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your answer is only partially correct. Only very few documents used were Alexandrian. If you will give me about a week I can give you an exact list. Besides, because Jews were the ones who recorded and kept the Alexandrian documents, why would they be wrong? Do you think documents that have laid over 900 years in a Catholic church is any more accurate? I doubt it. That is where MOST of your AV came from and people keep using 1611. I keep telling everybody that they cannot even read a 1611 Bible. I have a 1614 Bible here and it is SO DIFFERENT from today's KJV that I doubt most people on this board can read it. You must surely be talking about the 18th century version. Your arguments would be stronger if the facts were correct.

 

Didn't Solomon write a proverb or Jesus or Paul make a statement regarding ego? Funny, there is sure a lot of it on this board, and most of it is from those who seem to be the most knowledgeable and the most experience. No heart, just FACTS!!!!!!!!!!

I guess there is nothing like somebody who can memorize facts out of books. (Either that or someone who has a job that requires so little work they can dig up facts for this board all day.) LOL

 

Philip, please try to avoid ad hominem attacks. Just because someone is knowledgable concerning the subject at hand does not mean he is less spiritual than you. Many men of God are very knowledgable in many areas and still manage to be effective pastors and teachers. Likewise, being well informed does not mean anyone on the BB is robbing his employer of time. Let's keep the discussion on a little higher level. Thank you.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:


Yes mine is informed by those things also, things which cannot be seen. Cannot be proven to be true without a shadow of a doubt in the worlds eyes. Yet we believe. I know you know what I meant, but you just seek to fuind errors in ones words and don't look at what they were saying. If faith is totaly informed and not blind then the we should thow out Hebrews chapter 11 along with many other books of the Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joey:

Yes faith is based upon things we do not see totally , and cannot be proven true without a shadow of a doubt to skeptics, yet Christianity is not blind faith, it is a faith based on history and revelation. Would you not agree that blindness sees nothing? We do see somethings, albeit incompletely. Yet our faith is one based on evidence, testimony, history and revelation.

1 John 1:1-4 (ESV)
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— [2] the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— [3] that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. [4] And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

1 Cor. 15:1-9 (ESV)
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, [2] and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.
[3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, [5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. [9] For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Cor. 15:12-19 (ESV)
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? [13] But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. [14] And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. [15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
So, are you saying you judge the bible by what you already believe? If not, where does your belief in the blood atonement and the virgin birth come from? Does it not come from the bible? If so, you have made the logical error of circular reasoning. Your presupposition and your conclusion are the same! If teaching the blood atonement and virgin birth are your criteria for believing a bible is the "perfectly preserved word of God" then you are also forced to believe the New World Translation is the "perfectly preserved word of God" as it teaches both the doctrinal criteria you presuppose. Not to mention the ERV, ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, NKJV, CEV, TLB, and a host of others.

I don't believe a bible because of what doctrine it teaches. I formulate my doctrine by what the bible teaches. It seems you me you have your source/conclusions backward. So, you still have not told us why you believe the KJV, and the doctrine it teaches, is the perfectly preserved word of God. Once more around the block? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again the following taken from: http://www.av1611.org/wash.html

Revelation 1:5 clearly reads in the King James Bible:


And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (KJB)

But you are NOT "washed in the blood" in the New Per-Versions . . .

American Standard Version (ASV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;
Amplified Bible reads:

and from Jesus Christ the faithful and trustworthy Witness, the First-born of the dead [first to be brought back to life] and the Prince (Ruler) of the kings of the earth. To Him Who ever loves us, and has once [for all] loosed and freed us from our sins by His own blood.
Contemporary English Version (CEV) reads:

May kindness and peace be yours from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness. Jesus was the first to conquer death, and he is the ruler of all earthly kings. Christ loves us, and by his blood he set us free from our sins.
Good News for Modern Man reads:

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn Son who was raised from death, who is also the ruler of the kings of the earth. He loves us, and by his death he has freed us from our sins
International Standard Version (ISV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, the witness, the faithful one, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood;
Living Bible (TLB) reads:

and from Jesus Christ who faithfully reveals all truth to us. He was the first to rise from death, to die no more. He is far greater than any king in all the earth. All praise to him who always loves us and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us.
New American Standard Version (NASV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood
New Century Version (NCV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, Jesus is the faithful witness, the first among those raised from the dead. He is the ruler of the kings of the earth. He is the One who loves us, who made us free from our sins with the blood of his death.
New International Version (NIV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,
New Living Bible reads:

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead, and the commander of all the rulers of the world. All praise to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us.
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood
New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips) reads:

and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, firstborn of the dead, and ruler of kings upon earth. To him who loves us and has set us free from our sins through his own blood
Revised Standard Version (RSV) reads:

and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood
Today’s English Version reads:

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first to be raised from death and who is also the ruler of the kings of the world. He loves us, and by his sacrificial death he has freed us from our sins


I beleive what I believe because of the Bible the KJV. If we are not washed in the blood and just freed from our sins then we are worshiping in vain. We must have a foundation for our faith. My faith is in God through His Word the KJV. Christ shed His blood to WASH away our sins, not just to free us from them, that is something very important to me. I don't understand why you can not see where they took out the blood atonement and hid it in all the modern versions. You showed me translations that you believe did not take out the blood atonement, and again just as times before I have shown you scriptures that were taken out of some of the translations that you mentioned, where they hid or took out the blood atonement. WHY can you not see why I do not want to use the modern versions? If you want to use them that is your choice, but I feel they are in error. I have over and over just as others have given scripture and verse for the stand I take on the KJV. All you have done is confuse, you take a luke warm stand. You have yet to tell us which Bible you think is the Word of God. Is it this one or that one. Like I have said before Joseph Smith and Russell had their own interpretation of the Bible; I feel if you can't take a stand than you have to question whether or not the they might have had the right transcripts. The KJV only crowd can give a solid statement on which Bible they use. We Believe it is the preserved Word of God. I do not believe I need to go and get this transcript or that transcript or study this ms or that ms to find the Word of God. I believe the KJV is the complete Word of God. I can not give you a book or resource to tell you that. I believe by what God has revealed to me. I have showed you verses that have changed from the KJV to the modern versions, where the blood atonement was left out, where the virgin birth was left out. I don't know how much more you need. God Himself is not going to come down in human form and say, hey Thomas this is the Bible you should use. You have to use the Bible you believe to be the Word of God, (Which you can not give a solid answer for) I believe in the WORD OF GOD NOT THE WORD(S) OF GOD. I may disagree and I feel it is my duty as a Christian to say when I think something is contradicting to God. I feel the modern versions are, for the reasons I have stated over and over again, but I do not have to stand before God and answer for what Thomas believes or any other, only for what I believe. I have gone on and on. I am not going to have the answer you are looking for, I know what I believe because that is what I have been taught and what I have studied just as you believe what you have been taught and studied. Sorry if that is not a good enough answer, I do not have a (Seminary) Education, I do not have expensive Bible study books, I have the KJV and I believe that is all I need for my foundation.

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: toolman ]

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: toolman ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
Revelation 1:5 clearly reads in the King James Bible: [omitted previously posted and refuted information<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How long will you persist??

Sometimes I wonder if you are even reading these posts. If you are, it doesn't show because you keep bringing up things that have been refuted. The MVs do not delete or compromise doctrine in any way. There is no doctrine that is deleted. They are all there. You tried this Rev 1:5 stuff in another thread and I showed where you were wrong in your reasoning and what the explanation was. You seem to be willing to reject the facts in favor of baseless attacks on translations of God's Word.

If you think that you have not been washed in a MV look up 1 Cor 6:11. You see, the doctrine has not been deleted at all. You are barking up a wrong tree.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


How long will you persist??

Sometimes I wonder if you are even reading these posts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo! I've found rabid KJVOs use the shotgun approach; just spray the area and hope to hit the target!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


How long will you persist??

Sometimes I wonder if you are even reading these posts. If you are, it doesn't show because you keep bringing up things that have been refuted. The MVs do not delete or compromise doctrine in any way. There is no doctrine that is deleted. They are all there. You tried this Rev 1:5 stuff in another thread and I showed where you were wrong in your reasoning and what the explanation was. You seem to be willing to reject the facts in favor of baseless attacks on translations of God's Word.

If you think that you have not been washed in a MV look up 1 Cor 6:11. You see, the doctrine has not been deleted at all. You are barking up a wrong tree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where was it refuted?

You are getting your information from books and other resources. Who says that what you are reading is right. You are forming opinion and not fact just as you say we are. I will use the KJV for the reasons I have stated over and over. No one has yet answered the question (WHICH BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD?). Over and over again you point out opinion and not fact. You do the same thing that you accuse us of doing, only we have a stand not a luke warm answer. I will persist as long as I believe the KJV is the Word of God and I have not seen evidence to change my mind so far. I don't understand how you can say that doctrine has not changed in the modern versions (Are you reading these posts)? Several times I have shown you where scripture has changed from the KJV. I think freed from and washed in the blood are two different things. That is important to me, I would feel wrong before God to use any Bible that changes Scripture that much. If it is not important to you than that is your opinion. Use all the versions, use the book of Mormon if that is what you want. Like Alex said at the start of this thread, you make enemies when you stand on the KJV, but friends when you support the modern versions. I will take a stand. Will you?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


Bingo! I've found rabid KJVOs use the shotgun approach; just spray the area and hope to hit the target! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen the modernists do the same. Spray all kinds of information from one source or another, use the I’m smarter than you ammo, and hope to hit the target.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
Where was it refuted? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Discussion of Rev 1:5

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are getting your information from books and other resources. Who says that what you are reading is right. You are forming opinion and not fact just as you say we are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are right because they conform to reality. The problem with your suppositions is that in many cases they simply do not conform to reality. No matter how many times you say it, the MVs do not deny the deity of Christ; they affirm it very strongly. No matter how many times you say it, the MVs do not deny the blood atonement. They affirm it without question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No one has yet answered the question (WHICH BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has been answered over and over again but I will state it again: Any translation that accurately reflects the original manuscripts it the Word of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Over and over again you point out opinion and not fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is my opinion that the eclectic text is a more sound approach to textual criticism. It is a fact that the TR includes passages with very little or no manuscript support. It is my opinion that the KJV is not the easiest translation to understand. It is a fact that the KJV uses some words that are no longer in use as well as some words whose meaning has drastically changed. It is my opinion that the MVs are better translations for today because they make use of 400 years of manuscript discovery and linguistic advance. It is a fact that no translation is perfect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't understand how you can say that doctrine has not changed in the modern versions (Are you reading these posts)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it has yet to be shown where doctrine has changed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Several times I have shown you where scripture has changed from the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Herein lies the fundamental problem. You are comparing to the wrong thing. The KJV is not the standard.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think freed from and washed in the blood are two different things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not think so for the following reasons. Scripture often uses a battery of words to describe a theological concept. For instance santification is being made holy, being made more like Christ, walking in obedience, being set apart. All these terms together describe one idea. The same is true with salvation. We are justified, washed, freed, declared righteous -- all words describing the same concept. Additionally you are still hung up on what you think it should say rather than what it does say. It is not important if you prefer the term "washed" over "freed." What is important is the term that John preferred and he seems to have preferred "freed." However, John would not argue that we are not "washed" from our sins.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would feel wrong before God to use any Bible that changes Scripture that much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOu cannot prove that the MVs are changed from Scripture. You can only show that they are different. Since you do not have the original manuscripts, you do not know which has been changed -- the MVs or the KJV. You simply cannot tell. You assume your conclusion and then denounce those who do not see it like you do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you make ... friends when you support the modern versions. I will take a stand. Will you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wish you would tell some others on this thread, like Josh Villines and RL Honeycutt and Michael Wrenn that they are supposed to like me because I believe a MV is a good translation. They haven't caught on that far yet.

Seriously though, you have made no enemies here because you prefer the KJV. The problem is that you are making false statements and those who love the truth will stand against false statements no matter who they come from. I have no problem with those who love the KJV or even prefer the TR or the MajT. I do have a problem with those who misrepresent evidence. Thomas, who is largely in agreement with you has been trying to get you to see that you have a faulty approach to the argument. There are some good reasons to prefer a TR/MajT position but you have not yet arrived at them. You simply resist without consideration of the issues.

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]