Here is a Bible Version we can do without!

blas·phe·my

NOUN:
pl. blas·phe·mies

A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.


Nope I have not even come close and never will.

 

Rev. Lowery issued the following balderdash:

2. Because we dont have those the TR became the 100% word of God.

The TR became the word of God? What does this even mean? Is "Word-of-God-ness" some sort of magic juice that gets transferred from manuscript to manuscript? What nonsense.

3.Because we no long have the complete TR the KJV 1611 is Gods word 100% even when the TR was around it was not in English the KJV is in English which makes in the Word of God.

And so the "magic juice" gets squeezed out of the TR, and splashes on the KJV, and now it gets to be the Word of God . . .

Of course, you're simply in factual error when you claim "we no long [sic] have the complete TR," as there are gazillions of extant copies. I have one myself.

I dont care how many time someone say "version" and "translation" are the same they are absolutely not.

From Webster's 1828 dictionary, which most KJV-onlyists wish were the 67th book of the canon (note Definition #4):

The KJV 1611 is a translation.

And therefore, by definition, it is a version.

Everything after it is a version.

And therefore, by definition, they are translations.

If a "Bible" removes Christ, His Deity, The Father, The Blood, Salvation, Holy Ghost, Hell, Lake of Fire, or any others then it is not The Word of God.

I am not aware of any Bible translation regularly used in the mainstream of orthodox Christianity that omits any of these things. The Lowery Fantasy Version (LFV), perhaps?

You can say, "Oh, But thats OK it doesn't take away from the message as a whole."

People are constantly removing small pieces of the Bible and it started with the NIV

I thought it started with Westcott and Hort? Or was it the serpent in the garden? I wish the KJVers could keep their stories straight.

now we have "Bible's" that are perversions because we as Christians want make a stand and put a stop to it.

Yeah, heaven forbid that there be so many Bibles in the world! The horror! the horror!

People like MV's because they appeal to the flesh and make us feel good about all the junk we know we shouldn't do. More often then not MV's make it OK to fornicate, adulteries, lust, covet, worship other gods, and I dont want any part of it.

ROFL! This is your brain on KJV-onlyism, folks.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to read my NIV, then get completely wasted and have an orgy in honour of Dagon while coveting my neighbour's Xbox 360.

 

So you are saying that the originals are God's word? But between the time the originals were no longer around and the KJV they did not have God's word? I wonder what they did when English did not even exist?

Sometimes I am kinda dumb. I did not know the TR ever included the Hebrew text.

 

And...

So you claim, but is it true? Hardly...

But that is exactly what you are doing when you say:

Digging a little deeper...

And...

What you claim you preach is directly opposed to what you actually preach, Rev. Lowery. Your claim was "Nope I have not even come close and never will" after you had just said some Bibles are perversions. Now which is it, Rev. Lowery?

Out of all the legitimate modern Bible versions, I have seen none which "removes Christ, His Deity, The Father, The Blood, Salvation, Holy Ghost, Hell, Lake of Fire, or any others." The NIV, the NASB, the NKJV, etc. all teach these basic Christian foundations. Can you show us one single place where any of these versions say Jesus is not Lord? Can you show us one place where any of these versions teach we must rely on something beside the blood of Christ for salvation? No, of course you can't because you make false claims against Bible versions that are not worded exactly as the KJV. When you make these false claims against these Bible versions you blaspheme the word of God. Pure and simple, cut and dried. Of course there are versions which do remove some of these things, but these are versions "translated" by errant groups such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. Their versions are not mainstream, legitimate Bible versions because they were translated with the sole purpose of promoing eroneous doctrines.

I have read that the TR did not exist when the KJV was translated, but that it was compiled from the bits and pieces of texts that were used in the translating of the KJV. If the TR was compiled from various incomplete manuscripts, doesn't that place it in the same position as the other Greek texts you deny? Were not all these Greek texts made up from partial manuscripts? Were any of these manuscripts complete? So how is it that the TR can be guaranteed 100% accurate while the other texts are guaranteed 100% wrong? Your "reasoning" makes no sense.

So, call it what you will, you actually do blaspheme the word of God, and you hold a double standard for the Greek texts which underlie the various English Bible translations. Yes, Rev. Lowery, despite your claim to the contrary, they are translations because they were translated from Greek texts. Just because the underlying text was not the TR doesn't mean these translations are the "perversions" you falsely claim they are.

 

I am not going to argue and I want be made fun of either. We are suppose to be Christians I have in no way twisted anyones responses but yet mine are continually twisted. I can give chapter and verse of several MV's that remove key doctrinal points that are found in the KJV and the TR. This has been done in many places on this board and there is no point in post the same stuff over and over and over and over. If you dont believe the KJV fine if you do fine if you believe the NIV fine if you dont fine I really personally could care less as it does no good to continue you guys have your way I have mine. I dont know Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic if I did I would have a and read the TR and said Language Bibles. For me though in English the KJV 1611 is Gods word and all other English Bibles are not. That is my personal conviction and in no way affects my salvation.

That is quite a leap in logic. Can you support that from history or from the bible?

Who in the world told you we no longer have the compete TR? I have over a dozen copies of it!

As none of the most popular of the modern versions do that are you saying they are all the word of God too?

Oh oh! Are you claiming that a saved person can lose his salvation or are you claiming that a person who does not use the KJV cannot be saved?

Really? Can you tell me which version make it okay to do those things? Chapter and verse, please. </font>[/QUOTE]

Oh oh! Are you claiming that a saved person can lose his salvation or are you claiming that a person who does not use the KJV cannot be saved?

I never said nor implied the statement you claim. I am simply saying exactly what is said and nothing more.

Reuelation XXII
verse 18-21

Is clear as day on the subject of removing and adding unto the words of the book.

and Reuelation XVII
verse 8

We are in the Lambs Book of Life before the foundation of the world......Doesn't mean predestined just means God knows everything.

If you wish to not be condescending then you may reply to me if you feel you need to be condescending then fine go on but I am less likely to respond.


Ohhhhh and I said "Bibles" not Bible and yes some are called Bible but are clearly not hence the "Bibles".....I mean come on dont be petty Keith your a bigger man than that. I never denied Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic texts why do you say that ?

 

Rev. Lowery said:

I am not going to argue and I want be made fun of either.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why careful writing is so important.

We are suppose to be Christians I have in no way twisted anyones responses but yet mine are continually twisted.

Like all KJV-onlyists, you twist the truth. What goes around comes around.

 

I never said i was KJV only did I? No I didnt TYVM !

Please tell me what truth I have twisted !

 

I never said i was KJV only did I? No I didnt TYVM !

If it quacks like a duck . . .

 

What truth have I twisted ????

 

Rev. Lowery,

Matthew 5:10-12 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

[Personal attack deleted--Claiming MV users are attacking God will not be accepted.] Keep the faith. Fight the good fight.

As to the question asked you if a saved person can lose his or her salvation, the answer is emphatically no.

But one can serve God in vain, thinking all along that he or she was saved and still go to the lake of fire. This is evident by the passage where some said 'Lord, lord, did we not prophesy in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils, and in thy name do many wonderful works?' Yet, they were never known by the Lord. Notice it did not say I knew you once but no longer knew you, no it says, 'I never knew you.'

It is evident that many will have done works for the Lord in vain, because they never truly knew Him, nor He them.

[ May 22, 2006, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

SFIC, "keeping the faith" and "fight the good fight" are NOT the same as "The KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version".

 

roby how is a Book considered a Bible what is the Canon?

The KJV has never been disputed but yet all other English MV's have been, do you ever wonder why that is ?

See the modern MV's make you feel, "oh yea I am doing fine I can do whatever and God loves me." thats what Satan wants you to think. There have been many post's many many times how the MV's make everything OK.

I could literally post pages and pages of where MV's error in there ""Translation"" vs the KJV.

And from 1611 to what 1978 we had KJV then it was NIV and the NIV was worse then than it is now so it has improved but, Its not KJV. I have read NIV, NASB, The Message, Book of Mormons, Watchtower, you name it if its in English and claims to be Bible I have read it. I can tell you NONE of them have the POWER and PRESENCE of the Holy Spirit.

Prime Example Psalms 1 read that in any MV you like its just not the same as the KJV, the power is gone with MV's, but not the KJV I get Holy Ghost bumps just thinking about reading it.

Psalms 1 theres a sermon for Wednesday night.

 

From 1560 we had the Geneva Bible. What's your point?

 

Check your history. The KJV met with significant opposition early on.

 

So, "holy ghost bumps" = inspiration?

The KJV is beautiful and poetic--of course.

I never got the bumps, though. God speaks to me through the KJV and MV's...I guess I need to ask Him for bumps so I'll know it's the word.

 

Even the KJV translators disputed some of their own translating work.

 

rbell you have never gotten goose bumps when you read the Bible, or witness, or sing, or praise God ??

Thats hard to believe when the presence of the Holy Spirit comes into a worship service or prayer or study I can feel it from my head to my toes, can I get an Amen!

If the MV's work in your witness and that witness is the Gospel great but, if in your witness you hinder thats not good. In my service of Christ I have found that more is not better it creates confusion among the lost when the saved cant agree on what is the Bible and what is not. Thats why absolutes among the Christian community are so important. If we cant agree on the foundation how can we walk in one accord?

Amos 3:3

How can we lead the lost to Christ when we can even tell them where to find Gods word?

My point is not KJVO and My point is not MVO.....Simply my point is you cant have your cake and eat it too. If you say all English translation are the Word of God then you open the door for blasphemy and heresy such as the OP has pointed out as well as in "The Message". Who determines at what point we draw the line?

 

I have gotten goose bumps when something powerful of God took place. I have also gotten goose bumps when the room was too cold.

You ask, "Where do we draw the line?" We draw the line at faithful scholarship and discernment. I have little difficulty discerning between "The Message" and a faithful translation.

You talk about MV's "creating confusion among the lost." I have honestly never been in a setting where that happened. I have been in a setting where a bunch of Christians fought about translations, and the lost folk rolled their eyes.