Search results

Its not that simple, my friend. The person who is outside of Christ, does not love God, and can in no capacity, love Him. Why? Here's but one (of many) scriptural proofs they cannot. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."[John 14:15 NASB 1995] The lost have automatically broken the...

Okay, let me turn this back around at you. Harken back to the days your children were kids. One of your five year olds gets away from you and ends up in the road. Here comes an 18 wheeler barreling towards them. You tell your child to get out of the road, and in rebellion yells "No!" Do you...

Yes. No. No. God’s love is found only in Christ, outside of that the wrath of God abides upon them. Agreed.

I’m not up to date on this and have really no idea how good…or bad…or identical…the GB is in comparison to the KJV.

I’m not the one willing to die on a hill for some unprovable thing. So, the problem is yours, not mine.

It’s not what the reformed guy says, but the very definition of it. Free from error Incapable of being wrong Infallible Not liable to error Not erring; making no mistakes All of these are various definitions of what inerrant means. Not from some reformed guy, either. But what the definitions...

And by the very definition of inerrant, the KJV cannot be called inerrant. If there were errors, printing or otherwise, that makes it anything but inerrant.

But you’re not reading the 1611 KJV, unless you’re reading the version that has son spelled “sonne”. Or Apoftle Pavl.

But I don’t believe it has to be solely the KJV used, but the ESV, NASB, HCSB, CSB, NIV, NLT, et al can suffice as well.

If it’s good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for Peter.

But the command was originally given to non-English speaking ppl to spread the gospel, and there was no KJV to quote from. How were they able to take the word of God to ppl back then? The scriptures they had, that were written in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic.

And if it had to be revised, then it doesn’t meet the criteria of inerrant. So, they use a double standard, and are hypocrites.

None of us who prefer the modern versions deny they’ve been through revisions. However, the KJVO stick their heads in the sand when shown the many revisions the KJV has had since its inception in 1611. 1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626. 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640. 1644, 1650. 1652, 1655...

I tell ppl whatever version you use that blesses you they should stick with. If the KJV is what you learn from best, by all means stay with it.

Then there is Sam Gipp. He went so far to say Jesus isn’t his Messiah. He stated Jesus was the Jews’ Messiah, but not Gentiles. In fairness, many KJVO folk spoke out against that, so I’m sure he’s in the extreme minority of the KJVO movement who hold to that hot take.

Ruckman taught there was no salvation outside the KJV. Ruckman taught the KJV actually corrected the mss in certain places.

My problem with this also stems from the name calling the KJVO ppl have had against men of God who helped give us our modern versions we love. They’ve even spoke they were evil ppl with evil intent, not ver batim, but that’s what they meant.

I’ve given them an honest listening for years and found their evidence lacking. All the vss they use to prove God preserved His word in the KJV can be applied to the modern versions as well.

So, if a non-English speaking person cannot learn to read English, and no one who speaks English witnesses to them, they cannot be saved?

Where is this evidence found in scripture?