Apostasy and Modern English Bible Versions

Absolutely. The Bible doesn't address versions directly and never comes close to endorsing only the KJV.

That isn't where KJVOnlyism stops though. It says that "these words constitute God's Word while these do not" based on nothing more than what boils down to an arbitrary choice.

Please cite any scriptural or valid historical proof that indicates that this applies to only the KJV or the TR but not other versions.

That is a more accurate accusation against KJVO's. There is NO scriptural proof that the KJV or TR was chosen by God. There is NO historical proof that either is the culmination of perfect preservation.

So upon what basis do KJVO's condemn other Bible versions and those who use them?

I have yet to see anyone here say that the KJV was not God's Word or call it a perversion, Satan's tool, a corrupt version, etc, etc.

So it is you all, not us, that try to "refute" our belief in the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Son, I think you have a serious mental problem in understanding and history. My statements have all been about the Holy Scriptures, NOT the King James Bible. Are you so naive and incompetent that I think the HOLY SCRIPTURES "mentions" the King James Version BY NAME within it's pages? Let's hope not, so quit talking like a fool.

A deceived and foolish man "flippantly" disregards the fact that Satan QUESTIONS, DENIES, and DISTORTS God's words, in spite of the BIBLICAL FACT that "FABRICATION" of false writings are spoken of by biblical mention to overthrow "doctrinal teachings" WITHIN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

You multi-text anyists are a riot. I care about the Holy Scriptures, which YOU HAVE PROFESSED, is the King James Version. That's FINE with me. I believe that also. The problem comes when you DISAVOW your own belief by CORRECTING one with ANOTHER. Contradiction of STATEMENT concerns a DIFFERENT VERSION (which, by the way, the Scriptures DO speak of, 2 Thess.2). ONE VERSION IS FALSE and ANOTHER IS TRUE.

The Book "spoke" again to the dissatisfaction of EVERY multitext-anyist.

I wouldn't waste fifteen seconds trying to persuade a "Christian" to believe the Holy Scriptures. ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT can "identify" them to a believer. (1 Thess.2, 1 Cor.2) Those who don't believe them IDENTIFY themselves by their "own" IGNORANCE, INFIDELITY, INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, and IRREVERENCE within them. (Matt.15,21,22) They can't get "any" light. (ILLUMINATION) Eph.1

 

Carlaimpinge:

I DO believe the Scriptures, and, far as I'm concerned, if something about worship, religion, or Scripture itself isn't in Scripture, either empirically or by implication, then it isn't correct. I came down upon Psalm 145:3's "seven church ages' doctrine because it's a man-made addition to Scripture, nowhere found in Scripture itself. I came down upon the KJVO myth because its man-made source is well-known and it's not found whatsoever, not even HINTED AT in Scripture.

I obtained my assumption that you're KJVO from this statement from your own site:

WHAT WE BELIEVE AND TEACH FOR SOUND DOCTRINE


The form in which the Holy Scriptures appears for the English speaking people of today is the Authorized Version, known as the King James Bible. It is the absolute and final authority in all matters of faith, practice, and doctrine.

But you come here and try to avoid the fact that you ARE KJVO. you know full well that the KJVO myth has been thoroughly hammered here, so you don't wanna mention it...but you forgot...we seek the FACTS! That's why most of us here are NOT KJVOs. We KNOW the KJVO myth is a rotten egg, a false doctrine, originated by man, NOT found whatsoever in Scripture, and we simply REJECT IT.

Can you give us JUST ONE VALID REASON why ANYONE should be KJVO?

 

Carlaimpinge:A deceived and foolish man "flippantly" disregards the fact that Satan QUESTIONS, DENIES, and DISTORTS God's words, in spite of the BIBLICAL FACT that "FABRICATION" of false writings are spoken of by biblical mention to overthrow "doctrinal teachings" WITHIN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

A deceived & foolish man believes he can tell God how He may or may not present His own word to mankind.

Myth? It is no myth to believe that God's words, the Holy Scriptures are his REVELATION to mankind through God's COMMUNICATION of language. (Gen.3,11, 2 Peter 1, 2 Tim.3)

Then why do you believe the myth that GOD IS LIMITED in presenting His word in English to just the one 400-yr-old version?

The revelation INCLUDES inspiration, publication, preservation, purification, translation, identification, and illumination. ALL of those points are CONTAINED in the HOLY SCRIPTURES themselves, which SPEAK of it's own TRANSMISSION to others.

Right...and the very same GOD who caised/ allowed Elizabethan English to come into being and who presented His word in it, STILL presents His word in CURRENT English, which He's caused/allowed to come into being.

It's real simple when you just believe the Bible, without trying to refute what you don't like about another's belief in the Bible.

Every Christian has a D-U-T-Y to fight false docctrines...and the KJVO myth is as false as they get. You're just hoping to continue in your little world unchallenged, but false is false, and on this forum, it most certainly WILL be challenged.

Now...Wanna to try to justify your KJVOism from SCRIPTURE? If it aint in Scripture, it AINT......

 

Robycop3,

Your rhetoric is ridiculous. I haven't AVOIDED anything OR anyone on this board concerning the King James Bible. You EASILY found it, didn't you?

Facts. That is EXACTLY what I was speaking about as is visibly manifested by my posts. I responded to the NONSENSE put out by others.

So you KNOW the King James Bible IS NOT the word of God? I seriously doubt that, and that you could prove it by anything from your mind. Are you going to prove that MULTI-TEXT ANYISM is the truth? I doubt that too.

The answer to your last question was contained in my last statement on the previous post.

You haven't proved anything as of yet. I STATED WHAT THE HOLY SCRIPTURES said about itself, which you then EVADED, to give your snub of the King James Bible, which you say that you believe.

Wild man wild.

Roby, you're in YOUR LITTLE WORLD of "attack mode". The Holy Scriptures have been, are, and shall be in MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE son. You're just babbling.

If you're going to challenge what I believe, you're going to have to deal with the VERSES which I present. Your "thoughts, ideas, and beliefs" won't work.

Everything that I said about the scriptures was contained in the scriptures.

[ June 01, 2005, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: carlaimpinge ]

 

You'll see that roby has to have things spelled out exactly in Scripture for him to believe. Applied theology through basic interpretation goes nowhere with this man. If you give him Scripture that completely supports the inerrent,,infallible, inspired Word of God, he will argue "But that doesn't say the KJB is the only Bible..." or so on.

The final truth concerning the Bible?

WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE IS, AND WHAT IT ISN'T; THEY'RE STILL GUESSING, and that due to the limited definition of Greek.

They will say, "I love the King James Bible", but then they attack it to try and approve their moderb versions.

When we point out that their attempts are too closely likened to "serpentology", they whine and cry and run to the LIBERAL moderators who, no doubt, are also against the KJB.

Thank You for your stand carlaimpinge

 

Nope, not true, God is never deceived as it is found in your golden calf, &lt;attack on the Bible deleted&gt;. neither is God equated with the antics and attributes of the wicked in your &lt;attack on the Bible deleted&gt;.

[ June 01, 2005, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Do you have any evidence for your accusation that any moderator is opposed to the KJV?

 

C4K, you just beat me to the punch.

So, Frank thinks that you, Phillip, and Dr. Bob are a bunch of "liberals".

Sometimes you just gotta laugh.

 

I contend that "liberal" would be the nicest thing some people here would say about me.

 

Everytime you apporve of a modern version, it is only through attacking the KJB, and since you've deleted what I said, maybe you too should use lower case "B" instead.

Just look at nearly any topic started by Dr. Bob.

You equate those two versions with the Bible, you err. That is a blatant attack on the KJB.

I have only observed one moderator in this forum that doesn't attack the KJB: "Pastor Bob", but I didn't call him a liberal either.

The evidences are for public access in the archives, maybe you need to research?

 

Since you made the charge the burden of proof is on you. Please show me one single post where I have attacked or questioned the authority of the KJV.

Your post was in clear violation of the posting rules here. The smae words would have been deleted if they referred to the KJV.

 

Frank says: "Everytime you apporve [sic] of a modern version, it is only through attacking the KJB..."


False Dichotomy (definition):

A dichotomy is a set of two mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive alternatives. Dichotomies are typically expressed with the words "either" and "or", like this: "Either the test is wrong or the program is wrong."

A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither.

 

C4K, you just beat me to the punch.

So, Frank thinks that you, Phillip, and Dr. Bob are a bunch of "liberals".

Sometimes you just gotta laugh. </font>[/QUOTE]Obviously, by the increase of ungodliness and the evidences of the coming apostacy, laughing and making a mock of such things is to be expected.

Preservation and conservation are synonyms: KJB and nkjv are only synonymous in two likenesses, though they contain much the same material, they are not excatly the same, but they do hold the common letter k and j.

And Larry, you simply are a liberal, since you don't know that liberals wear shorts and bowties.

 

Thank you for that insightful contribution to this debate. Your profound thoughts have challanged me to carefully examine my views.

 

Ah yes, placing heavy burdens upon your brethren, which they refuse to bear. BB archives bare that burden, and Larry a dichtomy first has to be false to be considered a false dichtomy.

 

Frank wrote: "And Larry, you simply are a liberal, since you don't know that liberals wear shorts and bowties."

I think your "bowties" remark is a reference to Dr. Bob, but I'm missing what you're talking about with the "shorts" reference. Care to elaborate?

 

Since the archives so clearly bear the burden, you should have no problem finding one example, my brother.

By making such a charge you placed the burden of proof on yourself. Surely you won't deny my the right of "innocent until proven guilty."

 

Absolutely. The Bible doesn't address versions directly and never comes close to endorsing only the KJV.

That isn't where KJVOnlyism stops though. It says that "these words constitute God's Word while these do not" based on nothing more than what boils down to an arbitrary choice.

Please cite any scriptural or valid historical proof that indicates that this applies to only the KJV or the TR but not other versions.

That is a more accurate accusation against KJVO's. There is NO scriptural proof that the KJV or TR was chosen by God. There is NO historical proof that either is the culmination of perfect preservation.

So upon what basis do KJVO's condemn other Bible versions and those who use them?

I have yet to see anyone here say that the KJV was not God's Word or call it a perversion, Satan's tool, a corrupt version, etc, etc.

So it is you all, not us, that try to "refute" our belief in the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Son, I think you have a serious mental problem in understanding and history.</font>[/QUOTE] First off, you are not my father. Second, Your rebuke is not based in scripture nor wisdom.

Then you are saying that other versions of the HOLY SCRIPTURES are also valid? If not, what exactly is your point?

No. Therefore YOU should stop acting like a fool and post a real, concrete reason for believing what you believe.

A deceived and foolish man dares to speak where God has chosen to be silent.

God never tells us which English version of the Bible is the right one. It is my belief "naive and incompetent" as it may be that the various versions of the Bible in English so greatly affirm each other that we can be absolutely certain that no doctrine contained in the originals is beyond our access now.

And you have YET to establish that MV's are doing this.

BTW, doctrine comes from scripture. The scripture is not determined by whether writings support your doctrinal presuppositions or not. It sounds as if your cart is before your horse.

It is a "version" of the Holy Scriptures... as is the NKJV, WEB, NASB, ASV, and others.

All versions derive their authority from the original. When for whatever reason a version differs from the originals or the best evidence for the originals then it should be corrected.

Your problem comes when you claim to be affirming the Holy Scriptures then DISAVOW your own beliefs by adding to what the scripture says.

You are stating a doctrine different from the one taught and implied by scripture concerning scripture. This passage applies to you more than any version of the Bible.

The book didn't speak. You did... and while you apparently cannot tell the difference between the two, some of us can.

Then you are disobedient in something other than simple acceptance of the biblical position on scripture.

BTW, I do try to convince KJVO's that the belief is false because I firmly believe we are to oppose error so that "Christians" will not remain in the darkness of false doctrine.

I recognize the scripture... when I hear it in the words of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc. The Holy Spirit will never contradict scripture... yet KJVO's hold a position that is contrary to the clear example of scripture. Namely, that words other than the KJV were and should be considered scripture.

I came out of the darkness of KJVO false doctrine several years ago thank you... because I was willing to let scripture say what it says and not what I wanted it to say and because I was willing to let biblical principles guide my treatment of the relevant historical facts even if the implications were uncomfortable.

The only "light" I see in your response is blinding pride.

 

Thank you for that insightful contribution to this debate. Your profound thoughts have challanged me to carefully examine my views. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh? So you think this is a debate? I'm not debating, I am proclaiming, you are debating, debate is a sin.

If I were to debate you, I would first play your little games bysaying your "burden": is to prove that no moderator has a bias against the KJB.

Your rules may be as you have thaty authority to delete what you call attacks, but you aklso disqualify yourself by attacks through sarcasm.

Deal falsely througn sarcasm? You're creating a false balance and bearing a false witness. But I guess that too isn't spelled out in your mv's, but it is in the KJB. No wonder you keep standing for false versions of the Bible.

LIBERALS!

 

Frank wrote: "Obviously, by the increase of ungodliness and the evidences of the coming apostacy, laughing and making a mock of such things is to be expected."

My laughter is not at the gravity of the seriousness of any reasonable defense of God's Word (which eliminates KJVOism by the very definition of "reasonable").

It's at your attempt to impugn the character of the BB's moderators; none of whom could rightly be called "liberal".