Debating versus Arguing

[webdog]

I believe that all sin originated from money...that the serpent enticed Eve using cash, and she in turn offered to split the proceeds with Adam. This correct doctrine?

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

NKJV -



Also 1 John 5v7 in the NKJV



How does this MV differ?

I still await support your serious charge that I, your brother in Christ, am guilty of doctrinal error. This kind of accusation hardly engenders 'reasoned debate.'

Now this is the kind of post I like to see Well reasoned and with examples.

Brother, I would be more then happy to deal with it, but not in this thread, I did not post that to be confrontational. It is merely a statement of my belief, and I have definently been told it often enough by MV proponents that as far as I know, it is fair to say that it is at least a majority opinion on both sides.

Websters defines doctrine as:
"DOCTRINE, n. [L., to teach.]
1. In a general sense, whatever is taught. Hence, a principle or position in any science; whatever is laid down as true by an instructor or master. The doctrines of the gospel are the principles or truths taught by Christ and his apostles. The doctrines of Plato are the principles which he taught. Hence a doctrine may be true or false; it may be a mere tenet or opinion."

If I say that God says that He will preserve His Word to all generations and that I have it in my KJV, and you say that He did not say that, then one of us must be in conflict with God's actual doctrine because we can't both be right.

But please folks, lets remember that we are Christians and that we have to respect the other brother.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

I believe that all sin originated from money...that the serpent enticed Eve using cash, and she in turn offered to split the proceeds with Adam. This correct doctrine?

Works for me.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If I say that God says that He will preserve His Word to all generations and that I have it in my KJV,

Where does God say the bolded part? Thats is opinion and not doctrine.

I can certainly respect your opinion, but not when it calls my doctrine into question.

BTW, only one poster on this thread has accused the brethren of doctrinal error - no one has returned that charge.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

This forum is not designed for one on one debate.

To make it simple - show us how using a NKJV/NIV/NASB etc is a serious doctrinal error.

Would you not expect the same if I said "Those who hold to a KJVO position are in serious doctrinal error?' Would you not expect be to give Bible evidence for it?

My young friend, you cannot make such a serious charge toward your brethren and then set the rules for responses.

Well, I have had such charges laid against me many times and had verses thrown at me to boot.

And I am willing to deal with as many responses as I can, but I do have other things to do around here then rise at the crack of dawn and go until midnight trying to keep up with all the questions, many of which are well reasoned and deserve a well thought out answer. Is it fair to someone who carefully works out a post with a serious, well thought out question, if I do not have time to answer it properly?

And I honestly did my best to portray that as what I believe, rather then making it an attack on all my opponents. If I failed, it was not my intention.

 

[webdog]

Works for me.

...because the KJV says it? Actually, what about Satan's fall...he wanted cash?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Well, its 1100 in Ireland and time for bed.

I will be interested to see if morning proves me guilty of doctrinal error or a difference of opinion.

 

[Rippon]

If I say that God says that He will preserve His Word to all generations and that I have it in my KJV, and you say that He did not say that,

Yeah,I'm shouting that with full volume -- God did not say what you have said.I know there are multiple KJVs each differing from one another -- but boy, that's an interpolation if I've ever seen one! Even Peter Ruckman hasn't gone that far!

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Where does God say the bolded part? Thats is opinion and not doctrine.

I can certainly respect your opinion, but not when it calls my doctrine into question.

BTW, only one poster on this thread has accused the brethren of doctrinal error - no one has returned that charge.

Respectfully sir, I stated my opinion, based on what I see in my Bible, an attack was not meant. All I was trying to do was illustrate the differences between us, but the fact that we are all fellow believers.
I have certainly been accused of being a heretic often enough to know that many on both sides hold the position that the other is in doctrinal error. If offense was given, I humbly apologize.

 

[webdog]

Respectfully sir, I stated my opinion, based on what I see in my Bible, an attack was not meant.

This is just the thing, it's not stated in your Bible, it's not stated in my Bible, it's not stated in the Spanish Bible. It is simply not true.

 

[Rippon]

This is just the thing, it's not stated in your Bible, it's not stated in my Bible, it's not stated in the Spanish Bible. It is simply not true.

WD,you're getting off-track here.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Yeah,I'm shouting that with full volume -- God did not say what you have said.I know there are multiple JKVs each differing from one another -- but boy, that's an interpolation if I've ever seen one! Even Peter Ruckman hasn't gone that far!

Respectfully sir, you misread my post, possibly I worded it confusingly. What I was trying to say is that I believe that God promised in His Word to preserve it forever, and I believe that it is in the KJV, I was not trying to say that He promised the KJV would contain it.

 

[Rippon]

Respectfully sir, you misread my post, possibly I worded it confusingly. What I was trying to say is that I believe that God promised in His Word to preserve it forever, and I believe that it is in the KJV, I was not trying to say that He promised the KJV would contain it.

You believe that His Word = KJV alone.Is that correct?

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

You believe that His Word = KJV alone.Is that correct?

Yes sir, that is where I believe the Word of God is in the English language.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

This thread has veered way off topic, and I am signing off for the night, but to reiterate, I believe in a position that many on here do not, but there are many on here who do not agree with my position who are God honoring and God serving Christians, hence I will do my best to be polite when I debate on here. And I would appreciate it if those who do not agree with me would take the same attitude. If anybody has something they wish to discuss with me, feel free to PM me, I will do my very best to give a serious, biblical response to any question that is asked.
As we are all Christians, let us behave like it. And remember this great truth, Jesus Loves each and every one of us. And that includes your opponent too.

In Christ,
Thumper:godisgood:

 

[annsni]

Let me ask this question. If I do not use the KJV, and therefore do not read the "Word of God", how is it that I am saved, believe in being saved by grace, believe in the Trinity, have taught my children the "way they should go" and thus far they have not parted from it, believe in the virgin birth and believe in the priesthood of the believer - if I do not read (and do not normally read) the KJV? If I'm reading errant Scripture, why is it that probably one of the only things we differ on is the ideology of the KJVO stance (which, by the way, the KJV translators did not believe in themselves)?

 

[Rippon]

Jesus Loves each and every one of us.

Except, of course, those He hates.

 

[Rippon]

BT,God's ways and thoughts are far beyond yours (and mine).You believe that only if one holds to a KJVO stance they are doctrinally sound.What if you are wrong?What if God honors most of the modern versions?What if He specifically has arranged for them to be used as His instruments leading to the salvation of multitudes and edification of hosts of believers?If that is the case, you have been fighting against God in your efforts to claim your onlyism.

 

[Rippon]

BT,should there be any onlyism for other languages?Should there be only one true Bible for Germans,French,Italians,Koreans etc.?Or should they all be forced to learn Elizabethan English?

 

[Rippon]

BT,what if some language groups don't have the entire Canon of Scripture in their language?What if they have a fragment of the 66 books written in a very dynamic fashion?Would that still be the Word of God?Or,would God consider that fragment unfit to use for His glory?