Did God Die In 1611?

[C.R. Gordon]

God has NEVER STOPPED TALKING!

it's called SOLA SCRIPTURA! (HIS WORD SPEAKS ALWAYS)
that would be the BIBLE for those who would like to know..

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by HankD:
Homebound, you didn't answer how you know which is the correct Word of God.

He won't be able to answer you without espousing KJVO liberal theology. There's no scriptural support for single translationism. None. When [personal attack snipped] like Homebound imply such, they expose themselves for being followers of false doctrine.

[ June 25, 2004, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Christ4Kildare ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

C. R. Gordon,

You might want to brush up a little on your Latin!

 

[USN2Pulpit]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
You might want to brush up a little on your Latin!

Please enlighten this ignorant brother...I've been meaning to ask:

What does "sola scriptura" mean?

 

[skanwmatos]

Scriptures only.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HankD:
Homebound, you didn't answer how you know which is the correct Word of God.

He won't be able to answer you without espousing KJVO liberal theology. There's no scriptural support for single translationism. None. When [snipped] like Homebound imply such, they expose themselves for being followers of false doctrine. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe I did answer HankD, but to answer again, since I don't have the wealth of knowledge as you scholars do, I believe it by faith.

I thought name calling was not allowed here? Oh, I forgot, it's okay for [personal attack snipped] to name call, I get it now.

[ June 25, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Christ4Kildare ]

 

[skanwmatos]

HomeBound, you must have missed my response to you so I have posted it here again.

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In 2 Chronicles 28:11 which is correct, "LORD" or "GOD?"

LORD</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In Ezra 2:22 which is correct, "children" or "men?"

men</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In Acts 8:32 which is correct, "the shearer" or "his shearer?"

his</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In 1 Corinthians 12:28 which is correct, "helps in governments" or "helps, governments?"

helps, governments.</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Please tell me which reading is correct, and thus the perfect word of God, and how you know which one is correct.

If you can give me a definitive answer that conforms to the facts of both scripture and history, I will convert to KJVO.

Thank you."

I have given you the answer from the word of God, do you deny it? </font>[/QUOTE]You have claimed the AV1611 is wrong! But you haven't given me a reason to believe the AV1611 is wrong. How can you say the AV1611 is wrong? The word of God, the AV1611, says the opposite of the words you say are correct. Are you saying the AV1611 is a "perversion" of scripture? </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I thought name calling was not allowed here? Oh, I forgot, it's okay for the people [snipped] to name call, I get it now. [/QB]

Moderator note to posters. When offencive posts are made, please use the "Report Post" button. The accusation is unjust. Moderators are not omnipresent.
Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

[DeclareHim]

You know its great really there are many on this board that are KJVO but when we start these topics we can only get 1 or 2 KJVO to argue there point. (I think there getting tired of losing these debates). The KJV is not the only Word of God. PERIOD. They have no proof there mss are better than any of the others. So for those that are KJVO you have no argument for your position.

 

[HankD]

HomeBound, I think I can safely say we all love you as a brother in spite of the present heat in the kitchen.

Personally, I admire your tenacity and willingness to stand up for what you believe and
your willingness to confort the "the big guns".

I hope these qualities don't keep you from considering our point of view.

Also take another look at what Craig said.

Therefore, those of us who place a very high value on the word of God spend very much time studying the Bible in order to be able to recognize the errors and know the correct wording. This involves countless hours studying Greek and Hebrew lexicons and grammars, pouring over the manuscript evidence, and reading what others have learned over the centuries.

I sincerely hope that you understand that these are the qualities of many of those whom you are debating with.

These certainly appear to the qualities of the men who translated the KJV (although they were doctrinally in error in so many things and denied all the Baptists distinctives).

According to KJVO terminology they themselves were "Bible correctors". Which is of course a misnomer, they were correctors of errors introduced by men (themselves included) into the Bible.

Please believe that the MV movement is in that same tradition (without attaching a value judgment on the endeavor) of refining the Word of God. True some go overboard but as you can see when a "bad" MV hits the book stores, many here who are skilled in this tradition are quick to say so.

HankD

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
You know its great really there are many on this board that are KJVO but when we start these topics we can only get 1 or 2 KJVO to argue there point. (I think there getting tired of losing these debates).

Because most of us don't feel like arguing. I myself don't because one, I don't know much and two, I'd rather pray for you than argue with you.

The KJV is not the only Word of God. PERIOD.

As you would say, PROOF PLEASE!!!

They have no proof there mss are better than any of the others. So for those that are KJVO you have no argument for your position.

Just as you have no argument as it.

 

[robycop3]

Homebound, lemme put a big "10-4" on what Hank D said.

I hope you ask yourself, "Why am I advocating a doctrine for which no sustaining evidence or proof exists?"

KJVO is based wholly upon personal preference, emotion, guesswork, fishing stories, and imagination, and not FACT.

The thread title is, "Did God die in 1611?"

My answer-No, He did not; He's fulfilling prophecy(Israel, Iraq) before our very eyes. Nor did He retire to a park bench in 1611, He's still providing miracles, showing His power, and providing His word in the languages of today as He's done for countless past "todays".

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by HankD:
HomeBound, I think I can safely say we all love you as a brother in spite of the present heat in the kitchen.

Thank you and I also love you guys.

Personally, I admire your tenacity and willingness to stand up for what you believe and your willingness to confort the "the big guns".

Thank you.

I hope these qualities don't keep you from considering our point of view.

I somewhat understand your POV. I hope you can understand mine.

Also take another look at what Craig said.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Therefore, those of us who place a very high value on the word of God spend very much time studying the Bible in order to be able to recognize the errors and know the correct wording. This involves countless hours studying Greek and Hebrew lexicons and grammars, pouring over the manuscript evidence, and reading what others have learned over the centuries.

I sincerely hope that you understand that these are the qualities of many of those whom you are debating with. </font>[/QUOTE]Somewhat. I understand that they want to understand God's word more by studying, comparing, and reading other material to gain that knowledge, but as 2 Timothy 3:7 says, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

These certainly appear to the qualities of the men who translated the KJV (although they were doctrinally in error in so many things and denied all the Baptists distinctives).

I cannot argue this because I have no idea.

According to KJVO terminology they themselves were "Bible correctors". Which is of course a misnomer, they were correctors of errors introduced by men (themselves included) into the Bible.

I don't believe they corrected God's word, maybe man's mistake, but not the scriptures.

Please believe that the MV movement is in that same tradition (without attaching a value judgment on the endeavor) of refining the Word of God. True some go overboard but as you can see when a "bad" MV hits the book stores, many here who are skilled in this tradition are quick to say so.

HankD

Thanks HankD for this kind post. I believe we all can talk without name calling, or pushing ones buttons.

I don't believe the MV movement is here to hurt anyone. What I do believe is, the devil is working 24/7, 365 days a year to try to get the Bible believer to doubt God's word, or just to question it just like he did with Eve in the garden. I don't believe there is a need for another bible after the King James Bible. The KJB gives us everything we need if we would just read it and believe it. The Bible doesn't need to be rewritten, just reread.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Homebound, lemme put a big "10-4" on what Hank D said.

I hope you ask yourself, "Why am I advocating a doctrine for which no sustaining evidence or proof exists?"

KJVO is based wholly upon personal preference, emotion, guesswork, fishing stories, and imagination, and not FACT.

But yet there is no proof for what you say.

The thread title is, "Did God die in 1611?"

My answer-No, He did not; He's fulfilling prophecy(Israel, Iraq) before our very eyes. Nor did He retire to a park bench in 1611, He's still providing miracles, showing His power, and providing His word in the languages of today as He's done for countless past "todays".

So does God's word change when our culture/society changes? It sure seems like it. Sure I believe that He is still providing miracles, showing His power today, but not everything that happens is of God.

 

[HankD]

The KJV is not the only Word of God. PERIOD.

As you would say, PROOF PLEASE!!!

How about the KJV translators themselves:

...we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

 

[robycop3]

Homebound:I don't believe the MV movement is here to hurt anyone. What I do believe is, the devil is working 24/7, 365 days a year to try to get the Bible believer to doubt God's word, or just to question it just like he did with Eve in the garden.

And I believe that's what KJVO is all about! The devil has tricked some Christians(as well as others whose Christianity can be called doubtful, to say the least) into believing a man-made myth about God's word, that has absolutely NO supporting evidence whatsoever.


I don't believe there is a need for another bible after the King James Bible. The KJB gives us everything we need if we would just read it and believe it. The Bible doesn't need to be rewritten, just reread.

That would be true IF:
(1.) The language hadn't changed greatly over the last 400 years

(2.) There hadn't been some 5K Scriptural mss discovered over the last 400 years

So does God's word change when our culture/society changes? It sure seems like it.

HE changes it as He changes the languages. Otherwise, we wouldn't have ANY translations of His word. Did you ever wonder why God chose NOT to preserve the original writings? Their existence would end all versions discussions once and for all, although some scholars might quibble over the rendering of a few words here & there.

Sure I believe that He is still providing miracles, showing His power today, but not everything that happens is of God.

And KJVO certainly isn't of God. If it was, there would be some Scriptural support.(Amos 3:7) In fact, the KJV existed for a long time along with other versions without any KJVO myth or the literary cash cow sprung from it. No, KJVO certainly isn't of GOD.


But yet there is no proof for what you say.

Ah, but there IS proof, and LOTS of it-the very existence of the other versions, old and new, and their sources. There's no proof one is any more valid than the other. Not to mention that no two English BVs are alike, regardless of which sources they were made from. If God has indeed preserved his word, this is proof positive that He's chosen to provide it in more than one version.

It is the KJVO who presents this doctrine to Christianity, so the burden of proof lies with him/her. So far, the KJVO has failed completely to provide one peep of proof that could lend any veracity to that doctrine or to lead us to believe any part of it. Therefore it remains a myth. KJVO is an empty shell, devoid of any SUBSTANCE.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The KJV is not the only Word of God. PERIOD.

As you would say, PROOF PLEASE!!!

How about the KJV translators themselves:

...we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

</font>[/QUOTE]Weren't they talking about the Bibles before the KJB, like the Geneva, Tyndales, etc.? Not NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc.

 

[HankD]

Weren't they talking about the Bibles before the KJB, like the Geneva, Tyndales, etc.? Not NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc.

Yes, and in addition to the ones you mentioned they were (for instance) talking about the Douay-Rheims (which preceded the KJV) a Church of Rome English version.

The Douay-Rheims uses the word "penance" for "repentance'. The NKJV, NASB, NIV don't do that.

How much "meaner" can you get?

HankD

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by robycop3:
And I believe that's what KJVO is all about! The devil has tricked some Christians(as well as others whose Christianity can be called doubtful, to say the least) into believing a man-made myth about God's word, that has absolutely NO supporting evidence whatsoever.

Evidence, evidence, evidence. Do you have evidence that the modern versions is God's word? Or how about, do you have evidence of all of the accounts in the Bible? You believe them by faith, the same way that I believe the KJB.

That would be true IF:
(1.) The language hadn't changed greatly over the last 400 years

You cannot read the KJB?

(2.) There hadn't been some 5K Scriptural mss discovered over the last 400 years

This does not mean that they are the best MSS or even scripture.

HE changes it as He changes the languages. Otherwise, we wouldn't have ANY translations of His word. Did you ever wonder why God chose NOT to preserve the original writings? Their existence would end all versions discussions once and for all, although some scholars might quibble over the rendering of a few words here & there.

God's word was preserved in the English language, in the KJB. Why do you need another? Again, can you not read the KJB?

And KJVO certainly isn't of God. If it was, there would be some Scriptural support.(Amos 3:7) In fact, the KJV existed for a long time along with other versions without any KJVO myth or the literary cash cow sprung from it. No, KJVO certainly isn't of GOD.

KJVO, what is it, a person who believes that God can inspire and preserve his word in one book so there would be no confusion on what the word of God is. Today, you say there are many Bibles from God. I ask why? Can God not put his word in one book? Would that not be the easiest way to keep ones attention?

Ah, but there IS proof, and LOTS of it-the very existence of the other versions, old and new, and their sources. There's no proof one is any more valid than the other. Not to mention that no two English BVs are alike, regardless of which sources they were made from. If God has indeed preserved his word, this is proof positive that He's chosen to provide it in more than one version.

But why? One says this and the other says that, causing you to ask, which one is correct. Confusing, confusing, confusing, and God is not the author of confusion.

It is the KJVO who presents this doctrine to Christianity, so the burden of proof lies with him/her. So far, the KJVO has failed completely to provide one peep of proof that could lend any veracity to that doctrine or to lead us to believe any part of it. Therefore it remains a myth. KJVO is an empty shell, devoid of any SUBSTANCE.

All we say is, the King James Bible is God's word for the English speaking people of today. Can you not accept that? It's God's word, believe it.

 

[skanwmatos]

HomeBound, you must have missed my response to you so I have posted it here again.

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In 2 Chronicles 28:11 which is correct, "LORD" or "GOD?"

LORD</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In Ezra 2:22 which is correct, "children" or "men?"

men</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In Acts 8:32 which is correct, "the shearer" or "his shearer?"

his</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In 1 Corinthians 12:28 which is correct, "helps in governments" or "helps, governments?"

helps, governments.</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Please tell me which reading is correct, and thus the perfect word of God, and how you know which one is correct.

If you can give me a definitive answer that conforms to the facts of both scripture and history, I will convert to KJVO.

Thank you."

I have given you the answer from the word of God, do you deny it? </font>[/QUOTE]You have claimed the AV1611 is wrong! But you haven't given me a reason to believe the AV1611 is wrong. How can you say the AV1611 is wrong? The word of God, the AV1611, says the opposite of the words you say are correct. Are you saying the AV1611 is a "perversion" of scripture? </font>[/QUOTE]Please answer it this time.