Doctrine verses "Versions"??

[Plain ol' Ralph]

I've seen the mods many times refer the threads to be posted in the theologiacal and doctrines sections, but why is it doctrine can't be discussed in the versions section? Is it that doctrine proves the side of that debate? Sure it does, calling "KJVO" a false doctrine is out of kilter, it is a conviction that the Lord has worked in the heart of the believer and to call it such is telling that person they haven't been with God on the issue, so yall argue till your blue in the face, BP to Zero and cold as a stiff, I'll stick with the KJB and show anyone the shortcomings of the other versions and the fallacies that they incite.

 

[Dr. Bob]

It's the other way around, Poor boy. If it deals with the KJV issues, it is moved HERE to the Versions forum!

If you want to talk about DOCTRINE and KJVonly, I am all for it!

Please post your first verse supporting the position that God gave the KJV or that God gave only one English version or that the KJV is the only Bible.

Can't discuss doctrine without Scripture. (Use any translation you desire)

Without Scripture all we have is tradition, private revelation, gut feeling, history, etc. And the Latin Vulgate fits THAT better than any English translation.

Doctrinal discussion begins with verse #1

____________________________________

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

I don't believe your referring to me as "poor boy" is accurate to the distinction a moderator should portray in character, so now should I consider your remarks as an invite to future slurrs?

Our conviction on the KJB is the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures given to us in the English language according to the verses outlioned the multitudes of times that the other side refuses, so it is nothing more than the authorities pushing their views and even transgressing the rules in their effort.

We stand, yall try your best to tear down that stand, but where do yall stand? In multiple contradicting versions? I'm afraid so. But then you have even contradicted your own rules outlining this forum by name calling, "sad".

 

[Ransom]

Sure it does, calling "KJVO" a false doctrine is out of kilter, it is a conviction that the Lord has worked in the heart of the believer and to call it such is telling that person they haven't been with God on the issue

ROFL!

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Amidst the multiple, over 200 now in English, while there are over 400 languages w/o a Bible, confusing versions rooted in indecision, I see.

 

[David J]

POR,

What about answering Dr. Bob's questions and list the scripture. Your emotional humanistic reasoning’s are the same things that every Mormon missionary uses to defend Mormonism.

End the bible version debate right here right now. Post the scripture in the KJV that says KJV. Post the scripture that says which KJV. Post the scripture that says God approved the KJV. Post the scripture that says in 1611 that God would move over the AV1611 translators to create a translation that would need to be corrected and updated by Blayney in 1769.

How can we discuss doctrine when your doctrine has no scripture? A false doctrine has no scripture to support it POR. Do you have scripture to support KJVOism? If so then please use this scripture and answer my questions.

I don’t think you really understand what a doctrine should consist of in the first place. If you did then you would not put KJVOism and doctrine in the same sentence.

KJVOism is a lie. KJVOism is nothing but liberal modernism that hinders the work of the church.

No spin just post the scriptures and answer my questions. If you have no scripture then you must admit the KJVOism is a man made myth with nothing to support it outside of human reason that mirrors the excuses that the Mormons and JW's use.

 

[David J]

by the way don't use a question to answer a question and an example to answer an example.

No spin just prove KJVOism using the KJV.

Thank you.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It will be the same old verses ripped out of context to support a false doctrine.

Psalm 12 says NOTHING about the KJV.

Even IF I allow that it refers to the words of God, it does not support one version in one language.

 

[Ransom]

Plain Ol' Ralph said:

confusing versions rooted in indecision, I see.

Sorry, neither confused nor undecided, except in KJV-only Fantasy Land.

 

[Dr. Bob]

"Poor Boy" is a play on words - you are called POR by all as a shortcut (who don't write out Plain old Ralph). It is not a slur. It's called "clever humor" by the Administrator. I use humor as often as possible in my posts.

Now that the smokescreen of namecalling is over, I will let you get back to the issue of DOCTRINAL DISCUSSION and await your answer: verse one to support your spurious statements =

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by C4K:
It will be the same old verses ripped out of context to support a false doctrine.

Psalm 12 says NOTHING about the KJV.

Even IF I allow that it refers to the words of God, it does not support one version in one language.

You accuse KJVO on Psalm 12 reflecting the KJV, but KJVO accuses MVO on Psalm 12 reflecting to MVO's denial of the preservation of the Holy Scriptures.

The autographs = God inspired Words

The apographs = God preserved Words

The KJV = God preserved Words

These modern versions = God "less than 100%" preserved Words.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Still no Bible proof - opinions only.

The autographs - God inspired Words

The apographs - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God preserved Words

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

So, See 4 knots , does Job 24 refer to the wicked, or not?

Does that mean he's "Dr.eary" Bob?

 

[James_Newman]

All I know is we had a thread that was started to discuss the possibility that the KJV had correctly translated hades and gehenna (and tartarus) as hell, the opposing view being that the mv's which kept these 3 words distinct were more accurate. When the idea is raised that a bible version DOES affect DOCTRINE, it is shut down, calling it OFF TOPIC.

Christians who believe 'once saved always saved' should know that the new bible versions do not support this doctrine. Your answer may be that 'once saved always saved' is false doctrine, my answer is MV's are false bibles. How can you argue this and remain 'on topic'? I appreciate that a moderator may feel he is within his rights and doing his duty to keep things orderly on this forum, but is it not really being used as censorship in some cases?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Christians who believe 'once saved always saved' should know that the new bible versions do not support this doctrine.

Proof please. Show me how the NKJV denies the doctrine of eternal security.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Plain Ol' Ralph
I don't believe your referring to me as "poor boy" is accurate to the distinction a moderator should portray in character, so now should I consider your remarks as an invite to future slurrs?

Ralph (if I may call you that), it might make you feel better to know that Dr Bob has a tendency to nickname people. He called Blackbird "Old crow" once. So my advice -- chill and don't take it so seriously.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by James Newman
Christians who believe 'once saved always saved' should know that the new bible versions do not support this doctrine.

Please show your support for this rather drastic statement.

 

[natters]

James, you are confusing translational issues with interpretational issues. Two people can use the same version and come to different interpretations. For example, many KJV-only supporters OPPOSE 'once saved always saved'. That's why much of your discussion belongs in another forum, it has little to do with "versions". And it is NOT censorship to say "move it to the appropriate forum".

 

[James_Newman]

I didn't say denied, I said don't support. You could believe either way. If you want to believe that every time the Lord spoke of gehenna, He meant the lake of fire, then your going to have some problems with eternal security. This belief is rampant, and only exascerbated by the fact that many new versions selectively translate the words hades and gehenna as hell, or transliterate them. At least the NKJV is consistent in its error.

If both of these words are talking about the same place, then eternal security is not affected, and the KJV was well within reason to translate them all as Hell. When revelation shows hell being cast into the lake of fire, there is no confusion. When hades is thrown into the lake of fire, that almost forces the assumption that gehenna IS the lake of fire, although there is not a clear scriptural proof of this, rather a lot of conjecture and some emotionalism thrown in for good measure. Why does the NKJV call gehenna hell in the warnings to Christians, while transliterating Hades. Christians know what hell is, and Christians know what the lake of fire is.

If OSAS is true (and I hold it is true) then why is Christ warning His disciples of going to the lake of fire in the sermon on the mount? This false idea that gehenna is the lake of fire promotes a works based theology that is inconsistent with eternal salvation being a free gift.

I'm not trying to hijack a thread, so if you would care to discuss these things, I will be more than happy to do it in its appropriate place, but there are valid doctrinal differences between bible versions, and to ignore this fact does violence to reason.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Posted by Plain Ol' Ralph
I don't believe your referring to me as "poor boy" is accurate to the distinction a moderator should portray in character, so now should I consider your remarks as an invite to future slurrs?

Ralph (if I may call you that), it might make you feel better to know that Dr Bob has a tendency to nickname people. He called Blackbird "Old crow" once. So my advice -- chill and don't take it so seriously. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, so he can play but I can't?

Sounds as if the Dr.eary Bob has a reputation that preceeds himself?