Doctrine verses "Versions"??

[williemakeit]

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]Yeah, but he called me Betty Don't, and didn't back it up with any money. Where's the justice in that?

 

[Dr. Bob]

You remember that children's books
"50 yards to the Outhouse" by Willie Makeit; illustrated by Betty Don't
"Don't Fence Me In" by Barb Wire
"1066 - the Year of the English" by Norman Conquest
"Understanding Cuts of Beef" by Chuck Roast
"Tort Reform" by Dewey, Cheatam and Howe
"Irish Wicker Chairs" by Patty O'Furniture

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Askjo:
.

The autographs = God inspired Words

The apographs = God preserved Words

The KJV = God preserved Words

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

I thought you believed 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20, 21. So where is the verse(s) to support what you think scripture says about itself?

Statements without documentation is simply plagiarism and dishonesty.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by C4K:
Still no Bible proof - opinions only.

The autographs - God inspired Words

The apographs - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God reducing preserved Words because of 2,000 unpreserved words including 40% non-TR.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
Still no Bible proof - opinions only.

The autographs - God inspired Words

The apographs - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God reducing preserved Words because of 2,000 unpreserved words including 40% non-TR. </font>[/QUOTE]Opinion again?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I thought you believed 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20, 21. So where is the verse(s) to support what you think scripture says about itself?

Statements without documentation is simply plagiarism and dishonesty.

2 Timothy 3:16 refers to inspired words - the PRODUCT. 2 Peter 1:21 refers to the writings, not writers.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
Still no Bible proof - opinions only.

The autographs - God inspired Words

The apographs - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God reducing preserved Words because of 2,000 unpreserved words including 40% non-TR. </font>[/QUOTE]Opinion again? </font>[/QUOTE]Not me!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
Still no Bible proof - opinions only.

The autographs - God inspired Words

The apographs - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God reducing preserved Words because of 2,000 unpreserved words including 40% non-TR. </font>[/QUOTE]Opinion again? </font>[/QUOTE]Not me! </font>[/QUOTE]I have yet to see any reference from scripture for your support of KJVO. Where is it? All I have read so far is verbage without any reference to any verse. I am still waiting for that verse to support ofr your claim of the KJV as inspired. Do you believe in progressive revelation? What about progressive inspiration?

Just be honest and humble and tell us you have no support from scripture and that KJVO is just your opinion.

 

[David J]

Would any KJVO just answer my questions?

Askjo,

You keep saying that God said this and that. Well show me the scripture Askjo. You are a false witness to the Most High and that is a fact my friend simply because you fail to provide the scripture you claim that God said. If I'm wrong them prove me wrong and back up your KJVOism with the Word of the Most High that says KJV, which one, etc... if you can not do this then stop putting words in the Lords mouth. Be honest and say it’s just your opinion without any scripture to back it up. Don’t slander the Word of the Most High and please stop making claims that you can not back up with scripture.

I though we were discussing a doctrine in this thread. Would any KJVOist care to post the scripture that supports KJVOism?

I figure that all we will get is the same old KJVO tactic of answer a question with a question and/or hijack the thread since these questions are just too hard to answer for the KJVO Camp. Something as simple as presenting scripture to back a doctrine makes the KJVO camp run for the hills screaming bloody murder!

Thank you

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

For a doctrine to be a doctrine it must have a scriptural basis.

There is none for the KJVO position, so it is just that, a position.

As far as I know, no one ever held to the doctrine of Vulgatism (except the Catholic Church), Bishop Biblism, or Genevaism.

Even at the furthest stretch of imagination and historical revisionism no one held this position until about 100 years ago.

No scriptural basis, no historical basis - no doctrine.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Even at the furthest stretch of imagination and historical revisionism no one held this position until about 100 years ago.

No scriptural basis, no historical basis - no doctrine.

You really ought to do a study into Church history and read Acts 11&13..I will assure you,the rejection of the "oldest n' best"(or any of their "fruit")is nothing new,or recent..

 

[Pastor Larry]

In the last few months, I Have preached through Acts 11 and 13 and have seen absolutely nothing about the KJV, or any version for that matter. Seems that you are using Scripture out of context to support your false doctrine again.

 

[robycop3]

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?

Because the KJVO doctrine IS about versions, while such other doctrines as Cakvinism have nothing to do with which BV is used.


Is it that doctrine proves the side of that debate?

Yes, when that doctrine is CLEARLY FALSE, such as KJVO is.

Sure it does, calling "KJVO" a false doctrine is out of kilter,

No, it ISN'T. KJVO is CLEARLY FALSE, as has been proven over & over. This falsehood isn't guesswork nor spin; it's FACT!


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,

ONLY if the person is KJVO from PERSONAL PREFERENCE. If a person is KJVO from the works of the KJVO authors or from some humbug "oral tradition", it CERTAINLY isn't from GOD.


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.

Good luck...you'll NEED it. You haven't done worth a plugged nickel yet.

 

[robycop3]

Plain ol'Ralph: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,

Sir, I can take any or all the verses the KJVOs have "outlined" and apply them to any valid BV on earth. They are NOT exclusive to the KJV, nor do they apply ONLY to the KJV. What makes you think they DO?

so it is nothing more than the authorities pushing their views and even transgressing the rules in their effort.

Don't know about the "authorities, but, unlike the KJVO defending the myth, WE can PROVE what WE say AGAINST the KJVO myth.

We stand, yall try your best to tear down that stand, but where do yall stand? In multiple contradicting versions? I'm afraid so.

You simply CANNOT prove us wrong. All you can do is wring your hands in frustration. The TRUTH FROM GOD prevails every time. Your attempts to LIMIT GOD in His presentation of His word just won't fly.

 

[robycop3]

Askjo: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.

It says what it says. The AV translators indicated it's about PEOPLE. Since there are so many other verses which POSITIVELY, absolutely state God has preserved His word, the KJVOs' argument over Ps.12 shows silliness on their part.

The autographs = God inspired Words

The apographs = God preserved Words

The KJV = God preserved Words...ONE VERSION of them, not the ONLY version.

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

Askjo = Trying to turn green into yellow, right into left, and a false doctrine into a true one, failing in every attempt.

 

[robycop3]

James Newman: 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,

THE GREEK CLEARLY READS,HADES IS CAST INTO THE LOF!! There's NO DENYING this! If you don't like it, then I suggest you complain to JOHN, who wrote it at JESUS'command. This IS a doctrine taken from a version because NO CHRISTIAN denies the existence of hell, and reading that hell is thrown into the LOF could lead some to believe hell isn't eternal.

The NT of the KJV is translated from some ancient GREEK-LANGUAGE mss, right? And don't those mss read HADES is cast into the LOF? If the above is true, you have no valid argument.

 

[robycop3]

Anti_Alexandrian:You really ought to do a study into Church history and read Acts 11&13..I will assure you,the rejection of the "oldest n' best"(or any of their "fruit")is nothing new,or recent..

A_A, you know full well that before some dishonest wannabe authors picked up ben Wilkinson's book and
set out to build a false doctrine (and a cash cow) around it, that there was only an occasional voice raised in favor of KJV only, and these vouces didn't reach the general public too often. Whether you'll admit it or not, YOUR KJVOism is based upon the hooey first published in 1930 and expanded by the likes of Ray and Fuller. it is NOT a valid doctrine, it has absolutely ZERO Scriptural support, and ALL you can prove about the Alex mss is that they and the Byz mss differ from each other in some places.

MOST of the false doctrines that now pollute Christianity were made by taking KJV verses out of context, as was much of the KJVO myth itself. By purely doctrinal standards, the case would be AGAINST the KJV; it would be condemned as THE source for almost all false doctrines. case in point...the hell vs specific names discussion we just had, caused by the KJV's calling these specific places hell and not their specific names.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
Still no Bible proof - opinions only.

The autographs - God inspired Words

The apographs - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God preserved Words

The NKJV - God reducing preserved Words because of 2,000 unpreserved words including 40% non-TR. </font>[/QUOTE]Still spouting this nonsense? The NKJV is closer to the TR than the KJV is. However, the English words of the NKJV do not equal English words of the KJV 100%. Which is what your true complaint is - you just don't have guts enough to admit it.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by TC:
The NKJV is closer to the TR than the KJV is.

That is misleading! If the NKJV is closer to the TR, WHY did the NKJV exclude the TR?? Why 40 % non-TR in the NKJV???? The information that I have, provided the fact about the NKJV.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Askjo:
The NKJV - God reducing preserved Words because of 2,000 unpreserved words including 40% non-TR.

Now you seem to be a very slow learner, Askjo. This has been debunked again and again.

If you persist in continuing to throw out statistics and slurs, for goodness sake get some that are remotely accurate. Your credibility is totally gone when you wax absurd.

You move from just being wrong, that, when you refuse to learn, to being unteachable. We cannot have LIES spread over and over and over. Some simple folks might believe the LIES when they are told again and again.