Doctrines introduced or changed over time?

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Your presumtion has two flaws. First, it presumes that English finished evolving in 1611. Second, it presumes that any changes made to the KJV after 1611 were simply corrections to spelling, printing, typeface errors. Neither of those statements is correct.
--------------------------------------------------


No flaws, just the facts. The few archaic words do not amount to evolving the language into a foriegn one. Your belief is flawed. Many believe the English scriptures of the KJB need to be updated to our modern english, when these versions have done much more than this, changing standard and basic English words, with the same meaning then as today, with completely new ones, weakening the pure meanings and context of scriptures, twisting them around so as to make it hard to memorize and in some cases read, while others make it smooth as butter, but with changes that have affected the context, omittions of and additions to the scriptures, placing verses of scriptures in footnotes, casting doubt on it's authority, and also translating from different texts. Then because all these versions conflict, and are different, cause many to turn to languages they have NO UNDERSTANDING in, in order to better understand it, and then at the same time claim we need the scriptures to be in the language of the common modern man of today. Hypocracy at best. The claim is to update to our modern language, when all it is, is one big rabbit trail leading to more confusion, that all is really needed in the first place, is for one to look up the few cases where there is an archaic word in our OWN LANGUAGE in a dictionary. Oh, but the cry is we need a plethora of choices out there too. Everyone gets their own personal flavor, of whatever they so choose. God is not an ice cream parlour, nor is his holy words of truth a favorite ice cream flavor to be had. We are speaking of the Holy and Pure words of God!


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Nothing in your post lends support to us only being allowed one tanslation of the TR today.
-------------------------------------------------


I have no idea what you are talking about here. Who has said this?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Second, we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The DSS, dating to the time of Christ, support non-TR Greek texts more than they do the TR. One must either conclude that the earlier texts are indeed more accurate, or that the Dead Sea Scrolls are of no value. Since there's no historical support for the latter, the former is probably likeliest situation.
---------------------------------------------------

The true and pure words of God have been preserved by God and have been living in the churches from the beginning until now. Dead sea scrolls mean nothing other than the fact that they in many places confirm the scriptures, and other places have corrupted them or are lacking in them. You can put your faith in some dead old scrolls, and texts collecting dust, and rejected by the churches throughout history, but I will put my faith and trust in the Bible God has providencially provided me, and many other believers within the churches of generations past unti this day, to which was and is still LIVING in the churches.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:

The mv's are the ones that have brought division and strife, doubt and confusion among the bretheren.

Give us some facts.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Also, not one doctrine has changed over time, even with the introduction of the MV's.
--------------------------------------------------

God says:

2 Tim. 3

12. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


God also does say much about his words and the scriptures and even gives warnings to those who would add to or take from them - this includes every jot and every tittle, as Jesus said they would not pass away, until all be fulfilled, to IF DONE CAN and does affect doctrine and weaken it. The rest of your post, has already been addressed and discussed at length and to which further discussion on it will do not any good.


Until you can reason with the scriptures on this issue, I will not continue with you in further discussion on it. The scriptures are my final authority on all matters, including this one, and NOT my opinions, or yours.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Michelle, I believe you are taking the passage of Matthew 5:17-18 out of context. This is referring to the law and prophets, nothing else.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I believe by your use of the scripture above you are trying to imply that I am either an evil person or a seducer, and thus give present yourself as persecuted or having a martyr complex. This is far from the truth. You can try and twist scripture to fit your doctrine, Michelle, but it won't work. You can take scripture out of context all you like, but the fact of the matter is this, that many have shown you the erroneousness of the doctrine you try to perpetuate by the use of scriptures, yet you reject them, imply that other don't understand, and then get huffy when called on it.
Doctrines have not changed from the early Bibles to the MV's. You still have yet to point out where they have changed anything and introduced or diluted any doctrines.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:

There were many translations of God's words, in the English language that were prior to the KJB. These were all God's perfect words, in their day. As the language was forming and becoming established. The need to improve it, and refine it was made, and accomplished in 1611, with spelling, printing, typeface errors corrected in following editions.

So are you saying your opinion is that it was much like an hourglass? The idea being that the translation work got more and more refined then reached a climax and then got worse?

 

[michelle]

---------------------------------------------------
Give us some facts.
--------------------------------------------------


How can one give you facts, when you can't even see it?


You want the facts, take the blinders of a false label off of your eyes, the bias you have because of this label, take the label off from the scriptures, and then take a good hard look at the Bible Version thread, and all the information discussed there, and love the word of God just as you would your own self, and then maybe you will see the FACTS. A blind man cannot see. A blindfolded man, could see, if he first realized he had a blindfold on to begin with, then took it off. I recommend you do this. Then you will see the FACTS. You now, will not, and have not, and can not see them when they are given.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[AVL1984]

Oh oh...it's the "if you were able to see, you would see" doctrine again.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I believe by your use of the scripture above you are trying to imply that I am either an evil person or a seducer, and thus give present yourself as persecuted or having a martyr complex.
--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
--------------------------------------------------


This is the point of the WHOLE CONTEXT, to which I was showing you even with Matthew. You need to stop being and approaching this with the false presumption that YOU ARE PERSONALLY being attacked. YOu show forth you are very offensive and taking all said and given as a personal attack and falsely so.


--------------------------------------------------
You can take scripture out of context all you like, but the fact of the matter is this, that many have shown you the erroneousness of the doctrine you try to perpetuate by the use of scriptures, yet you reject them, imply that other don't understand, and then get huffy when called on it.
---------------------------------------------------


You have yet to even show me that I have taken scripture out of context. Just saying so, doesn't make it so. We are to rightly divide the word of truth, and reason with another the scriptures. You have not done this. I indeed have. Until you can do this, no more discussion on this will I have with you. You cannot even understand what I am posting, and to what I am responding to, as you have shown with the above FALSE ACCUSATION of me because of your sensitive ego and pride.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[AVL1984]

Michelle, it is clearly in bold...Jesus was referring to the LAW AND PROPHETS. Nothing else. It seems you just want to argue and not look at the facts. It's not "just because I said so"...Jesus himself said it. Argue with him.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
So are you saying your opinion is that it was much like an hourglass? The idea being that the translation work got more and more refined then reached a climax and then got worse?
--------------------------------------------------


The only reason it got worse in this day, is because of the texts and methods that underline them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

Take it to the Bible versions forum.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
So are you saying your opinion is that it was much like an hourglass? The idea being that the translation work got more and more refined then reached a climax and then got worse?
-------------------------------------------------


Actually I was speaking of the English language and the reasons for the different translations from this unstable language that existed in those times to which required these improvements and refinements (not of the scriptures but the language used in the scriptures). The KJB was the final translation which was translated at a time in the history of English to where it was stable, and pretty much standardized. The reason for the editions afterwards, were due to printing, spelling errors and typeface changes, not refining because of language changes due to unstability. Pretty self explanatory. The English language has been standardized for generations, and though it may evolve gradually with words changing meanings over time, or words becoming archaic, it is still based upon this standardized english. There is not instability of the English language today, nor since the time of the KJB when it was standardized and stable. To make it seem as though it is today, as it was then, is false and distorting the truth.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
Again, you are looking for something to prove something that isn't even being claimed, and you therefore will never be satisfied, nor will you see the truth.

Oh, then, you agree that single-translation-onlyism is false doctrine?

Why are you blinding yourself so?

If I'm blind, then please, by all means, open my eyes. Show me scripture that support the idea that only the KJV is the preserved Word of God.

Do you love the words of God? Are they precious to you? Do you find them sweeter than milk and honey?

Of course. Why do you think I'm such a staunch defender of the KJV against false doctrine?

Originally posted by michelle:
What view is this? Some imaginary doctrine that you have all conjured up, and place upon us, that do not believe it nor teach it?

The doctrinal belief that there is to be one sole translation for all people is not scripturallyt supportable. Lacking scriptural support, it is false doctrine.

I have given much scriptural support concering the scriptures, and to why the mv's are to be rejected, and not trusted, to which you IGNORE or EXCUSE away, or make it seem I and others are taking it out of context, without any scriptural support on your end.

You've NEVER, NEVER, NOT ONCE given scriptural or historical support for the rejection of non-KJV's. You've made claims that aren't factual, and you have listed scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic. Every singe time I've asked for scripture, you have said "I've already listed scripture". You'd think that if this doctrine is so scripturally firm, then it would be easy to prove with scripture. I, for one, woul love to see such scripture. You see, I desire to live my life as faithfully to scripture that I can. If you can truly and honestly give me scriptural support for your belief, I will be happy to abandon my non-KJV bibles, and adhere strictly to the KJV. I truly and humbly mean that. I certainly don't want to live my life unscripturally. However, if you are unable to provide scripture for your view, then your view is not scripturally supportable, and, as such, false doctrine, which I have a scriptural obligation to fight.

Please! You are just in plain denial of the hard truth staring you in the face. You are also very blinded by the label that others have placed upon those sharing the truth with you. You end up attacking and falsely accusing them also because of this.

If I'm in denial, then why am I here with an open heart and receiving mind, ready to see scripture on the topic which no one ever provides me. I would love to agree with you, truly. Please show me scripture, and I will truly, and humbly, adopt the KJV as God's only word, and I will encourage others to do the same. But unless scripture can be shown, then none of my comments can be considered false. I've never attacked the KJV, or made false statements about KJVOs. If you are unable to show me any post that I've ever attacked the KJV or made false statements about KJVOs, then please post them. Lacking that, please post a retraction to your statment where you accuse me of such.

I do not believe in any false doctrine. It is you and others who have placed this upon those of us who don't even claim this. You are thouroughly confused regarding this issue. Why? Because of this false label placed upon the truth, to blind others from seeing it.

Let's get down to business: You you believe that the KJV is the sole Word of God for all people? If so, what is your scriptural support? If you don't have scriptural support, then your belief is false doctrine. If you don't believe that the KJV is the sole Word of God, then please say so, and I will retract my statement. But you will have to acknowlege that my MKJV is also the Word of God.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
---------------------------------------------------
Give us some facts.
--------------------------------------------------


How can one give you facts, when you can't even see it?

Your refusal to list facts, and your refusal to list scripture, has been acknowledged and noted.

 

[swaimj]

Oh moderators...this thread has been off topic for about three pages now. The topic is pretty interesting and well worth discussing. The current discussion belongs in another section of the Baptist Board.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by michelle:

The true and pure words of God have been preserved by God and have been living in the churches from the beginning until now. Dead sea scrolls mean nothing other than the fact that they in many places confirm the scriptures, and other places have corrupted them or are lacking in them. You can put your faith in some dead old scrolls, and texts collecting dust, and rejected by the churches throughout history, but I will put my faith and trust in the Bible God has providencially provided me, and many other believers within the churches of generations past unti this day, to which was and is still LIVING in the churches.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

The above is your position as you have stated so many times before. It is untenable position, indefensible, and as this thread is entitiled: a doctrine introduced over time--specifically in the last 30 years or so. Before that time it was unheard of. Before that time when the word "inspiration of the Bible" was spoken of, it was always referred to as the words of the prophets and the Apostles, and never the words of the translators. No one ever questioned that until quite recently, in fact, until Peter Ruckman came around. And so we have the cult of Ruckmanism, which, when studied in light of the characteristics of a cult, fits very well.

The questions such Ruckmanites (KJVO people) have trouble answering are some of the following:

1. If the KJV is the "inspired Word of God," then one would automaticall deduce that 90% of the world does not have the Word of God, for only 10% of the world speaks English. Did God provide a Bible just for the elite of the world. There are a half billion English speaking people in the world today. But there are one and a half people that speak Mandarin. IF God were to inspire a Bible would it not make more sense to inspire it in the Mandarin language and force the half billion English people to learn Chinese rather than the other way around. But thankfully God does not inspire translations. He preserved the Bible in manuscripts that all nations might have a translation, though not inspired, accurately translated from manuscripts that have been carefully preserved. You have put yourself not only in the KJVO camp, but exclusively in the English speaking world only, and have conveniently ignored all the other nations of the world.

Not only have you ignored all other nations of the world; you also have ignored all other peoples before the seventeenth century that did not have the KJV. I wonder what Bible the Apostle Paul used. And if, per chance, Paul used the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Greek New Testament (of which he wrote almost half), then would it not also be fitting that we should benefit of the same books that the Great Apostle Paul used. But you scorn Greek and Hebrew to the point that they are anethema to you.
I will give you an example. I love this one. We have discussed it before. What is a unicorn? Can you define it simply using the KJV? Or must you go to the Greek and Hebrew? I already know the outcome of this one.

When you are ready to come in for a landing we will get back to the language issue, and talk about "Shakespearean English," the language of the KJV. The English language is dynamic, always changing. It does not mean it is getting worse. It is simply evolving, changing according to our society. Every year new words are added to our dictionary out of necessity.

Here are some words that have been added to the dictionary of late:

Sports:
# puck hog
# beer league
# sno-pitch

Technology:
# hacktivist
# netizen
# blog

Health:
# SARS
# West Nile Virus

I just don't find these words in any of Shakespeare's works. I wonder why?
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by swaimj:
Oh moderators...this thread has been off topic for about three pages now. The topic is pretty interesting and well worth discussing. The current discussion belongs in another section of the Baptist Board.

KJVO is a new doctrine recently introduced?
Can you think of some others to bring the thread back on topic?
DHK

 

[Craigbythesea]

I hope I am not misunderstanding you here, but is seems to me as though you are advocating abortion, which is murder plain and simple.

Michelle,

You are very much misunderstanding me. I have explicitly stated in this thread that I personally believe that abortions are a sin, regardless the trimester, unless the woman's doctor considers the abortion necessary.

However, my many years of study and teaching have helped me to separate my personal beliefs, feeling, and opinions from the data available. The data that we have from the early church shows us very plainly that first trimester abortions were not viewed as murder, and especially not in the sense that we generally use the word “murder” to day. Even Basil, who dissented from the canons of the Church in believing that first trimester abortion was a sin and subject to severe punishment, explicitly wrote that in his opinion the punishment for that sin should be less severe than the punishment for “involuntary homicide.” One can only reason from this that although Basil used the word “murder” in English translations of his writings, he believed that abortions, regardless of the term, was a sin less severe than “involuntary homicide.” And in the western world in which most of us live, “involuntary homicide” is NOT murder. Those who write, teach and proclaim that the early Church fathers taught that first trimester abortions are murder have either been deceived by others or are willfully and deliberately lying. Although the Bible is silent on first trimester abortions, and although the early church officially did not teach that first trimester abortions are a sin, both the Bible and the early Church documents expressly teach that lying is a damnable sin. Those Christians who have such a low regard for their brothers and sisters in Christ that they would deliberately lie to prove their point are not furthering the cause of Christ, but hindering it.

It is entirely possible that the large majority of the early Church fathers were mistaken in their view that first trimester abortions were not taught to be a sin in the Bible. Basil certainly did not agree with them, but even he did NOT believe that abortion is anything close to the crime of first degree murder.

Perhaps even Basil was wrong, but that is not the point being made in this thread. The point being made in this thread is that the doctrine that first trimester abortion is a sin was NOT the doctrine of the early church. You have every right to believe what you want to regarding abortion, but you have an obligation before God to be truthful and avoid making false statements. I believe that you also have an obligation before God to treat others on this message board in a loving, compassionate, and respectful manner. And to call them “liars” and insult the values of their personal faith in God and the Bible does not seem to me to be loving, compassionate, or respectful.

 

[DHK]

Are you sure that the early church fathers would actually advocate abortions, or just apply that type of a term to something more like a miscarriage? In other words are you reading more into their writings then is necessary. Not being critical, just wondering?
DHK