Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
Scott,
You are accusing me, as many others here, of being KJVonly. This I have explained many times to you all that I am not. Just because I reject the modern versions, and do not encourage anyone to read them, does not make me a KJVO, and even if in your eyes it does, so what, it is only a label placed upon me, by the opinions of men.
You are denying that the Lord has given me understanding regarding this issue and calling me a liar and claiming that they are coming from my own understanding and others, and not the scriptures, and I have given you many scriptures to you and all for the reasons I have been led to reject these versions. You also may claim I am denying what the Lord has shown you and others. I can't say, nor would I say matter-of-factly that he has or hasn't, as only you yourself know, and it would be presumptuous for me to say. However, either you and others are right on this issue, or I and others are right on this issue. The same Spirit cannot be giving us understanding of opposite things. There is unity in the Spirit of truth, not division.
You and others, have not given reasons for your acceptance and use of these modern versions with the scriptures. You all have not provided one scriptural reference that the Lord would not preserve his words, and that he would allow his people to believe added lies for generations. You have not provided me, or anyone else for that matter, why you still approve of and use a Bible that has additions to God's word, and why you do not reject it, and separate from it, and where your scriptural authority for not separating from such is. If you believe the KJV has added to God's words you should reject and separate from it. You also have not provided me with the scriptures, where God has said only his message is important, and not his words. When you can truly show me with the scriptures, all these things, then I might consider. However, I will obey God, and separate myself from those things that have taken away/added to his words of truth, and I will not touch the unclean thing, nor will I approve of it/them.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Hi Michelle,
Let me say something for Scott here. Do not take this the wrong way. We understand that you believe that the Lord has told you something about the Bible. That is between you and the Lord. What Scott is trying to get across is that WE as individuals who know you only through this bulletin board cannot accept your revelation from God because we have no way to prove it except that it be proven by scriptures (now wait--don't say it....).
If we were to accept your truths, we would be open to accept anybody's truth including that of Mormonism. The Mormons (as you probably know) have a way of testing to see if the book of Mormon feels good to you. You take the book and hold it and pray until you get a warm feeling in the pit of your stomach and that is the spirit of God telling you that it is true---so say the Mormons.
Now, back to backing it up with scripture. We have told you many times that we do NOT disagree that the King James is the Word of God. We DO agree that God has preserved His Word for every generation. Because of this, we have to look at all of the Bibles which have been printed up through 1611 too. Looking at the (oh well) Vulgate, The Bishop's Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, etc. etc. we find the Word of God has been given to every generation; but not always in English (although most of the ones I quoted were English--one Latin).
The KJV was first printed in 1611. Its wording has been modified many times since then and the actual Word of God is always maintained. As Skan kindly corrected me, the KJV is printed in Modern English, but as a person on the street that is a technicality and I as a person who speaks typical street English, I find out that I have difficulty understanding the KJV. Yes, technically it may be closer to Modern English than Old English, but the fact remains that many people (especially children and new Christians who have not grown up in a church using the KJV as we have) have a great difficulty with understanding it. Even a dictionary can provide us with erroneous understanding due to the changes that have occurred since the 18th century.
Michelle, you have mentioned that the KJV has been the Bible for many generations. We also have no arguments there. (I'm trying to find our common grounds so we can narrow down to our seperate grounds.) Actually, 400 years is less than 25% of the time back to Jesus' time. There were obviously Bibles containing the Word of God going back very close to the time of Christ. The Old Testament obviously existed then. The New Testament was originally passed around to churches in their individual books or groups of books until the Canon was finalized.
Now, Skan can butcher me on my history here, but I am simply giving a light and easy overview so that we understand where I am coming from. During this long period of time, God's Word existed in many different languages. As it spread across the early world, translations were made. They all contain the Word of God.
Even as Skan indicated on the other subject, he feels the end of Mark is from the original manuscripts. If this is indeed true, then that is another instance where scholarship prevails and preserves. If he is found wrong at some later date with further manuscripts, what occurred in those verses that harms the Word of God.
I didn't go as far as to check out your church. Yes, I think that was a bit much, because as we talked earlier, our church does not necessarily believe in everything we believe in. In today's world, we must find a church that is closest to our doctrine. We will never find a human organization on this earth where everybody agrees with everybody else, it just does not happen, simply because we are human. I have a few issues with my church, but they are extremely minor and do not effect the major doctrines, therefore I am satisfied to ignore the hills that I do not need to die on just to prove my point.
I think everybody here is serious enough that they do care about the way you believe, although they may not agree with it. They feel just as dedicated at showing you the truth as you are to show us the truth.
I for one, will debate, but I realize that I have limitations when it comes to the levels of education and experience found on this board. Therefore, even though I will take a stance, I usually stand corrected quite often; but that correction requires that enough evidence has been shown in the form of scripture and to a lesser extent physical evidence.
All of us can say God showed us this. I don't think anybody here believes they do not have the "truth" within them. Somebody has to be right and somebody has to be wrong.
Let me give you an example. A church I once attended (larger than the small church I now attend) was considering building at another location. About 47% voted against the move. Now, my question, if I were the pastor, would be: "Wait a minute, we have essentially a 50/50 vote here. Do those few deciding votes actually show God's will? What if the 47% were wiser and knew what God wanted, while the others thought they knew what God wanted."
Now, let me cover your scripture: You claim that the scripture tells you that God will Preserve His Words for all generations. Guess what? I believe that too. I have NO DOUBTS that what I read in my KJV is the accurate Word of God. I even believe it is inerrant as far as the Word of God is concerned. Now I do believe that with translations and many streams of copies which have come down through the ages can have "anomolies" which changed issues, but again, nowhere has doctrine been shown to have changed. If God promised to preserve his Word, then obviously it exists, but not just in one form, in many forms. Can there be corrupted MV's? Yes, absolutely, but the mainstream translations have been proven to be very accurate and contain this "Word of God" that He himself said He would preserve. By believing in this, we must seperate ourselves from a book written in 1611 and modified many times since as the ONLY Word of God. YES, it IS the Word of God, just not the only one.
This is the reason it is so important to actually take a look at what is being left out and attempt to make a determination as to whether they existed in the originals or not. But in reality, I personally do not feel it matters because I have yet to see doctrinally where changes exist.
I noticed with somewhat surprise that the first question you asked your church was "What Bible do you believe in?" I would think more appropriate questions might be "Do you believe that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God?", "Did Jesus die on the cross for us?", What is the requirement for salvation.?" The questions relating to the doctrine that actually appear inside the Bibles we all read and study.
Whether we look at words or phrases, I challenge you to take a good parallel Bible that has at least three or four translations, including the KJV and actually read one verse at a time in each one. I think you will find out very quickly that the Word of God is just as POWERFUL if not more so in a language closer to our own.
Just food for thought!
God bless,
