Has the KJVO movement Hijacked the IFB

[DeafPosttrib]

Askjo,

Maybe you're right about them. I not yet read that book, I am planning to order it, and read it. I think you already read that book, and hear Dr. Williams before.

Well, you better be careful what you saying about them. You could be right, that they deny the doctrines of the Bible like creation, or not believe in Genesis as true history. They could be in hell.

But, you know there are so many baptists have different views toward God's Word. For example: many pretrib baptists deny 'saints' of Rev. 13:7 is the part of Christ's body as church. Does that mean they are on the way to hell because of their deny?

Be careful.

We cannot expect every baptists have the same mind and view toward God's Word on the doctrines.

Some baptists don't take passages or verses into literal. Some baptists take passages or verses into spiritually or symbolic meaning. Does that mean both are wrong? Depend on their view and intepreting.

We have to be careful, what we read and intepreting the Bible. Our understanding are being limited. Once, we get into heaven, we all will know everything.

You can't prove that they are in the hell, because they deny Genesis is true story. Only God knows their hearts.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Trotter]

DeafPosttrib,

Just when I think I have you pidgeonhoed, you up and amaze me. Praise the Lord!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Askjo:
That is mis-information! I believe they are in hell, not heaven for good reasons:

The last time I checked, that decision was not yours to make.

That is why the book, "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: A Layman's Guide to How We Got Our Bible" is refuted. This book is misleading, mis-informative and false.

Abject fatuity, nothing more.

Please show us WITH SCRIPTURE the justification for the complete and total rejection of all other English Translations of God's Holy Word. I haved asked you to do this numerous times over the past year, and you have yet to offer anything. Until you can do this, nothing has been refuted.

Furthermore, you have offered absolutely nothing to support your charges made in the last sentence.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Knowing some of the authors of the books mentioned personally, I caution all parties in laying slanderous charges. As I tried to say before, one does not meet a disargeement on CAT2 truth with the same heat as one uses with a CAT1 disagreement.
And I'd like to see the evidence you have that Dr. Williams did not believe Genesis to be a historical account. A serious charge to make (especially with your conclusion of the result of such a position) without citing any firm evidence.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
You can't prove that they are in the hell, because they deny Genesis is true story.

Read John 5:45-47! John 5:45 is the key. If you, for example, do not believe in the story of Genesis, Moses will accuse you! That is simple point. To accuse is to lead you to a unwise place.

That is true that W-H were unbelievers because they did not believe in the Bible. How would you know they were saved because of their testimony by rejecting God's Words?

Dr. Shaylor in a book, "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: A Layman's Guide to How We Got Our Bible" wrote:

"....inspiration as involving the words used by the inspired writers."

That is mis-information! Nowhere in the Bible said that the writers were INSPIRED!

BIR quoted:

Please show us WITH SCRIPTURE the justification for the complete and total rejection of all other English Translations of God's Holy Word.

Please show us WITH SCRIPTURE the justification for the complete and total rejection of the KJV.

Squire quoted:

And I'd like to see the evidence you have that Dr. Williams did not believe Genesis to be a historical account.

That is your misquotation. Stop your false words in my mouth! I did not say thar Dr. Williams does not believe in it. What I said is what he wrote about W-H. Dr. Williams falsely said they went with the Lord. That is why I disagree with Dr. William concerning W-H.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Actually, Askjo, that isn't a misquote of what you wrote. You did NOT specify that the quote regarding Genesis was about W-H in your last post on the previous page of this thread. You simply quoted and the way you quoted it read like you were saying that Willams and Shaylor were the men about whom you wrote. Thank you for now clarifying that.

Regardless, it is illogical to say that because persons were unbelievers they can not be extremely good translators. If we were to go by persons beliefs, then we should do away with the KJV, since the 1611 translators were all paedobaptists that were largely Catholic in theology, not truly Protestant, and the church they served was established solely so that Henry VIII could get a divorce.

No MV says we should dump the KJV. We have been over this repeatedly with you, yet you continue to make that statement. It is not up to us to show such a statement about such a belief, because we simply do not believe that. It IS up to you to support your belief about KJVOnlyism with Scripture when requested. You consistently fail to do so.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
Actually, Askjo, that isn't a misquote of what you wrote. You did NOT specify that the quote regarding Genesis was about W-H in your last post on the previous page of this thread. You simply quoted and the way you quoted it read like you were saying that Willams and Shaylor were the men about whom you wrote. Thank you for now clarifying that.SNIP

Precisely, I looked for who was being referred to in the original statement. Finding no other point of reference, I could only conclude the reference was to Bros. Williams, Shaylor, Mincy, et al. So, don't blame me for your inexact writing.

And some how or another when it comes to "the inspired writers" this verse comes to mind:

2nd Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Now the question is does this verse mean these holy men of God were inspired or not?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
And some how or another when it comes to "the inspired writers" this verse comes to mind: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2nd Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Now the question is does this verse mean these holy men of God were inspired or not? </font>[/QUOTE]If you believe the writers were inspired by God, this is serious theological error and mis-information. Nowhere in the Bible said the writers were inspired by God.

2 Peter 1:21 does not refer to the inspired writers. Look at one word, "moved" on this verse. The word "moved" (carried or borne along) does not mean "inspired." The Bible said very obvious that it is the "writings" that God gave through these men that were inspired, NOT the men themselves.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Askjo, it seems to me you are assuming I take the position that the Bible is inspired because the men were inspired. The good news is your assumption is a presumption of facts not in evidence. I am not being Barthian\Neo-Orthodox in my comment. Heaven forfend. Neither do I think Williams & Co. take that position. Keep in mind a problem we have with the Neo-Orthodox is they (among others) like to use the same vocabulary as we do but they use a different dictionary. So, instend of assumeing I have imbibed at the heretical fountains of Karl Barth, you would be best advised to ask me for clarification.
The problem is "inspired" as it is used in English is less precise that the Greek words it is used to translate or represent.
There is fero in 2 Peter and theopnumetos in 2 Timothy. If one is permitted to view these two verses together, one has a better view of the process of inspiration. It is within the bounds of orthodoxy to hold the holy men of old were "inspired" if one defines that as meaning they were the ones being moved along by the breath of God. As the Word preexisted creation, its inspriation does not depend on the inspiration of man. Confusing, yeupers. That's why I rejoice that God has this all figured out.

 

[NomadsWife]

We found it very difficult to find a KJVO Baptist church around here. Good conservative KJVO churches are often hard to find.

 

[superdave]

I would agree with that sentiment, most of the the KJVO churches I visited around here were neither good, nor truly conservative.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Askjo:
BIR quoted: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Please show us WITH SCRIPTURE the justification for the complete and total rejection of all other English Translations of God's Holy Word.

Please show us WITH SCRIPTURE the justification for the complete and total rejection of the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]As expected, abject fatuity, nothing more.

I use the 1611 Authorised Version, and everyone on this list knows this. In other words, I am using the real "KJV." If your KJV does not contain a Book entitled Judith, then you are NOT using the real "KJV." Imagine that: I am using the real "KJV," yet I do not subscribe to KJVO.

I can offer no proof for the "complete and total rejection of the KJV" as I have never once made such a claim. I publicly challenge you to show all of us where I have ever made such a statement. Perhaps you can cease with your LIES, and show us WITH SCRIPTURE the justification for the complete and total rejection of all other Translations of God's Holy Word.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Askjo:


2 Peter 1:21 does not refer to the inspired writers. Look at one word, "moved" on this verse. The word "moved" (carried or borne along) does not mean "inspired." The Bible said very obvious that it is the "writings" that God gave through these men that were inspired, NOT the men themselves.

Then what do you call being moved by the Holy Spirit? God inspired the men to write. The writings are inspired but it didn't just happen all by itself. God planned the whole deal.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Agreed, gb. Unless, Askjo, you are trying to lump me in with the Neo-Orthodox. The problem as I see it is many of the KJVOs are fighting the last war.

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
2 Peter 1:21 does not refer to the inspired writers. Look at one word, "moved" on this verse. The word "moved" (carried or borne along) does not mean "inspired." The Bible said very obvious that it is the "writings" that God gave through these men that were inspired, NOT the men themselves.

Then what do you call being moved by the Holy Spirit? God inspired the men to write. The writings are inspired but it didn't just happen all by itself. God planned the whole deal. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Sakrysta]

I started to refute Askjo point by point, but having been here a couple weeks now and read around a bit, I see how futile that would be.

I can only speak to what my pastor believes, and none of the heresies Askjo accused Dr. Williams and others of are even REMOTELY conceivable. It is irresponsible and dishonest to throw around such grave accusations without substantiating them. I do not know the other authors of the book personally, but I know enough to trust my pastor's judgment in his affiliations. He would NEVER put his name on a book alongside anyone who denied the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account or Christ's bodily resurrection. As to the third contention, it's too vague to even begin to contest.

The books were written in an honest attempt to present the multiple versions position. They are written with a good spirit and out of extensive research on the part of all the authors.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Sakrysta:
I started to refute Askjo point by point, but having been here a couple weeks now and read around a bit, I see how futile that would be.

Is the Kerry weathervane being replaced by the ASKJO weathervane?

 

[Sakrysta]

I'm sorry. I don't understand the reference, so I don't know if I'm being cheered or jeered.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Sakrysta:
I'm sorry. I don't understand the reference, so I don't know if I'm being cheered or jeered.

You are cheered. If you have seen the Kerry weathervane you know it moves with the wind. So does ASKJO. He moves whichever direction he needs to support his viewpoint. He just expresses opionion without any documentation, right or wrong.

I too am waiting for documentation from him to support his views. Still waiting too.

Prov. 12:18,19, "There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, But the tongue of the wise brings healing. Truthful lips will be established forever, But a lying tongue is only for a moment."

Prov. 18:17, "The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him."

 

[Sakrysta]

Well, that's a relief!

I certainly didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest! I just thought that citing the books would let people know EXACTLY where I come from.

 

[Askjo]

Dr. Williams wrote:

The same reasoning would apply to the TR, which is based onthe work of Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus, whose Greek text is said to be the basis of the KJV translation, was a Roman Catholic priest who never left the Roman Church.

Dr. Willams is wrong! That is mis-information.

The TR is NOT based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus. The KJV translation was NOT based on the Greek text of Erasmus.