Is this a contradiction?

GeneMBridges · Oct 21, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
I think you are confusing what we mean when we say "historical background." We are not saying we should sift everything through the sieve of a couple thousand years of tradition and interpretation. We are saying we should understand the historical background of that particular text . The term "literal" interpretation doesn't mean, for example "wooden literalism." It means that, to understand a text, you have to interpret it according to the type of literature it is. For example, if you don't understand the types of parallelism in OT prophecy, you won't understand how Matthew can attach the meanings he does to OT prophecy in relationship to Jesus and how He fulfilled prophecy. The Mosaic Law is a Suzerain Covenant. If you interpret it without knowing what that form is, you won't understand how law functions in the OT and how and why we can say that we are not under the OT dietary laws, for example. This is what textual criticism is about.
--------------------------------------------------

I would like to see the scriptures that you recieve this belief from, that we must rely upon outside historical truth, in order to understand God's truth in the scriptures? God tells us differently. We are to study the scriptures, and rightly divide the word of truth having FAITH in those scriptures.
\

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

You have posted the Scriptures already. Where are there Scriptures that negate the understanding of the type of literature or the historical backdrop of a particular Scripture or knowing what prompted John, for example, to write his letters?

Luke said in Luke and Acts both that he was setting out to form a historical record of Jesus life and the history of the early church (up to Paul's first imprisonment). These also form the basis of my belief.

God has, using these Scriptures, shown me that knowing the history of a subject, e.g. the immediate historical and literary context or type / background of a Scripture passage is a very important tool for interpreting Scripture correctly so that we can understand what its point was and what it meant to its original writers and hearers, because God does not change, nor does His Word. It can not mean to us what it did not mean to its original recipients or writers.

michelle · Oct 21, 2004

--------------------------------------------------
What would you do if you lived in an area like many of us do where there are no KJVo churches?

For example, our pastor uses an NKJV from the pulpit and people will follow along with a KJV, NASB, ESV, etc. etc. Would you not recommend that church?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would recommend they find one that does, regardless of how far they must drive. Most churches in my area use the MV's and they are very compromising and becoming apostate churches, so I could not in with a clear conscience send them to these churches.
If they could not find one, then I would recommend they pray about it, and let the Lord lead them.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

manchester · Oct 21, 2004

The Word is clear. I know that the scriptures in the Geneva Bible are the words of the Lord 100% accurately in our language. In other words, the Geneva Bible is the infallible, inerrant words of God in our language. The KJV differs from the Geneva Bible, adding Roman Catholic doctrine and changing wording. It is wrong for modernists to push the KJV when they know it alters God's Word.

GeneMBridges · Oct 21, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
No, michelle, it is illogical to use these kinds of arguments in order to support your position. Logic is simply the process of sound reasoning. I am not talking about God's Word, I am talking about your thought process. I need not use the Bible to criticize it, however, I'll happily do so.
--------------------------------------------------

And we are instructed to have the "mind of Christ" and the wisdom of God, not the wisdom of the world. The "mind of Christ" and the wisdom of God is by FAITH in God and HIS WORDS and TRUTH to which come from them.

YOu are attempting to say my Faith is illogical, and illogical fallicy. This is untrue, and a very unwise position to be taking. You are saying my thoughts are not based upon scriptures. You are clearly wrong, as my thoughts are in Christ Jesus to which are revealed in the scriptures, HIS WORDS of truth.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Straw man, fallacy.

I am not saying your faith is illogical. I am saying it is based on illogical premises. YOU have already said that faith is illogical in other threads (cf. the thread on logic vs faith). You make a faith claim to support your position, so, by your own admission, your faith MUST be illogical, because faith, according to you IS ILLOGICAL. Which is it? Is your faith logical or illogical?

My thoughts and beliefs are also based on Scriptures...the same ones as you. God has shown me this. You are not privy to what God has said to me, michelle. Who are you to sit in judgment over my relationship to God?!

manchester · Oct 21, 2004

Michelle,

Can you explain why you believe the doctored KJV, in any of its versions, is the Word of God despite it changing the Word of God? If the scriptures say the Geneva Bible is the Word of God why do you choose to believe otherwise?

Phillip · Oct 21, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Now you're telling me that I did not discern God's will and that I am grieving the Holy Spirit. YOu aren't privy to what goes on between me and God. I KNOW by the Scriptures, prayer, et.al. that the NASB is God's Word. I know by the same Scriptures you use to support your position that this is true.
--------------------------------------------------

If one actually judged this issue by the scriptures, one would then not come to this conclusion, and this is how I can say that one is greiving the Holy Spirit in this issue. You have listened to your own feelings, and opinions of men ABOVE that of what the scriptures reveal.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Now, you have finally admitted that we have "grieved the Holy Spirit" when we have listened to Him tell us the NASB is God's Word.

Listen to what you are saying.

You say this has nothing to do with LOGIC, but then you turn around and say in this particular case, we are to ignore what we hear the Holy Spirit say and rely on men who have deterimined all of these missing words words in the NASB. People who have used their personal opinions to say that God's Word does not exist in the NASB.

Therefore, listening to the opinions of men to determine if what we hear the Holy Spirit say is right or wrong.

So, therefore, we are obviously not hearing the Holy Spirit, but our own thoughts based on men.

Now, pick up a mirror! What have you been saying all along. The "Holy Spirit" has shown you what is right, but he is NOT showing us what is right based on YOUR "logic".

michelle · Oct 21, 2004

--------------------------------------------------
No, God has shown me that you are the one that is wrong. You are not privy to my relationship with God. He has shown me this. He has used the same Scriptures to show me this about my NASB that He has used with you regarding your KJV. He has further shown me that where the words are altered, they have been altered away from false doctrines like baptismal regeneration, episcopalian church government, and a belief in mortal and venial sins (a core Catholic doctrine), all found in the KJV. He has shown me this, michelle. He has shown me that you are the one refusing the warnings.
--------------------------------------------------

Really? Then how come he has shown me, and many others these things, that you seem to be refusing to see:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/niv.asp

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/defens.htm

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/preeminence.html

and I could give you many more.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Phillip · Oct 21, 2004

Now we are back to you providing us with scriptures that show that only a single English version is 100% inerrant when we have already shown you 400 major errors between 1611 and 1769 and you cannot provide us with a Bible before that in English that is 100% the Word of God.

Again, your opinion is that of men.

Does your church ACTUALLY believe that the KJV 1769 is 100% word-for-word what God said in the original manuscripts? Does NOBODY in your church use a NKJV? HONESTLY?

GeneMBridges · Oct 21, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
No, God has shown me that you are the one that is wrong. You are not privy to my relationship with God. He has shown me this. He has used the same Scriptures to show me this about my NASB that He has used with you regarding your KJV. He has further shown me that where the words are altered, they have been altered away from false doctrines like baptismal regeneration, episcopalian church government, and a belief in mortal and venial sins (a core Catholic doctrine), all found in the KJV. He has shown me this, michelle. He has shown me that you are the one refusing the warnings.
--------------------------------------------------

Really? Then how come he has shown me, and many others these things, that you seem to be refusing to see:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/niv.asp

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/defens.htm

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/preeminence.html

and I could give you many more.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

That's an appeal to tradition and an appeal to the popular. I will not listen to illogical things, because logical fallacies are not of God. He has shown me this in the Scriptures.

He has, however, if we are to use your methodology, shown many more people that the CONTRARY position. These people to which you link are using their own opinions and their own logic. God has shown me this using all the same Scriptures as you have posted to support your position, thus I shall not trouble you with posting them again.

You are saying that I should not listen to the opinions of men, yet you say the opinions of men on your side are the right opinions. However, I appeal to the same Scriptures to which you appeal for your position that you are wrong.

Prove me wrong.

michelle · Oct 21, 2004

--------------------------------------------------
You, see, I'm trying to get you to understand something, michelle. I can use all the same things you have said against MV's against the KJV, and I can also use the same Scriptures you use and make the same kind of high appeal to God showing me these truths from my relationship with Him that what you believe about the KJV is false and what I believe about MV's is true.
--------------------------------------------------

You can, and you have, however you are only found to be in contradiction of your stated beliefs, because in reality and truth you have really NOT BELIEVED what God has said in the scriptures by virtue of ignoring those things that have been shown to you about them, that are in contradiction to the scriptural truth and then using an excuse for them that DENIES your stated FAITH in them.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

gb93433 · Oct 21, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:

Correct historical background? Where in God's word does He tell us to use historical background? IN fact, God has told us that the church is the pillar and ground of truth.

Just like what you have written has a specific context everything else said and written has a specific context. The scriptures were written in past tense in a particular culture and climate much different than in America. For example the book of Matthew must be understood in light of its historical background to get the correct interpretation of the message. Just as all the other books of the Bible must be interpreted in light of their historical context.

Sometime just compare Mt.8:28-34 esp. vs.28; Mk.5:1-20 esp. vs.2; Lk. 8:26-39 esp. vs.27.

If you just simply read those passages and notice the number of demoniacs you will be confused trying to fugure out what happened if you do not understand the rest of the story behind the story or message.

You will not be able to know how to interpret that single event unless you understand the historical background of those books.

Phillip · Oct 21, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
Really? Then how come he has shown me, and many others these things, that you seem to be refusing to see:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/niv.asp

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/defens.htm

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/preeminence.html

and I could give you many more.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

The links you are providing are nothing more than old KJVo rhetoric that has been published and shown to be at fault since the KJVo society began. (In comparison to the "flat earth society").

The jesus-is-lord site is so full of errors that it is not even funny. Just the name AV1611 tells me something because they do NOT USE the AV1611, they use the KJV1769 Oxford of which we have shown thousands of changes along with over 400 MAJOR changes. THESE ARE NOT TYPOS.

Just like I told about doing a search to find a true copy of the AV1611 on the web, all I came up with were KJVo sites that claimed to have the AV1611 only to find out every single one were KJV 1769 Oxfords.

As you say to us: You have been "SHOWN these truths" and you will not accept them, because they do not fit within your belief system.

You cannot show us a Word of God before 1611 (in fact before 1769). When we ask, you don't answer. If you do answer you will put your spin on it and say it either does not matter, or we weren't back there, or some other excuse not to answer and make me look like a bad guy for asking you a simple question, to point out the "simple truth".

I'll show you what I mean:

Michelle, what was the English Word-for-word 100% accurate Bible in 1590?

GeneMBridges · Oct 21, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
You, see, I'm trying to get you to understand something, michelle. I can use all the same things you have said against MV's against the KJV, and I can also use the same Scriptures you use and make the same kind of high appeal to God showing me these truths from my relationship with Him that what you believe about the KJV is false and what I believe about MV's is true.
--------------------------------------------------

You can, and you have, however you are only found to be in contradiction of your stated beliefs, because in reality and truth you have really NOT BELIEVED what God has said in the scriptures by virtue of ignoring those things that have been shown to you about them, that are in contradiction to the scriptural truth and then using an excuse for them that DENIES your stated FAITH in them.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

In order for that to be true, you must assume that the KJV is God's Word according to the 4 and 5 definitions and you must assume something about my relationship with God to which you are not privy and that Scripture itself says you should not judge.

Furthermore, you are using logic in order to prove me illogical. However, since my statements have been using the same forms as your arguments just applying them to the NASB instead, you have just condemned yourself with your own words, for I have merely substituted KJVO with NASBO or MVO.

You appeal to logic in order show I am illogical. However, if that is true, then it is true of you as well.

If you appeal to Scripture, I appeal to the same Scripture.

This is yet another proof that your position is false. You are guilty of believing a false doctrine and attempting to spread it.

michelle · Oct 21, 2004

--------------------------------------------------
Don't forget, one of the wisest men that ever lived was King Solomon. So, just because a person is wise and a person is a scholar does not make that person wrong.
--------------------------------------------------

I don't say this, nor believe it. However, when someone uses this ABOVE that of FAITH in and from the truth in the scriptures, then they are wrong.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Phillip · Oct 21, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
You can, and you have, however you are only found to be in contradiction of your stated beliefs, because in reality and truth you have really NOT BELIEVED what God has said in the scriptures by virtue of ignoring those things that have been shown to you about them, that are in contradiction to the scriptural truth and then using an excuse for them that DENIES your stated FAITH in them.

When are you going to quit making directed attacks and assuming you know what a person believes and quit calling them liars because you have your own method of interpreting scriptures?

Phillip · Oct 21, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Don't forget, one of the wisest men that ever lived was King Solomon. So, just because a person is wise and a person is a scholar does not make that person wrong.
--------------------------------------------------

I don't say this, nor believe it. However, when someone uses this ABOVE that of FAITH in and from the truth in the scriptures, then they are wrong.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

You have NEVER shown any scriptures that support a single English translation. Sorry!

michelle · Oct 21, 2004

--------------------------------------------------
When you post scripture like this, it is considered an attack and it IS out of context because it has nothing to do with translations and just because wise-men are being pointed at in that particular scripture does not make today's scholars fit into the same category.

--------------------------------------------------

This is unfortunately because many today, sadly cannot take correction or reproof, and consider this an "attack".

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Phillip · Oct 21, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
When you post scripture like this, it is considered an attack and it IS out of context because it has nothing to do with translations and just because wise-men are being pointed at in that particular scripture does not make today's scholars fit into the same category.

--------------------------------------------------

This is unfortunately because many today, sadly cannot take correction or reproof, and consider this an "attack".

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

So, in your opinion, you are right, we are wrong and we ought to take correction and reproof from you? Am I right?

michelle · Oct 21, 2004

--------------------------------------------------
No, I actually understood that too, but the entire point is that freeatlast DOESN'T understand what 1 John teaches and he is bending it to suit his own position. So, since you and I can make the same appeal to faith that he does, then how can we show him that his belief is incorrrect?
--------------------------------------------------

Exactly how God has said to do it - with the scriptures.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

russell55 · Oct 21, 2004

You are saying my thoughts are not based upon scriptures.

If your thought that the the KJV is the only true word of God in the English language is based on scriptures, then you should be able to support it with the clear statements of scripture.

If you can't, then you can't truthfully claim that your thought is based on scripture, and you must admit that this thought of yours is added to scripture. In other words, extrabiblical.

It seems that some are giving up an adherance to "sola scriptura"....

Is this a contradiction?

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member

Active Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member