Is this a contradiction?

[GeneMBridges]

How do you know they are grieving the Holy Spirit and you aren't on this issue? Maybe you're the one grieving the Holy Spirit. What if one says of the KJVO person that he / she is the one grieving the Holy Spirit based on that same Scripture, michelle? Which one is right and which one is wrong.

I can tell you, for example, categorically, through answered prayer that the NASB Bible I use was a direct gift from God, because, among other things how it came into my hands and I was given the option of choosing another version, including a KJV, and I waited on the Lord for a long time and spent much time in prayer and study and waited until Scripture, prayer, circumstances, and the counsel of godly men lined up (which is how the Bible tells us we can discern God's will) before I chose this Bible.

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.

Now you presume to tell me I'm wrong and you are right? How can this be, michelle? Are you more spiritual than me? Do you know God better than I do? How can you be so sure if I am equally as sure about my position?

[ October 21, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

[russell55]

IN fact, God has told us that the church is the pillar and ground of truth.

Absolutely. The church upholds and protects the truth that is revealed to her in the scriptures. And one of the ways she understands the truth that she is protecting and upholding, is by studying it in its historical context.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
No, you and I do believe that God exists, and part of the reason we believe that, michelle, is because the Bible says so and the Bible is inspired. That is derived from Scripture, but it is, in fact, circular. I have never said that illogical faith is wrong. I have, however, said that illogical faith is not godly faith, and that we have to be careful, because you can have logic without personalization, which is faithless logic and one of the ways that human reason rejects God, Jesus, the Bible, creation, salvation, etc. On the other hand we can have faith with no logic at all, and place our faith in the wrong thing or worse, the right thing, but w/o the ability to support it and so fall victim to every whim and fad. Christians and nonChristians alike do this. Christians that, for example, say that they believe in the KJB 4 and 5 definitions or they become wrapped up in "feeling" versions of Christianity like the Word of Faith movement and the Oneness Pentecostal movement (which rejects the Trinity, but appears otherwise Christian), and other sorts of things.
--------------------------------------------------


And this is why God has provided us his words of truth to all, as ONLY HIS WORDS are logical and TRUTH. You are basically saying I need to prove that God's words of truth, the scriptures, are the truth. You are wrong. God's words show they are the truth to the inner man, as God has said this about them:


Hebrews 4

11. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
12. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
You say that you believe what you believe because of some kind of "burning in the breast" kind of feeling. You assume the truth that God preserves his Word is something that God has shown you applies to the KJV. When you back is against the wall, you revert to "God has shown me this," but you offer nothing other than some sort of insight that God has given you. You then use contradictory thought processes. For example, to say that God preserves His Word, the Bible teaches this, therefore it is true is logical only if your thought process is linear. However, left on its own that statement is called a logica fallacy. It's called "Begging the Question"
--------------------------------------------------


God has shown me that he has provided us His words of truth 100% not only by the evidence we have it, but by the scriptures that my FAITH in this comes from. You are calling this illogical fallicy. You expect me to bring in illogical reasons into the equation, rather than relying upon what God has said about HIS own words. You indeed have it backwards, as you are the one relying upon illogical fallicy. It is called textual criticism. It is not Godly, and most definately not based upon FAITH, nor is it faithful.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

How do you know textual criticism is illogical? I do not expect you to bring illogical conclusions into the equation (in fact you are already doing so). However your repudiation of doing that actually contradicts your own statement that faith and logic are not complementary. If they are contradictory processes than that would mean, by definition, faith is illogical. Therefore, you believe faith is illogical. Therefore, you should, on the basis of your assertion that textual criticism is "illogical" inherently, USE textual criticism, rather than repudiating it.

You are using contradictory language.

 

[russell55]

I do not mean this as an attack on another, but to answer your question truthfully and honestly, which is that they are most likely "greiving" the Holy Spirit of God in this issue:

If it grieves the Holy Spirit that I don't believe that the KJV is the only true word of God in English, then you ought to be able find objective statements that prove the KJV is the only word of truth in English in the writings of scripture.

I'm waiting.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
No, you and I do believe that God exists, and part of the reason we believe that, michelle, is because the Bible says so and the Bible is inspired. That is derived from Scripture, but it is, in fact, circular. I have never said that illogical faith is wrong. I have, however, said that illogical faith is not godly faith, and that we have to be careful, because you can have logic without personalization, which is faithless logic and one of the ways that human reason rejects God, Jesus, the Bible, creation, salvation, etc. On the other hand we can have faith with no logic at all, and place our faith in the wrong thing or worse, the right thing, but w/o the ability to support it and so fall victim to every whim and fad. Christians and nonChristians alike do this. Christians that, for example, say that they believe in the KJB 4 and 5 definitions or they become wrapped up in "feeling" versions of Christianity like the Word of Faith movement and the Oneness Pentecostal movement (which rejects the Trinity, but appears otherwise Christian), and other sorts of things.
--------------------------------------------------


And this is why God has provided us his words of truth to all, as ONLY HIS WORDS are logical and TRUTH. You are basically saying I need to prove that God's words of truth, the scriptures, are the truth. You are wrong. God's words show they are the truth to the inner man, as God has said this about them:


Hebrews 4

11. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
12. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Ok, then how do you know that the KJB, to the exclusion of MV's is God's Word according to definitions 4 and 5 and that other versions only contain God's Word?

How do you know you are right and I am wrong if I say that God, using this same Scripture above, has shown me that my NASB is God's Word just like the KJV is too?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I don't consider the scripture we have only a translation. I consider it a precious translation of the words of truth.

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


We are commanded to prove all things, and abstain from all appearances of evil. To alter the word of God is evil. There are men in the past, and even until this day, who have corrupted the words of God.

1 Thess. 5

14. Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
15. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
16. Rejoice evermore.
17. Pray without ceasing.
18. In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
19. Quench not the Spirit.
20. Despise not prophesyings.
21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22. Abstain from all appearance of evil.
23. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
25. Brethren, pray for us.
26. Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.
27. I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
28. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.


and....


2 Cor. 2

14. Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
15. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16. To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
17. For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "We are commanded to prove all things"

Except when it comes to your belief about the KJV, right?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, you say that Bible says that the church is the pillar and ground of all truth.

That is a CATHOLIC statement. If you say this, because Scripture says it, then you believe this based on Scripture. Therefore, Scripture is the pillar and ground of all truth not the church.
--------------------------------------------------


Did you read my post? I said, if that person needed to rely upon history instead of faith in this issue, then the best place to start, and to what the scriptures say, is that the church is the pillar and ground of truth. I went on further to explain to you, that it is the scriptures that inform us of this, and that it is the scriptures that have been in the churches from every generation up until this day. You really are having a hard time comprehending simple biblical truth. You have clouded your mind with human reasoning and false logic, thinking it is biblicallly sound, when in fact you are fighting against the biblical truth. And you accuse me of approaching this with illogical faith, and illogical fallicy? Look in the mirror brother.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

Here's why we need to understand textual criticism:

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


On this basis, some say 1. We should draw lots for deacons. 2. Some say there is no office of deacon, and that the correct name is "bishop." 3. Some use this to say that congregational church government is repudiated in this passages and that the correct form is episcopalian or presbyterian.

Now, let's take this, further, michelle. God has shown John and Michael that this is how they should choose deacons based on drawing lots, since this is the way that they did it in Acts 1. How do you, show them that they are wrong? How do you know what this passage is teaching or not teaching?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
He uses, in part 1 John 3 to justify his position. If you don't understand the historical background of 1 John, then you might agree with him. However, God's Word to US, can not mean something completely different than what it did to its writers and to its first hearers, since God and His Word do not change.
--------------------------------------------------


Actually, what GOD tells us we need to do is to RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH.


2 Tim. 2

10. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
11. It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
12. If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
13. If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
14. Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
That is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Tradition or Appeal to Popular" depending on the way it's phrased. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.

Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.

Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.

Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.

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


Again, you continually appeal to human reasoning and logic, and no scriptural truth in order to prove your false assumptions. Your belief that you are trying to prove has not ANY BASIS in the SCRIPTURES. You are attempting to bring in worldly wisdom, rather than Godly wisdom, concerning the very words of God themselves. This is illogical, and very unwise indeed.


love Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
He uses, in part 1 John 3 to justify his position. If you don't understand the historical background of 1 John, then you might agree with him. However, God's Word to US, can not mean something completely different than what it did to its writers and to its first hearers, since God and His Word do not change.
--------------------------------------------------

Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Yes, and how can you rightly divide it without understanding the historical context in which it was written. If you read my example carefully, it shows that, if you didn't understand that John was writing to repudiate the Gnostics and to teach about apostasy, you'd arrive at the same conclusion that freeatlast does in the thread from which I lifted that exegesis.

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 think you are confusing "higher criticism" like redaction criticism with the historical-critical method, which is the same exegetical method that the writers of the NT used.

 

[russell55]

Your belief that you are trying to prove has not ANY BASIS in the SCRIPTURES.

A certain saying about kitchen containers comes to mind....

We are commanded to prove all things, and abstain from all appearances of evil.

Absolutely. Which is exactly why I want to be able to search the scriptures to know whether what your saying is true. So far, I've come up empty in my search for statements that give evidence to the KJV being the only word of God in English.

To alter the word of God is evil.

Absolutely true as well! And this is exactly the reason why I need clear scriptural statements as evidence for what I believe. I don't want to alter God's word by stating as God's own dogma something that he doesn't say in scripture.

There are men in the past, and even until this day, who have corrupted the words of God.

And women, too...

 

[michelle]

---------------------------------------------------
How do you know textual criticism is illogical? I do not expect you to bring illogical conclusions into the equation (in fact you are already doing so). However your repudiation of doing that actually contradicts your own statement that faith and logic are not complementary. If they are contradictory processes than that would mean, by definition, faith is illogical. Therefore, you believe faith is illogical. Therefore, you should, on the basis of your assertion that textual criticism is "illogical" inherently, USE textual criticism, rather than repudiating it.

You are using contradictory language.
--------------------------------------------------


NO, all you seem to be attempting to do, is to confuse the simple truth and in the process think yourself wise, when in fact you are doing and exhibiting the oppostite of it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
That is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Tradition or Appeal to Popular" depending on the way it's phrased. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.

Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.

Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.

Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.

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


Again, you continually appeal to human reasoning and logic, and no scriptural truth in order to prove your false assumptions. Your belief that you are trying to prove has not ANY BASIS in the SCRIPTURES. You are attempting to bring in worldly wisdom, rather than Godly wisdom, concerning the very words of God themselves. This is illogical, and very unwise indeed.


love Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
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.


The argument you made is a straw man, another logical fallacy.

Where in Scripture does God repudiate SOUND reasoning? Answer, he does not. The reasoning repudiated by God is reasoning that is not rooted in him. That's the point of Romans 1. Man either logically concludes God exists and rejects Him, or he uses illogical thinking to reject that God exists, serving as a judgment against him. God uses reason. In Isaiah, He calls us to him to reason together.

Logic is, by definition, the process of sound reasoning. God requires faith. He also calls us to reason with him. Reason is, by definition, logical or it is not sound reasoning. God would not use unsound reasoning, and thus be illogical. Therefore God would not require faith of us that is illogical. Faith must therefore be logical. This is supported by Scripture.

Now, I'll add to that, in order to use your kind of thinking, God has shown me this using the Scriptures in Romans and Isaiah.

 

[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

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
How do you know you are right and I am wrong if I say that God, using this same Scripture above, has shown me that my NASB is God's Word just like the KJV is too?
--------------------------------------------------


Because you refuse to see and hear those who have warned you (warning you)and have shown you of those things in that version, and others that have ALTERED the words of the Lord, and try to JUSTIFY them with your human reasoning and false logic, that does NOT come from the scriptural truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
---------------------------------------------------
How do you know textual criticism is illogical? I do not expect you to bring illogical conclusions into the equation (in fact you are already doing so). However your repudiation of doing that actually contradicts your own statement that faith and logic are not complementary. If they are contradictory processes than that would mean, by definition, faith is illogical. Therefore, you believe faith is illogical. Therefore, you should, on the basis of your assertion that textual criticism is "illogical" inherently, USE textual criticism, rather than repudiating it.

You are using contradictory language.
--------------------------------------------------


NO, all you seem to be attempting to do, is to confuse the simple truth and in the process think yourself wise, when in fact you are doing and exhibiting the oppostite of it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

No, I am simply analyzing your statement. You have said IN THIS FORUM that faith and logic are exclusionary processes. That means that you believe that faith is logical. You can not hold the position that faith and logic are exclusionary without saying that.

Now, you also say that textual criticism is illogical. This is exactly what you wrote. You demonstrate and say that faith is illogical and that logic and faith are contradictory. Therefore, you should use textual criticism if it is illogical, because faith is illogical too. Thus textual criticism should be a valid method of interpretation if what you say is true.

To repudiate textual criticism by saying it is illogical and to say that faith is logical is a CONTRADICTION.

You're just getting flustered. You're the one that's confused here, and, IMO, you're getting snippy because I've shown it.

Please quit attacking my character. You are not God.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Now, here is the gatcha (and I'm not trying to corner you, I really just don't understand how you would handle this)...If a lost person walks up to you with an NIV and says: "Look Michelle, I have been reading about the Son of God and I understand that if I put my trust in Him that He is the only path to God. Is this true? -- you say "Sure it is." The person continues the discussion and starts bringing up verses out of the NIV. Do you waiver and let that person know that you do not feel the NIV is the Word of God? That they should switch to the KJV to get the real Word?

What if they are holding their NIV open and they point to the Roman road and ask you about it...do you whip our your KJV and show them their NIV may be wrong? Or do you try to lead them to the Lord using the Bible that they brought to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course I would use what they have, but I would also encourage them to a church that uses a KJB, such as my own church, and eventually the Lord will show them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

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?