KJV . . . rivers of living water . .

[Rippon]

Rippon...we are merely trading opinions that we each regard as fact back and forth. If I EVER stated that I was "inconsistent" then let me correct that right now. I do not believe myself to be so.

You admitted it earlier. That's good enough for me.

I still believe that for English-speaking people in this dispensation of the Church age the KJV is the Bible that God wants His people to use.

Even though most English-speaking people,native and non-native as well do not use the KJV?

God's ways are apparently not your ways.

I DID say "the Bible I hold in my hand" and I will stand by that statement. I do believe that Book (the KJV) IS the Word of God....and I stand by that statement as well. There have been many who have died for the "Word of God" over the many years since God gave us His Word in printed form (and before that too).

Just name one of the many who have died for the cause of the KJV translation.

 

[robycop3]

Gregory Perry Sr:

If you have read or listened to the teachings and opinions of other men in regards to the Bible Version Issue (and you KNOW you have) (JUST AS I HAVE TO THE CONTRARY VIEW) and accepted as true and factual what they have said about the matter in reaching the conclusions that you have on the subject...Then YOU....just like ME...have been TAUGHT. It is part of the learning process on ANY subject.

Well, I have put in a lotta hours studying the KJVO myth to see if it's correct or not, and found that it ISN'T!

You know that I have said numerous times in these forums that I don't believe that the KJV "camp" (of which I am unashamedly a part of) has any (Chapter and Verse type scriptural "support") to support their position....and NEITHER do the CT/MV crowd.

We who use multiple versions aren't trying to justify a fairly-new doctrine as the KJVOs are. And indeed, JESUS HIMSELF makes the case for multiple versions by what He read aloud from a vorlage version of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21 and several of His other quotes of OT Scripture.

That aside, it's a PROVEN FACT that the current KJVO doctrine is derived from Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, and that the myth was actually jumpstarted by two authors who DISHONESTLY plagiarized from Dr. Wilkinson's book and used the power of modern media to hawk their wares. So, KJVO has a man-made cultic, and dishonest origin, proving it's NOT from GOD. That leaves only ONE other possible ultimate source.....

All of our conclusions (on both sides of the issue) are based on extra-biblical evidence surrounding the transmission and preservation of the Original Language texts.

So, you believe you have the ability and right to pick-n-choose which of the ancient Scriptural mss. are authentic and which aren't?

The verses IN "the Bible" that either of us may be prone to quoting are always quoted in reference to the "version" each of us is attempting to support.

And NOT ONE of them points to any specific language or BV within any given language.

I still believe that for English-speaking people in this dispensation of the Church age the KJV is the Bible that God wants His people to use.

You have absolutely no basis for such a belief. You are trying to LIMIT GOD to YOUR fave version. We see, in the history of the English language, that God has always updated His word within it, ever since He first placed it in the beta-English of the old Anglo-Saxons.

And your 'dispensation' statement raises some concern that you mighta bought into the false 'Plymouth brethren, stuff of John Darby and William Marrion Branham.

I believe the manuscript evidence supports that conclusion. Can I prove that to you??....obviously not....and I can live with that as well.

With all due respect...Were YOU there when any of the mss. in question were written? Do you know WHO wrote any of them, WHEN or WHERE? Did not GOD preserve the ones you reject, same as He did those you accept?

Again-What authority/ability do you have to accept some and reject others?

And the NKJV is made from mostly the same mss as the AV 1611 was. What's your prob with the NKJV? It corrects many of the goofs in the KJV.

And again...Doesn't the dubious man-made origin of KJVO bother you?

 

[Baptist4life]

Gregory Perry Sr:

Well, I have put in a lotta hours studying the KJVO myth to see if it's correct or not, and found that it ISN'T!



We who use multiple versions aren't trying to justify a fairly-new doctrine as the KJVOs are. And indeed, JESUS HIMSELF makes the case for multiple versions by what He read aloud from a vorlage version of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21 and several of His other quotes of OT Scripture.

That aside, it's a PROVEN FACT that the current KJVO doctrine is derived from Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, and that the myth was actually jumpstarted by two authors who DISHONESTLY plagiarized from Dr. Wilkinson's book and used the power of modern media to hawk their wares. So, KJVO has a man-made cultic, and dishonest origin, proving it's NOT from GOD. That leaves only ONE other possible ultimate source.....



So, you believe you have the ability and right to pick-n-choose which of the ancient Scriptural mss. are authentic and which aren't?



And NOT ONE of them points to any specific language or BV within any given language.



You have absolutely no basis for such a belief. You are trying to LIMIT GOD to YOUR fave version. We see, in the history of the English language, that God has always updated His word within it, ever since He first placed it in the beta-English of the old Anglo-Saxons.

And your 'dispensation' statement raises some concern that you mighta bought into the false 'Plymouth brethren, stuff of John Darby and William Marrion Branham.



With all due respect...Were YOU there when any of the mss. in question were written? Do you know WHO wrote any of them, WHEN or WHERE? Did not GOD preserve the ones you reject, same as He did those you accept?

Again-What authority/ability do you have to accept some and reject others?

And the NKJV is made from mostly the same mss as the AV 1611 was. What's your prob with the NKJV? It corrects many of the goofs in the KJV.

And again...Doesn't the dubious man-made origin of KJVO bother you?

I have just one question for you. Where do you think Cain's wife came from? I'm sure if people knew your belief on that topic, they'd find anything you say irrelevant.

 

[sag38]

I am not Robo but your apparent jab is concerning. Are you saying that only KJVO folks take Genesis literally? I am in no way KJVO and I believe that the scripture is very clear. Cain's wife was either a sister or niece. It can't be any other way without twisting the scripture whether on uses the KJV or an easier to read translation.

 

[Logos1560]

I'm sure if people knew your belief on that topic, they'd find anything you say irrelevant.

If people knew the belief of the translators of the KJV about a number of things including baptismal regeneration, are you suggesting that they would find their writing and translating work irrelevant?

Are you actually trying to imply that if someone is wrong about one topic that they must be wrong about all topics?

Would you suggest that the fact that KJV-only advocates use fallacies and divers measures in their arguments for a KJV-only theory means that anything that they say is irrelevant?

 

[Baptist4life]

I am not Robo but your apparent jab is concerning. Are you saying that only KJVO folks take Genesis literally? I am in no way KJVO and I believe that the scripture is very clear. Cain's wife was either a sister or niece. It can't be any other way without twisting the scripture whether on uses the KJV or an easier to read translation.

No, what I'm saying is that Robo believes God created a whole DIFFERENT race of people apart from Adam and Eve! He's been shown many times by Scripture that he's wrong, yet still holds to that totally heretical belief! He believes God created all the different races (black, white, asian, etc. ) SEPARATELY. I've even seen him post that Cain may have married an alien.
Demanding proof for a belief in KJVO, while believing the outlandish things he does, which he has NO Biblical support for either (actually the Bible refutes his belief), is the height of hypocrisy. Roby became irrelevant a long time ago, on many other forums he's considered a "nut".

 

[Baptist4life]

If people knew the belief of the translators of the KJV about a number of things including baptismal regeneration, are you suggesting that they would find their writing and translating work irrelevant?

Are you actually trying to imply that if someone is wrong about one topic that they must be wrong about all topics?

Would you suggest that the fact that KJV-only advocates use fallacies and divers measures in their arguments for a KJV-only theory means that anything that they say is irrelevant?

No........I'm saying robo is hypocritical in his attack on KJVOism, when he has unbiblical..............frankly.......WEIRD.........beliefs himself!


Would you also defend an atheist just because he agreed with you about KJVO? You can align yourself with roby if you want, but...........siding with someone who basically throws the entire first book of the Bible in the trash would worry me.

 

[sag38]

Why didn't you just say so? Now, we understand what you are trying to say. Personally, I would put KJVOnlyism and the Gap Theory in the same category. Gross Error!!!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

No Thank You

Gregory Perry Sr:

Well, I have put in a lotta hours studying the KJVO myth to see if it's correct or not, and found that it ISN'T!



We who use multiple versions aren't trying to justify a fairly-new doctrine as the KJVOs are. And indeed, JESUS HIMSELF makes the case for multiple versions by what He read aloud from a vorlage version of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21 and several of His other quotes of OT Scripture.

That aside, it's a PROVEN FACT that the current KJVO doctrine is derived from Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, and that the myth was actually jumpstarted by two authors who DISHONESTLY plagiarized from Dr. Wilkinson's book and used the power of modern media to hawk their wares. So, KJVO has a man-made cultic, and dishonest origin, proving it's NOT from GOD. That leaves only ONE other possible ultimate source.....



So, you believe you have the ability and right to pick-n-choose which of the ancient Scriptural mss. are authentic and which aren't?



And NOT ONE of them points to any specific language or BV within any given language.



You have absolutely no basis for such a belief. You are trying to LIMIT GOD to YOUR fave version. We see, in the history of the English language, that God has always updated His word within it, ever since He first placed it in the beta-English of the old Anglo-Saxons.

And your 'dispensation' statement raises some concern that you mighta bought into the false 'Plymouth brethren, stuff of John Darby and William Marrion Branham.



With all due respect...Were YOU there when any of the mss. in question were written? Do you know WHO wrote any of them, WHEN or WHERE? Did not GOD preserve the ones you reject, same as He did those you accept?

Again-What authority/ability do you have to accept some and reject others?

And the NKJV is made from mostly the same mss as the AV 1611 was. What's your prob with the NKJV? It corrects many of the goofs in the KJV.

And again...Doesn't the dubious man-made origin of KJVO bother you?

Sorry Roby...but I ain't swallowing your hook. I simply disagree with your conclusions just like you disagree with mine and I'm not going to be drawn into your circular argument. I absolutely disagree with not just some...but ALL of what you just said. Just cause you said it doesn't make it so anymore than me saying what I say makes my position so. I wish you well and hope you have a happy and fruitful walk with the Lord but I do NOT wish to engage in this argument with you. You have shown a propensity to display a "nasty" tone with your arguments that borders on accusation and I just don't care to engage in that. Either way....I think you are wrong and you just implied that I am being led by Satan.....you said above "So, KJVO has a man-made cultic, and dishonest origin, proving it's NOT from GOD. That leaves only ONE other possible ultimate source....."

I really have nothing else I'd care to say to you except that I pray that God will be merciful and kind to you just as I hope He will be so to me.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Incredible!

Thinking back to the TITLE of this thread....

Man alive....we REALLY got some "rivers of living water" flowing here now...don't we???

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Luke2427]

I'm here because I want to be. There is no rule that says I HAVE to debate anything nor is there one that says I must leave if I don't engage in debate. If you enjoy debate...then God Bless you...debate to your hearts content.

Has it not occurred to you that the VERY HEADING UNDER WHICH YOU TYPE THIS POST IS CALLED....

...wait for it....



BAPTIST DEBATE FORUMS???


If you don't want to debate your position then don't state it.

or go to the fellowship forum or something.

But it is pure idiotic to refuse to debate ON A DEBATE FORUM!!!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Thank You Bro.Luke

Has it not occurred to you that the VERY HEADING UNDER WHICH YOU TYPE THIS POST IS CALLED....

...wait for it....



BAPTIST DEBATE FORUMS???


If you don't want to debate your position then don't state it.

or go to the fellowship forum or something.

But it is pure idiotic to refuse to debate ON A DEBATE FORUM!!!

Thank you for your very kind and gracious remarks :flower::tonofbricks: I hope you derive a great amount of pleasure and joy in stating them.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Rippon]

It's not up for debate;GPS does not want to debate on a debate forum. His reasons are debatable.

 

[Baptist4life]

Seems since I've posted what robycop believes, he's been "missing in action". Too embarrassed by the truth about him coming out? Hmmmm.



In the past week I've spent time reading other Bible versions. I own a NKJV, an NIV, an HCSB, an ESV, an NASB, and several KJV's. I was raised on the KJV, and I just cannot enjoy reading another translation. I try, and I'll not bash them except to say there are a few I don't care for, the NIV being the leader. I simply don't like any Bible not translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV.

Anyway, when I want to study, read, glean, devote, learn from Scripture, I'll continue to use my KJV! It's been, and will continue to be, MY standard.

 

[Yeshua1]

Seems since I've posted what robycop believes, he's been "missing in action". Too embarrassed by the truth about him coming out? Hmmmm.



In the past week I've spent time reading other Bible versions. I own a NKJV, an NIV, an HCSB, an ESV, an NASB, and several KJV's. I was raised on the KJV, and I just cannot enjoy reading another translation. I try, and I'll not bash them except to say there are a few I don't care for, the NIV being the leader. I simply don't like any Bible not translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV.

Anyway, when I want to study, read, glean, devote, learn from Scripture, I'll continue to use my KJV! It's been, and will continue to be, MY standard.

ANY of those versions not based upon the TR acceptable to you for use?

 

[Baptist4life]

ANY of those versions not based upon the TR acceptable to you for use?

Yes, they're acceptable to use, but definitely not MY preference. I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who use all the versions I listed, plus others. I just prefer, and honestly think they are best, versions translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, they're acceptable to use, but definitely not MY preference. I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who use all the versions I listed, plus others. I just prefer, and honestly think they are best, versions translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV.

So ytou be KJVP?

 

[Rippon]

In the past week I've spent time reading other Bible versions. I own a NKJV, an NIV, an HCSB, an ESV, an NASB, and several KJV's. I simply don't like any Bible not translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV.

Aside from the NKJV, the rest of the translations you cited are not based on the TR.

 

[Baptist4life]

Aside from the NKJV, the rest of the translations you cited are not based on the TR.

I know that. I have copies of them to compare. Most of them were given to me, or were given to my children, who are now grown.

 

[Baptist4life]

So ytou be KJVP?

Yes, I'm KJV Preferred. My pastor uses the NKJV, my men's SS class teacher uses an NIV. People in my church probably use half a dozen different translations. Most use the NKJV since pastor preaches from it, makes following easier. I can follow in my KJV easily however.