liberalism

“Liberals” is the polite word for those who hold to the doctrine of KJO. Would you prefer that we be less polite and more direct? Does our beating around the bush offend you?

 

The bottom line is KJVOism is a liberal view. No if's and's and but's about it.

I know people who are very conservative when it comes to earthly things like voting etc... but they are very liberal when it comes to the bible etc...

 

I'd rather be a liberal and know what God said than bow the knee to some Laodicean scribe's interpretation of what the bible should really have said. So, whatever.

 

Well if that is the case James then show me what God said about the KJV:

1. scripture that says KJV
2. which KJV
3. and KJVOism in the KJV

If not then you are bowing down to a doctrine that has no scripture to support it. Would you classify Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, Hyles, Fuller, Ray, Chick, Gipp, Reagan, Crosby, etc.. as Laodicean since thay all promote a modern doctrine started by a SDA and pushed forward by two dishonest Baptist? Just wondering.

As for me I am sola scriptura 100%.

 

If they are lukewarm then I would define them as Laodicean.

 

No one is asking you to bow the knee to some Laodicean's scribe's interpretation. Interpretation is what one arrives at after reading a text. Two people can read the same text and arrive at different interpretations, and two people can read different texts and arrive at the same interpretation.

 

When a 'pastor' stands in the pulpit and says that the correct rendering of a verse is blah blah blah, or the better translation should have been yadda yadda then is he not elevating his knowledge above the bible?

 

[non-baptist posting in restricted area]

[ February 07, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

[non-Baptist posting]

[ February 07, 2005, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Maybe, depends on many factors.

Where the KJV translators evelating they knowledge above the Bible when they took the word of God they already had and said that the correct rendering of a verse is blah blah blah, or the better translation should have been yadda yadda?

 

No one is saying that "the KJVO view is liberal" is doctrine. You need scriptural support for doctrine, not for opinion.

It doesn't. I personally do not believe the canon is doctrine[/e], but rather the general consensus of the majority of the church. KJV-onlyism, as a doctrine, doesn't even have the consensus of the majority of the church to back it up, let alone scripture.

Do you not understand when scripture is and isn't required to support something???

 

[non-Baptist posts snipped]

[ February 07, 2005, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

No, you don't understand. I said I don't view canon as doctrine. Doctrine needs to come from scripture (or by what authority should we accept it?), and those that hold to KJV-onlyism as a doctrine (and not just a personal preference) need scripture on their side, or else they are guilty of holding to non-authoritative, extra-Biblical doctrine (the exact same thing they slam other denominations and cults for).

Very well, if that is your opinion, then no problem. However, if you hold to it or promote it as a doctrine, you need an authority (only scripture, for most non-Catholics) to support that doctrine.

I do. I just disagree with your final conclusion of what that means.

 

We all know that this statement is absolutely false so why did you post it? If a 21st century pastor doesn’t know Greek and Hebrew any better than the men who translated the KJV almost 400 years ago, he VERY badly needs to crack the books. I have thousands of volumes in my personal library that were written AFTER the KJV was published and access to hundreds of thousands of volumes in university libraries that were written AFTER the KJV was published. If I could not do a better job with my resources than the King’s translators could without my resources, there would have to be something very seriously wrong with me. Correcting the King’s translators is not correcting the Bible; it is improving upon the efforts of men that lived at a time when resources for studying Hebrew and Greek were nearly non-existent. Anyone who relies exclusively upon the King’s translators and ignores the Bible scholars that God has blessed the Church with during the past 400 years is making a mockery of God.

 

Anyone who claims that the providence of God is responsible for the mistakes made by the King's men is guilty of the "B" word, plain and simple! And that is NOT all that they are guilty of! Such grossly blind stupidity staggers my imagination.

 

Maybe you're confusing us with this guy (click here) (James 2:3) </font>[/QUOTE]Is he wearing tights?

 

I did once. But, I was wrong. You are just really confused. I think it has something to do with living in Europe so long or that aweful tower in the background of your picture. Come back to the light, Roger...

 

OK Guys....Just my opinion here but since the Moderators have seen fit to disallow any further posting by "Providential" here due to his being a non-Baptist(we are somewhat exclusive here...are we not)...then we ought to be fair about it and not rail on him since he is not allowed to defend himself or his beliefs.That's kinda undemocratic....don't ya think? JMHO

Greg Sr.(By the way...I'm KJVo...and I AIN'T no kinda liberal!!!!!Ya'll have definitely twisted the definition of THAT word as far as I'm concerned.

 

Love ya Roger....stay by that Book...and don't worry about that TOWER....LOLOLOL

Greg Sr.

 

We all know that this statement is absolutely false so why did you post it? If a 21st century pastor doesn’t know Greek and Hebrew any better than the men who translated the KJV almost 400 years ago, he VERY badly needs to crack the books. I have thousands of volumes in my personal library that were written AFTER the KJV was published and access to hundreds of thousands of volumes in university libraries that were written AFTER the KJV was published. If I could not do a better job with my resources than the King’s translators could without my resources, there would have to be something very seriously wrong with me. Correcting the King’s translators is not correcting the Bible; it is improving upon the efforts of men that lived at a time when resources for studying Hebrew and Greek were nearly non-existent. Anyone who relies exclusively upon the King’s translators and ignores the Bible scholars that God has blessed the Church with during the past 400 years is making a mockery of God.

</font>[/QUOTE]This is an interesting concept, that we know ancient languages better than people who lived closer to the time that the ancient language was actually used, but on what assumption do you base this? That our brains have evolved four hundred years larger? Perhaps we should assume that we know greek better than the apostles too, since they didn't have all the great learning that we have today.