Rock of Ages Study Bible

[Harold Garvey]

Loads. It's good that most can discuss back and forth... but a few continue to be nuisances.

Glad to be of assisstance. Now that you stopped banging your head long enough to read this, continue.

I don't have a problem with anyone holding to a single translation. The problem stems from when someone wants to try to proclaim that their favorite translation is the only one that is the word of God and all others are not, period. God never limited Himself in any way and He is not about to start by limiting Himself to a single translation. Trying to put a translation, any translation, on that kind of pedestal is tantamount to making it an idol to worship.

A zeal uncovers itsself by the actions of those who say one thing and do something adversely different.

Didn't men originally translate the moving of the Spirit in the original autographs? Or do you hold to the stance that God spoke to them in angellic tongues???:BangHead:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Scripture has specific core doctrine. If it's not in scripture, then it's not scripural doctrine. The aforementioned church has added a doctrine that is completely absent in scripture. If it's absent in scripture, it's false doctrine. If a church has a single-translation-only position as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine.

I noticed the staement recently about "core doctrines" which also means there are other doctrines not considered to be core doctrines, but that goes directly against Scripture which is profitable for all doctrines.

Dangerous theology there, Brother.

Never said anyone was a heretic, and I never mentioned the KJV at all. In said if a church has a single-translation-only position (regardless of the translation) as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine. Not having sound doctrine is different from being a heretic.

Thou thinkest thyself to have become a judge upon the pedestal of thine own reason. You've never been to our church,we are sound doctrinally.

When a single-translation onlyists enters heaven, they will be surprised to find their position in gross error.

Substanciate, please.

 

[Harold Garvey]

You act as though this is a new issue. Both John Gill and Adam Clark said either body or wife were plausible renderings, though they leaned toward wife.

Adam Clarke's Commentary

John Gill's Commentary
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/INDENT]

A man's wife's body becomes his when they marry and his is hers. Not much teaching on this DOCTRINE today, guess it's not "core" enough.:sleeping_2:

 

[Harold Garvey]

You're the one who says scripture doesn't support versions.
Except that you'll note that I never referred to the KJV or any specific translation, neither did I ever accuse anyoen of heresy. As much as I oppose single-translation-onlyism in any form, single-translation-onlyism does not qualify as heresy.

I have said scripture supports Scripture. You say there is no Scripture to support the KJV as the word of God because of other versions, but there are not the KJV, so how can they also be the word of God? :tonofbricks:

 

[Johnv]

I have said scripture supports Scripture.

No you didn't. You said scripture doesn't support versions.

You say there is no Scripture to support the KJV as the word of God because of other versions, but there are not the KJV, so how can they also be the word of God? :tonofbricks:

I never said there is no Scripture to support the KJV as the word of God because of other versions. I said that your position is only consistent if your bible of choice is the Textus Receptus, since there is no scriptural support for any version.

 

[Harold Garvey]

No you didn't. You said scripture doesn't support versions.

I never said there is no Scripture to support the KJV as the word of God because of other versions. I said that your position is only consistent if your bible of choice is the Textus Receptus, since there is no scriptural support for any version.

You don't do much research I see. the bait and switch tactic doesn't work here.

 

[Johnv]

You don't do much research I see. the bait and switch tactic doesn't work here.

Then stop using bait and switch tactics.

 

[Bayouparson]

You act as though this is a new issue. Both John Gill and Adam Clark said either body or wife were plausible renderings, though they leaned toward wife.

Adam Clarke's Commentary

John Gill's Commentary
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/INDENT]

I did not say it was a new issue, you supposed that. It really makes no difference what John Gill or Adam Clark says about the verse, the context dictates that it is talking about the body and not a wife. I first came across this issue when preaching in Mexico and the RVR 1960 translates 2Cor 4:4 and inserts esposa which is wife. The only place they could get that is from the RSV, not from the Greek text. The context does not support this nor does the Greek. Why interject confusion? Also, why don't you read all that I write and stop picking a point here and a point here. Why not be honest with what has been stated?

 

[Bayouparson]

I did not interject anything - you accused people here of saying anyone who uses the KJV is a heretic. In that you are wrong. No one has ever said that people who use the KJV are heretics. I use the KJV and would not be considered a heretic.

I will keep my view of radical KJVO'ers to myself.

I did not want to respond to the above but I wanted to get you to reply to the following please.

Dr. Bob said, “We will focus on other, sound ministries that are not in the kjvonly sect that we so violently oppose. Thankfully, the only sect is a very very small minority and losing ground daily.”

CK4 said, “I have been moderating this forum for a long time. I have never seen a single post suggesting that people who use the AV are heretics.”

CK4 said, “You also misquoted me - I did not say that I had never seen anyone say that those who hold a KJVO position are heretics.”

CK4 would you please explain what Dr. Bob meant when he said “kjvonly sect?” Neither you nor Dr. Bob have answered my inquiry about the definition of “sect” and Dr. Bob’s claim that the KJVO position is a sect. By definition a sect is heretical. Maybe someone has said on the forum that the KJVO position is heresy after all. Also, would you please reconcile the two quotes from you above? What is the difference between a “post” and “anyone say?” To me they are the same but I am very open to further explanation.

 

[Trotter]

Not everyone who uses the KJV alone is KJVO. The forum recognizes several "levels" of KJVO-ism. It is those who regard the KJV as something other than a translation, as the sole representation of God's word, that are a sect in that they worship the KJV (whether they will admit it or not).

 

[Johnv]

The definition of "sect" does not categorially include the definition of heretical. A sect is defined as a group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group. It's where we get the word "section" from.

Examples:
Orthodox Jews are a sect of Judaism. Presbyterians are a sect of Reformed Christians. Calvinists are a sect of Protestants. Bostonians area sect of New Englanders. IFB's are a sect of Baptists. Calvareans are a sect of the Jesus Movement. Sometimes religious sects are demoninational, sometimes they're not.

 

[Bayouparson]

The definition of "sect" does not categorially include the definition of heretical. A sect is defined as a group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group. It's where we get the word "section" from.

Examples:
Orthodox Jews are a sect of Judaism. Presbyterians are a sect of Reformed Christians. Calvinists are a sect of Protestants. Bostonians area sect of New Englanders. IFB's are a sect of Baptists. Calvareans are a sect of the Jesus Movement. Sometimes religious sects are demoninational, sometimes they're not.

Your definition is accurate to a point. Why not accept what the definition of the word "sect" actually means? This little banter reminds me of the present administration in the White House that says something and then redefines when it is challenged. Here are some "authoritative" definitions of the word "sect."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sect
• Etymology: Middle English secte, from Anglo-French & Late Latin & Latin; Anglo-French, group, faction, from Late Latin secta organized ecclesiastical body, from Latin, course of action, way of life, probably from sectari to pursue, frequentative of sequi to follow — more at sue
• Date: 14th century
1 a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination

2 archaic : sex 1 <so is all her sect — Shakespeare>

3 a : a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader b : party c : faction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect
The historical usage of the term sect in Christendom has had pejorative connotations, referring to a group or movement with heretical beliefs or practices that deviate from those of groups considered orthodox.[1] [Emphasis added.]

1 Wilson, Bryan Religion in Sociological Perspective 1982, ISBN 0-19-826664-2 Oxford University Press page 89. "In English, it is a term that designates a religiously separated group, but in its historical usage in Christendom it carried a distinctly pejorative connotation. A sect was a movement committed to heretical beliefs and often to ritual acts and practices like isolation that departed from orthodox religious procedures."

It is my belief that the usage of the word "sect" in the exchange of these forum posts is the one that defines it as an heretical group. I know I cannot discern the intended definition used by the people who said the KJVO people are a sect, but my guess, in light of the contemporary view and debate of those who hold the position and the attempt to connect them with Peter Ruckman would define the word in the way indicated above, an heretical group. This has been the methodology of all who "violently" oppose the KJVO position. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept. Does any more need to be said about this matter? P.S. Please read the whole post above and not just the parts you agree with. JR

 

[Johnv]

Your definition is accurate to a point. Why not accept what the definition of the word "sect" actually means?

I dont' know. Why don't you? You're accusing others of saying something they didn't say, all because you want "sect" to mean something it doesn't. So you should take your own advice and accept what the definition of the word sect as it actually means, and not what you want it to mean. Just to reiterate, a sect is defined as a group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group.

 

[Bayouparson]

I dont' know. Why don't you? You're accusing others of saying something they didn't say, all because you want "sect" to mean something it doesn't. So you should take your own advice and accept what the definition of the word sect as it actually means, and not what you want it to mean. Just to reiterate, a sect is defined as a group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group.

You did exactly what I suggested you would do. Fail (or refuse) to read the whole post. The historical use of the word "sect" means heretical. Boy am I missing something here? I did not accuse anyone of anything they did not say. I simply suggested they used a word that had a connotation that means "heretical." The definition even supports this. If you had read my whole statement, I said that I cannot discern what they meant but in light of the present (historical and forum) banter they could have meant heretical and probably did. Now let's go back and redefine what we said and backtrack and say we did not say that. I believe Barack Hussein Obama does that.

 

[Harold Garvey]

I did not say it was a new issue, you supposed that. It really makes no difference what John Gill or Adam Clark says about the verse, the context dictates that it is talking about the body and not a wife. I first came across this issue when preaching in Mexico and the RVR 1960 translates 2Cor 4:4 and inserts esposa which is wife. The only place they could get that is from the RSV, not from the Greek text. The context does not support this nor does the Greek. Why interject confusion? Also, why don't you read all that I write and stop picking a point here and a point here. Why not be honest with what has been stated?

That would spoil his little playhouse, Brother!:applause:

 

[Harold Garvey]

I did not want to respond to the above but I wanted to get you to reply to the following please.

Dr. Bob said, “We will focus on other, sound ministries that are not in the kjvonly sect that we so violently oppose. Thankfully, the only sect is a very very small minority and losing ground daily.”

CK4 said, “I have been moderating this forum for a long time. I have never seen a single post suggesting that people who use the AV are heretics.”

CK4 said, “You also misquoted me - I did not say that I had never seen anyone say that those who hold a KJVO position are heretics.”

CK4 would you please explain what Dr. Bob meant when he said “kjvonly sect?” Neither you nor Dr. Bob have answered my inquiry about the definition of “sect” and Dr. Bob’s claim that the KJVO position is a sect. By definition a sect is heretical. Maybe someone has said on the forum that the KJVO position is heresy after all. Also, would you please reconcile the two quotes from you above? What is the difference between a “post” and “anyone say?” To me they are the same but I am very open to further explanation.

The words in the quote by Dr. Bob is reprehensible to say the least.

C4K is not going to say much to his own condemnation like Dr. Bob will.

A scepter of self-righteousness will land on the heads of those subject to tyrannical rule.

 

[Bayouparson]

That would spoil his little playhouse, Brother!:applause:

Brother Garvey, I like your style and encouragement. This whole thing is different from anything I have encountered. Thanks JR

 

[Harold Garvey]

Not everyone who uses the KJV alone is KJVO. The forum recognizes several "levels" of KJVO-ism. It is those who regard the KJV as something other than a translation, as the sole representation of God's word, that are a sect in that they worship the KJV (whether they will admit it or not).

I find your words to the lesser degree of subjectivity on the matter simply because you refuse to answer my question: "Did NOT the penmen of the original autographs translate what the Spirit had moved upon their hearts, or did God speak to them in angellic tongues and they interpreted?"

 

[Johnv]

You did exactly what I suggested you would do.

Nope, I read your whole post. The "historical" use of "sect" is not "heretical". It "can" be used to include "hereritcal" in its context, depending on how it's used. You're claiming that KJVO's were called heretical here. Your basis for doing so has no merit. The definition of "sect" does not mean "heretical". Neither did its context on this board remotely include or imply the definition of "heretical".

You're also accused me of calling KJVO's heretics in this thread. I'm still waiting for you to retract that statement, because it's false.

 

[Harold Garvey]

The definition of "sect" does not categorially include the definition of heretical. A sect is defined as a group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group. It's where we get the word "section" from.

Your idea is corrected by the following:

The historical usage of the term sect in Christendom has had pejorative connotations, referring to a group or movement with heretical beliefs or practices that deviate from those of groups considered orthodox.[1]

Although in the past it was mostly used to refer to religious groups, it has since expanded and in modern culture can refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles. The term is mostly used in a malicious way and would suggest the broken-off group was following a more negative path than the original, mostly oriented towards profit.

Johnv:

Examples:
Orthodox Jews are a sect of Judaism. Presbyterians are a sect of Reformed Christians. Calvinists are a sect of Protestants. Bostonians area sect of New Englanders. IFB's are a sect of Baptists. Calvareans are a sect of the Jesus Movement. Sometimes religious sects are demoninational, sometimes they're not.

Since we are speaking of the Bible and not religious organizations, your example only applies within the reasoning affected by Indian influence.