Sword's KJB Conference

[Mexdeaf]

My former IFB church had a subscription to SOTL and in 2006 I did see an ad within one of the issues that featured the choices of a 6-month subscription or a 12-month subscription for a set cost. Can't remember now what the cost was since I no longer have a copy of the issue but it was not necessarily cheap.

I am in favor of an unbiased report on the conference.

Simple enough- go to the "Sword's" web site. There are no free subs. That's fine with me.

I am looking forward to Pastor Bob's report.

 

[Salamander]

I have only received free issues. I am NOT a subscriber. I enjoy those messages in them that aren't of the syndicated type. I don't enjoy those where they literally worship other men of God who no doubt are due honour but enough is enough!

I wouldn't pay for a copy. If you can't obtain free copies then may I suggest getting along with the SWOTL administrators and they will send many free copies to your church. That doesn't mean some one isn't paying for them, but if somebody is paying for the 25 copies we get every so often then they are pretty well off!!!:laugh: :godisgood:

 

[Trotter]

did a great job recently on a message about the Bible.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't a sermon be from the bible and not about one? Or maybe I'm the only one that comment struck that way.

It is a good thing when any bible meeting is held that seeks to help people understand it better. It is sad when something is held in the name of the bible to push a certain "doctrine" about a version of the bible. Problem is, many don't see a difference. I guess it goes back to my heathen roots, when I used to watch church-goers and pick them apart... things that don't line up with the truth of God's entire word stick out like a sore thumb to me.

I do pray that the actual truth of God prevails at this conference and that it is not used as a propagande vehicle. I have sat in several KJVO churches and heard some powerful preaching that did not stoop to calling names and man-made doctrines, and it is my prayer that this is what would take place.

I, too, would like to see an unbiased report from the conference, and I do believe Pastor_Bob is a man who can do that, no matter what his own personal feelings may be. He is a true man of integrity and character.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't a sermon be from the bible and not about one?

Since you asked nicely, please consider yourself corrected. :thumbs:

The Bible is full of passage that talk about the Bible.
Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

This passage, and many others like it, are speaking of God's written word that contains His law, statutes, and judgments. They are now in a collection of books that we call the Bible.

Any good doctrinal book will contain a chapter on bibliology - the study of the Bible.

 

[Trotter]

I can agree with your comments, but we both know that wasn't what was intimated.

There is more than enough stuff in the bible to use to bring forth a message. The Holy Spirit can take a snippet of scripture and turn it into an entire series. There is no need to stand in a pulpit and preach something other that what is in the bible, not which one they happen to be holding. That applies to all, not just one camp. i have heard it from both sides, as we have stood up and left from both kinds of churches.

I guess I am just too dense to see the sense in it all. God's word is His word and not ours. So many try to put it neatly inside thei own lines, but He is not a God who does what we tell Him to do. I bear enough scars to prove that one. It makes about as much sense to me as those who tell God what He will do, and then claim it to be so.

I have spent my time in the mud of the trenches, but I see just how fruitless it is to do so. I would rather men look to God and not our own devices... but I seriously doubt we will.

 

[Salamander]

I can agree with your comments, but we both know that wasn't what was intimated.

Actually, Trotter, you undoubtedly haven't heard the message about the Bible which was ultimately from the Bible being referenced.

There is more than enough stuff in the bible to use to bring forth a message. The Holy Spirit can take a snippet of scripture and turn it into an entire series. There is no need to stand in a pulpit and preach something other that what is in the bible, not which one they happen to be holding. That applies to all, not just one camp. i have heard it from both sides, as we have stood up and left from both kinds of churches.

When that Bible has no errors, then it is applied according to the ability of God to preserve His word.

Your statements cannot be applied to all versions.

I guess I am just too dense to see the sense in it all. God's word is His word and not ours. So many try to put it neatly inside thei own lines, but He is not a God who does what we tell Him to do. I bear enough scars to prove that one. It makes about as much sense to me as those who tell God what He will do, and then claim it to be so.

You know what? We agree, but since bias incorporates into the mix, I would have to then further disagree. that said in order that I have found most other versions to disagree within their own pages and also disagree with established doctrines.

I have spent my time in the mud of the trenches, but I see just how fruitless it is to do so. I would rather men look to God and not our own devices... but I seriously doubt we will.

Amen! So stick with what is tried and true and leave the versions of men alone!:applause:

 

[Trotter]

When that Bible has no errors, then it is applied according to the ability of God to preserve His word.

God's word has no errors, thank you.

Your statements cannot be applied to all versions.

Actually, they can. God's word has no errors, but EVERY translation does because man has translated them. That doesn't take away from God's word, as He is still the One doing the talking.

So stick with what is tried and true and leave the versions of men alone!

Honestly, I prefer to worship the Author of the book and not a certain version/edition of the book. It is the contents of the book and not the specific choice of words or syntax that have the power.

I have tried several different version of His word, and have proved them all. It is His word that matters, not the copyright date or the names of the translators. True, some that are out there are little more than some one's musings on what God really meant, and they are called paraphrases. God's word is God's word, period.

Like I said, I have done my time in the trenches. I have see the futility of it, as some will never shut up long enough to listen to anything but their own opinion. I shall cling to the Lord and His word and leave the pigeonholing to others.

 

[Armchair Scholar]

God's word has no errors, but EVERY translation does because man has translated them. That doesn't take away from God's word, as He is still the One doing the talking.

AMEN!!! :thumbs: :godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

God's word has no errors, thank you.


Actually, they can. God's word has no errors, but EVERY translation does because man has translated them. That doesn't take away from God's word, as He is still the One doing the talking.


Honestly, I prefer to worship the Author of the book and not a certain version/edition of the book. It is the contents of the book and not the specific choice of words or syntax that have the power.

Then you worship what you don't know to have His word without error except in the figment of your imagination.

I have tried several different version of His word, and have proved them all. It is His word that matters, not the copyright date or the names of the translators. True, some that are out there are little more than some one's musings on what God really meant, and they are called paraphrases. God's word is God's word, period.

I have proven all versions in English to have errors except the KJB.

Like I said, I have done my time in the trenches. I have see the futility of it, as some will never shut up long enough to listen to anything but their own opinion. I shall cling to the Lord and His word and leave the pigeonholing to others.

Most certainly you give credence to the argumentalists. I'm as settled on God's word as His word is forever settled in Heaven, I just haven't arrived as you have.:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

AMEN!!!

The you leave mankind to only one conclusion: God isn't God enough to keep His word.

God has left mankind His word without error.

Big difference, huh? And all this time I thought you believed God presevred His word!raying:

 

[Trotter]

**long rebuttal erased due to the fact that is is not needed**

I won't play your game, Salamander. You can remain in your own little world. I left that realm a long time ago. I am now free from all bondage.

I am not here to try to convince you of anything, nor am I here to fight or ridicule. That does nothing for the kingdom of God. I am here, however, as a fundamentalist, even if I see things a bit different than do you.

Don't try to put God in a box. He will fill the box, of course, but He is not confined by it.

 

[Logos1560]

Then you worship what you don't know to have His word without error except in the figment of your imagination.

I have proven all versions in English to have errors except the KJB.

Are you saying that the 1611 KJV was based on and was a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles that had errors? Are you suggesting that no English-speaking believers before 1611 had the word of God?

Which edition of the KJV do you claim has no errors of any kind including any by printers or editors?

 

[Armchair Scholar]

Salamander: The you leave mankind to only one conclusion: God isn't God enough to keep His word.

You're the one who said it, Sal. And, please, tell me where God has specified the KJV 1611 as the only preservation of His word or as His only way of keeping His word?

Salamander: God has left mankind His word without error.

Yes, the original writers made exact, perfect transcriptions as received directly from the Holy Spirit (who, btw, isn't an "it"), but all MSS that followed, made by human copyists, contain some sort of human error, which in most cases is not serious enough to change doctrine.

But, again, please give me Scriptural proof of your assertion that only the KJV contains God's word translated without error, just like when the originals were given. Give me proof that the KJV translators did not contain the same portion of human error as all human beings ever born, which allowed them to translate the first ever version of God's word that is free of human error. Show me Scriptural proof that shows the KJV is a translation where its translators were "inspired" by God to choose the exact English words.

The KJV contains the same kinds of human errors in translation that any other Bible translation contains, not to mention the 17th century British English that is no longer used.

Salamander: Big difference, huh? And all this time I thought you believed God presevred His word!raying:
No, no difference. I'm still waiting for KJVO scriptural proof that God has designated only the KJV (by name and year) as His only word preserved. And in which KJV?

 

[Salamander]

**long rebuttal erased due to the fact that is is not needed**

Wish you would send this to me via PM, I'd love to see how your following remarks fit with this attached!:laugh:

I won't play your game, Salamander. You can remain in your own little world. I left that realm a long time ago. I am now free from all bondage.

Games? Bondage? You can't really be serious!

Are you attempting to establish a platform that those who hold to what the SWOL officiates do are playing games and are in bondage???

I am not here to try to convince you of anything, nor am I here to fight or ridicule. That does nothing for the kingdom of God. I am here, however, as a fundamentalist, even if I see things a bit different than do you.

Then why did you just say what you just said then?

try to put God in a box. He will fill the box, of course, but He is not confined by it.

A box?:laugh: I thought God belongs on His Throne!

 

[Salamander]

Are you saying that the 1611 KJV was based on and was a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles that had errors? Are you suggesting that no English-speaking believers before 1611 had the word of God?

Which edition of the KJV do you claim has no errors of any kind including any by printers or editors?

You might want to refrain from these remarks in the fundamentalist forum.

There is a forum for attacking posters and the KJB to which they hold in there.

 

[Salamander]

Salamander: The you leave mankind to only one conclusion: God isn't God enough to keep His word.

You're the one who said it, Sal. And, please, tell me where God has specified the KJV 1611 as the only preservation of His word or as His only way of keeping His word?

Care to equate harmony of the Scripture beyond preservation, or anywhere short of it??

Salamander:

God has left mankind His word without error.

Yes, the original writers made exact, perfect transcriptions as received directly from the Holy Spirit (who, btw, isn't an "it"), but all MSS that followed, made by human copyists, contain some sort of human error, which in most cases is not serious enough to change doctrine.

Really, now I suppose you'll tell me that Mary was a young girl and not a virgin.

Maybe you'll try to tell me God can be deceived?

Then maybe you'll try to tell me God leaves no man sure of life when His Son came to give life and that more abudantly!

But, again, please give me Scriptural proof of your assertion that only the KJV contains God's word translated without error, just like when the originals were given. Give me proof that the KJV translators did not contain the same portion of human error as all human beings ever born, which allowed them to translate the first ever version of God's word that is free of human error. Show me Scriptural proof that shows the KJV is a translation where its translators were "inspired" by God to choose the exact English words.

Read my reply to Logos please, it sure fits as an answer to your dilemma.

The KJV contains the same kinds of human errors in translation that any other Bible translation contains, not to mention the 17th century British English that is no longer used.

Then why do you mention it?

Could it be that you're unwilling to admit its precise meaning and is perfectly definable prior to the introduction of perverse renderings and applications of its verbage???

Salamander:

Big difference, huh? And all this time I thought you believed God presevred His word!raying:
No, no difference. I'm still waiting for KJVO scriptural proof that God has designated only the KJV (by name and year) as His only word preserved. And in which KJV?

The KJVO attack forum for your intended purpose is located in the BV&T section. serpentology.

The evidences still remain as the KJB remains harmonious with the serpents continual attacks upon the veracity of the Scripture with those words of all subtility, "Hath God said?"

That is why I support the SWOL decision to stay with the KJB exclusively.:applause:

God Bless!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We have enough of these squabbles elsewhere.