People have known who Jesus is where no Bible has existed in their language. Don't place your Bible in the place of God. That makes it an idol.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The reason I am KJBO
- Thread starter stilllearning
- Start date
- Status
People have known who Jesus is where no Bible has existed in their language. Don't place your Bible in the place of God. That makes it an idol.
Wrong. We wouldn't know a lot of things about Jesus, but we would know Him. Why? Because Jesus Christ Himself quoted Isaiah 54:17 which says, "all thy children shall be taught of the Lord." That doesn't mean taught about the Lord. The word of denotes the source of the teaching: the Lord. He comes into the hearts of His children and writes His laws on their hearts, teaches them to know Him and love Him, and changes them forever. All God's children shall be taught in this manner, though some have been taught little or nothing about Him by preachers, and still others have been taught errors about Him. Jesus said everyone taught of the Father will come to Him. Not everyone taught by the preacher come to Jesus, but everyone taught of the Lord does.
Furthermore, Jeremiah prophesied that, in the new covenant, we would teach no more every man his neighbor and his brother, saying, know the Lord, for, says the bible, they shall all know me from the least to the greatest. We don't teach people to know Him, but rather we teach people about Him.
Yes it is. It is God's chosen way in these times to speak to us and reveal Himself.
Steven2006
New Member
Excellent point. :thumbsup:
True- however, there is a difference between trusting the Bible and trusting the God of the Bible.
Steven2006
New Member
As to the OP. I believe we can be confident that we have God's word in the many trusted translations available to us today.
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.
I do however respect anyone who chooses to use only one translation for their own personal study. I see nothing wrong with that.
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.
I do however respect anyone who chooses to use only one translation for their own personal study. I see nothing wrong with that.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are other sources of Divine Revelation than the Bible. We see General Revelation all around us. "The Heavens declare the Glory of God and the firmament showeth forth His handiwork." However, that General Revelation tells us of the existence of God but not what he desires from us. For that we need Specific Revelation, God's Self Revelation to us which tells us Who He is and what He wants.
General Revelation can teach us the existence of God. That is creation.
Specific or Special Revelation is necessary for salvation. That is the Bible.
General Revelation can teach us the existence of God. That is creation.
Specific or Special Revelation is necessary for salvation. That is the Bible.
Jeremiah 31 says we would not teach every man his neighbor and brother saying know the Lord, for they shall all know Him, from the least to the greatest. What about that is hard to understand? It specifically says we wouldn't teach people to know God. You cannot teach someone to know God. You can teach someone about God. That is what the bible is for, to reveal things about God to man.
Jesus said, "and this is life eternal: that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." I can't give you eternal life and I can't make you know God. That's what God does. All His children are taught of Him, and every man that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh to Jesus Christ.
Uh, John the Baptist knew in His mother's womb and leaped for joy and he didn't have a Bible KJV or otherwise.
HankD
There are other sources of Divine Revelation than the Bible. We see General Revelation all around us. "The Heavens declare the Glory of God and the firmament showeth forth His handiwork." However, that General Revelation tells us of the existence of God but not what he desires from us. For that we need Specific Revelation, God's Self Revelation to us which tells us Who He is and what He wants.
General Revelation can teach us the existence of God. That is creation.
Specific or Special Revelation is necessary for salvation. That is the Bible.
And the conscience which teaches us of our own personal brand of evil of which we usually excuse ourselves.
HankD
There are other sources of Divine Revelation than the Bible. We see General Revelation all around us. "The Heavens declare the Glory of God and the firmament showeth forth His handiwork." However, that General Revelation tells us of the existence of God but not what he desires from us. For that we need Specific Revelation, God's Self Revelation to us which tells us Who He is and what He wants.
General Revelation can teach us the existence of God. That is creation.
Specific or Special Revelation is necessary for salvation. That is the Bible.
That is just what I was trying to say, but you said it better. :wavey:
Yes. The bible calls that ability to exuse ourselves, even in light of our conscience bothering us, a "seared" conscience. But, Praise God, He renews our conscience through the Ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives! :wavey
Its only ONE hand so its not Pentecostal, only Bapticostal!) Thank you! You nailed it far better than I did and in less words.
And to you old friend.
TCassidy wrote:
Not to waste emoticons...I'm laughing out loud. Or more accurately, I did laugh out loud. Quick...name that tense!Yes. The bible calls that ability to exuse ourselves, even in light of our conscience bothering us, a "seared" conscience. But, Praise God, He renews our conscience through the Ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives! :wavey
I don't disagree prima facie. However, there are those who would castigate you for your first sentence (and they are out of bounds, IMHO). Or the fact that the OP position is any one translation used exclusively that is NOT the translation of the OP is considered something less than orthodox (and that's putting it mildly). That's the broader point.
Amen brother!Yes. The bible calls that ability to exuse ourselves, even in light of our conscience bothering us, a "seared" conscience. But, Praise God, He renews our conscience through the Ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives! :wavey
:wavey:
HankD
Because, I know that I am not the only Christian, who cares about accuracy.
ALL of us do. That's why mosta us use more than one version, given the many possible correct textual variants.
Therefore I know that if the KJB was just a fraction as “bad”, as I have heard from the world over the years, than I long ago would have sought out a Geneva Bible or a Bishop's Bible or a Wycliffe Bible etc.
--------------------------------------------------
Folx speak against the KJV cuz of the preposterous claims made for it by "erudite" KJVOs.
Over the years, I have faced all the claims of mistakes found in the KJB head on:
“When anyone said, it was full of mistakes, I would say, SHOW ME ONE.”
Most of the time they couldn’t, but on the times that they did, a little study proved “them”, to be the ones, making the mistake.
And "little study" is a trait of most KJVOs. You cannot get past the KJV's poor translation of 1 Tim. 6:10, let alone any other goofs in it.
Also I know, that from the beginning, God’s people have heeded God’s warnings of false teachers doing everything they can, to cast doubt on God’s Word;
And have taken whatever steps necessary, to make sure that the Bible that they held in their hands, was God’s Word.
--------------------------------------------------
That's why we have several valid translations, both old & new.
The KJB wasn’t the all time best selling book for hundreds of years, because every Christian that bought one, was an half-wit.
No, it was because when God’s people studied this Bible, God testified to their hearts, that this was indeed His Word.
--------------------------------------------------
Actually, it was because the govt. of the largest empire that ever was OUTLAWED all other English BVs for a good while.
On a side note:
I have noticed, that some get upset with me, when I paste a Bible reference, and say, “The Bible says........”
And they would re-quote my statement, adding to it........
“The(KJV) Bible says........”
Well the fact is, the KJB, is “The Bible”;
WRONG. The KJV is just ONE ENGLISH VERSION of the Bible. There are many others, just as valid, in English & over 2400 other languages.
And that is why it is so feverishly attacked.
As I said above, the attax come as a result of preposterous KJVO claims, I. E. "The KJV corrects the Greek & Hebrew". The purpose of the attax is to prove the KJVOs wrong.
A lot of forums, have a KJVO section. But I have yet to find one, that has a NIVO section, or a NASVO section, or a ESVO section, or even a NKJVO section.
That's cuz the supporters of those versions aren't stupid enough to claim exclusivity for them. The KJV stands alone in having a goofy setta homeboys idolizing it.
We have repeatedly asked you for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, & you've provided NONE, cuz NONE EXISTS. If ya ask me for the MAN-MADE origin of the current KJVO myth, I can easily provide it.,,,Dr. Wilkinson's book.
However, Roger is right...the KJV is a valid version, & is sufficient to lead one to salvation. However, reading one version alone does NOT give one a broad overvire of the Scriptures. one is limited to the work & opinions of one translator or company of translators. The AV translators themselves consulted the worx of as many other translators as they could and NEVER declared they were making an end-all, be-all English version. They called even the meanest(poorest) of the earlier translations "the word of God".
Remember, you can use only the KJV without wearing that dead, stinky bird of the false, man-made KJVO doctrine around yer neck.
ALL of us do. That's why mosta us use more than one version, given the many possible correct textual variants.
Therefore I know that if the KJB was just a fraction as “bad”, as I have heard from the world over the years, than I long ago would have sought out a Geneva Bible or a Bishop's Bible or a Wycliffe Bible etc.
--------------------------------------------------
Folx speak against the KJV cuz of the preposterous claims made for it by "erudite" KJVOs.
Over the years, I have faced all the claims of mistakes found in the KJB head on:
“When anyone said, it was full of mistakes, I would say, SHOW ME ONE.”
Most of the time they couldn’t, but on the times that they did, a little study proved “them”, to be the ones, making the mistake.
And "little study" is a trait of most KJVOs. You cannot get past the KJV's poor translation of 1 Tim. 6:10, let alone any other goofs in it.
Also I know, that from the beginning, God’s people have heeded God’s warnings of false teachers doing everything they can, to cast doubt on God’s Word;
And have taken whatever steps necessary, to make sure that the Bible that they held in their hands, was God’s Word.
--------------------------------------------------
That's why we have several valid translations, both old & new.
The KJB wasn’t the all time best selling book for hundreds of years, because every Christian that bought one, was an half-wit.
No, it was because when God’s people studied this Bible, God testified to their hearts, that this was indeed His Word.
--------------------------------------------------
Actually, it was because the govt. of the largest empire that ever was OUTLAWED all other English BVs for a good while.
On a side note:
I have noticed, that some get upset with me, when I paste a Bible reference, and say, “The Bible says........”
And they would re-quote my statement, adding to it........
“The(KJV) Bible says........”
Well the fact is, the KJB, is “The Bible”;
WRONG. The KJV is just ONE ENGLISH VERSION of the Bible. There are many others, just as valid, in English & over 2400 other languages.
And that is why it is so feverishly attacked.
As I said above, the attax come as a result of preposterous KJVO claims, I. E. "The KJV corrects the Greek & Hebrew". The purpose of the attax is to prove the KJVOs wrong.
A lot of forums, have a KJVO section. But I have yet to find one, that has a NIVO section, or a NASVO section, or a ESVO section, or even a NKJVO section.
That's cuz the supporters of those versions aren't stupid enough to claim exclusivity for them. The KJV stands alone in having a goofy setta homeboys idolizing it.
We have repeatedly asked you for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, & you've provided NONE, cuz NONE EXISTS. If ya ask me for the MAN-MADE origin of the current KJVO myth, I can easily provide it.,,,Dr. Wilkinson's book.
However, Roger is right...the KJV is a valid version, & is sufficient to lead one to salvation. However, reading one version alone does NOT give one a broad overvire of the Scriptures. one is limited to the work & opinions of one translator or company of translators. The AV translators themselves consulted the worx of as many other translators as they could and NEVER declared they were making an end-all, be-all English version. They called even the meanest(poorest) of the earlier translations "the word of God".
Remember, you can use only the KJV without wearing that dead, stinky bird of the false, man-made KJVO doctrine around yer neck.
I don't think anyone questions the historical value of the KJVersion and the fact that it came about at the right time in English and Church of England history.
This Bible was chained to pulpits and public libraries, and it became available to all the public, for those who could read.
One has no difficulties developing traditional theology from it. The corrections we make can easily be explained, such as the age of Ahaziah,,one passage 42 and in another 22. Then we have "prevent" and "let" with opposite meanings,,,as did the language of the day. Cultural settings were interpreted often in light of what the English believed to be the case. These things are easily corrected.
Our argument is when some go to the wrong extreme and declare that the KJVersion is the only Bible and exclude all other works as being the Bible.
Even the Greek and Hebrew have variations, so I always smile when people quote the "Greek" as if they fully understand the Greek culture of the day. This does not, however, negate studying the Koine Greek to better understand a passage.
I use my KJ Version, but would be ashamed if anyone called my KJVersionO. It is a version and not the exclusive Bible.
Cheers,
Jim
This Bible was chained to pulpits and public libraries, and it became available to all the public, for those who could read.
One has no difficulties developing traditional theology from it. The corrections we make can easily be explained, such as the age of Ahaziah,,one passage 42 and in another 22. Then we have "prevent" and "let" with opposite meanings,,,as did the language of the day. Cultural settings were interpreted often in light of what the English believed to be the case. These things are easily corrected.
Our argument is when some go to the wrong extreme and declare that the KJVersion is the only Bible and exclude all other works as being the Bible.
Even the Greek and Hebrew have variations, so I always smile when people quote the "Greek" as if they fully understand the Greek culture of the day. This does not, however, negate studying the Koine Greek to better understand a passage.
I use my KJ Version, but would be ashamed if anyone called my KJVersionO. It is a version and not the exclusive Bible.
Cheers,
Jim
So Cranston, may I assume you have done more than just "a little study" on the issue of Greek articles and come to the conclusion the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct about John 1:1, the word was a God? After all, your "little study" surely discovered the exact same grammatical construct exists in John 1:1 as in 1 Timothy 6:10, didn't it?
- Status