Anti-Alexandrian
Member
Then show us Scripture supporting Alexandria,Egypt as the "origen" of Scripture...
-
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!
What is your final authority?
- Thread starter KJVBibleThumper
- Start date
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Valid point A-A
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Bad Freudian slip.
For those not in the know
a man named Origen of Alexandria, Egypt
literally believed:
Matthew 18:8 (KJV1769):
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot
offend thee, cut them off, and cast
them from thee: it is better for thee
to enter into life halt or maimed, rather
than having two hands or two feet to
be cast into everlasting fire.
He had his sexual member surgically removed
so he could serve the Lord with 100% of
his attention.
All he proved was that if you serve the Lord
faithfully, men will condemn you.
It really irks me to hear Billy Grahmn
and Dr. Fallwell condemned -- both are
faithful servents of the Lord and SUCCESSFUL
servents to boot.
--------------------------------------------------
I am saying it is completely impossible to have absolute, objective certainty of your salvation, yes. You will say the Bible says if you believe you are saved, and I will agree. However, you enter the realm of subjectivity when you say that you believe and are thus saved. I'm saying you have subjective belief and certainty, but not 100% absolute, objective certainty.
--------------------------------------------------
This is very sad. One will absolutely know for CERTAIN that one is saved. The word of God tells us so. John 16, 17
John 10
25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30. I and my Father are one.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
I am saying it is completely impossible to have absolute, objective certainty of your salvation, yes. You will say the Bible says if you believe you are saved, and I will agree. However, you enter the realm of subjectivity when you say that you believe and are thus saved. I'm saying you have subjective belief and certainty, but not 100% absolute, objective certainty.
--------------------------------------------------
This is very sad. One will absolutely know for CERTAIN that one is saved. The word of God tells us so. John 16, 17
John 10
25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30. I and my Father are one.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
In context Psalm 12 in very clear that it is people and not words. By the way the AV1611 has a very interesting side note... don't take my word for it look for yourself.
--------------------------------------------------
And in the context, what is it that the people(them) are being protected/preserved from or for? I understand the context speaking of the faithful failing because of the words of the wicked. This was a plea from David for the Lord's help. How does God answer David's plea for help? Does God ignore David's plea for help? How does preserving them (the people) answer/fix David's reason for his plea? How is it that God has said, in that passage that He would preserve them? Does God leave David to wonder?
You say our interpretationn is incorrect. We say the interpretation of the mv's are incorrect. Which one is correct, and how do you know?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
In context Psalm 12 in very clear that it is people and not words. By the way the AV1611 has a very interesting side note... don't take my word for it look for yourself.
--------------------------------------------------
And in the context, what is it that the people(them) are being protected/preserved from or for? I understand the context speaking of the faithful failing because of the words of the wicked. This was a plea from David for the Lord's help. How does God answer David's plea for help? Does God ignore David's plea for help? How does preserving them (the people) answer/fix David's reason for his plea? How is it that God has said, in that passage that He would preserve them? Does God leave David to wonder?
You say our interpretationn is incorrect. We say the interpretation of the mv's are incorrect. Which one is correct, and how do you know?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
[4] Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? [5] For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
--------------------------------------------------
And HOW[//B] did God say He would do this in not only this passage, but other scriptures also? How is it that God preserves HIS faithful? Please give scriptural support please.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
[4] Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? [5] For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
--------------------------------------------------
And HOW[//B] did God say He would do this in not only this passage, but other scriptures also? How is it that God preserves HIS faithful? Please give scriptural support please.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
All he proved was that if you serve the Lord
faithfully, men will condemn you.
It really irks me to hear Billy Grahmn
and Dr. Fallwell condemned -- both are
faithful servents of the Lord and SUCCESSFUL
servents to boot.
--------------------------------------------------
These men are wolves in sheeps clothing, just as Westcott and Hort, and a plethora of other men/woman claiming/seeming/looking/sounding to be christian. I pray that the Lord will give you spiritual discernment.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
All he proved was that if you serve the Lord
faithfully, men will condemn you.
It really irks me to hear Billy Grahmn
and Dr. Fallwell condemned -- both are
faithful servents of the Lord and SUCCESSFUL
servents to boot.
--------------------------------------------------
These men are wolves in sheeps clothing, just as Westcott and Hort, and a plethora of other men/woman claiming/seeming/looking/sounding to be christian. I pray that the Lord will give you spiritual discernment.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
You still haven't answered my question.
Which KJV is your final authority? The Cambridge or Oxford edition. They aren't the same.
Also, I assume you use the 1st edition from 1611, right? Surely you don't use the 11th revision from 1769 which is in print today!!?? That has been changed from the 1611.
So, which KJV is YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY? Which one?
KJVBT:The 1611 KJV revised in I believe 1768(or 9) to modern spelling. Note, I did not say "modern words" I said modern spelling of old words.Such as changing "Iesus" to "Jesus"
What was wrong with the AV 1611?
Which KJV is your final authority? The Cambridge or Oxford edition. They aren't the same.
Also, I assume you use the 1st edition from 1611, right? Surely you don't use the 11th revision from 1769 which is in print today!!?? That has been changed from the 1611.
So, which KJV is YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY? Which one?
KJVBT:The 1611 KJV revised in I believe 1768(or 9) to modern spelling. Note, I did not say "modern words" I said modern spelling of old words.Such as changing "Iesus" to "Jesus"
What was wrong with the AV 1611?
RC3:But let me advise you...if it isn't backed up with SCRIPTURE, you're wasting your time.
A_A:OK.
Give me SCRIPTURE supporting the word of God coming from Alexandria,Egypt.
Times a wastin'.
First, this has nothing to do with the sub-thread KJVBT and I were discussing...But I'll answer.
If GOD presented it, He could've chosen to have done so at Baghdad. After all He made ITS people also.
There's no such Scripture as you and I both know...but there's also no PROHIBITION against any scripture that could've come from Alexandria either. You're gonna hafta come up with a better excuse than that to try to support the KJVO myth.
A_A:OK.
Give me SCRIPTURE supporting the word of God coming from Alexandria,Egypt.
Times a wastin'.
First, this has nothing to do with the sub-thread KJVBT and I were discussing...But I'll answer.
If GOD presented it, He could've chosen to have done so at Baghdad. After all He made ITS people also.
There's no such Scripture as you and I both know...but there's also no PROHIBITION against any scripture that could've come from Alexandria either. You're gonna hafta come up with a better excuse than that to try to support the KJVO myth.
--------------------------------------------------
What was wrong with the AV 1611?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AV1611, or rather the translation of God's word in the Enlgish language of the 1611 is the SAME as the KJB we have today, to which is also the same as the churches have had since the Lord inspired the prophets and holy men of old. God's words do not pass away, and he has given them, preserved them, and provided them for all HIS faithful believers, and will continue to do so, until all things are fulfilled.
To answer your question: Nothing is wrong with words of God in the 1611, with the exception of different spellings of words, that are foriegn to us today, printing errors, and typeset issues. God saw to it in his soveriegn providence that those were eventually ammended for the current (of that day) and future (this present day) English language, and English speaking believers. It is not us who has a problem with these type of human fallicies concerning the words of God, but you all who seem to, and then use this to falsely claim we cannot have God's word perfectly in our own language. Many of you are sadly far from the truth.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
What was wrong with the AV 1611?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AV1611, or rather the translation of God's word in the Enlgish language of the 1611 is the SAME as the KJB we have today, to which is also the same as the churches have had since the Lord inspired the prophets and holy men of old. God's words do not pass away, and he has given them, preserved them, and provided them for all HIS faithful believers, and will continue to do so, until all things are fulfilled.
To answer your question: Nothing is wrong with words of God in the 1611, with the exception of different spellings of words, that are foriegn to us today, printing errors, and typeset issues. God saw to it in his soveriegn providence that those were eventually ammended for the current (of that day) and future (this present day) English language, and English speaking believers. It is not us who has a problem with these type of human fallicies concerning the words of God, but you all who seem to, and then use this to falsely claim we cannot have God's word perfectly in our own language. Many of you are sadly far from the truth.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
The Word of God also says that many will be deceived into false assurance...
Matthew 7
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
HankD
KJVBT:You know very well that according to most(maybe you are not included,I dont know you.)anti-KJVO people that any proof a KJVO person brings up is "biased".
Actually, most KJVOs bring up the same ole garbage started in 1930, added to in 1955, re-packaged in 1970, and more or less 'spiced up' by different authors with different books since then. But all the spice on earth won't make garbage more palatable. It's just the same ole stuff that was refuted within weeks of having been first unloaded.
"The AV translators were of superior intellect".
"The AV translators were all Godly men."
"The KJV uses superior mss as its sources".
"The KJV's English is at a 5th grade level."
"The MVs omit material."
Ad Nauseum. sameole, same ole
Its like in the christian rock forum,any proof that cr is wrong that someone like say, citizen of heaven brings up is dismissed.
Can't help ya there; Christian music is of no interest to me, old or new. It's simply not part of my worship.
Actually, most KJVOs bring up the same ole garbage started in 1930, added to in 1955, re-packaged in 1970, and more or less 'spiced up' by different authors with different books since then. But all the spice on earth won't make garbage more palatable. It's just the same ole stuff that was refuted within weeks of having been first unloaded.
"The AV translators were of superior intellect".
"The AV translators were all Godly men."
"The KJV uses superior mss as its sources".
"The KJV's English is at a 5th grade level."
"The MVs omit material."
Ad Nauseum. sameole, same ole
Its like in the christian rock forum,any proof that cr is wrong that someone like say, citizen of heaven brings up is dismissed.
Can't help ya there; Christian music is of no interest to me, old or new. It's simply not part of my worship.
KJVBT:Im not sure what you mean by "same-ol,same-ole",it will be as good a paper as I can put out in the time that I am allowing myself.And I am using Gipp and Ripplinger as references,among others.
Then you've made some very poor choices. About the only one worse would be Ruckman.
If you can answer their stuff easily then you should have no trouble with mine.
Good. then YOU can try to answer OURS. Can't speak for everyone, but I've had no prob proving The Gipper and "God And" Riplinger wrong.
But to answer your question,it will be as original as my words can make it.
I hope the IDEAS are original, and not just yet another repackaging of the same ole garbage in a differently-colored bag.
Then you've made some very poor choices. About the only one worse would be Ruckman.
If you can answer their stuff easily then you should have no trouble with mine.
Good. then YOU can try to answer OURS. Can't speak for everyone, but I've had no prob proving The Gipper and "God And" Riplinger wrong.
But to answer your question,it will be as original as my words can make it.
I hope the IDEAS are original, and not just yet another repackaging of the same ole garbage in a differently-colored bag.
KJVBT:I am ready to have a discussion,but I didnt want to wait a week before I started on it. So im racing as fast as I feel I can on my paper.Besides, I didnt think this poll would grow so huge.
A suggestion:
When ya finish your paper, please begin another topic with it, as there's a hard,fast rule here that a topic is closed when it reaches 20 pages...which is fast approaching in this one...and if your paper's what you say it will be, it will prolly draw 20 pages of discussion itself.
A suggestion:
When ya finish your paper, please begin another topic with it, as there's a hard,fast rule here that a topic is closed when it reaches 20 pages...which is fast approaching in this one...and if your paper's what you say it will be, it will prolly draw 20 pages of discussion itself.
RaptureReady
New Member
I have finally read all 15 pages. Let me applaud Michelle, Askjo, and KJVBibleThumper for making a firm stand on God's word, the King James Bible. I do look forward in reading you paper KJVBT.
God bless,
RR
God bless,
RR
RaptureReady
New Member
And AA
Generally most here at the BB wouldn't take to much exception to what you have posted (although there is a significant difference between the AV1611 and today's 1769-1853 KJV (As you know, the Apocrypha, Calendar of RCC saint's days and other romish inventions taken directly from the 1549 Book of Common Prayer were incorporated into the AV1611 First Edition). The definition of “perfect” needs to be agreed upon. Elizabethan-Jacobean period English has a markedly different vocabulary, grammar and syntax when compared to 21st century “standard” English.
The “standard” set by our Father in heaven at the beginning of the publication of the Gospel was “koine” or “common” Greek, not Classical or Attic Greek, it was “the language of life and not of books”. Though it was inspired of God, It had no “ecclesiology” spin to it. It was aimed at the common man much the same as the standard newspaper of today (the newspaper not inspired of course). Jesus did not come into this world with pageantry and regalia in spite of our Christmas celebrations of today. So His inspired Word went out in like fashion.
KJVO seem always to intimate that the promoters of the MV’s are deceived, far from the truth, and have described us with many other pejoratives which they have heaped upon us (yes, I realize it has been a two-way street).
Have (I wonder) they ever thought that our motive might be to return the Word of God to it’s original purity in the language of the common man, that purity also including the style of the intended audience in terms of vocabulary, syntax and grammar?
Personally, I and many others want this to be an element in the definition of “perfectly in our own language”.
While I might not agree as to the heavy weight put upon the Aleph/B mss and their readings (or lack thereof) into the Traditional Text, there are better ways to object than to become, as it were, the accuser of the brethren.
Before any revision to a translation of God's Word to comply with every element of “perfection” and/or “purity” there has been the outcry of the “Onlyist”, this is normal and perhaps necessary to lay down some ground rules. Also there is a proliferation of translations which appear (121 in 1611) Of course when you have the power of life and death over people (such as the Church of Rome, Church of England) one sees the brutalities of these institutions for what they are.
These are the present elements of this struggle (apart from the bloodshed) which exist today. God does not need us to defend His Word, which is an absurdity of the highest magnitude, especially such defenses typified by some of the shenanigans that go on here at the BB, resulting in strife and division.
He will take care of it and if there have been evil-doers (on either side) He will take care of them also.
Isaiah 8:17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.
HankD
KJVBT:Do flamethrowers emit smoke? I thought there was only flame coming from the barrel.
There is no between ground.You either take the other versions with their contradictions with the KJV,or you pick and choose which versions you are going to use,or you are KJVO.
I beg to differ.
I use the KJV as well as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, or sometimes the AV 1611, depending upon what I'm doing. They're all the word of God in English, same as is the Geneva Bible and several older versions. Sure, they're different, but NOT as different from each other as the Four Gospels in any given valid version are, among themselves. And whatever justification you use for believing all four Gospels must be applied also to the various Bible versions, otherwise you're operating from a double standard. I believe all four Gospels because:
1.) They were written by men who not only were Christians, they were the FIRST CHRISTIANS, and actually lived with Jesus for severl years. They were the FIRST men whose minds He opened to know ALL THE TRUTH about Him; they actually saw Him after He arose from the dead; they actually saw Him ascend into heaven.
2.) As a former cop, I realize that no two people, no matter how intelligent, honest, and well-meaning they are, will describe an incident exactly alike. The Apostles each had a different perspective, same as any of us, and may or may not have been present to have seen EVERY event in Jesus' earthly life after He had chosen them.
By the same token, we have no authority to pick-n-choose among the valid BVs to the point of declaring any one as the ONLY "official" version in English.(Or French, or any other older language.)
There is no between ground.You either take the other versions with their contradictions with the KJV,or you pick and choose which versions you are going to use,or you are KJVO.
I beg to differ.
I use the KJV as well as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, or sometimes the AV 1611, depending upon what I'm doing. They're all the word of God in English, same as is the Geneva Bible and several older versions. Sure, they're different, but NOT as different from each other as the Four Gospels in any given valid version are, among themselves. And whatever justification you use for believing all four Gospels must be applied also to the various Bible versions, otherwise you're operating from a double standard. I believe all four Gospels because:
1.) They were written by men who not only were Christians, they were the FIRST CHRISTIANS, and actually lived with Jesus for severl years. They were the FIRST men whose minds He opened to know ALL THE TRUTH about Him; they actually saw Him after He arose from the dead; they actually saw Him ascend into heaven.
2.) As a former cop, I realize that no two people, no matter how intelligent, honest, and well-meaning they are, will describe an incident exactly alike. The Apostles each had a different perspective, same as any of us, and may or may not have been present to have seen EVERY event in Jesus' earthly life after He had chosen them.
By the same token, we have no authority to pick-n-choose among the valid BVs to the point of declaring any one as the ONLY "official" version in English.(Or French, or any other older language.)
KJVBT:s this a case of half my friends say this and half say that and im with my friends?
How do you manage to believe contradictory things at once? What Bible do you think that God has preserved His Word in as He promised?
Same as YOU manage to believe all four differing Gospels within one version.
How do you manage to believe contradictory things at once? What Bible do you think that God has preserved His Word in as He promised?
Same as YOU manage to believe all four differing Gospels within one version.