What is your final authority?

[citizenofheaven]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
Hey citizen check this out

"And one of the elders saith unto me, weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof" Revelation 5:5 KJV

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your advesary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5:8 KJV (Thanks Dr. Bob

)

Hey citizen how about actually reading your version before you run around pointing all your fingers at other versions. Your bible calls the devil and Christ lions.

Do you know the difference between a lion and someone doing something "as" a lion? Satan is constantly trying to fill the place of God (Christ/antichrist etc.). If Christ is a lion then Satan will naturally try to act as a lion.

My Bible does not call Christ and the Devil lions. My Bible says that Christ is a lion and Satan acts like a lion.

About reading my Bible, I've read it cover to cover. The problem isn't that I need to read my Bible more. It sounds to me like you need to take some elementary english.

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by citizenofheaven:

About reading my Bible, I've read it cover to cover. The problem isn't that I need to read my Bible more. It sounds to me like you need to take some elementary english.

Would this same English class also give one the skills to use context to determine what "morning star" means in different situations?

 

[citizenofheaven]

"Morning Star" is clearly a title/name in both situations

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by citizenofheaven:
"Morning Star" is clearly a title/name in both situations

So?

That doesn't mean that the title or name refers to the same person.

"President George" is a name and title but not necessarily for one person or two people of similar character- same as "President Bush".

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by robycop3:
KJVBT:In my paper that I am writing I can prove that the KJV is right and the others wrong,but it will probably be discounted because im "biased".

Then, give an unbiased proof.

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". Its like in the christian rock forum,any proof that cr is wrong that someone like say, citizen of heaven brings up is dismissed.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by natters:
KJVBibleThumper said "Please,dont you have any patience? I will NOT put just part of it on,I am working on making it as good as I can. So CUT OUT INSULTING ME FOR TAKING MY TIME WITH IT!!!!"

I am not insulting you. I am pointing out that you are simply sidestepping questions by saying "I'm working on a paper...". You can answer questions now even though you are still writing a paper. And yes, I am VERY patient. I have been trying to get answers to some of my questions for YEARS.

if you werent insulting me then you need to take english 101 again.
Why would I put just part of a paper on so yall can tear it apart will-nilly?
And im with you on one point,I still cant get a comprehensive example of most anti-KJVO peoples final authority.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by robycop3:
KJVBT:If you insist, but itll be a few days as I have a wealth of information to put down,I already have quite a bit down but im only about 15% done so youll have to wait intil then for my answer.try to restrain your "impatience".

Very well...and I hope you actually have some FRESH EVIDENCE. In over 22 years of warring against the KJVO myth, I've seen only the same ole garbage I saw in the first 6 months repackaged in new baggies over & over. They are just as wrong now as they were then.

But let me advise you...if it isn't backed up with SCRIPTURE, you're wasting your time.

What?!! I agree with a anti-KJVO person on something? I must be a VERY sick person.

Because I agree.if its not backed up by Holy Scripture(however,various peoples Holy Scripture can vary.)) its not a good argument.

 

[Trotter]

Hey, Thumper! Is this paper gonna be something original, or just the same-ole, same-ole that we've heard over and over from Cloud, Gipp, Ruckman, Ripplinger, etc, etc.

I mean, we got Will Kinney if we want a book posted. You ought to check out his website. You sound like you could be his twin. Except that he has cooth.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by natters:
michelle said "You are plain rude and mean."

My dad can beat up your dad.

Seriously, we're asking KJVBibleThumper some simple questions. Why participate on this forum if he's not ready to have a discussion?

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.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by C4K:
I trust that Thumper will do well in his quest. My advice about examining the two KJV editions himself was genuine. He needs to know for himself, while he is young, why he believes what he does and not depend on what he has heard others say.

I know what I believe and why I believe it,but as I have never argued it before it is taking some time for me to put my arguments together.And no,I am not depending on what others say,this is my own opinion.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by bjonson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bjonson:
KJVBibleThumper,

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?

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" </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, so you're ok with "updating" the spelling of old words? Is that what I'm hearing? </font>[/QUOTE]note I said "updating" to modern spelling.I did NOT say modern words. Heres an example of the old way to spell "jail" "gaol",all that was done by changing the spelling was making it modern spelling.I DO NOT approve of putting modern words there.

 

[Trotter]

KJVBibleThumper wrote:
this is my own opinion.

Yep. That is about the size of the KJVO arguement. It boils down to personal choice and opinion. Thus, you are your own final authority by choosing the KJV based on your own opinion.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by Trotter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> KJVBibleThumper wrote:
this is my own opinion.

Yep. That is about the size of the KJVO arguement. It boils down to personal choice and opinion. Thus, you are your own final authority by choosing the KJV based on your own opinion.

In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]And the smoke rises from the ashes of the KJVO position....

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by Trotter:
Hey, Thumper! Is this paper gonna be something original, or just the same-ole, same-ole that we've heard over and over from Cloud, Gipp, Ruckman, Ripplinger, etc, etc.

I mean, we got Will Kinney if we want a book posted. You ought to check out his website. You sound like you could be his twin. Except that he has cooth.

In Christ,
Trotter

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.If you can answer their stuff easily then you should have no trouble with mine.

But to answer your question,it will be as original as my words can make it.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by StefanM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Trotter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> KJVBibleThumper wrote:
this is my own opinion.

Yep. That is about the size of the KJVO arguement. It boils down to personal choice and opinion. Thus, you are your own final authority by choosing the KJV based on your own opinion.

In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]And the smoke rises from the ashes of the KJVO position....

</font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm...sombody DEFINENTLY needs to take English 101 again.

I was saying it in the context of,I am not being "brainwashed" by other people into this.
You anti-KJV people are the ones whose final authority is themselves in all their "wisdom".
And smoke rises from the anti-KJV position...

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

And smoke rises from the anti-KJV position...

[/QB]

Yes, the smoke emanating from the flame thrower that has devoured all the KJVO arguments!

BTW, we aren't anti-KJV; we are anti-KJVO.

 

[Trotter]

Sure. You go ahead with your paper, Thumper. But don't be surprised if no one gives it a standing ovation.

The same old proof-texts, the same old dog-eared arguements. Why, if a KJVO could actually put together something that resembled a true-to-life, thought out, original arguement, I might actually jump on board.

But, instead, we see the same verses, ripped bleeding out of their contexts, strentched and warped into a KJVO mold.

Instead, we see the same arguements originally put forth by a Seventh-Day Adventist, which was copied by the forefathers of the KJVO lie (word-for-word).

Instead, we see, "I know because I know, and you don't" over and over again (Michelle is an excellent example of this).

So, you write your paper. And we'll see what you come up with.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Trotter]

StefanM wrote:
BTW, we aren't anti-KJV; we are anti-KJVO.

Exactly, Stefan.

Everytime that someone speaks out against the man-made lie of KJVO, they are labeled as "anti-KJV". Which is a lie straight from Gehenna.

no one here is attacking the KJV. Even on the threads that are discussing the KJV and errors found therein, no one is attacking it. Rather, we are attacking the extra-biblical man-made doctrine of King James Version Onlyism. Not the King James Version.

If you are going to throw stones, at least try to throw them in the right direction.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by StefanM:
BTW, we aren't anti-KJV; we are anti-KJVO.

If you reject the KJV superiority, you are anti-KJV.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by StefanM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

And smoke rises from the anti-KJV position...

Yes, the smoke emanating from the flame thrower that has devoured all the KJVO arguments!

BTW, we aren't anti-KJV; we are anti-KJVO. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]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.