Who gave them the authority to OMIT ?

[HankD]

Skan writes:

They did not believe the Apocrypha was canonical! By the testimony of their own writings they contradict you

No, they contradict themselves and have buffaloed you because they are masters of the art of double-think/double-speak which they inherited from the parent they sprang from; The Church of Rome:
Like their parent they persecuted and killed Christians who would not yield to them.

And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.

How can one read these books for “example of life” and “INSTRUCTION of manners” and yet deny that they establish doctrine?

Also they appeal to Jerome, what Church then are they appealing for their authority?

But since you feel so strongly about it I suggest you purchase for your self a Church of Rome Apocrypha to “read for example of life and instruction of manners”. Let us know how you do and what you learn.

Also, while you are in the Catholic book store you might as well get your self a volume of the Writings of Saint Jerome since you seem so very keen on supporting the things for which he gives advice.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
We want to see **PROOF**

"...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

The verse you quote applies to one's belief in GOD, while the discussion is about a false doctrine certain people apply to God's word. I'm asking them to put up or go blow. We're tired of all this KJVO rhetoric without one bit of PROOF.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Yall've been rantin' and ravin' for well over three pages about this Brother, and he hasn't posted since. Man, don't the wolves ever get their appetite satisfied?

Not as long as there's "meat" to feast on.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by robycop3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
We want to see **PROOF**

"...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

The verse you quote applies to one's belief in GOD, while the discussion is about a false doctrine certain people apply to God's word. I'm asking them to put up or go blow. We're tired of all this KJVO rhetoric without one bit of PROOF. </font>[/QUOTE]That's right. We're to have faith in what *scripture tells us to have faith in*. We're not supposed to have faith in anything and everything else, just for the heck of it. Misdirected faith is not a good thing, or else the Mormons have us all beat by a long shot. Instead we're to have faith in only what scripture tells us to have faith in, and PROVE EVERYTHING ELSE (1 Thess 5:21). If KJV-only supporters obeyed this verse, there would be a lot fewer KJV-only supporters.

 

[robycop3]

Pastor Kevin, when the AV 1611 was made, there were several English BVs in use, the Geneva being the mose common, especailly among the laymen. Each one had its defenders and detractors. It so happened that the GB's most powerful detractor was the king. The officials of the Anglican Church had met several years before to discuss various issues, not the least of these being the variety of Bibles in use. They'd already chosen a panel of translators when KJ took the throne, and they approached him over the issue very shortly after his reign began.

After the AV 1611 was published, the "Geneva Bible Onlyists" began to find fault with the new Bible, even citing that, in their opinion its language was too modern. But they were soon ignored, and the new Bible slowly became predominant, largely helped by the fact that it had the backing of the king, and of most clerics, AND by the facts that its price was lowered & it was in the best English of the time.

The AV/KJV went unchallenged for a long time as the "standard", but the language slowly changed over the years until the KJV's English had become a vernacular apart from the everyday modern style. And another thing happened, a thing prophesied to Daniel by the angel-KNOWLEDGE BEGAN INCREASING AT AN UNPRECEDENTED RATE. And among this explosion of knowledge was the discovery of thousands of Scriptural mss or fragments of them. Also, man had the means to quickly print books & the means to distribute them worldwide in a matter of days.

With the knowledge explosion came the awareness that in English, we no longer had God's word in the language style of the time, as had earlier generations, so more than one Christian recognized the need for the Bible to be available in contemporary language. However, the nitpickers attacked each new version, same as their ancestors had done every other English BV ever made. However, man had the means to disseminate his ideas quickly and widely in the beginning of the 20th century, and it didn't take long for a crop of anti-MVers to gain some audience and find a cash cow from writing pro-KJVO material.

Thus, the modern KJVO doctrine/movement began, with its subdoctrines being shaped by those authors I listed in a previous post. It would not have been possible for KJVO to have really flourished in an earlier time because, first, there were very few other BVs for them to criticize, so they didn't have any "boogeyman" to attack, second, the KJV's language wasn't yet out of date, third, they didn't have the means to quickly and economically disseminate any literature.

Although there have been "KJVOs" from the gitgo, the MODERN episode didn't begin until well into the 20th century. One has to look long and hard to find any KJVO material dating from before 1930.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Yall've been rantin' and ravin' for well over three pages about this Brother...

Is it right to call someone a brother who adds compliance with a law to salvation? It seems that Paul answered that question in Galatians. In particular, he said of those that added circumcision to the gospel: Galatians 5:12. Pretty blunt language against those who would command obedience to extra-biblical doctrines, huh?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
No, they contradict themselves and have buffaloed you because they are masters of the art of double-think/double-speak which they inherited from the parent they sprang from; The Church of Rome:
Like their parent they persecuted and killed Christians who would not yield to them.

I see. So, according to you, everything and everyone that has ever been connected to Rome in any way is guilty of lies, double think/speak, persecutes and kills Christians even when those brave protesters were themselves Christians in the fullest meaning of that word? Are you sure you aren't KJVO?

But since you feel so strongly about it I suggest you purchase for your self a Church of Rome Apocrypha to “read for example of life and instruction of manners”. Let us know how you do and what you learn.

I already own one, and have found the book of I Maccabees very informative regarding the intertestamental period. You should try reading it before you issue such a blanket condemnation.

Also, while you are in the Catholic book store you might as well get your self a volume of the Writings of Saint Jerome since you seem so very keen on supporting the things for which he gives advice.

You seem confused. Jerome did not write the Apocrypha. It was contained in the "Oldest and Best" manuscripts, Aleph and B, as well as most of the Codexes which used the LXX as the OT.

 

[Precepts]

Scott, I think you are just picking at the gnats. I have witnessed what the gist of the entire thread has been nothing but ranting back and forth, provoking one another to wrath.

Let me ask each of you this: Is it works of the law to obey the law by said obedience and compliance with loving one another and so fulfilling the Law of Christ?

Isn't it also true that a soft answer turneth away wrath? I don't see many "soft" answers here only SHARP! I know this is on part of each party, but is it still right? According to the Law of Christ? Is it a works salvation for those who work out theur salvation with fear and trembling? Are they not already saved who work? Else how can one work it out?

Brother Tim claims salvation, if, and I'm not saying he is, he believes he is saved and wants to exhibit his works to "prove" his salvation, is there really anything amiss? Now Brother Tim, I don't know if you realize how brassy you have come across, and I do stand with you on the KJB, but I will only do nothing less than tolerate those who choose other versions, but I will gladly oppose and go for the throat of that opposition when it attacks the KJB. I am fighting against the gates of hell, not shooting down my comrads from, uh, different countries, if I can say that, all the while going for the same goal.

I mean since I have an Abrams tank with all the latest technology,uh, Jesus, and they want to use tanks from WW II in technology, then I will stand much less, if any chance of failure in getting through my mission.

But of note, my dear fellows, when you attack the KJB, and disguise yourselves as those opposed as anti-KJVO, then that is where you are sided with the enemy and are subject to "friendly" fire.

This thread has just about run it's course, it first began like wildfire burning out of control. Where may I ask was the Spirit? Only very faintly if at all is the Spirit in the midst of a pack of wolves from opposing dens.

I suggest the "love" you profess is not used as the weapon to attack one in need of a soft answer, uh, right , guys?

I wonder what sort of replies my post will get?


But! But! But! But! But! But!

Snap! Growl! Scowl! Slash! "LOVE: BLAM!" Bash!

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/starwars/star-wars-smiley-023.gif

 

[HankD]

I see. So, according to you, everything and everyone that has ever been connected to Rome in any way is guilty of lies, double think/speak, persecutes and kills Christians

No but the Church of Rome and the Church of England officially did all of the above (although I did not use the word “lies”).

I already own one, and have found the book of I Maccabees very informative regarding the intertestamental period. You should try reading it before you issue such a blanket condemnation.

I have two, one in my Douay-Rheims and one in my First Edition 1611KJB facsimile which by the way lists Apocryphal books in the daily “Scripture” reading chart, hence I use the term double-speak, sometimes, Scripture (KJV reading), sometimes not (39 Articles). I found nothing of value in any of the RC Apocryphal books, although I don’t particularly “condemn” them.

You seem confused. Jerome did not write the Apocrypha. It was contained in the "Oldest and Best" manuscripts, Aleph and B, as well as most of the Codexes which used the LXX as the OT.

Where did I say that Jerome wrote the Apocrypha?

I quoted directly out of the 39 articles:

And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.

Hierome = Jerome.

Later, since you and the KJV translators seem to have such an affection for the Apocrypha, I suggested that you follow their suit and read up on some of the other advice that the KJV translators attribute to Saint Jerome.

 

[robycop3]

Bro. QS, (I call you bro. to show I believe you're saved same as I, despite our doctrinal differences) I refer back to Bynum's very first post(at least under this nick in this forum) in which he called every modern Bible version "New Age", quoted from a proven writer of lies(Riplinger) and called upon us all to repent of using Bible versions other than the KJV. Now, does THAT elicit a "soft" answer from those of us who KNOW the whole KJVO scene is a false doctrine? No, I believe we answered someone ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY.

I wonder if this cat is trying to associate himself with Pastor E.L. Bynum of Tabernacle Baptist Church, Lubbock, TX? This REAL Pastor Bynum has written KJVO material before,(mostly tracts) but isn't into full-time KJVO propaganda.

 

[Precepts]

Cranston, when you answwer some one according to thier folly, shouldn't it be done humbly and with at least a satiricle gest thus maintaining a soft reply?. If thy "enemy' hate thee, love him, not rendering evil for evil, railing accustaion for railing, uh, get the picture? You know "contrariwise?"

Often there are those who are full of zeal, yet they oppose themselves, uh, like you do so often,

, and I do so often not,

, so let's please maintain at least a satiricle appearance and not so brash!

We're all so fired up concerned with how visitors look upon our posts, but we instead come across rather contradictory to our requirement of exhibiting love for one another so often.

I love all of yall on BB, and if we met each other before we got saved we'd probably have beat each other to death, so let's all behave like nice little boys and girls.

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by robycop3:
I wonder if this cat is trying to associate himself with Pastor E.L. Bynum of Tabernacle Baptist Church, Lubbock, TX? This REAL Pastor Bynum has written KJVO material before,(mostly tracts) but isn't into full-time KJVO propaganda.

Hey! I had wondered the same thing!! and BTW, I thought Pastor Bynum WAS into full blown KJVO propaganda, as David Cloud or even Waite.(?)

 

[Charles Meadows]

QS,

Where did you get all those cool smilies? Very nice.

You're right on all counts about being harsh on Tim Bynum - mabe a little too harsh.

I don't mind someone who believes differently than I. I among others probably should have been more lovingly satirical with him! But golly the brother is mixed up. I just worry about what a lost person would think if his is the only witness for Christ he/she gets to hear!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Cranston, when you answwer some one according to thier folly, shouldn't it be done humbly and with at least a satiricle gest thus maintaining a soft reply?. If thy "enemy' hate thee, love him, not rendering evil for evil, railing accustaion for railing, uh, get the picture? You know "contrariwise?"

Often there are those who are full of zeal, yet they oppose themselves, uh, like you do so often,

, and I do so often not,

, so let's please maintain at least a satiricle appearance and not so brash!

We're all so fired up concerned with how visitors look upon our posts, but we instead come across rather contradictory to our requirement of exhibiting love for one another so often.

I love all of yall on BB, and if we met each other before we got saved we'd probably have beat each other to death, so let's all behave like nice little boys and girls.

"Now go back to your sand box toys and hush."\

"Here's the pitch! High fly ball into right field, where's Brian? Well there he is way over there in left out field with the leftoutfielder! What's he doing way over there?"

"You know, we all should be listening to Craig. He is the final authority, if you don't believe it, just ask him, he'll tell you, over and over and over and over and over, but he won't tell you who his professors were at Standford and Princeton."

"Scott, your hypothesis is totally that of a lunatic."

"Didn't call anybody a name, but if the shoe fits wear it."

"I don't understand your logic, and you voted for him! Of course really whether you did or not your logic is perverted. "

"If you were to vist John in Sanfrancisco I could see yall holding hands, but if he were to visit you in Queens, I can almost see you beating him up! The only problem I have is whether you would try to hold my hand or beat me up?"

"Will you pooch your lip out or something? I hear people near Palm Springs do that sort of stuff"

"I'm sure you are uglier than me, I'm just too goodlooking for anything else to be the case"

And we have these two quotes: " I don't question Scott's, Craig's, Brian's, Ed's, Hank's,Your's, or anybody else's salvation." along with "With a belief like that I will question your salvation."

-------------

Sarcasm is nowhere to applauded or accepted in Scripture. It is divisive and serves no purpose in the body of Christ. Sarcasm comes from the Greek, "sarkasmos," which literally means "to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer." Webster's defines it as "a sharp utterance designed to cut or give pain." Sarcasm angers, aggravates, alienates, shames, and manipulates.

The question that must be asked is this: "Are your words controlled by a desire to seek peace and unity, or are they driven by your fleshly desire to sting, aggravate, retaliate, control, alienate, shame, and manipulate through sarcasm?"

So it is evident why I avoid posters with sarcastic natures. It makes life more enjoyable to live without sarcasm. It is ironic that you get onto another poster complaining that he is is not posting humbly when the log is firmly implanted in your own eye.

 

[Precepts]

SAT'IRE, n. [L. satira; so named from sharpness, pungency. See satyriasis.]

1. A discourse or poem in which wickedness or folly is exposed with severity. It differs from lampoon and pasquinade, in being general rather than personal.

2. Severity of remark. It differs from sarcasm, in not expressing contempt or scorn.

 

[robycop3]

Again, QS, I refer you to BTB's first post in the now-closed forum. He came aboard proclaiming a false doctrine. he has a right to do that, but we have a right to respond appropriately. After all, it isn't our favorite football team he's demeaning-it's the very WORD OF GOD, our highest written authority, His second-greatest gift to us after His grace and salvation.

Was JESUS full of kind words for the hypocritical Pharisees? Not exactly. But now would He have been full of kind words to any of them that repented? Absolutely. None of us are anything compared to Jesus, but He wants us to be like Him as much as possible.

Does Jesus actually need any of us to proclaim His gospel or fight false doctrines? Newp! But He COMMANDED us to do so, and therefore I do it, not because He couldn't do it without me, but because HE said to do it. We cannot EVER truly pay Jesus for what He did for us, but we CAN give Him the only thing He's ever asked for-OBEDIENCE.

BTW, whatever happened to the subject of this thread, the supposed omission of material by some newer BVs? I'm waiting to hear how the KJVO can *PROVE* that some MVs have omitted something AND that the KJV hasn't ADDED anything. I believe it boils down to a question of the authenticity of the various mss, and THAT debate is over a hundred years old.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Scott, I think you are just picking at the gnats.

Really? I seem to remember your getting very upset because I questioned your association with a ministry that I knew had some significant doctrinal/practical problems. Admitting that you didn't know whether my info was correct or not, you accused my of sinning.

I hadn't questioned your beliefs, salvation, or work but you reacted pretty strongly. Here, Timothy has declared that anyone saved with the gospel from another version is not really saved. Rather than chastise him, you call him brother and defend him.

Let me ask each of you this: Is it works of the law to obey the law by said obedience and compliance with loving one another and so fulfilling the Law of Christ?

Did you read the scripture I cited? What you say above is not the subject of that scripture and not the reference I was making.

Timothy isn't obeying the law by loving one another... he is adding belief in KJVOnlyism to the requirements for salvation.

Isn't it also true that a soft answer turneth away wrath?

Did Paul give a soft answer to the judaizers?

Brother Tim claims salvation, if, and I'm not saying he is, he believes he is saved and wants to exhibit his works to "prove" his salvation, is there really anything amiss?

Subtle... but no. You can't change the subject. It is a matter of how one addresses someone who attempts to pervert the gospel, not whether or not Timothy is saved or not. He may be. His persistent unloving attitude gives a poor testimony but maybe that is not his real character. Perhaps he treats Christians in his own community that use other versions with a different spirit than what he exhibits here. I hope so since we are given a way to know who our brethren are.

 

[Precepts]

Really? I seem to remember your getting very upset because I questioned your association with a ministry that I knew had some significant doctrinal/practical problems. Admitting that you didn't know whether my info was correct or not, you accused my of sinning.

If you call preaching opportunity association, then I suggest you reconsider. Jesus preached to those in sin, not associated with them in their sin.

You made me aware of the "problems' with King's Way and I have dome some investigation further. I have come to the same conclusion, I am not associating but preaching to the lost. If those entrapped in bad doctrine or practice give ample opportunity for my giving them the Gospel by which all men are genuinely saved, then so be it!

I hadn't questioned your beliefs, salvation, or work but you reacted pretty strongly. Here, Timothy has declared that anyone saved with the gospel from another version is not really saved. Rather than chastise him, you call him brother and defend him.

My reaction is justified by my zeal to preach the Gospel whenever and where ever the opportunity is given, your post seemed to be an attempt to discourage me from doing so by your dissatisfaction with King's Way.

I never said I agreed with Brother Bynum in his ascertion about the KJB as the only means by which men are saved and if he said that, then he is simply wrong, but I don't find my position as one to chastise him, but reprove, yes, and with a soft answer to turn that wrath away. So do you really consider yourself in the position to chastise him? No. you are not in the seat of the Throne on High, so I suggest your reconsidering your words.

Wouldn't you want some one to run to your defense when you are wrong? Well, I guess you're never wrong.

Did you read the scripture I cited? What you say above is not the subject of that scripture and not the reference I was making.

Timothy isn't obeying the law by loving one another... he is adding belief in KJVOnlyism to the requirements for salvation.

I know the scripture you cited by heart, do you know the scripture I cited by heart?

Again, I am NOT KJVO, and Brother Bynum is simply wrong. The moment I got saved, I had no regard to the KJB at that instance in time, I only knew I was a sinner and in need of salvation. Did I have the KJB open when I got saved? No. I didn't even have a Bible in my presence. Am I saved? I hope my fruit is worth picking and partaking. Yes, I am saved! Is Brother Bynum? I heard him say he is. Is he somewhat mislead? Yes, but only to a degree. Can I see in his heart and tell? No, neither can you se in my heart, nor can I see in yours.

Did Paul give a soft answer to the judaizers?

Gentiel rebuke is a soft answer. Yes, he did.

Subtle... but no. You can't change the subject. It is a matter of how one addresses someone who attempts to pervert the gospel, not whether or not Timothy is saved or not. He may be. His persistent unloving attitude gives a poor testimony but maybe that is not his real character. Perhaps he treats Christians in his own community that use other versions with a different spirit than what he exhibits here. I hope so since we are given a way to know who our brethren are.

I agree, but be reminded we go through seasons just as nature has her seasons. Violent storms persist in our walk and we should act according to what the Lord would have for us on how to react. It is much easier to react in sincerety to the blissfulness of Spring, but this season is as well known for the violence of tornadoes and even a killing frost in the midst, including a late snow. Be careful how you inspect the tree which bears fruit, it just may be prior to maturity to ability to bear said fruit, as well as the off-season for bearing fruit.

May it be Brother Bynum's Summer and time of Harvest is on the horizon, give the man a chance to mature, but let him make his stand.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
I never said I agreed with Brother Bynum in his ascertion about the KJB as the only means by which men are saved and if he said that, then he is simply wrong, but I don't find my position as one to chastise him, but reprove, yes, and with a soft answer to turn that wrath away. So do you really consider yourself in the position to chastise him? No.

You are right. Reprove or rebuke would have been a much better choice of words.

you are not in the seat of the Throne on High, so I suggest your reconsidering your words.

Thank you for your rebuke... not that gentle but appreciated none the less.

Wouldn't you want some one to run to your defense when you are wrong? Well, I guess you're never wrong.

You said it... not me.

But seriously, no. If I were scripturally wrong about something and someone rebuked me for it in an objective, "gentle" (even marginally) way, I would not want someone coming to the rescue so that I could continue in error.

This is an incredibly important issue for that young man. He has believed a lie that the KJV is the only means for an English speaker to come to Christ- that is a very dangerous heresy. (Sorry moderators, edit if you must).

I know the scripture you cited by heart, do you know the scripture I cited by heart?

Depends on which one you are referring to... I acknowledge not knowing every scripture by heart that you make reference to.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Did Paul give a soft answer to the judaizers?

Gentiel rebuke is a soft answer. Yes, he did.</font>[/QUOTE] If you know Galatians 5 by heart, I recommend you revisit verse 12 and do a more in depth study of what is being said. Paul is wishing that the judaizers would mutilate themselves... not very soft in my book.

Earlier, he said he wished he were with them so he could change his tone... I suspect he thought they deserved a good tongue lashing.

I agree, but be reminded we go through seasons just as nature has her seasons. Violent storms persist in our walk and we should act according to what the Lord would have for us on how to react. It is much easier to react in sincerety to the blissfulness of Spring, but this season is as well known for the violence of tornadoes and even a killing frost in the midst, including a late snow. Be careful how you inspect the tree which bears fruit, it just may be prior to maturity to ability to bear said fruit, as well as the off-season for bearing fruit.

May it be Brother Bynum's Summer and time of Harvest is on the horizon, give the man a chance to mature,

I agree with this section up to this point.

but let him make his stand.

No. That would be unloving toward both God and Timothy. Linking salvation to the Bible one uses is absolutely ungodly. Being confronted on this error so that he can reject it will only add his maturity.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
&lt;snipped everything&gt;

Hank, what are you so angry about?