the People who say "God told me, God spoke to me" extra biblical revelation

[swordsman1]

It’s interesting how you deliberately did not quote this man Gills actual words about what he believes the anointing refers to. This is the kind of deception you spout forth here in your twisting and frantically trying to grasp at even a straw for your straw man. Also, I don’t look at commentators here as speaking scripture and I only use these men to show you that others have seen the sane truths in many areas of what I say that they directly say against you and your cultish weird view. He said about the anointing in 1 John 2:27

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
But the anointing which ye have received of him,.... The Spirit, and the grace of the Spirit, which they had received out of the fulness of grace which is in Christ; and is compared to oil or ointment; See Gill on 1 John 2:20; for Christ, the anointed, is the fountain of it all, and it is had from him in a way of giving and receiving. So the second "Sephira", or number in the Jews' Cabalistic tree, which is wisdom, has for one of its surnames, the fountain of the oil of unction (i) this
abideth in you; the Syriac and Arabic versions render it, "if it abideth", which spoils the text, for the words are not conditional, but affirmative: grace is an internal thing, it is oil in the vessel of the heart, and where it once is, it abides; as does every grace of the Spirit, as faith, hope, love, and every other: grace can never be taken away; God will not take it away, where he has once bestowed it, and men and devils cannot; it can never be lost as to the principle and being of it; it is an incorruptible seed, and a living principle, which can never be destroyed, notwithstanding all the corruptions in a man's hart, the pollutions of the world, and the temptations of Satan”

So he, as I had said, sees the anointing/ unction from the Holy One as the grace or gift of the Spirit and internal . And not referring to the teaching outward of scripture alone or by men.

You are lying again. I have always acknowledged that Gill (and some other commentators) say that the anointing in 1 John 2:27 is the Holy Spirit. However you clipped out the bit where he says the Spirit teaches by the ministry of God's word and believers have no need of any separate revelation - the complete opposite of what you think! There is NO commentator of 1 John 2:27 that says the Spirit teaches believers by giving them new revelations telling them what to do, as you believe. Many many others agree with me that the anointing is God's word.

I can agree with him about the internal teaching of the Spirit as he spoke of and he understands part of this to be the truths of the gospel but the word “gospel” is not in that section. Paul speaks of the things of God, and the wisdom of God and the deep things of God. So this is the larger understanding of the text. But agsin you don’t understand what he wrote or it bothers you so much that you have to omit it here again he said clearly that Paul is talking about the revelation of the Spirit not the outward revelation of scripture specifically. He actually said this , that you omitted in your usual twisting of things said,

“
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
But God hath revealed them unto us,.... Should it be said, that since this wisdom is so hidden and mysterious, the doctrines of the Gospel are so unknown, so much out of the sight and understanding of men, how come any to be acquainted with them? The answer is ready, God has made a revelation of them, not only in his word, which is common to men, nor only to his ministers, but to private Christians and believers, by his Spirit; which designs not the external revelation made in the Scriptures, though that also is by the
Spirit; but the internal revelation and application of the truths of the Gospel to the souls of men, which is sometimes ascribed to the Father of Christ. Matthew 16:17 sometimes to Christ himself, Galatians 1:12 and sometimes to the Spirit of Christ, Ephesians 1:17 and who guides into all truth, John 16:13, and here to the Father by the Spirit:

for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God; which does not suppose any ignorance of these things in the Spirit, antecedent to his searching of them; but his complete and perfect knowledge of them; even as God's searching of the hearts of men expresses his omniscience, and through knowledge of all that is in them: the "all things" the Spirit searches into, and has a perfect knowledge of, do not design in the utmost extent everything which comes within the compass of his infinite understanding; but every thing that is in, or belongs to the Gospel of Christ, even the more mysterious and sublime, as well as the more plain and easy doctrines: for the "deep things of God" intend not the perfections of his nature, which are past finding out unto perfection by men; nor the depths of his wise and righteous providence; but the mysterious doctrines of the Gospel, the fellowship of the mystery which was hid in God, his wise counsels of old concerning man's salvation, the scheme of things drawn in his eternal mind, and revealed in the word.”

Wrong. Look again. The "gospel" is in the 2nd sentence of your quote from his 1 Cor 2:10 commentary, and again in the 3rd sentence. Just as in 1 John 2:27, Gill only says God reveals "the doctrines of the Gospel" and nothing else.

 

[swordsman1]

No you showed me nothing those words “insight” are not in the Bible (King James Bible) . Your using the wrong manuscripts again.

1 Kings 4: 29. And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.”

The word is understanding not insight.

1 Chronicles 27: 32. Also Jonathan David's uncle was a counseller, a wise man, and a scribe: and Jehiel the son of Hachmoni was with the king's sons:”

The word is “wise” not insight

Job 12: 16. With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his.”

The word is “wisdom” not insight.

H8454- tuwshiyah- or tushiyah { too-shee-yaw'}; from an unused root probably meaning to substantiate; support or (by implication) ability, i.e. (direct) help, (in purpose) an undertaking, (intellectual) understanding:--enterprise, that which (thing as it) is, substance, (sound) wisdom, working”(Strongs)

2 Timothy 2: 7. Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.”

The word is “understanding” not insight

Philippians 1: 9. And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;”

The word is “knowledge” not insight

I think you get the point I could go through all your verses and show this. The word insight is not in the Bible (King Janes Bible) anywhere.

Wrong. The KJV is not "the" Bible. It is a poor translation by today's standards. Not only does it use antiquated Elizabethan English, a language that is completely different from today's, but it was based on Erasmus's 15th century Greek Textus Receptus which has a lot of corruptions in the text. In the long line of hand copying from one generation to the next to reach the 15th century a nefarious scribe or two has changed the words. You need to use modern translations that are based on the earliest manuscripts (from the 3rd century) that have minimal hand copying.

 

[swordsman1]

and you said

"Spiritual discernment that the things the apostles spoke are true - yes",

So you admit that the believers needed spiritual discernment of the things of God.

No I did not admit believers needed spiritual discernment of the things of God. That is not what I said. You have twisted my words, just as you twist Paul's word. I said believers have "Spiritual discernment that the things the apostles spoke are true" - something completely different.

You have been caught red-handed twisting scripture like this multiple times. Have you no shame?

 

[LoveofTruth]

Wrong. The KJV is not "the" Bible.

Yes, it is the Bible. And I whenever I use the Bible quotes to you I almsi hear that old saying as you attack it “yeah hath God said?”

It is a poor translation by today's standards. Not only does it use antiquated Elizabethan English, a language that is completely different from today's, but it was based on Erasmus's 15th century Greek Textus Receptus which has a lot of corruptions in the text. In the long line of hand copying from one generation to the next to reach the 15th century a nefarious scribe or two has changed the words. You need to use modern translations that are based on the earliest manuscripts (from the 3rd century) that have minimal hand copying.

Nonsense,

“God’s Word does not return void. Meaning, there was not an edition put out solely by Erasmus into our language perfectly into one book that had any huge impact on humanity. The KJV is a work that is strongly influenced by Erasmus but it was not an exact direct copy or translation of his work. Stephanus and Beza also filtered his work. One of the rules of translating the KJB by the king was to follow the Bishops’ Bible whenever possible. If there was a needed improvement, they looked to other sources or manuscripts. The KJV also agrees to different degrees with the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Italic, Gothic Bible, and the Latin manuscripts.

I do not believe Erasmus who created translated his TR editions or the KJV translators used anything from Jerome’s corrupt Latin Vulgate or the counterfeit LXX”

But I am not getting into a long translation issue here. Many others can easily refute you for hours.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed. It is full of flaming.

Here is a hint folks. If your posts are full of sentences accusing "you" of doing wrong, so are you.
If you are accusing a member of being in a cult, wow, you better have excellent backup support and even that is questionable.

And, just a reminder, the site rules include:
​

• Promotion of King James Version Onlyism (KJVO) or King James Bible Only is not allowed. Stating one has a preference for King James Version is fine. Tying salvation to what version is used will be seen as flaming.

In the 16 years I have been a mod here, I have not seen KJVOnly debates go well. There is WAY too flaming. ​