Obessing over the non essentials

[RichardT]

BigChrisFilm, I like how you are standing up for me here, I need to stand up for you more often. And we need to stand up for ourselves more often.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

BigChrisFilm, I like how you are standing up for me here, I need to stand up for you more often. And we need to stand up for ourselves more often.

When I see a brother being attacked by wolves, I stand up to them. Although I probably don't do the best job of it, I hope it atleast will help you to know there are some of us out there that believe the KJV is God's holy, inspired word. There are still some Bible believing Born Again Christian out there, and we need to stick together.

 

[Abbadon]

I suppose you don't consider the Bible to be the infallible, innerent, perfect word of God? See what non belief in 1 perfect Bible will do to you guys?

As with other threads, you're not reading my posts...

I said:
"Rich said that he gets all his doctrines from the Bible.

So where in the Bible does it say that the KJV is the only correct translation?

If you argue that Rich is allowed to choose KJV-onlyism because it doesn't deny it, then it'd be hypocritical to say that other denominations are wrong to choose doctrines that are not affirmed nor denied by the Bible or by reasonable interpretation thereof."

I did not once say that the KJV was completely useless or anything like that.

Noone here has produced any conclusive scriptural proof that KJV is only correct Bible. Again, Rich said that he gets all his doctrines from the Bible, yet he believes in KJV-onlyism. Now, this means that either:

A) Rich gets some of his doctrines from outside of the Bible
B) There's a verse proving that the KJV is the only correct translation just as easily as "no lust" means "no porn."

Noone has provided any proof or even half-way decent arguement for B. Now either everyone here is going to hell for having a friggan opinion about the universe, -OR- it's not adiaphoric doctrines that save us but Christ's sacrifice.... But that would mean that Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentacostals, and others that affirm the Divinity of Christ would stand just as decent a chance at being Christians as Baptists do, and golly, that'd sure make God seem loving and we sure wouldn't want that, would we?

 

[BigChrisfilm]

As with other threads, you're not reading my posts...

I said:
"Rich said that he gets all his doctrines from the Bible.

So where in the Bible does it say that the KJV is the only correct translation?

If you argue that Rich is allowed to choose KJV-onlyism because it doesn't deny it, then it'd be hypocritical to say that other denominations are wrong to choose doctrines that are not affirmed nor denied by the Bible or by reasonable interpretation thereof."

I did not once say that the KJV was completely useless or anything like that.

Noone here has produced any conclusive scriptural proof that KJV is only correct Bible. Again, Rich said that he gets all his doctrines from the Bible, yet he believes in KJV-onlyism. Now, this means that either:

A) Rich gets some of his doctrines from outside of the Bible
B) There's a verse proving that the KJV is the only correct translation just as easily as "no lust" means "no porn."

Noone has provided any proof or even half-way decent arguement for B. Now either everyone here is going to hell for having a friggan opinion about the universe, -OR- it's not adiaphoric doctrines that save us but Christ's sacrifice.... But that would mean that Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentacostals, and others that affirm the Divinity of Christ would stand just as decent a chance at being Christians as Baptists do, and golly, that'd sure make God seem loving and we sure wouldn't want that, would we?

You didn't answer my question.

Do you consider the Bible to be the infallible, innerent, perfect word of God?

 

[Abbadon]

I consider it infallible. The message will always be preserved. I consider Christ to be the Word.

And you've not really responded to my last post.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

I consider it infallible. The message will always be preserved. I consider Christ to be the Word.

And you've not really responded to my last post.

ok, so where can I find this infallible, perserved word of God?

 

[Abbadon]

Pick up any Bible recommended by a group that believes that God is Christ and that seeks inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The message will be preserved.

And so far, you're proving my earlier point that it isn't as easy as "no porn" from "no lust."

 

[JimfromOhio]

Sounds like some posters are saying the only Christians are those who are KJVOnly.

 

[JimfromOhio]

ok, so where can I find this infallible, perserved word of God?

The Holy Spirit (often forgotten) when focusing on the Bible.

 

[Abbadon]

Sounds like some posters are saying the only Christians are those who are KJVOnly.

Indeedily doo. And yet they don't use the 1611, but updated 19th century versions that change text from stuff like "Goeth and fjnneth no mor" to a more modern "Go and sin no more."

Darn shame God only loves 19th century American Protestants.

 

[FreeinChrist]

As with other threads, you're not reading my posts...

I said:
"Rich said that he gets all his doctrines from the Bible.

So where in the Bible does it say that the KJV is the only correct translation?

If you argue that Rich is allowed to choose KJV-onlyism because it doesn't deny it, then it'd be hypocritical to say that other denominations are wrong to choose doctrines that are not affirmed nor denied by the Bible or by reasonable interpretation thereof."

I did not once say that the KJV was completely useless or anything like that.

Noone here has produced any conclusive scriptural proof that KJV is only correct Bible. Again, Rich said that he gets all his doctrines from the Bible, yet he believes in KJV-onlyism. Now, this means that either:

A) Rich gets some of his doctrines from outside of the Bible
B) There's a verse proving that the KJV is the only correct translation just as easily as "no lust" means "no porn."

Noone has provided any proof or even half-way decent arguement for B. Now either everyone here is going to hell for having a friggan opinion about the universe, -OR- it's not adiaphoric doctrines that save us but Christ's sacrifice.... But that would mean that Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentacostals, and others that affirm the Divinity of Christ would stand just as decent a chance at being Christians as Baptists do, and golly, that'd sure make God seem loving and we sure wouldn't want that, would we?

Good points!

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Pick up any Bible recommended by a group that believes that God is Christ and that seeks inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The message will be preserved.

And so far, you're proving my earlier point that it isn't as easy as "no porn" from "no lust."

So what about the fact that not all Bible versions say the same things? Like how some versions cut out whole verses? How am I supposed to know which one is right, and which one is wrong?

 

[Abbadon]

I usually grab multiple versions and compare (including the KJV).

So far, the "different verses" are simply different wordings for the same message, like "Jesus is God" being "God is Jesus." There's only one "missing verse," and that one appears to be added in a few hundred years after the Bible was canonized (seeing as it doesn't appear in any texts written before a particular point).

So, does it matter how "Jesus is Lord" is said, or does it matter more that it is said?

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Indeedily doo. And yet they don't use the 1611, but updated 19th century versions that change text from stuff like "Goeth and fjnneth no mor" to a more modern "Go and sin no more."

Darn shame God only loves 19th century American Protestants.

lol, I am not that dumb. I love how you guys try and show us how different the 1611 version is than the 19th century version, ignoring the facts that the only difference is type, and grammer errors.

My KJV Bible reads the same as whatever one you quoted.

"Goeth and fjnneth no mor"reads the same as the KJV of the 19th century.

 

[God_of_Mercy]

Yay, my thread has turned into a debate over non essentials. Oh the irony. Only on the baptist forum...

 

[BigChrisfilm]

I usually grab multiple versions and compare (including the KJV).

So far, the "different verses" are simply different wordings for the same message, like "Jesus is God" being "God is Jesus." There's only one "missing verse," and that one appears to be added in a few hundred years after the Bible was canonized (seeing as it doesn't appear in any texts written before a particular point).

So, does it matter how "Jesus is Lord" is said, or does it matter more that it is said?

That's not correct, there are plenty of complete verses that were just left out of the new versions, that the KJV has. Not just one verse, but many.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Do some forget to "apply" the Bible rather than preaching the Bible?

 

[JimfromOhio]

That's not correct, there are plenty of complete verses that were just left out of the new versions, that the KJV has. Not just one verse, but many.

It "appears" but not really if you look carefully. Often preferences leads to ignorance.

 

[Abbadon]

That's not correct, there are plenty of complete verses that were just left out of the new versions, that the KJV has. Not just one verse, but many.

Oh, really... And I suppose that they're the bits specifically carrying the message that saves us, right? That those verses, and no others, let us know that Christ is the key to our salvation? Is that it? Or do they perhaps just repeat the previous verse, or does the following verse repeat that? And I suppose that every single one of these "removals" does not put these verses in as footnotes.

 

[Logos1560]

I love how you guys try and show us how different the 1611 version is than the 19th century version, ignoring the facts that the only difference is type, and grammer errors.

Here is all of Ecclesiastes 8:17 in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

Eccl. 8:17 Then I behelde all the worke of God, that a man cannot finde out the worke that is done vder the Sunne: because though a man labour to seeke it out, yea further though a wise man thinke to know it, yet shall hee not be able to finde it.

Is your present KJV edition exactly the same except "type and grammar errors?"