KJV Only?

Jack Koons said:

While you may, or may not agree, it is my opinion that other than our stand on the KJV, our beliefs are in fact, very much alike.

Click to expand...

No, we are not.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Jack Koons said:

While you may, or may not agree, it is my opinion that other than our stand on the KJV, our beliefs are in fact, very much alike.

Click to expand...

To which DeaconDean replied:

DeaconDean said:

No, we are not.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

For the benefit of DeaconDean I will state the following:

1) I affirm the statement made in the 1649 London Baptist Confession of Faith Article 1, Paragraph 8, in regards to the Scriptures; DeaconDean does not. Rather, he affirms the statement made in the 1878 Niagara Bible Conference concerning the Scripture, which states:

"14 point creed of the Niagara Bible Conference of 1878:
1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts"
https://truthisfundamental.wordpress.com/1878-nbcc/

Otherwise, I believe in the rest of the same creed as does DeaconDean. That is what I meant by,

Jack Koons said:

While you may, or may not agree, it is my opinion that other than our stand on the KJV, our beliefs are in fact, very much alike.

Click to expand...

Now DeaconDean,

It is clear that you assumed that I meant something other than that which I presented; but I suppose that is why you are so correct by stating:

DeaconDean said:

No, we are not.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

Jack

Jack Koons said:

For the benefit of DeaconDean I will state the following:

1) I affirm the statement made in the 1649 London Baptist Confession of Faith Article 1, Paragraph 8, in regards to the Scriptures; DeaconDean does not. Rather, he affirms the statement made in the 1878 Niagara Bible Conference concerning the Scripture, which states:

"14 point creed of the Niagara Bible Conference of 1878:
1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts"
https://truthisfundamental.wordpress.com/1878-nbcc/

Click to expand...

Please go back in the Fundamentalist room and look at what I said regarding creeds and confessions.

I said:

DeaconDean said:

To clarify my position, here is where I am coming from:

"Let us not be deluded into thinking that the Southern Baptist Convention can integrate Southern Baptist thought by fiat of creedal declarations. Is it a response to the Southern Baptist Convention's more narrowly defined version of the Baptist Faith & Message recently adopted in Orlando, Fla.? No, actually it's a statement published in the Baptist Standard April 30, 1925, when the SBC stood on the brink of adopting the first Baptist Faith & Message document in Memphis, Tenn. The warning was penned by John Ellington White, at the time pastor of First Baptist Church of Anderson, S.C., and president of Anderson College...On one hand, "No creed but the Bible" has been Baptists' mantra from their emergence as a distinctly identifiable group. Yet on the other hand, Baptists from the beginning often have written statements of faith to let others know what they believe...Baptists had been persecuted for not adhering to the authority of the state church and for insisting that every believer should have direct access to God without coercion from church leaders and without being required to work through a human intermediary or subscribe to a human-written creed.
___Historically, Baptists have shunned creeds," Alan Lefever said. In England, early Baptists "refused to adopt a confession. They said we need no confession but the Bible...And when the SBC was formed in 1845, no confession of faith or creed was adopted. W.B. Johnson, first president of the SBC, explained: "We have constructed for our basis no new creed, acting in this manner upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible."
___Prior to this time, numerous confessions of faith had been written by individual Baptists, local churches and associations. In fact, in the early days, Baptist churches and pastors would exchange statements of faith as part of the process of calling new pastors, McBeth said.
___The tension over confessions of faith also surfaced in early America as the so-called Regular Baptists and Separate Baptists eventually came together, McBeth said. "The Separates insisted that there be no confession, but the Regulars had a confession."
___To resolve the difference, both groups agreed the confession of faith would be "advisory only" and that no one would be required to subscribe to every point, McBeth said.
___The SBC existed for 80 years--more than half its current life--without adopting any confession of faith. If you read the preamble to the (1925) Baptist Faith & Message, it basically says you can disagree with all this and it is OK. The preamble is the safety valve for Southern Baptists."

Click to expand...

"Baptists have debated creeds & confessions for centuries", By: Mark Wingfield, Managing Editor, The Baptist Standard

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/...es/creeds.html

I will not be made to affirm, or otherwise be made to, swear to any Creed or confession. Whether it is the Southern Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, or the Apostles Creed, or the Nicene Creed.

Click to expand...

I even went one step further to say:

DeaconDean said:

To go further, Dr. Jimmy Draper once said:

A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice,but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.

​

Ernest Reisinger wrote:

DANGERS OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS
One of the dangers of Creeds and Confessions is using them to bind the conscience. They must never be used to bind the conscience. They can only bind the conscience so far as they are biblical, and they bind only those who voluntarily subscribe to them.

Another danger is allowing Creeds to usurp the place of authority. We do not worship the Creeds. The Bible is our final authority and standard, and it alone. By it we must prove all things. We must not exalt the Creeds above, or equal to the Bible. Creeds are the products of men. However, the respected Creeds are the products of many holy, competent, and seasoned men. The Creeds have proved a safeguard for Christians. They are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from, and subordinate to, the Bible as the only source and standard of Christian authority.

The Creeds themselves warn against the danger of Creeds. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men as such are in anything contrary to His word or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, 1742, Chapter 21, part 2).
​

http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/re...goodnews02.htm

Click to expand...

I agree with the principles laid down in the Philadelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith of 1742, The Abstract of Principles of 1858, and the Southern Baptist Faith and Message. And I also agree with what Fundamentalists said in 1878.

Agreeing with and affirming are two different things Jack.

Surely you know that?

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines "affirm" with:

1
a: validate, confirm
b: to state positively <he affirmed his innocence>

2: to assert (as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed

3: to express dedication to <affirm life>

intransitive verb
1: to testify or declare by affirmation as distinguished from swearing an oath

2: to uphold a judgment or decree of a lower court

Click to expand...

Source

And to this day, I still agree with:

"The Verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures in the original autographs".

In fact Jack, there is no difference in what is said regarding the Scriptures in the 2nd London Baptist confession and the Philadelphia Baptist confession of 1742.

And neither one puts me in direct conflict with the 1878 statement of Fundamentalists.

And neither one restricts Christians to a "KJVO" belief!

God Bless

Till all are one.

Quakers as well will not agree to creedal statements. Our relationship with G-d is a living thing, it cannot be encapsulated by words, especially words written to force a political agreement on the religion of an empire.

kiwimac said:

Quakers as well will not agree to creedal statements. Our relationship with G-d is a living thing, it cannot be encapsulated by words, especially words written to force a political agreement on the religion of an empire.

Click to expand...

Here, here!

I am forced to agree with you here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

i can only guess, but it seems that the controversy stems from paragraph 8.

From the 2nd London Baptist Confession:

Paragraph 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.

Click to expand...

Note to the reader: I edited out thefootnotes of "scriptural proofs" to save room.

Source

The Philadelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith of 1742 (same paragrah):

The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old),and the New Testament in Greek, which (at the time of the writing of it) was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto; and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar [ie. common] language of every nation, unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may hope.

Click to expand...

Note again to the reader: I edited out the footnotes of scriptural proofs to save room.

Source

Where, in either one, puts me in conflict with "the verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures in the original autographs"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean said:

i can only guess, but it seems that the controversy stems from paragraph 8.

From the 2nd London Baptist Confession:



Note to the reader: I edited out thefootnotes of "scriptural proofs" to save room.

Source

The Philadelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith of 1742 (same paragrah):



Note again to the reader: I edited out the footnotes of scriptural proofs to save room.

Source

Where, in either one, puts me in conflict with "the verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures in the original autographs"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

DeaconDean, I do indeed affirm the teachings that I stated I affirm. That means, that I not only agree with these teachings (since they are based in Scripture), but stand by, and defend them while others leave the faith, and surrender to a more modernistic teaching.

Since you can't seem to understand the difference between the two statements shown, allow me to give you a hint as to the controversy that is on going. The words, " ... and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages ... ".

Those men did in deed believe in the purity of the "original autographs", (as do both you and I); however, you deny the afore mentioned words. You have once again played a game of semantics, stating you are not denying the "the verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures in the original autographs", but fail to show that you do NOT agree with the words, " ... and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages ... ". Which I not only agree with, but affirm.

Jack

Jack Koons said:

DeaconDean, I do indeed affirm the teachings that I stated I affirm. That means, that I not only agree with these teachings (since they are based in Scripture), but stand by, and defend them while others leave the faith, and surrender to a more modernistic teaching.

Since you can't seem to understand the difference between the two statements shown, allow me to give you a hint as to the controversy that is on going. The words, " ... and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages ... ".

Those men did in deed believe in the purity of the "original autographs", (as do both you and I); however, you deny the afore mentioned words. You have once again played a game of semantics, stating you are not denying the "the verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures in the original autographs", but fail to show that you do NOT agree with the words, " ... and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages ... ". Which I not only agree with, but affirm.

Jack

Click to expand...

What did they say Jack?

Hint:

the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic;

Click to expand...

The Greek and Hebrew: "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages".

Sorry guy, you don't have a leg to stand on.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean said:

What did they say Jack?

Hint:



The Greek and Hebrew: "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages".

Sorry guy, you don't have a leg to stand on.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

DeaconDean,

Do you believe 1) or 2)?

1) The Hebrew and Greek being immediately inspired by God, in the originals.

2) The Greek and Hebrew: "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages".

Hint:

The first teaches that the scriptures were inspired by God, and therefore inerrant (pure) only in the original autographs.

The second teaches that not only were the scriptures inspired by God, and therefore inerrant in the original autographs, BUT, they (the scriptures [in the Hebrew and Greek]), were "by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages".

These two are NOT THE SAME. In the second, God continues (by His singular care and providence) to keep the copies of the originals "pure in all ages".

If they are not referring to copies of the original autographs, to what are they referring?

I await your response to both questions presented:

Do you believe 1) or 2)?

1) The Hebrew and Greek being immediately inspired by God, in the originals.

2) The Greek and Hebrew: "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages".

If they are not referring to copies of the original autographs, to what are they referring?

Jack

A single perfect translation is nowhere implied there, and certainly not explicitly stated, by that quote. Especially a translation whose language is already outdated and which already needed revision of any sort. That which is pure by definition needs no revision.

BornAgainBrian said:

A single perfect translation is nowhere implied there, and certainly not explicitly stated, by that quote. Especially a translation whose language is already outdated and which already needed revision of any sort. That which is pure by definition needs no revision.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree on the language being outdated.

It shouldn't be so difficult for anyone to understand considering the reading comprehension of the King James is on a elementary level.

Slang is not a language nor would I want a Ebonics text Bible.

No need to be tripping over the thee's and thou's

It is a common misconception that the KJV's English is simple. It is not. English, like all living languages, has changed since the 17thC. Words have shifted meaning. Phrases that once made sense no longer do so.

I'm Lutheran exploring ancient Christianity at the moment, and so I hope you all don't mind if I chime in. I'm not KJV-Only by any means, but I do use it almost exclusively because I read the archaic language versions of Scripture more easily than I do the modern English versions of Scripture. I know: completely opposite of what everyone always says about the KJV. Maybe there's something to that; maybe not. I use the NKJV, ESV, and RSV-2CE, as well.

now faith said:

I have to disagree on the language being outdated.

It shouldn't be so difficult for anyone to understand considering the reading comprehension of the King James is on a elementary level.

Slang is not a language nor would I want a Ebonics text Bible.

No need to be tripping over the thee's and thou's

Click to expand...

It's not the reading comprehension level. I don't find any particular translation particularly challenging. There are words whose meanings have changed over 400+ years though, and therefore the language would be immediately clearer to people in 1611 than in 2015.

now faith said:

I have to disagree on the language being outdated.

Click to expand...

Exodus 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. KJV

Exodus 19:18 Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the Lord had descended upon it in fire; the smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln, while the whole mountain shook violently. NRSV

BornAgainBrian said:

It's not the reading comprehension level. I don't find any particular translation particularly challenging. There are words whose meanings have changed over 400+ years though, and therefore the language would be immediately clearer to people in 1611 than in 2015.

Click to expand...

I agree.

"abased" (Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14) then meant "humbled"
"abide" (Acts 20:23) then meant "await"
"acquaintance" (Luke 2:44; 23:49; Acts 24:23) then meant "acquaintances"
"admiration" (Rev. 17:6) then meant "wonder"
"affections" (Gal. 5:24) then meant "passions"
"again" (Matt. 27:3; Luke 14:6) then meant "back"
"allege" (Acts 17:3) then meant present "evidence"
"allow" (Luke 11:48; Rom. 14:22; 1 Thes. 2:4) then meant "approve"
"amazement" (1 Pet. 3:6) then meant "terror"
"amend" (John 4:52) then meant "mend"
"answer" (2 Tim. 4:16) then meant "defense"
"approve" (2 Cor. 6:4; 7:11) then meant "commend" or "prove"
"assay" (Acts 9:26; 16:7; Heb. 11:29) then meant "essay" or "attempt"
"attendance" (1 Tim. 4:13) then meant "attention"
"base" (1 Cor. 1:28; 2 Cor. 10:1) then meant "lowly"
"behind" (Col. 1:24) then meant "lacking"
"bewitched" (Acts 8:9, 11) then meant "astonished"
"by and by" (Matt. 13:21; Mark 6:25; Luke 17:7; 21:9) then meant "immediately"
"careful" (Luke 10:41; Phil. 4:6) then meant "anxious"
"charged" (1 Tim. 5:16) then meant "burdened"
"charger" (Matt. 14:8, 11; Mark 6:25, 28) then meant "platter"
"charity" (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13; etc.) then meant "love"
"charitably" (Rom. 14:15) then meant "in love"
"communicate" (Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:14, 15; 1 Tim. 6:18; Heb. 13:16) then meant "share"
"communications" (Cor. 15:33) then meant "companionship"
"concluded" (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22) then meant "shut up"
"conscience" (1 Cor. 8:7; Heb. 10:2) then meant "consciousness"
"convenient" (Rom. 1:28; Eph. 5:4; Phlm. 8) then meant "fitting" or "proper"
"conversation" (2 Cor. 1:12; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 2:3; etc.) then meant "manner of life" or "conduct"
"corn" (Matt. 12:1; Mark 2:23; 4:28; etc.) then meant "grain"
"countries" (Luke 21:21) then meant "country"
"country, a" (John 11:54) then meant "the country"
"damnation" (Matt. 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; etc.) then meant "condemnation" or "judgment" (1 Cor. 11:29)
"damned" (Mark 16:16; Rom. 14:23; 2 Thes. 2:12) then meant "condemned" or "judged"
"delicately" (Luke 7:25) then meant "luxuriously"
"deliciously" (Rev. 18:7, 9) then meant "wantonly"
"doubtful" (Luke 12:29) then meant "anxious"
"draught" (Matt. 15:17; Mark 7:19) then meant "drain"
"earnestly" (Luke 22:56; Acts 23:1) then meant "carefully" or "steadfastly" or "intently"
"ensue" (1 Pet. 3:11) then meant "pursue"
"entreat(ed)" (Matt. 22:6; Luke 18:32; 20:11; etc.) then meant "treat(ed)"
"estate" (Acts 22:5) then meant "council"
"estates" (Mark 6:21) then meant "men of nobility or rank"
"ever, or" (Acts 23:15) then meant "before"
"evidently" (Acts 10:3) then meant "clearly" or "openly" (Gal. 3:1)
"fame" (Matt. 4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:1; Mark 1:28; etc.) then meant "report" or
"feeble-minded" (1 Thes. 5:14) then meant "fainthearted"
"forward" (2 Cor. 8:10, 17; Gal. 2:10) then meant "ready" or "eager"
"frankly" (Luke 7:42) then meant "freely"
"furnished" (Matt. 22:10) then meant "filled"
"go beyond" (1 Thes. 4:6) then meant "transgress"
"good" (1 Jn. 3:17) then meant "goods"
"goodman" (Matt. 20:11; 24:43; Mark 14:14; etc.) then meant "master"
"governor" (James 3:4) then meant "pilot"
"grudge" (James 5:9; 1 Pet. 4:9) then meant "grumble"
"guilty" (Matt. 23:18) then meant "bound"
"hardly" (Matt. 19:23) then meant "with difficulty"
"instant" (Luke 23:23) then meant "insistent," or "constant" (Rom. 12:12), or "urgent" (2 Tim. 4:2)
"keep under" (1 Cor. 9:27) then meant "buffet"
"lade" (Luke 11:46) then meant "load"
"large" (Matt. 28:12) then meant "much"
"lewd" (Acts 17:5) then meant "wicked"
"lewdness" (Acts 18:14) then meant "villainy"
"listed" (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13) then meant "wished"
"listeth" (John 3:8; James 3:4) then meant "wishes"
"lively" (Acts 7:38; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2:5) then meant "living"
"loft" (Acts 20:9) then meant "story"
"marred" (Mark 2:22) then meant "destroyed"
"meat" (Matt. 3:4; 6:25; 10:10; 15:37; 24:45; etc.) then meant "food"
"minister" (Luke 4:20) then meant "attendant"
"minstrels" (Matt. 9:23) then meant "flute players"
"motions" (Rom. 7:5) then meant "passions"
"observed him" (Mark 6:20) then meant "kept him safe"
"occupy" (Luke 19:13) then meant "trade"
"other" (John 21:2; Acts 15:2; 2 Cor. 13:2; Phil. 2:3) then meant "others"
"other some" (Acts 17:18) then meant "some others"
"overcharge(d)" (Luke 21:34; 2 Cor. 2:5) then meant "over burden(ed)"
"particularly" (Acts 21:19; Heb. 9:5) then meant "in detail"
"pitiful" (1 Pet. 3:8) then meant "merciful"
"presently" (Matt. 21:19; 26:53; Phil. 2:23) then meant "immediately"
"pressed out of" (2 Cor. 1:8) then meant "oppressed beyond"
"prevent" (1 Thes. 4:15) then meant "precede"
"prevented" (Matt. 17:25) then meant "spoke first to"
"profited" (Gal. 1:14) then meant "advanced"
"profiting" (1 Tim. 4:15) then meant "progress"
"proper" (Acts 1:19; 1 Cor. 7:7) then meant "own" or "beautiful" (Heb. 11:23)
"quick" (Heb. 4:12) then meant "living"
"quit you" (1 Cor. 16:13) then meant "conduct yourselves"
"reason" (Acts 6:2) then meant "reasonable"
"record" (John 1:19; Acts 20:26; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8) then meant "witness"
"respect, had" (Heb. 11:26) then meant "looked"
"room" (Matt. 2:22; Luke 14:7, 8, 9, 10; Acts 24:27; 1 Cor. 14:16) then meant "place"
"sardine" (Rev. 4:3) then meant "sardius"
"scrip" (Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3; 10:4; etc.) then meant "bag"
"secondarily" (1 Cor. 12:28) then meant "secondly"
"sentence" (Acts 15:19) then meant "judgment"
"several" (Matt. 25:15) then meant "particular"
"shamefacedness" (1 Tim. 2:9) then meant "modesty" or "propriety"
"shape" (John 5:37) then meant "form"
"should" (Acts 23:27) then meant "would"
"sincere" (1 Pet. 2:2) then meant "pure"
"strange" (Acts 26:11) then meant "foreign"
"strangers of" (Acts 2:10) then meant "visitors from"
"string" (Mark 7:35) then meant "band"
"study" (1 Thes. 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:15) then meant "strive"
"tables" (Luke 1:63; 2 Cor. 3:3) then meant "tablets"
"take no thought" (Matt. 6:25, 28, 31, 34; 10:19; Luke 12:11, 22, 26) then meant "be not anxious"
"taking thought" (Matt. 6:27; Luke 12:25) then meant "being anxious"
"temperance" (Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; 2 Pet. 1:6) then meant "self-control"
"temperate" (1 Cor. 9:25; Tit. 1:8) then meant "self- controlled"
"translated" (Col. 1:13; Heb. 11:5) then meant "transferred"

Now that would be really outdated and archaic if we just had the originals to trust completely. Then we'd have to go back to trusting the "authorities" who are the only ones who can really read the scriptures.

It's like doing good works to earn salvation. No, I do good works BECAUSE I'm saved. Well we go to the Greek and Hebrew to learn why our bible KJV makes sense, not to change it.

Knowing the history of the manuscripts causes me to follow one that God can keep through all the ages. Trusting that God wants the people to read and understand his word and not turn to religious authorities gives me great hope.

When I look at all the money involved in every new "bible" that comes out I have to look at where they come from. Sorry, there will be "new, improved" ones until the end. If you want to continue learning/changing every time bibles change fine. I prefer to learn about the way God put the Bible together and concentrate more on BEING a growing Christian. Debates will continue.

I get all the understanding and more than reading my King James bible. I have found nothing but "man's" additions/deletions take away from what I consider, simple and very much "my" language even though it's not modern English.

Try it, listen to the Holy Spirit and pray about researching where the manuscripts came from. Just read the KJV for a while and don't judge it or research it. Trust God wants you to have his word without doubt or comparison.

Do NOT think I (KJVers) look down on those with differing opinions. It is the love of the truth as we have learned and wish to put out there for those who WANT to learn of this truth, not to argue what your belief of the truth is.
I appreciate that there are many believers who read lots of other Bibles. Lot's of religions can learn of salvation with very little Bible in their churches at all. I have many friends and family that don't believe like I do.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

James 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
Psalms 119:162 I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.

morningstar12 said:

Just read the KJV for a while and don't judge it or research it.

Click to expand...

Think you can do that with another translation?

No. Knowing the manuscripts and seeing the basic words changed/deleted that do NOT
add but take away from the deity, some doctrines, etc. I couldn't.

I'm sure some can without and problem. I don't fault them. They have to go with the "light" they've been given. I feel blessed to have what I have. There are repercussions (even hateful from Christians) but just being a Christian in this world, I get flack.

now faith said:

I have to disagree on the language being outdated.

Click to expand...

Um no one says thee or thou anymore my friend

Although I do like Shakespearean language though