The KJVO myth...

Bob_1000 said:

I forgot to add this to the last post I made to you. The Christ in them is the EXACT same Christ that is in us. It is the Christ that must be FORMED in us by the incorruptible word of God.

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,


1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Click to expand...

I believe there is a Living Word (Jesus) and a communicated Word (the Bible).

I have an extensive list of Scripture on comparing the symbiotic relationship between these two in this thread here:

The Living Word & the Communicated Word.

Bob_1000 said:

I forgot to add this to the last post I made to you. The Christ in them is the EXACT same Christ that is in us. It is the Christ that must be FORMED in us by the incorruptible word of God.

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,


1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Click to expand...

Please read the KJB article I provided to you. It may offer you something you did not think of before.

Bob_1000 said:

My point is that he Spirit of Christ was in the Old Testament Christians, they were born again, they experienced the 2nd birth, the spiritual birth, the birth of Christ in them.

Click to expand...

And your evidence for that is - where?
Was David born again when he fought against Goliath in God's name? If so, why did he later commit adultery and murder?
Was Solomon born again? If so did he become "unborn again" when he turned from God? What about Saul, Gideon and Samson who did the same - started off being filled with God's Spirit, or given a special calling/prophecy from God and then turned away from him later on?

There were very committed believers in the OT, who walked with God, were faithful to God, were filled with his Spirit and knew God. But they were not born again in the NT sense.
Otherwise, why would Jesus have come?
If a believer - a Jew - could walk with God, be filled with his Spirit and be born again, what need was there for the Word to be made flesh, live a spotless life and lay down that life to reconcile man to God?
Why did the angel tell Joseph that Jesus would save people from their sins?
Why did Nicodemus - a Pharisee who would have known the OT Scriptures - not know what being born again meant?
Why did Jesus say that eternal life would be given to those who believed in him, John 3:36, John 6:40, John 6:54, John 10:10, if people in the OT had already been born again and received that eternal life?
Why did he say that he is the only way to the Father, John 14:6?

There are no Scriptures which say that King David, for example, had Christ formed in him.

Bob_1000 said:

I forgot to add this to the last post I made to you. The Christ in them is the EXACT same Christ that is in us. It is the Christ that must be FORMED in us by the incorruptible word of God.

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,


1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Click to expand...

I believe we must be born again of water in John 3 (i.e. we must have a revelation that God’s Word is holy and we are under it’s authority alone) and I believe we must be sanctified with the washing of the water of the Word (i.e. Scripture or the Holy Bible) (Ephesians 5:25-28).

Bible Highlighter said:

I think that is faulty reasoning, friend. Check out this KJB apologetic article here:

Another King James Bible Believer

Click to expand...

The link says this:

"The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

Is referring to the third person of the of the blessed Trinity, as "itself" a major error in the King James Bible, which borders on blasphemy?

Click to expand...

LIE... flat out lie and I can't believe you didn't catch it. The spirit in both of those verses is the SPIRIT OF ADOPTION.... that is not the third person the blessed trinity. The contrast of that spirit would be the SPIRIT OF BONDAGE. Is the spirit of bondage the third of person of the unholy trinity?

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Bob_1000 said:

The link says this:

LIE... flat out lie and I can't believe you didn't catch it. The spirit in both of those verses is the SPIRIT OF ADOPTION.... that is not the third person the blessed trinity. The contrast of that spirit would be the SPIRIT OF BONDAGE. Is the spirit of bondage the third of person of the unholy trinity?

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Click to expand...

Okay. Did you continue to keep reading the whole article? You are making snap judgments without reading the whole thing.

Bob_1000 said:

I believe 1Pe 1:11 is the scripture for 3 reasons. One, the scriptures do testify of the sufferings of Christ and two, the KJV calls the Spirit of Christ an "IT" and three, I can almost guarantee you that every other translation has "he" in that verse.

Click to expand...

Because Jesus called the Holy Spirit HE.
In John 16, and John 14:16 and John 14:26 even the KJV calls the Spirit HE.
What does that tell you?

Strong in Him said:

Because Jesus called the Holy Spirit HE.
In John 16, and John 14:16 and John 14:26 even the KJV calls the Spirit HE.
What does that tell you?

Click to expand...

It’s not an error in the KJB.

Check out this article here:

https://brandplucked.webs.com/thespirititself.htm

Please. Read the whole article.

Strong in Him said:

And your evidence for that is - where?
Was David born again when he fought against Goliath in God's name? If so, why did he later commit adultery and murder?
Was Solomon born again? If so did he become "unborn again" when he turned from God? What about Saul, Gideon and Samson who did the same - started off being filled with God's Spirit, or given a special calling/prophecy from God and then turned away from him later on?

There were very committed believers in the OT, who walked with God, were faithful to God, were filled with his Spirit and knew God. But they were not born again in the NT sense.
Otherwise, why would Jesus have come?
If a believer - a Jew - could walk with God, be filled with his Spirit and be born again, what need was there for the Word to be made flesh, live a spotless life and lay down that life to reconcile man to God?
Why did the angel tell Joseph that Jesus would save people from their sins?
Why did Nicodemus - a Pharisee who would have known the OT Scriptures - not know what being born again meant?
Why did Jesus say that eternal life would be given to those who believed in him, John 3:36, John 6:40, John 6:54, John 10:10, if people in the OT had already been born again and received that eternal life?
Why did he say that he is the only way to the Father, John 14:6?

There are no Scriptures which say that King David, for example, had Christ formed in him.

Click to expand...

Do you realize the New Testament isn't new? The covenant of grace was given 430 years before the law came. The law didn't annul grace, the law was given to point them and us toward grace and it most certainly didn't override grace.

Granted the OT believers in Christ didn't have access to everything we do but I'm not sure to what extent they lacked. I still have a lot of "churchianity" teaching in me but the only thing I know for sure that they lacked was passage into heaven. They had to go to Abraham's bosom until Christ came and paid their way.

Strong in Him said:

Because Jesus called the Holy Spirit HE.
In John 16, and John 14:16 and John 14:26 even the KJV calls the Spirit HE.
What does that tell you?

Click to expand...

It tells us that the Holy Spirit is a he and not an it. The Spirit of Christ in 1Pe_1:11 is called an it. What does that tell you? It tells you nothing because you will say it's just say it's a mistake in the KJV or "it" is sometimes used to refer to the literal spirit of Christ. And that might be true in the bibles you read. That's where the incorruptible part of the incorruptible word of God comes in to play.

Bob_1000 said:

It tells us that the Holy Spirit is a he and not an it.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Bob_1000 said:

What does that tell you? It tells you nothing because you will say it's just say it's a mistake in the KJV

Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me.

Bob_1000 said:

And that might be true in the bibles you read. That's where the incorruptible part of the incorruptible word of God comes in to play.

Click to expand...

Er no.
i) 1 Peter 1:11 was written way before the KJV was thought of.
ii) You've said yourself that the Holy Spirit is "he" not "it". Other verses in the KJV refer to the Spirit as he, and you agree that they are correct. So that suggests that either the writers of the KJV slipped up in that verse, or that the word "it" does not refer to the Spirit at all. But it makes no sense to admit that the Spirit is "he" - freely referred to as such by the KJV translators - then when they call him "it" they call him "it", say, "ah well that's because of the incorruptible word of God".

Newsflash - the incorruptible word of God was around for centuries before the KJV was even thought of.
God spoke his incorruptible word to the OT prophets (who you say were born again). Jesus, THE Word of God, spoke God's incorruptible word and people were healed, saved, delivered, raised from the dead. The apostles spoke the incorruptible word of God and thousands became Christians, received eternal life and the Holy Spirit.
Millions of people have, read, study, preach and learn the Bible, God's word, in other translations and are born again and filled with the Spirit. The KJV does not save; Jesus does.

Bible Highlighter said:

It’s not an error in the KJB.

Click to expand...

But there's nothing in this world that would cause to to admit, or even think, that the KJV is capable of containing an error.
So that is clearly a statement which cannot be challenged, in your view - nothing will persuade to even consider that it might be untrue.

Bible Highlighter said:

Another King James Bible Believer

Please. Read the whole article.

Click to expand...

No thanks.

Not unless it is an article which compares Greek words with those in the KJV; therefore showing that the KJV is always right and the most accurate translation from the Greek.
It won't be. It'll be a biased article about the "supremacy" of the KJV over every other Bible - it has to be; you won't consider any other possibility.

Strong in Him said:

But there's nothing in this world that would cause to to admit, or even think, that the KJV is capable of containing an error.
So that is clearly a statement which cannot be challenged, in your view - nothing will persuade to even consider that it might be untrue.



No thanks.

Not unless it is an article which compares Greek words with those in the KJV; therefore showing that the KJV is always right and the most accurate translation from the Greek.
It won't be. It'll be a biased article about the "supremacy" of the KJV over every other Bible - it has to be; you won't consider any other possibility.

Click to expand...

I can say the same for your position. But the difference between us is that your position is not found in the Scriptures and there is actual good doctrine watered down and even eliminated. So yeah. To your position I say… no thanks.

Bible Highlighter said:

I can say the same for your position. But the difference between us is that your position is not found in the Scriptures

Click to expand...

My position that Jesus is THE Word of God is not found in the Scriptures? Try John 1:1-2
My position that KJV and non KJV readers have the same Gospel, the same Triune God, the same Saviour, the same Holy Spirit, the same salvation and are both saved and children of God, is not found in the Scriptures? Try John 1:12, John 3:36, John 14:6, Acts of the Apostles 4:12, 1 Timothy 2:5, Romans 1:16 - in fact, most of the NT.
My position that the word of God existed, was heard, read, believed and preached long before the KJV was even heard of? Again, try the NT - if not the entire Bible.

Now show me where Jesus and the apostles used and quoted from the KJV.

Bible Highlighter said:

To your position I say… no thanks.

Click to expand...

You're disregarding Scripture then - so be it.

Strong in Him said:

My position that Jesus is THE Word of God is not found in the Scriptures? Try John 1:1-2
My position that KJV and non KJV readers have the same Gospel, the same Triune God, the same Saviour, the same Holy Spirit, the same salvation and are both saved and children of God, is not found in the Scriptures? Try John 1:12, John 3:36, John 14:6, Acts of the Apostles 4:12, 1 Timothy 2:5, Romans 1:16 - in fact, most of the NT.
My position that the word of God existed, was heard, read, believed and preached long before the KJV was even heard of? Again, try the NT - if not the entire Bible.
Now show me where Jesus and the apostles used and quoted from the KJV.
You're disregarding Scripture then - so be it.

Click to expand...

About 4 decades ago I was attending seminary. In the library they had a set of shelves with copies of each state's denominational newspaper. I was perusing one day glancing through different states' paper. In the letters to the editor from Texas one reader wrote something to the effect, "If the KJB was good enough for the disciples it is good enough for me."

Der Alte said:

About 4 decades ago I was attending seminary. In the library they had a set of shelves with copies of each state's denominational newspaper. I was perusing one day glancing through different states' paper. In the letters to the editor from Texas one reader wrote something to the effect, "If the KJB was good enough for the disciples it is good enough for me."

Click to expand...

But I see ignorance (or a lack of common sense) on obvious things on both sides. Take for example the word “it” in reference to a person. It appears in both the KJB and Modern Translations and it is not in reference to our modern understanding on the word “it.” But people are too entrenched in their own opinions in wanting to be right to see the forest from the trees.

Strong in Him said:

Exactly.



Sounds about right to me.



Er no.
i) 1 Peter 1:11 was written way before the KJV was thought of.
ii) You've said yourself that the Holy Spirit is "he" not "it". Other verses in the KJV refer to the Spirit as he, and you agree that they are correct. So that suggests that either the writers of the KJV slipped up in that verse, or that the word "it" does not refer to the Spirit at all. But it makes no sense to admit that the Spirit is "he" - freely referred to as such by the KJV translators - then when they call him "it" they call him "it", say, "ah well that's because of the incorruptible word of God".

Newsflash - the incorruptible word of God was around for centuries before the KJV was even thought of.
God spoke his incorruptible word to the OT prophets (who you say were born again). Jesus, THE Word of God, spoke God's incorruptible word and people were healed, saved, delivered, raised from the dead. The apostles spoke the incorruptible word of God and thousands became Christians, received eternal life and the Holy Spirit.
Millions of people have, read, study, preach and learn the Bible, God's word, in other translations and are born again and filled with the Spirit. The KJV does not save; Jesus does.

Click to expand...

I never said the KJV saved anyone I said the KJV is the incorruptible seed that FORMS Christ in us. The same Christ or “it” that was in the OT believers in Christ.

I think the disconnect we have is that you believe saved and born again are the same thing and honestly I would be more than willing to accept that view if it could be proven by the Bible put it isn’t.

Bible Highlighter said:

But I see ignorance (or a lack of common sense) on obvious things on both sides. Take for example the word “it” in reference to a person. It appears in both the KJB and Modern Translations and it is not in reference to our modern understanding on the word “it.” But people are too entrenched in their own opinions in wanting to be right to see the forest from the trees.

Click to expand...

What’s the modern understanding of “it”?

Bob_1000 said:

What’s the modern understanding of “it”?

Click to expand...

The modern understanding is the one you have. You think “it” must always be in reference to a gender neutral being or some kind of thing (not a person).

First, see how the Random House Webster's College Dictionary of 1999 defines the use of the words "it" and "itself". The second definition given for "itself" is: "used to represent a PERSON or animal understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context - Who is it? It is John. . . Did you see the baby? Yes, isn't it cute. . . the cat likes to sun itself in the window."

Second, the King James Bible is often its own commentary, the Bible itself give us such an example. Turn to the book of Exodus chapter 2 verses 6-9. Pharaoh had given a commandment to have all the male children slain as soon as they were born. Moses' mother put her baby in an ark of bulrushes and laid him by the river's banks. Pharaoh's daughter saw the ark and sent one of her maids to fetch it.

Here we read: "And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on HIM, (we know the sex of the child; he was a male) and said, This is one of the Hebrew's children." Then in verse 9 we read: "And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her (Moses' mother) Take this child away, and nurse IT for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed IT."

Source used:
https://brandplucked.webs.com/thespirititself.htm

Bob_1000 said:

I never said the KJV saved anyone I said the KJV is the incorruptible seed that FORMS Christ in us.

Click to expand...

That's the Holy Spirit.
I gave you lots of verses which say that we should be filled with the Spirit, walk in the Spirit and that the Spirit is changing us into Jesus' image and likeness, 2 Corinthians 3:18. The Spirit was doing this for believers long before the KJV came on the scene - Paul, Peter and the NT writers were all filled with, and led by, the Spirit.

Bob_1000 said:

I think the disconnect we have is that you believe saved and born again are the same thing and honestly I would be more than willing to accept that view if it could be proven by the Bible

Click to expand...

Of course they're the same.
What are we saved from? The wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23. This means spiritual death, which is separation from God. Adam and Eve DID die on the day that they ate the fruit - the relationship they had with God was broken, they were each given a punishment and kicked out of the Garden. From then onwards, everyone who wanted to approach God had to offer sacrifices - e.g Cain and Abel, Job (who offered sacrifices in case his children had sinned). At Sinai, the Hebrew people were formally given the sacrificial system with details of how to offer each sacrifice and what it was for. And God also made a Covenant with them - a covenant they were, mostly, incapable of keeping.
Then Jesus came. And right from the beginning we are told that he would save people from their sins, Matthew 1:21, John 1:29. This was also foretold in the OT. Jesus was Mary's seed who would bruise the serpent's head, Genesis 3:15 and the suffering servant who would be bruised for our iniquities, Isaiah 53:4-5. Jesus himself said that he had come to offer his life as a sacrifice, Mark 10:45, to lay down his life for the sheep, John 10:11 and that his blood was being poured out for the forgiveness of sins, Matthew 26:28.
The Apostles preached this from the beginning. See Peter's sermon at Pentecost; when he finished and was asked "what shall we do?" he said, "Repent and be baptised .... for the forgiveness of sins", Acts of the Apostles 2:38. Paul taught that Jesus died for us, Romans 5:8, Ephesians 1:7, and that through him we are reconciled to God, Romans 5:11-12, Colossians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:18.
Jesus said also that everyone who believed in him would receive eternal life, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 6:53. The NT writers ay this as well, Romans 6:23, 1 John 5:12.

So if we accept Jesus and that his death was for our sins, we have eternal life. We are made new creations, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15; have been given new birth, 1 Peter 1:3, a new life, Acts of the Apostles 5:20, Romans 6:4, Romans 6:11, Romans 8:5-8. We are told to put off our old selves, Ephesians 4:22-24, Romans 8:12-13 - to which we have died, Romans 6, Galatians 2:20. We are born into a new family - children of God, John 1:12 and heirs with Christ, Romans 8:16-17.

How are all these things, which are a result of salvation, not the same as being born again?