KJV only debate

[jukesk9]

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight14
The Apocrypha are Apocryphal, hence the name.

Well, I learned something new today. I'm not a true Christian. Nice link...

 

[jukesk9]

Those are incidents in books of the Bible. The so-called book of Judith is ALL about the brave acts of this woman Judith, who seduces a man with the intent to kill him as revenge. But God says that it is up to him to exact revenge and that fornication is evil, so how can it be that Judith is honorable for doing the things that God hates?

God also says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery," however, several instances in the Old Testament AFTER Moses was given The Law has many men of God having multiple wives. Gideon had 70 something children from his many wives...oh and God blessed Gideon.

 

[Dikaioo]

Well, I learned something new today. I'm not a true Christian. Nice link...

I wonder what the Hussites would say?

 

[ZiSunka]

God also says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery," however, several instances in the Old Testament AFTER Moses was given The Law has many men of God having multiple wives. Gideon had 70 something children from his many wives...oh and God blessed Gideon.

Having multiple wives is NOT adultery. It's called marriage. Nothing I've seen in the Bible condemns or forbids having multiple wives.

 

[ZiSunka]

My officials? Your officials? Outside origin? New Testament with middle testament?? Added in? What are you talking about?

You, as a catholic, have different church officials than we do as non-catholics.

The words "apocrypha" and "deuterocanonical" mean "of doubtful origin" and "of outside origin," respectively.

The apocrypha are sometimes called "the middle testament" by para-Christian churches.

The apocrypha were not part of the earliest versions of the Bible, dating from as early as 100 AD.

What about those things is confusing you so much??

 

[Unnamed Servant]

Having multiple wives is NOT adultery. It's called marriage. Nothing I've seen in the Bible condemns or forbids having multiple wives.

What about Titus 1? (I think I know what you will say )

Love-In-Christ,

Unnamed Servant

 

[ZiSunka]

Titus 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders in every town: 6 someone who is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of wildness or rebellion. 7 For an overseer, as God's manager, must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding to the faithful message as taught, so that he will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it.

That part? Come on, you know that is about men who want to be elders. It can't get anymore specific than that.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The words "apocrypha" and "deuterocanonical" mean "of doubtful origin" and "of outside origin," respectively.

Close but not quite.

Actually apocrypha comes from the greek word for "hidden", but is commonly used to refer to any book that is not considered canonical. So the Deuterocanonicals are not apocryphal to Catholics because they do consider them part of the biblical canon.

Deuterocanonical comes from the greek for "second Canon", just as Deuteronomy comes from the greek for "second Law".

 

[ZiSunka]

Close but not quite.

Actually apocrypha comes from the greek word for "hidden", but is commonly used to refer to any book that is not considered canonical. So the Deuterocanonicals are not apocryphal to Catholics because they do consider them part of the biblical canon.

Deuterocanonical comes from the greek for "second Canon", just as Deuteronomy comes from the greek for "second Law".

According to the catholic dictionary, anyway.

 

[Lynn73]

Quote:

Originally Posted by: TwinCrier

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight14
The Apocrypha are Apocryphal, hence the name

Looks like an excellent site, Twin Crier, though I only had time to skim it. It's a long read. Thanks!

 

[Gold Dragon]

The apocrypha were not part of the earliest versions of the Bible, dating from as early as 100 AD.

I'm curious which versions you are referring to.

The bible that the early Christian Fathers used around 100AD which was only the OT was called the Septuagint and included the Deuterocanonicals. The NT was still being writen, copied and circulated around the church.

The earliest surviving Christian Bibles (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus dating to the 4th century) do include the deuterocanonicals.

I'm not saying that all Christians during those times considered the books to be inspired, but it is difficult to argue that the bibles that were in use in early Christian times excluded the deuterocanonicals.

 

[RED that's ME]

MOD HAT ON

Just a reminder of the rules.....


2) Baptist/Anabaptist, as well as all members of the Congregational Forums can post fellowship threads here. Only Baptist/Anabaptist members are allowed to debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations (including the Catholic church), as long as they are within our rules.

3) Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptist/Anabaptist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here.



http://www.christianforums.com/t672766

MOD HAT OFF

 

[jukesk9]

Having multiple wives is NOT adultery. It's called marriage. Nothing I've seen in the Bible condemns or forbids having multiple wives.

I guess then I have misunderstood the Bible completely. Christ approved of polygamy?

 

[Dikaioo]

I guess then I have misunderstood the Bible completely. Christ approved of polygamy?

No. It was a pagan practice some of the patriarchs picked up. As in the words of Christ, in the beginning it was not so.

 

[cygnusx1]

Quote:

The "KJV only" controversy is probably the most important issue-facing fundamentalism at this hour. The issues are complex, but perhaps the simplest way to define the problem is as follows. There are three main groups in fundamentalism: (1) those who hold that the modern translations based on the texts of Westcott and Hort, are more reliable than the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, upon which the King James is based; (2) those who hold that the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, and therefore the King James translation, are the most reliable; (3) those who hold that the King James Version was given by inspiration of God. The third of these possibilities has come to be known as "Ruckmanism," because its chief proponent is Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, a well-known Bible teacher who holds and vigorously defends this view.

http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Book...kamnHymers2.htm




How can we hold to inerrancy and verbal inspiration and then let ourselves open to "confused translations" ?

 

[Dikaioo]

Inerrancy and verbal inspiration was when God gave the scriptures. It's not something you can accurately apply to a translation. The honest person that studies the issue isn't really "confused" on the subject. What causes the confusion are those who claim the NASB is of demonic influence and then takes a verse or quote out of context (a.k.a.-Riplinger for example).

 

[Blazin4Christ]

there is no point in going into a debate like this, you cannot find the answer to a debate like this through simplicity, you need to read and understand the Greek and Hebrew texts, and read the foundations for the Bible to understand which is the best, I personally believe the KJV is the best, but I personally think that it is pointless to debate since everyone is basically going to be practically yelling at the versions, not the foundation, If you want answers it is best to read the greek of the KJV and other versions to know what is best

 

[cygnusx1]

My problem is obvious ....what is the point of believing in the infallibility of God's word in it's original autographs (the letters of Paul etc) if we no longer have an infallable Bible...........

 

[@@Paul@@]

My problem is obvious ....what is the point of believing in the infallibility of God's word in it's original autographs (the letters of Paul etc) if we no longer have an infallable Bible...........

exacty.... the preservation of the Word was just as much of a miracle as the inspiration of the Word...

Psa 12:6-7
(6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
(7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

Why would He stop at the "original autographs"?

 

[Picture.Of.Obedience]

i read KJV mostly. i understand it better, but when i dont get something in KJV i look in the NIV and it seems to "dumb it down" for me.