Digging a well.

Let's try again...since you ignored it the first time.

Since there are different KJV's, and they are not exactly the same, then which one is the "whole counsel of God?"

Hope that isn't too much "sarcasim" for you.

 

I'm very familiar with the Romans Road. However, I do not know that he used the Romans Road in leading that young man to the Lord. I don't know what he used.

Please notice one verse in particular that you mentioned. Rom 10:9. Confession must be made with the mouth that Jesus is Lord. Now look at Acts 8:37. In most MV that verse is not included in the main body of the text. He never confesses faith in Jesus in MV. Did he get saved, or did he just get wet?

Are you also implying that for over 200 years, English speaking people did not have the whole counsel of God? Would God withhold His full counsel from man for several generations? What do you do with the promise from God that He would preserve His word for all generations? Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Did Charles Spurgeon not preach the whole counsel of God? What about John Wesley, D.L. Moody, and Billy Sunday? Please show me a revival that has swept any country using a MV Bible. In fact I see a direct correlation with the rise of MV with a decline in morals in our country. MV's are rising, while morals in our country are falling. Even among Christians. (Divorce among Christians is equal to non-Christians, and rising). You may call it coincidence, I call it what it is.

 

You flatter yourself too much. I made no reference to anyone you minister to. Nor did I refer to your ministry. I know nothing of either.

Care to explain exactly what you meant by "the likes of you". Just out of curiosity, do you encourage those you minister to, to refer to Christian brothers as "the likes of you"? Or do you encourage them to refer to those considered enemies by this phrase? Neither would be acceptable to Jesus methinks.

 

And, of course, English-speaking societies were in the toilet in 1610. But in 1611, we got better...right?

To equate MV's with a decline in society is one of the stupidest notions I've read on this board.

What about non-English speaking peoples? When did they crash and burn?

 

Yet you cast judgement on it.

Only those who blaspheme the word of God. I don't doubt your salvation, just your wisdom.

 

I was addressing a post made to me from Ed. Do you have license to speak for him? I still do not see where I made Paul a liar. Your ramblings do not answer the question I asked Ed.

I'm sure your sarcasim must make you an excellant role model.

 

I'm glad you find my "sarcasim" "excellant."

In case you haven't read the memo, this is known as a "forum." We are free to post and interact as we wish. Some members here occasionally discuss and debate issues.

Besides, the "speak for Ed" license is only issued on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but I have a "respond to KJVO free" card I got on Community Chest, so I figured I'd use it. I realize it probably offended you, but my givearip is currently inoperative.

Nice job ignoring my point earlier. Do you only respond to the ones you like?

 

Is it? Then prove me wrong. Give me solid evidence to contradict my theory. Why are churches today more worldly than ever? I contend it is because churches have allowed the world in through weak, worldly translations. Wishy-washy interpretaions of sin. Prove me wrong.

Where, BTW, did Jesus teach us to use sneers and slurs (the likes of you) when referring to anyone? You implied it is okay to talk to those who blaspheme the word of God in this manner. What verse is that in. What teaching is this found in?

 

Is this true? Christian rules don't apply? Sarcasim is taught in the Bible? Thank you rbell. You have helped prove my point. Enough said.

I'm through with you Roger.

 

You're the one who made a silly accusation. The burden of proof is on you. So far, you've done a pretty poor job of it.

I know of a KJVO church in my birthplace whose minister was arrested a few years back on child molestation charges. But I'm not silly enough to blame the KJV for it...it was that man, and his sin. Not a version's fault.

 

Does logic scream when you torture it so? And if you wish to debate the nature of a "Christian" post, then don't refer to the word of God as a lie, and don't belittle the ministry of others.

BTW, it's "sarcasm."

Have a nice day.:wavey:

 

You do realize one can dig within a foot of water and miss the well! There are rules to digging a well, and there are rules to understand what is and what isn't genune scripture. It pays to follow them.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Keith
I will be the first to admit that I do not know everything about the Bible. I find no shame at all in learning from others. Do you claim not to rely and depend on others who may be more knowledgable?

Can you offer a more acceptable explaination than what Lightfoot offered other than it is an error from God? It may be weak, but it is plausible. I still find no fault in the KJV.

 

Although I do not agree with the use of MV, I do respect the right of every person to use the Bible of their choice. It is my deepest desire Christians will set forth an example of Christian living and lead the lost to Christ. No matter what version of translations used.

If I have rubbed anyone the wrong way, please forgive me. I am passionate about my beliefs and convictions.

This will be my last post for several days, as I will be spending Christmas with my family. I wish each and every one of you a very Merry Christmas. And always remember JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON.

Merry Christmas and God bless!!!!!

 

Rbell is hereby granted license to speak on behalf of this Ed.*

* fine print: license is limited to this topic





Which presumptions do you have in your wallet?

 

And to you & yours.

Merry Christmas.

 

rbell, just as anyone else who is a member of the Baptist Board, has every right to jump in at any time on an open debate in an open debate forum he or she is allowed to post in. Neither he nor any other have a license to speak for me, but neither do any require my approval or my blessing to comment on an open post.

BTW, have you considered that one might possibly derive benefit from a "Spell checker"?

And I am currently working on the post about Paul.

Ed

 

We can do like campaigns do...


"I'm rbell, and I approve this message."

 

The reason I said you appeared to be familiar with the term "liar," is because you apparently accused me of lying (post # 24) when I did not respond to a post in the style and manner of which you intended, where I had made a statement the was accurate, factual, and proceeded to merely ask a question (in post #19) after you had made a statement that was inaccurate (post #13). (The Moderators did delete the actual words you used, which I did not see, but gave the reason as "calling someone a liar".) Then you proceeded to accuse me of "using smoke and mirrors to sidestep (your) position," (post #43), after I had given a response to why my statements (post # 19) were accurate, and even announcing that I refused to allow, and was under no obligation to let someone to 'make up, define, and/or change the rules as they go along.' I suggest that is at least tantamount to a second accusation, on your part, of me of being guilty of deception, on my part, apparently because my answer(s) to you was still "not good enough" to fit your own preferences.

I notice that you have employed the word "liar" in 4 posts out of a total of 33, which is about 12% of the time. By contrast, out of the 7500+ posts I have made over a 3 year period, as of Jan. 9, 2009, including this one, one can find the use of the word "liar" anywhere in those posts a grand total of 57 times, a large majority of instances of which are the quote of another, where I am responding back, or the uses of that word in a quoted Scripture passage. I'm fairly sure that I have not used that word in my actual compositions, a dozen times, in those three years, so it is neither a word I use frequently, or throw around lightly. Incidentally, I did not say you (or anyhone else was a "liar", but that you had made Paul to be a liar, by your outrageous statement. I will explain that momentarily.

FTR, I note you did not bother to answer the question I asked, either, which I am going to now repeat, with a slight bit of expansion. In which newer versions did you not find the verse? (Ac. 8:37) Since, and I repeat, you did announce that "Most newer versions omit Acts 8:37." These are your words, and not some someone attempted to put into your mouth.

Since I did personally check each of the 17 versions I mentioned, which did include this verse, whether in the text body or footnote, I am not willing to simply accept your blanket statement, when you do not offer a single example of what you claim. You made the charge; it is up to you to prove it. That is how that works, you know! One cannot "prove a negative," to begin with, which is what you have asked for more than once, including on this thread.

Now as to your request for the specific instance, I referred to. I will do exactly that momentarily, as I now have to close this post, and restart the computer, as it is in the process of locking up.

Ed

 

I did a search. Ed has used the term "Pants on fire" 0 times; thus, it can be concluded that he has missed out on uttering a very silly phrase.

He has, however, uttered "Language cop" a total of 63,294 times. This week.
:saint: