Do the MV's Violate the Fundamentals/Doctrines of the faith?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by AVL1984, Sep 20, 2004.

  1. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    In a previous thread that has been closed, Michelle posted the following:

    michelle
    2,000 Posts Club
    Member # 7469

    posted September 19, 2004 05:44 PM
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------
    King James Version Onlyism, the cancer of Christianity.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Rather, it is modern versions and the texts that underline them, that have corrupted the word of truth that is the "cancer of Christianity".


    The church has always and continues to believe the scriptures are infallible and inerrant. MV's have been proven they are not, and those that use them do not believe they are. Therefore, it is not following the fundamentals of the faith to believe all modern versions are the infallible scriptures, because they have shown otherwise. It seems, those who would defend them are showing forth their liberalism, and modernism by virtue of what is called "compromise" of truth for error.
    This definately indicates a sickness within the churches that is the real cancer.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posts: 2094 | From: St. Charles, MO | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |


    Michelle, would you please care to show us what doctrines and fundamentals of the faith the MV's do not follow? Please, also show us how the MV's make those who use the "liberal", "compromisers" and other ad hominem attacks that you have made against these brethren. Please, use the MV's to show that you have proof of their not holding to the major doctrines and fundamentals of the faith. Please, show how these brethren have substituted error for truth. We all would be interested in knowing.

    Respectfully yours,

    AVL1984
     
  2. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is not only limited to Michelle, it is to any KJVO who would like to answer. Michelles post was just the one that I came across in the closed thread.

    AVL1984
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I assume you are requesting Biblical and/or historical proof of denying the fundementals of the faith?

    I also assume we are leaving out those versions which make no attempt to be accurate translations?

    I would like to see that proof as well.

    [ September 20, 2004, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  4. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yes, C4K. I would like to see proof of the denials of the faith and fundamentals, and only using accurate MV translations, not the paraphrases. Thank you for that clarification. [​IMG]

    AVL1984
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The problem is here that all we will get will be lists showing how a modern version differs from the KJV. That will be presented as truth, as will "if you understood, you would understand what we are saying."
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    All those who make such lists have several probs. The first one is CIRCULAR REASONING, assuming that THEIR version is the only correct one, and that those which are different are corrupt...WITHOUT THEIR BEING ABLE TO PROVE IT. Next, they forget that many Greek and Hebrew words/phrases have multiple correct English translations, and if the context doesn't indicate the correct one in a given instance, the translator must make an "educated guess", based upon the general context of the whole Bible. Finally, they don't stop to think that some material was "omitted' for a valid reasen...that it isn't in the mss those particular translators had, and they knew it's just as wrong to ADD material as it is to OMIT it.

    In short, their "lists" are based upon mostly GUESSWORK.
     
  8. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    C4K, that is exactly what I want to avoid. I want them to post adequate, truthfully researched proof outside of the KJV, just like I did so many years ago. I'm also wanting to avoid getting the circular reasoning that so many use at times.

    AVL1984
     
  9. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm still waiting for someone (CraigByTheSea?) to show that the lake of fire is not the sea of fire mingled with glass. The KJV plainly shows the difference between Hell and the lake of fire, but since that isn't a fundamental of faith, I suppose it isn't really important anyway. [​IMG]
     
  10. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well, I know it's not a part of this thread, so quit trying to hijack it. If you've got a problem with CBTS, then take it up with him by PM, please.

    AVL1984
     
  11. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    thats not the point. You say the doctrines are the same in all the bibles, but they arent. Thats my point.
     
  12. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    That's exactly the point. You're trying to bring a past problem to this thread. Start your own or prove the doctrines aren't the same.

    AVL1984
     
  13. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would love to see true examples! List examples in full context and do not answer AVL1984's questions with questions.

    Since I do not base my doctrines on one verse or half a verse, I want to see examples posted showing the entire context of the subjects in question.

    *Remember that the KJV has never been the only English bible. It never has been the only one and never will never be the only one. So keep that in mind when you post, well if you post.

    I use a NASB(1995) and I have not found a single doctrine or fundamental missing.
     
  14. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rev 20 KJV
    13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
    14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

    Rev 20 NIV
    13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

    Once again, here is my point. A fundamental of MY belief is that hell and the lake of fire are not the same place. You are warned of hell fire all throughout the bible, NIV included. But here in revelation, all of a sudden we see hades being dumped into the lake of fire. This brings rise to the interpretation that the lake of fire IS hell. Why else would we be running around warning unbelievers that they were going to hell for all eternity if they don't get saved? Hell is not the final resting place of the unbeliever. Now whether this is one of your sacred fundamentals or not is irrelevant. It is a doctrine that is easily proved in the KJV, but is muddled in most every MV. If you think that I am incorrect in stating that hell is not the lake of fire, please show it with scripture.
     
  15. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sure you are not going to like my response to your post. If you will go to the Greek text, yes the one used by the KJV, (Stephens 1550), the Greek word used is hades, not gehenna, which is the word that is translated hell. This true in both vs. 13 & 14 of Revelations 20. The MV's did not get it wrong in this case. Try again.

    Bro Tony
     
  16. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have a problem with Hades being translated Hell, I don't believe there is any difference between gehenna, hades, whatever. I'm talking about the lake of fire. Is Hell and the lake of fire the same place?
     
  17. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point of this thread is whether the MV's change or violate the doctrines of the faith. That you have no problem with the translation of hades as hell or if it is translated hades is besides the point. As far as this thread is concern it does not change any biblical doctrine. If you want to start another thread about is the lake of fire hell, that might be interesting.

    Bro Tony
     
  18. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Sometime study the origins of gehenna and hades. In the NT they are two different words.
     
  19. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    You're right, Bro. As far as I'm concerned, James is trying to hijack the thread again. This has been discussed in several other threads where he has tried to bully people into submitting to his position of Hell. If James wants to discuss the two words, he needs to stop trying to hijack this thread and start his own. :mad: I find this to be a typical KJVO tactic. :rolleyes:

    AVL1984
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that you are trying to say MV's are undermining doctrine for accurately showing the distinction that the originals showed.

    If there were an argument to be made (which there isn't), it would be against the KJV for failing to make the distinction.

    If I understand your post above, you believe that gehenna and hades are the same place (thus accurately translated by one word "hell" in the KJV). But because it gives you a convenient gripe, you have read between the lines of the NIV and assumed that it means hell when it says lake of fire.

    The NIV hasn't "given rise" to the interpretation that hell and the Lake of Fire are the same. You have done so out of desparation to create a problem where none exists.
     

Share This Page

Loading...