Doctrine verses "Versions"??

As is the cultic MILITANT KJVO doctrine.

 

What's deceitful about a simple question? Don't you believe that scripture is all we need for faith and practice? Why should I beleive something that does not have any scripture to back it up?

 

Plain ol' Ralph said "You must define that "evil" and not presume when it comes to the Word of God, or didn't you know that?"

Oh, I see. So pulling verses out of various versions and using them to point out imperfections in said versions is dependent only on proper interpretation of said verses which can only be provided by YOU? Why should I accept YOUR authority in matters of interpretation?

 

That's his usual tactic, natters. It's thus saith "POR".

 

Jesus spoke of people like those referenced in Ps 78:36 in Mark 7:6-7:

6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7
BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'

You know that, but you still pull phrase out of context and use it to slander others. Isn't there a commandment that says "thou shalt not bear false witness."?

 

You are absolutely right. You must define "evil" in the KJV just as you must define "decieved" in the NASB. One mustn't presume, I've been told.

 

You must define that "evil" and not presume when it comes to the Word of God, or didn't you know that? </font>[/QUOTE]But you did not explain, in context, what the NASB meant. You just pulled out a phrase out of context and used it to blast another translation of God's written Word.

 

We don't define scripture, we interpret it. Apparently your interpretation is all that matters. Why should I accept your interpretation?

 

Your examples are a clear picture of dishonesty. Any one can pull a word or phrase out of context and use it like you did. But, that does not make it right to do so. As I pointed out, Jesus said people like those in Ps 78 draw close to Him with their lips, but their heart is far from Him. They think that they are deceiving God, but they are not.

 

TC: "Where does the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT promise a perfect English translation? And where is it stated that the KJV (which ever edition)is it?"

POR: "They don't, neither do they promise it in any other language EVER, so your premise is not only rooted in deception, but is found to be 'moot'."

Amazing admission from the KJVO side. For once I agree....

As POR stated so eloquently, the whole KJVO position is *not* supported by Scripture, and is therefore a moot point. So why then all the nonsensical discussion promulgated by KJVO advocates trying to justify an indefensible position by claiming some unstated or unclear Scriptural "support" for such a position?

 

I'd still like to know how we came to believe in an inspired 66 book canon. When was this decided, by who, and Is there scriptural support for it?

 

It was not decided but rather recognized based on a set of criteria. One being apostolic authority in the writing.

It was not humanly decided. God decided. Man's role was simply to recognize and accept.

The NT validates the OT in several places.

The best NT proof seems to be indirect.

This coupled with the Peter's citation of Paul's writings as scripture, the internal witnesses, the claims of authority by the title "Apostle", and the authority with which the books were written.

 

POR:You must define that "evil" and not presume when it comes to the Word of God, or didn't you know that?

But it's NOT OK to define "study" in 2 Timothy 2:15?

 

But where in the bible does it say 66 books?

Sorry Bob, didnt see your post, but you know what I'm talking about, dont you.

 

It doesn't. It also doesn't specify the number of prophets. It simply gives principles for evaluating which prophets (or books) qualify as true and which ones don't. The number takes care of itself by virtue of counting the books that meet the criteria.

You seem to be trying to establish that since the Bible doesn't specify 66 books then it is possibly that only the KJV is valid without any scriptural basis.

The problem is that KJVOnlyism has no consistently applicable biblical principle that supports it. It does not follow a discernable thread back to the original words. Recognition of the canon does/did both.

 

Plain ol' Ralph said "Look at the Harmony of Scripture, that best explains the Canon, which BTW, explains BEST why we should not divert and depend on anything other than the KJB for the English rendition"

What??? Explain.