It's the same ole song...(Four Tops)

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Jul 18, 2004.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hmmm...The KJVOs have been parading their myth for over a half-century now, but haven't presented us with one scad of PROOF that would lend any TRUTH to their myth & raise its status from "myth". Seems as if they had anything to present, they'd have done it by now, instead of offering the same ole jive that was shot down the week it first appeared.

    And I simply cannot comprehend how any INTELLIGENT Christians can swallow that stuff. I've found many KJVOs I've talked to in person to be three Fries short of a Happy Meal, but we usually encounter a more intelligent group on these message boards...until they start making excuses for being KJVO and telling us WE should be.

    How an intelligent person can believe a big lie about the very word of God, especially in the light that this lie was started by a known cult official, is beyond me. Maybe it's a "Feel-Good" syndrome...

    Do any of the KJVOs here have anything ORIGINAL with which to try to justify their myth???
     
  2. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    The problem comes when we elevate a translation above the texts that were employed to create the translation. Somewhere along the line the issue became a translational issue when it should have remained a textual issue. The translational issue is shallow and very difficult to defend; the textual issue is supported by undeniable evidence.

    It is my opinion that the switch occured because many were too lazy to study the matter for themselves. I believe that applies to both sides of the argument.

    The bottom line for me is, I am KJVO because of the underlying textual evidence.
     
  3. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    OK roby since this half century has come and gone without either side backing down maybe it's time to try something "new."
    Suppose you and some of "your crowd" attempt actually discussing some scriptual content for a change instead of versions.
    Wouldn't that be fun?
    I've said it before and no doubt will say it again I have listened to this bickering about versions endlessly with all of the facts being thrown about.
    When it comes to actually discussing scripture they are completely unarmed.
    People should be ashamed of themselves to sit here and debate versions day in and day out without knowing what the bible says about a topic.
    I'll give you an example. I have asked here for someone to explain this verse;
    Col. 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
    17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
    Noone to date has.
    That is a N.T. verse saying that the O.T. set-up is going to be re-instated.
    You did of course know there was a difference?
    So what about it roby shall you and I go to another thread and hash out some scripture or are you content to hang around here and thump your version?
     
  4. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Pastor_Bob! Well said.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you be so kind as to
    show us where you find these verses?
    This looks much like the
    THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE (TMB)?

    This is a third request.
    Please show, for each reference of Scripture
    where you got it, like which Version, which
    edition, etc. You have that information
    in front of you when you quote it.
    Most electronic sources not otherwise
    marked are KJV1769. Thank you for your help.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Must be a "not otherwise marked"
    You're welcome.
    I hope you will give roby a chance to explain this before you jump in Ed.
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    OK, I will try.
    It is saying not to let any man judge you in meat or drink or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon (just don't go howlin' at it) or of the sabbath days because these things (of the law) are a shadow of things to come (which BTW has now come, that is the Church), the Body of Christ.

    Now, since the reality is here, forget the shadow.

    HankD
     
  8. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hey nice try but the passage is very plain that the events named are to happen in the future after the church age.
    The law and sacrifices had been done away with at Calvary for the covering of sin but they clearly will be re-instated.
    Think about the abomination of desolation spoken of in Daniel.
    That is the anti-Christ sitting on the throne in the temple claiming to be God.
    The temple being rebuilt will be for the purpose of re-instating the O.T. set-up.

    Since a couple of folks had quick fingers I'll offer robycop another passage to discuss if and when he responds.
    By the way Hank for what it is worth I know that you do dicuss a great deal of scripture and do not just sit here thumping your version.
    I do appreciate the input.
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother HankD -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    The key word is "now" meaning the Church
    Age (AKA: Gentile Age, Age of Grace,
    Age of the Gentile, Age of Church Entry, etc.)

    [​IMG]
     
  10. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The church age was in full swing when the verse was penned. The verses are prophecy and are explained in greater detail in the books of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation. But I think we're on to something here. I just wish that robycop would get in on it.
     
  11. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,427
    Likes Received:
    72
    If you look at the verses from a literary perspective, you see a contrast in verse 17.

    The contrast is between the shadow and the body, as shown by the use of "but."

    Paul shows how the believers have been freed from the law by declaring elements of the law to be a "shadow" in contrast to the "body" which is of Christ.

    I do not see this verse as something that indicates a reinstitution of OT sacrifices. If it were such, the things listed would not be "shadows" of what is to come; they would be the things themselves.

    Now I could this passage as possibly being future-oriented in one sense. Perhaps Paul is speaking of heavenly things as being "things to come."

    At any rate, reading this as prophecy seems to be stretching the limits of exegesis.
     
  12. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    quote;
    At any rate, reading this as prophecy seems to be stretching the limits of exegesis.

    Not if it is read in light of Ezekiel, Daniel, Psalm, Revelation etc..

    Again the verses in question;
    Col. 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
    17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

    The meat,drink,holydays,new moon & sabbath days are the shadow of things to come.
    The verse is written during the church age so it applies to a time after the church age.
    The temple will be rebuilt,The law and sacrifices will be re-instated during trib. and millenium.
     
  13. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,427
    Likes Received:
    72
    psr.2, what is your rebuttal to this argument?
     
  14. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The meat drink etc.. were things of the law ine the O.T.
    They were during the church age stopped.
    They will be re-instated in the trib. and millenium.

    If I have not answered your question what is your question?
     
  15. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,427
    Likes Received:
    72
    Why would Paul call them "shadows" of what is to come when the very same things would be reinstituted?

    I would not understand them to be shadows if that were the case.
     
  16. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    No, those things were only a shadow of that which is to come, that is, the real things that are represented by the shadow. I hope that Roby will have better sense than to waste his time with your gibberish. Roby’s ministry is to make manifest the gibberish of KJOism, not some gibberish about Old Testament sacrifices being restored.
     
  17. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    AH yes another scholar heard from. So have you been elected by robycop to represent him in this challenge?
    I would hardly consider bible discussion gibberish. Your post on the other hand would be classified as gibberish.
     
  18. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    quote;
    Why would Paul call them "shadows" of what is to come when the very same things would be reinstituted?

    I would not understand them to be shadows if that were the case.

    Paul wrote what he was directed to through the leading of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure I understand your difficulty with the passage.

    The reason Paul called them shadows is because they were not being practiced at that time but would be in the future.

    Again the verses in question;
    Col. 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
    17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
     
  19. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,427
    Likes Received:
    72
    I follow what you are saying, but your interpretation is not compelling to me.

    We shall then have to agree to disagree in peace.
     
  20. psr.2

    psr.2
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    It's not my interpretation. It's scripture. Why do so many here want to fight. It is a very plain passage of scripture. There is nothing deep or tricky about it. I think that due to all of the version bickering many just jump from thread to thread with their "dukes up."
     

Share This Page

Loading...