King James

Michelle,

I would never call you a gnostic - you obviously are not one. Gnosticism involved alot more than what was described above.

Yes I do believe that Christians can be deceived. I certainly am not right in ALL my beliefs!

I do not fault you for standing up for your beliefs - they are obviously dear to your heart as they should be. I apologize if I have personally offended you at any time.

I personally believe that we can learn alot through investigation. My appraisal of the KJBO debate is that the arguments advanced in favor of the KJV being the only word of God and the MVs being Satanic in origin do not stand up to factual analysis and are therefore to be rejected. My opinion.

In addition I have a hard time accepting the notion that God showed it to you exterior to the bible. Secret knowledge was something claimed by the gnostics - and something I cannot accept. I'm not saying you claim to have secret knowledge but some of your statements could have been construed that way.

 

That's a fairly serious charge.

If I am not mistaken, the Knights Templar were a shadowy group that believes that Jesus and Mary Magdeline had children together that became the royal families of Europe.

Do you have proof of this charge? If so, were there any effects on the translation itself?

 

Michelle, if your calling is indeed from God, then you will be able to provide scriptural support for your position. As I stated in a post elsewhere, God never calls someone in a direction that is contrary to scripture. For example, He would never call a spouse to commit adultery, so if someone says they were called to do so, that person would need to provide scriptural support for their belief that God called them as such. Lacking such support, it would be reasonable for any of us to tell that person that they were not called by God to commit adultery, but that such a calling was from Satan.

Michelle, if I'm being deceived, I'd be more than happy to be pulled out of my deception. Therefore, kindly show me scriptural support for your assertion that the KJV is the sole authoritative scripture for all of us today.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Which is well and good. The problem I often see with you is that you frequently fail to discern betwen the Word of God and KJVOism. When someone debates KJVOism, you treat that as an attack upon the KJV. Therein lies a problem. I love the KJV, and defend it whenever it's attacked. However, I do not defend single-translation-onlyism of any translation, since it is false and unscriptural doctrine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And if you condone, or compromise with the omittions/additions/alterations that have been done to the words of God, then this is the same as attacking it. Plain and simple. You cannot believe that the error, and the truth are one in the same. There is truth, and then there is error. If you condone the errors, you then attack the truth. Many have been put into a state of blindness due to a false label that has been placed upon the truth, and the people that are sharing that truth. You say you are attacking the label. Quite contrare! You attack not only the people sharing the truth, but the truth itself.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I grow weary of repeating myself, but, Michelle, please show me scriptural support for your assertion that the KJV is the sole authoritative scripture for all of us today. You consistently tell me I'd being deceived. I have no desire to be deceived. So please, provide me with scriptural support, so that I will no longer be deceived.

This has got to be the 10th time in a month that I've asked for such scriptural support. I'm waiting...

 

Let me in the queue John.

 

Michelle wrote:

Michelle, I believe you are my sister in Christ, but you have also IMO been guilty of attacking people. I'm certainly not blameless in this regard either- I've felt that I've been unduly harsh in at least a couple of my dialogues with you- and for that I apologize.

Personally, you've called me "blind"; told me once that I "act stupid and ignorant"; and on more than one occasion have insinuated that I'm spiritually immature. Now, I realize that I still have a long ways to go on the maturity scale- but I've also had awhile to grow in the Lord, and I believe I have done so. Chronologically, I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour some years before you were born (according to your bio).

Just bear in mind that words can be hurtful to people on both sides of the KJVO debate.

 

Johnv! You sound just like my baby son who is caught-up in this Oneness/Apostolic sect here. He's always saying those same words you are saying: "You consistently tell me I'm being deceived. I have no desire to be deceived. So please, provide me with scriptural support, so that I will no longer be deceived." (This is concerning the 'Trinity' as we know it).

Of course we know what the Bible teaches about who Jesus is, but trying to "prove" it to them is a never-ending process. BTW, thank-you for your graciousness towards my sister. And also thanks to those few others who have been kind to her. She is right, you know, and I support her completely. She says it just like I would if I could. I imagine some of God's prophets were obnoxious. Elijah comes to mind.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, if your calling is indeed from God, then you will be able to provide scriptural support for your position. As I stated in a post elsewhere, God never calls someone in a direction that is contrary to scripture. For example, He would never call a spouse to commit adultery, so if someone says they were called to do so, that person would need to provide scriptural support for their belief that God called them as such. Lacking such support, it would be reasonable for any of us to tell that person that they were not called by God to commit adultery, but that such a calling was from Satan.

Michelle, if I'm being deceived, I'd be more than happy to be pulled out of my deception. Therefore, kindly show me scriptural support for your assertion that the KJV is the sole authoritative scripture for all of us today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Scriptural support for the words of God being preserved and known by the faithful has been abundantly given to you. There is not much more I can give you, than I already have. Open up the Holy Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and compare with the mv's of today. Then maybe you will see. I have tried, and many others have tried to show this to you. As far as my calling to share this with you from God, is in line with all of the scriptures, and ecspecially those concerning the saints, and love for one another.
(Romans 11:29-36, Romans 12, 1 Cor. 12, Ephes.4, Hebrews 2, 1 Peter 1, 1 John 3)


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Rest assured, I'm not a oness/apostolic sect member (but I think you know that... heheh). I've been an avid studier of scripture since I came to the Lord over 20 years ago, to the point there I enrolled in a Bible college to as much as I could about scripture, including some koine Greek and Hebrew. I've always been the first person to look for scriptural support when a doctrinal position comes up, and have also at length cited the importance between doctrine and interpretation (topics on headcoverings is a good example).

So, when I say, show me scriptural support, I'm not coming from a position of disbelief. I'm coming from a position of wanting to humbly know what scripture has to say on the issue. On this issue, especially. If Michelle's position can be scripturally supported, then I will side with it, as it would not compromise my relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. However, if there is no scriptural support for it, then I cannot adopt it, since it would require me to add to scripture, and as such, compromise my relationship with Jesus Christ.

Note, though, that a person who uses solely the KJV (or any one translation) for his/her own faith is perfectly acceptible and appropriate. I support and encourage that, and no scriptural support is required. However, to assert that one single-translation must be used by all of God's people as a matter of Christian doctrine, this must indeed have scriptural support for a Christian to accept.

 

At the risk of eing repetitive, kindly post that scriptural support again. I don't think the moderators would mind, and I don't think the other posters would mind, either.

 

Michelle wrote:

No one here that I'm aware of would dispute the preservation of God's Word. What you have never shown to anyone is how/why that preservation is limited solely to the KJV. You have never shown one whit of Scriptural support for that conclusion, and in fact you cannot, because there is none.

Your support for that conclusion has hitherto been merely to fall back on the statements "I believe" or "God has shown me" or the classic "you'd understand if you understood".

I'm asking for proof: Scriptural proof- not simply your stubbornly held opinions. Show me from the KJV where God has said that His Word would be preserved solely in an English-language translation published in 1611.

 

But you see, Johnv, even if it could be shown to you in black'n'white, you prolly wouldn't accept it; broDHK did a superb job of showing the truth about headcovering with scripture, eh?

 

GrannyGumbo wrote:

I think at this point everyone who is waiting for an answer would settle not only for "black'n'white"; but also for any shade of gray in between.

Any shade of answer would beat an invisible/nonexistent answer.

 

How's this?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

 

First things first. I want to see it in black and white. A person can't make a scriptural assertion, and then refuse to show scriptural support for it.

Yes, DHK did a great job on showing scriptural support for his position on the topic of headcovering, and I learned a great deal from the discussion with him. I, too, did a good job showing support for my position as well. In the case of headcoverings, there is indeed some scriptural support for DHK's position. There is also support for my own. But, DHK did not make his assertion, and then say "even if I gave scriptural support, you wouldn't believe me". Rather, he gave me scriptural support and allowed me to examine that support. I disagreed with his interpretation, and explained why. DHK never once accused me of attacking God's word in that topic, nor did he question my faith in scripture. DHK and I agreed that we disagree on the topic, and we respect each other.

As far as the topic in THIS forum, I'm still waiting for scriptural support.

 

How does Hebrews 11:1 support single-translation-onlyism?

Hebrews 1 tells us it is by faith that we must live in order to receive the eternal life that God has promised to those who have been faithful to Him (an important scriptural message indeed). The chapter says nothing about scriptural preservation or translations.

 

It does not John. Neither does the list of Scriptures given by Michelle earlier in this thread. This is not even a matter of interpretaion like the issue of headcoverings, there is not one verse in the Scripture that supports the extra-biblical teachings of onlyism. The wait will continue because you cannot produce what does not exist.

Bro Tony

 

Riiiiiiiiipppppppppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the sound of a Bible verse being used completely out of context.

 

Hebrews 11:1 doesn't address the issue in any form or fashion. It doesn't prove that God has said he would preserve his word in a single English version. Though it does tell us to live by faith, it doesn't direct that faith to believe in a one-version system in any wise.

AVL1984