Major Doctrines affected by Modern English Translations

Cause and effect, Lacy...cause and Effect...Non Sequitar, Lacy, Non-Sequitar

 

Gene, Since I have trouble quoting history off the top of my head, you have brought up some extremely good points. It is ridiculous to think that the version of the Bible is the result of these versions.

Since the 200 years he refers to indicates an "approved version". Then it makes as much sense that there must not have been an "approved version" for the preceding 1500 years or so.

Me thinks that this is not only completely illogical, but it further shows the falicies of the KJVO theory.

 

Come on read your Bible. Maybe you need to learn to read or get a Bible you can understand. Try reading Ecclesiastes. Nothing new under the sun.

Ever looked at how many Dawson Trotman affected? Try looking at him sometime.

 

Gene,

I was referring to my own arguments (MVs and the moral condition of America) as "circumstantial" and "subjective". I never bring up the condition of the world. The condition of the church is proper evidence of the influence of a prophet or Bible. Circumstantial evidence is not bad. However, it is only supportive. The fruit of the 1700s and 1800s is not subjective or circumstantial.

The Bible says we judge a prophet (A carrier of God's Word) by his fruit. you guys are working awfully hard to make this difficult.

lacy

When the sun rises the rooster crows. So when we historically hear millions of crowing roosters, then it most likely means the sun came out.

When the fuel light goes on in our car, we soon run out of gas. So when we see the light come on so bright, we probably need to go back to the gas station. Post haste.

 

That would be a neat trick. What was the "approved version" for the "1500 years" before Moses?

 

Maybe you have an NASB in your back-seat instead of a KJV. That would do it every time.

 

In Hebrews 2:9
braxu ti means for a little while

Any way you look at it Jesus was lower than the angels for a little while because he rose.

Louw and Nida 78.43, "
bracuv ti : a degree of indefinite approximation - `somewhat, about.' hjlavttwsa" aujtoVn bracuv ti par
j ajggevlou" `having caused him to be somewhat less than the angels' #Hebr 2:7 . In #Hebr 2:7 (a quotation from #Psal
8:6 ) the expression bracuv ti as a lexical unit refers to rank. However, #Hebr 2:8-9 suggests that the writer of Hebrews probably interpreted bracuv as meaning a small quantity (see 59.14) 4563 and as referring to time in the
sense of a `little (while).'

 

But here is the problem, Lacy...Your argument is circular as well, because it assumes the truth of the KJVOnly position and argues it using cause and effect. Moreover, it fails to account for the other things going on at that time, including the rise of numerous cults and the rise of classical liberalism.

The revival was not due to the KJV, it was due to God's Spirit at work in the hearts of His people, not the version of the Bible from which the revivalists preached and Christians used most prevalently. By attributing these revivals to the KJV itself and not God, you move the focus to the same thing that Finney did, "The rightly constituted means."

Sorry, your logic is flawed. You are applying a double standard to say on one hand that the revivals, et.al. of the 19th century are attributable to the KJV while the theological decline of that same time and the moral decay and the rise of cults and the hold of classical liberalism that had its roots in the church as well as the world are not attributable to the KJV, where those users of the KJV are involved.

 

However the "approved version" of the Bible existed before 1611 for longer than the KJV 1611 has existed until now by about 1500 years. It was the same inspired version we have today as the standard. By comparison the time the KJV has been around is rather pale by comparison. By 1610 the KJV did not exist and the inspired version did. What a contrast!

 

Lacy,
You still have not answered what the "approved by God Bible" was prior to 1611, specifically around the time of the Vulgate and thereafter.

Also, if the revivals, etc. show the KJV was a God approved version, then obviously there wasn't a God approved version during the dark-ages?

This would be logical based on your action-reaction egg and chicken routine. Please explain these.

 

In 1611 they had the same problems the KJVO's give today. The KJV 1611 was a modern version and many did like the idea of a modern version. They condemned the KJV 1611.

 

That would be a neat trick. What was the "approved version" for the "1500 years" before Moses? </font>[/QUOTE]Now you are getting ridiculous. That was before anything was written. We are talking about 1500 years AFTER the gospels and the rest of the New Testament was completed.

If God promised to keep his word (which he did, and we believe) then name the specific authorized versions for each of those years. Say 500 AD, 600 AD, 900 AD, 1000 AD, etc. etc.

Was it the Vulgate?

You cannot evade the answer by making ridiculous remarks and be taken seriously.

 

Lacy Evans said:

You show me an "outbreak" of holiness and advancement of doctrine in the churches of God on a scale that's anything close to the 1700s and 1800s and I'll eat my size 8 hat.

Welsh Revival, 1904. Start eating.

 

1611-1850 Revivals. Awakenings, Holiness, Revived truths, Eschatology, Fundamentalism, Millions of martyrs. (Absolutely unprecedented in human history, with the possible exception of the 1st century church, who had a perfect Bible in Greek.)


Millions (and millions) of pagans and Anti-christians got salvation, and then got holiness.

1850-present? The closest thing to a revival in the English speaking world is the Charismatic movement. Nuff said. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen!

I'll stay with the old book, the KJV!

 

No joke, it is my understanding the Geneva and even some of the Bishop's crowd really rejected the KJV as a modern version, born of evil men.

 

It ain't that OLD. Why don't you stick with the Geneva or the Bishop's Bible, or maybe a Martin Luther version.

So tell me, which of these are "approved by God"?

 

Since I don't speak Latin, I don't know about Latin Bibles. However, I do speak English and I know that the KJV is the best Bible for the English-speaking people, praise God.

 

Yes, the KJV wins! Since there are differing Greek manuscripts, I will stay with the KJV.

You evidently don't understand about God confirming the truth in your heart about the Word of God, and yes, since we do not have the originals it would be difficult to go back to them. However, we do have the KJV, so I will stick with it, God's Word in English

 

There is nothing wrong with sticking to the KJV if you cannot read Hebrew or Greek; BUT, there is also nothing wrong with sticking to your NASB, because you have yet to prove a doctrine that is not upheld.

You evidently don't understand about God confirming the truth in your heart about the Word of God, and yes, since we do not have the originals it would be difficult to go back to them. However, we do have the KJV, so I will stick with it, God's Word in English </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I understand God confirming truth in your heart about the Word of God, He has confirmed to me that the ESV is the Word of God.

On the other hand, the Islamic follower believes God tells them the Koran is the real deal; enough to kill themselves.

The Mormon, as stated above, is told by God.

We do NOT accept anything told by God that is against or not Biblical. There is NOTHING Biblical about a single translation in the ENGLISH language. You have YET to show the facts. Your internal feelings are just that, internal feelings, millions upon millions of other religions are convinced that their god tells them they are right.

Finally, if you have later day revelation (which God telling you that the KJV is the only word of God) then you need to add it to the Bible, because it IS God's Word. But, the canon is closed and we do not accept later day revelations. So, when you DEMAND that we accept your opinion as coming from God, this is where the problem arises. I can make the same DEMAND regarding my ESV and you cannot dispute it.

So, I don't expect you to believe MY revelation anymore than I believe YOUR revelation. We are NOT prophets, or we would be 100% accurate on everything we say about God's Kingdom.

So, provide facts. Now, if you are KJV preferred, I have NO problem with that. I like my KJV too. But, don't tell me your God told you that my God is wrong, unless you can prove it in HIS Word.