1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Once again...the 1610 English scriptural authority was...?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Aug 22, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 5 of 5
  1. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle,

    Please choose one out of each of the following pairs as being true. Remember you can only choose one since they are differently worded and things that are different cannot be the same:

    [/qb]

    Now only one answer out of each set can be true since they are obviously different. By your very own rule, it doesn't matter if the message is the same.

    BTW, when you answer one or the other, that will mean that the other statement is false.
     
    #81 Scott J, Aug 23, 2004
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    roby:But...He may have taken away what shouldn't have been there to start with. And He's certainly taken away the need for someone to hafta study up on Elizabethan English before he/she can read God's word with understanding.
    --------------------------------------------------Michelle:Now you are making excuses that are contrary to the scriptures, the truth and faith in these.


    No...I'm presenting an alternate scenario to that which you've given...a scenario which actually carries more weight than YOURS.
     
    #82 robycop3, Aug 23, 2004
  3. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle:The changes in a language do not constitute alterations of the truth in the scriptures, as we have seen the mv's are very guilty of. This is just another one of your excuses.

    No, all we've seen is YOUR STATEMENTS accusing the MVs...without one blip of *proof*. You've told so many fishing stories that we simply don't believe you any more. Let's see some PROOF.


    The KJB is not a foreign language, but one STILL UNDERSTOOD and read and believed by the common person today.

    But it's in NOW-ARCHAIC language. God has provided His word in OUR language.


    The "ends justifies the means" (very humanistic thinking) is not a biblical principle to apply to this issue, to which seems to me, you are doing for justification in condoning these errors. How is it that you sleep peacefully at night?

    How do I sleep? Quite well, knowing my future is assured by JESUS CHRIST, and that I'm not stuck in some false, man-made doctrine about God's word.
     
    #83 robycop3, Aug 23, 2004
  4. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    AVL - That people who were "saved" using the RSV or NIV are not truly born again was taught by Dr. Jack Hyles and HAC from 1980 until his recent death. Followers of PSR (Ruckman) and Gail likewise hold this EXTREME position.

    His false teaching was greatly disseminated among his sycophants and cronies and still evidenced today.
    --------------------------------------------------

    I surely hope that you are not indicating that this is being evidenced here on these boards? Because if you are, you are WRONG. I have not witnessed that anyone here EVER SAID, OR IMPLIED what you are suggesting. If anyone is guilty of doing such a thing, it is you, saying that those of us who believe we have God's word perfectly today, to be teaching false doctrine and are heretics. It is YOU who is guilty of questioning OUR SALVATION by those remarks, and false accusations at that. Look in the mirror Dr.Bob.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #84 michelle, Aug 23, 2004
  5. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Patently false. I provided the REAL reasons, as found in several reference books, which didn't have the FIRST HINT that anyone without some denominational axe to grind believed any of them to be corrupt. Of course, there were feeble local attempts to make BVs, same as now, but we're talking about those versions universally recognized in the English-speaking realm. Naturally, the RCC believed ANY English version was corrupt, & the Anglicans believed the "Calvinist" version was corrupt, etc. But no NEUTRAL reader wrote that those older versions were corrupt. Therefore, you're WRONG.
    --------------------------------------------------


    Please read the preface of the 1611.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #85 michelle, Aug 23, 2004
  6. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    The preface does not help your position in the slightest. In fact, it argues against it in many places.
     
    #86 natters, Aug 23, 2004
  7. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    roby:"IN EVERY VALID ENGLISH BV, OLD OR NEW."

    --------------------------------------------------

    Michelle:Please enlighten me, as to how it is that YOU DETERMINE what is VALID, and WHAT IS NOT?

    If they follow their sources closely, and those sources are from the old manuscripts that have been recognized as Scripture for centuries, they're valid. Now, before ya say, "The Alex mss weren't used all that time", lemme remind you they HAVE. As Ziggy pointed out, the JAPANESE have used BVs made from Alex since the 1600s, as have the Egyptian and Syrian Christians. You're simply whistling in the wind again, Michelle.
     
    #87 robycop3, Aug 23, 2004
  8. Cix

    Cix New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michele, which version of the King James Bible is the Final Authority? 1611, 1769 or the one in the 1800's?

    Also, do you believe that everyone who can't read english is going to Hell.
     
    #88 Cix, Aug 23, 2004
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle:The truth, and the ONLY truth are the scriptures to which REVEAL JESUS CHRIST who is the TRUTH, robycop. This is the foundation of the faith for christians. (Mark 12:24, Luke 24:31-32, John 2: 22, 5:37-40, 7:38, 10:34-35, Acts 17:2-3, 11-13, Acts 18:26-28, Romans 15:4-6, Romans 16:25-27, 2 Tim.3, 2 Peter 1:16-21, 3:14-18)


    Where can you find this truth today?

    In every valid BV.
     
    #89 robycop3, Aug 23, 2004
  10. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    So you believe ONLY those things in the AV 1611 that support the Onlyist myth? Seems like it! You believe those parts of the preface that MIGHT lean toward your myth, but you DISbelieve those very same men when they write a footnote explaining the wording of Ps. 12:7. Nothing like a good ole DOUBLE STANDARD to make your day, eh?

    --------------------------------------------------

    Your logic and reasoning in things really amazes me. How is it that you are even able to tie your shoes?

    My point in this was to show you what the translators KNEW (in that present time of history)for the reason of WHY they were doing the translation. It is quite relevent to this discussion. Now you bring up some irrelevent thing to compare it to. I do not hold the KJB translators opinions as the word of God. What I have today, in my Holy Bible are the very words of God. Their opinions in the footnotes, are just that - opinion. As to the discussion, I pointed out to you that the preface of the 1611 shows you the reason for the translation. This was one of the reasons.

    I would appreciate that you stop twisting the conversation to something opposite and irrelevent to what is being discussed to come to an illogical conclusion on an irrelevant matter to the discussion at hand. The mv's are famous for doing this type of thing. I am really tiring of this type of game.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #90 michelle, Aug 23, 2004
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since 99.9% of the threads on the Version Forum go "far off track" after 5 pages, when they hit that number they will be shut down.

    Everyone feel free to start another thread (and watch it be hijacked) on a cognate question or part of this that was left unanswered.

    Thank you.
     
    #91 Dr. Bob, Aug 23, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 5 of 5
Loading...