Question about Sword of the Lord preachers

Do you have a point?

 

I too read this post a few hours ago and fail to see your point. Would you kindly rephrase your topic starter?

 

Growing up, my Dad used to get the Sword of the Lord and I loved reading it until they fell into heresies (KJVO)

What a Shame.

 

Hi, Tim. Which part was heretical? Espousing that they thought the KJV was the best version? Or that you should only use the KJV? Or that the KJV is the *only* english version that's worthwhile?

What exactly about KJVO is heretical?

As for the topic starter (Tracster), I'm sorry, but your post sounds more like an excuse to bash and bring down people, rather than a call to debate/discuss something.

 

I'll start with two of many. The Bible was written in modern language at the time that the people understood and spoke. The KJV of 1611 was but is not now. It is not very well understood my the modern reader.

I'll give you another.

Heb. 13:5, "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

Heb. 13:7, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation ."

"Conversation" is not a correct modern day langauge translation of the Greek word used there.

 

I'll start with two of many. The Bible was written in modern language at the time that the people understood and spoke. The KJV of 1611 was but is not now. It is not very well understood my the modern reader. </font>[/QUOTE]And this is heretical how? Are you talking about those that say the KJV is the ONLY bible anyone should use? Or the only english bible? Or what?

What exactly is the heretical part?

Why not? The actual translation has to do with manner, way, fashion, manner/way of life, character, deportment; all of these most certainly include the present-day meaning of conversation. I can most certainly derive the meaning from the entire verse. And I have separated myself before from an IFB pastor whose "conversation" most assuredly was not Christ-like.

I go back to Tracster's original post: If this thread is meant only to inflame Sword of the Lord readers, then it's a wasteful thread that only divides the body.

Yes, I know some say that the KJVO's are divisive; but does that it make it right for someone to come in and start a thread whose sole purpose appears to be to continue that divisiveness?

 

I have been to the National Sword Conference every year since '96 and look forward to the next year. Asfar as the question, I beleive that they are just trying to get true Bible material into the hands of a lost and dying world. About them being KJV Only, I say PRAISE GOD !!!, do the research and you will find that the new versions use the texts that were changed and were said to be the orginals, WHAT A LIE and still people will believe it.

For the Kids,
Cline

 

Let's not dumb down the scriptures to the low level of modern man.

You can bookmark this site for future reference.

WEBSTER'S 1828 DICTIONARY


CONVERSATION, n.

1. General course of manners; behavior; deportment; especially as it respects morals.

Let your conversation be as becometh the gospel. Philippians 1.

Be ye holy in all manner of conversation. 1 Peter 1.

2. A keeping company; familiar intercourse; intimate fellowship or association; commerce in social life. Knowledge of men and manners is best acquired by conversation with the best company.

3. Intimate and familiar acquaintance; as a conversation with books, or other object.

4. Familiar discourse; general intercourse of sentiments; chat; unrestrained talk; opposed to a formal conference.

 

I'll start with two of many. The Bible was written in modern language at the time that the people understood and spoke. The KJV of 1611 was but is not now. It is not very well understood my the modern reader. </font>[/QUOTE]And this is heretical how? Are you talking about those that say the KJV is the ONLY bible anyone should use? Or the only english bible? Or what?

What exactly is the heretical part?

Why not? The actual translation has to do with manner, way, fashion, manner/way of life, character, deportment; all of these most certainly include the present-day meaning of conversation. I can most certainly derive the meaning from the entire verse. And I have separated myself before from an IFB pastor whose "conversation" most assuredly was not Christ-like.

I go back to Tracster's original post: If this thread is meant only to inflame Sword of the Lord readers, then it's a wasteful thread that only divides the body.

Yes, I know some say that the KJVO's are divisive; but does that it make it right for someone to come in and start a thread whose sole purpose appears to be to continue that divisiveness? </font>[/QUOTE]So I guess when you write something then you usually use the word conversation to mean what you defined. I have never met one person who would typically use the word conversation to mean what you described. I have even been to two different graduate schools in two completely different fields of study. The Webster's Dictionary I have that I bought in 2000 calls that definition archaic.

You originally gave the correct translation of that Greek word that was translated conversation in the KJV. What you described would be much like using the word gay to describe happy. The common usage of gay does not mean happy today. Happy is among the definitions of gay.

It is heretical to mistranslate something. To give the sense of some kind of royal language is wrong as well. The Greek that was used was the common street language of the day not some kind of royal language. That too gives the wrong impression of scripture. The Greek that was used was not four hundred years old so why should a translation use four hundred year old language.

Compare the text of the KJV and others to the Greek text of Mark 1:2. Also take into consideration how a scroll was named during that time period.

 

Another thread lost to the KJV fighters

 

I absolutely LOVE The Sword of the Lord- I pick up my free copy at church every other week. I enjoy pouring over the articles and sermons and notes,and I THANK GOD it's KJV only!!!

 

I'd much rather be interested in modern man reading the Word of God than worried about whether he is intelligent enough to understand it. I would hope that all Christianity would hold the same perspective.

 

I'll start with two of many. The Bible was written in modern language at the time that the people understood and spoke. The KJV of 1611 was but is not now. It is not very well understood my the modern reader.

I'll give you another.

Heb. 13:5, "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

Heb. 13:7, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation ."

"Conversation" is not a correct modern day langauge translation of the Greek word used there. </font>[/QUOTE]1. I am not a KJVO, but a KJV Preferred person, still,;

2. I fail to see how the position of KJVO is heretical as opposed to erroneous or ridiculous. I'd call them funny people, or a misled bunch, but I wouldn't exactly call them heretical.

 

Well, it probably depends on what kind of IFB you are talking about. Frontline magazine is also well known (despite the recent controversy with Dr. Rod Bell), as well as others like Biblical Evangelist and O Timothy. Those that I subscribe to are from a more 'Calvinistic' stance, and are actually found on-line (AISI by Doug Kutilek comes to mind). Sword is probably one of the oldest IFB publications out there, and the most well known.