Reasoning from the scriptures - one version only

C4K...maybe it's just two different VERSIONS of the same language...LOL Sorry...couldn't resist!

 

I find that statement very amusing, given the fact that I have repeatedly asked KJVOers to provide scripture to support a doctrine of single-translation-onlyism. Not one person has to date given me scriptural support, despite my numerous requests.

 

You don't, he is twisting your answers around. You did not say what he is claiming you said. That's obvious. But, sadly it is often the only argument they have when there is no scriptural truth. In their opinion, ya gotta go with THEIR burning bossom. ...later day revelation, in my opinion.

 

How does this affect anything, C4K...or could you interpret it for us???

 

Except that this isn't another thing. It's the same thing.

I'm showing you that you are mistaken in your very definition of "being of one mind", and I'm giving scriptural evidence of that.

When you don't respond, it begins to look like you can't without admitting that you are wrong.

 

Russell, I don't think those verses prove the KJV is the only bible, I don't think thats ever what I said. I asked how we could be of one mind if we didn't agree what the word said. Instead of showing me from scripture that the actual words are not important, I was ridiculed. That really is the whole of the MV argument in a nutshell.

I believe the words are important. I go to a church that believes the KJV is the word of God. We are in agreement on many things, not the least of which is eternal security. Why do I have to pretend that CraigByTheSea and myself are of one mind when clearly we do not agree. We may agree on many things, but I believe the things we disagree on may be more important than the things we agree on. The reason we cannot agree is because of words. What did God say, what didn't God say. What does it mean is simple, if you can pin down what does it say.

If you don't believe that I can show a lost sinner how to be saved, then we are not of one mind. I say he just has to believe, you say he has to 'continue' in his faith by working. What did God say? Well, he left a bunch of puzzle pieces and we are told:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

or did He say

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

I believe that I have a word of truth that must be rightly divided. Someone else may believe they are correctly handling the word of truth by administering their philosophy of textural criticism to many manuscripts. I don't know what MV proponents believe, because I'm sure their beliefs are as widely variant as they say KJVO beliefs are. But I'm pretty sure they don't get those beliefs from scripture.

I believe that a Christian is saved by faith alone at the great white throne. My King James bible consistently testifies to this. I believe the bible says that Christians will be judged for their works and will be in danger of missing the millennial kingdom if they do not obey their Lord. My King James bible consistently testifies to this. You look at me and say 'poor fool, he thinks God really told him to keep his commandments or suffer loss. If he only knew what God really said.' Keep it to yourself. If God wanted me to know something outside of the KJV, He would have put it in the KJV.

This is not directed to you, russell, I don't know you from Adam, and I don't know what you believe. But I never intended to show anything from those scriptures other than what is above. I don't have the smoking gun that C4K wants me to produce. Thats why this argument never dies. It really comes down to my faith vs his 'reasoning'. I just wanted to show that his reasoning

Mark 8:16
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.

was not the same as Paul's reasoning

Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

and that the type of reasoning that Paul used would be hardly possible if he had to first convince the Jews that each scripture was actually what God really said to begin with. That would be supportive of one authoritative version in my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

 

Me, too, brother! I'm befuddled about many of James' points of view and doctrines. They are really "out of here"! I mean, Mars, brother....MARS!

 

James says:

" I don't know what MV proponents believe, because I'm sure their beliefs are as widely variant as they say KJVO beliefs are. But I'm pretty sure they don't get those beliefs from scripture."

Could you back that up with proof, please? Sources???

 

I think we saw 24 different theories of textural criticism in the parent thread.

 

Well, then, where is it James. I'm not just going to take your word for it. What are these 24 different theories? Link please?

 

I'm not befuddled at all. This is quite succinct, James. Bravo!

lacy

 

Do a little studying and understand the context of that verse you tried to partially quote.

Unity is not conformity. In fact God blew people like you away when he created a lot of diversity by giving diferent gifts.

 

Actually, the "whole of the MV argument" is not ridicule: The KJVO crowd accepts contradicting them as "ridicule". In other words, if you don't believe what THEY believe, you are ridiculing them. Your statement is not fair. It is the KJVO crowd that comes back with ridicule when they cannot find logic for their arguments.

Being of one mind must include a broader spectrum than you are trying to make it. For instance, I can believe in the gap theory and you may not, but that is not going to keep me or you out of heaven. I can believe in post-trib or pre-trib and we could argue all night. That is NOT going to keep us out of heaven.

Only refusing to accept the gift of Jesus Christ is going to keep us out of heaven.

Now, in this light, again the KJVO crowd try to make it look as if the MV crowd hates the KJV, NOT TRUE.

Secondly, the gospel that I just mentioned above that will get us into heaven is plainly spelled out in the NASB, NIV and other translations (VERY CLEARLY).

The bottom line is that you appear to be attempting to seperate Christians into KJVO Christians (the good ones) and non-KJVO, which you obviously believe are so off-base that I am beginning to wonder if you are questioning their salvation. I am NOT accusing you of this, but it seems as if, according to you, we are not of one accord, then there must be a major division which is so massive that somebody is appearing to miss the boat. Am I wrong?

Let me be blunt, do you believe that non-KJVO people are possibly not saved due to the source of their gospel? If you do not believe this, then what is wrong with the MV? Let's get this out on the table. Your turn.......

 

My beliefs come from the scripture. The only things I hold dogmatically are those things said by God in the Bible.

The Bible says that the scripture was given by inspiration. I believe it was given by inspiration.

However I will not go past what scripture has said and create my own dogma. The Bible did not say that copies and translations would be given by inspiration therefore I will not believe they were without a sound fact based reason.

Copies and translations are the result of divine providence, not divine inspiration. The outcome meets God's intended purpose of preservation. The details of how it was accomplished testify of God's ability to work through the fallible and even sinful efforts of men.

I do not believe that one thing God intended for Christians to know when the originals were penned is missing from any of the faithful versions available to us today.

I guess I missed that part of your "hell" thread.

I believe I am saved right now. My KJV of the Bible consistently testifies of this.

You don't think you are?

 

Scott, I am so OSAS I believe I could gut you like a fish and still be raised up on the last day. Now I wouldn't do such a thing, because surely I would have to answer for something like that at the judgment seat of Christ. I might have to spend 1000 years in hell even.

 

Care to explain this little bit of doctrine?

 

Ok, 24 was a nice round number, meant to convey completeness. And it was the parent of the parent, scribal error on my part.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1909/9.html#000129