Reasoning from the scriptures - one version only

Thank you for the link. I must have totally missed this thread for some reason or another.

 

Care to explain this little bit of doctrine? </font>[/QUOTE]Phillip, it is usually called Millennial Exclusion these days, altho Dr Bob calls it the Mansfield Heresy and I call it the Gospel of the Kingdom. Christ warned his disciples of missing the literal 1000 year kingdom, but we are still going to be raised up on the last day if we believe on Jesus as our saviour. There are a few threads discussing it or related subjects, such as the judgment seat of Christ.

 

I know what it is called, James, I was just caught off-guard by your scriptural interpretation.

 

Ah, I thought maybe you had missed it somehow

 

So Christ didn't pay for all of your sins?

Sounds like dressed up Catholic doctrine to me- whatever sins you don't take care of in life will have to be paid for in purgatory/hell.

 

Bingo! I have been in the Baptist Church for over 45 years, Been to Baptist Schools, Pastored in Baptist churches for over twenty years and I have never heard anyone in the Baptist Church espouse these doctrines. It does sound like a protestant/evangelical purgatory. It sounds like heresy to me. I will go with the Scripture, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" and "I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go I will come again to receive you unto Myself, that where I am you may be also".

Christians spending any time in hell---rank heresy!!!

Bro Tony

 

I believe that a Christian is saved by faith alone at the great white throne.

Take a look at 1John 5:11-13.


My King James bible consistently testifies to this.

No that is your doctrine.

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.

No you do.

 

God is not the author of confusion...

But the hardline KJVO's are the only ones that are actually confused....

Hmmmm...

 

Sorry for bringing it up, I was just shocked at a Baptist with such doctrine, Yes, will continue to theology. Sounds like a good debate subject to me. Thx Dr. Bob

 

In genesis where satan is tempting adam and eve , satan requotes what God told them His commandment was and instead satan twists the Lords words just a little but enough to make it different .
Satan has always been against Gods words and has always tried to change, twist and destroy . God said he would preserve his word so the devil could never destroy it so he has tried to just change a little bit of what God originally said . The point to all this is [attack on God's Word snipped]. Also, man has used the new translations as a means to make more money . Have you ever wondered why there are so many versions coming out every month almost ?
I am not going to jump out and say any other version other than the kjv is wrong yet , but I am going to say [attack on God's Word snipped].
Check out who are the translators of these new bibles and see if they are born again and claim to be christians , you'd be suprised to know that some of them are just theologians.

[ October 07, 2004, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

They are not confused. They are ignorant in thinking they are doing right. They are much like those who believe the earth is flat today. I wonder how many are part of that ancient group called the flat earth society.

 

And just how many of the Anglican baby sprinklers do you think were REALLY "born again"?

In my opinion the KJV is a good translation; I think God can handle His Word regardless of WHO translates it.

Now, let me make the record straight. There are some bad translations, but the mainstream accepted translations.....nah! (IE NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV).

 

"They are just theologians"...could be said of the KJV, also. On top of that it could be said that they were splinters off of the RCC because of Henry the VIIIth so that he could divorce when the RCC wouldn't allow it. The head of the church of England is the monarch, just as the head of the RCC is the Pope. I don't think they fell far from the tree. So, it does leave in question the purpose of the KJV being printed...to present more of and Anglican viewpoint as stated by the translators in their opening statements in the Anglican Version (AV). Many other accusations leveled at the writers or people involved with the MV's are also leveled at King James. Funny, and this was long before the MV's were even printed.
As far as money goes, the KJV has made more money than any other Bible printed. So, money is a poor excuse for someone to throw out at the MV's.

 

You are right Dr. Bob, did not intend to go in wrong direction on this thread. I will try to stay on topic.

Bro Tony

 

As your other points have been answered already, let me deal with this straw man. When I go to the Christian Book Store, the prices of the KJV and the other versions are similar. I can pay as low as $5. for any version and I can pay over $100. for any and all versions. This argument holds no water. All Bible versions cost money to print and distribute.

Bro Tony

 

It would seem to me that the KJV should cost less because there is no money involved in the translation of the KJV today nor royalities.

 

I did manage to pick up a bunch of paperback KJV's at a dollar store the other day. Hope to hand them out to some new Christians in Ft Worth when we go street witnessing. But it's not just how much you pay for a bible. Granted some bibles are made physically better than others. I don't have a problem with paying for quality. But who is actually profitting from the sale of new bible versions? I don't think any one publisher or copyright holder is drawing royalties from the sale of the KJV. All commercial rights to the NIV text are held by Zondervan, which is ultimately owned by Smut Mogul Rupert Murdoch. Here is some old news:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/murdoch.htm
Every NIV that gets sold in the US puts money into this mans pocket.

You may say, well thats just the price of doing business. If we are going to get the best new translations of God's word into our hands, we might have to buy them from the pope, or Rupert Murdoch, but that doesn't mean the NIV is a bad translation. OK, assume for the moment the NIV is a good translation. It sets a bad precedent. We have declared to the world that we will accept a bible from ANYONE WHO SELLS US ONE. And the world has stepped up to the plate, and served up bible after bible after bible, and we stuff ourselves from the never ending buffet table of translations. Has this really done anything good for Christianity in general? I know it has been good for some people, but I am personaly not seeing a benefit to having 30 different bibles on my shelf. Especially if I am supposed to believe that they all say the same thing, just in different ways. Why do we think we must keep 'updating' the word into 'modern' English? Probably for the same reason we think that we need to wash, rinse and repeat. If the newest translation is the most accurate, up to date, finally sufficient for modern man bible, then I must have it, right?

Here is an interesting article I had not read before, maybe some of us are not aware how much money is made fleecing the flock these days.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_9_34/ai_96644876/pg_1

Do I need another study bible with marginal commentary by Fred Savage? Probably not.

 

James Newman said "All commercial rights to the NIV text are held by Zondervan, which is ultimately owned by Smut Mogul Rupert Murdoch."

Not that it matters one iota on the issue of textual accuracy, but your claim is untrue. I own several NIVs not published nor obtained through Zondervan. You can even buy them directly from International Bible Society, the copyright holder. You can buy new NTs for a little as $0.75 each when bought in bulk.

BTW, Zondervan also sells KJVs. Does that make the KJV wrong to purchase?