Rock of Ages Study Bible

Your reasoning is completely devoid of objectivity. The only way to arrive at the presupposition is to lift context and shoehorn it into this thread.

I'm referring to any organization that is an offshoot of another. Religious organizations were simply an example. A group that splinters from another is a sect.

 

Then you actually would have no problem with KJVO's being a peculiar people according to the command of our Lord and savior!:wavey:

 

Mr. Johnv, if you will go back to the post where Dr. Bob said, “We will focus on other, sound ministries that are not in the kjvonly sect that we so violently oppose. Thankfully, the only sect is a very very small minority and losing ground daily,” you will find he was not talking about a denomination or offshoot of any religious denomination. He was talking about a doctrinal position! Maybe Dr. Bob needs to clarify what he meant.

 

The you admit that anyone who splinters away from the Bible to support conflicting manuscripts as if they are equally the word of God are a sect. That fits the heretical application of the term "sect".

No matter how hard you try to avoid and sidestep this your shoes are nailed to the floor here.:sleep:

Either retract the words that give this mental picture or stay nailed to the floor. That goes for all who make statements regarding brethren who stand on the KJV as being within this pejorative as being classified as "KJVO".:love2:

Amazing how people splinter off into an anything goes group while so many others choose to stand on the KJV.:wavey:

 

He's allowed to have his own opinion about KJVO's, but when he used the term "violently" I pictured him touting an AK47 with handgrenades around his belt in camoflouge. Or maybe with a towel around his head and wearing a backpack!:laugh:

 

There is no such command in scripture.

There's nothing Dr. Bob's statement that equates use of the word "sect" with "heresy".

Manuscripts has not been the topic of discussion so far in this thread.

You're again making stuff up as you go along.

 

I just ordered a copy of the RoA Study Bible, thanks to this thread mentioning it. I had never heard of it before.:wavey:

 

Then why "violently" oppose?

Say what? manuscripts make up the Bible we use. How is it leaning on modernistic reasoning allows you to think like this and deny the fact!

Rock of Ages has every right to stand where they want and to say things like so many have here as if they are wrong to do so is underhanded to say the least.

It is totally amazing just because some one stands on a certain Bible they are so quickly and adamantly ATTACKED for doing so!!!:sleep:


very telling, very telling.

 

http://www.gracegems.org/SERMONS2/peculiar_people.htm

And OH BOY! Whatta GEM!:laugh:

 

There's nothing wrong with a position of violently opposing false doctrine. Single-translation-onlyism is false doctrine.

A discussion on manuscripts has not yet come up on this thread.

I haven't made a single comment about RoA.

Scripture has specific core doctrine. If it's not in scripture, then it's not scripural doctrine. The aforementioned church has added a doctrine that is completely absent in scripture. If it's absent in scripture, it's false doctrine. If a church has a single-translation-only position as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine.

 

Mr. Johnv, if you will go back and check the thread I have personally interjected manuscripts into the discussion on several occasions. No one has objectively responded to them. They simply pick out what they want to "obliterate" to bolster their position and move on.

 

God bless you Amy.G.

 

Johnv, if you haven't made a single comment about Rock of Ages then what are you doing in a thread about Rock of Ages study Bible?

Oh, that's right, you just came in to start trouble.

 

Brother Garvey, when I was a young man (over 50 years ago) I worked on ranches, broke horses, competed in rodeo's and other things that involved tough people. When someone "violently" opposed another it usually involved a "fist in the face" mentality. We did not use guns then to kill people (and still don't) we used them to hunt birds, deer and antelope, even an occasional rabbit. That was the image I had when Dr. Bob said he "violently" opposed the KJVO position. I probably want to avoid any face to face contact with him. Thanks again for your encouragement. I was thinking for a while that I was alone in this matter. God bless you.

 

Just thinking

You know, it occurred to me that if I continue in this thread I can become a "100 post member" of this Forum. I doubt I will ever make it to the 1,000 or 15,000 post membership. I'm just a "junior member" and am happy to stay there.

 

I should have stated that there were no discussions concerning source texts in regards to HG's context. I see you mentioned several source texts, and I stand corrected. But your positions isn't one of being TR only, it's one of being KJV only.

 

Your concession is kind and appreciated. May I indulge a little with you to explain my position since this thread has been directed primarily at me and my position on the KJV. I have not always been a KJVO believer/pastor. As a young man the church I grew up in used only the KJV but there was no reason to take a stand because it was the only one used by discerning pastors although the ERV and the ASV were available. I remember my pastor preaching against the RSV in 1952 and defending the KJV. I went to a Southern Baptist college carrying a King James Bible. It was my first introduction to a person who did not use the KJV. Most of the professors used the RSV. This was a little ironic to me but I accepted it because I held the professors in high esteem. Then I went to seminary and was introduced to textual criticism, the UBS text (I began with the 2nd edition which I still have), and a textual apparatus. My professor of textual criticism was Dr. Harold Hoehner. I was fully indoctrinated into the UBS text and the Westcott/Hort position and accepted it. The text of preference at seminary was the NASB. The NIV was in the process and several of the professors of the seminary were involved in its production. The head of the Hebrew Department was the general editor of the NIV OT translation team. I preached from the NASB most of the time but occasionally used the NIV and the NKJV when it came out. I was occasionally challenged by members who still used the KJV who found that there were sections left out but I explained to them the usual explanation that the NASB was based on the "oldest and best manuscripts." Then a friend, who used the KJV and was a KJVO preacher, showed me some problems with the UBS text (at my request to explain why he held to the position of KJVO). He took me to Acts 16:12 in the UBS 3rd Edition (he never referred me to Peter Ruckman's writings or any other book, in fact he did not use Peter Ruckman's writings) and pointed out that a word the editors chose for insertion had no viable textual support and was used solely by "CJ." I discovered by the glossary that "CJ" stood for "conjecture." In other words there was no textual support for the word other than the opinion of the editors. That to me was total dishonesty based on my training in textual criticism. I inquired as to where I could read about some of this and I was directed to Edward F. Hills books. That began my journey to where I am now. The reason I am KJVO is not because I don't trust the TR. I believe it is the correct Greek Text, but it is not the original Greek text that so many say they believe is "inspired." There is not an "original Greek manuscript" in captivity anywhere on this earth, thus to those people (if they are honest) there is not an inspired Bible on the earth. That means I have to decide where I can find a good, trustworthy copy of God's word. Through my study and examination of the differences in the translations and the fact that I see the Westcott/Hort text (or its derivatives) as less than stellar and based on four "old" manuscripts which basically come from the Roman Catholic Church (at least three of them) I decided that if God promised to preserve His word and I could know what He said then I wanted to use it. My conclusion is that it is in the KJV. You don't have to agree with me. Your study should guide you to make your own conclusions. I believe in the priesthood of the believer. You make your own choices. Just don't call me a heretic because I trust the KJV and not any of the new translations to give me what God has said. There are enough differences between the new translations and the KJV that there must be something missing in them and I for one do not want to miss anything God has said. Check some of my prior posts about this. 2Corinthians 4:4 is one of them. If my Bible says "vessel" and all Greek texts tell me it is "vessel" do not give me a new translation that says it is "wife" (RSV, RVR1960) and expect me to say that is what God said. Now, for what it is worth this is my journey to the position I hold. I have some good friends whom I went to seminary with who do not believe I am an heretic, even though they disagree with me. I find it interesting that on a forum like this there are those who have become judge and jury on what is heresy and correct Bible doctrine. Thank your for you ear. I trust this helps you understand my position. I know it is rather lengthy to explain why I am not a TR only preacher and am a KJVO preacher. Maybe some civility can be interjected into this discussion. God bless you.

 

Bp, your extended 56 line "paragraph" is very hard to read. Why don't you break-down your thoughts a little more clearly?

I got a kick when you said:"There is not an original Greek manuscript in captivity..." LOL. So now as-yet-undiscovered manuscripts are put in the same category as caged animals and human hostages?!

I fail to see how Acts 16:12 as rendered in modern translations was enough to put you in the KJVO camp. It's not exactly full of doctrinal import.

Here's how it reads in the TNIV :

From there we traveled to Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that district of Macedonia. and we stayed there several days.

 

Hello Rippon. I apologize for the length of the post. It had to have continuity and all needed to be included. The matter of Act 16:12 is a matter of "textual criticism." It is not a passage of importance doctrinally. What drove me away from the new translations is that they are based on the UBS text which is edited by a group of men. The intended purpose was to find the "original" based on the manuscript evidence. They were supposed to look at all the manuscripts and weigh the evidence and tell us what the Greek should be. In Acts 16:12 they had a word that they inserted (in the Greek) that was not found in any Greek manuscript and they, by conjecture, decided to insert this word in the Greek text. I had been taught that the UBS text was the closest to the "original autographs" as any that could be found. I know this makes little sense if you do not understand textual criticism. That is the best I can do. I will work on the other post and see what I can do.