The Ending of Mark and Snake Handling

--------------------------------------------------
It HAS been done. Those scriptures could arbitrarily be applied to any version. Why the KJV? The KJV is not mentioned. What did those scriptures mean before the KJV was available, if they support KJV exclusivity?

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

Could they? Then hold them up to them, and you will find they do not, and that is what we are showing you. God has said, not to add to, or take away from his words. The modern versions have been exposed, by the true words of God that they indeed have done this, as well as altered it in other ways. This should be evidence enouph for you, but you turn a blind eye, and try to excuse it away, lacking any scriptural support for your erroneous, and IMO disobediant belief. You have compromised the truth for error, and then claim you can and have applied the same scriptures. What you are lacking is your belief coming from the scriptures for your belief. Your belief is CONTRARY to the scriptures and to what the modern versions have been exposed of being guilty of, while ignoring those parts in that version to which have ALTERED it, to which do not support it at all. In reality, you say you are led by the Holy Spirit of truth. IT seems that you are greiving the Holy Spirit of truth, because your belief comes from your own opinion, rather than your belief coming from the scriptures by the Holy Spirit of God.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

A good case and point is with the Mormons. I hope Michelle is not trying to tell us that by reading the KJV there will never be differences in doctrine among the KJVO's. Aren't Mormons KJVO?

Michelle, remind me when you never do anything wrong. Then I will believe you have perefect doctrine.

 

Prov. 28:14, "How blessed is the man who fears always, But he who hardens his heart will fall into calamity."

Prov. 29:1, "A man who hardens his neck after much reproof will suddenly be broken beyond remedy.

Some people claim to always be right but the truth will prevail.

 

michelle said "Could they? Then hold them up to them, and you will find they do not"

I did. They do.

michelle said "God has said, not to add to, or take away from his words. "

So why has the KJV done this then?

michelle said "You have compromised the truth for error, and then claim you can and have applied the same scriptures. What you are lacking is your belief coming from the scriptures for your belief."

NO, I have simple arrived at a different interpretation that you have. How do you know you're interpreting those scriptures properly? Do you believe the Holy Spirit has guided you into "ALL TRUTH"? Do you believe you yourself are now perfectly inerrant in all matters of doctrine?

 

--------------------------------------------------
michelle said "Could they? Then hold them up to them, and you will find they do not"

I did. They do.
--------------------------------------------------


They do? Then what do you say about this:

http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html


There are MANY more links I could give you. Please explain to me how these omittions and changes are not alterations? Please explain to me where your belief comes from that God allows this?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is that scripture can be quoted all day long and it may say not to add or take away from it, but that doesn't mean that somebody did NOT add to it in the past.
---------------------------------------------------

If you actually listened to the FACTS in this issue, instead of ignoring them, you would understand that they have NOT.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "They do? Then what do you say about this:"

I say that 1. they have only shown select verses and not shown other verse comparsions that go in the opposite direction, 2. their tables do not show some verions have deleted phrases instead of others adding them, the tables only show textual differences (without evidence of which is textually accurate) and 3. their tables are not taking into account interpretation. How do you know you're interpreting those scriptures properly? Do you believe the Holy Spirit has guided you into "ALL TRUTH"? Do you believe you yourself are now perfectly inerrant in all matters of doctrine?

 

You can't prove it from the Bible (even your
own, unnamed KJB) and have no topical evidence
for it.

During the heyday of the KJVs from 1700-1950
every sect formed like the Christian world
was formed using the wording of the KJVs
and variant wrong personal interpretations.
The Mormons and their allied variant
Churches of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints still use the KJV, the very KJV
that Michelle uses.

The Jehovah's Witnesses (JW)s used
the KJV until they made their own variant
of the KJV to take out more of the
devinity of Jesus.

Unfortuantely you taint all the good MVs
that are not like the NWT, puting the
propaganda of the sect into the Bible.

I say again, there are more variations
in doctrine from individual understandings
of the KJV than from variant readings of
the various Bibles (including MVs).

Praise Iesus, Sonne of God!

 

Don't bother with the links.
We all have our books and charts of supposed
doctrinal changes in the MVs. None of them
have ever held any water. Most of the
major denominational brances of
Protestant Christianity were made in the
heyday of the KJV: 1700-1950.

There are 21,000 posts now in this Forum,
a good number of which show the charts you
quote from KJVOs are in error. The MVs
contain the written word of God, each for
the generation in which they were written
(of English users). Likewise all three
of the different KJVs that i have on my
desk are God's inerrant written word for
generations 400, 300, and 200 years ago.

Now faith - go read about it in Hebrews 11.

Praise Iesus!

 

Amen, Brother Natters -- Preach it!

I had a poll here twice. Never did anybody
vote that any Bible book allows for
inerrancy of the action of the readers - Never -
nary a vote.
(and there seem to even be a few here who
try to taint any poll given )

Praise Iesus!

 

---------------------------------------------------
Don't bother with the links.
We all have our books and charts of supposed
doctrinal changes in the MVs. None of them
have ever held any water. Most of the
major denominational brances of
Protestant Christianity were made in the
heyday of the KJV: 1700-1950.
--------------------------------------------------


This is because you have chosen to IGNORE the evidence and turn a blind eye, and condone those things that should not be condoned, but rather warned of.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

In the link cited above we have:
"Modifications to key verses such as this one and others containing titles of the Lord Jesus Christ denigrate the doctrine of His deity.:

Tee hee. there is no example of this given.
Sure 1 Tim 3:16 says "God" in the KJV and "He"
meaning God in the some other versions.
This is not denigration, but honesty,if the pronoun
is used in the Greek sources.

Daniel 3:25 contains the words of a Pagan,
and they are supposed to be doctinally correct?

As for Phil 2:6, the MVs have a much stronger doctrine
of the deity of the Christ than does the KJV.

A real looser of a link.

BTW, one of my specifics trumps your gernerality.

Praise Iesus!

 

[personal attack deleted]

[ October 18, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

Oh, but they are claer that Mark 1:1 to 16:8 is valid for application today but somehow 16:9-20 was only valid for the apostles. Amazing! Could someone explain that to me. I just don't understand such selective theology.

 

What would be your guess as to the motivation for the "addition"? Was there a theological fad in the 9th century concerning anything in the passage? Perhaps verse 16 as support for baptismal regeneration (which however was already firmly entrenched in the church and didn't need any help) Just genuinely curious.

My view of Mark:16:9-20:
Personally I believe the passage is inspired (the KJV version) and selectively aimed at the apostles and eye/ear witnesses of the earthly ministry and resurrection of Jesus Christ per verse 20:

20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

dovetailed with:

Hebrews 2
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

"was confirmed" past tense, therefore being confirmed, apostolic/ear/eye witness re-confirmation was not necessary for subsequent generations at their passing as their deeds by then had been codified in the completed NT.

HankD