Challenge redux - is the KJV doctrinally stronger?

I have to ask you this then....Do these MV's teach the same doctrines for the fundamentals of the faith? Do they lack in teaching them? Are people living Godly Christian lives using these versions, or is everyone who IS living a Christian life using these versions or were saved using the other versions "unsaved" and "unGodly". You say those who use these versions and stand for them seem to have an "unclean" spirit. Is it not also "unclean" to be brainwashed into believing that the Kings English is the "only version" of the Word of God?

Anthony J Lanius

 

No the mv's do not teach the same and it is my belief they are not bibles.
Why call truth drivel? Because you cannot disprove truth thats why.Grow up!
Sticks and stones? Oh that only applies to some of us.As I have posted before the male mv users I know are ALL VERY feminine.The women mv users I know are manly. What's up with that?

 

It is unfortunate that you continually ignore all of my posts which point out imperfections in the 1611 KJV.

 

I believe you have your head buried, friend. You say King James AV 1611 is the "Bible". Are you aware that you are probably using a version from 1769 of the King James???? If you were using one from 1611 it would contain the Apocrypha, which is not considered scripture at all. Would that not then, make your copy of the "Bible" incorrect? I believe the MV's DO teach the same doctrines. I've not had one KJVO show me otherwise. Of course, most KJVO's like to try and base what is in the MV with the underlying texts for the KJV, showing again that they want to plant an apple tree and get oranges. I am KJV preferred, but I can and do often get as much of a blessing from the MV's as I do from my KJV.

Also, if the KJV is the only "preserved" WOG, then why do we have the MV's? Are they not also "preserved"? You're logic is flawed King James.

Anthony J Lanius

P.S.-About the women who use the MV's being more manly and the men who use the MV's being more feminine, that is a bogus attack, fictional from the word go. I know many women who use the KJV that are more manly and men who use the KJV that are more effeminate than I do who use the MV's. Remember, those attacks haven't worked against the KJV, and they're definitely not going to work here against the MV's.

 

Post edited to remove insults.

[ March 05, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]

 

As for ignoring posts that show error in the KJV there are no errors so I treat your comments and ignorance just like I do the DEVILS.

My comments are far from ignorant. They come from quite a bit of study, prayer, and meditation. My comments and concerns about the 1611AV are sincere, Godly, and deserve discussion.

To refresh your memory, please explain why it is appropriate for the KJV translators to alter the doctrine in Daniel 3:25 to imply a reference to Jesus, when that reference is absent from the Hebrew text used by the translators. While it does strengthen messianic doctrine, it does so by adding to the OT, something that we're biblically forbidden from doing. I consider this an error on the part of the KJV translators, albteit possibly unintentional. Please explain, in all sincerity, why you feel it was appropriate for them to alter the OT.

 

Since the point has been made, I am closing this thread before it deteriorates any further.

I really do hate to keep closing threads, but the quality of the debate continually declines with each page. Until we can discuss these issues amicably, I'm afraid they won't last very long.