Doctrines Changed by Modern Versions

This is a remarkable statement coming from you.

You have made the same charges about MV's leaving out doctrines over and over but have yet to list those doctrines. When you make a charge then fail to substantiate it- wait awhile and make the same charge again- then repeat this pattern... the only thing you prove is that you aren't being honest.

If you are interested in the truth, please list the doctrines missing from MV's. Many of us are perfectly willing to take the time to find the MV verses that support these doctrines.

If you can't or won't list these supposed missing doctrines then your general charge that MV's leave out doctrines is a lie each and every time you say it.

[ February 15, 2003, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

You were refuted soundly and you did disappear from this conversation.

We do not want to use these Bibles you descirbe and indeed we don't. You have yet to show one doctrine that has been compromised. You keep talking a big game but you fail on every occasion to deliver. Instead, you hand us once again the opportunity to show how baseless your arguments are. The truth is clear: Faithful MVs are the word of God.

 

Ahh....I see Steve is making his rounds. You know, if you keep saying the same things over and over, maybe one day they will be true!

Why don't you stop posting your "vain repetitions" and post something of some substance and try to 'discuss' things?

Neal

 

Pioneer said:

If you want to use "Bibles" that delete the doctrine of hell from the Old Testament, that tear down the deity of Christ in the New Testament, and that call Satan the "morning star" (which is blasphemy) then go ahead.

KJV-only Standard Operating Procedure #82: Once soundly refuted, ignore your previous argument and blast the forum with several unrelated ones.

None of the above have anything to do with whether calling Joseph Jesus' "father" denigrates the Virgin Birth . . .

 

neal4christ supposed:

You know, if you keep saying the same things over and over, maybe one day they will be true!

Nope.

 

the bottom line difference between NonKJBOs and KJBOs is that KJBOs believe that there is one standard and one final authority. and that is the KJB. the NonKJBOs believe that THEY and their own personal knowledge and their own personal study of the "originals" is the final authority. when there is something in the Bible they don't like or understand they run to their "originals" (which is a joke) to see how it can be changed or to see if THEY can decide "what God really meant" because God is not smart enough to tell us what He meant. KJBOs believe there has to be a final authority and that this final authority is not MAN, it is God's Words, and those Words are in the KJB. think what you will and argue this point all you will, but that IS the bottom line, and it can be summed up in one word. pride.

and i already know what ransom is going to say in response to this, but no matter, the above is still the truth.

 

Where does your final authority tell you that?? Or are you admitting that this information that establishes your final authority comes from outside your final authority??

This is not true. Our final authority is the word of God and you know it. As soon as you show us where the word of God says what you say, we will all gladly convert.

If the final authority is not man, why do you use a translation made by men?? You are accepting without question that they properly and accurately translated the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Why are you willing to accept what these MEN say?

Either that or ignorance of the truth.

 

The Harvest said:

and i already know what ransom is going to say in response to this

Divination is a sin, you know. Maybe you should spend less time "defending" the King James Bible (as if it needs defense from someone like yourself) and start obeying it.

 

Harvest, There are only two valid sources for proving your statement above true. One is scripture. We have a thread running about 12 pages now in which no KJVO has come up with anything even closely resembling a scriptural proof. God simply did not promise divinely worded translations and no work of man absent God's direct action can produce a perfect product. The KJV is imperfect if for no other reason because God did not directly make it.

Second is factual evidence. We have another thread running that KJVO's have surprisingly avoided for the most part. None the less, the evidence indicates that the wording of the KJV is not the same as the wording of the originals. The evidence is that there were trustworthy translations of the Bible made both before and after the KJV. The evidence says that the KJV translators themselves acknowledged that their work was not perfect.

By your statement above, you have attempted to twist the truth. Those of us who are not KJVO accept God's Word, His message, as our final authority. It is KJVOnlyism that must find its proof completely from the minds of vain men who refuse to change their beliefs to match scriptural and historical facts.