I Peter 2:2

Don't know if the niv reading is genuine, but the KJB is.

If that's the way the niv reads, then I will be justifed in clinging to the KJB because the niv rendering leaves "spiritual milk" open to any form of spirituality and spiritisms.

I'll take your word for the rest.

 

Seems the growing part is inevitably unmistakable, but what about the "pure spiritual milk" and the "sincere milk of the word" ? Seems the AV 1611 KJB is emphatically clear, when the niv is too vague to used for doctrine.

Spiritual milk could come from an endless variety of sources, even demonology and satanic worship, but the KJB is right on target with the "word" being the source of spiritual growth; God's Word.

"Pastor Bob", you're my kinda guy.

 

Well, that would be "spiritual", but it wouldn't be "milk".

 

O.K. uh, tell that to the 6th grader.

 

I don't know - shouldn't we add "...of God" to make it even clearer?

 

NASB retains the phrase "of the Word"

 

Quickening Spirit:"If that's the way the niv reads, then I will be justifed in clinging to the KJB because the niv rendering leaves "spiritual milk" open to any form of spirituality and spiritisms."

Any excuse will serve a KJVO committed to the lost "cause". Was there any other kinds of spirits mentioned in the context? If not, you hafta use your imagination & ADD to God's word to insert one. Would the Christian do that? No. But a worker of iniquity can take ANY verse from ANY BV & use it for an evil end. Their daddy aint exactly stupid when it comes to manufacturing evil.

 

Seems anyone taking the verse at face value would have to use their imagination to belive the niv to be God's Word. The KJB is emphatically clear, so why do you cringe at the mere mention of it?

"Pastor Bob" present the discussion with the objective vioew in mind, you are trying to turn this into a KJVO labeling scam.

I gave you why I stay with the KJB simply because of face value, the simple words,"sincere milk of the word" tells exactly the meaning with absolutely no error or presumption, the niv simply does NOT.

Ere, since it's the "word" that causes growth, which do you consider more important, the growth, or the word which incites and provides the means of growth? What is the main topic of the verse? What is the root cause of the action? Who is it that receives that action and what is the result? Those are all answered, but the essence is the emphasis to produce the intended result.

Oh, well, here we go again with all the spouting off I presume.

 

seems the scribe is either denying the evidence or is not capable of perforing his "duty", Your Honour, may we find a competaent scribe for the prosecuting attorney?

 

Quick. Spirit, Prove the KJV's reading is genuine.
And don't say "it is because it's the KJB."
That's avoiding the Question.
Oh, And BTW saying that "it is" because The Spirit tells you is Charismatic.
Give us a good ol' fundamental Baptist answer, that can only be found in the Bible.
because that's what fundamental Baptists base their doctrines on.

To prove it is you would have to have the originals. DO you?

Then you can't back up your statement.
You cannot prove the verse or phrase in question is genuine in the KJV.

 

To me It really says the same thing except it says it in a different way. No loss of Doctrine.

If you leave the phrase, "up in your salvation" out, like the KJV does, it is still understandable. When a Christian grows, we grow up in our Salvation, as opposed to growing physically.

So all in all the KJV is still an excellant version even though it leaves some things out!!!!

 

No, sir, you did not waste your time. I believe you may have only dealt with that part of the verse, and quite well at that, I commend you, but the reading of the two verses was what appears in the initial post and that is what I commented on, then gave reason. I'm the one who should be sorry for inviting myself into the discussion.

 

O.K., we all agree the growth is in salvation, nothing else is suggested,in fact it is clear, but what about the niv's use of "babies" when the KJB uses "babes"?

Seems more the Greek word "brephos" indicates the infantile condition of the believer and not a literal "baby" in human form. When I think of a baby, I think of one that is at best just able to crawl, this would fit, but then an infant can walk, so the toddler can be meant as a "babe" but not a baby.

"Babes", not "babies".

 

Not to mention that when I was single I thought of girls as babes.

Surely the KJV isn't just limiting itself to newborn girls.

There is no difference between babes and babies.
That's just grasping for straws.

 

No, tiny, I looked the word up and didn't apply a modern term known as slang to the Bible for meaning of the word "babes"

 

I wasn't serious, I was being sarcastic.
sorry.