Inerrancy?

Well, you can say that till the cows come home, that doesn't make it the truth.

Amy has demonstrated by her own experience that the NIV misled her to believe it was a sin to be angry for any reason. And the answer you gave above is silly, I guess if a person wanted to be a nit-picker they could argue that it is only a sin to be angry at your brother, but it is not a sin to be angry at your sister or your parents. Or if you want to interpret "brother" to mean a fellow Christian, then it is a sin to be angry at a Christian brother, but it is quite alright to be angry at non-Christians.

Nonsense.

Words matter. When Jesus said those who are angry at their brother "without cause" are in danger of judgment, he meant just that. It is a sin to be angry at someone without a just cause, but it is not a sin to be angry at someone for a just reason.

If being angry for any reason is a sin, then Jesus would have been a sinner when he overturned the moneychanger's tables and beat them with a whip.

And this is what bothered Amy, she saw an inconsistency. She believed that Jesus taught it was a sin to be angry at your brother for any reason, and then read that Jesus was very angry when he chased these moneychangers out of the temple. This made Jesus seem to be both a sinner and a hypocrite.

 

That's ridiculous, the KJVOs claim the KJV is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God, so how could they be denying it?

You guys need to come up with better arguments, you know, arguments that make sense.

 

You can't even agree which KJV.

If you do believe this about the KJV, you believe something the KJV did not claim for itself, and you deny the Word of God existed prior to that or since then. This is sheer denial of the Word of God, blasphemous treachery that I shudder at.

But I don't think KJVOs do. I've yet to meet one who actually holds to the Biblical truth about the Word of God, instead yielding to the compromising whims of itching ears. You like arguments that make sense. I like ideas that are from the Word of God. And that's our big difference.

Enjoy!

 

I am quite aware that the men who translated the KJV did not claim it to be inerrant. I depend on God in that matter, he promised to preserve his word and said it would be pure (without corruption).

The word of God did exist before the KJV, it existed in the documents the KJV was translated from. There were many men who were expert in these languages to teach the people.

But even these documents were copies, so no matter if you hold to the TR or the texts of Wescott and Hort you must still believe in preservation if you believe the scriptures inerrant.

But the false argument you MVs keep making is that all these versions are the same. That is utterly absurd and can easily be proven wrong.

I will ask any of you MVs the same question. If the KJV is not the inerrant word of God, then which version is? You need to give me the name of one specific version, because the MVs are very different from each other.

Well, which version is the inerrant word of God?