Inspired Text

Oh my HomeBound, you should take your own advice because the Bible you claim to be THE Bible doesn't say "test the spirits" but "try the spirits"

KJV 1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

So I guess the NASB is the REAL Bible or have you been sneaking in some NASB reading time?

NASB 1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

So which is correct HomeBound?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Oh my is right. This place is rubbing off on me.

But, the King James Bible is right, "try" the spirits.

 

They know what the truth is, but misuses it.

The lie is believing that you need another Bible beside the King James Bible. Are you still searching for God's word? Do you accept a new bible when it comes out on the street?

 

Homebound:1 Cor. 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. This I believe to be the King James Bible.

Please read the verse in context, to see it's referring to Jesus Himself. The KJV is not perfect.

Since I believe the King James Bible is God's perfect word, all others that don't agree with it are wrong.

A belief not supported by any evidence.


For me, this is true. And I do allow you the liberty. You can believe whatever you want. If you notice, I said, "I believe." I do not have enough knowledge to argue/debate about the Greek, Hebrew, etc, etc.,[/i]

But it IS important. The KJV, as well as every other valid Bible translation, is made from mss written in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek. There are no original Scriptures in English.


I just have my faith in God's word. To me, it is simple. The King James Bible gives us all we need, therefore, there was/is no need of additions/improvements.

The Geneva Bible gave the British, including a group that came to North America, all THEY needed. What theological reasons necessitated the making of a new English Bible in 1604, only 44 years since an update had been made?


The way I see the modern versions is this: Satan's first attack on man kind was twisting God's word in Genesis and look what happen.

Please read Genesis closely. Satan was NOT actually twisting God's words adding to them, or subtracting from them, as they were fresh in Eve's mind. What he did was question their veracity. He said, in effect," So God said that if ya eat of that tree, you'll die,eh? Know why He said that? because He knows that if you DO eat, you'll be as smart as He is, so He's told you a little tale to scare ya. I say, you WON'T die. Look at me-aint I a pretty thing? Wouldja like ta be as smart as God or me? Go ahead & eat; I say ya WON'T die!"

Kinda like the tales of the KJVOs: "If ya use any other BV, you're just some kinda christianette. God gave us the KJV & then closed the door on any updates being made. Sure, the English is old, but it's a special 'Church English'.


Today I believe the same thing is going on with all the so-called bibles.

Proof, please?


Yes, I believe a person can be saved by reading the Gospel in the modern versions. You cannot get people to believe a lie unless a little truth is mixed in. Again, this is what I believe.

So any version not the KJV is a lie? Once again, PROOF, PLEASE? Just saying, "It aint the KJV" won't cut it.


One more thing, the churches that have more world in them than them in the world, see what bible their using.

Seems as if ole Vernon Wayne Howell, AKA David Koresh, was using only the KJV. Same for Jungle Jimmy Jones, and quite a few others of that same ilk. Need I go on?

 

No they don't HomeBound and you know better. You are rationalizing your flawed logic.

Nevertheless, you have evaded the issue that (according to the implication of your logic) the KJV is to blame for the modern cults.

What about the "lie" that the King James Bible is the Only Bible?

No.

That depends on whether it is faithful to the original language texts of the Bible.

You see your choice of "test" the spirits rather than "try" the spirits is a normal reaction to the archaisms of KJV.

The problem being that in the passage of time the KJV is becoming more and more culturally distanced from the 21st century soul. For this very reason the KJV itself was translated from the original language texts.

Other English versions were present but most of them were translated from the Vulgate (as are a few passages from the AV) as well as using out-dated English (at the time).

Some denounced the KJV (AV) as being unecessary and a bad piece of work influenced by the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Ask your "bishop" if you don't believe me.
Oh yes, Among these were the Puritans and the ana-Baptists.

The KJV itself has "evolved" to the high degree of refinement we see today after centuries of corrections and enhancements. You see the AV translators themselves (and those who followed) did not take the KJVO advice seriously but were "Bible-correcters".

Many of us see the point of diminishing returns as having happened in terms of the English language and the necessity of a modernized English Bible based upon the original language texts (as did John Burgon in 1880).

But, have the KJV, love it, read it, memorize it as I do. Just give your brother (as you say you do) the same soul liberty without dropping an insult or an innuendo behind as you walk away and you will do well.

HankD

 

I did not say ever modernist was not as "conservative nor fundamental." I'm sure there are some out there, I just have not meet one.

I did not say anyone, I said Johnv. BTW, I do not speak for every KJBO. I speak for myself only. Also, I'm not speaking ill toward anyone, if you believe in a particular version other than the King James Bible, that's fine, but when you say that a portion of the Bible is not factual, then I have doubts of that person believeing in any version of the Bible. Basically, you either believe the entire Bible or you don't. If you don't believe a particular part to be true, you are not a bible believer.

 

If it is speaking about Jesus then those things listed would have been done away with, but we know that those things were here way after Jesus came and left.

True, as well as there is no "original" scriptures in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek.

I don't know. I have not researched this.

I don't believe they were fresh in Eve's mind. Satan came to here and said, "Yea, hath God said," casting doubt on God's word, then when Eve starting listening to Satan (which you should not do), she then added to God's word by saying, "neither shall ye touch it," which God did not say. So you see, Satan first came to whoever and said, "Yea, hath God said." Then that person began to listen to Satan and added their words.

Question, why must there be updates?

Again, this is what I believe.

 

Since the originals are no longer around, how do you prove it?

No, it's simply a misquote by me.

No, the problem is the 21st century soul is becoming more and more distanced from God's word.

If I have insulted you in any way, I am sorry, please accept my apology. Bascially, if you believe that you are saved by the blood that Jesus shed on the cross of Calvary, that Jesus paid your sin debt, then you are my brother in Christ. These other issues we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

Poor souls in 1611, they had the Apocrypha (which although The Church of England said was non-canonical), agreed with "Saint" Jerome that it was good for the "practice of life" (e.g Prayers for the dead) to believe as well as the Church of Rome calendar of Saints (including Mary's Day) along with marginal notes of alternative and/or obscure readings and cross-references to the Apocrypha, the font of error of the Church of Rome.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to use the phrase "God forbid" found in several places in the KJV but not found in any corresponding Greek text, Traditional, Byzantine, Critical or otherwise?

Do you believe this particular part of the KJV Bible to be true and inspired?

Your major problem HomeBound is that you are ascribing characteristics to a translation which are only valid for the original language texts.

Another flaw in your logic seems that you are saying that those who use MVs don't believe the entire Bible. To question the validity of a choice of words in translation (as did the KJV translators) is not the same as unbelief. To chose one variant over another from Greek texts which disagree (as did the KJV translators) is not disbelief.

You have chosen the Church of England (1611-1769) hierarchy as those who make these choices for you.

Others choose differently or take the time and discipline to educate themselves to make these decisions on there own.

All searching the Scriptures daily to see if these things be so.

IMO, You are no better in God's eyes for this as they or vice versa no matter who is correct.

HankD

 

Homebound said:

But I challenge you to use nothing but the King James Bible for 1 month. Read nothing but the King James Bible and ask the Lord to show you what HomeBound is talking about.

The Lord has shown me, through his word, through the history of his Church, and through the wisdom of those he has given the gift of teaching, that KJV-onlyism is a divisive and profitless false teaching with zero basis in reality, and that the aggression with which certain persons promote said false teaching is usually inversely proportional to their general Bible knowledge and ability to handle the Scriptures in a God-honouring and responsible fashion.

 

Uh, well, contextually that would prove not to be the case. Jesus is never mentioned in the passage. The passage is talking about spiritual gifts, specifically the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge, all of which were revelatory gifts. When the complete revelation came (the completed canon), the partial revelation (tongues, prophecy, and knowledge) passed away.

 

The original KJV archetypal manuscript has been lost (around 1647). How do you prove which revision (1611-1853) or Edition (Cambridge, Oxford, Nelson) is the correct one since they ALL differ from each other?

I can’t debate your testimony but think about what I said.

No, people are just as lost now as when Christ walked the earth, nevertheless, as an example, which is easier to understand?

KJV O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged..
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto [my] children,) be ye also enlarged.

NIV We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange--I speak as to my children--open wide your hearts also.

Of course I am your brother in Christ and there is nothing to forgive since I know that I believe the entire Bible as do you. But if you need or want the words then I forgive you completely and forever and I hope you can say the same if I have offended you.

The secret to non-offence is non-accuse. Try to state your case as I will try to state mine without accusation or innuendo as to spiritual superiority.

I realize I have a difficulty in this area on occassion.

HankD

 

Skan:Uh, well, contextually that would prove not to be the case. Jesus is never mentioned in the passage. The passage is talking about spiritual gifts, specifically the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge, all of which were revelatory gifts. When the complete revelation came (the completed canon), the partial revelation (tongues, prophecy, and knowledge) passed away.

I reckon that's ONE correct way to look at it, but throughout Scripture God is mentioned as perfect, so we cannot entirely dismiss that view. However, we CAN dismiss the view that "that which is perfect" is the KJV, because the facts show otherwise. While an excellent translation, it's not perfect; it's a translation of the perfect word of God translated imperfectly by imperfect men, same as any other such translation.

 

That's what makes your view unsctiptural. You believe that EVERYONE will get something out of the KJV they can't get from non KJV translations.

Using the definition of liberalism that is often used by the KJVO camp here, yes. KJVOnlyism is a liberal view because it adds to scripture.

Oh please, that's a plain ad hominem attack. I believe the Bible is 100% true, and don't need to add anything to it (such as version-onlyism) to bolster my belief.

I already use the KJV, frequently. However, in order for me to do what you're asking, I'd have to abandon by knowlege of biblical Greek and Hebrew. For me, that would lead to ignorance, not wisdom.

I HAVE asked the Lord that very thing, and I've been shown that versionolatry is heretical.

If a church is KJVO, it's not fundamental.

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
Please read the verse in context, to see it's referring to Jesus Himself.
If it is speaking about Jesus then those things listed would have been done away with, but we know that those things were here way after Jesus came and left.

quote:
But it IS important. The KJV, as well as every other valid Bible translation, is made from mss written in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek. There are no original Scriptures in English.

Homebound:True, as well as there is no "original" scriptures in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek.

Thus, God causes translations to be made, in the languages in use today, just as he's done for 2K years. After all, He translated the words He gave Peter to speak at the "first pentecost" into the languages of each of the audience.

quote:
The Geneva Bible gave the British, including a group that came to North America, all THEY needed. What theological reasons necessitated the making of a new English Bible in 1604, only 44 years since an update had been made?

I don't know. I have not researched this.

With all due respect, I HAVE. I hope YOU find time to do it. You'll receive quite a surprise. Pleasant or unpleasant I cannot predict, but I CAN predict your view of the versions issue will be colored in a different light.

quote:
Please read Genesis closely. Satan was NOT actually twisting God's words adding to them, or subtracting from them, as they were fresh in Eve's mind.

I don't believe they were fresh in Eve's mind. Satan came to here and said, "Yea, hath God said," casting doubt on God's word, then when Eve starting listening to Satan (which you should not do), she then added to God's word by saying, "neither shall ye touch it," which God did not say.

You don't know that for sure. What we have is what God said to ADAM. We don't know if He later added "Don't touch" or not.

So you see, Satan first came to whoever and said, "Yea, hath God said." Then that person began to listen to Satan and added their words.

No proof.

Satan didn't question God's words, but their VERACITY.

quote:
Kinda like the tales of the KJVOs: "If ya use any other BV, you're just some kinda christianette. God gave us the KJV & then closed the door on any updates being made. Sure, the English is old, but it's a special 'Church English'.

Question, why must there be updates?

John 3:16, from an English ms, C.995 AD:
?God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

Should it have been left as is, for OUR Bibles? It IS English. Question answered.

quote:
Proof, please?

Again, this is what I believe.

Based upon WHAT?

 

Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen! Amen!

Stand back, 'cause the fatman is gonna run the pews!

 

I never said it was scripture, I said this is what I believe.

Not according to some of your previous posts.

How? Seems to me you would have wisdom on the issue at hand.

Curious, what fundamentals does your church have from the Bible?

 

KJVOism is not from the Bible. Hence, a church that teaches KJVOism as a biblical fundamental is anything but fundamental.

 

Absolutely true John.

Fundamentalism by definition precludes KJVOnlyism although most KJVO's claim to be "Bible-believing fundamentalists".

The original fundamentalist used the ASV, RV, and KJV to refute real liberalism. KJVO's are just as guilty as liberals of making up things they want the Bible and historical evidence to say rather than simply dealing with what they say in a spirit of belief.

 

Being KJVO does not preclude one from being a fundamentalist, but KJVO has never been one of the fundamentals.

Hyperbole does not really add much to the discussion.