mjwegs42,
Don't you agree that Jesus reading from a "different version" is an example that we are free to follow? That it means that Jesus approves of using different versions?
My Biblical "One-Versionism" stance. That would be KJV.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by mjwegs42, Sep 10, 2004.
Page 2 of 6
-
I Cor 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
also vs 4. might speak directly to you on this issue Kevin.
I Cor 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church
Again please use context! -
Please go back and re-read my "In the same loose spirit of exegesis..." preface to my remarks. I just thought that if you could rip the passage you referenced out of its context, then I should be permitted to do the same with mine!
-
mjwegs42 said "Again please use context!"
This should be moved to the humor forum. -
Russell55,
One-accord? Multi-version? Clearly not disputable. The are contradictions in the very defenition on the words.
Deletion is a restoration? Simply not possible. Again a clear contradiction in every defenition of the words.
You ask me to explain the contradictions. I did so in my responses to PastorKevin and LarryN. People attempt to make contraditions in the Bible that aren't there. What I am saying here is use context when reading or quoting. -
Larry,
I pulled 3/4 of the chapter. Not one misquoted verse. Clearly "vain jangling" on your part. -
MJ - which KJV does your church use? While there are 5000 minor differences, there are hundreds of very major differences (all documented on other threads but I could share examples if you doubt me).
So which one doesn't contradict my AV1611 or my 1762 or my 1769 or my 1883 or . . . -
mj continues to chide me for taking Acts 12:24 out of context, when my original post citing this verse was intended only as a dripping-in-sarcasm, completely tongue-in-cheek rebuttal of his entirely serious exegesis of I Timothy 1:1-8!
He goes on to say that he posted 3/4 of the chapter, which doesn't promote his case at all, since even with numerous verses to form a contextual background, he still got it wrong! -
mjwegs42 said:
And I do not see anywhere it supports multiversionism.
I don't see it supporting barbequed steak, either, but it ain't gonna spoil my dinner. -
mjwegs42 said:
Please use context when you quote?
You first! -
-
mjwegs42: “This clearly speaks "in context" ... about the spread of the Gospel thoughout the world. Not that the words were changed and reprinted into muliple text. Please use context when you quote?”
mjwegs42: “Let use context here also. Use verse 2 from the same chapter."
mjwegs42: “Again please use context!”
mjwegs42: “This is the direct word of Paul ... I beleive Whole-Heartedly that this is a direct slam against Multi-Version Bible use.”
1Cor 10:12 doesn’t say “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” for nothing.
Ed -- is this another double? “Context is important when MV users cite and apply the Scriptures to establish a point; context is _not_ important when OVO advocates use the same Scriptures to establish their point.”
“In the last days, saith the Pot, the Kettle shall be called black”
--- Ziggy 12:2 -
I Cor 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
also vs 4. might speak directly to you on this issue Kevin.
I Cor 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church
Again please use context! </font>[/QUOTE]Even if you are right, which I disagree, then there's the secondary application: God wants His Words to be easily understood! So, hence the MV's -
Ziggy,
Ed's point is a perfect reason why MV's can contain errors. If you don't take a verse in context you will change that verse and it will throw off the true meaning. Then someone else see's the context as incorrect and then changes the context to match the changed verse in a newer MV. Now the whole point is completed changed and no longer of God but of Man. -
-
russell55,
I see your point with the deletion/restoration. I would have to say I was in error there. You make a good point. I would still disagree with you on the one-accord - multiversionism. As far as your question, please give the the vs reference you are using?
PS: I never did apologize for refering to you as "He" instead of "She". Sorry about that. But hey if I was an "MV" it wouldn't matter right, "He", "She", "God". Really all the same. -
-
Archangel has just re-posted the comparisons in the KJV between Isaiah 61 & what JESUS read aloud in Luke 4...and between Isaiah 53 and what the Ethiopian official and Philip read in Acts 8. This is proof positive of more than one "official" version in use by both a man of God and God Himself.
You're still on Square One in trying to prove any One-versionism, as the Scriptures you posted could be applied to ANY version. There's nothing in'em pointing to the KJV(or the NIV, or Tyndale's) as the only "official" version. -
robycop3,
Yes this scripture can be directed to any scripture. But it does support One-versionism. You pick yours, I'll pick mine. I stated earlier why I chose mine. Tell me which you will pick? -
LarryN,
Let me know something. Do you support Calvinism? Most people I have talked to and the limited study I have done on the Geneva supports Calvanism. I do not support calvanism. Let me know your stance?
Page 2 of 6