Non-KJBO lies

[natters]

Michelle said "Our Lord commands us to be perfcct, as also our Father in Heaven is perfct"

Your spelling is imperfcct.

RaptureReady, so basically you're (not your) saying that God is not capabale enough to provide us multiple perfect Bibles, right? Or maybe basically you're saying that God is not capabale enough or did not provide us a perfect Bible before the KJV was published, right? Or maybe So basically you're saying that God is not capabale enough to get the printers of the 1611 to do a perfect job, right?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
That is not what God has said concerning his words.

Really? There's a verse that says God promised a perfect translation? If that is that case, then kindly post it. If, however, you're correct, and we are promised a perfect translation, then that day has not yet come. The KJV is not a perfect translation. It's a good translation, but not a perfect translation.

Furthermore, if you rely upon an imperfect Bible, your walk will be imperfect.

I never made mention of an imperfect Bible. I discussed imperfect translations. You care clearly unable to discern between the two.

Our Lord commands us to be perfcct, as also our Father in Heaven is perfct. Your belief is unbiblical, and not supported with scripture.

Scripture does not say to be perfect as a specific translation is perfect. It says to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. If you elevate scripture to the same level as God, you're committing idolatry. It is YOUR belief, not mine, that is unbiblical, and not supported by scripture.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
That's a loaded question. I disagree with your definition of "a perfect Bible". God promised to preserve his word. He did not promise a perfect tralsnation. Version-onlyists lack this basic scriptural understanding.
--------------------------------------------------

That is not what God has said concerning his words. Furthermore, if you rely upon an imperfect Bible, your walk will be imperfect. Our Lord commands us to be perfcct, as also our Father in Heaven is perfct. Your belief is unbiblical, and not supported with scripture.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

And michelle, what is your ONE perfect Bible, in only one language?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Scripture does not say to be perfect as a specific translation is perfect. It says to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. If you elevate scripture to the same level as God, you're committing idolatry. It is YOUR belief, not mine, that is unbiblical, and not supported by scripture.
--------------------------------------------------


You might want to read Psalm 119. You clearly have no understanding of what the words of God are, nor what they reveal, nor how important they are to God's people. Believing God has provided us his words perfectly in our own language is not idolatry. It is idolatry to worship anything besides God. We worship God and recognize and praise Him for what he has done. You idolize and praise men, and what man has done. You have elevated man,s wisdom to the level of, or over and above that of God's power and promises. This is idolatry.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
And michelle, what is your ONE perfect Bible, in only one language?
--------------------------------------------------

If you cannot tell, what the words of God are, for us in our language, I recommend that you meditate upon John 16 and 17 with a repentant heart and humble prayer. Learn to listen to the voice of our Lord through His words, instead of greiving the Holy Spirit, and you will know.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[LarryN]

Michelle wrote:

You idolize and praise men, and what man has done. You have elevated man,s wisdom to the level of, or over and above that of God's power and promises. This is idolatry.

Actually, it is the KJVOnlies who elevate man. You try to embue mere mortal men (the KJV translators) with infallibility, an attribute only of God. You are unable to demonstrate or objectively prove (other than to state "I believe", or "God has shown me", etc.) that He ever performed the miraculous act of re-inspiration that would be necessary to make possible what you claim to be true of the KJV.

It is only non-KJVOnlies who recognize that mere fallible men cannot produce the "perfect" translation of God's Word which you demand.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
You might want to read Psalm 119. You clearly have no understanding of what the words of God are, nor what they reveal, nor how important they are to God's people.

Psalm 119 says nothing whatsoever about providing a perfect translation in our or any language.

Believing God has provided us his words perfectly in our own language is not idolatry.

Believing that a translation is perfect, when it in fact is not, is adding to scripture, which is hretical.

It is idolatry to worship anything besides God.

Hey, YOU are the one who equated scripture to our Father in Heaven, not me.

You idolize and praise men, and what man has done. You have elevated man,s wisdom to the level of, or over and above that of God's power and promises. This is idolatry.

Never done that. Never. Give me one example of where I have done this, and I will gladly repent.

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
And michelle, what is your ONE perfect Bible, in only one language?
--------------------------------------------------

If you cannot tell, what the words of God are, for us in our language, I recommend that you meditate upon John 16 and 17 with a repentant heart and humble prayer. Learn to listen to the voice of our Lord through His words, instead of greiving the Holy Spirit, and you will know.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Translation: I still don't know, but I'm not about to admit it, so I'll just continue to dodge this question.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Don't hold your breath waiting for a Bible verse to prove only ONE TRANSLATION of God's perfectly preserved Words is available.

KJVonly sect start with that presupposition by faith. You can meditate until you are blue in the face and unless you've accepted KJV (whichever revision, I'm waiting on that answer, too) as the only perfect Word, you will never find it in Scripture.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
And michelle, what is your ONE perfect Bible, in only one language?
--------------------------------------------------

If you cannot tell, what the words of God are, for us in our language, I recommend that you meditate upon John 16 and 17 with a repentant heart and humble prayer. Learn to listen to the voice of our Lord through His words, instead of greiving the Holy Spirit, and you will know.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Meaning, in line with the theology of some - God will give you a new, extra-Biblical revelation.

Scary theology.

Since I am a moderator I will simply remind your that accussing someone of grieving the Holy Spirit is in violation of board policy. Please refrain from untoward judgement in the future.

 

[HankD]

That is not what God has said concerning his words. Furthermore, if you rely upon an imperfect Bible, your walk will be imperfect. Our Lord commands us to be perfcct, as also our Father in Heaven is perfct. Your belief is unbiblical, and not supported with scripture.

So, if what you say is correct michelle then a "perfect" Bible will result in a "perfect" walk?

Are you saying you are perfect michelle?

HankD

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So basically you’re saying that God is not capable enough or did not provide us a perfect Bible, right?

No, no one here is questioning the capabilities of God.

God is entirely capable of providing a defect free Bible in any language He chooses.

But has He?</font>[/QUOTE]Okay, then what part is and is not a defect? Would it be the salvation message, or maybe the virgin birth, or did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead or was it just a ghost story? How do you and how can you pick and choose?

 

[natters]

RaptureReady said "Okay, then what part is and is not a defect? Would it be the salvation message, or maybe the virgin birth, or did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead or was it just a ghost story? How do you and how can you pick and choose?"

That's why study and comparison is so valuable. Variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. When all Bibles declare the Virgin birth, we have no need to question the Virgin birth. Same with Lazarus, etc. This is not picking and choosing, this is "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RaptureReady:
So basically your saying that God is not capabale enough or did not provide us a perfect Bible, right?

That's a loaded question. I disagree with your definition of "a perfect Bible". God promised to preserve his word. He did not promise a perfect tralsnation. Version-onlyists lack this basic scriptural understanding. </font>[/QUOTE]God's word...the principles...the doctrine...the convictions...everything that God wants us to know about him and ourselves is contained in the Bible, perfectly. Now, which you of these is perfect, I believe the King James is. Why not a modern version, because it differs from the King James.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by natters:
Michelle said "Our Lord commands us to be perfcct, as also our Father in Heaven is perfct"

Your spelling is imperfcct.

RaptureReady, so basically you're (not your) saying that God is not capabale enough to provide us multiple perfect Bibles, right? Or maybe basically you're saying that God is not capabale enough or did not provide us a perfect Bible before the KJV was published, right? Or maybe So basically you're saying that God is not capabale enough to get the printers of the 1611 to do a perfect job, right?

Gee, I never heard this before

I don't know about 1121, 1354, 1456, etc, etc, etc. All I believe is that God's word was complete in 1611 and therefore there is not a need for another version.

You bring up the "printers of the 1611." Are you aware that printers was not that old yet, the bugs were still in them. Could you image of God perfected the printers then. We would obviously not need another printer. Do you know what they looked like then. Probably pretty big. You can take this same argument back to the Ten Commandents. Why didn't God stop Moses from destroying the first Ten Commandents. My answer to both questions is, I don't know and could care less. I just believe that God did what he said he would do in Psalm 12 and that preservation is in the King James Bible. But wait, you claim that those verses point to something else, well...that's a shame because your wrong.

 

[natters]

RaptureReady said "All I believe is that God's word was complete in 1611 and therefore there is not a need for another version."

I believe God's word was complete before then. If so, according to you there was no need for another version.

RaptureReady said "You bring up the "printers of the 1611." Are you aware that printers was not that old yet, the bugs were still in them."

So? Wasn't God capable?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by RaptureReady:
God's word...the principles...the doctrine...the convictions...everything that God wants us to know about him and ourselves is contained in the Bible, perfectly. Now, which you of these is perfect, I believe the King James is. Why not a modern version, because it differs from the King James.

Yes, everything that God wants us to know about him and ourselves is contained in the Bible, perfectly, regardless of translation, and regardless of which language scripture is being translated to, so long as the translation remains faithful to its source texts.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by natters:
I believe God's word was complete before then. If so, according to you there was no need for another version.

So why aren't you standing behind it and defending it instead of the modern version, which probably contradicts the one you speak of. Do I believe God's word was complete before then? Of course I do. After all, Psalm 12 says, "from this generation for ever."

So? Wasn't God capable?

Yes he was and yes he did.

 

[LarryN]

RR wrote:

God's word...the principles...the doctrine...the convictions...everything that God wants us to know about him and ourselves is contained in the Bible, perfectly. Now, which you of these is perfect, I believe the King James is...

RR, it sounds like your definition of perfection differs from some KJVOs I've encountered then. Many will advocate that the KJV is a perfect, word-for-word rendering of God's Word in the english language. Since you don't seem to advocate the word-for-word aspect that many KJVOs do, here's a question for you:

In 2 Kings 18:27 the King James uses a word that, in one variant or another, is used in the KJV eight times. Today that word is considered by most American believers to be profanity, or at the very least unnecessarily vulgar. If a Christian youth were to blurt out on an outing "Can you please stop at the next restroom, I need to ****", for example- he or she would probably face a stern lecture about profanity. Would you be willing to say that the word I'm referring to (used in the KJV) is God's perfect choice: the word He chose to inspire in the KJV; or would you say that it's an example of a word choice of some early 17th-century translators which has now taken on a less-than favorable slang connotation?

 

[natters]

RaptureReady said "So why aren't you standing behind it and defending it instead of the modern version, which probably contradicts the one you speak of."

I do.

RaptureReady said "Do I believe God's word was complete before then? Of course I do."

Then why did you say that since God's word was complete in 1611, therefore there is not a need for another version? If you REALLY believed God's word was complete in 1600, you would be defending THAT version and would not have need for another version 11 years later.

RaptureReady said "Yes he was and yes he did."

Yes, he was, but no, he didn't. You yourself said the printers were not perfect.