PARABLES

God doesn't have an opinion, God has the truth.

And just what is my opinion? You haven't been paying attention after all.

My "opinion" is simple: 1)The poverty of language prevents any of us from having perfect communication.

2)If God's Word were perfectly preserved in the KJB or even the original Greek and Hebrew then there would never be any debate over doctrine, because His Word would be perfectly communicated.

3) God is His Word, not your KJB, and not the orginal source manuscripts. God's Word is reality, and it is not an opinion, it is Truth, and it is alive.

The fact is that human beings are fallible, and human language is limited. You add in addition to this that it is the Holy Spirit alone who communicates and reveals the truths contained in Scripture, we begin to see that it is not language which is the medium for communicating truth but God Himself. </font>[/QUOTE]You really would have some one to believe this hogwash wouldn't you? You might be able to get away with this sort of beguiling persuasion with the feminine and the effeminent, but not me, I am a man. And you still wonder why we hold to those indicting and incriminating words, "Hath God said?" as your premise towards truth.

Your "opinion" only proves you don't belive the Word of God and somehow promote yourself as some medium of truth when instead you promote only error. Your "opinion" has proven that you believe God can't even communicate with man and get the point across. It's no wonder you would have innocent people still guessing "What thus saith the LORD".

Got any more "fiery darts"? I still have the shield of faith, they're quenched!

 

Walls are you paying attention to what travelsong said? He's saying we never have had the Word of God, the man is an agnostic at best if not an aetheist.

How does he know this to be true if he believes NNE has the Word of God?

I call in question whether this fellow is even a Baptist. Baptists do still believe we have the Mind of Christ written within the pages of Scripture don't we? Well I do!

I'm glad I'm not STILL GUESSING what the Lord said!

 

QS, I would have to take this as a compliment! After all I am of the female gender.

Every since I was a little girl, the only Bible I have ever used was a KJV. It wasn't until a few months ago, that I would even question the KJV. But, because of the history behind the coming about the KJV made me question the motives behind its' making.

I would never pick up and read a MV, but why not go backward? If I could read Hebrew or Greek, I would be getting myself a copy of the original Hebrew and Greek (provided they exists).

 

It doesn't matter what you believe, it's a reality of life. Care to demonstrate otherwise?

Why such a strong desire to convince me of your masculinity? What are we so insecure about hmm?

I don't promote myself as anything, I can only observe and acknowledge reality. Please demonstrate your assertion that I don't believe the Word of God, or retract it.

Instead of being a reactionary, try to understand my points. Apply your love of context and it will be an aid to you. God has communicated to man and still does. The only place one can turn to for the truth is Scripture, but it is the Holy Spirit that reveals these truths to us, not any particular language or version.

Think this through: If every Bible and every written source manuscript for it were to sudeenly disappear, would God's Word still be preserved? If you say yes, then what is the reason?

No, I would have people diligently studying the Word with their faith in God and God alone to reveal truth to them, not any particular version.

Yay! Another legendary message board warrior.

 

Quickening Spirit:"I know what I'm getting from you is not Truth, God's Opinion is Truth and until we accept His truth it remains only an opinion, much like I see yours; opinion, not truth."

Where is there any truth in the man-made, false KJVO myth?

 

Actually, Walls, the AV 1611 was made because of King James' dislike of the Geneva Bible. Why did KJ dislike the GB? because it denied the "Divine right of kings" in its footnotes, allowing disobedience to a tyrannical ruler. Also, several clerics wished to have one "standard Bible" to be used by both homes & churches, replacing all the earlier versions, most of which were still in use at the time. They wished to do just the OPPOSITE of today's KJVOs-they wished to replace old Bibles with a new one. Sometimes the KJVOs remind me of the evil magician in Aladdin who traded new lamps for old ones, in wanting to replace new Bibles with old ones.(Not saying the KJVOs are evil, but they sure are bamfoozled!)

Have you gotten to Psalm 12:7 in your comparison yet?

 

Ah, yes,The ol' barbaric attempt when he calls me a "pharisee" because I point out the one propigating we don't have God's Word in any form of script, uh, by the very ones who claim to know that God's Word is only preserved and inspired in MSS that no one posesses. Hmmm? Anyone else see the serpent lurking around in the garden?

Try it in a "known" tongue Charlie and you won't violate 1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

 

Uh, O.K. Sister, please forgive me, I do remember now your femininity, but when your screen name only appears as "Walls" it is assumption you are a man, by us who still respect ladies as to not call them by their last name, that is what drill sargents in the military do, but to present, even ladies are addressed by last name.

Who caused you to question the KJB? How did they acheive a superiority over your belief? Did they use the same old serpentile tactics of denigrating King James the IV and the I? Did they insult your intelligence by telling you they knew more about the KJB because they know Greek and Hebrew? That's a hoot!

We have God's Perfect Word in the KJB and they try to tell us we have to translate the Elizabethan English to begin to understand, that is a lie. We do have to DEFINE any word to understand what it means, not translate our native tongue, but they would love for us to think that, just so they could sell us the "book of the month".

The "mv" PUSHERS only have capitalism in mind, the age old process of making a profit, else they would try to cause doubt and strife amongst the brethren by calling KJVO a cult and a man made false doctrine. Their whole premise is based upon the "labeling system" of the schizmatic, causing division in the Body of Christ, even to the point of trying to use secular humanistic reasoning to discredit the Word of God.

Here is a testimony of some one of much higher intelligence than I've seen here:
http://websearch.cs.com/wm/boomframe.jsp?query=Preface+to+the+King+James+Bible&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D29e4791a0d4ec3a6%26amp%3Bclick edItemRank%3D4%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DPreface%2Bto%2Bthe%2BKing%2BJames%2BBible%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.icr.org%252Fbible%252Fkjv.htm%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D -%26amp%3BfromPage%3DWMTRoll&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icr.org%2Fbible%2Fkjv.htm

Sorry the link is so long, but that's the way it copied from my browser.

 

Charlie, you're still in violation, and also laying the axe to your own foot.
The statements made by travelsong are rooted in secular humanism, and we wonder why those of us who hold the KJB of such high regard to fend off secular humanism.

Either give the phrase in our communicable tongue and quit trying to boast your abilities over mine, or I'll have to start testing your knowledge of the International Building Code, uh, let's begin by asking you to tell us all the full meaning, get this in English now, of "lead-free solder"?

 

Walls:

Come on, Sister, you say you agree with travelsong and yet by his "theology" even the Original Tablets of Stone wouldn't be the Word of God, though we all know them to be broken and the Word of God, travelsong would expect us to call them in question by what he believes, that is secular humanism, period!

 

Cranston, if we were, it would be by you "foozlers"

 

QS: What's the matter - are these questions too hard for you? (An honest answer to each of them will tear down your assertion, so it's understandable why you don't want to deal with them!) Here's a reminder:

The definition from Strong's specifically says, "to weep," as you pointed out. But what you left out was that Strong's also says that it means to "cry silently" as opposed to "wailing aloud." (G2799) Classic example of not looking at the big picture when looking up words in Strong's. Big picture, it is clear what the word means, and how Christ wept. It is unfortunate that you result to intellectual dishonesty to maintain that house of cards - UNO or otherwise.

--- and ---

So tell me, why is it that we have to know the etymology of a word to know what it means? If, as you say, you cannot have one with the other, what would you say about these words which also have an unknown affinity:

guzzle
hazy
scam
shenanigan
shrivel
sprain
tantrum
turmoil
gadget

 

That's just it! You don't have the ability to understand Hebrew (or Greek, I would assume). In the same way that we would rely upon your expertise in the understanding of lead-free solder (which I would assume is the standard that is allowed in the plumbing world, although I believe that very small amounts of lead are allowed by that code...), you need to realize that there are many who are more educated than you in Greek and Hebrew. Why not listen to what they have to say - you may learn something.

 

You pose as a realist then propose some one deny the reality of God preserving His Word?

Seems rather contradictory to say the least, from a ?"realist"?

Either we have the Word of God, or we don't. Now which is it, travelsong? I know we do! In the AV 1611 KJB.

You say God communicates through His Word, but you try to convince us we can't have the Word of God for him to communicate to us because we have His Word in a human language, uh, have you ever stepped back and considered what you are actually saying? Talking about utter confusion!

 

Not adequate, your answer is not precise.

 

I would suppose in the same place the KJVO label myth came from, the same old "false" labeling mythology.

 

No, but they are a detraction from the relative facts of John 11, but if you examine the uncertain affinity factor concerning what you propose, you will begin to see a hint of the reality of why Jesus wept. That which you have nearly completely ignored, and that according to the main subject matter of the context, AGAIN.