Questions From A KJV-Onlyist

It may have not needed any qualification then but nobody really understands the entire usage of the word today.

But there is even debate on the uses of ‘lmah as well. The studying I have done on the word ‘lmah does not make it so clear as you suggest.

The LXX is inconsistent in translating ‘lmah. Twice it uses parthenos (Gen. 24:43; Is. 7:14)and eslewhere neanis. (TDOT, Vol. XI, 160)

With respect to the semantic definition of ‘lmah, Isa. 7:14 presents great difficulties, because the exegesis of v.14 depends critically on the analysis and interpretation of the chapter as a whole. (TDOT, Vol. XI. 161)

In Prov. 30:19 it is not translated virgin but often maid.

Look at the following usages of ‘lmah and see how different the translations are.
Gen. 24:34
Ex. 2:8
Psa. 68:25 (vs. 26 MT)
Psa. 46:1
1 Chron 15:20
Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8
Prov. 30:19

From WBC Vol. 24, Isaiah 1-33, pages 99 and 101

Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8 use ‘lmah to speak of the beloved; Prov 30:19 "the way of a man with an ‘lmah is followed in the next verse with "the way of the adulterous woman." This leads Brunet (Essai, 49) to conclude that almah has dishonorable meanings as well as the honorable references to Miriam and Rebecca. This dishonorable reference is connected in Proverbs and in a related word alomim in Isa 54:4 to sterility.

This word study suggests that ‘lmah had two different and contrasting semantic implications which provide an invitation to double entendre. The one implies the spotless candidate for marriage. The other implies a type of available sexual partner not condoned by Yahwistic norms or the Law. The common meaning signifies one who is sexually mature. It is difficult to find a word in English that is capable of the same range of meaning. "Virgin" is too narrow, while "young woman" is too broad.

The second question is: to whom does the prophet refer? Interpreters continue to differ in answering. The traditional answer of the Christian community points to Mary, the mother of Jesus (cf. Excursus: Isa 7:14 and the Virgin Birth). But the context in its primary meaning requires a sign that will be fulfilled in the immediate future ("before the boy knows . . . the land will be laid waste," v 16).

In seeking an answer it is important to determine the nature of the sign. Is it a positive promise of blessing? Or does it reflect Isaiah's impatience with Ahaz and have the same ironic or sarcastic tone which appears in the following oracles? The answer probably depends upon which of the two meanings of almah is understood to be operative here.

The answers which interpreters have given to this question are legion. Wildberger (290-91) and Brunet (Essai, 55-100) have made exhaustive surveys of these opinions. These range from the view that "the virgin" is identified with Mary, mother of Jesus, to the one that "the virgin" is the cult figure of the bride in the ritual sacred marriage, a cult prostitute, chosen to fill the role with all its mythological overtones. Other views which tend toward "the marriageable young woman" identify her as the young queen or a consort of the king, the prophet's wife, an unidentified young woman in the crowd, or a collective sense of all those who will be brides in this year. In these, the meaning of the prophecy turns on the time span until the child is born and on the mood of the times reflected in the choice of names.

Wildberger (291) is surely right when he says, "If we have difficulty in solving the mystery of the ‘lmah, that does not mean that the prophecy was a riddle for those who heard the prophecy (or originally read the book). It is not characteristic of prophetic oracles that they cannot be understood." M. Buber (Glaube der Propheten [Zurich: Manesse Verlag, 1950], 201) noted that the almah had to be someone known to the king. Steinmann (90) identifies her as a princess who has just entered the household of Ahaz, possibly Abia, the daughter of Zechariah, a friend of the prophet (cf. 2 Kgs 18:2), who would become the mother of Hezekiah.

It is entirely possible in large royal households that the mother would give the child its name. Some have objected that Hezekiah must have been older by this time for him to assume the throne when he did. But the chronologies of this period are very uncertain, so no sure statement can be made. The view that the child to be born is a royal heir, and that his mother belongs to the king's household doesjustice to the evidence, fits the context, and provides the potential of messianic intention that is needed.


Page 101

Excursus: Isaiah 7:14 in Context


What then is the meaning of the verse and the sign? Laken "therefore" relates to v 13 in which God shows his impatience with Ahaz's timidity and vacillation. So the Lord himself will give them, the House of David, a sign. The position of the royal house and its succession (vv 4-9) is established.

The announcement is of a birth. The Queen (ha'alemah) is either pregnant or soon will be. She will bear a son, potential heir to all the promises to David. She will name him Immanuel. The sign is specifically a birth (the assurance of an heir to the throne) and a name (the assurance of God's faithfulness to his promise to be "with" the sons of David).

The announcement is continued with the description of the child's well-being in v 15 and the explanation in v 16 which comes full circle to relate the whole to the events of vv 1-2 and the prophecy "It will not happen!" of vv 4-9.

 

Thanks, you said it better than I did.

 

I addressed the "virgin" issue in a previous post, but I am anxiously waiting for someone to point out which are the "some" versions that use "young girl" in Isaiah 7:14 as stated by KJV Warrior.

Here's a repost of the list of Isaiah 7:14 in the KJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, NKJV, and the ESV. Again, ALL of them translate the word as "virgin."

KJV:
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


NIV:
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

NASB:

14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.


NLT:
14All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel--`God is with us.'

NKJV:
14Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

ESV:
14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The similarities between the use of "talking points" by KJVO's and liberal democrats just astounds me. It's always the same canned responses that I heard for 4 LONG years until I woke up and smelled the coffee (I only regret that it took 4 years, but God has His reasons).

Bottom line is, it really doesn't matter what the truth is, just deflect the argument by calling the other guy a Bible hating comprosing sinner and put him or her on the defensive.

I'm sorry to vent, but those "touch not the unclean thing" cracks just make me so mad I can spit.

Shawn

 

As I said in my earlier post, the RSV (NT 1946, OT 1952) reads "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. However, even in the RSV the footnote reads "Or virgin.

 

You might do well to take this advice, believe it, live it, and share it.

What makes you think I am not?

Others on the other hand, have not given one scriptural reference for the approval of those things that would alter God's preserved words of truth. Nor have they shown that they are obediant to God's word of truth, to separate from those things that would add to God's word, as many claim the KJV had added verses/words.

And you have documentation for your points of view?

You have no idea how well I understand how you are convinced of your ways. One time nobody could tell me different until I realized how someone else knew more than I did. Did I ever have some theology to deal with. I was a mess because I regularly felt the Holy Spirit told me. That was until I ran up against where I thought the Holy Spirit told me and clearly I knew that was wrong when I found out later.

That is the reason we must study and let God use others to challenge us. If someone challenges us and we have no answer then we need to study more.

If you read about the conduct of the early church in 1 Cor. 14:29-33, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

There is not a single person on this earth who has all the answers. We must be humble enough to recognize that God has created others with gifts we do not have. Those gifts are for the purpose of edification of the body. If we fail to learn from them then we fail to learn from those whom God has given to us.

 

Thanks, but as you point out the footnotes render the alternate translation. Here is Isaiah 7:14 in a few more versions. This by no means exhausts the list.

RSV:
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.

Amplified Bible:
14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].

CEV:
14 But the LORD will still give you proof. A virgin is pregnant; she will have a son and will name him Immanuel.

NIrV:
14 The Lord himself will give you a miraculous sign. The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called Immanuel.

The Message:
14 So the Master is going to give you a sign anyway. Watch for this: A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us).

New Century Version:
14 The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be pregnant. She will have a son, and she will name him Immanuel.

Most KJVO's I have met have never even looked at a modern version, let alone verified many of the claims they make. It's much easier to use the old "I know you are but what am I" theory of debate.

Shawn

 

In Luke 1:34, Mary acknowledges her own virginity. Many versions say in effect, "But how can I have a baby when I'm a virgin?" The Greek is "ginosko ou aner".

The point is, I don't know of any valid English BV that denies the virginity of Mary when Jesus was conceived. That is a KJVO assumption.

After all, the same verse in Isaiah says He would be named "Immanuel", but Gobriel plainly told Mary His name would be "Jesus".

 

Immanuel = "God with us" - a prophetic name for the Messiah.

Jesus = Yah-shua. Jehovah saves.

Jesus is Jehovah, God with us, and He and He alone saves.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry to vent, but those "touch not the unclean thing" cracks just make me so mad I can spit.

Shawn
--------------------------------------------------

Shawn,

It might do you well to want to "spit" for the right reason, such as standing for the purity of God's word, rather than approving of, usage of, and condoning of those things that have or would defile it.

It is those things that have altered the pure words of God that make me want to "spit".

Where is your fear of the Lord?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

If you read about the conduct of the early church in 1 Cor. 14:29-33, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

There is not a single person on this earth who has all the answers. We must be humble enough to recognize that God has created others with gifts we do not have. Those gifts are for the purpose of edification of the body. If we fail to learn from them then we fail to learn from those whom God has given to us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gb,

I also agree 100% with what you said above. However, the gift of prophecy of revelation has ceased, and ceased when after the whole of the cannon of scriptures was complete, that with the book of Revelation written by John on the island of Patmos around 90 a.d. Our authority and revelation comes from the Bible, the scriptures, the very words of God, and the Lord convicts our hearts of truth with these things. I am not to take someones scholarly gifts or opinions as my sole authority on matters, and neither should you. I am to heed the word of God first and foremost. My Bible tells me that God's words are pure, refined seven times, and that he has promised to preserve them for EVERY GENERATION. This cannot mean the origional writings, but the origional words, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM for every generation. Every generation from the church age on, would also INCLUDE other languages, and therefore in those prospective languages we can expect and trust that God would see to it that EVERY WORD would be preserved. This is what I believe, and this is what I stand for. This is what the Lord has convicted my heart of. I only tell you this so that you understand that my understanding does not come from any man, or human being, but from the Lord God himself to me. It has been assumed and stated that I am listening to such people as Ruckman, etc. and this is far from the truth. I have never read or heard anything from this man. Even if I did, that wouldn't mean a thing regarding this matter. I do not follow or believe men blindly. I rely upon and trust God and test everything to the scriptures. I am not telling you, that you must believe me, and my position on this issue because I claim God has convicted my heart. I never said, nor implied such a thing. That would be foolish for you to do. I did explain to you all previously why I mentioned this, and I cannot understand why many here have ignored, or misunderstood this.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

I'da have to agree that calling "MVs" unclean is a little strong - no matter how you slice it they still contain the plan of salvation, and that is definitely not unclean.

The problem still remains that no one can prove that the KJB is the original. You and others say the the MVs alter God's word. In truth we do not know that it was not the KJB manuscripts which were altered, with the NIV and NASB having a more authentic translation. One can inveigh against the "Alexandrian cult" - and this is not entirely without reason! Yet still there is no PROOF.

It seems God has decided NOT to let us have the originals; why this is I don not know. But hey, He's God.

One can favor the KJB, but the justification for considering MVs unclean is just not there! It exists only in the minds of people like Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman.

 

Michelle:I also agree 100% with what you said above. However, the gift of prophecy of revelation has ceased, and ceased when after the whole of the cannon of scriptures was complete, that with the book of Revelation written by John on the island of Patmos around 90 a.d.[/i]

Proof, please?


Our authority and revelation comes from the Bible, the scriptures, the very words of God, and the Lord convicts our hearts of truth with these things.

But it's OK for you to pick & choose among the versions & declare your fave to be the only valid edition, eh?


I am not to take someones scholarly gifts or opinions as my sole authority on matters, and neither should you.

But when you read the KJV, you do JUST THAT. The KJV didn't just fall outta the sky; it was made by a committee of 47 men.


I am to heed the word of God first and foremost. My Bible tells me that God's words are pure, refined seven times,

God's words were NOT refined at all! they were pure the FIRST TIME He ever gave any of them to men. Read Ps. 12:6-7 SLOWLY. See that David COMPARED the purity of God's words to silver refined 7 times. Even by today's standards, that would be pure silver indeed! I cannot remember which KJVO started that stupid "purifying" assertion, but I believe it was the same paragon of intelligence who started the "provisional Bibles" idiocy.

and that he has promised to preserve them for EVERY GENERATION. This cannot mean the origional writings, but the origional words, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM for every generation.

There are no two English BVs alike, so BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you pick & choose among them?


Every generation from the church age on, would also INCLUDE other languages, and therefore in those prospective languages we can expect and trust that God would see to it that EVERY WORD would be preserved.

And they are-AS GOD CHOOSES, not according to some silly man-made myth.


This is what I believe, and this is what I stand for. This is what the Lord has convicted my heart of. I only tell you this so that you understand that my understanding does not come from any man, or human being, but from the Lord God himself to me.

Strange-You just stated that prophecy ceased & now you claim to have a message from God. Kowabunga!


It has been assumed and stated that I am listening to such people as Ruckman, etc. and this is far from the truth. I have never read or heard anything from this man. Even if I did, that wouldn't mean a thing regarding this matter. I do not follow or believe men blindly. I rely upon and trust God and test everything to the scriptures. I am not telling you, that you must believe me, and my position on this issue because I claim God has convicted my heart. I never said, nor implied such a thing. That would be foolish for you to do. I did explain to you all previously why I mentioned this, and I cannot understand why many here have ignored, or misunderstood this.

We haven't misunderstood a thing. We DO understand that you're presenting a view without the slightest evidence to support it. You're not the first, nor will you be the last to do so. You simply keep repeating yourself, but you refuse to admit you simply CANNOT PROVE IT.

You ARE gonna face the music on this: you say you're NOT KJVO, and I'm gonna keep badgering until you tell us what other BV(s) you'd recommend along with the KJV.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Charles Meadows quoted:

In truth we do not know that it was not the KJB manuscripts which were altered, with the NIV and NASB having a more authentic translation.
--------------------------------------------------

Charles,

Oh, but we can know, and we (some of us) do know. You are implying the KJB manuscripts were altered. You have no proof of that. We claim the Alexandrian family of manuscripts have been altered. It has been documented that they were. It has also been shown that the area in which they came, and the date of which they are from was highly apostate and gnostic. History also shows us. The history of the Recieved text has existed in all churches throughout the church age. The Alexandrian family of mss were stored away all those years collecting dust, and even during the time of the great reformation. Considering this, and BELIEVING God's word and his promise that his words are pure, and that he would preserve them for EVERY GENERATION, tells me, that those older dusty manuscripts were altered and not representative of the pure words of God, as they did not become available until just prior to Westcott and Hort, accepted in 1881, and now in this day and age (full acceptance in the 70's), are widely accepted within the churches. The history of the critical greek text streams from apostacy and modern liberalism. The Recieved Text streams from the bible believing, persecuted churches and believers. This is the text that was available, throughout the church age. Not the text that underlines the mv's. God's promise of preservation is the key to understanding this issue in the right perspective. You either believe that God has kept his promise, or you don't. OR you could believe that God never promised to preserve his words. This however, is not the truth. One must twist the plain truth of the scriptures to believe this. It is up to one's own choice whether you desire to believe and have only the message of God, or whether you believe and have EVERY WORD OF GOD for your christian life. I believe that I have EVERY WORD of God, for it is written: MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I came across a rather interesting document online, from David Cloud's website, where he and Gail Riplinger were at odds over her book. It made for a good read. I'll have to side with brother Cloud, this time, although I disagree with a lot of what is on his site.

Read it HERE

 

Michelle,

Thanks for your words of encouragement.

Let me say this, I stand for the purity of The Word, Jesus Christ, who was with God in the beginning, who is God, and by Who all things were made. I fear and respect Him who created me and has the power to destroy me. I am but a worm that deserves the eternal punishment of Hell because I have sinned from the womb. I am, fortunately, loved by God so much that He sent His one and only Son to suffer a humiliating and horrific death on the Cross in my place to pay for my sins. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, rose from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father so that I might be reconciled to Him. I am accepted on that fact alone, not what church I attend, not what version of the Bible I read, not what clothes I wear. I have been freed from sin and the burden of sin. I no longer have to concern myself with being good enough to win God’s favor, I already have it. Do I sin? Absolutely, although I sincerely strive no to on a daily basis. Does God promise to love me no matter what I do? Absolutely.

While in a KJVO church I constantly heard that if I had a wicked thought, failed to tithe regularly, or read anything but the KJB, that God would punish me for those flagrant sins. It might be an illness, the loss of a job, or an unexpected car repair, as ridiculous as that sounds. I was constantly reminded that I was better than other Christians who read the Non-Inspired Version of the Bible, or who had rock music in their worship services, or (for shame) allowed women to wear pants to church. I thanked God that I wasn’t like those other so-called Christians (see Luke 18:10-14). Although believing that the KJB is God’s inspired Word is not inherently wrong, believing that you are somehow more spiritual than someone who does not is wrong. It is called pride and it is what condemned Satan and his demons to Hell. No KJVO on this board has proved that the “modern versions”, with the obvious exception of the New World translation, deny any of the fundamentals of the faith. As I have said before, prove to me where the “corrupt” versions say that Jesus is NOT God, that Jesus was NOT born of a virgin, that Jesus did NOT pay the penalty for our sins, that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead in victory over death and sin, that Jesus did NOT ascend to the right hand of God, and that He is NOT coming again to claim His Church. We are instructed to separate from those who deny these things, not someone who does not meet our own criteria of what a Christian should be.

Read through the Gospels paying particular attention to the attitude Jesus had toward sin, and the attitude the religious leaders of the day had toward sin. Jesus had compassion on those who sinned. He touched the “unclean” and healed them physically and spiritually. He took those who had been rejected by society and loved them for who they were, not what they had done. He did not excuse their sins, but He forgave them, just as He forgives our sins.

So, despite the fact that you may look down upon me because you feel I don’t respect God’s Word and I may look down on you for your narrow interpretation of God’s Word, we both have exactly the same standing before God if we name the name of Jesus as our Savior and Redeemer. I pray for you and others like you because I know what it feels like to worry about whether I measure up each and every day. I know the burden of carrying a set of rules that are impossible to live up to if honestly admitted. Jesus died on the Cross to grant me the freedom the come before God “just as I am:” broken, humble, and in need of forgiveness. Likewise, I welcome your prayers because I am still a work in process in need of God's direction.

I hope you like the rest of us Christians who don’t subscribe to KJVO, because we’re all going to be spending a lot of time together in eternity.

Do you really think any of these things will matter in the glorious presence of our Lord Jesus Christ? I’m going to be too busy worshipping Him to be concerned about what anyone else is doing.

Shawn

 

Michelle:Oh, but we can know, and we (some of us) do know. You are implying the KJB manuscripts were altered. You have no proof of that.

Then please tell us where the ADDITIONAL material found in some of the newer mss but not in the older ones came from.


We claim the Alexandrian family of manuscripts have been altered. It has been documented that they were.

You said you didn't trust the "scholars". Do you simply not trust those scholars who disagree with YOUR viewpoint?


It has also been shown that the area in which they came, and the date of which they are from was highly apostate and gnostic.

The Book of Daniel comes from the very center of Baal(Bel) worship. Apollos, whom Scripture describes as a mighty preacher, came from Alexandria. Guilt by association won't work.


History also shows us. The history of the Recieved text has existed in all churches throughout the church age. The Alexandrian family of mss were stored away all those years collecting dust, and even during the time of the great reformation.

Better read your history book a little closer. The Alex mss were in prevalent use until the great copying wave of the 9th C. AD got underway.


Considering this, and BELIEVING God's word and his promise that his words are pure, and that he would preserve them for EVERY GENERATION, tells me, that those older dusty manuscripts were altered and not representative of the pure words of God, as they did not become available until just prior to Westcott and Hort, accepted in 1881, and now in this day and age (full acceptance in the 70's), are widely accepted within the churches.

But you overlook the plain, empirical evidence of how God REALLY preserved His words. NOT ONE ms agrees 100% with any other, Alex or Byz. The Textus Receptus has been revised umpteen times. There are NO two English BVs alike. You're simply GUESSING at most of what you say here.


The history of the critical greek text streams from apostacy and modern liberalism. The Recieved Text streams from the bible believing, persecuted churches and believers. This is the text that was available, throughout the church age. Not the text that underlines the mv's.

More guesswork.


God's promise of preservation is the key to understanding this issue in the right perspective. You either believe that God has kept his promise, or you don't. OR you could believe that God never promised to preserve his words.

Not only do I believe God 100%, but I see the clear, empirical evidence of just how He's chosen to preserve His words. Evidently, this has evaded you as you insist, against all physical evidence, that he did it the KJVO way.


This however, is not the truth. One must twist the plain truth of the scriptures to believe this. It is up to one's own choice whether you desire to believe and have only the message of God, or whether you believe and have EVERY WORD OF GOD for your christian life.

Do YOU have EVERY WORD, as GOD spoke them? Or, like most of us, do you use an English translation of what some people suppose are God's words? Would you know what Jesus' actual words from the cross, "Eli,Eli, lama sabachthani", meant, if they weren't TRANSLATED for you? I wouldn't! So you see, whether you care to admit it or not, you trust certain scholars to have translated God's words into YOUR language so you can read them.


I believe that I have EVERY WORD of God, for it is written: MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.

I believe the same thing. I also know God isn't limited to just one version & neither am I.

Once again:

You say you're not KJVO, so please tell us what other version(s) you recommend besides the KJV.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and SAviour!

--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

There are no two English BVs alike, so BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you pick & choose among them?
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

This does seem to be the problem doesn't it? Shall I believe what the bible believing churches did in the past for hundreds of years? Or shall I now say, well those things that have been omitted were added all those hundreds of years, and God has kept these poor people to believe additions to his word, even though these additions have STRENGTHENED the doctrines of our faith. God is not the author of confusion, and he does not make people doubt. Shall I compromise and say, oh, all must be the word of God. NO, I say that God would not want me to do this. For God's words are very clear how important every word is to us, and how his words are put even above his own name. His words shall never pass away. His words are eternal and his words are sharper than any two-edged sword. God's power to preserve his very words to us and in our own prospective language, is unquestionable to me. So, either they all differ (in the english language), and God has contradicted himself and lied about not adding to/taking away from his words, and that every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God would not be preserved for every generation, or he has said the truth. How then can one tell? I understand how, have you? OR are you one that doubts and ultimately rejects God's promises for the sake of compromise?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Shawn quoted:

We are instructed to separate from those who deny these things, not someone who does not meet our own criteria of what a Christian should be.
--------------------------------------------------

Shawn,

Thank you for sharing your wonderful testimony! That was a treat to read, and I thank the Lord for your salvation. I also pray that you continue to grow in his grace and that you continue in the peace that surpasses all understanding.

I think you might be misunderstanding me. I do not doubt or question your faith or salvation at all. When I said touch not the unclean thing, that is what I meant: the "thing". When I say separate regarding this issue, it is the versions themselves, not people. However, if a church uses the modern versions, I will not regularily attend (become a member of) that church, but I would not say to separate from the bretheren/sisters because of their use. This is a personal conviction. I do not insist that you use the KJV. I am trying to encourage others to, because of the alterations that have been done in the MV's.

I cannot understand why a christian, who loves the Lord and has been saved by his mercy, would then not be bothered by the fact that the doctrines of our faith are weakened in the modern versions, and say this is the pure words of God? I can't understand this. I can't understand those that say those things that give strong testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, his deity, his blood, the trinity,etc. are additions, and with no proof. Church history attests to these very words as being preserved by God for english speaking people. Today, now the person is caused to doubt whether what they are reading is actually God's words or not, causing one to make judgement on God's words. Is this what you really think God desires for his people? To doubt whether they have every word of God or not? When does it end? If God only cares about the message, to what purpose then is it to know that every word of God is inspired, if the orgionals are now gone? How then can we say that the scriptures are beneficial to our very lives? If we only need the message, then to what advantage/benefit does one have? What assurance does one have? And not only these things, but how does this attribute to our God being a personal God, if he does not speak to us personally with words? Rather, it is only the message, which is very impersonal. It makes one think God doesn't care what we believe, as long as we believe the message. God reveals HIMSELF and his will for us to us through his words. This is why every word is important for us and why he promised to preserve them.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

The Book of Daniel comes from the very center of Baal(Bel) worship. Apollos, whom Scripture describes as a mighty preacher, came from Alexandria. Guilt by association won't work.
--------------------------------------------------


robycop,

There is a big difference between a prophet of God who was given the very words of God to that of a preacher. The book of Daniel is God's very words, God breathed and inspired to Daniel the PROPHET. You are assuming that the manuscripts in found in Egypt were that actual apostles writings, written by the apostles themselves. These were copies that had been altered by various people, and not only that, were stagnant for hundreds of years. The churches believed, taught, memorized, copied, lived the very words for hundreds of years,that the mv proponents are now claiming were added, and with no proof. The proof is that they were believed as the very words of God throughout history. NOt to mention, would God not preserve the stronger testimony of himself, rather than the weaker? Use you God given common sense.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

You ARE gonna face the music on this: you say you're NOT KJVO, and I'm gonna keep badgering until you tell us what other BV(s) you'd recommend along with the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

Your choice of words is telling to me on your attitude concerning this matter. This is not gentle and loving, Christ like attitude toward a fellow sister in Christ. Your words are very dictorial, and violent, and unloving to say the least. If you truly believe I am believing false doctine and a myth as you so claim, then how is this attitude going to convince? How does this attitude show me that you are genuinely concerned for my personal welfare in all this? Please also show me how you are glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ and in all of this?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle