Why was "Pure Word of God" closed

Maam, my co-Moderator and I decided to put a page limit on those threads that are reduced to the same old argument. It seems every thread started in this forum turns into a KJV-vs-MV dogfight. It would be different if some new material were being presented, but it usually isn't. Both sides use the same arguments thread after thread.

I would add that if God said it, that settles it whether we believe it or not.

 

Finally ... someone who can show us where "God said it." We have been waiting for this. Now that you are here, please show us where God said that the KJV is the only Word of God in English, or even where God said it is the best word of God. Please keep in mind that we are interested in, to use your own words, where God said it. We really don't care about what anyone else says since our authority is the Scriptures. Also keep in mind that we want to see where God said these things about the KJV.

Thanks ... looking forward to hearing from you.

 

Deleted because we were piling on...

[ June 12, 2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

I'd be satisfied to just know *when* he said it.

 

Great, but God said it in Hebrew and Greek, not English.

 

Johnv's comments are a perfect example of why we have to delete posts, close threads, etc.

 

Aw, come on Dr. Bob:
Do you really know where the thread is going?
Perhaps this thread will provide me with the Scripture to support KJV-Onlyism that I have asked for time and time again.

 

You anti-KJVOs may laugh, but YOU never give scripture that states your position, either. Go on: show me where the Bible says we should use Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus to find out better what the originals said. Or show me where God promised to preserve his word only in imperfect manuscripts. Or show me where he said only the originals were perfect. You demand proof for our side of the argument that you cannot offer for your own. Laugh all you like, but it won't make your position true.

 

We have given Scripture many times that supports our position. You simply are unwilling to have Scripture be your real final authority. You like to talk about it in theory but when the rubber meets the road, you bail out in a hurry.

We are not insisting that you use any particular manuscript or that you hold our position. We are merely wishing that you, like ourselves, be driven by the authority of Scripture. You are unwilling to do that. That is unfortunate.

 

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
>>You anti-KJVOs may laugh, but YOU never give scripture
>>that states your position, either. Go on: show me where
>>the Bible says we should use Codex Sinaiticus
>>and Codex Vaticanus to find out better what the
>>originals said. Or show me where God promised to preserve
>>his word only in imperfect manuscripts. Or show me where he
>>said only the originals were perfect. You demand proof for our
>>side of the argument that you cannot offer for your own. Laugh
>>all you like, but it won't make your position true.

See what I mean Dr. Bob?
I am not the one espousing this doctrine, but I am the one who must provide Scripture to refute Bartholomew's Unscriptural belief.

Let me try this again Bartholomew:
There is NO SCRIPTURE to support your KJV-Onlyism. One more time, THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT YOUR KJV-ONLYISM. If your belief is not supported by Scripture, then the Scripture to refute your KJV-Onlyism can be found in the book of Galatians. Additionally, if you are REALLY using the Authorized Version as I do, there are several passages in Ecclesiasticus that you should consult.
Once again, you have failed to provide any Scripture to support your KJV-Onlyism. Because I am not the one who extols KJV-Onlyism, it is not up to me to refute your statements when you cannot give us one Verse to support your argument. However, since your belief is not supported by Scripture, then I would contend that Galatians 5:8 is my Scriptural basis for my belief that God didn't need King James, and His Word can be found in several versions of the Bible.

 

Yeah it is kinda funny that this is an open discussion forum EXPECT when someone doesn't want it to be!

Usually the KJV threads die out quickly because they are so boring, heat and no light, so let them go and die out quit being so heavy-handed

 

Originally posted by go2church:
>>Yeah it is kinda funny that this is an open discussion forum
>>EXPECT when someone doesn't want it to be!


I'm sorry, I don't follow you here: who didn't want it to be an "open discussion?" Nothing prohibited you from posting to this "open discussion."

>>Usually the KJV threads die out quickly because they are so
>>boring, heat and no light, so let them go and die out quit being
>>so heavy-handed

I am not sure to whom you are referring, so who is being "heavy-handed?" You are more than welcome to show us the Biblical Support for KJV-Onlyism.

 

I am not the one esposing the doctrine that God only preserved his word imperfectly; or that we should use the Geneva Bible; but I am the one who must provide Scripture to refute Baptist in Richmond's Unscriptural beliefs.

Let me try this again Baptist in Richmond: The is NO SCRIPTURE to support your God-didn't-perfectly-preserve-his-word-ism; or your the-Geneva-Bible-is-really-good-ism. One more time, THERE IS NO SCRIPUTRE TO SUPPORT YOUR GOD-DIDN'T-PERFECTLY-PRESERVE-HIS-WORD-ISM; or your THE-GENEVA-BIBLE-IS-REALLY-GOOD-ISM

If your belief is not supported by Scripture, then the Scripture to refute your God-didn't-perfectly-preserve-his-word-ism and the-Geneva-Bible-is-really-good-ism can be found in the book of Galations.

Once again, you have failed to provide any Scripture to support your God-didn't-perfectly-preserve-his-word-ism; or the-Geneva-Bible-is-really-good-ism. Because I am not the one who extols God-didn't-perfectly-preserve-his-word-ism, or the-Geneva-Bible-is-really-good-ism, it is not up to me to refute your statements when you cannot give us one Verse to support your argument.

 

This thread has reached an all new level of worthlessness. Let's see if we can get at least one thread going with civil, adult discourse. Is it possible?