Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Bible Highlighter]

Progress! You actually quoted from the NLT! (New Living Translation) and another non-KJV Bible (in Psalms 12:6-7 and John 7:24). Hallelujah! There is hope for you yet!

I never really changed my view on this in the past 10 years. Yes, I am not against using Modern Translations when I feel that they align with what the KJB says.

You're not turning into a Liberal, are you?

Not a chance. My use of Modern Translations does not equate with them being my final Word of authority. Bible translations can many times say the same thing that the King James Bible says but by the use of different wording. So there is no contradiction. My problem is when Modern Bibles teach false doctrines and we trust those false teachings. When this happens... that is when I side with the King James Bible.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What is your view of Phileo love? Is it an affection? Can it be an affection for a thing or a person?

What I think phileo is does not matter

What I see (jesus asked peter. Do you agape me, Peter. Unable to say he agape Jesus, Said he phileo him)

Is there anythign wrong wiht that? No. Did Jesus confront him for not saying he agape him? No./ In fact, remember, Peter denied jesus three times. How can peter say, I agape you Jesus. When I just denied you three times??

I could not.. Probably from Guilt.

But again, You can not see that in the english bible because you only have one word to interpret both.

So you never heard of the 4 languages of love before you did your study?
If you got it from looking up the Greek, then that Greek source was influenced by C.S. Lewis’ book (or from the Revisers before him).

Actually I got it when I saw the words in a greek-english text, and looked up the words

Did CS Lewis create a greek-english interlining and the dictionaries and lexicons I looked up?

See, there you go trying to enforce something about me that is not only not true. But only attempts to help your own case.

Now this is a false accusation that you think that being KJB Only equates with following an idol.

Well your right, Some people like to read the KJV over other versions, and thats not an idol

But you can take that and turn it into an idol. And sadly many people have.

As I said before, a woman can cherish a love letter from her fiancé who is living in another country. But that does not make it an idol. Now, if she were to kiss the letter, talk to it, and take the letter out on dinner dates then there would be a problem (with it being an idol).
Christians who are KJB Only generally believe that GOD is a spirit being and He is to be worshiped. They view the words of GOD in the Bible as the expressed thoughts or mind of GOD towards us. To suggest that these words by GOD are perfect does not make them an idol because they are GOD’s written words to us about His good character, and His instructions towards us to love Him, and others. So to say that we regard this as an idol is one of the highest insults you can make towards another believer. It’s a false accusation not based on anything remotely true (in characterizing KJB Only believers as a whole). No KJB Only Christian bows down to the KJB as if it was literally the very core of who GOD is. GOD is a spirit being. The Bible is the thoughts of GOD. To deny their beauty and to not cherish their perfection is simply going down the path of tarnishing (dirtying) His Word (His thoughts or words) with one’s own thoughts (or by the thoughts of Revisionist scholars, i.e. men).

You defend blindly and make excuse after excuse to defend your version, even claiming it perfect inspite of all tghe evidence to the contrary.

Thats called Idol worship

Anyways, you are not dealing with Mark 10:21. Why?
Please explain this verse to me in how you think it works in your defense.

I have utterly no idea what mark 21 does to support me or refute me in my thought that the english language is a flawed language and any book interpreted into that language from a more perfect language like the greek would have inherent flaws do to the flawed or weaker language.

In fact, It does neither.. It does not answer why peter could not say he agape Jesus, it does not answer why the translators did not interpret other words, but transliterated them (such as baptism) which has caused many a false doctrine. it does not answer why such of peters words ;Ike repent and be baptized were not properly interpreted and helped in the above false doctrines (namely baptismal regeneration) and the many many other things which I have not even begun to bring up yet.

All I see is you once again trying to deflect from what is really being discussed here. And defend your worship of a bible translation. Which you deny you worship one.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This part of your signature -- " I believe in the Bible Alone (King James Version) as my authority for all matters of faith and practice" -- says everything one needs to know about you. You think that the KJV is the only true Bible, which is nonsense. It is a 411-year-old translation, created by fallible men. Your rigid position negates anything else you say.

Additionally...

Here are two definitions of liberalism, which you use in a pejorative manner...

1) willingness to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas
2) a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law

What is your problem with the above?

Lol.. But @Bible Highlighter claims he does not worship.

I feel sorry for all the people who do not have the word of God in their own language..

Sadly, I feel it is just a another supremacy idea, I grew up in a KJV only church. And used to make the same arguments.. I am so glad I was healed of that pride.

 

[Grailhunter]

German theologian William Wrede wrote that "Like every other real science, New Testament Theology has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology". Theologian Hermann Gunkel affirmed that "the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration".[16] Episcopal bishop Shelby Spong declared that the literal interpretation of the Bible is heresy.[17][18]

The two groups also disagreed on the role of experience in confirming truth claims. Traditional Protestants believed scripture and revelation always confirmed human experience and reason. For liberal Protestants, there were two ultimate sources of religious authority: the Christian experience of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and universal human experience. In other words, only an appeal to common human reason and experience could confirm the truth claims of Christianity.[19]

In general, liberal Christians are not concerned with the presence of biblical errors or contradictions.[12] Liberals abandoned or reinterpreted traditional doctrines in light of recent knowledge. For example, the traditional doctrine of original sin was rejected for being derived from Augustine of Hippo, whose views on the New Testament were believed to have been distorted by his involvement with Manichaeism. Christology was also reinterpreted. Liberals stressed Christ's humanity, and his divinity became "an affirmation of Jesus exemplifying qualities which humanity as a whole could hope to emulate".[8]

Liberal Christians sought to elevate Jesus' humane teachings as a standard for a world civilization freed from cultic traditions and traces of traditionally pagan types of belief in the supernatural.[20] As a result, liberal Christians placed less emphasis on miraculous events associated with the life of Jesus than on his teachings.[21] The debate over whether a belief in miracles was mere superstition or essential to accepting the divinity of Christ constituted a crisis within the 19th-century church, for which theological compromises were sought.[22][pages needed] Many liberals prefer to read Jesus' miracles as metaphorical narratives for understanding the power of God.[23][better source needed] Not all theologians with liberal inclinations reject the possibility of miracles, but many reject the polemicism that denial or affirmation entails.[24]

Nineteenth-century liberalism had an optimism about the future in which humanity would continue to achieve greater progress.[8] This optimistic view of history was sometimes interpreted as building the kingdom of God in the world.[9]

Source:
Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia

LOL Wikipedia has been wrong before.
This would define anyone as a liberal that is not a fundamentalist. I am not a fundamentalist and I am not a religious liberal. I seek the truth.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

rephrase the question..."the Bible?" "historical liberal groups"
New translations came out as more accurate information was discovered and new translatons also came out to make the Bible more easier to read....had nothing to do with "historical liberals"

Christian liberal groups (not liberal groups in general like say liberal politicians) are Christians who took a liberal approach to the Bible. Many of them regarded things in the Bible as myths and or legends or they rejected important core doctrines of the faith. They took an unnecessary allegorical approach.

Newer translations when they came out just so happened to be favored by liberal groups because different translations can make the Word of God say different things.

Well can you play catch with it? It is a transgression against God. But I do not think you know what biblical sins are.

There are different kinds of sin. There is the kind of sin that makes a person by nature children of wrath because of the Fall of Adam (See: Ephesians 2:3). This is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin. But the most basic understanding of sin is that sin is transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). This can be sin in one's actions (like say murder, theft, adultery, etcetera), and it could be sin by using one's mind (like in looking upon a woman in lust - Matthew 5:28-30). Sin that the Bible describes as condemning us will lead us to the Lake of Fire to be destroyed unless we confess and forsake such sins in this life (Myself included).

Valid? Define valid and what religions are you talking about? If you are talking about Christian religions, Christ will be the judge of that.

Not sure how you can think this way. Catholicism is false because it teaches idolatry. Can a person can be into idolatry and not repent of such a sin and still be saved?

LOL I believe in the 900 yard shot!

This really is not a clear answer. I have no idea what you mean by this phrase. A simple “yes,” or “no” would be sufficient. Also to laugh at this kind of question shows that you don't take it seriously. But the taking of innocent life is always serious to GOD and it is no laughing matter. Again, I ask you: Do you tend to accept the idea that is okay for our government to enforce abortion? A simple yes or no will suffice please.

I don't believe that too many Christians believe in sodomy. But it appears you have your own definition of things running around in your head, so I am not going to presume that I know what your are talking about....and warning sex talk goes south pretty quickly on the forum.

There are Christian groups who are into sodomy or Christian groups who say that they will be saved even if they are a sodomite (even if they think it is a sin, etcetera). Again, a simple yes or no on this would be appreciated. I say this because it seems like your answer may condemn you. If you don't answer further it only makes you look bad.

This is an interesting topic. But since my profession in the military dealt with Quantum science...what do you think? But it would be a good thread to open.

Again, that's not really an answer, but an evasion again. This makes me believe you are hiding the idea that you believe in an Old Earth because you don't want to fit into the mold of being a liberal. So again, I ask you: Do you believe in an Old Earth? Yes, or no?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Lol.. But @Bible Highlighter claims he does not worship.

Well, I don't worship the KJB because I don't regard the Bible as the entirety of GOD. But I believe GOD is a spirit being who is to be worshiped. Neither do I bow down to the Bible as a magical totem like a Catholic would do when bowing down to a statue to contact their gods (of which they call the saints). So to continue to imply I worship the KJB is just mindless pitchfork mobbing with no actual factual basis for such a claim.

I feel sorry for all the people who do not have the word of God in their own language..

This is a poor argument.
One can just as equally say the same thing when the Scriptures were only available to the Hebrews at one point in time or one could say this when the Scriptures were first being written only in the Greek at the time period of the apostles.

Besides, a person can be saved by God's grace without a perfect Bible. But when it comes to maturity and growing in grace, that is another matter. To whom much is given, much is required.

Sadly, I feel it is just a another supremacy idea, I grew up in a KJV only church. And used to make the same arguments.. I am so glad I was healed of that pride.

God does rule by His Words and there can only be one Word and not many. It's not pride to follow God's words that are perfect and exact. The opposite is to do one's own thing and or to distort what God said, or to not believe verses like Psalms 12:6-7, etcetera.

As for the KJB Only church you attended in the past:

Well, the concept of the modern idea of church is really not biblical. The idea of a Pastor King is not found in the Bible. Believers are not lord over others as the Gentiles do. This is merely the fault of the times we are living in and its not really a KJB Only problem that is exclusive to the KJB.

 

[Grailhunter]

Christian liberal groups (not liberal groups in general like say liberal politicians) are Christians who took a liberal approach to the Bible. Many of them regarded things in the Bible as myths and or legends or they rejected important core doctrines of the faith. They took an unnecessary allegorical approach.

Liberal from the perspective of a fundamentalist. "important core doctrines" The funny thing for me, for the bible only perspective is how much they do not understand about, just the Bible. For the most part archeologists and science are proving what people call biblical myths and legends are actually true.

Newer translations when they came out just so happened to be favored by liberal groups because different translations can make the Word of God say different things.

You are calling them liberals because they are not KJV only. Again, the new translations came out because new more accurate information became available and to produce Bibles that would be easier to read.

But the most basic understanding of sin is that sin is transgression of the Law

What Law are you talking about?

There are different kinds of sin. There is the kind of sin that makes a person by nature children of wrath because of the Fall of Adam (See: Ephesians 2:3). This is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin. But the most basic understanding of sin is that sin is transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). This can be sin in one's actions (like say murder, theft, adultery, etcetera), and it could be sin by using one's mind (like in looking upon a woman in lust - Matthew 5:28-30). Sin that the Bible describes as condemning us will lead us to the Lake of Fire to be destroyed unless we confess and forsake such sins in this life (Myself included).

Different kinds of sin....yes. But that does not mean you know what sin is....even from the Biblical perspective.

Not sure how you can think this way. Catholicism is false because it teaches idolatry. Can a person can be into idolatry and not repent of such a sin and still be saved?

The catholic thing would be a long topic....we can just go with....Protestants do not like Catholics and Catholics do not like Protestants. Beyond that the Catholics have big issues and the Protestants have big issues.
So do you have a valid Church in mind?

This really is not a clear answer. I have no idea what you mean by this phrase. A simple “yes,” or “no” would be sufficient. Also to laugh at this kind of question shows that you don't take it seriously. But the taking of innocent life is always serious to GOD and it is no laughing matter.

The 900 yard shot says everything.....HVLI....High Velocity Lead Injection.

There are Christian groups who are into sodomy

You mean sodomy in church? I don't mind answering, but I have fought cults so I am use to the cult talk....leading questions.
Define exactly what you mean by sodomy.

Again, that's not really an answer, but an evasion again. This makes me believe you are hiding the idea that you believe in an Old Earth because you don't want to fit into the mold of being a liberal. So again, I ask you: Do you believe in an Old Earth? Yes, or no?

No I do not believe that Earth is around 6,000 years old....nor do I believe science knows exactly how old it is.
Nor do I believe that the Earth is flat or that stars fall to the Earth.
And I think the belief in such is detrimental to Christianity. The young are rejecting it. It is ok for the Old Farts to believe that but the young are sitting in church thinking these guys are crazy and the horse they rode in on.

 

[Jim B]

<snip>


Not sure how you can think this way. Catholicism is false because it teaches idolatry. Can a person can be into idolatry and not repent of such a sin and still be saved?



<snip>


There are Christian groups who are into sodomy or Christian groups who say that they will be saved even if they are a sodomite (even if they think it is a sin, etcetera). Again, a simple yes or no on this would be appreciated. I say this because it seems like your answer may condemn you. If you don't answer further it only makes you look bad.

I agree 100% that Catholics are into idolatry. They pray to the statues of "saints" and even depict Jesus as still on the cross! Disgusting!

Also, I don't know of any Christian groups who are into sodomy. Perhaps you're confusing "sodomy" -- a physical act -- with homosexuality -- the quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex. There are Christians who follow the Lord's direction to love our neighbor as ourselves. There are all kinds of sin, including the sexual sin of adultery, but "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God." John 3:16-18 NET

BTW, we are getting very far away from the OP. That's okay with me, since I consider yet another update of the KJV to be a non-issue.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Liberal from the perspective of a fundamentalist. "important core doctrines" The funny thing for me, for the bible only perspective is how much they do not understand about, just the Bible. For the most part archeologist and science is proving that people call myths and legends.

Do you believe in a local flood?
Do you believe that the 1,000 year reign of Christ is not a literal 1,000 years?

You are calling them liberals because they are not KJV only.

Before the NIV popularized the Modern English Bible Translation movement to the masses, I am saying that liberals groups before that are groups that held to liberal beliefs like abortion is okay, homosexuality is okay, and some stories or things in the Bible are metaphor.

Again, the new translations came out because new more accurate information became available and to produce Bibles that would be easier to read.

That's what they want you to believe. But there is an agenda behind the Modern English Translation movement that you are not willing to see because you bought into their sales pitch hook, line, and sinker.

What Law are you talking about?

The many Laws of Christ found within the pages of the New Testament (i.e. the commands from our Lord Jesus and His followers). This would not be the 613 laws of Moses as a whole or package deal. Christians do not have to keep the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, etcetera. Christians are to love GOD, and love all others, and they are to not justify sins like idolatry, adultery, theft, etcetera.

Different kinds of sin....yes. But that does not mean you know what sin is....even from the Biblical perspective.

Sin at its core is disobedience to GOD. Sin leads to punishment for any person unless such sin is confessed and forsaken. If you believe otherwise, prove your case.

The catholic thing would be a long topic....we can just go with....Protestants do not like Catholics and Catholics do not like Catholics. Beyond that the Catholics have big issues and the Protestants have big issues.

It's not a matter of whether they don't like the people. It's a matter of the Catholic's wrong belief system. For example, they bow down to statues and kiss them. This is explicitly forbidden to do in the Holy Bible. They also pray to dead people (like the saints) which is also condemned in the Bible.

So do you have a valid Church in mind?

I believe we are living in the last days, and so not many are following the narrow path. As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man.

The 900 yard shot says everything.....HVLI....High Velocity Lead Injection.

Okay. This still does not really explain anything. Are you saying that one should shoot the doctor who is committing the abortion or are you saying that one can shoot the baby and the mother and it's okay? I really have no idea what your talking about here involving a lethal weapon. Note: I don't believe Christians can be violent or take physical life. So the idea that you bring up shooting is exceptionally disturbing. In any event, you did not again answer my question. Yes, or no. That's all I am looking for. Please tell it to me straight and stop beating around the bush. Do you believe a woman has the right to kill her own baby if it is in the womb? Yes, or no. Simple response here, friend. Please answer and stop dodging.

You mean sodomy in church? I don't mind answering, but I have fought cults so I am use to the cult talk....leading questions.

Cults are those who seek to control others. I have no intention of doing so. I am just a guide and I am a firm believer of that. I am opposed to traditional churches because it's all about one man having the authority instead of everyone having a psalms, a doctrine, a revelation etcetera. Most churches seek to lord over the flock. Jesus said we are not to be like the gentiles who seek to have the dominion over others. We are to be great only by being humble and loving others and serving them, and we should never command or rule over others. Only God's Word is the authority, and I am merely a guide to lead them to follow it. The only authority is God's Word and not in what men say. Cults add things to what the Bible says, and they seek to uplift a particular person or group of leaders as being in higher authority so as to have the rule over others to submit to them with an iron fist. This is wrong. So any words I use here is not in line with any cult code words so as to condemn me. I know what cults are and I am against them. So please do not insinuate that I am using cult tactics (So as to make me like the bad guy when I am not even remotely even in the ballpark of such a concept). Asking questions is something even Jesus did. It's not a cult if a person asks questions. For you yourself are asking questions, too.

Define exactly what you mean by sodomy.

Are you new to the faith? Have you not read the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 involving what the inhabitants wanted to do towards the angels that GOD sent to save Lot? What do you think the men wanted to do to the angels? Sell them ice cream? Come on now. Do you not have the ability to look up that word in an online dictionary on Google and then compare it how the Bible uses that word? Let's not be silly. You should know what I am talking about here. So again, I see this as yet another evasion of my question. Please answer yes or no.

No I do not believe that Earth is around 6,000 years old....nor do I believe science knows exactly how old it is.

Right, which places you right into the commonly understood consensus of a Christian liberal (Whether you agree with that label or not).

Nor do I believe that the Earth is flat

Yes, we agree that the Earth is not flat.
I have debated flat Earth Christians before, and they are extremely hard to reason with.

or that stars fall to the Earth.

This would be meteorites or shooting stars falling to the Earth, or it could be the light from the stars at night not giving off their light anymore (or it could be both). But it does not mean the actual giant sized version stars from other galaxies falling upon our Earth (obviously).

And I think the belief in such is detrimental to Christianity.

No doubt you do.

The young are rejecting it.

Just as they are rejecting lots of things in the Bible. We are living in the last days.

It is ok for the Old Farts to believe that but the young are sitting in church thinking these guys are crazy and the horse they rode in on.

Because we are in the End Times Apostasy that is affecting even the church itself. Not surprised. The Bible talks about how there will be a great falling away before our Lord's return.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I agree 100% that Catholics are into idolatry. They pray to the statues of "saints" and even depict Jesus as still on the cross! Disgusting!

Also, I don't know of any Christian groups who are into sodomy. Perhaps you're confusing "sodomy" -- a physical act -- with homosexuality -- the quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex. There are Christians who follow the Lord's direction to love our neighbor as ourselves. There are all kinds of sin, including the sexual sin of adultery, but "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God." John 3:16-18 NET

BTW, we are getting very far away from the OP. That's okay with me, since I consider yet another update of the KJV to be a non-issue.

What do you think the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to do with the two angels?
Talk about the latest sports events? Come on now.
Also, there are Christian churches that are into sodomy.
There is a Queen James Bible in existence. It's even got a rainbow cross on the cover. Anyways, are you saying that a person can be a practicing sodomite and still be saved while doing so? If that is the case, then Catholics should be saved in their idolatry then, right?

 

[Grailhunter]

Do you believe in a local flood?

The flood is in the Bible so I have no issues with there being a flood.

Do you believe that the 1,000 year reign of Christ is not a literal 1,000 years?

I believe Revelation has meaning in numbers and imagery and I have no issues with a 1000 year reign.

Before the NIV popularized the Modern English Bible Translation movement to the masses, I am saying that liberals groups before that are groups that held to liberal beliefs like abortion is okay, homosexuality is okay, and some stories or things in the Bible are metaphor.

How much before the NIV are you talking about.

That's what they want you to believe. But there is an agenda behind the Modern English Translation movement that you are not willing to see because you bought into their sales pitch hook, line, and sinker.

Sorry, that is running a race track in your head.

The many Laws of Christ found within the pages of the New Testament (i.e. the commands from our Lord Jesus and His followers). This would not be the 613 laws of Moses as a whole or package deal. Christians do not have to keep the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, etcetera. Christians are to love GOD, and love all others, and they are to not justify sins like idolatry, adultery, theft, etcetera.

The Laws of Christ, commonly called the Commandments of Christ are both simple and all encompassing. The meaning of those Commandments are explained...demonstrated by action and detailed description throughout the New Testament

Sin at its core is disobedience to GOD. Sin leads to punishment for any person unless such sin is confessed and forsaken. If you believe otherwise, prove your case.

I agree with the the concept of this, but I do not think you know what are Christian sins.

I believe we are living in the last days, and so not many are following the narrow path. As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Well apparently everyone in the New Testament thought they were living in the last days....using those exact words.
The coming of Christ will be a surprise....kind of planned that way....be ready.

Okay. This still does not really explain anything. Are you saying that one should shoot the doctor who is committing the abortion or are you saying that one can shoot the baby and the mother and it's okay? I really have no idea what your talking about here involving a lethal weapon. Note: I don't believe Christians can be violent or take physical life. So the idea that you bring up shooting is exceptionally disturbing. In any event, you did not again answer my question. Yes, or no. That's all I am looking for. Please tell it to me straight and stop beating around the bush. Do you believe a woman has the right to kill her own baby if it is in the womb? Yes, or no. Simple response here, friend. Please answer and stop dodging.

Let me put it a different way.
Oh My! I believe abortion doctors and staff should burn in the lowest hell. Do you get that!?

Cults are those who seek to control others. I have no intention of doing so. I am just a guide and I am a firm believer of that. I am opposed to traditional churches because it's all about one man having the authority instead of everyone having a psalms, a doctrine, a revelation etcetera. Most churches seek to lord over the flock. Jesus said we are not to be like the gentiles who seek to have the dominion over others. We are to be great only by being humble and loving others and serving them, and we should never command or rule over others. Only God's Word is the authority, and I am merely a guide to lead them follow it. The only authority is God's Word and not in what men say. Cults add things to what the Bible says, and they seek to uplift a particular person or group of leaders as being in higher authority so as to have the rule over others to submit to them with an iron fist. This is wrong. So any words I use here is not in line with any cult code words so as to condemn me. I know what cults are and I am against them. So please do not insinuate that I am using cult tactics (So as to make me like the bad guy when I am not even remotely even in the ballpark of such a concept). Asking questions is something even Jesus did. It's not a cult if a person asks questions. For you yourself are asking questions, too.

You sound culty, not that you are using cult tactics or that you are a cult.

Are you new to the faith? Have you not read the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 involving what the inhabitants wanted to do towards the angels that GOD sent to save Lot? What do you think the men wanted to do to the angels? Sell the ice cream? Come on now. Do you not have the ability to look up that word in an online dictionary on Google and then compare it how the Bible uses that word? Let's not be silly. You should know what I am talking about here. So again, I see this as yet another evasion of my question. Please answer yes or no.

Ok, if you are strictly referring to scriptures that describes an action and calls it sodomy....then give that scripture to me....the action has to have the word sodomy. If you are talking about a Mosaic Law that carries over to Christianity that forbids males from having sex with other males like they would have with a woman. That is a sin. Of course the topic is going to go a direction you are not going to like.

Right, which places you right into the commonly understood consensus of a Christian liberal.

Of course I disagree with that.

This would be meteorites or shooting stars falling to the Earth, or it could be the light from the stars at night not giving off their light anymore. But it does not mean the actual giant sized version stars from other galaxies falling upon our Earth (obviously).

We know things that they did not know back then. The Bible speaks from the perspective of their time, if it did not they would not have understood it.
.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The flood is in the Bible so I have no issues with there being a flood.

Do believe the flood was global or local?

How much before the NIV are you talking about.

I would say it was immediate. It was immediately before the popularity or rise of the NIV soared among the public.

But in either case, it does not change the reality of the history on the point I made. Liberal groups generally accepted new versions and they did not like the King James Bible. So there is definitely a pattern we can see that works against you here.

The Laws of Christ, commonly called the Commandments of Christ are both simple and all encompassing. The meaning of those Commandments are explained...demonstrated by action and detailed description throughout the New Testament

1 Corinthians 14:37
“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

I agree with the the concept of this, but I do not think you know what are Christian sins.

Good for you. Why don't you share that to edify other believers (if you feel it is truly worthy for us other believers to know).

Well apparently everyone in the New Testament thought they were living in the last days....using those exact words.
The coming of Christ will be a surprise....kind of planned that way....be ready.

2 Peter 3:3-4
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?”

Let me put it a different way.
Oh My! I believe abortion doctors and staff should burn in the lowest hell. Do you get that!?

I am surprised by your answer. Anyways, while I agree that abortion is exceptionally evil and wrong, I believe Jesus says love your enemies and not to kill them with a lethal weapon. I take this to mean that while we may be disgusted by such a sin, we should try to hold out hope to even abortion doctors in that they can repent and be changed by the love of Christ.

You sound culty, not that you are using cult tactics or that you are a cult.

What does... “you sound culty” look like in my posts?
Can you be more specific in what words exactly I have stated that makes me “sound culty”?

In other words, if you make an accusation generally it is proper and good and courteous to provide evidence to back up such claims.

Seeing you stated that I am not using cult tactics or that I am not a cult, then I cannot possibly be using words that “sound culty.”

Ok, if you are strictly referring to scriptures that describes an action and calls it sodomy....then give that scripture to me....the action has to have the word sodomy.

Genesis 19. The two angels and the inhabitants of Sodom wanted the two angels to be sent out.
What do you think the Sodomites were planning to do to the the two angels if they were sent out of Lot's home?
Sell them ice cream?

Please explain in your own words of what you think the Sodomites were planning to do to the two angels.

If you are talking about a Mosaic Law that carries over to Christianity that forbids males from having sex with other males like they would have with a woman. That is a sin. Of course the topic is going to go a direction you are not going to like.

I believe sodomy also is a sin and it needs to be confessed and forsaken by a believer in order for them to have eternal life. Believers cannot justify sin.

No I do not believe that Earth is around 6,000 years old....nor do I believe science knows exactly how old it is.

Right, which places you right into the commonly understood consensus of a Christian liberal.

Of course I disagree with that.

Why I am not surprised. Do you believe in Darwin's Macro-Evolution, too? Do you believe we were once cavemen or something silly? Do you believe mankind were once monkeys?

We know things that they did not know back then. The Bible speaks from the perspective of their time, if it did not they would not have understood it.
.

But the Scriptures are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). So God would know what His Word is saying.
Oh, but you don't believe we have a perfect Bible that we can hold in our hands on planet Earth.
If so... then man or scholars or you get to decide what is in God's Word is true or false. Men become the authority and not God. That's the problem (you don't seem to be able to grasp).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The flood is in the Bible so I have no issues with there being a flood.


I believe Revelation has meaning in numbers and imagery and I have no issues with a 1000 year reign.



How much before the NIV are you talking about.



Sorry, that is running a race track in your head.



The Laws of Christ, commonly called the Commandments of Christ are both simple and all encompassing. The meaning of those Commandments are explained...demonstrated by action and detailed description throughout the New Testament



I agree with the the concept of this, but I do not think you know what are Christian sins.



Well apparently everyone in the New Testament thought they were living in the last days....using those exact words.
The coming of Christ will be a surprise....kind of planned that way....be ready.



Let me put it a different way.
Oh My! I believe abortion doctors and staff should burn in the lowest hell. Do you get that!?



You sound culty, not that you are using cult tactics or that you are a cult.



Ok, if you are strictly referring to scriptures that describes an action and calls it sodomy....then give that scripture to me....the action has to have the word sodomy. If you are talking about a Mosaic Law that carries over to Christianity that forbids males from having sex with other males like they would have with a woman. That is a sin. Of course the topic is going to go a direction you are not going to like.



Of course I disagree with that.



We know things that they did not know back then. The Bible speaks from the perspective of their time, if it did not they would not have understood it.
.

From WayofLife Literature, by David Cloud. This guy is a reading machine. He has read tons of books on both sides of the debate over many years. He even was once an Anti-KJB Only Christian and even seen them in a bad light.

Here is the full story on David Cloud's research that shows that liberal circles were in acceptance of Modern versions before the boom of the Modern Translation took off with the NIV.

“It is important to understand that the Bible version issue did not really “heat up” for fundamentalists until the 1970s. There were modern texts and versions prior to this, going back to the 1800s, but they were never widely used among fundamentalists or even among evangelicals. The English Revised Version of 1881 was never popular. The same was true for the American Standard Version of 1901. The Revised Standard Version of 1952 was popular only within liberal denominations. The New American Standard Bible of 1960 had a small following among scholarly evangelicals and even a few fundamentalists but it was never widely popular. It was not until the publication of the New International Version that a modern version began to be widely used outside of theologically liberal circles.”​

Source:
https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/downloads/Why_We_Hold_to_the_KJB.pdf


Side Note:

Please keep in mind that while I agree with David Cloud on the KJB Issue for the most part, I do not hold to David Cloud's view of sin and salvation (As of the date of this writing). I believe a Christian needs to be concerned with two aspects of salvation and not just a “one and your done” type version of salvation. In other words, he believes in Eternal Security. There are Christians who are KJB Only who reject Eternal Security (like myself). He preaches a changes life as a part of Eternal Security being true, but then he double speaks back on that issue that a believer is not separated by Christ by sin or a lack of unfruitfulness. You can see his confused understanding on this topic here.

 

[Grailhunter]

Do believe the flood was global or local?

Well I am not sure and that is an honest answer. The bible is mostly referencing the middle east. Different cultures on that side of the pond record a flood. Cultures in North and South America do not. There is a lot of people that have studied this and have different theories. And before you ask....I do not believe you could get all the animals in the world on a boat. Maybe a lot, but not all.

One of my favorite jokes is where one Guy ask if the story of Noah is true, what did they feed all the big cats and wolves?
And the other guy said, The floating dead bodies of sinners.

Liberal groups

I do not agree with your determination of liberal groups....anyone looking for the truth is liberal?
There is no such thing as a KJB denomination. The first Protestant Bibles were produced by William Tyndale and Martin Luther. Some other were written but then you have the Geneva Bible and those that preferred it over the KJV thought the KJV was corrupt. People linking their religion to a translation is not that smart.

Good for you. Why don't you share that to edify other believers (if you feel it is truly worthy for us other believers to know).

It is probably good to know what sins are and I don't think you know and part of the reason for that is the KJV. The other is the tendency to come up with rules to make people think they are more "holy" than others.

I am surprised by your answer. Anyways, while I agree that abortion is exceptionally evil and wrong, I believe Jesus says love your enemies. I take this to mean that while we may be disgusted by such a sin, we should try to hold out hope to even abortion doctors in that they can repent and be changed by the love of Christ.

Naaah....to many babies die that way. Over 600,000 babies die in just the United States each year. By any means necessary stop abortions.

What does... you sound culty look like in my posts?
Can you be more specific in what words exactly I have stated that makes me sound culty?
Seeing you stated that I am not using cult tactics or that I am not a cult, then I cannot possibly be using words that sound culty.

Its just the wording....Trying to nail someone down on topics so you can be critical. Things like that. And no I don't think you are cult.

Genesis 19. The two angels and the inhabitants of Sodom wanted the two angels to be sent out.
What do you think the Sodomites were planning to do to the the two angels if they were sent out?
Sell them ice cream?

The Bible does not talk about ice cream. And see this is the with the bible only folks, they do not even play by their own rules. We are talking about the Bible here....right? What does the Bible say about sodomy? So many false beliefs out because people misunderstand and assume and use their imagination to fill in the holes.....so then you end up with religion that is Bible only, that has a lot of non-biblical beliefs. That has been going on for a long time.

I believe sodomy also is a sin and it needs to be confessed and forsaken by a believer in order for them to have eternal life. Believers cannot justify sin.

First you have to define it and prove it is Biblical.

Why I am not surprised. Do you believe in Darwin's Macro-Evolution, too? Do you believe we were once cavemen or apes or something silly? Do you believe mankind were once monkeys?

I believe in evolution of a sorts, but not Darwin's explaination. Mostly along the lines of Intelligent design and yes that came from the apes.

But the Scriptures are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). So God would know what His Word is saying.
Oh, but you don't believe we have a perfect Bible that we can hold in our hands on planet Earth.
If so... then man or scholars or you get to decide what is in God's Word is true or false. Men become the authority and not God. That's the problem.

Inspired not dictated and inspired to talk to men in that time period about what they could understand.

Nope, no perfect Bible, there is nothing perfect on earth until Christ returns.

then man or scholars or you get to decide what is in God's Word is true or false. From what I am seeing that is what you are doing. I look to the actual scriptures to do that.

 

[Grailhunter]

From WayofLife Literature, by David Cloud. This guy is a reading machine. He has read tons of books on both sides of the debate over many years. He even was once an Anti-KJB Only Christian and even seen them in a bad light.

Here is the full story on David Cloud's research that shows that liberal circles were in acceptance of Modern versions before the boom of the Modern Translation took off with the NIV.

“It is important to understand that the Bible version issue did not really “heat up” for fundamentalists until the 1970s. There were modern texts and versions prior to this, going back to the 1800s, but they were never widely used among fundamentalists or even among evangelicals. The English Revised Version of 1881 was never popular. The same was true for the American Standard Version of 1901. The Revised Standard Version of 1952 was popular only within liberal denominations. The New American Standard Bible of 1960 had a small following among scholarly evangelicals and even a few fundamentalists but it was never widely popular. It was not until the publication of the New International Version that a modern version began to be widely used outside of theologically liberal circles.”​

Source:
https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/downloads/Why_We_Hold_to_the_KJB.pdf


Side Note:

Please keep in mind that while I agree with David Cloud on the KJB Issue for the most part, I do not hold to David Cloud's view of sin and salvation (Last I checked). I believe a Christian needs to be concerned with two aspects of salvation and not just a one and your done type version of salvation. In other words, he believes in Eternal Security. There are Christians who are KJB Only who reject Eternal Security (like myself). He preaches a changes life as a part of Eternal Security being true, but then he double speaks back on that issue that a believer is not separated by Christ by sin or a lack of unfruitfulness. You can see his confused understanding on this topic here.

I do not care what he says. Because I am smarter than he is.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well I am not sure and that is an honest answer. The bible is mostly referencing the middle east. Different cultures on that side of the pond record a flood. Cultures in North and South America do not.

Nope. There was flood legends in South America.

Flood Legends from the Americas, Part 3: Mexico to South America

And there were flood legends in North America. Take your pick.

Source:
List of flood myths - Wikipedia

There is a lot of people that have studied this and have different theories. And before you ask....I do not believe you could get all the animals in the world on a boat. Maybe a lot, but not all.

I actually was not going to ask that. I am not generally focused on the Creation issues all that much anymore, but I do ask these things when I am faced with those who fall into the general consensus of what is commonly known as Liberalism by Conservative Christianity (Whether you accept that label or not). I know Answers in Genesis believe that a dog on the Ark was not many kinds of dogs but only one dog kind and not breeds of dogs. They believe that this theory is supported by Science in genetics. You can check out that article here. I really cannot confirm or deny this. I am not a genetics or animal expert and neither was I there to witness the event. I simply believe God's Word that the flood was global because it says the flood waters covered the highest mountains and the high hills under the whole of heaven were covered.

Genesis 7:19-22
“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.”

So it sounds like you lean more towards a local flood because you don't believe all the animals could have fit on the Ark. So yes. This kind of belief falls into the Liberal camp once again.

One of my favorite jokes is where one Guy ask if the story of Noah is true, what did they feed all the big cats and wolves?
And the other guy said, The floating dead bodies of sinners.

This is simply a mockery of God's Word.

2 Peter 3:5-7
“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”

I do not agree with your determination of liberal groups....anyone looking for the truth is liberal?

So you are looking for the truth? This does not make any sense. If person is a Christian, they have already found the truth and they don't need to keep seeking for what they have already found. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Jesus says to God the Father His Word is truth (John 17:17). Daniel calls the Scriptures as the Scripture of truth (See: Daniel 10:21). So if you are still seeking for truth, then you have not accepted these truths in His Word? Now, a person can learn more truths within God's Word (the Bible), but the truth is available to them at their fingertips by opening the pages of the Bible.

There is no such thing as a KJB denomination.

Did I say KJB denomination? I said a KJB Only church. Meaning, they hold to King James Bible as the one and only authority for all matters of faith and practice.

The first Protestant Bibles were produced by William Tyndale and Martin Luther. Some other were written but then you have the Geneva Bible and those that preferred it over the KJV thought the KJV was corrupt. People linking their religion to a translation is not that smart.

Uh huh. So what do you have as an alternative that is better?

It is probably good to know what sins are and I don't think you know and part of the reason for that is the KJV.

You keep boasting in your superiority of knowledge on this topic, and yet you are not edifying anyone with it.
How does that help anyone?

The other is the tendency to come up with rules to make people think they are more "holy" than others.

There is a difference between man made rules vs. rules found in New Testament given to us by Jesus and His followers. Do you believe we should keep the commands of Jesus and His followers? Do you see that the Bible has to be corrected sometimes on this issue or topic?

Naaah....to many babies die that way. Over 600,000 babies die in just the United States each year. By any means necessary stop abortions.

Do you not realize God is in control of life and death? There are no accidents in life. Nothing in life can happen without God's sovereign approval. Job lost all his children. But he still worshiped God. It was a test of faith in God. The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Death is not the end. So put down your weapon. I mean, if we are to take your mentality here, then you would probably ended up killing the apostle Paul. In fact, I remember talking online with a Christian who worked for something like SWAT. He was about to take down one of his targets, but something held him back in pulling the trigger. He later talked with this guy he was about to shoot and his potential victim witnessed to him about Jesus Christ. It's how he came to the faith. So the man he was about to shoot led him to Jesus Christ.

Its just the wording....Trying to nail someone down on topics so you can be critical.

So that is your opinion and not anything that is remotely established. Jesus criticized many on a wide variety of topics. That does not equate with your accusation of sounding culty. Do you not also try to nail others down on other topics you feel are really important? Is there not a truth you feel is worth fighting for? Critical from a biblical perspective by a Christian is only done to correct as 2 Timothy 3:16 says we can do. Do you not know that the Bible talks about how others held to false doctrines (false beliefs)? Do you not think that we are supposed to correct (criticize) other's false beliefs? Is that not why we are having a Bible discussion in the first place? No Bible discussion or debate would exist if we did not criticize the other belief we felt was wrong. So I don't see this as being exclusive to cult talk. That just silly. You need to prove that this a defining characteristic of cults and not others. By your definition everyone who talks on Christian forums would be culty. So far you have not really demonstrated this as being true.

And no I don't think you are cult.

Thank you. But I don't think that is proper English. I don't think one person can be a cult. Usually a cult involves a following of the radical unhealthy crazy beliefs of one person or a group of people. No followers and there is no cult.

Cult - Wikipedia

The Bible does not talk about ice cream. And see this is the with the bible only folks, they do not even play by their own rules. We are talking about the Bible here....right? What does the Bible say about sodomy? So many false beliefs out because people misunderstand and assume and use their imagination to fill in the holes.....so then you end up with religion that is Bible only, that has a lot of non-biblical beliefs. That has been going on for a long time.

The question about ice cream was sarcasm. Did you really not think it was not sarcasm?
Anyways, I was asking you to explain in your own words what the Sodomites were intending to do the two angels.
Yet you are evasive with the truth on this point.

First you have to define it and prove it is Biblical.

There is nothing to prove. It's obvious. Even sin and still be saved Eternal Security Proponents know that Genesis 19 is talking about Sodomy or homosexuality. To say so otherwise is to be really way off in left field somewhere.

I believe in evolution of a sorts, but not Darwin's explaination. Mostly along the lines of Intelligent design and yes that came from the apes.

Wow. This is crazy. Wow. That's... just like. Wow. You actually believe this? Amazing.
Anyways, this belief would make you a liberal according to the general consensus of evangelical Christianity and even basic informational websites reporting on such a topic or issue.

Inspired not dictated and inspired to talk to men in that time period about what they could understand.

Either way you slice it... the result is God's Holy Word that is perfect.

So you believe all bibles have errors in them? If so... who gets to decide what is true or false?
You? Some scholar? Where is the final authority rest?

Nope, no perfect Bible, there is nothing perfect on earth until Christ returns.

So then you or the scholar becomes the final word of authority over the Bible that you and or the scholar needs to correct. Is this why you are still seeking for truth?

 

[Grailhunter]

Nope. There was flood legends in South America.

Any Noah ark type stories among them?

So it sounds like you lean more towards a local flood because you don't believe all the animals could have fit on the Ark. So yes. This kind of belief falls into the Liberal camp once again.

Well, still not liberal....and I did not say that flood did not occur....And as far reaching their understanding is, I am not expecting for the Bible to tell us how pretty the penguins are or how high the kangaroo can jump.

So you are looking for the truth? This does not make any sense. If person is a Christian, they have already found the truth and they don't need to keep seeking for for what they have already found. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Jesus says to God the Father His Word is truth (John 17:17). Daniel calls the Scriptures as the Scripture of truth (See: Daniel 10:21). So if you are still seeking for truth, then you have not accepted these truths in His Word? Now, a person can learn more truths within God's Word (the Bible), but the truth is available to them at their fingertips by opening the pages of the Bible.

It is truth, just not all of it. But if you are going to be a Bible only person, you need to know the truths of the Bible. Again I am going to tell you I am not a fundamentalist.

Did I say KJB denomination? I said a KJB Only church. Meaning, they hold to King James Bible as the one and only authority for all matters of faith and practice.

You need to feel that way about God, not a book.

Uh huh. So what do you have as an alternative that is better?

Oh for sure! The actual scriptures.

You keep boasting in your superiority of knowledge on this topic, and yet you are not edifying anyone with it.
How does that help anyone?

The Truth will set you free.

There is a difference between man made rules vs. rules found in New Testament given to us by Jesus and His followers. Do you believe we should keep the commands of Jesus and His followers? Do you see that the Bible has to be corrected sometimes on this issue or topic?

As it is right now Christianity has developed a lot more sins / rules than are in the Bible.

Do you not realize God is in control of life and death? There are no accidents in life. Nothing in life can happen without God's sovereign approval.

This sounds like Calvinism....LOL DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER!!!!

So that is your opinion and not anything that is remotely established.

Oh no, just my experience.

Thank you. But I don't think that is proper English. I don't think one person can be a cult. Usually a cult involves more than one person following the radical unhealthy crazy beliefs of one person or a group of people.

No I think singular cults are just nutz.

The question about ice cream was sarcasm. Did you really not think it was not sarcasm?
Anyways, I was asking you to explain in your own words what the Sodomites were intending to do the two angels.
Yet you are evasive with the truth on this point. There is nothing to prove. It's obvious. Even sin and still be saved Eternal Security Proponents know that Genesis 19 is talking about Sodomy or homosexuality. To say so otherwise is to be really way off in left field somewhere.

The word know usually means sex LOL But I think trying to force sex on angels would be kind of like having a tiger by the tail.
Wrong, for sure. But the topic is sodomy so ....can you do better than that? Are you worried about Christians that are wanting to have sex with angels...? You are throwing the word sodomy around but can you find it in the Bible? Is it too much to ask to get factual. I see this all the time, people are taught things, they assume things, they use their imagination. Then these false beliefs get sprinkled everywhere.

Now was Sodom and Gomorrah guilty of sexual sins? I am sure they were full of sin. But you have a term you are using "sodomy"
and I want you to explain what you think it is. Is the word in the Bible? Is it another man-made term that people are trying to insert into the Bible. The problem is people come up with these terms that are not biblical or specific and then try to apply it to everything.

Wow. This is crazy. Wow. That's... just like. Wow. You actually believe this? Amazing.
Anyways, this belief would make you a liberal according to the general consensus of evangelical Christianity and even basic informational websites reporting on such a topic or issue.

Again, I do not agree with your definition of liberal.

Either way you slice it... the result is God's Holy Word that is perfect.

So you believe all bibles have errors in them? If so... who gets to decide what is true or false?
You? Some scholar? Where is the final authority rest?

Who gets to decide what is true or false? You mean one world religion? The Catholics tried that, did not work out for them.

Yes I believe the Bibles have errors....all of them. Nothing perfect on this earth. Shoot one of the ways they could tell if a manuscript was authentic was to see if they corrected the spelling.

The final authority is Christ.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes.

But for some reason all updaters to the AV (KJV) cannot seem to resist going beyond just updating the archaic words and expressions. They always seem to be influenced by the corrupted alexandrian text and faulty masorectic text interpretations.

So what makes the Alexandrian text and the Masorectic text corrupted to the point where you don't consider they are worthy for biblical translations?

Oz

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Any Noah ark type stories among them?

According to the Wikipedia article source you did not read, it says:

These accounts depict a flood, sometimes global in scale, usually sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution.

In other words, they loosely relate to the actual true story of the global flood that you deny.

Well, still not liberal....and I did not say that flood did not occur....

Many people know local floods occur many times throughout history and kill people. So nobody denies that local floods can happen. There is no reason that an unbeliever can deny a local flood can happen. They see it happen all the time. What they are doubting is something unique and different that the Bible describes (Which is a global flood). So Peter is talking about a global flood in 2 Peter 3 and not a local one that people see happen all the time. That's why it is called faith. What you think is impossible... it is possible with GOD; Even the animals fitting on the Ark. Maybe God put in pocket dimensions or folded space on the Ark. Nothing is impossible for GOD. Granted, I am not saying that is what happened, but God can do anything. So if God says it in His Word, we don't have to figure it out and try to rationalize it. It's faith, and without faith it is impossible to please Him (GOD).

And as far reaching their understanding is, I am not expecting for the Bible to tell us how pretty the penguins are or how high the kangaroo can jump.

But knowing these things alone does not equate to our having faith in Jesus Christ according to the Bible.
Yes, I am aware that we can know of God's existence by nature. But just knowing God's existence is not enough to be saved, and or in having a right relationship with Him.

It is truth, just not all of it. But if you are going to be a Bible only person, you need to know the truths of the Bible.

Well, I actually prefer the term “Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It” vs. the term “Sola Scriptura.”

Again I am going to tell you I am not a fundamentalist.

One is either radical for Christ, or they are not. There is no inbetween. One either hot or they are cold.

You need to feel that way about God, not a book.

If you don't have the Bible (a book) today (or words from the Bible), then you cannot know God.
Any god that is not the God of the Bible is another false god. The true GOD is revealed in Holy Scripture and not in any other religion. Again, do you believe you can be saved without the Bible or without words from the Bible? If so that would not be Christianity.

Oh for sure! The actual scriptures.

I asked you what do you have as a better alternative to the Holy Bible (King James Bible). You said the actual Scriptures. Do you care to elaborate on what Scriptures that might be? Is it a certain set of manuscripts or a particular translation? You said before that no perfect Bible exists, and so how is that really the actual Scriptures? No Modern Bibles agree with each other and the Nestle and Aland keeps changing every couple of years. It's never settled. So how do you determine truth when all bibles say different things?

You keep boasting in your superiority of knowledge on this topic, and yet you are not edifying anyone with it.
How does that help anyone?

The Truth will set you free.

I asked you about your view of sin that you felt was superior to my understanding on it. I was desiring for you to help not only me but other believers who may come across this forum looking for the truth so that you may edify or build them up in Christ Jesus. Now it sounds like you want to hold all the cards and keep the secret knowledge to yourself. It does not sound like Christianity to me, friend. It's like one being a member of secret society or something.

As it is right now Christianity has developed a lot more sins / rules than are in the Bible.

What's that supposed to mean? Are you saying that there are man made sins that Christianity has invented or are you saying that there are new types of sins now that are more accessible because of technology or the advancement of our civilizations?

This sounds like Calvinism....LOL DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER!!!! View attachment 22067

Perhaps you missed my many posts attacking Calvinism in another thread you posted at, as well.

Here is my attack against all five points of Calvinism:

John Calvin and Calvinism.

In other words, just because God is sovereign over how far the devil can go does not mean GOD decrees evil to happen as High Calvinists falsely teach. In any event, all forms of Calvinism is false. God being sovereign over life and death does not equate with Calvinism. God is love, and His permission to allow things to happen does not equate with Him desiring it.

(Continued in next post):

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Its just the wording....Trying to nail someone down on topics so you can be critical.

So that is your opinion and not anything that is remotely established. Jesus criticized many on a wide variety of topics. That does not equate with your accusation of sounding culty. Do you not also try to nail others down on other topics you feel are really important? Is there not a truth you feel is worth fighting for? Critical from a biblical perspective by a Christian is only done to correct as 2 Timothy 3:16 says we can do. Do you not know that the Bible talks about how others held to false doctrines (false beliefs)? Do you not think that we are supposed to correct (criticize) other's false beliefs? Is that not why we are having a Bible discussion in the first place? No Bible discussion or debate would exist if we did not criticize the other belief we felt was wrong. So I don't see this as being exclusive to cult talk. That just silly. You need to prove that this a defining characteristic of cults and not others. By your definition everyone who talks on Christian forums would be culty. So far you have not really demonstrated this as being true.

Oh no, just my experience.

But again, criticism of false beliefs is not a unique identifier exclusive to a cult. You yourself have stated I am not a cult and that I am not using cultic tactics.

In other words, your experience would be false if criticism of false beliefs is the basis of your reasoning because Jesus and the apostles criticized others and attacked false beliefs. Christians openly on forums that are not a part of cults of any kind also can be critical, too. There is correct criticism and incorrect criticism. So are you saying you never become overly critical? Are you not disagreeing with points I make? Again, what you say here is not logical in the slightest of properly recognizing a characteristic distinct to a cult.

Now, I will say that a cult leader can be so overly critical to a point whereby they appear to be mean, by falsely accusing you of things. They also appear to be overly negative most of the time with very little to no love. These would be traits of a cult leader. As I said before, I have run into a person like this by email correspondence. They did not see any common ground for agreeing upon that which was good and they used tactics to manipulate. I knew there was no reaching him, but my goal was to help his follower see the light of the truth of God's Word over his odd beliefs.

No I think singular cults are just nutz.

No. There is no such thing as a one man cult. That's not how the word is defined normally. A cult generally must at least involve two people or more with one person following the other as their master (of whom they have controlled and brainwashed to believe odd things that are unhealthy). That's a cult.

The word know usually means sex LOL

So you were not in disagreement with me on this word?
So then why all the fuss about this before if you agreed with me on the meaning?
Did you just now learn about this?
Also: Why is attempted sodomy funny to you?
You used the LOL symbol to indicate that this event is funny somehow.

But I think trying to force sex on angels would be kind of like having a tiger by the tail.

Yes, we the audience know that the angels were not in any danger. That does not undo the sodomy that the inhabitants of Sodom were trying to attempt against them, though. It was still a sin that is exceptionally grievous to God whereby the city was destroyed by fire.

Wrong, for sure. But the topic is sodomy so ....can you do better than that? Are you worried about Christians that are wanting to have sex with angels...? You are throwing the word sodomy around but can you find it in the Bible? Is it too much to ask to get factual. I see this all the time, people are taught things, they assume things, they use their imagination. Then these false beliefs get sprinkled everywhere.

You obviously missed the point of the story. I will let the Bible spell it out for you.

2 Peter 2:6
“And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;”

So the city of Sodom was destroyed by fire as an example to all would live ungodly that way. Meaning, they would be destroyed in the Lake of Fire if they don't confess of their sins to Jesus and forsake their sodomite ways (like their attempt to sodomize the angels of which they thought were men).

Now was Sodom and Gomorrah guilty of sexual sins? I am sure they were full of sin. But you have a term you are using "sodomy"
and I want you to explain what you think it is. Is the word in the Bible? Is it another man-made term that people are trying to insert into the Bible. The problem is people come up with these terms that are not biblical or specific and then try to apply it to everything.

And here you go back to full bible agnostic mode in denying what the Bible says. A moment ago, you appeared to accept what the story said. Now you are rejecting it. So then you become the arbiter of truth and not the Bible. You become the authority and not God. In your view: There is no perfect Bible and so you must decide and pick and choose your own adventure of what you like to see in the Bible.

Again, I do not agree with your definition of liberal.

I did not invent it. Others did. To be liberal with not accepting major things in the Bible makes one liberal with the text or the Bible. You also fall into the classic textbook case from an Encyclopedia.

Who gets to decide what is true or false? You mean one world religion? The Catholics tried that, did not work out for them.

GOD decides what is true or false by His Word (the Bible).

Yes I believe the Bibles have errors....all of them. Nothing perfect on this earth. Shoot one of the ways they could tell if a manuscript was authentic was to see if they corrected the spelling.

But you get to be the authority or the scholar gets to be the authority if you deny a perfect Bible. In fact, all Modern Bibles come from Rome. This is a 100% fact that I can show to you that is undeniable. So if you are against the Catholic church, you will favor the one and only Bible that is not influenced by Rome and that is the King James Bible.

The final authority is Christ.

Jesus said abide in me and my words. Jesus said man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.