Please explain this.

[GodsGrace]

No; what happened is that someone stated the heresy to me and when I began to argue with him from the word of God, a friend laid his hand on my shoulder telling me to refrain from arguing. And because I never had the closure of winning the argument, his statement ate at me as something that might be true. When you look in the NASB or the NIV, the heresy is very clearly proven. But in the kjv, it is not proven. And this is one of the primary reasons that I am kjv-superior in my pov.

I finally did find scripture that proves the heresy to be untrue; but of course there are many seeming contradictions in the Bible that have been reconciled over the years. So my proof text that the heresy is untrue may even be refuted by some new information that deals with my proof text.

My safest bet is to stick to the kjv. Yours, too.

Every heresy is not true.
That's why it's a heresy.
It would be interesting to know what you're talking about, but OK.
I'll tell you this:
The NIV translators do believe in OSAS, and it is NOT biblical.
We cannot say it's a heresy because even the Jews argued about this before Jesus.

I really can't think of one that would be in the NIV and not in the KJ.

 

[GodsGrace]

I really don't think that a time honored, accurate version such as the King James is comparable to talk of a flat earth.

@Grailhunter is making a valid point F.
I think reading any bible is good, rather than not reading any.
But the KJV is known to be the most inaccurate bible....
this by biblical scholars that know what they're talking about because all
they do is study the bible for years and years and for their whole life since
they have to be up to date.

You could not accept this...
but you also cannot say a person is wrong that believes the above to be true....
what is true is true,
no matter what we personally want to believe.

 

[GodsGrace]

All of this good bible bad bible stuff can be easily remedied if we: 1-pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance.
2-a good bible dictionary such as Vines.
3-A good Lexicon <---great for word studies and biblical words in the original language.
I have several different bible versions and, one might clarify another. I am very used to the KJV but I am NOT a KJV only Christian...God can speak to us through a rock if He so pleases. He just wants us to seek Him diligently.
JMHO! ♥

N,
I gave you a like because a person could do the above but this is what I mean about needing to translate the KJV.

You can't just read it....
It needs to be helped along with all those study books you listed.
This is too difficult for someone that is not doing a specific study,
and who wants to translate as they read?

No. The KJ is not for the normal new Christian and not for many knowledgeable Christians either.

But to each his choice...we should just state the truth and not criticize it in general.

 

[GodsGrace]

However, the point of my question was that if any version also has errors in it, then it will also ultimately lead you astray by that 1 degree off when headed to Hawaii in a plane. In order to have the unadulterated, saving message of God's word, God's word must be without error as concerning doctrine: it cannot be off in its teaching because of mistranslation.

I have already mentioned how a different message is given in some versions when it comes to Romans 8:1.

We really need the Holy Ghost to help us determine which translation is correct when it comes to these differences. Jeremiah 29:13 tells us that we will find the truth when we seek the Lord with all of our heart.

I know some make excuses for the discrepancy in Romans 8:1 by saying that the truth of the matter is revealed in other passages. The problem is, false doctrine will develop out of reading that passage in the wrong version.



Neither am I kjv-only, I consider myself kjv-superior.

I consider that other versions are useful but cannot be identified as inerrant.

But I do consider that the kjv is inerrant as concerning doctrine.

How else are we going to get the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God in our language?

Must one be an expert in Greek and Hebrew in order to be able to discern the unadulterated message of God's word?

But it is clear that some versions of the Bible are watered-down and offer malnutrition to their readers.

You have very little faith in the LIVING GOD if you think the above could be true.

And how could the KJV be inerrant in teaching doctrine if every bible says the same ideas?

Could you give an example of something the KJ teaches that no other bible teaches?

 

[GodsGrace]

Pride comes before a fall.

Those "bogeyman passages" do exist. You can take my word for it or call me a liar.

You may think that your faith would hold up under the pressure; but I am inclined to believe that it wouldn't...because you seem to be so certain that it would. If anyone thinks he is standing let him take heed lest he fall.

I care enough about you not to take chances on whether your faith would be able to hold up or not...why should I destroy your faith over the fact that you didn't think it was as fragile as it may be?

In the case that it wouldn't hold up, it is better that I not put it under the strain by which it would be decimated. Why should I destroy your faith? Because you think of it as indestructible? You might be in for a surprise; and I for one am not desiring to give you that surprise...because it would be a negative thing in your life...and therefore love compels me to refrain from sharing it with you.

You're funny JBF!

Why not give me and @Lady Crosstalk a try?

Betcha nothing could shake our faith.
And I have reasons for saying this....

 

[GodsGrace]

No; what happened is that someone stated the heresy to me and when I began to argue with him from the word of God, a friend laid his hand on my shoulder telling me to refrain from arguing. And because I never had the closure of winning the argument, his statement ate at me as something that might be true. When you look in the NASB or the NIV, the heresy is very clearly proven. But in the kjv, it is not proven. And this is one of the primary reasons that I am kjv-superior in my pov.

I finally did find scripture that proves the heresy to be untrue; but of course there are many seeming contradictions in the Bible that have been reconciled over the years. So my proof text that the heresy is untrue may even be refuted by some new information that deals with my proof text.

My safest bet is to stick to the kjv. Yours, too.

HOW do you know you would have won the heresy?

 

[GodsGrace]

Simply not going to take the chance. I will leave you "in peace". Even if your faith, in particular, isn't fragile, there are very likely others watching whose faith is fragile. Why should I give the devil a foothold in their lives?

Please send @Lady Crosstalk a PM so that only SHE can see this heresy.
(you could cc me if you wish).

 

[GodsGrace]

You'll never know.

Are you calvinist in your theology?

 

[GodsGrace]

Pro 19:27, Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.

It is important that we limit our knowledge to the truth.

narrow-minded?

Jesus said that the way to life is narrow; and few there be that find it.

Jesus didn't mean to limit knowledge. And I think you know this.
Are you gnostic?

 

[GodsGrace]

Neither do Calvinists.

In Calvinist theology, God is indeed a puppet master.
Did He not predestinate everything from the beginning of time?
Are you not living and moving exactly as He predestined you to?
Is your free will not a compatible free will?
Which is no free will at all.

 

[GodsGrace]

In other words, no backup for your accusations.

Because what you have spoken against me has no foundation in reality; and there is also no substantiating evidence for what you have spoken against me.

If a frail Christian is reading along JBF, you HAVE caused a problem here.
First of all, I read all 3 versions and they all sound the same to me.
Why do you think the KJV says something different?
What is different about it?
It would be nice if also YOU STOOD BEHIND what you're saying
and not only demand that OTHERS do this.

You know, the log and the splinter idea.
Spit it out...or don't accuse others of doing what you yourself are doing.

 

[bbyrd009]

Sorry just getting back to this . . . lost my internet until a few minutes ago.

Perhaps you had missed it, I did offer an "absolute truth" from the Bible, Hebrews 11, specifically, that unless you believe God exists, you cannot please Him.

Much love!

yes marks and that should pretty clearly be a "belief" even without the definition of absolute truth available to us, or really any definition of truth you might find? And wadr perhaps now its becoming clearer why i say you have no beliefs, too?

Seems to me you are changing the rules. I had thought you were looking for an "absolute truth" from the Bible.

I have no issue in going with your quote, and can offer that back as an absolute truth, you cannot please without faith.

But if you mean by Absolute Truth "that which can be proven by man's senses and/or reason", that would be different. Is that what you mean?

Much love!

marks, any definition of truth that you might find yourself in agreement with two other ppl will work for me, but i mean really thats why we have dictionaries? Absolute Truth is absolute truth, right, it is true in all places at all times? And what you have said, Quoted, is a great belief ok, dont get me wrong, i even share it--or at least i agree with you there, lets say, being as you most likely have no beliefs per se--but it is not an Absolute Truth, nor even a truth, sir, it is strictly a belief, regardless of either of our feelings on the matter?

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

ETERNAL SECURITY is one of the hallmarks of Calvinism, so the suggestion that one can maintain or lose a faith given by the sovereign choice of God is antithetical to Calvinism.

You will lose your bet.

JBF claims to be some kind of Calvinist. He says he holds to about "half of each of the letters of T-U-L-I-P" (the five points of Calvinism for those who are scratching their heads at this point). "GodsGrace" challenged him on it and he failed to explain what he meant. For example, how one can believe in Unconditional Election and not believe in it at the same time will forever remain a mystery it seems. This website seems to attract more than its share of people.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Are you calvinist in your theology?

Remember when you (at least I think it was you) challenged JBF on his statement that he believed in half of each of the T-U-L-I-P mnemonic of classical Calvinism? He never answered you. I can't imagine how anyone could, for example, believe in Unconditional Election and not believe in it at the same time, but JBF will have to explain it--if he will (indeed, if he even can). At first, I thought he was a Calvinist but I think he has invented a form of KJV-mysticism. There are a few of those around. Mysticism always attacks the sufficiency of Scripture. In this case, JBF has chosen to attack all other Bible translations except that which he has made sacred in his own mind. He may have planted doubt in the minds of weaker Christians by insinuating that the other Bible translations could cause one to lose his/her faith. That amounts to working for the evil one.

 

[Grailhunter]

Remember when you (at least I think it was you) challenged JBF on his statement that he believed in half of each of the T-U-L-I-P mnemonic of classical Calvinism? He never answered you. I can't imagine how anyone could, for example, believe in Unconditional Election and not believe in it at the same time, but JBF will have to explain it--if he will (indeed, if he even can). At first, I thought he was a Calvinist but I think he has invented a form of KJV-mysticism. There are a few of those around. Mysticism always attacks the sufficiency of Scripture. In this case, JBF has chosen to attack all other Bible translations except that which he has made sacred in his own mind. He may have planted doubt in the minds of weaker Christians by insinuating that the other Bible translations could cause one to lose his/her faith. That amounts to working for the evil one.

Lady Crosstalk post 72_1438-40

 

[GodsGrace]

Remember when you (at least I think it was you) challenged JBF on his statement that he believed in half of each of the T-U-L-I-P mnemonic of classical Calvinism? He never answered you. I can't imagine how anyone could, for example, believe in Unconditional Election and not believe in it at the same time, but JBF will have to explain it--if he will (indeed, if he even can). At first, I thought he was a Calvinist but I think he has invented a form of KJV-mysticism. There are a few of those around. Mysticism always attacks the sufficiency of Scripture. In this case, JBF has chosen to attack all other Bible translations except that which he has made sacred in his own mind. He may have planted doubt in the minds of weaker Christians by insinuating that the other Bible translations could cause one to lose his/her faith. That amounts to working for the evil one.

With some luck, and God's help, we might have talked them out of paying attention to the claims of JBF.

And yes....@justbyfaith NEVER did answer me regarding being HALF calvinist.

 

[justbyfaith]

The ladies know all about your religion....Satan has been exposed.

What exactly do you think my "religion" is?

But the KJV is known to be the most inaccurate bible....

Funny, I thought that it was known to be the most accurate Bible. I guess it just depends on who you are talking to...

No. The KJ is not for the normal new Christian and not for many knowledgeable Christians either.

Which is merely your (faulty) opinion.

Could you give an example of something the KJ teaches that no other bible teaches?

Ok. In many other translations, the word "perfect" is mistranslated as "mature" or "complete", creating a completely different message throughout the whole of the Bible. There are still oases of truth strewn throughout some of these watered-down translations, such as 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; however the biblical evidence for the doctrine of entire sanctification is effectively stripped away for the most part when you are reading the watered-down versions.

And you may say, "sinless perfectionism is a heresy." to which I say 1) that is a misnomer, the doctrine I am speaking of is in all reality accurately called entire sanctification; because it does not claim that we are without sin as believers but rather that sin is rendered dead and crucified within us; and, 2) you only say that because you have rejected the kjv. If you held it as authoritative you would realize that entire sanctification is a biblical doctrine. Thus, I contend that some of these newer translations are indeed a conspiracy and attempt by the devil to do away with certain basic and essential doctrines of the holy scripture.

Betcha nothing could shake our faith.
And I have reasons for saying this....

And here, I thought you didn't believe in OSAS....

Please send @Lady Crosstalk a PM so that only SHE can see this heresy.

No.

Are you calvinist in your theology?

No.

Jesus didn't mean to limit knowledge. And I think you know this.
Are you gnostic?

Are you kidding me? Now, to hold that the way to everlasting life is narrow and few there be that find it is identified as gnostic?

This is warped thinking to say the least.

You just (mistakenly) identified Jesus as a teacher of gnosticism.

For He said:

Mat 7:13, Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14, Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Why do you think the KJV says something different?
What is different about it?

To go into detail about that would take much more time and energy than I am willing to put into it; especially since my reward will only be more accusations coming from the likes of you. Not that I am phased by them any more; it has simply become old hat to me that unregenerated people usually find a beef with what I am saying to everyone on here.

That amounts to working for the evil one.

And this is what I am talking about. I would be working of the evil one if I ever actually told you what the heresy is that I am speaking of: for I would then be spreading it; something I am not willing to do. But you almost got me to reveal it with that; and the blood of those who would have been stumbled by the information would have been on your heads. Nevertheless, the love of Christ does indeed compel me to refrain from sharing the information; because not only would you be stumbled by it (if only for a season; but there is no guarantee of that); but others would have been stumbled by it as well; and also the way of truth would be evil spoken of.

So I am working for the evil one for exposing something that hurt me for a season of my life without setting that thing forth so that others would also be hurt by it.

(Eph 5:13, But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.)

You people are simply just too curious for your own good. It seems you want to be hurt by the information. I'm "not gonna do it"; for I would be held accountable before God.

Gen 39:9, There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?

 

[atpollard]

you should have read that owner's manual.

I did ... it is called the Bible.

I later discovered that the Heidelberg Catechism and Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confession said the same thing that I had read in John and Acts and Romans and Ephesians ...

 

[atpollard]

I would tend to disagree with that statement.

Irrelevant. Any commonly available Calvinist source will confirm my statement. Read R.C. Sproul on Legionier Monistries, or C.A.R.M. for confirmation from modern Calvinists.

 

[justbyfaith]

With some luck, and God's help, we might have talked them out of paying attention to the claims of JBF.

And yes....@justbyfaith NEVER did answer me regarding being HALF calvinist.

Nevertheless the claims are true, and therefore you would be doing God a disservice; therefore I don't think God is going to help you in your endeavors.

And also, my beliefs about Calvinism are irrelevant to the current discussion; and I also do not want to put forth the time and energy of expounding on them here.