An Astute Student would have not gone off on a tangent about the OLDE KJV. NO ONE believes what David put up as his straw man. Does anyone know someone who believes such?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems as though, of late, every time I compliment or agree with someone on the right, I get nailed for something I have written. But, what the hey -- I am going to take a chance and record a commendation. The point below of David's is actually very good point/question.
And while I am feeling so complimentary, I will add kudos to David for his stance on issue of "false doctrine" and disfellowship --------------- another subtle biblical issue that is not appreciated by many a student.
JD
In a message dated 2/16/2005 10:54:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kevin wrote:
>Pure word of God is what I hold
>in my hands. AV1611
Are you saying that you only accept the Authorized Version of 1611 as the
Pure word of God? Why then do you not quote from it?
Kevin wrote:
>I fervently resist because I was enlightened to
>the fact that I have the very words of God in
>my hand. Those that want to deny such have
>an agenda.
What agenda?
How were you enlightened to the fact that the 1611 version is God's pure
word? This version is not very common. Why do you consider it pure as
opposed to other KJV's?
Kevin wrote:
>If it says heresy then heresy it is.
Yeah, but the AV1611 also says, "there shall bee false teachers." The word
"bee" is not a typo. Do we understand that to mean the insect bee or does
it mean what our modern word "be" means? If it is the pure word of God,
what authority would be have to change "bee" to "be"?
Let's consider James 2:3 in the AV1611.
James 2:3
(3) And yee haue respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say vnto
him, Sit thou here in a good place: and say to the poore, Stand thou there,
or sit here vnder my footstoole:
Does "gay clothing" mean homosexual clothing? Don't you realize that words
change in meaning over time? It has been almost 400 years since that
version was written.
Does this mean that you accept the Apocryphal books as the pure word of God
too? They were part of the AV1611 Bible.
Kevin wrote:
>My God was very capable of using the
>word heresy or the word sect.
>He was active in its transmission &translation.
Was he active in transmission and translation only for the AV1611? Was the
world without the pure word of God before 1611?
Kevin wrote:
>Anyone that thinks God is capable of creating ALL
>complexities of the things &laws of the universe but
>is incapable of Preserving His word and presenting
>His word to me in my hand in Black &White is
>ready for the funny farm
Nobody is arguing that he is incapable. The point is whether or not he has
done that with the AV1611 Bible. Jesus never promised us that a Bible would
be preserved for us. What he promised us was giving us his Holy Spirit.
This does not mean that God did not also preserve a written record for us,
but how that has come down to us is not like you think.
Kevin wrote:
>I do not have to worry that the Greek says
>or the originals (which do not exist anywhere)
>say
I believe that God used the Greek texts as part of his method of
transmission of his written word. Certainly he did not use English, did he?
English did not exist when these men penned the Bible.
Kevin wrote:
>The very word of God says in my language that
>I can understand so that I can do it!
Yes, but it is the message that is important, not the literal characters on
the page. You don't seem to have any desire to understand the message. If
it says "heresies" then you are going to understand it the way you
understand the word "heresy" even if the Biblical authors had a different
meaning in mind when they wrote it. Something is wrong with this kind of
anti-intellectualism.
Kevin wrote:
>If we can not trust the book then we of
>all people are most miserable.
Why? I put trust in the book, but not your perspective of "trust the AV1611
and damn the Greek and Hebrew texts."
Kevin wrote:
>My very salvation depends on the words of life
>written down in that book. I have a sure word
>not a almost perfect book.
I consider the Bible perfect, but not in your sense of the word perfect. It
is the message of the Bible that is perfect. How it communicates that
message can vary from reader to reader and from age to age. His message is
timeless, but how that message is communicated is not.
Kevin wrote:
>It is like a contract 2 Peter 2 voice which came
>from heaven we heard
You got the wrong reference, and why are you not quoting the AV1611 if it is
so perfect in every jot and tittle?
2 Peter 1:18
(18) And this voice which came from heauen wee heard
Kevin wrote:
>More sure than even the Voice of God
>speaking to me. (eg Joe's sacred GROVE adventure)
Agreed.
Kevin wrote:
>God has provided His words in Written form
>so there is no controversy what it says.
If that was really his purpose, then God failed miserably because his words
cause a lot of controversy about what it says. He gave us his written Word
as a standard and authority, but this does not eliminate controversy
completely.
Kevin wrote:
>It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
>the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and
>they are life. Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
>the words of eternal life. And it shall be with him,
>and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that
>he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all
>the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
If the AV1611 is the PURE word of God, why aren't you quoting it verbatim?
John 6:63
(63) It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the
wordes that I speake vnto you, they are Spirit, and they are life.
John 6:68
(68) Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we goe? Thou hast
the words of eternall life.
Deuteronomy 17:19
(19) And it shall be with him, and hee shall reade therein all the dayes of
his life, that hee may learne to feare the Lord his God, to keep all the
words of this Law, and these Statutes, to do them:
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
