Bible Study KJV vs. NIV (& others)

[Terral]

Hi Windozer:

Thank you for writing.

Windozer >> Terral...In reference to the above quote I considered the content to be so far out of line that it was not worth responding to. One does not get any where with someone who goes to those lengths, as has being confirmed by the attack that has been made on you here by calling you a lost puppy.

I haven’t a clue about what you are talking about. Please ‘quote >>’ something from the discussion to give your statements context in the future. Heh . . . “lost puppy.†Everyone here has been called worse . . . Name calling is always part of the game, when your debating opponents run out of arguments. When this side resorts to those tactics, then you know he ran out of good arguments and lost his cool also . . .

I will probably receive another warning for being disruptive . . .

Thank you again for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Guest]

Well, well, well...

I will probably receive another warning for being disruptive . . .

I haven't followed this thread, but I see evidence that things haven't changed around here. Virtually every admin/moderator is a KJV-onlyer. They don't take too kindly to being shown up by logic, reason and education.

View this thread http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=17802&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90 where I (asb4God) demolished the KJV-only argument by demonstrating why Romans 1:16 is not a problem from the NIV perspective, but is one from the KJV.

KJV-onlyism is a decrepit hold-over from Christianity's anti-intellectualist past. It is sad, but happily it is a dying hermeneutic - and I use the word "hermeneutic" loosely, inasmuch as KJV-only argument is not an academic argument in the least.

Scott

 

[mutzrein]

Well that's what happens when you hold to the letter of the text. You lose the spirit of it.

Personally I like both KJV & NIV. So if need be, for the KJV user I will use KJV, and for the NIV user I will use the NIV.

When in Rome . . . huh!

 

[AVBunyan]

Re: Well, well, well...

1. They don't take too kindly to being shown up by logic, reason and education.

2. KJV-onlyism is a decrepit hold-over from Christianity's anti-intellectualist past. It is sad, but happily it is a dying hermeneutic - and I use the word "hermeneutic" loosely, inasmuch as KJV-only argument is not an academic argument in the least.Scott

1. Logic? :o Worldly logic
Reason? :o Human reasoning
Education? :o From whom - the Lord or the devil?

So...throw out the miraculous results of the past 350 years or so which was produced by the King James Bible empowered by the Holy Spirit and replace it with the modern versions which have helped produced the most carnal, fleshly, worldly, and spritually ignorant generation of "saints" ever??? :o

2. Fine sound words which basically say..."I have no final authority - I will reject what has produced results in the past...I will adhere to modern apostate bible-rejecting scholarship over simple faith...I will stick with a Roman Catholic bible based upon Egyptian texts produced by lost philosophers of the 3rd century.""

Be my guest - have at it - this is still a free country for now - But do not expect us Bible believers to take your scholarship seriously.

God bless

 

[JM]

Quote: ..."only the originals are inspired, and we have only copies." The answer to that is that God would not inspire a book and take no care of the book. His providence has preserved the Bible in a way that no other book has been preserved.

 

[D46]

Well that's what happens when you hold to the letter of the text. You lose the spirit of it.

Personally I like both KJV & NIV. So if need be, for the KJV user I will use KJV, and for the NIV user I will use the NIV.

When in Rome . . . huh!

A man for all seasons, eh? If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. So, when in Rome, the Douay-Rhimes, I suppose.

 

[mutzrein]

Well that's what happens when you hold to the letter of the text. You lose the spirit of it.

Personally I like both KJV & NIV. So if need be, for the KJV user I will use KJV, and for the NIV user I will use the NIV.

When in Rome . . . huh!

A man for all seasons, eh? If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. So, when in Rome, the Douay-Rhimes, I suppose.

Well not quite what I meant. In fact - far from it. It just goes to show how easy it is to take a completely different meaning to the one intended.

Maybe I should have said 'when in Corinth' because what I had in mind was what Paul said to the Corinthians.

To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.