Why so many theologies?

[francisdesales]

The Church's authority rests on Jesus Christ and His commands to His disciples, orders with power to bind and loosen, forgive sins, share the Eucharist, and preach the word to the world. Without the authority of Christ, the Church is just another human organization with no more authority than any other organization.

Craig, my signature line says it all...

Regards

Now Fran, after all this time we have spent together I can't believe that you would have the ability to state what you have stated above. For what you have stated is absolutely the opposite of what you have been stating for quite some time now. While you state what you have stated above, the truth is that you have chosen to offer your devotion TO a 'church' that may or may NOT be headed by Christ. That will just have to wait to be PROVEN. One day we will ALL surely find out.

Mike,

I am at a loss on how you can conjure this up. I have always stated that I follow Christ who instituted the Catholic Church. My signature line has been the same for months now, and I have never said I follow a Church AS OPPOSED to Christ. Not sure what side of the bed you woke up on, but I am very consistent on this matter.

The Bible clearly says that Christ instituted a visible church with visible leaders. He gave them "divine powers", to bind and loosen, to forgive sins, to preach God's Word. As the Father has sent the Son, so the Son has sent the Apostles - and by extension, the bishops of the Church. That is really indisputable with what we have historically speaking AND written in Scriptures.

But I can say this: I agree with what you have stated HERE:

Without the authority of Christ, the Church is just another human organization with no more authority than any other organization.

Indeed. It is true. Without Christ the Architect, the Church is just another organization with a claim.

And this you have heard me argue for quite some time now. The only difference in what you have stated and what I have argued is that YOU believe you have found THE Church that IS Headed by Christ and that all others that are NOT a 'part of YOUR church' are LOST, (or those that aren't are 'secretly' a part of your chuch and just don't even know it).

I never said that you are "lost". To the degree that you believe Catholic doctrines, such as the Trinity, that Christ died for our sins, that Christ rose from the dead, that God desires all men to be saved, etc..., you follow the Catholic faith. Any faith that deviates from the ONE faith is false because it relies on the rationale of man, not God.

Now, how does ANY church that does NOT conform to the teachings of Christ hope to even CLAIM Christ as 'it's' authority and have others that understand the truth ACCEPT it? How can ANY church that 'makes up their own understanding' as they go along 'claim' Christ as their authority when EVERY aspect of their 'made up' theology was ALREADY answered contradictorily by Christ, they just REJECTED it in favor of their OWN?

That is your opinion, yet to be proven, just merely stated. Mike, you are going to actually have to prove that supposition. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

Amazing how some are able to insist that what THEY believe is ALL their IS to believe.

Yes, you seem to have a way with preaching to everyone what they should or should not believe............ Look to the lumber in your own eye, my friend.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

Heb 13:17
Obey (PEITHO) them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

ÀειθεÃθε verb - present middle imperative - second person
peitho pi'-tho: to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty)

In Greek mythology, Peitho (English translation: "persuasion") is the goddess who personifies persuasion and seduction. - Wikipedia

1. persuade
1. to persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe
2. to make friends of, to win one's favour, gain one's good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one
3. to tranquillise
4. to persuade unto i.e. move or induce one to persuasion to do something
2. be persuaded
1. to be persuaded, to suffer one's self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing
1. to believe
2. to be persuaded of a thing concerning a person
2. to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with
3. to trust, have confidence, be confident

If you desire to understand what is really meant;

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/peitho.htm

I checked the link above and it seems like Mr. Dulle's opinion is a little slanted. he says here:

"What exactly does peitho mean? The New Thayers Greek-English Lexicon says concerning this word peitho: "lit. persuasion; to induce one by words to believe; to cause belief in a thing (which one sets forth), win one's favor; to persuade unto; i.e. move or induce someone by persuasion to do something; to suffer one's self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe; to trust."

Although it is true that Thayers does actually give the above definition of the word, that's not what it says about the verse in question. What Thayers says, specifically for Heb. 13:17 is: "b. To listen to, obey, yield to, comply with" then it lists these verses: "Acts: v.36(sq), 39 (40); xxiii.21; xxvii.11; Ro. ii.8; Gal. iii.1 Rec.; v.7; Heb. xiii.17; Jas.iii.3" (I hope I typed everything right)

I tend to believe what Thayers actually says as opposed to Mr. Dulle's interpretation.

After he goes into a long explanation of the word, he then gives much shorter explanations of the other words in the verse:

The Rest of the Verse

The next phrase, tois egoumenois humon, meaning "your leaders," is in the dative case. The particular use of this dative is the dative of person/thing. When peitho is followed by a dative of person in the Greek, the meaning is to obey or follow.

The word "rule" comes from the Greek word hegeomai.. It means "to lead, i.e. command (with official authority)."8 Thayers says it means "to go before; to be a leader; to have authority over."9 The author of Hebrews wanted the church to be persuaded of those who were the leaders among them. These men were those who went before others, leading the way.

The Greek word translated "submit" is hupeiko. The word appears only here in the entire New Testament. It is a compound of two Greek words: hupo meaning "under" and eiko meaning "to yield." Its literal meaning is "to yield ones self under." In this case, it means to yield ones self under the leaders of the church.

It seems he is contradicting his own long explanation of the word "obey". In NONE of these definitions of the words "your leaders", "rule" or "submit" do we find anything but "obey the authorities over you". There is no mention of "persuading". Mr. Dulle is watering down the word "obey" to fit his own theology.

"In context the author seems to imply that the authority given to those who have the rule is the authority of the Word of God (Hebrews 13:7). If it is the Word of God, and the passage implies that those who have the rule are to do some persuading, then the obedience being spoken of not some uncritically accepted, blind obedience to anything anyone in the ministry says, but the responsibility of the saint to heed to the authority of the Word of God being spoken by the man of God. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the saints musst obey those who are not teaching God's Word, but rather their own doctrines.

By "Word of God", I assume he means Scripture only. If so, he is really wrenching the verse out of context.

That being said, I do agree that there is a certain amount of persuasiveness that is assumed in the word. I agree with him here, and so does the Catholic Church:

"Let it not be thought that I am arguing that the idea of obedience is not found in Hebrews 13:17, but rather I am arguing that the obedience suggested comes as a result of persuasion, not dictation."

The religion of "dictation" is Islam, not Christianity. The Church has always converted, not dictated.

Obedience to proper authority is a solid Biblical principle. Now, where is this Authority today? :P

 

[dadof10]

Funny you should ask. My answer, not likely.

WOW, now there's a surprise. :D (Note smilie. I'm not really surprised.)

Yet the Word itself TELLS us to compare what ANYONE has to say with IT to determine TRUTH.

Again, where? This is why we have so many theologies, people read their own personal beliefs into Scripture, like the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura.

I noticed that you DEFENDED sports. TELL ME, of what 'righteous' or 'devine nature' would we find the participation in or watching of 'sports'? And IF we LOVE sports as you seem to have indicated OPENLY that YOU DO, wouldn't the worshiping of such be considered IDOLOTRY? Much like the gladitorial events in Rome, isn't Football so 'close' in comparison as for us to be able to compare the two as 'alike'?

This is too funny...I won't comment on anything but the fact that I was kidding. That's why the smilie face at the end. I think you're the only one who didn't get it.

We are told to consistently and continuosly have GOD as 'number one' in our lives. How can GOD be number one to someone who worships sports MORE than HIM? For I have witnessed that MOST 'sports addicts' seem to know MORE about their favorite players than they do about their own professed God. They spend MORE time worshipping their 'sport' than they could even IMAGINE spending on their God. Making their 'sport' in 'my opinion', their God of choice. Devoting minutes a week to their 'church' and then spending the REST of their time chasing after the next 'game' or 'stat report'. Hmmmmm........ Kinda like a 'drug addict' chasing his 'fix' huh?

Music, sports, hobbies, drugs, alcohol, sex, wealth, ect.......... It really doesn't matter what you call it, when you become DEVOTED to IT, then IT becomes that which you worship. And THAT, my friend, IS IDOLOTRY. Now, tell about itching ears..........................

Now you are interpreting MY words with an anti-Catholic bias. You're bias is that Catholics are idol worshippers, so you launch with the above over the benign sentence: "No such thing as too much sports"??? Get a grip, MEC.

Don't you think you're taking yourself a liiiitle too seriously?

 

[francisdesales]

Although it is true that Thayers does actually give the above definition of the word, that's not what it says about the verse in question. What Thayers says, specifically for Heb. 13:17 is: "b. To listen to, obey, yield to, comply with" then it lists these verses: "Acts: v.36(sq), 39 (40); xxiii.21; xxvii.11; Ro. ii.8; Gal. iii.1 Rec.; v.7; Heb. xiii.17; Jas.iii.3" (I hope I typed everything right)

I tend to believe what Thayers actually says as opposed to Mr. Dulle's interpretation.

Good catch. Imagine that someone would pull such a stunt to advance their agenda... This appears to be another attempt to place one in authority over the leadership of the Community, which goes back to the days of Korah... According to this eigesis, Jesus MEANT to say (in Matthew 18:16-17) "If one disagrees with two or more people, then start your own church"...

Regards

 

[Veritas]

Any faith that deviates from the ONE faith is false because it relies on the rationale of man, not God.

Well, this is a common complaint of one Christian group against another. At least all Christians who are serious about Christ realize they are not supposed to be following the rationale of man. I've heard Catholics accused of this alot. Now, after talking to serious Catholics I find that they don't believe they are doing that and see other groups doing just what they are being accused of.

Also, this comes up with two different ideas of Baptism and the Christians that follow each.

Those who find nothing wrong with infant baptism believe those who wait until an "age of accountability" are leaning too much on the rationale of man because they are basing the Holy Spirits work too much on a person's ability to think.

Those who believe infant baptism IS wrong think the other group is leaning too much on the rationale of man because they believe they are somehow "saving" a baby right away. Personally, my view on baptism is between those two views.

I, for one, at least take comfort in the fact that even though we disagree, we are all trying NOT to lean on the rationale of man, .....but some of us apparently are. And if I'm wrong, I certainly won't have a problem being corrected about that in Heaven.

 

[dadof10]

Good catch. Imagine that someone would pull such a stunt to advance their agenda... This appears to be another attempt to place one in authority over the leadership of the Community, which goes back to the days of Korah... According to this eigesis, Jesus MEANT to say (in Matthew 18:16-17) "If one disagrees with two or more people, then start your own church"...

LOL...Thanks. Not only start your own church, but then claim that the doctrines that lead to the split are "non essential". I have heard that so many times. "It's a shame that there are so many divisions, but we agree on the essentials."

If they are so insignificant, why are they splitting? Is it really over doctrine or is it pride?

 

[francisdesales]

If they are so insignificant, why are they splitting? Is it really over doctrine or is it pride?

Well, ever since Adam and Eve, man has wanted to do it their way, rather than God's. So when God tells us something in the Scriptures, man is sure to try to twist it to suit their own needs and values... Heck, just look at how some Christians twisted Scriptures to rationalize slavery in America in the 1800's. Where there's a will there's a way.

Regards

 

[AVBunyan]

Who left Timothy and Titus in charge of communities - and other bishops left in charge by the other Apostles. I follow Paul by following the authority given to the Church.Regards

Chunck your church's authority - it was never given authority over anybody or anything - you folks just made this up by way of private interpretaton and not understanding context. :crazyeyes:

The scriptures are the authority - and I mean the King James Bible.

When your church or mine differs from the scriptures then... out goes the church! 8-)

 

[francisdesales]

Who left Timothy and Titus in charge of communities - and other bishops left in charge by the other Apostles. I follow Paul by following the authority given to the Church.Regards

Chunck your church's authority - it was never given authority over anybody or anything - you folks just made this up by way of private interpretaton and not understanding context. :crazyeyes:

The scriptures are the authority - and I mean the King James Bible.

When your church or mine differs from the scriptures then... out goes the church! 8-)

Get back with me when you can figure out how to support such claims.

The KJV bible? Please...

Regards

 

[Paidion]

The scriptures are the authority - and I mean the King James Bible.

What King James Bible? The original 1611 edition, or one of the many revisions?

If it's the original which you consider authoritative, then you'd better start paying attention to the Apocrypha. It was there in the 1611 edition of the KJ Bible!

Oops, Catholic friends! I said "Apocrypha". No offence intended. Call these writings "deuterocanonical" if you prefer. I'm okay with either term.

 

[dadof10]

The scriptures are the authority - and I mean the King James Bible.

What King James Bible? The original 1611 edition, or one of the many revisions?

If it's the original which you consider authoritative, then you'd better start paying attention to the Apocrypha. It was there in the 1611 edition of the KJ Bible!

Oops, Catholic friends! I said "Apocrypha". No offence intended. Call these writings "deuterocanonical" if you prefer. I'm okay with either term.

On a completely unrelated subject, I really enjoy watching you grow up. How many more pictures will there be? :P

 

[AVBunyan]

1. What King James Bible? The original 1611 edition, or one of the many revisions?

2. If it's the original which you consider authoritative, then you'd better start paying attention to the Apocrypha. It was there in the 1611 edition of the KJ Bible!

1. Any one you can get at Walmart for $5.95 will do thank you. 8-)

2. Oh I didn't know that!!!! :crazyeyes: Just being sarcastic - please forgive me.
With all due respect there is not too much you can throw at me regarding the KJV issue that I haven't heard and I do not want to turn this into a defense of the AV thread. At any rate please review your history...the Apocrypha was stuck in between the OT and the NT and the AV translators said it wasn't scripture...only there for general reading. :-D

God bless

 

[dadof10]

At any rate please review your history...the Apocrypha was stuck in between the OT and the NT and the AV translators said it wasn't scripture...only there for general reading. :-D

So, could the "AV translators" have been wrong? Are they infallible? What makes them any more of an authority than me to define the Canon of Scripture?

Looking at your avatar, it seems you put a lot of stock in the "AV 1611" translators. Why?

 

[francisdesales]

The scriptures are the authority - and I mean the King James Bible.

What King James Bible? The original 1611 edition, or one of the many revisions?

If it's the original which you consider authoritative, then you'd better start paying attention to the Apocrypha. It was there in the 1611 edition of the KJ Bible!

I was thinking the same thing, glad you mentioned it...

Oops, Catholic friends! I said "Apocrypha". No offence intended. Call these writings "deuterocanonical" if you prefer. I'm okay with either term.

At least someone realizes we call them something different.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

1. Any one you can get at Walmart for $5.95 will do thank you. 8-)

Then put your $5.95 where your mouth is...

At any rate please review your history...the Apocrypha was stuck in between the OT and the NT and the AV translators said it wasn't scripture...only there for general reading. :-D

Yes, the "infallible" translators... Did you find that in your Walmart book, too?

I can think of some nice titles for Walmart theology books, but someone would probably complain, so I'll restrain myself...

Regards

 

[dadof10]

I can think of some nice titles for Walmart theology books, but someone would probably complain, so I'll restrain myself...

Can you PM them to me? :

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Then put your $5.95 where your mouth is...

2. Yes, the "infallible" translators... Did you find that in your Walmart book, too?

3. I can think of some nice titles for Walmart theology books, but someone would probably complain, so I'll restrain myself...Regards

1. You sound like a nice guy - please excuse my sarcasm again. The witness of history and the effect the AV has had on the lives of people is proof enough. What are the fruits of your Roman bible on nations and the lives of people? I see the effect your religion has had on Central and South America, Philippines, parts of Africa, Mexico, etc. - these people still remain in darkness with no assurance of salvation and please do not try to persuade me differently - I have read your history books and real church history.

2. No, I know men are fallible but it is the infallible God that I trust who works all things after the council of his own will during the time of the translation of the AV. BTW - that is taken from Eph. 1:11 for your edification.

3. Thanks for restraining yourself.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. So, could the "AV translators" have been wrong?

2. Are they infallible?

3. What makes them any more of an authority than me to define the Canon of Scripture?

4. Looking at your avatar, it seems you put a lot of stock in the "AV 1611" translators. Why?

I am thoroughly convinced that if there was a final authority for all and that authority was the AV then most of these different theologies would go away. With that being said - in response to your issues....

1. Anything is possible but in the case of 46 God-led men got it right under the overseeing hand of a providential God.

2. No - but the God who oversaw their translation is – And no, these men were not inspired but what God had them put down….was and still is. II Tim. 3:16

3. God’s providence and good pleasure.

4. You asked me…here goes:
I tried not to make this thread an AV thread but since we are talking about the reasons for multiple theologies then I believe a breaking away from the AV is part of the reasons.
:
Why I Believe the King James Bible

1. The internal evidence of the KJB tells me I am reading the pure words of God – why should I not believe it?

2. The Holy Spirit obviously put its stamp of approval upon this work. The miraculous success and fruit since 1611 proves that God has blessed this book everywhere it has gone. Every where this book goes and is read and believed there is spiritual fruit.

3. The fact that the majority of modern “Christianity†rejects the KJV tells me that most likely they are wrong for the majority of “Christianity†today is apostate.

4. The preeminence that the KJB gives to the Lord Jesus Christ, his deity, and the written word tells me the KJB is God’s pure words. The other versions attack the doctrines associated with the Lord Jesus Christ: Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33; Blood Atonement in Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5; Bodily Resurrection in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24; Deity is under attack in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16; Second Coming in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, and many other truths surrounding Christ. Should this not be sufficient?

5. The perfection of its English language tells me that it is superior to all modern watered down English slang versions. Dr. EF Hills calls the English of the AV, “a divine Englishâ€Â. Just compare the language of the preface with the actual text.

6. The ability to cross reference in a KJB shows a providential, guiding hand of a sovereign God. Because of the inconsistencies in modern versions cross referencing is much more difficult and unreliable.

7. The KJB translators in 1611 were far more capable of taking on such a work than modern translators – just study and compare the lives of the men of both eras.

8. The extensive use of the KJB as a textbook in the average home in the past centuries for every use tells me this book is different.

9. There is no copyright on the text. The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. All modern versions were meant too make money thus they have a copy write. That’s why every new version changes I Tim. 6:10 to “a†root of all evil – how convenient.

10. Nobody yet has proven any errors in a KJB – they just think they are errors because: 1) They do not understand the passages 2) They are using corrupt manuscripts so of course they will say the KJB is wrong. 3) They are unregenerate men who hate God’s authority.

11. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. Why would I believe 5% that came from a heathen philosopher from Egypt?

12. The ease of the KJB when it comes to flow and ease of memorization.

13. The Providential approach to history tells me that God runs things and was behind the scenes in the 1604 committee.

14. Would God inspire and text and then lose it?

Why I and Many Others Do Not Believe the Modern Versions to Be the Word of God

1. All modern versions are based upon the corrupt manuscripts and theories of Wescott/Hort that are based upon Origen’s work in Egypt in the 3rd century. This has been documented by Dean Burgon, Dr. Ruckman, David O Fuller, Dr. E. F. Hills, and many more. BTW, Origen was a lost heathen philosopher - why would anyone trust this man’s work?

2. God would not bless a “bible†that slights his Son’s deity and work at Calvary in any way. Luke 2:33, Mic. 5:2, and Col. 1:14 should be more than enough. This has been documented over and over again and cannot be refuted unless one is truly ignorant of the issue or still unregenerate.

3. The inconsistencies in the modern versions are ridiculous. All modern versions since 1881 conflict with one another time after time. See the extensive and documented work by bro Will Kinney and others – don’t take my word for it. And I’m sure you will reject their word and documentation.

4. The modern versions have aided in producing the most carnal, fleshly, worldly and doctrinally ignorant saints ever.

5. All liberal religious bodies endorse the modern versions while rejecting the AV1611 as the final authority.

The above are just some of the reasons for putting a lot of stock in the AV that I hold in my hands.

God bless

 

[francisdesales]

1. You sound like a nice guy - please excuse my sarcasm again. The witness of history and the effect the AV has had on the lives of people is proof enough.

You must be joking. The "AV" has no magical qualities about it that converts people. God changes people, not "thee's" and "thou's". In addition, there are a number of other bibles that use the same language, such as the Douay Rheims, written before the "AV". Again, though, it is HEARING God's word, not reading it in a PARTICULAR bible, that calls men to God.

And what is your take on the included Apocrypha? Being they are within the pages of the AV, they must be Scripture, no? Or did the "infallible" scholars remove them?

What are the fruits of your Roman bible on nations and the lives of people? I see the effect your religion has had on Central and South America, Philippines, parts of Africa, Mexico, etc. - these people still remain in darkness with no assurance of salvation and please do not try to persuade me differently - I have read your history books and real church history.

Naturally, that is your own opinion, but any perceived "darkness" has nothing to do with the version of Bible used. That again implies that the AV is magical (no, I'll stifle another comment here...) and God can only speak through the English language. This is not far removed from Traditionalist Catholics who think one can only celebrate a "real" Mass unless it is in Latin. Please. God's Word doesn't rely on the AV (or Latin) to touch the hearts and minds of people.

One doesn't have to even READ the bible to be saved. NOWHERE is this mentioned as part of being saved! Have you forgotten your "sola fide" already??? Saved by faith, not by reading a future KJV...

2. No, I know men are fallible but it is the infallible God that I trust who works all things after the council of his own will during the time of the translation of the AV. BTW - that is taken from Eph. 1:11 for your edification.

Where does the Bible say that future translators of Sacred Scriptures would be infallible??? ANOTHER tradition of men being introduced to the masses. First, a magical bible, second, we are saved by reading a particular version of the bible, and now, the infallible "council" of scholars who translate without error - none of which is found in the Bible...

Hmm. I suppose Sola Scriptura is quite easily dispensed of when the Protestant needs to.

I do give credit to the English Protestants for doing something about a problem the Catholics already were aware of and acted upon - you cannot have hacks writing their version of Scriptures and call it "the Word of God". That is why the KJV is called the "Authorized Version". At least the Protestant King made an effort here. Protestantism had to be restrained by other Protestants from running wild with various "ear-itching" teachings.

Or perhaps he was just consolidating his rule over the masses. We Catholics hear the same accusations...

3. Thanks for restraining yourself.

Thank God.

Regards

 

[AVBunyan]

1.The "AV" has no magical qualities about it that converts people. God changes people, not "thee's" and "thou's".

2. And what is your take on the included Apocrypha? Being they are within the pages of the AV, they must be Scripture, no? Or did the "infallible" scholars remove them?

3. That again implies that the AV is magical (no, I'll stifle another comment here...) and God can only speak through the English language.

4. One doesn't have to even READ the bible to be saved. NOWHERE is this mentioned as part of being saved! Have you forgotten your "sola fide" already??? Saved by faith, not by reading a future KJV...

1. Really…I know it is God and the Spirit that changes but he uses his written word.
a. Is the word of God needed for Salvation?

Folks – I believe the very words of God have a power that you and I cannot comprehend.
God’s word created this universe and keeps it together:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

The word does a miraculous work in men:
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins:
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
2 Cor 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2 Cor 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,
Psa 119:25 DALETH. … quicken thou me according to thy word.

Only God’s words have power – not man’s words or a message.
If the message contains God’s words then there is power in the message.
If a soul-winner uses an NIV and within that NIV there are verses that match the AV (there may be some) then the sinner is getting the words of God – if not then he is just getting a watered-down message or an interpretation. Not sure whether God will use it or not – He is God but I doubt he will bless a corrupt/counterfeit “message†– the MVs are just not his words.

This is where we disagree – You believe the MVs are just another translation of God’s word and thus they are God’s words – I do not hold to that. I believe the MVs are counterfeits, corrupt translations, and really just corrupt interpretations of God’s words by apostates or the lost so therefore they have little or no power.

Conclusion – Christ’s death and shedding of his blood saves the sinner but it is God’s words with the Spirit that starts the work of drawing, convicting and saving in the sinner.

b.. Is the word of God needed for spiritual growth?
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
1 Pet 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Psa 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Psa 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
Psa 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

One can survive on McDonald’s (MVs) but will not be strong – it takes real food – God’s real words.

I lean towards without ever hearing or reading God’s words (outside of how God works in the lives of the deaf and blind) there is no regeneration r real spiritual growth afterwards.

Now you understand why I am so rabid AV (#a above) today.

2. Already discussed this – the translators put it in between the OT and NT saying it was not scripture only included for general historical reading.

3. The English AV is the standard. IF a missionary is on the field and needs a foreign translation then if he uses the English of an AV or the Greek-Hebrew the AV is based upon then God uses and blesses that foreign translation. God has blessed these and still does.

4. Pray over #1 a – “Is the word of God needed for Salvation?â€Â

Now Francis – I’ve dealt with you before so understand I am not trying to convince you of nothing here – I am using your wore out arguments for those who are reading and interested in getting the issue of authority settled. So, keep up the good work – you provided good material.

Regards...