King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Bibles

[Guest Butero]

7 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

GOOD ! 

Was there EVER a time YHVH poured out His Spirit on the heathen/ pagans/ gentiles ?   I don't remember .....

(even in Judgment, or another purpose than that when for the ekklesia..... )

I can't think of a single example.  The Spirit is Holy.  If he is poured out on all flesh, that means people like Hugh Hefner, Hillary Clinton, every Wiccan, every Muslim, every Satanist, etc. has had God's Spirit poured out on them.  That is ridiculous to me.  

[frienduff thaylorde]

2 minutes ago, Butero said:

Do you believe that God is pouring out his Spirit on sinners?  Whether he calls that interfaith or not, that is the so-called truth he is teaching.  

The outpouring OF the HOLY SPIRIT spoken of in JOEL, that comes AFTER one believes in CHRIST .

its evidence .  THE HOLY SPIRIT itself does indeed draw us to Faith in Christ .  

Even the early church said ,    to BELIEVERS,    have you not received the HOLY SPIRIT SINCE YOU BELIEVED.    SEE the outpouring JOEL speaks of

IS after ONE has come to FAIHT IN CHRIST

and it can happen the instant one does OR ,  some time later as we see in acts chapters eight , ten and nineteen.

SO you right butero.  what JOEL speaks of IS given to the BELEIVERS.   and it comes with gifts and etc dreams and visions , things for the use of the Church.

[simplejeff]

1 minute ago, Butero said:

I can't think of a single example.  The Spirit is Holy.  If he is poured out on all flesh, that means people like Hugh Hefner, Hillary Clinton, every Wiccan, every Muslim, every Satanist, etc. has had God's Spirit poured out on them.  That is ridiculous to me.  

agree yes,   I was thinking / wondering if YHVH poured out His Spirit in Judgment somewhere,  like when the angel He sent slaughtered 186,000 soldiers in one night ....

i.e. and as noted in previous post - the results of YHVH'S PRESENCE is TOTALLY DIFFERENT for EKKLESIA,  vs the unsaved condemned.

[Heleadethme]

25 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

There are times in English Bibles when "all" doesn't mean "all of the biggest whole set of something/ people/ nations",

but here in this context, and looking at what flesh seems to mean,  perhaps all does mean all.

All flesh I believe is referring to all nations, ie, both Jew and Gentile.....that is the point that the Lord seems to want to get across.....which agrees with later epistles.

[frienduff thaylorde]

1 minute ago, Heleadethme said:

All flesh I believe is referring to all nations, ie, both Jew and Gentile.....that is the point that the Lord seems to want to get across.....which agrees with later epistles.

Sister you praise the Lord on high.    I am off to go do a wee bit of research .    Yes.   I keep hearing that soon we will hear a loud false cry

under interfaith all inclusive that their being gathered is the thing spoken of in JOEL, taken out of text to support this false unity.

SO I am doing to go dig and try and see if I can find proof of this as of yet .  

[simplejeff]

2 minutes ago, Heleadethme said:

All flesh I believe is referring to all nations, ie, both Jew and Gentile.....that is the point that the Lord seems to want to get across.....which agrees with later epistles.

Yes,  as in people of every nation,   without any respect of persons (ethnic, monetary status, social status)  , 

from out of all peoples He calls and choses for Himself people for His Own Purpose, His Own Testimony .....

so 'all' doesn't at all necessarily mean each and every person, no.

[Heleadethme]

45 minutes ago, ScottA said:

I would never want to give the interfaith movement anything, but nevertheless, there is a truth regarding the outpouring of God's spirit during these times that we should understand clearly, and I have told it truthfully.

Brother, can you point me to the thread(s) where you talked about this?

[Heleadethme]

4 minutes ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

Sister you praise the Lord on high.    I am off to go do a wee bit of research .    Yes.   I keep hearing that soon we will hear a loud false cry

under interfaith all inclusive that their being gathered is the thing spoken of in JOEL, taken out of text to support this false unity.

SO I am doing to go dig and try and see if I can find proof of this as of yet .  

If it goes according to the pattern of Elijah's day.......the false prophets of Baal will first have their turn of trying to call down fire and cutting themselves in a frenzy..........and THEN the Lord will answer with His true fire on HIS altar.

[The_Patriot21]

47 minutes ago, Butero said:

First of all, I want you to bring into this thread, every instance where the Bible uses the word legalist, and then give us the Greek definition.  It shouldn't take you very long.  

Next, I challenge you to defend the new translations in light of the fact they have removed portions of what was supposed to be a closed canon.  If you can remove verses that were in the canon and defend that, and even the fact some modern translations have added to a verse in Psalms, then I can use the same argument to say we should go back and have a new debate on what books should be in the Bible, as well as debate individual verses.  Perhaps we should place Rest of Esther with Esther?  Perhaps Enoch should be in the new and improved canon.  The canon isn't closed anymore if it is ok to add or subtract from what was called canon.  I stand by everything I have said in defense of the KJV only position.  

One of the absolute dumbest arguments I have ever seen anyone use against the KJV only position is to say the Bible doesn't say we must be KJV only in the text.  It doesn't say the Book of Mormon isn't going to come along and be an additional portion of the Word of God either, so does that mean we should give that idea serious consideration?  I would be ashamed to even use that argument.  

I don't have to do any of that. Because not all translations have removed portions of scripture. If they did, then you might have a point. But they dont, so your point is mute. For example, the NASB contains all the same content as the kjv, except they got it all from the greek and hebrew texts, NOT the latin vulgate. To hold one translation over another translation even though the two contain the exact same message, is the very definition of legalism.

Now im not against legalism, to a point its a good thing and even necessary, but there comes a point where it goes to far. This entire kjv thing is to far because there is no empirical evidence that it is the one and only, and likely never will on this earth as the original greek has been lost. So hammering on it does nothing but ignore the concepts that the book actually teaches.

[Guest Butero]

15 minutes ago, The_Patriot2018 said:

I don't have to do any of that. Because not all translations have removed portions of scripture. If they did, then you might have a point. But they dont, so your point is mute. For example, the NASB contains all the same content as the kjv, except they got it all from the greek and hebrew texts, NOT the latin vulgate. To hold one translation over another translation even though the two contain the exact same message, is the very definition of legalism.

Now im not against legalism, to a point its a good thing and even necessary, but there comes a point where it goes to far. This entire kjv thing is to far because there is no empirical evidence that it is the one and only, and likely never will on this earth as the original greek has been lost. So hammering on it does nothing but ignore the concepts that the book actually teaches.

How sure are you of that?  I am willing to go back and compare verse for verse the NASB with the KJV Bible.  The only other translation I know of thus far that I have investigated that has all the same verses in tact is the NKJV Bible.  After investigating this, if it turns out any verses are missing, I will remind you that you said in your own words, "If they did, then you might have a point."  I will be checking it out as I have my dinner.  

By the way, why should I care what anyone thinks is legalistic, when the word isn't even in the Bible?  If it was, you might have a point.