How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples

[Guest brandplucked]

Hi Ronald, we all know that you personally do not believe any Bible is the inerrant words of God and that you really don't care. So while you may be tired of seeing concrete examples of where the modern versions are poor substitutes for the true Holy Bible, others perhaps are not as hardened or indifferent as you are. Just ignore them if you are not interested.

I would think even you would know better than to say things that a person HAS NOT said! I went the route of KJV only for a while and wound up going back to the NIV-a much more readable translation btw. As for being hardened, you ARE NOT in a position to judge my walk with God. I would also submit that maybe you should heed the advice of the Lord-remove the plank from your own eye before trying to get a splinter from mine!

Hi Ronald, I think here you are trying to refer to the words of our Lord found in Matthew 7 about judging, right? Matthew 7:1-5 speak about having a beam in your eye as you try to remove the mote from your brother's eye. It is speaking about hypocritical judging of another, not judging rightly. Now to apply this passage to our present discussion.

The central point I am making is that you object to any King James Only posts mainly because you do not believe any Bible or any text in any language is now the complete, inerrant and inspired words of God. Therefore you think it wrong of me to claim that the King James Bible is the only true and 100% complete Bible in the English language and tell others that all the newer versions like the niv, nkjv, nasb, esv, Holman etc. are not the true Bible, but are poor imitations that end up creating confusion and unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture. (In spite of the fact that recent polls show that more and more professing Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy of any Scripture in any language)

I would only be hypocritically judging you if I accused you of not believing in an inerrant Bible if I myself likewise did not believe in one. However, I clearly do believe the Authorized King James Holy Bible is the providentially preserved, complete, 100% accurate and true words of the living God. This is my stated position and I am quite willing and somewhat able to defend this conviction.

All you need to do to prove my statement about your not believing in an inerrant Bible is to clearly tell us all exactly what you believe about the Bible version issue. Do you believe there exists today an inerrant, 100% true and complete Holy Bible? If so, then which one is it? If it is the NIV, then it cannot be the KJB, or the NASB, or the ESV or any other English translation. Is it the Hebrew and Greek? If so, which Hebrew and which Greek are you talking about? Is it a "hold it in your hands and read" type of Bible, or is it a mystical, non-existent, and never before seen in print "bible" that exists only in your imagination you are referring to?

All you need to do is answer the basic question. Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures? If so, then identify exactly what you are talking about when you say " The Scriptures".

If I am wrong in my understanding about the position you hold, I will publicly apologize to you for having judged you in an inappropiate manner.

Thanks, and God bless,

Will K

[EricH]

Gods grace is based in truth.

showing grace, means revealing truth.

truth always hurts. thats graceful to God cause his Spirit leads us into truth, and

if discipline or changing ones paradigm is requrired, I wouldnt wait for God to start spankin.

no one is pounding nails in anothers person.

but the scritpures say to task and sharpen one another.

when someone starts calling another names, then there is a problem.

tasking someone to come down of a non-biblical pedastal, is what is supposed to

be done.

sorry if you are KJVO---or anyone else.

but there are many examples of the KJV being mistranslated.

I certainly agree that God's grace is based on truth. But it is also based on His love and mercy. We do not need to add to the pain the truth might bring to an individual by adding rudeness or insensitivity to the mix. If people are going to be offended, we need to make sure that they are offended by the truth, and not our personalities.

Before we can win the battle of truth with people, we must first win the battle of trust. That means that for us to be able to share the truth with people, they must be convinced that we love and care about them. If they are convinced otherwise (because of us), they may miss the truth because we placed a stumbling block there.

[EricH]

Hi Ronald, we all know that you personally do not believe any Bible is the inerrant words of God and that you really don't care. So while you may be tired of seeing concrete examples of where the modern versions are poor substitutes for the true Holy Bible, others perhaps are not as hardened or indifferent as you are. Just ignore them if you are not interested.

I would think even you would know better than to say things that a person HAS NOT said! I went the route of KJV only for a while and wound up going back to the NIV-a much more readable translation btw. As for being hardened, you ARE NOT in a position to judge my walk with God. I would also submit that maybe you should heed the advice of the Lord-remove the plank from your own eye before trying to get a splinter from mine!

Hi Ronald, I think here you are trying to refer to the words of our Lord found in Matthew 7 about judging, right? Matthew 7:1-5 speak about having a beam in your eye as you try to remove the mote from your brother's eye. It is speaking about hypocritical judging of another, not judging rightly. Now to apply this passage to our present discussion.

The central point I am making is that you object to any King James Only posts mainly because you do not believe any Bible or any text in any language is now the complete, inerrant and inspired words of God. Therefore you think it wrong of me to claim that the King James Bible is the only true and 100% complete Bible in the English language and tell others that all the newer versions like the niv, nkjv, nasb, esv, Holman etc. are not the true Bible, but are poor imitations that end up creating confusion and unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture. (In spite of the fact that recent polls show that more and more professing Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy of any Scripture in any language)

I would only be hypocritically judging you if I accused you of not believing in an inerrant Bible if I myself likewise did not believe in one. However, I clearly do believe the Authorized King James Holy Bible is the providentially preserved, complete, 100% accurate and true words of the living God. This is my stated position and I am quite willing and somewhat able to defend this conviction.

All you need to do to prove my statement about your not believing in an inerrant Bible is to clearly tell us all exactly what you believe about the Bible version issue. Do you believe there exists today an inerrant, 100% true and complete Holy Bible? If so, then which one is it? If it is the NIV, then it cannot be the KJB, or the NASB, or the ESV or any other English translation. Is it the Hebrew and Greek? If so, which Hebrew and which Greek are you talking about? Is it a "hold it in your hands and read" type of Bible, or is it a mystical, non-existent, and never before seen in print "bible" that exists only in your imagination you are referring to?

All you need to do is answer the basic question. Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures? If so, then identify exactly what you are talking about when you say " The Scriptures".

If I am wrong in my understanding about the position you hold, I will publicly apologize to you for having judged you in an inappropiate manner.

Thanks, and God bless,

Will K

For the record here folks, the classical statement of the doctrine of inerrancy states that only the original autographs were inerrant. For one to hold to inerrancy, one only has to hold that the originals were inerrant, and that any translation that followed is only inerrant as it approximates the originals. All translations have their issues including KJV. But, none of the issues speak to major doctrines. All of the modern versions that are not paraphrases are reliable for faith and practice.

There is an insinuation in the above post that If Ron does not hold that one of the current translations is 100 percent inerrant, that he does not hold to inerrancy. This is wrong.

I am closing down this thread. When accusations like this start, people can be needlessly hurt