John UK wrote:
Now you have really gone down in my estimation, even further than it was already.
Now I gave you the answer to your question, but you do not have ears to hear, nor eyes to see. These things are far too deep for you. The whole of your thinking is on a shallow level. You are like those in the NT to whom Jesus spoke in parables, so that they wouldn't understand a word he was saying.
I'm sorry, but that's the way of it.
However, if you come to see that there are two views of looking at events, you may get somewhere. The first view is the simple view, and if arminists would stick to that, all would be well. But no, they want to look at events from God's view as well, and so they are all budding theologians, thinking they know greek etc.
I trust that the Lord will remove his grace from you for a season; then you might realise that grace is not merited.

Grace is never merited and no one says it is. So quit your lying.

You must feel very special to be so elite

John UK wrote:
But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
John 5:34
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
John 5:40
Of course, the Messiah was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, who were claiming belief in "Moses", that is, the law. But they did not believe Jesus was the Son of God nor the Messiah. That is why they had him killed under the Mosaic law. I say 'they', but some of them believed.
Those who believe the doctrines of grace also preach that men should believe and be saved. They also say, "Ye will not come to Christ and be saved?"...

The point is the Lord was willing (no limited atonement here), but they were not. It was not the Lord who made them unwilling.

According to calvinism if the Lord was willing but it did not happen, then he failed!

Obviously the Lord needed a good calvinist to explain to him the "bondage of the will" and then he would not have made such unguarded statements.

John UK wrote:
Earlier in the chapter, we find why men "will not" come to Christ to be saved. And it is all to do with the will of God, not man's will.
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
John 5:21
The Lord Jesus does not quicken those who believe, but he quickens whom HE will, that they will believe.

Spurgeon wrote:
snip...Any one who believes that man's will is entirely free, and that he can be saved by it, does not believe the fall..

Gpost wrote:
I'm glad you recognise that we stick to the Word of God, Lurker. Thats progress.
But what is it we "do not" which you hymn singers "do"?? I wonder.
Perhaps you mean we "do not" blow our own trumpets? Like you sinner composed (substituting of God's Word) users do.
If it is the application of the old Hebrew ceremonial instruments in worship which you refer to, can I ask which animal sacrifice are you doing this Sunday? (or is it still Saturday for you)?
_____________________

Now c'mon Mike, you know full well that the Holy Spirit works in the heart of us good Biblical Calvinists.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Because, Frank, you filled in the blanks, the KJV is understandable when you have read a good version of the Bible such as the NIV....

Scores of ignorant people were even taught to read and understand the English language using the KJV!!

You should leave your lying and get your facts right Jim, and then perhaps- just perhaps, you will come to the right conclusion.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Why yes, John UK, thanks to [URL=http://www.raptureme.com/rr-kjvo.html]]]King James Onlyism[/URL], I found that the AV is a Catholicized Bible with what one could call Catholic New Testament Apocrypha, [like the word "Bishop",Hidemi, another Catholicism pushed by King Jas.]..[/URL].

Yada, Yada, Yada...

Your either an unthinking parrot or a really annoying broken record!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Duh! apparently you didn't read the [URL=http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_burgon_enemy_kjvism.htm]]]Dean Burgon: The Greatest Enemy of King James Onlyism[/URL] article did you? He would be against the KJV only position as much as any other scholar.....

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Duh, I would hope that Michael has read, [URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF]]]Erasmus and the Textus Receptus by William W. Combs[/URL]. Dr. Combs will give you reason to say, [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665]]]Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today[/URL]. Yes, it appears that TR people are extremely poor scholars and lack some veracity to boot, [URL=http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_burgon_enemy_kjvism.htm]]]Dean Burgon: The Greatest Enemy of King James Onlyism[/URL]. John MacArthur was much gentler on the subject, [URL=http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/KJV.HTM]]]The Biblical Position on The KJV Controversy[/URL].

Combs and Wallace are no match for Burgon and Scrivener. I have already stated that neither of these men were KJV only men, AND I don't find the position espoused by this extreme group represented on SA. So why do you keep misrepresenting the folk who are arguing against modern versions on the basis of the underlying texts?

John UK wrote:
Quite right, Frank.
The words FILTHY LUCRE come to mind.
No-one has yet answered the obvious question: "Why, if the only problem is antiquated words in the KJV, has not one publisher even attempted to simply modernise the language of the KJV and put out a Bible needing no revision for the next fifty years?

Michael Hranek wrote:
...I accept the KJV as an acceptable translation while I believe the NASB is better and actually when all the evidence is humbly examined from better manuscripts despite how this upset some people...

I think Michael that your's is a gut reaction against a particular extreme - not an informed conclusion!

There is no way upon earth that any reasonable person can give credence to the utter rubbish spouted forth by the textual critics. Their reasoning is akin to the reasoning of Evolutionists who will mount conjecture upon conjecture and put forth their house of cards as some sort of proof for their theory.

FYI wrote:
"James's Enemies Discredited"
"Maurice Lee, Jr., a historian published by the University of Illinois Press, says, "Historians can and should ignore the venomous caricature of the king's person and behavior drawn by Anthony Weldon." [22] Another historian, Christopher Durston, writes regarding Weldon's book: "This poisonous piece of literary revenge was to do profound and lasting damage to James's reputation, as it became the prime source for many subsequent historical assessments whose authors failed to make sufficient allowance for its obvious bias." [23]"
"There were several others who hinted that James was a homo-sexual. However, upon examination, in each case, they turn out to be avowed political enemies of James and likely fed upon each other's gossip. Much could and has been written on this matter. However, Ste-phen Coston quotes a historian who lived much closer to these charges as "despicable and libelous, . . . full of lies, mistakes, and nonsense." [24]"
[URL=http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjcoston.htm]]]King James Unjustly Accused?[/URL]

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Hidemi, Westcott and Hort, influence is so much superior to Catholic influence of [URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF]]]Erasmus and the Textus Receptus [/URL]..

Serious Christian wrote:
Jim
..Thus I must state that you are using what is termed as being "economic with the truth" ..

Yep. Jim is king of "economic with the truth"! He piles them on one by one. Hence:

Lie #1 The KJV is antiquated in its language, and therefore fails the comprehensibility test.

Lie #2 The KJV is a bad translation.

Lie #3 The KJV is based on a faulty text.

Lie #4 The KJV is an ecumenical Bible

Blah, blah, blah...

And he will give you the same links time and time again because those are the only articles which he has read to come to the false conclusion to which he holds.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
J3, it looks like you are looking for a rational approach to picking a Bible, please read the rather lengthy [URL=http://web.archive.org/web/20071021065646/http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html]]]Comparing Bible Translations[/URL]. It is broken up into sections and that might be help to you....

Mike wrote:
No need, John. As you pointed out, all you need is a man-authorized english correcting dictionary to go along with the perfect Parliament-authorized version, and you're good to go!
Or on the other hand, we could do comparative Bible study and allow the Holy Spirit to bring us to all truth. Nah..too radical.

So you agree that the "Scholars'" aim of a text approaching the autographs is fallacious? Especially given that there are in excess of 6,000 differences in the NT alone!

Your position seems to be stuff the textual issues. This is just a complete waste of time. The truth is preserved by comparing scripture with scripture.

And if I am right in this, then don't you have to sure that you have the Scriptures in the first place to place any confidence in the comparison process? Or are you saying that this process guarantees to overcome all the textual difficulties?

Ha! wrote:
JD wrote:
It came out of your own volition and I can prove that by the simple fact that I have read the Scriptures and did not get that from it.

Ha

effectively you are saying I don't agree with you therefore you are wrong and I am right!