|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ WHOSO ” |
|
|
| RECENTLY-COMMENTED SERMONS | More | Last Post | Total |
| · Page 1 · Found: 7 user comments posted recently. |
|
|
 11/8/09 5:42 PM |
| Whoso | |  |  |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Guinness wrote:
What valid points have you brought up? Not one.... you post circular argumentation like this:-
Whoso wrote:
9. Doubts like these are doubting the Lord. You really should not critisize Him that way Jim. God has always provided for His elect. The reason whereby I brought up this point was because of Jim's statement quote
""Jim Lincoln wrote:
9. The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior?""-Jim here has doubted that the LORD did provide the Word of God and HIS purpose requiring the Word in the people of History at that time, prior to 1610. That should be simple for most people to comprehend. Guiness wrote:
leave the field to genuine defenders of the supremacy of the Byzantine text type please The debate here is on KJV being the best translation, - versus modern versions. The KJV comes from the TR, modern versions have not. Thats pretty plain and simple too.My position is straight forward in that the KJV has proven itself in the hands of the Holy Spirit for over four centuries, whereas modern versions HAVE NOT!! Thats pretty simple to observe too, in fact - IT IS A FACT!!! May GOD bless the understanding of His children. |
|
|
| 11/8/09 3:46 PM |
| Whoso | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Guinness wrote:
political device by a man who decided in his own "infinite" wisdom to have a new Conservative version written for his own ends I see you don't trust in a Sovereign God.The KJV was translated by the best and most gracious expertise available to the purpose of God in the 16th century. The purpose of God - throughout the centuries - is perhaps something you might consider in all this. Try not to exclude Him from ecclesiastical history. If you are dedicated to the modern versions then please beware of the points I and others have brought up. We do genuinely care for the Word of God. After studying Greek at college I quickly saw the problems with the modern versions, and also recognised the accuracy of the KJV. This I contribute to the grace of our Lord.
After studying the available literature on the modern versions and perceiving the critique as factual, I went over to the KJV because of it's accuracy. This is the way God has brought me. As I said before *IF* the modern version is so accurate and trustworthy - WHY is there so many different versions of them.
The Spirit and the church was working diligently away for centuries on the KJV, THEN 20th century decided to change Greek texts, doctrine and grammar. WHY??? |
|
|
| 11/8/09 3:13 PM |
| Whoso | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Jim Lincoln wrote:
9. The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior?10. If scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? # The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV @ Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? 9. Doubts like these are doubting the Lord. You really should not critisize Him that way Jim. God has always provided for His elect.10. "KLV Onlyism" as you call it Jim, is simply the elect trying to improve the lot of the Church on earth by directing all to the Truth, and contending for the faith against the forces of darkness. # Talking about the Anglican influences Westcott and Hort were both ANGLICAN heretics - they contributed to heretical Greek interpretation which emerges today in the modern versions like your NASB and the NIV et al. @ No contest Jim. The TR was brought into use by the grace of God and REAL christian servants; - As opposed to heretics like Westcott and Hort.
Remember the old story of those two clowns that when the so called RV was sent to your country in the 19th century, the good people rejected it.
SO SHOULD YOU Jim!! |
|
|
| 11/8/09 10:49 AM |
| Whoso | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Guinness wrote:
1. This argues.... 1. False dichotomy.
2. There is only ONE KJV!
3. This was done in the 15th/16th century.
4. T.R. Is hardly anywhere near the "eclectic" definition applied to the modern version. Do you understand the point made?
5. Dean Burgon 19th century - no input into KJV.
Whereas Westcott+Hort(Heretics) - DIRECT input into modern versions.
6. KJV was the culmination of ENGLISH TRANSLATION VERSIONS. Your point is not relevant.
7. This has NOTHING to do with the previous point made!
8. Again NOTHING to do with the point made! - You appear to be getting desparate? My questions appear to be doing well!!
9. NOBODY said the KJV was 'THE' Spirit and 'THE' Truth. When reading Scripture it is the HOLY SPIRIT which delivers 'THE' Truth, thats why all who read it are NOT converted. The Truth can set you free!! John 8:32. It is not reading which sets you free!! AND The Spirit guides the 'elect' into all truth. John 16:13. Get it!!!
10. Again your response does NOT deal with the question raised.
I am disappointed with your points raised Guinness. I am also serious about the version question!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/9/09 4:54 PM
