[bibleprotector]

Concerning the discussion of " 'extra-biblical sources' " etc.

To focus on the issue at hand, I wish to redirect attention to the fact that Bible4Today promised to post about the "pure language"/Bible English issue, and request that other discussions might better be continued (if it is wise to do so) elsewhere.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

And I would agree that these "precept upon precept" verses are very powerful, along with :

2Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.

They describe how many of us came to the understanding, including sound scholarship, of the purity and perfection of the King James Bible.

Isaiah 28:10
For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept;
line upon line,
line upon line;
here a little,
and there a little:

Isaiah 28:13
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept,
precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;
here a little, and there a little;
that they might go, and fall backward,
and be broken, and snared, and taken

The nice part of this thread is that, even while kjvisit is essentially arguing against his own scripture verse references, we can see the consistency and purity and perfection of God's word.

Shalom,
Steven

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by kjvisit

Doesn't anyone else see this?

The issue of the Trinity (a doctrine I hold to as fundamental) has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make. Anyway, what I see is that God gives different people different burdens. Applying this to another topic of apologetics: evolution. Many people have become Christians after being shown how ridiculous the fairy tail of evolution is. And yet, the Bible begins with Genesis 1:1 already with the assumption that evolution did not happen. Does that mean that there is no reason for the work that ICR or AIG or the other creation-apologetics group do? I don't think so.

You and I don't need to be convinced with Greek and Hebrew "proofs" of the KJV. But I certainly know that many people have been helped with such evidence. I myself got my first real introduction to this topic in a two-fold manner: verse comparisons and a background on the differences between the TR and Alexandrian texts.

In the end, it is our faith that matters, and all the apologetics we do may or may not be used by the Holy Spirit to inform others' faith.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by kjvisit

...he has never proven that he has convinced the skeptics.

Just to be clear, and to correct a possible misimpression, I never claimed to "convince the skeptics" .. that is ultimately in God's hands and the result will be a reflection of their honesty (or lack thereof) before God.

1 Corinthians 3:5-10
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

With the skeptics I have offerred compelling defenses of the pure Bible on their forums, showing the superiority of the Received Text and the majestic King James Bible to their preferred corrupt modern-version-duckshoot text. And explaining to them the paradigmic and conceptual underpinniings of the pure Bible vs. corrupt version discussion.

And for that defense I frequently reference early church writers, one of many significant "extra-biblical sources", as does virtually every defender of the King James Bible in the public arena. As I explained earlier, often with skeptics and modern-versionists you are writing more for the uncertain, inquiring reader ... the one who is weighing the evidences, not the calloused and hardened adversary.

Such defense of God's beautiful, majestic and perfect word can be very edifying to others and helpful to your own understanding and convictions and pleasing unto God.

Shalom,
Steven

[pneuby]

KJVisit:

I've only been around here a little bit. I've read much, albeit not all, of Steven's posting on a site regarding the Trinity. I confess...it began to make my head hurt.

I disagree with him, and feel that he's mistaken. However, I'm not going to dimiss everything else of value that he offers. That's ludicrous. The man is a font of knowledge, if that's not readily obvious. Just an FYI, there's other popular posters here aligned with other doctrine/s you may not be in agreement with. Despite this, the knowledge abounds. God has blessed many, many here.

Both Steven, and George {from the prior page} post in a gracious manner, designed to win-over the unsure, such as moi'. That's more than can be said for so many others here.

Lastly, the man confesses Christ, and is a brother! That alone, should also help you reconsider a position of grace, and post accordingly.

[Debau]

Originally Posted by kjvisit

This is my last post...I will not stick around a forum where one of your leading members bolsters the AV with the very same methods he denies the Trinity. How are we to trust anything he posts?

You don't have to trust his posts. You are admonished to contend for the faith. If you believe Steve's position is compromising, why not move this over to the doctrine forum? I would like Steve to post his beliefs on the Trinity, and learn from a scriptural dialogue that defends our triune God. I believe that this is a "weightier issue", as George puts it (Secret Rapture) that deserves attention.
How 'bout it? Steve...?

This IS a forum.

BTW: We were ALL skeptics at one time.

You and I don't need to be convinced with Greek and Hebrew "proofs" of the KJV. But I certainly know that many people have been helped with such evidence. I myself got my first real introduction to this topic in a two-fold manner: verse comparisons and a background on the differences between the TR and Alexandrian texts.

I am such a person who was initiated and convinced in this "two-fold manner".
In the end, it IS Holy Spirit convicting faith that matters.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Debau

I would like Steve to post his beliefs on the Trinity, and learn from a scriptural dialogue that defends our triune God ... How 'bout it? Steve...?

Hi Debau, it's possible, I would probably join in and contribute and discuss a bit.

However, please understand, I'm a bit ambivalent about a dialogue where some of the posters and readers may be looking for a 'cause of offense' rather than a sincere discussion. (On my home-base Messianic forum there have been some good discussions, however even there I tend to just moderate the last couple of years.) For the most part I have kept Messiahology (Christology) and Bible versions discusssions separate, with one major exception.

And that principle exception is the simple fact that the pure Bible strongly supports the 'Deity of Messiah' most especially in 1 Timothy 3:16.

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.

This verse is very strongly resisted by the low Christology groups, including ebionites and biblical-unitarians/socinians and arians, who almost always will insist on the modern version corruption.

There are other verses where the difference between versions is important, including Philippians 2:6 and the Johannine Comma. So there are a number of verses where Messiahology and Bible version issues do overlap. Another is Matthew 28:19, where some folks make the truly absurd argument that the verse is not scripture (the Constantinean conspiracy theory) which I ripped strongly on one of the forums linked to above, especially showing the large number of ante-Nicene early church writer references.

The critical issue for any discussion about the Lord Jesus Christ .. the Bible is the source of doctrine. The big pitfall in so many circles (not here) is that folks choose their versions and verses and translations to match their pre-existing doctrine. In a very real sense my spiritual kinship is first and foremost with those who recognize, receive and embrace God's pure word.

Shalom,
Steven

[George]

Originally Posted by kjvisit

This is my last post...I will not stick around a forum where one of your leading members bolsters the AV with the very same methods he denies the Trinity. How are we to trust anything he posts?

Aloha kjvist,

I would urge you to remain in this Forum (at least for now), because I doubt very much that there is any other that is as "tolerant" of "opinion" as this Forum is.

I have read most of Steven Avery's Posts (on this Forum) and have not seen even a "hint" of his denying the "Trinity" ("Godhead" is the scriptural word). Should he ever raise the topic, I am confident that many members of the Forum will at that time - take him on and refute whatever "arguments" he may bring forth (Since I am sure that the vast majority of the members of the Forum believe in the doctrine of the Godhead).

He certainly is a "repository" of knowledge when it comes to the transmission of the New Testament text, and although I myself eschew {KJB "archaic" word} the "intellectual" or "academic" approach to the King James Bible issue, I believe that his "approach" may be of some benefit to others.

Should anyone on this Forum bring forth clear "heresy" and push for "acceptance" of a false doctrine I am sure that he (or she) won't be "tolerated" for very long.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I am interested in knowing what the strict KJVOnly thinks about using the Greek, Hebrew and scholars..

Okay, I guess I should have read the first post of this Thread a little more closely. The person that posed the question/Started the Thread has been "Banned" on this site...

Someone named KJvisit then starts posting and (depending on the time of day/degree of Full-Moon/insulin-blood-sugar amount) seems to argue then agree with various posters on the Thread...

Then in post #58 the poster "KJvisit" says: "This is my last post..." But Wait! ---There's More...

The person in their latest post reveals that "KJvisit" is actually "Free Sunday School Lessons"...someone who was Banned by the Forum Admin...

Whoever you are today (Mr./Maam/Miss Alternate screen names person) I think you REALLY need to check in with an M.D. soon and avoid any sharp objects or automobiles...

James 1:8 seems appropriate.

[Diligent]

Just FYI, in case anyone is wondering: kjvisit was Barry (previously signed up as freesundayschoollessons) masquerading in here as something he is not for some sort of experiment. Since he signed up after being banned, and on false pretenses to boot, I have deleted his posts.