BEWARE: Are You Encouraging Apostasy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr. Huk-N-Duck
  • Start date Start date
AverageJoe said:
Laughable at best, Hukster! Laughable. And reading in context, the chapter does point to belief in Christ. So there's no doctrinal error. Sorry, I don't buy the argument. People like the cherry pick a few words or a verse instead of the whole chapter or book in context. Shameful.
Click to expand...
I have to go with what God has shown me. I believe that the KJV is the closest thing we have to the original manuscripts, and it’s been inspired and preserved. Of course you can lead someone to Christ using another version, but when it comes to other topics, Buyer Beware.
 
AverageJoe said:
Bloviating out your bottom is your MO. I've dealt with your types and it's futile, as it would be try and push the KJVO hogwash down my throat again. I'm not an anti-KJV'er...I am KJV preferred...If you had read my posts, you'd know that...but, of course, you're just like all the other bloviating KJV worshippers. I worship Christ, not a translation.
Click to expand...
Nobody can push any thing down your throat. And nobody can force you to engage in this kind of discussion either. Remember this exhortation?

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Best you take a break, brother. Stop seeing those that took advantage of you using only the KJV, as every one that uses the KJV will be like them. Forgive them & address the issue.
 
FSSL said:
Perhaps if is important to understand that not a single KJV version is identical... so, you could fall into the cultic Australian trap and identify your own KJV version as the right one.
Click to expand...
I have seen things carried to this extreme to the point where "Thomas Nelson" and "Word" printings of the KJV are regarded as "Perversions." There is also a good bit of infighting among the Spanish speakers as to which Reina Valera Bible (1609 or 1960) is the REAL Word of God.

There are some differences between the Oxford 1762 and Cambridge 1769 printings but the "Average Joe" would be hard-pressed to pick them out and are of little to no consequence anyway. It is a big "Chink" in the armor of those who believe that "Every jot and tittle of God's word is preserved in the KJV" though and was one of the big things that caused me to realize that such a position was indefensible.

Most of the differences in KJV printings have to do with spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.
 
HukNduck said:
Joe - The issue is Major Doctrinal Errors. John 3:36

KJV - “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

NASV: “The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

If you’re not following the KJV here, you’re just a plain old Catholic wearing a Southern Baptist hat.
Click to expand...
I do not see how you can arrive at that judgment.

Best to stop attacking the poster and just address the issue, brother. Attacking the poster is akin to biting & devouring one another.

I can see how Catholics can use that NASB verse for support of Catholicism, but that does not mean every one that uses the NASB is Catholic.

I had used the Ryrie NASB Study Bible and the NIV daily before the Lord led me to rely on the KJV all the time, and I was never Catholic.
 
HukNduck said:
As I read through some of the comments on the forum, I quite often see people sneering at churches that are KJV-only. Have any of you really reviewed the potential pitfalls with not using only the KJV? Are these other versions of the Bible, such as the NIV, NASV, and even the NKJV sinful?

The NIV contains 185 omissions from that of the KJV. Why is this an issue? (See Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:19). For example, one verse that’s particularly troubling is Luke 4:4:

KJV version: “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

NIV version: Jesus answered, “It is written: “Man shall not live on bread alone.”

The NIV Bible version comes from the lineage of Wescott-Hort (1881). These were liberals who didn’t believe in the virgin birth. Did you know that?
Click to expand...
Never would have picked you for a KJVo guy.
 
HukNduck said:
The NIV contains 185 omissions from that of the KJV. Why is this an issue? (See Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:19). For example, one verse that’s particularly troubling is Luke 4:4:
Click to expand...

That assumes that the textual choices made by the compilers of the Textus Receptus, and the translators of the KJV, are the correct ones.

KJV version: “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

NIV version: Jesus answered, “It is written: “Man shall not live on bread alone.”
Click to expand...

Not an issue. Jesus is quoting Deut. 8:3: "He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD" (NIV, emphasis added). Furthermore, the parallel account in Matthew 4:4 quotes the phrase in full, so it's not "omitted." If the "omission" in Luke 4:4 is "troubling" and this is intentional, why was it not also omitted from Matthew 4:4?

An ancient, biblically literate church would have read Luke 4:4, recognized the reference to Deuteronomy, and understood the context--just as Luke and Matthew (and Jesus, for that matter) expected them to. This seems problematic to our eyes because the late 20th century and early 21st century are not biblically literate.

The NIV Bible version comes from the lineage of Wescott-Hort (1881). These were liberals who didn’t believe in the virgin birth. Did you know that?
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any denials of the virgin birth in the writings of Westcott or Hort, at least in the facsimiles of their works that I have. If anything, they simply assume the virgin birth is a fact. For example, Westcott makes several references to the "Virgin Mary" or the "Blessed Virgin" in his commentary on John. In his exposition on the Apostles' Creed, he says little about the virgin birth, except to assume it (Westcott, The Historic Faith, 4th ed., 1890, p. 64).

Usually the opposite accusation is made: Westcott and Hort are crypto-Catholics (see, for example, the KJV-only misuse of Westcott's 1847 letter to his fiancee in which he describes his visit to a Carmelite monastery where he encountered a Pieta in a shrine, and "could have knelt there for hours").

When the same crowd of people can't decide whether Westcott is for or against the Perpetual Virginity, it's a good sign they're talking out of their rears.

The KJV-only suspects who pick apart Westcott and Hort's theology, such as Benjamin Wilkerson and D. A. Waite, are silent on this denial of the virgin birth. I have no doubt that if there was any evidence for it, they'd be trumpeting it from the rooftops. Even Gail Riplinger, who normally has no problem just making stuff up if it doesn't exist in reality, is silent on this. Conclusion: It isn't true.
 
Ransom said:
That assumes that the textual choices made by the compilers of the Textus Receptus, and the translators of the KJV, are the correct ones.



Not an issue. Jesus is quoting Deut. 8:3: "He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD" (NIV, emphasis added). Furthermore, the parallel account in Matthew 4:4 quotes the phrase in full, so it's not "omitted." If the "omission" in Luke 4:4 is "troubling" and this is intentional, why was it not also omitted from Matthew 4:4?

An ancient, biblically literate church would have read Luke 4:4, recognized the reference to Deuteronomy, and understood the context--just as Luke and Matthew (and Jesus, for that matter) expected them to. This seems problematic to our eyes because the late 20th century and early 21st century are not biblically literate.



I'm not aware of any denials of the virgin birth in the writings of Westcott or Hort, at least in the facsimiles of their works that I have. If anything, they simply assume the virgin birth is a fact. For example, Westcott makes several references to the "Virgin Mary" or the "Blessed Virgin" in his commentary on John. In his exposition on the Apostles' Creed, he says little about the virgin birth, except to assume it (Westcott, The Historic Faith, 4th ed., 1890, p. 64).

Usually the opposite accusation is made: Westcott and Hort are crypto-Catholics (see, for example, the KJV-only misuse of Westcott's 1847 letter to his fiancee in which he describes his visit to a Carmelite monastery where he encountered a Pieta in a shrine, and "could have knelt there for hours").

When the same crowd of people can't decide whether Westcott is for or against the Perpetual Virginity, it's a good sign they're talking out of their rears.

The KJV-only suspects who pick apart Westcott and Hort's theology, such as Benjamin Wilkerson and D. A. Waite, are silent on this denial of the virgin birth. I have no doubt that if there was any evidence for it, they'd be trumpeting it from the rooftops. Even Gail Riplinger, who normally has no problem just making stuff up if it doesn't exist in reality, is silent on this. Conclusion: It isn't true.
Click to expand...
There are several lengthy writings online concerning the virgin birth and the NIV. This one is a little more succinct. https://www.febc.edu.sg/v15/article/def_untrustworthiness_of_niv
 
Ransom said:
That assumes that the textual choices made by the compilers of the Textus Receptus, and the translators of the KJV, are the correct ones.

Not an issue. Jesus is quoting Deut. 8:3: "He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD" (NIV, emphasis added). Furthermore, the parallel account in Matthew 4:4 quotes the phrase in full, so it's not "omitted." If the "omission" in Luke 4:4 is "troubling" and this is intentional, why was it not also omitted from Matthew 4:4?

An ancient, biblically literate church would have read Luke 4:4, recognized the reference to Deuteronomy, and understood the context--just as Luke and Matthew (and Jesus, for that matter) expected them to. This seems problematic to our eyes because the late 20th century and early 21st century are not biblically literate.

I'm not aware of any denials of the virgin birth in the writings of Westcott or Hort, at least in the facsimiles of their works that I have. If anything, they simply assume the virgin birth is a fact. For example, Westcott makes several references to the "Virgin Mary" or the "Blessed Virgin" in his commentary on John. In his exposition on the Apostles' Creed, he says little about the virgin birth, except to assume it (Westcott, The Historic Faith, 4th ed., 1890, p. 64).

Usually the opposite accusation is made: Westcott and Hort are crypto-Catholics (see, for example, the KJV-only misuse of Westcott's 1847 letter to his fiancee in which he describes his visit to a Carmelite monastery where he encountered a Pieta in a shrine, and "could have knelt there for hours").

When the same crowd of people can't decide whether Westcott is for or against the Perpetual Virginity, it's a good sign they're talking out of their rears.

The KJV-only suspects who pick apart Westcott and Hort's theology, such as Benjamin Wilkerson and D. A. Waite, are silent on this denial of the virgin birth. I have no doubt that if there was any evidence for it, they'd be trumpeting it from the rooftops. Even Gail Riplinger, who normally has no problem just making stuff up if it doesn't exist in reality, is silent on this. Conclusion: It isn't true.
Click to expand...
Westcott & Hort: their heresies and occult activities

This site referenced their words and activities from which I can understand why they would translate Romans 8:26-27 as if the Spirit utters like the spirits in mediums as uttering gibberish nonsense.

Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? KJV

Romans 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit(A) himself intercedes for us(B) through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts(C) knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes(D) for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. NIV

They even commit a grammatical error by switching out the "he" in the conclusion of that verse 27 to be "the Spirit" when that cannot be. How can this "he" that is separate from us in searching our hearts and separate from the Spirit to know the mind of the Spirit, conclude as the Spirit in verse 27? So this "he" is Jesus Christ that searches our hearts Hebrews 4:12-16 KJV is the same "he" that knows the mind of the Spirit.

The KJV is right to apply "itself" in verse 26 because the Holy Spirit cannot give His silent intercessions directly to the Father for why it is the will of God since there is only One Mediator between God and men 1 Timothy 2:5 KJV and so Jesus has to know the mind of the Spirit to give His silent intercessions to the Father so that when & if the Father says yes to any of those intercessions, be it ours, the Spirit's or the Son's own, the Son answers the prayer so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answers to prayers. John 14:13-14 KJV

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. KJV

As it is, the occultic mindset as well as not valuing the scripture is circumspect for how and why they had translated Romans 8:26-27 the way that they did.
 
ChristB4us said:
Isn't that Jesus Only movement based on the false notion that since the Son of God has left, the Holy Spirit replaced Jesus and thus is Jesus? I recalled something about how Matthew 28:19 KJV was being used to signify that because we are baptizing in the singular name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost and that name is Jesus as practiced in the Book of Acts, that Spirit is that Jesus for how they are to relate to God through. Not sure if it is related to them or some other form of Oneness Pentecostalism, but that Jesus Only thing was used in that false teaching.
Click to expand...
Go and do your own homework on Modalism and then study out what the "Jesus Only Apostolic" or "United Pentecostals" teach. I am not going to the work for you.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I have seen things carried to this extreme to the point where "Thomas Nelson" and "Word" printings of the KJV are regarded as "Perversions." There is also a good bit of infighting among the Spanish speakers as to which Reina Valera Bible (1609 or 1960) is the REAL Word of God.

There are some differences between the Oxford 1762 and Cambridge 1769 printings but the "Average Joe" would be hard-pressed to pick them out and are of little to no consequence anyway. It is a big "Chink" in the armor of those who believe that "Every jot and tittle of God's word is preserved in the KJV" though and was one of the big things that caused me to realize that such a position was indefensible.

Most of the differences in KJV printings have to do with spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that input as I do not believe every jot and tittle of God's words is "preserved" exactly in the KJV and the KJV translators did infer more or less that KJV is not a superior Bible so as to not downplaying prior Bible versions in that preface of the KJV.

Revelation 3:5 KJV could have been done better in translating into English as that English word 'not" is from the Greek words "ov un" as a double negative meaning He would never remove any one's nae in the Book of Life thus aligning with John 6:39-40 KJV much clearly.

Also Easter in verse 4 of Acts 12:1-4 KJV should have been translated to "after the seven days of the unleavened bread" since Peter was arrested in the midst of those days of the unleavened bread. The Hebrew word "pascha" can refer to the actual 15th day from the new moon which is a full moon for the day of the Passover. "Pascha" can also refer to the Passover sacrifice, the lamb. And on top of that, "pascha" can refer to the 7 days of the unleavened bread. So when translating into English, it seems appropriate to have Acts 12:4 as ending with "after the seven days of the unleavened bread so as to not confuse it with the actual day of the Passover when the 7 days of unleavened bread always follow Passover day.

Supposedly per a report from an anti-KJVOer, he had testified that the Arch Bishop Richard Bancroft had changed Passover back to Easter as a last minute alteration but the KJV translators had it as Passover originally. The KJV translators had changed all "pascha" as Passover in the N.T. but why that Arch Bishop did that for that one verse is really a mystery.

It should not be overlooked that it was Tyndale that had first coined the word "Passover" for the Hebrew word "pascha" as it is usually left untranslated in English and it was Tyndale that coined the word Easter for "pascha" in the N.T. to mean the same thing, History did testify to him being executed for translating the Bible into English but I suspect that Easter word may have led that charge of heresy.

Back in Tyndale's days was Luthor's Bible in German that had translated "pascha" to "ester" and even differentiated it when referring to the Passover sacrifice as the "ester lambe". I do not know if that had influence on Tyndale or the other way around.

Anyway, I see Acts 12:4 in the KJV needing correction, not that it can lead anyone astray, but clarity is needed.

However, modern bibles do change the message in His words to sow doubts in His words that can support false teachings and apostasy in these latter days. This is why I rely only on the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Good Shepherd & Friend to help me to follow Him by use of the meat as kept by those who lived Him & His words in the KJV.
 
ChristB4us said:
Believers that deny the Trinity are usually from the modern bible versions because the KJV has 1 John 5:7 testifying to the Three Witnesses in Heaven. Remember that?

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of a Oneness Pentecostal? They use this passage to say that Jesus is the One.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Really? Please show me something in which you take exception to after these three words... go on, I DARE you! :cool:
;)
Click to expand...
I don’t know how your pastor operates, but my pastor has made a point of telling us something like this: “If you ever are sitting in that chair and listening to me teach God’s Word, and you hear me start out a sentence with ‘I think,’ feel free to raise your hand and tell me to pump the brakes, because you’re here to find out what God thinks, not what Pastor thinks!”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top