Quote

[Walt]

I was listening to a message, and I was brought up a bit short by the following quote - wanted to get opinions here.

The speaker was holding a KJV Bible:

This has come directly from the very mouth of God, and in all reality, the very Bible that you hold in your hands; it is the written form of Jesus Christ.  And for us to reject any portion of this book right here is in some way, somehow to reject a portion of the Lord Jesus Christ.?

 

[HereIStand]

I was listening to a message, and I was brought up a bit short by the following quote - wanted to get opinions here.

The speaker was holding a KJV Bible:

This has come directly from the very mouth of God, and in all reality, the very Bible that you hold in your hands; it is the written form of Jesus Christ.  And for us to reject any portion of this book right here is in some way, somehow to reject a portion of the Lord Jesus Christ.?
The Bible is God's word. It isn't God though. It testifies about Him and points us to Him.

 

[Saved by Grace]

To reject the Word means you have rejected the Son.

THE WORD did become flesh .....

So while the Physical copy of the Bible isnt physically God ( that role was fulfilled by Jesus ) it is just as important

There are some similarities

Both are alive Matt 28:6 Heb 4:12
Both Are loved by the Father
Both are eternal in their being Col1:17; Ps 119;89
Neither contradict each other
Both are exalted Ps 138;  Phil2

 

[cpizzle]

My opinion as a King James Bible Believer.....

What he said was incorrect.  It came from a heart that wants to magnify both the Saviour and the Bible....but it was still a dumb comment.  He based it on his own logic and not from established doctrine.  He made conclusions that came from his mind and not from the Word of God that he is promoting. 

 

[Saved by Grace]

My opinion as a King James Bible Believer.....

What he said was incorrect.  It came from a heart that wants to magnify both the Saviour and the Bible....but it was still a dumb comment.  He based it on his own logic and not from established doctrine.  He made conclusions that came from his mind and not from the Word of God that he is promoting.

i agree it was worded poorly but if reject part of the Bible then who are you rejecting ?

 

[cpizzle]

You are rejecting man's ability to properly transcribe and preserve God's word.  They are rejecting ancient copyists, multitudes of translators, and modern publishers.

In my opinion, there are 2 kinds of Bible believers:

1. Those who believe God must have given us a perfect (define how you please) Bible that is still available to us today in a final, understandable form.  Hence, the KJB.

2. Those who believe God inspired the original writers and that a perfect Bible still exists in the multitude of preserved manuscripts.  Through diligent study we can determine what the original writers transcribed by comparing, contrasting, accepting, and eliminating various differences.

Although I hold to the first option by faith, logic, and study, I still consider those of the 2nd opinion true Bible Believers and certainly not rejecters of Christ.

 

[Ransom]

This has come directly from the very mouth of God, and in all reality, the very Bible that you hold in your hands; it is the written form of Jesus Christ.  And for us to reject any portion of this book right here is in some way, somehow to reject a portion of the Lord Jesus Christ.?

No, the Bible (KJV or otherwise) is not "the written form of Jesus Christ." It is the word of God, but it is not deity itself. This is not merely a foolish error; it is a heretical assertion that distorts the nature of God.

When John calls Jesus "the Word," he is using figurative language. He is "the Word" because he came to reveal the Father's plan of salvation. He is the ultimate fulfillment of the prophets. But you cannot confuse the messenger with the message. Jesus is God incarnate, not Scripture incarnate.

 

[Twisted]

I was listening to a message, and I was brought up a bit short by the following quote - wanted to get opinions here.

The speaker was holding a KJV Bible:

This has come directly from the very mouth of God, and in all reality, the very Bible that you hold in your hands; it is the written form of Jesus Christ.  And for us to reject any portion of this book right here is in some way, somehow to reject a portion of the Lord Jesus Christ.?

Is the speaker a faith healer?

 

[Walt]

This has come directly from the very mouth of God, and in all reality, the very Bible that you hold in your hands; it is the written form of Jesus Christ.  And for us to reject any portion of this book right here is in some way, somehow to reject a portion of the Lord Jesus Christ.?

No, the Bible (KJV or otherwise) is not "the written form of Jesus Christ." It is the word of God, but it is not deity itself. This is not merely a foolish error; it is a heretical assertion that distorts the nature of God.

When John calls Jesus "the Word," he is using figurative language. He is "the Word" because he came to reveal the Father's plan of salvation. He is the ultimate fulfillment of the prophets. But you cannot confuse the messenger with the message. Jesus is God incarnate, not Scripture incarnate.

Ditto... this is why I was bothered.

Not to mention that I believe that the KJV is an excellent translation, but the KJV is not directly from the mouth of God. It is a translation of the words that God Himself gave.

 

[Walt]

My opinion as a King James Bible Believer.....

What he said was incorrect.  It came from a heart that wants to magnify both the Saviour and the Bible....but it was still a dumb comment.  He based it on his own logic and not from established doctrine.  He made conclusions that came from his mind and not from the Word of God that he is promoting.

i agree it was worded poorly but if reject part of the Bible then who are you rejecting ?

Most modern translations leave out Acts 8:37; people who use/support the new versions therefore reject that part of the KJV Bible, but I would not say that they are rejecting Jesus Christ.

 

[Walt]

I was listening to a message, and I was brought up a bit short by the following quote - wanted to get opinions here.

The speaker was holding a KJV Bible:

This has come directly from the very mouth of God, and in all reality, the very Bible that you hold in your hands; it is the written form of Jesus Christ.  And for us to reject any portion of this book right here is in some way, somehow to reject a portion of the Lord Jesus Christ.?

Is the speaker a faith healer?

I doubt it; he's probably an IFB Evangelist -- probably well-known.

 

[Ransom]

Most modern translations leave out Acts 2:38; people who use/support the new versions therefore reject that part of the KJV Bible, but I would not say that they are rejecting Jesus Christ.

I think you must have meant Acts 8:37? I'm pretty sure there's no major variant reading at 2:38.

Acts 2:38 is best known as the "Jesus' name only"/Oneness Pentecostal/"Apostolic" shibboleth.

 

[subllibrm]

Most modern translations leave out Acts 2:38; people who use/support the new versions therefore reject that part of the KJV Bible, but I would not say that they are rejecting Jesus Christ.

Are you sure that is the verse you mean?  ???

I just looked it up in the NIV, ESV, NASB and KJV. It's there in all of them.

 

[Walt]

Most modern translations leave out Acts 2:38; people who use/support the new versions therefore reject that part of the KJV Bible, but I would not say that they are rejecting Jesus Christ.

I think you must have meant Acts 8:37? I'm pretty sure there's no major variant reading at 2:38.

Acts 2:38 is best known as the "Jesus' name only"/Oneness Pentecostal/"Apostolic" shibboleth.

Sorry; I did mean Acts 8:37 and corrected my post. (embarrassed)

 

[Twisted]

Sorry; I did mean Acts 8:37 and corrected my post. (embarrassed)

Thou art forgiven.

 

[Walt]

Sorry; I did mean Acts 8:37 and corrected my post. (embarrassed)

Thou art forgiven.

Bless you.

Regardless of my error, there are plenty of people who are trusting Jesus Christ who use other versions with that verse missing.

Does that mean that they are rejecting Jesus Christ? Or some portion of Him?  (I trow not).

 

[T-Bone]

This has come directly from the very mouth of God, and in all reality, the very Bible that you hold in your hands; it is the written form of Jesus Christ.  And for us to reject any portion of this book right here is in some way, somehow to reject a portion of the Lord Jesus Christ.?

No, the Bible (KJV or otherwise) is not "the written form of Jesus Christ." It is the word of God, but it is not deity itself. This is not merely a foolish error; it is a heretical assertion that distorts the nature of God.

When John calls Jesus "the Word," he is using figurative language. He is "the Word" because he came to reveal the Father's plan of salvation. He is the ultimate fulfillment of the prophets. But you cannot confuse the messenger with the message. Jesus is God incarnate, not Scripture incarnate.

THIS^^^

 

[T-Bone]

You are rejecting man's ability to properly transcribe and preserve God's word.  They are rejecting ancient copyists, multitudes of translators, and modern publishers.

In my opinion, there are 2 kinds of Bible believers:

1. Those who believe God must have given us a perfect (define how you please) Bible that is still available to us today in a final, understandable form.  Hence, the KJB.

2. Those who believe God inspired the original writers and that a perfect Bible still exists in the multitude of preserved manuscripts.  Through diligent study we can determine what the original writers transcribed by comparing, contrasting, accepting, and eliminating various differences.

Although I hold to the first option by faith, logic, and study, I still consider those of the 2nd opinion true Bible Believers and certainly not rejecters of Christ.

I like this...it is your personal conviction without having to demonize others who hold to the Word of God.  Thank you for sharing.

 

[T-Bone]

This has come directly from the very mouth of God, and in all reality, the very Bible that you hold in your hands; it is the written form of Jesus Christ.  And for us to reject any portion of this book right here is in some way, somehow to reject a portion of the Lord Jesus Christ.?

No, the Bible (KJV or otherwise) is not "the written form of Jesus Christ." It is the word of God, but it is not deity itself. This is not merely a foolish error; it is a heretical assertion that distorts the nature of God.

When John calls Jesus "the Word," he is using figurative language. He is "the Word" because he came to reveal the Father's plan of salvation. He is the ultimate fulfillment of the prophets. But you cannot confuse the messenger with the message. Jesus is God incarnate, not Scripture incarnate.

Ditto... this is why I was bothered.

Not to mention that I believe that the KJV is an excellent translation, but the KJV is not directly from the mouth of God. It is a translation of the words that God Himself gave.

THIS TOO^^^

 

[Smellin Coffee]

To reject the Word means you have rejected the Son.

THE WORD did become flesh .....

So while the Physical copy of the Bible isnt physically God ( that role was fulfilled by Jesus ) it is just as important

There are some similarities

Both are alive Matt 28:6 Heb 4:12
Both Are loved by the Father
Both are eternal in their being Col1:17; Ps 119;89
Neither contradict each other
Both are exalted Ps 138;  Phil2

Context. "Word" in John was capitalized either by the translators or added later on. It is NOT at all saying Jesus is the Bible. "Logos" is the Greek word and to maintain context, one would have to read the entire Gospel of John as "word = Jesus" and it just doesn't fit.

And certainly, "word" is NOT mentioned as a specific canon in any of the references you give.

"And the word became flesh..." This means, the word of God (the very nature and promises of God) were fulfilled in the coming of Jesus. Jesus is the fulfillment of "the word" and not the "logos" itself.

So your logic is not only flawed, but idolatrous.