KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

Peter A V · May 18, 2005

Kill?

Kill?

robycop3 said:
Please go to the FIRST time kill is mentioned,and you will see clearly that the BIBLE definition describes Kill here as in an evil selfish motive [aka murder.]......
The first mention of a word in the Holy Bible will give you the basic understanding of the word.Later aplications will further the understanding.Plus,of course,context determines the actual flavour of the Biblical term.Hope this helps you.
Peter Fuhrman

I was not refering to that verse and you know it.I was refering to Slew which the Bible's own built in dictionary shows it to mean Kill as in murder.Numbers 35:30 Whoso killeth any person,the murderer shall be put to death.
Pretty simple,don't you think?Try understanding,instead of unbelief.
Plus the key word is "him" Gen:4:8 Slew Him. Gen 4:15 kill him
This shows that both slew and kill in this context are the same.

It is obvious which Bible you hate;,just which book do you love and believe to be the very words of God without error?This might help in clearifying things.
Maybe you would like me to show everyone here the purposeful lies that you have perpetuated?I trow not.

robycop3 · May 18, 2005

More KJVO erudition...

More KJVO erudition...

roby:Rather than try to answer every individual post at this time, I believe it's time to examine the myth itself, and some of its points...and to show them wrong. This is in the light of someone saying Pastor Enyart has no Bible nor final authority because he doesn't subscribe to the KJVO myth.

Peter AV: Nice try Roby,you lied again,as usual,just like on the other sites.All you like is playing opinionated games,and this is wrong.

Opinionated? Prove me wrong. Shouldn't be hard, with your giant intellect.

And, long as there people like YOU, going from board to board spreading a FALSE DOCTRINE, there'll be people like ME to track you down, to present the TRUTH in the face of this false doctrine.

To start with,you start by saying KJVO is a Myth.Education has some dementia in your display.

Well, it IS. it's a group of phony stories, based upon some mens' guesswork.

This falsely labeled myth was the norm by all the church,[excluding the Catholics,of course]In fact when you look at all of the confessions of faith,it paints the exact opposite of what you lie about on a regular basis.They all believed in the Holy Bible.Take a look at the posts and articles that abound,proving this very point.

That's only because the KJV was the only English version available for a long time.

You just want to LABEL us a cult,when what is happening now,to the church at large is the most cultic thing around.Imagine,throwing out 99% of the manuscript evidence,and then useing the corupted Alexandrian manuscripts pumped out by heretics and necromancers.Nice company.

We have repeatedly asked for PROOF these "alex" mss are corrupt, and all we get is doubletalk and lip service. WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE?

All you are doing is a smear campaine,because you can't prove you LXX [72] is the infalible words of God with out error.

Your beloved AV translators believed it was good enough for them to use upon occasion.

The only person that promotes This supposed fake start by a 7th day adventist,is the likes of you.Give me a break.

OK, here's your break...SHOW US SOME WELL-KNOWN LITERATURE WRITTEN BEFORE 1930 THAT PROMOTES THE KJVO MYTH. Again, withyour giant intellect, shouldn't be hard.

Go ahead and call us some sect,that is ok.That is the Biblical term for a true Bible believer by the rest.

Unlike some KJVOs, I won't stoop to the level of Ruckman. All I've ever called the KJVO is "wrong".

My Bible tells me that there will be a great falling away. And it's been going on for awhile.
My Bible tells me,that when the LORD returns,shall he find faith on the earth? Actually, JESUS is asking a rhetorical question. Scripture mentions Tribulation saints.
My Bible tells me that knowledge shall increase. And it HAS. That's why most of us reject the KJVO myth.
My Bible tells me that they are ever learning,and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. That would be the KJVO, who's always looking for something...ANYTHING...that could lend a little credence to their fairy tale.
My Bible saus that Because they loved not the truth,God shall send them strong delusion,that they might believe a lie. Some exegesis! This is to occur after the Antichrist comes to power.
My Bible tells me that the luke warm church is good for nothing. And the KJVO myth chills a "hot" church almost as quickly as anything else I can think of.

This matches the rest of the Bible,so don't be telling me that I am off base when all you do is smear.Maybe you like to study Branham,But I study the Holy Bible.

I study the Holy Bible too, in several versions. And there's nothing supporting the KJVO myth in ANY of them, including in the KJV itself. That's where you're off base, subscribing to a man-made false doctrine about Scripture, a doctrine not supported anywhere in Scripture.

After handling the real thing,one can spot the fakes real fast.

And the KJVO myth is fake as a football bat.

Why would you side with the fake wannabees,Heretics and the Liberals?Are you one of them?Seems so,by your militant stand.

I'm siding with the TRUTH. And, by your ad-hominem attack attempt upon me, instead of what I said in the post you quoted, you're confirming a rule I've stated applies to most KJVOs: WHEN CLUELESS ABOUT THE MESSAGE, ATTACK THE MESSENGER.

Sorry, Sir, that tactic won't work with me. Been there...seen it...done that. Why dontcha try to prove my POSTS wrong? Mr. Kinney aint doin' too hot. Neither is Mr. Bunyan.As I said, someone with YOUR giant intellect should find it easy to prove a dumb ole steelworker like me wrong.

As Pat Benatar sang, "Hit me with your best shot".
But so far, your best shots have all been DUDS.

robycop3 · May 18, 2005

Peter A V said:
robycop3 said:

Please go to the FIRST time kill is mentioned,and you will see clearly that the BIBLE definition describes Kill here as in an evil selfish motive [aka murder.]......
The first mention of a word in the Holy Bible will give you the basic understanding of the word.Later aplications will further the understanding.Plus,of course,context determines the actual flavour of the Biblical term.Hope this helps you.
Peter Fuhrman

I was not refering to that verse and you know it.I was refering to Slew which the Bible's own built in dictionary shows it to mean Kill as in murder.Numbers 35:30 Whoso killeth any person,the murderer shall be put to death.
Pretty simple,don't you think?Try understanding,instead of unbelief.
Plus the key word is "him" Gen:4:8 Slew Him. Gen 4:15 kill him
This shows that both slew and kill in this context are the same.

But in your post quoted above, you said, "kill". make up your mind.

It is obvious which Bible you hate;,just which book do you love and believe to be the very words of God without error?This might help in clearifying things.
Maybe you would like me to show everyone here the purposeful lies that you have perpetuated?I trow not.

I've listed them just a few posts back. Now, answer MU question:

WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH?????????????

Click to expand...

MartianManhuntr · May 18, 2005

Johnthebaptist said:
The recent the Byzantine manuscripts are in "awesome agreement" is because they are later and have had time to have various changes from the earlier Alexanderian manuscripts.

Westcott and Hort were the two men who really introduced the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices to the English speaking world, by pursaiding the English Revised Version translators to follow their text in numerous instances, and then publishing their 1881 text which was based on these two codices.

These men, in their preface to their Greek Text of 1881, admit that the Syian Textform, which they themselves confess is a text almost 100% identical to the modern Textus Receptus, was the dominant text of the early 5th century. Now, they dated Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to the 4th century. This Alexandrian text differed widely from the Syrian text, and guess what? The Alexandrian text was only found in Alexandria Egypt!!!!!!! The Syrian text was found EVERYWHERE ELSE!!!!! They admit this! But because they dated the Alexandrian text to about 50 years earlier they can still claim that its better. If that isn't bafoonery, what is? Obviously the Syrian text, which was UNIVERSAL is the true text. The Alexandrian text, which was merely a LOCAL text was obviously heretical, especially considering that Alexandria WAS controlled sporatically by ARIANS in the 4th century when these 2 codices were made.

But you've never read anything Westcott and Hort wrote. You've never read anything that any scholar wrote. You just believe the hearsay that your pastor, who also has never read any of it, but also received it from hearsay, has said.

Johnthebaptist said:
It amazes me how yu KJV can claim every one a heretic that does not agree with you.

Arius is considered an heretic by EVERYONE except Jehovah's Witnesses. Are you confessing just now that you are a Jehovah's Witness? (BTW, I'm not KJVOnly--I'm TROnly)

brandplucked · May 18, 2005

Still No inerrant Bible

Still No inerrant Bible

Johnthebaptist said:
brandplucked

Again you show your ignorance of textual criticism. We can through sifting the data in the manuscripts God has givien us come to know almost 98 percent what the original reading was. I know you do not agree.

God Bless
John

Hi John, Actually I know quite a bit about textual criticism, and I know it is a pathetic fraud of the first order. The "scholars" can't agree among themselves as to which texts are correct nor how to translate them once they agree on the text. There is far more difference than just 2%, it is more like 5 to 6%, and then you have the problems of translation.

Anyone can go to my site and look up the section on the Psalms, or Isaiah, or the section called Bible Babble and they will see hundreds of examples of totally different translations of even the same texts.

You Still have NO inerrant Bible, and this was the topic of our discussion.

You, John, do not believe The Bible IS the inerrant words of God. That is my whole point.

Will

brandplucked · May 18, 2005

Still No inerrant Bible

Still No inerrant Bible

Huldrych said:
Attempting to put spin on the fact that all ten extant mss that contained that verse omitted the word.

And I sincerely hope the evidence will be manifest so you can prove what the inerrant Bible was THEN, before 1611, and thereby justify your theories, and help put an end to much of this bickering. Or otherwise give you the courage to trust in God's sovereignty with the other translations He has allowed, even blessed, for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (which will also end a lot of this nonsensical back-and-forth).

Until then, Luther and its contemporaries will continue to do well in their role in my walk with the Lord.

Forsaking myself upon Him,
jth

Hi Jth, just a couple of thoughts in response to your posts. The example in Matthew 1:18 where the King James Bible says: "Now the birth of JESUS Christ was on this wise..." is the reading of the vast Majority of all Greek texts. In fact it is also the reading found in the NIV, ,NASB, NKJV and even one of the versions you say you like, the Spanish Biblia de las Americas.

You still have no inerrant Bible. Instead, you recommended two versions, Luther's German and the Spanish Biblia de las Americas. Do these two versions always agree in the underlying texts or the resultant meanings found even when the texts do agree? Of course not.

Jt, You do not believe The Bible (any Bible) is now today the complete, inerrant and infallible words of God. All you have are your own personal preferences. I am not disputing the fact that the gospel is found in even the worst of versions out there, and that God can use them. He does. The issue is: Has God kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words in a Book here on this earth. Most Christians right here on this site, including you, do not believe He did.

The German bible? Well, Luther's version was a lot better than versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman stuff, but it was not the inerrant words of God. God sees the end from the beginning. God did not use the German bible to spread the gospel to a multitude of nations in the modern missionary movement. He used English and the Greek and Hebrew texts of the English King James Bible.

German is not even close to being the universal language of today, and Germany is presently a spiritual wasteland. The German language became the language of the Skeptics, the Textual Critics, and the Apostates. Sorry, Jt, but you are riding the wrong bus.

Will K

brandplucked · May 18, 2005

Still No inerrant Bible

Still No inerrant Bible

logos_x said:
The AV 1611 is far from error free, Peter.

Jeremiah did not read the AV 1611...He read the original Hebrew text of the old testament

The Bible is fine. The KJV is OK, but far from the reliable original Bible in the original languages.
I don't hate God's word. What I hate is when God's Word is mis-represented.
And you mis-represent it.

Uh, Logos, who is misrepresenting the word of God here, Peter or YOU? You speak here about " the reliable original Bible in the original languages", but you have no such animal, do you? You have never seen the originals; they don't exist. So, in effect you are upholding and defending something that everybody knows doesn't exist, but you keep talking about "the originals" as though you had them right there on your study desk at home.

You do not believe The Bible IS now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure word of God in any language in any Book here on this earth today. This is the whole point of the topic of "Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is inerrant."

Will K.

JoyfulRook · May 18, 2005

brandplucked said:
This is the whole point of the topic of "Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is inerrant."

Will K.

So you really don't want to talk about Bob Enyart, you want to talk about KJV-only.

brandplucked · May 18, 2005

Error free Bible?

Error free Bible?

Hi again, Logos. When brother Peter said God promised to give us an error free Bible, and he asked you to name it, here is what your said:

logos_x said:
The Hebrew Tanakh
There is no English Bible that is error free.

The Word of God is a Person. .

First of all, the Tanakh is not the whole Book or Bible.

Secondly, there is a difference between the Word (one of the names of the Lord Jesus Christ) and "the word of God" (His spoken or written words of truth)

Thirdly, if you don't mind, I would like to ask you then about the Hebrew Scriptures. I have many such examples, but I will limit myself to just one for now.

In 2 Chronicles 22:2 it says Ahaziah was 42 years old, but in 2 Kings 8:26 is says he was 22 years old. 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads 42 years old in the Jewish translations, the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, and Douay bible versions, but the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman versions all have changed the 42 to 22 based on the Syriac, and SOME LXX copies. My LXX says 20 instead of 22 or 42.

So, my question for you is this: Are the Hebrew Scriptures inerrant in both these places, and if so, how do you explain this apparent contradiction?

Thanks logos, I look forward to your response.

Will

Johnthebaptist · May 18, 2005

brandplucked

Hi John, Actually I know quite a bit about textual criticism, and I know it is a pathetic fraud of the first order. The "scholars" can't agree among themselves as to which texts are correct nor how to translate them once they agree on the text. There is far more difference than just 2%, it is more like 5 to 6%, and then you have the problems of translation.

Anyone can go to my site and look up the section on the Psalms, or Isaiah, or the section called Bible Babble and they will see hundreds of examples of totally different translations of even the same texts.

You Still have NO inerrant Bible, and this was the topic of our discussion.

You, John, do not believe The Bible IS the inerrant words of God. That is my whole point.

You are misrepresenting the facts of textual criticism. Erasmus used the same basic methods of textual criticism. Scholars actually know to a high percentage what the original word said. God has provided the Alexanderian text to inhance this. KJV Only people have a habit of blowing way out of portion the variations and errors in the text.

You still see no importance of the original manuscripts, without them You would not have a Bible today. The KJV did not just fall out of the sky as you know. The KJV was not good enough for Paul and Silas because they did not have it, ha, ha. Just kidding.

But KJV Only people close their eyes to scholarship and call everyone a heretic who is not KJV Only.

God Bless
John

42ndgen · May 18, 2005

Uh, Logos, who is misrepresenting the word of God here, Peter or YOU? You speak here about " the reliable original Bible in the original languages", but you have no such animal, do you? You have never seen the originals; they don't exist. So, in effect you are upholding and defending something that everybody knows doesn't exist, but you keep talking about "the originals" as though you had them right there on your study desk at home

If there are no reliable original language transcripts than there can be no reliable 1611 King James Bible since it was translated from the original languages. You can't have it both ways.

Huldrych · May 18, 2005

brandplucked said:
Hi Jth, just a couple of thoughts in response to your posts. The example in Matthew 1:18 where the King James Bible says: "Now the birth of JESUS Christ was on this wise..." is the reading of the vast Majority of all Greek texts. In fact it is also the reading found in the NIV, ,NASB, NKJV and even one of the versions you say you like, the Spanish Biblia de las Americas.

But it's still not in those ten Old Latin manuscripts, which still doesn't help you prove that a proto-KJV existed in the Old Latin Bible.

You still have no inerrant Bible. Instead, you recommended two versions, Luther's German and the Spanish Biblia de las Americas.

Wrong. Read the post again, and this time, pay attention. I said Luther, and the Sagradas Escrituras, version Antigua. I've never read the Bibila de las Americas, and I won't recommend something I haven't read.

Do these two versions always agree in the underlying texts or the resultant meanings found even when the texts do agree? Of course not.

Onlyism suffers a similar problem. They cannot find an older Bible that agrees with the KJV perfectly. Not too good for a people who proclaim so loudly about perfect preservation.

Jt, You do not believe The Bible (any Bible) is now today the complete, inerrant and infallible words of God.

Will Kinney, for all your love for the KJV and your faithfulness to Onlyism, you still cannot come up with an older Bible 100% congruent with the KJV, and therefore cannot prove it is "the complete, inerrant, and infallible words of God."

All you have are your own personal preferences.

And I do not beatify nor canonize them. You, on the other hand, want to make the personal preference of King James Onlyism into gospel truth, and attempt to gussy it up with a lot of impressive, religious-sounding packaging, but once the last bit of tape is cut away and the box opened, we find it empty.

I am not disputing the fact that the gospel is found in even the worst of versions out there, and that God can use them. He does. The issue is: Has God kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words in a Book here on this earth. Most Christians right here on this site, including you, do not believe He did.

Which is why you came on this board--to enlighten us. You're not doing a very good job making your case, though. Still no evidence beyond "educated guesses."

The German bible? Well, Luther's version was a lot better than versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman stuff, but it was not the inerrant words of God.

But you cannot prove that, can you?

God sees the end from the beginning. God did not use the German bible to spread the gospel to a multitude of nations in the modern missionary movement. He used English and the Greek and Hebrew texts of the English King James Bible.

That depends on how you look at it. The Luther Bible, as I said before, influenced a number of versions, in different languages--Scandinavian (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic), Dutch (and subsequently, Afrikaans), and English, to name a few. Your Tyndale was made in consultation with Luther, which later found its way into your KJV.

The merits and worthiness of your KJV are owed in large part to its predecessors, since the KJV did not arrive on the scene ex nihilo. Luther played a major role in that. Were it not for Luther, there would be no KJV.

Therefore, the perceived success of your KJV is but an aftershock borne from the earthquake that started in Wittenberg, September, 1522.

German is not even close to being the universal language of today

And English is losing its hold. Spanish is on the rise, so I suppose we need to start reading de Reina to get ahead of the curve. Reina-Valera solamente!

and Germany is presently a spiritual wasteland.

I take it this assessment comes from your intimate familiarity with Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, and a few German settlements found here and there in South America. Or are you assuming, as Onlyists are wont to do, that there is absolutely no spiritual life in these lands?

The German language became the language of the Skeptics, the Textual Critics, and the Apostates.

But it is still the language of the Luther Bible and its derivatives (Zürcher, Elberfelder, Schlachter), from which many a German-speaking person reads as part of his devotions, whether he knows anything about Skepticism, Textual Criticism, or Apostasy or not.

You may be willing to write off a people for the sake of exalting your pet version, Will, but some of us have more compassion than that.

To me, this further demonstrates the cultural arrogance of Onlyism. Other lands and peoples are denied the perfect translation so highly prized by Onlyists. This exalts Anglos above others as a sort of "God's elect." They won't say it outright, but this is the logical conclusion. Ask them if translating the KJV into another tongue will yield a perfect translation, and the first word you will hear from them is "No," followed by what amounts to a religious Bob Barker talking about the runner's-up consolation prize.

Onlyism is by and large an Anglo-centric movement, which started in our own country. There are no other home-grown Onlyist movements I am aware of in other lands (Louis-Segond-seulement? Christian III-alene? Sola Diodati?). Those that do exist came about under the influence of Onlyist churches here in the States.

jth

silverkz · May 18, 2005

Justin (Wiccan) said:
Mark,

First and foremost, please read this tutorial on the use of quote tags. The way you've formatted your reply is quite difficult to read.

*****************************
Sorry Justin, I barely have time enough for more important activities. Thank you for your patience. I know you're smart enough to figure out how to read my replies.

Look at your history, Mark. The primary Bible used in Europe from about 420 (the year of Jerome's death) until the later translations were published was the Latin Vulgate--not the Greek. Therefore--according to your logic--Europe had no Bible between those dates. Actually we need to be a bit more specific: most areas used the Vulgate even after the publication of the AV1611.

**************************************

There are two Vulgates. The Catholic Vulgate and the Latin Vulgate. Specifically, which one are you speaking of?

Irrelevant to the point, as it does nothing to explain a grave logical inconsistancy. Was God unable to guide the printers, or simply unwilling?

******************************

Certainly not unable, as to unwilling...ask Him.

Yes, I was Born Again. I received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. But what of it? I am now Wiccan. Thus you have yet another logical impossibility: either you must discard the doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved," or you must discard Gal 5:19-21. More likely, you will place yourself as my Judge, and state that I was not "truly" born again--but this is not the topic at hand.

************************************

There is no more important topic than one's salvation....your salvation.You may think you're Wiccan, but you're not. Even if you participate in the activities of Gal 5:19-21, God cannot see them in a certain sense....because they are covered by the blood of Jesus. In another sense God does "see" them and you are subject to Hebrews chapter 12.

You have not answered the charge that you are teaching another gospel--Bibliolatry. I would like to hear your response to that charge next.

**********************

Hmmm. I do not understand. Define Bibliolatry.
I do not worship a book. I worship the God who wrote the book. Out of respect for God, I hold in reverence the words He wrote in His book. I will not suffer those words to be perverted, removed or have the words of man added to them.

sorry again about the quote thing, I'll try to learn it sometime in the future.

Justin

logos_x · May 19, 2005

brandplucked said:
First of all, the Tanakh is not the whole Book or Bible.

Aside from the Revelation of Jesus Christ, these are the only parts of the Bible considered "inerrant".
There is a difference between inerrant and reliable, and a difference between inspired and inerrant.

Secondly, there is a difference between the Word (one of the names of the Lord Jesus Christ) and "the word of God" (His spoken or written words of truth)

It's more than just a name.
And it's the KJV only purveyors who turn their KJ translation into an object of worship.

Thirdly, if you don't mind, I would like to ask you then about the Hebrew Scriptures. I have many such examples, but I will limit myself to just one for now.

In 2 Chronicles 22:2 it says Ahaziah was 42 years old, but in 2 Kings 8:26 is says he was 22 years old. 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads 42 years old in the Jewish translations, the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, and Douay bible versions, but the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman versions all have changed the 42 to 22 based on the Syriac, and SOME LXX copies. My LXX says 20 instead of 22 or 42.

So, my question for you is this: Are the Hebrew Scriptures inerrant in both these places, and if so, how do you explain this apparent contradiction?

Thanks logos, I look forward to your response.

Will

Who the hell cares?

MartianManhuntr · May 19, 2005

Johnthebaptist said:
You are misrepresenting the facts of textual criticism. Erasmus used the same basic methods of textual criticism.

Now YOU are misrepresenting the facts of textual criticism. Textual Criticism today is called "higher criticism" because scholars today thingk they have divine intuition or something. Their guess is just as good or better than evidence in their opinion--that's "Higher criticism." Most of the their critical apparatus doesn't even have real citations. Back in Erasmus' day it was all evidence--the facts alone.

Johnthebaptist said:
Scholars actually know to a high percentage what the original word said.

And I know exactly what the original word said, because I've got the real thing. There's the difference. The critical text has a percent of the word, but the TR has the word.

Johnthebaptist said:
God has provided the Alexanderian text to inhance this.

Arian heretics* in the 4th century provided the Alexandrian text to destroy the word of God, and Arian 'scholars' in the 1840s began to use them for the same purpose. God preserved his word VIA USAGE. The Greek speaking churches have always used the Syrian Textform, and the Alexandrian text was never used outside of the 4th century when it was made and when it was discarded until it was used again post 1840. God isn't a jerk!!!!!! He wouldn't flood the world with the Syrian text and then hide the Alexandrian text in the trash dumps of Egypt for 1500 years and be like "Hahaha! Let's see if they find those!"

*(Everyone but Jehovah's Witnesses consider Arius and Arians as heretics)

Johnthebaptist said:
KJV Only people have a habit of blowing way out of portion the variations and errors in the text.

Removing whole verses is not a little problem, especially when a pattern can be detected as far as the intent of the remover.

MartianManhuntr · May 19, 2005

BTW, Johnthebaptist, since you take such offense to the idea that Arians are heretics, I asked you if you are a Jehovah's Witness. You never answered.

brandplucked · May 19, 2005

Why the Anglos?

Why the Anglos?

Huldrych said:
You may be willing to write off a people for the sake of exalting your pet version, Will, but some of us have more compassion than that.

To me, this further demonstrates the cultural arrogance of Onlyism. Other lands and peoples are denied the perfect translation so highly prized by Onlyists. This exalts Anglos above others as a sort of "God's elect." They won't say it outright, but this is the logical conclusion. Ask them if translating the KJV into another tongue will yield a perfect translation, and the first word you will hear from them is "No,"
Onlyism is by and large an Anglo-centric movement, which started in our own country. There are no other home-grown Onlyist movements I am aware of in other lands
jth

Hi Jt, the fact is, you do not believe there is such a thing as The Inerrant Bible, so all your talk about "compassion" is a smokescreen for unbelief. Psalm 149:19-20 tells us God ONLY gave His words to the nation of Israel. Were they better than other people? No. They were stiffnecked and rebellious, but God gave them His perfect words, and to no one else.

The English speaking people are no better than any others, but God knew beforehand how He was going to use English and American missiionaries carrying the King James Bible into other lands, and how the English language would become the universal language of the last centuries.

There are native Philipinos, native Chinese, Africans, Indians, and Koreans who are King James only believers. There is a huge Korean church that has translated the KJB into Korean, and there are some translation ministries who are still translating the King James Bible into foreign languages.

As I stated before, God holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. God has placed His perfect words into the English language in the King James Bible. That is where they are today and have been for almost 400 years. Other English bible versions have come and gone, but there is only one that remains strong and widely used by thousands upon thousands of Bible believers all over the world.

Jt, anybody who has brain waves can read through your rhetoric and see that you personally do not believe any Bible or any Text in any language is now the inerrant and complete words of God. That is your position and belief. Just admit it. It's not that hard to do. It goes something like this: "I.....do not believe any Bible on earth today is now the inerrant, inspired, complete and infallible words of God. We have many best guess approximations and variations, and sometimes conflicting versions in many different languages, some of which differ by thousands of words and hundreds of different meanings, but it is enough to give us a pretty good idea of what God probably said, and that is good enough for me. Anybody who claims the King James Bible or any other bible is the pure words of God is an ignorant buffoon."

brandplucked · May 19, 2005

Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

Dread Helm said:
So you really don't want to talk about Bob Enyart, you want to talk about KJV-only.

Hi Dread, Uh, the topic of this particular thread is "Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God." This is a true statement. Bob has only posted twice that I am aware of. He said I had misrepresented him, and I asked him how I had done that. He never replied. Do you know why? It is because brother Bob does not believe any Bible in any language is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. He has no Bible; he just has personal preferences, and others things are more important to him than the issue of the inspiration, preservation and infallibility of Scripture.

Most of you here do not believe The Bible IS the infallible word of God. One guy has now openly expressed what I'm sure others who likewise do not believe The Bible is totally true think. He said: "Who the hell cares?"

This is where Christianity is headed. Satan is gradually stripping away the authority of the Bible in people's minds. 21st century Christians rarely read and almost never study any bible, and know less and less about it every day, and they don't care.

But God is His mercy is still calling out a remnant according to the election of grace and giving us a reverence for His preserved words of truth and life. I hope you and others will be among this remnant.

Now, if brother Bob would care to address the issues I and some few others have raised, I would love to hear from him. But for now, his silence speaks louder than anything he might have to say about where he really stands on this issue.

Will

robycop3 · May 19, 2005

bRANDPLUCKED:Uh, Logos, who is misrepresenting the word of God here, Peter or YOU? You speak here about " the reliable original Bible in the original languages", but you have no such animal, do you? You have never seen the originals; they don't exist. So, in effect you are upholding and defending something that everybody knows doesn't exist, but you keep talking about "the originals" as though you had them right there on your study desk at home.

While YOU simply pull a Bible version outta the hat and declare, "This is IT" , with no proof foe such a statement

You do not believe The Bible IS now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure word of God in any language in any Book here on this earth today. This is the whole point of the topic of "Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is inerrant."

While YOU'RE just guessing.

Just because Pastor Enyart doesn't subscribe to your phony KJVO myth, you declare, "he don't got no BIBUL". You simply cannot qualify such a statement.

robycop3 · May 19, 2005

Brandplucked: Hi Jt, the fact is, you do not believe there is such a thing as The Inerrant Bible, so all your talk about "compassion" is a smokescreen for unbelief. ]/i]

SHAME ON YOU, WILL! You keep repeating that false statement that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the same pack of lies that YOU do...the KJVO myth...has no inerrant Bible. You cannot prove ONE IOTA of such a statement; therefore it's FALSE.

Psalm 149:19-20 tells us God ONLY gave His words to the nation of Israel. Were they better than other people? No. They were stiffnecked and rebellious, but God gave them His perfect words, and to no one else. Why? Because of His promise to Abraham.

The English speaking people are no better than any others, but God knew beforehand how He was going to use English and American missiionaries carrying the King James Bible into other lands, and how the English language would become the universal language of the last centuries.

Now, there are more missionaries, and they use modern Bibles.

There are native Philipinos, native Chinese, Africans, Indians, and Koreans who are King James only believers. There is a huge Korean church that has translated the KJB into Korean, and there are some translation ministries who are still translating the King James Bible into foreign languages.

Then they all need to have their eyes opened to see the falsehood of the KJVO myth.

As I stated before, God holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. God has placed His perfect words into the English language in the King James Bible.

A completely unqualified, incorrect statement. You cannot prove that God is confined to the KJV alone.

That is where they are today and have been for almost 400 years. Other English bible versions have come and gone, but there is only one that remains strong and widely used by thousands upon thousands of Bible believers all over the world.

But it's now slowly fading into disuse as God causes more Bibles to be made in MODERN English.

Jt, anybody who has brain waves can read through your rhetoric and see that you personally do not believe any Bible or any Text in any language is now the inerrant and complete words of God. That is your position and belief. Just admit it. It's not that hard to do. It goes something like this: "I.....do not believe any Bible on earth today is now the inerrant, inspired, complete and infallible words of God. We have many best guess approximations and variations, and sometimes conflicting versions in many different languages, some of which differ by thousands of words and hundreds of different meanings, but it is enough to give us a pretty good idea of what God probably said, and that is good enough for me. Anybody who claims the King James Bible or any other bible is the pure words of God is an ignorant buffoon.

You just won't tell the truth, Will. Deep down inside, you KNOW the KJVO myth is false. You KNOW you CANNOT even begin to prove it. You KNOW your myth has absolutely *NO* Scriptural support , even in the KJV itself. You KNOW you're trying to support that myth through guesswork, fishing stories, and hearsay. YOU SIMPLY HAVE NO DEFENSE! More people are seeing through the KJVO smokescreen and realize it's FALSE. And JTH has certainly taken the wind from your sail by posting FACT against your propaganda and guesswork. He's exposed more of your KJVO double standard.

You SEEM to be an intelligent person, Will. Why you keep trying to convince people your KJVO bunkum is true is almost beyond me. I think you're trying to convince yourself it's true by mucho repetition. Sorry, your KJVO hippo still won't fly, and never will.

KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

New member

Member

Member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Member

Member