Supposedly Godly men who use other than KJB?

[RayJr]

Just want to throw this question out there see what every one else thinks.

Ok so what makes a man of God decide that the KJB is nolonger Gods word and switch to anouther translation or comentary which is what a lot of new versions are? How do they get past the things that are left out, the words that are changed that cause the meanings of whole verses to become different.

I believe the devil has gotten a strong foothold in a lot of American churchs by the insertion of these versions. He has done it slowly, but he has speed up his attempts to get into our churchs and homes, he is the author of confussion and it can't be anymore confusing in a church when there are multiple versions being used.

[Will]

it can't be anymore confusing in a church when there are multiple versions being used.

Says who?

[RayJr]

http://www.answering-christianity.com/b ... ations.htm

[Will]

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_translations.htm

And how does that prove that in churches where multiple versions are used, there is confusion?

[RayJr]

That was just an add on for your info, But it will cause confusion if your reading a verse and it says something different than what your preacher or teacher is saying that it says, or its just not there.

[Will]

That was just an add on for your info' date=' But it will cause confusion if your reading a verse and it says something different than what your preacher or teacher is saying that it says, or its just not there.[/quote']

Let's say that you're right. Are you stating for a fact that every church that uses multiple versions is like this? Or is this a theory?

[RayJr]

It is my theory but I belive it is based on fact

[Will]

It is my theory but I belive it is based on fact

But you admit that at this point it's speculation?

What if I were to tell you that I know of multiple churches that use multiple translations, and that each of these churches are every bit as fundamental as an IFB church?

[tired]

I have been in many churches that used different versions. My last church used NIV, NKJV, and NASB and many others. I used a KJV. There were many times when I couldn't get the point cause my bible did not say what the pastor was using. My new church uses KJV and the pastor preached a sermon and the main point verse wasn't even in my wife's bible ,NIV. I have no problem with saying there is confusion sometimes when you don't get the point or if the verses say something totally different. By the way my wife got a KJV.

[RayJr]

No Will I don't, Thank you Tired for the first hand account.

[Will]

No Will I don't' date=' Thank you Tired for the first hand account.[/quote']

You just stated that it was a theory. So you are speculating that this may be the case. Are you now recanting that statement? What hard evidence do you have to back up your statements? Have you polled members of various churches that are like this? What about churches that use multiple churches but don't have these problems?

[RayJr]

Will i"m not going to argue with you what ever I say You will try to twist it so believe what you want I offer only the truth. No I haven't polled anyone, God gives His men and women the ability to discern right from wrong truth from fiction that is all I have done.

[Will]

Will i"m not going to argue with you what ever I say You will try to twist it so believe what you want I offer only the truth. No I haven't polled anyone' date=' God gives His men and women the ability to discern right from wrong truth from fiction that is all I have done.[/quote']
I'm not twisting anything, I'm asking questions. And I'm not arguing, I'm asking questions. I'm not even disagreeing with your assumptions as a whole yet. I want to find out exactly what you are saying, and why you believe what you are saying.

You stated that those who go to a church where multiple versions are used are going to be confused.

A: You've made a universal statement. Universal statements cannot be proven true.

B: You've stated that this is a theory. In order for it to be a theory, you need facts to back up your hypothesis. Without facts, it's speculation.

[RayJr]

A: the universal statement of all men have sinned(is this not true because its universal)
just because its all inclusive doesn't mean its not true.
B.Whatever that doesn't make it any less true. here is asecular example for you. In school say history class if you had multiple books written by different people they all spoke of the same thin but some had a few paragraphs left out and terminology was different.
Do you not think this would cause confussion? I am only asking for comon sense no more no less.

I'm not twisting anything, I'm asking questions. And I'm not arguing, I'm asking questions. I'm not even disagreeing with your assumptions as a whole yet. I want to find out exactly what you are saying, and why you believe what you are saying.

You stated that those who go to a church where multiple versions are used are going to be confused.

A: You've made a universal statement. Universal statements cannot be proven true.

B: You've stated that this is a theory. In order for it to be a theory, you need facts to back up your hypothesis. Without facts, it's speculation.

[Will]

A: the universal statement of all men have sinned(is this not true because its universal)
just because its all inclusive doesn't mean its not true.
B.Whatever that doesn't make it any less true. here is asecular example for you. In school say history class if you had multiple books written by different people they all spoke of the same thin but some had a few paragraphs left out and terminology was different.
Do you not think this would cause confussion? I am only asking for comon sense no more no less.

A: Is my making a universal statement different from the Bible making a universal statement? Is one statement more reliable than the other?

B:I'm not sure how that answers my question, could you clarify? My question was on whether or not you had facts to support your hypothesis as being a valid theory.

C: Is there a difference between history books in the Bible? Does a history book having a paragraph or two missing that another doesn't make one of the history books unreliable? Or does it mean that there is a different perspective on the matter coming from the scholars who compiled the history books? Or does it mean that one history book doesn't include all the information that another does? For example, a history book for third graders isn't going to have the same information as a history book for college freshmen. How do history books compare to the Bible in this manner?