Can someone be saved by reading the NIV?

[Kubel]

BBB, thanks for your honesty and kind reply.

[Chelle]

[quote]
I know which one GOD has most blessed for four centuries. I know which Bible is the easist for me to memorize (and by His grace I've memorized LOTS of verses - including whole epistles). I know which one best speaks to my heart.
[/quote]

:goodpost: BBB. The above for you, for me, and (I venture to guess) most everybody who posts on this forum, describes only the KJV 1611. :)

[Guest Guest]

[quote="BroMatt"]
[quote="dwayner79"][quote]his second wife abandoned him because he would not place her over the Ministry
[/quote]

Our first responsibility is to God (our personal lives), then to our Spouse, then to our family, then to work/ministry, etc. [/quote]

:shock:

I agree!!!!

:D[/quote]

I don't agree, for simple Biblical reasons, including [i]many[/i] Scriptures saying the exact [b]opposite[/b] of what was said. For instance:

Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

I understand that these verses apply doctrinally to the Kingdom/Tribulation, but the meaning (spiritual) is still the same. Anyone who places his spouse over the calling of God is WRONG. God calls a man, and the wife's job is to follow that man. When she does not, then she is rejecting her responsibility before God and her husband.

Paul told Timothy one wife, not two, or three, or four, etc. According to the law of the land, the law under which we abide, when a person is divorced, he/she ceases to be married. Under a different system, it would be different, but that is the law.

Read the wording: one wife. In your logic, that would disqualify a single man; even a fool can tell that Paul is addressing polygamy. Get that railroad tie outta' your eye socket there Holmes.

My bad on the mistake-EDIT

[Mike]

MC,

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Matthew 19:9

Ruckman is still an adulterer. :roll:

[pneu-engine]

AMEN, kjvdad. :D :D :D

MCRuckmanite,

If you'll carefully examine the context of Jesus' and Paul's teachings on adultery, you'll clearly see that both the man and woman can be guilty. Even if the woman leaves the man, then the man must never re-marry and his ministry is forfeit.

[John81]

[b][url=http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whydidkjv-apocrypha.html]WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?[/url][/b]

[Kubel]

[quote="John81"]
WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?

[i]Article deleted due to request of author.[/i]
[/quote]

Yes, I found that too in a search of Jerry's posts. It's a good resource, but it only explains why the translators included it. The question was why did God included it. But I appreciate your post.

[dwayner79]

Don't you people sleep!!! There was 5 pages yesterday.

Since my good friend Matt directed this to me, I will respond to it.

[quote="BroMatt"]
[quote]Besides, what makes English so special.[b] God is still not fulfilling His promise to many nations since they do not have a Bible in their language.[/b] A translation can NEVER be the full fulfillment of this passage. It simply make no logical sense. Now I know there are many who believe it. They have Holy Spirit conviction about it, so they use it. That is fine. The point is it should not be anyone's personal goal to "convert " someone to KJVO. It is not a matter of Biblical doctrine. It is a personal conviction.
[/quote]

Show me where God said he would preserve his word in [b]every [/b]language. You are [/quote]

That is my point. He did not promise to preserve his word in any language. Just to preserve it. So there is no biblical support (again making the Bible the sole source of authority in the life of the believer) for the KJV being the fulfillment of this promise.

You are .... ugly? I know, I am working on it.

[quote]
[quote="Dwayner79"]The point is it should not be anyone's personal goal to "convert " someone to KJVO.
[/quote]

Since you are debating this it implies that you are trying to convert others to not KJVO. It is a 2 way street and you are going reverse in the wrong. lane. :D If it wasn't your goal you would'nt be debating it.[/quote]

Not quite. I have only responded to questions asked in this thread. Kubel did come across as wanting a fight, but I think he has made it clear that he is not as he has accepted answers to his questions. We have talked about this, and I am suprised you would say I am debating. I should be allowed to post my opinions even though they differ.

[quote]
You are asking us why God choose English to preserve His Word in. That is like asking you why did God love you enough to save you. I am not the one who decided to preserve it into English, that was Gods doing so you will have to ask him.
[/quote]

So I can see your point. I guess God can do as He pleases. He could if he wanted to preserve it in anything he wanted to.

[quote]
I am sorry to hear that you could possible believe that God did not preserve his Word in English,I am sorry to hear that you do not have a Bible that you can call Gods Words, but rather Gods words and mans words mix together.
[/quote]

As stated above, I guess He could of. Then many other questions need to be answered. Questions that have been debated, and the answeres given on this board I do not agree with fully. Noone here has a perfect doctrine. So why am I looked down upon for having the disenting opinion.
[quote]
[quote]It is not a matter of Biblical doctrine
[/quote]

Sorry, I found that too funny. The Bible is not part of [b]Biblical[/b] Doctrine? :haha[/quote] [/quote]

By this I mean that there is no verse in scripture that says "Thou shalt only use the KJV". There is no scriptural support for the KJV... obviously. You have to base this on personal conviction and not "Bible based doctrine" (I hope this makes sense).

[dwayner79]

[quote="MC1171611"]
[quote="BroMatt"][quote="dwayner79"][quote]his second wife abandoned him because he would not place her over the Ministry
[/quote]

Our first responsibility is to God (our personal lives), then to our Spouse, then to our family, then to work/ministry, etc. [/quote]

:shock:

I agree!!!!

:D[/quote]

I don't agree, for simple Biblical reasons, including [i]many[/i] Scriptures saying the exact [b]opposite[/b] of what was said. For instance:

Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

I understand that these verses apply doctrinally to the Kingdom/Tribulation, but the meaning (spiritual) is still the same. Anyone who places his spouse over the calling of God is WRONG. God calls a man, and the wife's job is to follow that man. When she does not, then she is rejecting her responsibility before God and her husband.

Paul told Timothy one wife, not two, or three, or four, etc. According to the law of the land, the law under which we abide, when a person is divorced, he/she ceases to be married. Under a different system, it would be different, but that is the law.

Read the wording: one wife. In your logic, that would disqualify a single man; even a fool can tell that Paul is addressing polygamy. Get that railroad tie outta' your eye socket there Holmes.

My bad on the mistake-EDIT[/quote]

I am not sure what you are talking about. but making comment like "Get that railroad tie outta' your eye socket there Holmes." are really not necessary.

I am not defending the ability to have more then one wife. I was only saying that putting your spouse above ministry is the proper thing to do.

The one verse quoted twice above are talkig about the kingdom... i.e. salvation. This was near and dear to the people of that time as they would litterly give up their family after proclaiming Christ. Funerals and the whole bit. This is not talking about serving God. This is why Paul says if the unbelieving wife leaves, let her go. But a saved man and woman are ultimately responsible to God for their marriage before their ministry. This is why the distinction is made if a man cannot lead his house, how will he lead the church. This is because the home is more important then the church. The home comes first. All through the NT passages dealing with husband and wife role, church leadership, etc. the theme is home first.

We will have to disagree on this one.

[pneu-engine]

DW wrote::::[quote]
Don't you people sleep!!! There was 5 pages yesterday.
[/quote]

Sleep??????? Sleep is for babies and old people on their death bed getting ready to die. Personally, I have too many things to do to bother with inconsequential details of that nature. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You also wrote:::::[quote]
By this I mean that there is no verse in scripture that says "Thou shalt only use the KJV". There is no scriptural support for the KJV.
[/quote]

Here is another of those things that you have to use God-given logic to capture. Did you read my previous post as to why God translated His perfectly preserved Words into English????? Comments, please?????

[dwayner79]

My last two posts, like my other posts are answers to questions brought up in the thread. Some could make the argument that I am debating with MC1171611 AND BroMatt. However, I doubt I would be called to question my post to MC because most here agree. I may very well be called into question on BroMatt because I disagree with the majority.

IMO, I am not debating either. I am simply answering questions brought up in the discussion. I am not trying to infiltrate or convert anyone to how I think. I am here to discuss. Int he words of John MacArthur: I do not think my doctrine is perfect, the problem is I do not know where. If I did, I would change.

[dwayner79]

PE,

I did, and it makes sense. The issue is it cannot be proven hands down. Therefore, to expect all others to abide by it is wrong. The only hills worth dieing on for me are those found in scripture.

[Jerry]

John81 and Kubel, please refrain from posting articles of David Cloud's. As of 2004, he has stated that he does not want anyone to do that on their websites or message boards. You can go up above and do and Google search and then post the link for all to read, and you can also post excerpts from his articles - but not the whole article.

Just so you know, I deleted the article in the thread and posted the link instead.

[John81]

Thank you Jerry.

[Kubel]

[quote="dwayner79"]
Don't you people sleep!!! There was 5 pages yesterday.
[/quote]

Sleep? What's that? :lol: