Will

I don't think that you know what a troll is. A troll typically says things that are very rude and vulgar. I have not done this.

Why do the Ethiopian Jews and the Eastern Orthodox accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible?

I know some people who read the NIV and/or some other MVs religiously (ie. regularly and devotedly). The problem is that they are getting fed watered down Christianity - sure they are actually growing in their faith' date=' but how are they growing? They are learning to be more ecumenical, more watered down in regards to their Christianity (can't be united with all of Christendom if you start standing apart from them), more accepting of all they see under the banner of "Christianity" (therefore less Biblically discerning), more and more concerned about concepts and ideas rather than the actual words of Scripture and finding out exactly what the Bible says on some issue/doctrine, among other things. I don't believe we can honestly say the problem with Christendom is that they are not reading their Bibles - the problem is their Bibles are changed and they are getting fed different food! Their MVs teach a different Christianity![/quote']

That isn't objective evidence or fact though. That is only representative of people that you know. I know people who read MV's and yet are the exact opposite. And I know people who read the KJV religiously and yet have all kinds of messed up doctrine, or who join hands with Catholics or other groups.

Be honest' date=' BibleFaith1. Everyone and their dog can say they are a Christian. What denomination or religion do you truly represent? By your answers, I would say Catholicism.[/quote']

That or else EC. I'm not sure yet.

Also, I want to ask you again, from what position are you asking these questions? What specifically are your beliefs? Your failure to answer me so far is causing me to think you are a troll.

Also, I want to ask you again, from what position are you asking these questions? What specifically are your beliefs? Your failure to answer me so far is causing me to think you are a troll.

Also, I want to ask you again, from what position are you asking these questions? What specifically are your beliefs? Your failure to answer me so far is causing me to think you are a troll.

Where does the Bible put up a successor to Peter?

Also, I want to ask you again, from what position are you asking these questions? What specifically are your beliefs? Your failure to answer me so far is causing me to think you are a troll.

I firmly believe, that the main problem with Christian growth is not the version used, but the lack of reading of the version owned.

What if they die before they get their sin right?

But where does it say in the Bible which parts in the Bible are the essential parts and which parts are not so essential?

I'm asking this because most Christians act as if some parts are more essential than other parts, but no one agrees on which parts of the Christian faith are essential and which parts are not so essential.

Feeling guilty?

Where does it say in the Bible which books belong in the Bible?

Is there an inspired table of contents in the Bible?

ok so nobody really ever answered my question, I guess i never really figured I'd get an answer from someone who has turned their back on Gods word. I believe that God said and I am paraphrasing here that he would preserve his word for all generations if the MV's are good and the Geneva Bible is not then what about all of the men and women before us were they just not worthy of the truth are we just that much better than them more enlightened that we can be given his word when others were not. I have often heard people say that the Geneva Bible is just to hard to read and understand, First of all if you are saved through the blood of Jesus Christ God promises you understanding. Secondly I thought we were suposed to be smarter and more intelligent than our for fathers, Yet they understood the Geneva Bible. I wonder why people feel the need to change Gods word to suit them. It should be the other way around.
I cannot understand a so called Preacher who is supposed to lead a flock of believers would guide them into confusion I believe that is the work of the devil. Do I believe that they intentionally disieve there members, no not all, I believe they have been co-opted by satan The devil walketh about seeking what he may devour, what better than the word of God and His men.
I thank all of you who have posted some who I agree with some I don't I hope this discussion will continue. God Bless America.

(((Ok so what makes a man of God decide that the Geneva Bible is no longer Gods word and switch to another 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.))))

Great - glad you think you know what you are talking about. You are the first person I have EVER seen on these boards that says the TR is not the Byzantine line. You are entitled to your opinion. :rapture:

One verse indicates it was only based on less than a dozen manuscripts? Nice try. You MIGHT be able to argue that particular VERSE was based on less than a dozen manuscripts (though you would be dead wrong - there are many second century church fathers and lexicons that quote that verse' date=' regardless of how many extant Greek copies there may still be) - though it is false to teach the TR is based on that. [b']The TR IS the Byzantine line. I don't know where you got your info.

Not quite. The TR is based on less than a dozen Byzantine text manuscripts. If the TR were based on the Byzantine text as a whole, it would not contain The Comma.

A: Ok, W&H didn't use much of the TR. However, the TR is not a manuscript line, so this is fuzzy logic no? There are two main text lines, Alexandrian and Byzantine. The Byzantine is known as the "majority text" and it is from this text family that most of the TR was based. Why, in your opinion, should W&H have included a result of textual criticism in their textual criticism of the manuscripts they had available? Weren't they merely coming to their own conclusion?

B: Define "leaves out" please. Merely because Translation B doesn't have the same wording as Translation A, it doesn't mean that Translation B is in error. How do we decide which translations are correct and which are not?

C: How do you know that the thoughts and meanings were intentionally changed in order to change God's word? Do you not agree that two equally knowledgeable Greek scholars could look at the same passage in the Greek and not have the same exact language as each other when rendering the passage in question into their own language?

Then I would have to ask you to define "True IFB Fundamentalism", because your definition and mine would be completely different.

I am of the firm conviction that Truth drives out error just as light drives out darkness, and heat drives out cold. Truth and error cannot co-exist, because error is the absence of Truth. It is purely academic.

The bottom line here is that the KJV is the Truth that God gave us and the MVs have Truth mixed with (intentional) error.

Howdy Folks.

I as well have been looking for an IFB forum for awhile. The one prior to this, had a "Manly Man" sub section that included and i quote "women celebrities you find "hot"".

You don't like attractive women?

j/k

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.

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.

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?

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