Missing Doctrines?

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
KJV says we are saved NKJV along with all MV influenced translations says being saved. They cannot both be right. The minority text along with W&H’s GREEK TRANSLATION BECAUSE Of RCC influence got it wrong, and that is why I stay with the majority texts.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
KJV says we are saved NKJV along with all MV influenced translations says being saved. They cannot both be right.
You fail to prove your opinion to be true.

It is possible that both can be right since there can be a past aspect of salvation (justification) and a present aspect of salvation (sanctification), and a future aspect of salvation (glorification).
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Mk

See Mark 7:5-13, esp. 13: Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. [KJV]

Seems like Jesus still considered it His word...



I had no intention of trapping you, but you are saying Calvinists and contra-Calvinists (what the Calvinists call Arminians) can not be trusted??
Who's left??

--Rich
KJVO's are inconsistent. First, they don't use the AV1611. I have a facsimilie of it and I know that they don't use it every time they post scripture. So there's that.

Each of the KJV translators were hard-line Calvinists. One of them wanted to make Puritanism a crime worthy of death. These are the very puritans that founded the USA. They brought the Geneva Bible with them. Yet here the KJVO's have a different opinion. No consistency and certainly no mercy!
 
Last edited:

robycop3

Well-known member
Several of the AV makers were members of the Star Chamber and/or the Court of High Commission, both of which were Anglican instruments of "Inquisition", with the same authority to sentence people to death & carry their executions out, same as the RC Inquisitions elsewhere. And at least one (Thompson) was a drunk. They were far-from-perfect. But they managed to finally produce a new English Bible version.
 

JDS

Well-known member
Several of the AV makers were members of the Star Chamber and/or the Court of High Commission, both of which were Anglican instruments of "Inquisition", with the same authority to sentence people to death & carry their executions out, same as the RC Inquisitions elsewhere. And at least one (Thompson) was a drunk. They were far-from-perfect. But they managed to finally produce a new English Bible version.
Reviews are often written by biased people and biased people seek out their testimony. There is a real Satan and he is a liar and a deceiver and he influences much more of the rhetoric than we will admit.

Believe the words. God said it was impossible for him to lie, therefore whatever he says just believe him, if you will admit he actually said something.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Reviews are often written by biased people and biased people seek out their testimony. There is a real Satan and he is a liar and a deceiver and he influences much more of the rhetoric than we will admit.

Believe the words. God said it was impossible for him to lie, therefore whatever he says just believe him, if you will admit he actually said something.
Exactly ! They run from translation to translation hoping to feel anything spiritual.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Reviews are often written by biased people and biased people seek out their testimony. There is a real Satan and he is a liar and a deceiver and he influences much more of the rhetoric than we will admit.

Believe the words. God said it was impossible for him to lie, therefore whatever he says just believe him, if you will admit he actually said something.

So, you are the arbiter of truth? I don't think so. You hold their beliefs in hostility.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
You fail to prove your opinion to be true.

It is possible that both can be right since there can be a past aspect of salvation (justification) and a present aspect of salvation (sanctification), and a future aspect of salvation (glorification).

Indeed, both the KJV and MV's use the present participle, that KJVO's don't seem to understand.

In each passage the MV's elaborate on salvation. Then there is this: James R White states It's supposed to communicate the words present character to the reader.*

* The King James Only controversy, page 175

 

JDS

Well-known member
So, you are the arbiter of truth? I don't think so. You hold their beliefs in hostility.
I am not the arbiter of truth but I know who is. The difference between you and me is that you spend all your energy trying to convince people that the words don't matter and you somehow have liberty to express the Christian faith in any words you choose, often adding to them and at other times taking away, and still at other times questioning the veracity of some of them. I, OTOH, believe the entire doctrinal structure of Christianity is dependent on the personal eye witness testimony in writing of less than 10 Jewish men during a period of less than 100 years and that the doctrinal structure is built upon the words themselves and I think God is the only one who can preserve the integrity of those doctrines in translation.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
I am not the arbiter of truth but I know who is. The difference between you and me is that you spend all your energy trying to convince people that the words don't matter and you somehow have liberty to express the Christian faith in any words you choose, often adding to them and at other times taking away, and still at other times questioning the veracity of some of them. I, OTOH, believe the entire doctrinal structure of Christianity is dependent on the personal eye witness testimony in writing of less than 10 Jewish men during a period of less than 100 years and that the doctrinal structure is built upon the words themselves and I think God is the only one who can preserve the integrity of those doctrines in translation.

The point is, that you use derogatory language when it comes to those who believe in reformed theology. The KJV translators were believers in reformed theology.


As I said, you hold their beliefs hostile.
 

JDS

Well-known member
The point is, that you use derogatory language when it comes to those who believe in reformed theology. The KJV translators were believers in reformed theology.


As I said, you hold their beliefs hostile.
You seem to have a great deal of trouble distinguishing between a translation and a commentary. These KJV translators were not apologists for what they believed or for any religious system that may have existed. They were translators of words. They were honest and consistent.

Some of the modern bibles are not really translations in the true sense of the word. They translate and edit. They condense. The NIV has thousands fewer words than the KJV, for instance.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
You seem to have a great deal of trouble distinguishing between a translation and a commentary. These KJV translators were not apologists for what they believed or for any religious system that may have existed. They were translators of words. They were honest and consistent.

Some of the modern bibles are not really translations in the true sense of the word. They translate and edit. They condense. The NIV has thousands fewer words than the KJV, for instance.

Remember this:
JDS;5205831 said:
Just for the record, will you provide links showing Logos, Frazier, and others attempting to prove their doctrine of the word of God with scriptures? And don't refer to logos who states a premise and then presents 14 scripture references in parenthesis because I do not know what that means except it is misleading, dishonest, vague, and cultish. It does what it is intended to do. It elevates the premise over the scriptures and subordinates them. This is a classic Calvinist method and no one should take anyone who does it serious.

Red bolding mine.

I don't believe that any of the people you referred to were Calvinists. Not even ONE.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Perhaps JDS demonstrates that he is misinformed about Calvinism and other matters as he jumps to wrong conclusions and uses bogus guilt-by-association reasoning. What he falsely alleges to be "a classic Calvinist method" is not as can be demonstrated by an non-Calvinist, likely anti-Calvinist.

In the 2021 edition of his KJV-only book entitled The King James Only Debate, Michael Hollner, a former Pentecostal and now non-denominational and definitely not a Calvinist (see p. 6 of his book), wrote the following:

"Here are our promises of preservation, purity, and perfection, even in a translation, for 'there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding" (Job 32:8) KJV. Exodus 3:15, Exodus 34:1-4, Deuteronomy 4:2, II Kings 10:10; 22:8, Job 19:23-24, Job 32:8, Nehemiah 8:1-18, Psalms 12:6-7, Psalms 19:7-9, Psalms 33:11, Psalms 68:11, Psalms 89:34, Psalms 100:5, Psalms 119:160, Psalms 119:89, Psalms 110:140, Psalms 119:152, Psalms 135:12, Psalms 138:2, Proverbs 22:12, Proverbs 30:5-6, Ecclesiastes 3:14, Isaiah 8:16, 20, Isaiah 30:8, Isaiah 34:16-17, Isaiah 40:8, Isaiah 55:11, Jer. 36:1-32, Jer. 51:60-63, Daniel 10:21, Zechariah 7:12, Malachi 3:6, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, Luke 4:17-21, Luke 16:17, Luke 24:25-27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:44-49, John 1:1, John 5:38-39, John 10:35, Acts 8:26-40, Acts 17:2-3, Acts 17:11, Romans 15:4, 1 Cor. 10:11, Galatians 3:8, II Tim. 3:15-16, II Tim. 4:13, 1 Peter 1:12, 1 Peter 1:25, II Peter 1:19-21, James 1:25, Rev. 22:18-19, and many more" (p. 442).
 

JDS

Well-known member
Perhaps JDS demonstrates that he is misinformed about Calvinism and other matters as he jumps to wrong conclusions and uses bogus guilt-by-association reasoning. What he falsely alleges to be "a classic Calvinist method" is not as can be demonstrated by an non-Calvinist, likely anti-Calvinist.

In the 2021 edition of his KJV-only book entitled The King James Only Debate, Michael Hollner, a former Pentecostal and now non-denominational and definitely not a Calvinist (see p. 6 of his book), wrote the following:

"Here are our promises of preservation, purity, and perfection, even in a translation, for 'there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding" (Job 32:8) KJV. Exodus 3:15, Exodus 34:1-4, Deuteronomy 4:2, II Kings 10:10; 22:8, Job 19:23-24, Job 32:8, Nehemiah 8:1-18, Psalms 12:6-7, Psalms 19:7-9, Psalms 33:11, Psalms 68:11, Psalms 89:34, Psalms 100:5, Psalms 119:160, Psalms 119:89, Psalms 110:140, Psalms 119:152, Psalms 135:12, Psalms 138:2, Proverbs 22:12, Proverbs 30:5-6, Ecclesiastes 3:14, Isaiah 8:16, 20, Isaiah 30:8, Isaiah 34:16-17, Isaiah 40:8, Isaiah 55:11, Jer. 36:1-32, Jer. 51:60-63, Daniel 10:21, Zechariah 7:12, Malachi 3:6, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, Luke 4:17-21, Luke 16:17, Luke 24:25-27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:44-49, John 1:1, John 5:38-39, John 10:35, Acts 8:26-40, Acts 17:2-3, Acts 17:11, Romans 15:4, 1 Cor. 10:11, Galatians 3:8, II Tim. 3:15-16, II Tim. 4:13, 1 Peter 1:12, 1 Peter 1:25, II Peter 1:19-21, James 1:25, Rev. 22:18-19, and many more" (p. 442).
Do you know how much sense you are making with this post? ZERO.

Try to do better.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Do you know how much sense you are making with this post? ZERO.
Because you may refuse to understand the truth or choose to close your eyes to the truth of what stated does not demonstrate that it does not make sense.

My post demonstrated that what you claimed to be "a classic Calvinist method" is not one. Non-Calvinists and even KJV-only authors use the same method. If you had read books on Bible doctrine and books on apologetics, you would find that they also sometimes use the same method. This method in itself is not misleading, dishonest, and vague as you incorrectly alleged. You improperly tried to associate me with Calvinists when I have not claimed to be one.

You will cite or quote verses that do not state nor teach the KJV-only assertions that you make.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Doctrine concerning truth

He is the Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are judgment, a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he (Deut. 32:4)

as the truth is in Jesus (Ephesians 4:21b)

thy word is truth (John 17:17)

Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever (Psalm 119:160)

all thy commandments are truth (Psalm 119:151b)

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4a)

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18a)

and that no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21c)

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (Exodus 20:16)

Thou shalt not raise a false report (Exodus 21:1a)

Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another (Ephesians 4:25)

I have chosen the way of truth (Psalm 119:30a)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

God is the God of truth (Deut. 32:4, John 3:33, 1 John 5:20), Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6, Eph. 4:21), and the Holy Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth (John 16:13). The word of God is truth (John 17:17, Psalm 119:151, Psalm 19:9, Psalm 119:160, Psalm 119:142). According to the Scriptures, God would be the source and determiner of all truth and sound reason (Deut. 32:4, 1 John 5:20, John 14:6, John 16:13, Isa. 1:18). God is not only the source of truth; He is very truth itself. If God has spoken, (and He has), He has spoken truthfully and logically for the God of the Scriptures is not irrational, illogical, or insane. God cannot lie or contradict Himself (2 Cor. 1:18, Titus 1:2, Heb. 6:18); therefore, God would not violate the chief rule of reason (logic) [the law of non-contradiction]. Because reason (logic) came from God, God can reason with man whom He created (Isa. 1:18), and man can reason with each other (1 Pet 3:15, Acts 17:2, 1 Sam. 12:7). God is the God of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom (1 Sam. 2:3, Prov. 2:6, Rom. 11:33, Prov. 22:12, James 1:5, Ps. 147:5, Isa. 40:28). John Frame noted: "That God is logical is implied by the scriptural teachings that he is wise, just, faithful, and true--attributes which would be meaningless if God were free to contradict himself" (Apologetics to the Glory of God, p. 158).

Gordon Clark observed: "Scripture throughout assumes the law of contradiction, viz., a truth cannot be false" (Lord God of Truth, p. 40). Gordon Clark wrote: “The law of contradiction is not to be taken as an axion prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking” (Logic, p. 121). Gordon Clark asserted: “The chief law of logic is the law of contradiction, and it is this law that maintains the distinction between truth and falsity” (God’s Hammer, p. 77). Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks noted: “Without the law of noncontradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true or false” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 16). G. D. B. Pepper stated: "Whatever is condemned by truth is condemned by the God of truth" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 462). D. A. Waite asserted: “Truth does divide from untruth” (Critical Answer, p. 23). David Sorenson noted: “Truth divides that which is right from that which is wrong” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 6). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “It is rational to face facts, while it is certainly irrational to deny them” (Bible Version, p. 174). Edward Carnell maintained that “consistency is the first property of truth” (Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 67).

The Lord God has revealed Himself to man through the Scriptures. The Scriptures reveal the mind or thoughts of God to the extent that God chose to reveal Himself. Only God can reveal God. Important doctrines relating to the Scriptures have been presented and discussed in earlier sections of this book. One important reason for bringing up the doctrine of truth separately is as a reminder that the teaching of Bible doctrines must be based on truth. Truth would be important in distinguishing what is sound Bible doctrine from what is a tradition of men and from what is false doctrine. “For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth” (2 Cor. 13:8).

KJV-only authors would claim to be advocating and defending truth. In the preface to the 1956 edition of Edward Hills’ book, R. B. Kuiper wrote: “Underlying this position taken by Dr. Hills is a philosophy of truth” (KJV Defended, p. 4). On the cover of his book, Mickey Carter suggested that his book presented “the truth about the battle for the preserved King James Bible.” R. B. Ouellette indicated that “we prepare to see the truth about the textual and preservation issues” in his book (More Sure Word, p. 67). In the foreword to William Grady’s book, Dallas Dobson claimed that “Final Authority gives you the truth about the Truth” (p. ii). James Rasbeary asserted: “The truth matters to me” (What’s Wrong, p. 177). Jack McElroy wrote: “You need the truth” (Which Bible, p. 308). D. A. Waite wrote: “Truth is involved in this issue of Bible texts and translations” (Fundamentalistic Deception, p. 18). Michael Hollner claimed: “We strive for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” (King James Only Debate, p. 174, 2018 edition). Concerning his own book, Michael Hollner declared: “The truth is going to be released in this book” (p. 19). Michael Hollner asserted: “All I want is the truth, as should you, and I guarantee you, that nothing but the truth is going to be presented in this book” (p. 31, 2021 edition).

Can all the claims, assumptions, and arguments for a KJV-only view be soundly demonstrated to be true and scriptural? Would scriptural teaching concerning truth support the advocating of a KJV-only view? Are KJV-only advocates advocating truth when they make unproven assumptions based on use of fallacies and when they make unjust or false allegations? Do believers need to know the parts of the whole truth that KJV-only books and posts by KJV-only advocates do not present? Instead of advocating and defending only truth, too many times KJV-only reasoning/teaching would conflict with truth, and its claims would not be true. Many assertions made by KJV-only advocates that they claim are true can be demonstrated not to be true. Some important truth is avoided by KJV-only books.

One serious, scripturally-based objection to a modern KJV-only view is that’s view dependence on fallacies as the basis for several of its key arguments and assumptions. Use of fallacies would conflict with Bible teaching concerning truth. A fallacy is an error in the reasoning, inferring, or concluding involved in an argument [a false argument]. Important aspects of KJV-only reasoning/teaching would involve assuming some premises to be true that have not been proven to be true, and that assumption would involve use of the fallacy of begging the question. Human KJV-only reasoning cannot reach logically certain conclusions based on unproven premises and on use of fallacies. Use of the fallacy of begging the question would not be a simple, common sense, impossible-to-refute argument. From the beginning, do typical KJV-only arguments attempt to assume by use of the fallacy of begging the question the point in dispute and attempt to exclude any non-KJV-only answer? The KJV-only view’s unproven, uncertain conclusions have not been demonstrated to follow directly from premises proven to be true and scriptural. Blind or mindless faith in unproven premises would not make those premises become true. Would the God of truth approve of the use of fallacies? Would the truth need the use of fallacies to defend it or to advocate it? Edward F. Hills asserted: “Error and falsehood, however, are not from God but from Satan, the evil one” (KJV Defended, p. 240). Does that statement indicate that the use of fallacies in KJV-only reasoning should be excused or should that use be condemned and removed? Does KJV-only reasoning compromise the truth by making use of fallacies? Along with use of the fallacy of begging the question, use of some other fallacies is also clearly evident in human KJV-only reasoning.

In another example, some KJV-only advocates sometimes in effect attempt to create a false dilemma by claiming that there are only two possible alternatives or options: their opinions concerning the KJV or the view of liberals, skeptics, or unbelievers. They try to suggest or imply that there are only two possibilities: claimed absolute certainty in a KJV-only theory or complete skepticism
 
Top