The "Rev. 16:5 thingie"

Hark

Well-known member
Truth or not, if it doesn't belong in a translation of Scripture, it's wrong. And only KJVOs claim their pet version is perfect.
Since I believe the KJV can be translated better in English, does that mean I am not KJVO? I clearly do not believe all the ideology of KJVO so that should not make me KJVO but KJV preference.
I've never seen/heard anyone say "The NASV is perfect", etc. Thus, part of proving the KJVO myth is false is to prove the KJV is NOT perfect.
But what is meant by KJVO's ideology as being perfect? Do you have a source link for that?

I would say it is perfect because it keeps the meat of His words to discern good & evil by His words in keeping the faith which is the good fight. Of course, I rely on Jesus Christ to minister & cause the increase, but I believe He has led me to rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words.

As for any other reasons for KJVO calling the KJV perfect, I am not referring to.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Since I believe the KJV can be translated better in English, does that mean I am not KJVO? I clearly do not believe all the ideology of KJVO so that should not make me KJVO but KJV preference.

But what is meant by KJVO's ideology as being perfect? Do you have a source link for that?

I would say it is perfect because it keeps the meat of His words to discern good & evil by His words in keeping the faith which is the good fight. Of course, I rely on Jesus Christ to minister & cause the increase, but I believe He has led me to rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words.

As for any other reasons for KJVO calling the KJV perfect, I am not referring to.
Many KJVOs believe the KJV is a perfect translation, technically and word-perfect as well, with no errors or mistakes of any kind, with every word of its sources perfectly rendered into English. That's patently-false. We just proved one of its goofs right here in this thread.

You may use the KJV all you wish, of course, but as for myself, I'd no more use the KJV for anything but study as compared to other English translations than I'd use a Model T as my everyday car.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Many KJVOs believe the KJV is a perfect translation, technically and word-perfect as well, with no errors or mistakes of any kind, with every word of its sources perfectly rendered into English.
An Error in All Bibles? KJV is not so perfect as if it does not contain any errors, but the message for me to follow Him by and the truth in His words to discern good & evil by with His help as my Good shepherd, is still why I am reliant only on the KJV for keeping the faith which is the good fight.
That's patently-false. We just proved one of its goofs right here in this thread.
It is not a goof when the truth in the message has not changed. For all you know, the truth as it was originally written was kept in His words regarding Revelation 16:5 since it is about how He is still righteous when He judges in the future and it is the Book of Revelation.
You may use the KJV all you wish, of course, but as for myself, I'd no more use the KJV for anything but study as compared to other English translations than I'd use a Model T as my everyday car.
Then since you do not believe OSAS is true, I suggest you compare all such verses testifying against OSAS with the KJV, leaning on Jesus Christ for wisdom in seeing the truth in His words. There is no harm in you asking Him to make sure you are in the right side of that issue by His words..
 

robycop3

Well-known member
An Error in All Bibles? KJV is not so perfect as if it does not contain any errors, but the message for me to follow Him by and the truth in His words to discern good & evil by with His help as my Good shepherd, is still why I am reliant only on the KJV for keeping the faith which is the good fight.
Same messages are in all valid Bible translations.
It is not a goof when the truth in the message has not changed. For all you know, the truth as it was originally written was kept in His words regarding Revelation 16:5 since it is about how He is still righteous when He judges in the future and it is the Book of Revelation.
It's a goof if it's not actually in Scripture & has been added to a translation. (Not counting words added for clarification in English)

Then since you do not believe OSAS is true, I suggest you compare all such verses testifying against OSAS with the KJV, leaning on Jesus Christ for wisdom in seeing the truth in His words. There is no harm in you asking Him to make sure you are in the right side of that issue by His words..
Hebrews 6:4-6 shows OSAS is not correct. And I knew a man who was saved, & later turned his back on Jesus.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Hebrews 6:4-6 shows OSAS is not correct. And I knew a man who was saved, & later turned his back on Jesus.
Perhaps you are wrong to interpret one more obscure passage Hebrews 6:4-6 in a way that would contradict clear scriptural statements in other passages that are more plain and clear in meaning.

Perhaps you knew a man who assumed or claimed that he was saved but he wasn't. Some have been taught incorrectly. Perhaps the man you knew is like one of those described in 1 John 2:19.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Hebrews 6:4-6 shows OSAS is not correct.

How so?

Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb. 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb. 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Where does it say they were "saved"?

And I knew a man who was saved, & later turned his back on Jesus.

How do you know he was saved?
 

robycop3

Well-known member
How so?

Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb. 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb. 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Where does it say they were "saved"?
No unsaved people receive the Holy Spirit, nor "taste of the powers of the world to come.
How do you know he was saved?
For you & Logos both...The gent I mentioned preached the Gospel powerfully for a couple of years, even building a small congregation of about 60 that met in an old store bldg. Then, he started having guest preachers more & more until he abandoned the church altogether, started drinking, doping & frequenting bawdy houses,(he was married, with kids). When I spoke with him, he said,"All that Jesus stuff is as believable as the Easter bunny or Santa Claus, a tale for little kids. I'm through with all that phony stuff!"

Sadly, he died of a dope overdose about 3 months later, in a motel frequented by hookers who serviced clients in it.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
...The gent I mentioned preached the Gospel powerfully for a couple of years,
That does not prove that the man was saved. I have known of several who preached the gospel for years before they got saved. They had thought that they were saved, but later said that they were not, and then got saved. You are assuming that he had to be saved when it is still possible that he was not. 1 John 2:19 may describe him.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
No unsaved people receive the Holy Spirit, nor "taste of the powers of the world to come.

Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

It doesn't say that they personally received the Holy Spirit, but only "made partakers of" Him, which could easily mean inclusion in church experiences where the Holy Spirit was active.

And similarly, I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible where it teaches you can't "taste of the heavenly gift" if you're not already saved.

For you & Logos both...The gent I mentioned preached the Gospel powerfully for a couple of years, even building a small congregation of about 60 that met in an old store bldg. Then, he started having guest preachers more & more until he abandoned the church altogether, started drinking, doping & frequenting bawdy houses,(he was married, with kids). When I spoke with him, he said,"All that Jesus stuff is as believable as the Easter bunny or Santa Claus, a tale for little kids. I'm through with all that phony stuff!"

Nothing in your description indicates that he was ever saved.

1John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
That does not prove that the man was saved. I have known of several who preached the gospel for years before they got saved. They had thought that they were saved, but later said that they were not, and then got saved. You are assuming that he had to be saved when it is still possible that he was not. 1 John 2:19 may describe him.
Could be; only GOD knows for sure. I can only speak for myself, having seen some miracles & feeling God's influence.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

It doesn't say that they personally received the Holy Spirit, but only "made partakers of" Him, which could easily mean inclusion in church experiences where the Holy Spirit was active.

And similarly, I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible where it teaches you can't "taste of the heavenly gift" if you're not already saved.



Nothing in your description indicates that he was ever saved.

1John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Please see my response to Logos above.
 
Top