|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Oct 20, 2006 22:36:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Oct 21, 2006 0:20:53 GMT -5
Amen and Amen and Amen.
I don't know how many more warnings and exhortations Bro's RevK, Tony Holland and tbxi and others need before they realise that God's word in the English langauge is ONLY found in the KJB.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Oct 23, 2006 10:29:27 GMT -5
I bought two things a couple of weeks ago.
A HCSB which I am really, really liking.
and believe it or not.....a KJV. I bought it because I was told that there was a poetic quality to the Psalms and Proverbs that it is hard to find in any other version. Thusfar, I would agree with that advice.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 23, 2006 10:43:57 GMT -5
Amen and Amen and Amen. I don't know how many more warnings and exhortations Bro's RevK, Tony Holland and tbxi and others need before they realise that God's word in the English langauge is ONLY found in the KJB. Probably a couple million more...then I might get brainwashed ;D
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Oct 23, 2006 15:53:08 GMT -5
Pssst...Rev K...Your MySpace link in your sig is messed up...
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Oct 23, 2006 18:34:17 GMT -5
RevK said: brainwashed
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Oct 23, 2006 20:01:51 GMT -5
RevK said: brainwashed I'm certain that RevK was joking Doc.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Oct 23, 2006 20:39:36 GMT -5
Yes, I am sure he was as well.
I agree with his sentiment though. I don't see myself ever becoming KJO, but that doesn't mean I won't keep studying it.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Oct 23, 2006 22:26:44 GMT -5
Say. I was thinking about this today because I started reading the book of Mormon so I could understand it for witnessing purposes (I met someone at my workplace who is a Mormon and seems pretty serious about it). It brought to mind Revelation 22:18-19, and whether it would be proper to use that verse against the Book of Mormon as it claims to be "another testament". It has relevance to the KJVO issue as well, because as in one of Hulewicz's videos, Rev. 22:19 is used against the new versions as after all, they "delete" words and what not.
Is "this book" referring to Revelation or the Bible as a whole?
I thought about it for a while and decided it was referring to Revelation. The apostle John didn't have a Bible with him that he finished binding after putting in the book of Revelation, and then said "OK THIS IS THE BOOK I'M TALKING ABOUT". The canon wasn't even officially created until over two centuries later (I'm not a Da Vinci code weirdo who thinks canonization was just made up arbitrarily by a council and for no other reason - it was gradual but undeniable). I don't think there is any way it could be referring to the whole Bible.
Your thoughts on this, people?
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Oct 24, 2006 0:20:35 GMT -5
but that doesn't mean I won't keep studying it.
Praise God!
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Oct 24, 2006 0:21:43 GMT -5
I'm certain that RevK was joking Doc.
I know he was but there are those out there who do believe that.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Oct 24, 2006 0:39:42 GMT -5
Say. I was thinking about this today because I started reading the book of Mormon so I could understand it for witnessing purposes (I met someone at my workplace who is a Mormon and seems pretty serious about it). It brought to mind Revelation 22:18-19, and whether it would be proper to use that verse against the Book of Mormon as it claims to be "another testament". It has relevance to the KJVO issue as well, because as in one of Hulewicz's videos, Rev. 22:19 is used against the new versions as after all, they "delete" words and what not. Is "this book" referring to Revelation or the Bible as a whole? I thought about it for a while and decided it was referring to Revelation. The apostle John didn't have a Bible with him that he finished binding after putting in the book of Revelation, and then said "OK THIS IS THE BOOK I'M TALKING ABOUT". The canon wasn't even officially created until over two centuries later (I'm not a Da Vinci code weirdo who thinks canonization was just made up arbitrarily by a council and for no other reason - it was gradual but undeniable). I don't think there is any way it could be referring to the whole Bible. Your thoughts on this, people? True that John did not have the entire Bible, but he would have had some of the NT. Also, don't forget that the verse was written under inspiration of God who forknew that we would one day have all 66 books in one volume. Check out Deut 4:2 (first mention principal). Good question though.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Oct 24, 2006 0:43:56 GMT -5
Deut 4:2 is much stronger. Rev: 22:18-19 just refers to "the prophecy of this book" so that's another reason I think it's just referring to itself... but yeah. I didn't know about that one in Deuteronomy. Thanks.
|
|