Is KJVO a mental disorder?

[Biblebeliever]

Bibleburner, you embody ignorance and unbelief. Get lost.

Scott;  not only did I present you with facts. But you continue to willfully reject those facts.

What I can then say in response to your statement about me is that you embody WILLFUL ignorance when it comes to the Bible Version Issue.

And as far as unbelief is concerned; thankfully,  That is not an area where I struggle in.

I do believe the word of God,  which is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

And I believe what it says about adding and taking from the words of God Almighty.

 

[prophet]

The text compares already purified silver to God's Word, so the scheme is undone before it takes a single lap.

You are not using a fully correct interpretation methodology, in that while you are correct in understanding that God's Word is pure, that is the Scripture itself was pure in the days of David, you have neglected to see the prophecy about the future manifestation of the Scripture in regards to its purity in text and translation. Usually you folks assume that Scripture is speaking fairly limitedly to the time it was written, thus divorcing its import and power of the Holy Ghost's speaking by it to the present time New Testament believer.

Face value is a "fully correct interpretation methodology"...for honest people.

Where is Nathaniel in whom is no guile?

The Word of God is being compared to the product, not the process, and any reference to prophetic fulfillment is arguable and unnecessary.

Get out the torches, and douse the faggots, make fast the ropes, and set deep the post.
I will gladly accept my fate, for this heresy of mine:
That the Word is God.
That The Written Word is the Son being manifest to us.
And He is very pure.

 

[bibleprotector]

Face value is a "fully correct interpretation methodology"...for honest people.

Where does the Scripture say such a thing?

Honest people actually believe the Bible, and see within it the full facets. Believers do not attempt to explain it away.

 

[prophet]

Face value is a "fully correct interpretation methodology"...for honest people.

Where does the Scripture say such a thing?

Honest people actually believe the Bible, and see within it the full facets. Believers do not attempt to explain it away.

Face value is the opposite of private...

 

[bibleprotector]

Face value is a "fully correct interpretation methodology"...for honest people.

Where does the Scripture say such a thing?

Honest people actually believe the Bible, and see within it the full facets. Believers do not attempt to explain it away.

Face value is the opposite of private...

By that standard:

Most interpretors we would consider have said that cold is indifferent and bad.

A few recent ones have said cold is good and refreshing.

Now, going on your rule of "face value", you would have to favour cold is something bad.

The plain reading, the very context of the passage, would indicate that your interpretation is the modernistic, private one.

 

[Biblebeliever]

Bible Burner speaking of modern versions said, "I know they are satanic because I am not ignorant of Satan's devices."

Satan has complete control of his thinking.

No he does not bgwilkinson.

I believe the BOOK. And I seek daily to submit and take heed to the word of God.

Therefore by the marvelous grace of God, the Lord has protected me many times and still is protecting me from Satan and his devils.

Not just a burner of Bibles (like a good Catholic) but a blasphemer of God's Holy Spirit.

IMHO, of course.

I have not burned any Bibles.

But I have said it before and I will say it again;  That brother in the video who burned those NIVs was justified in doing so.  Those NIVs are wicked and are blasphemous.The NIV is truly one of Satan's masterpieces.

Just like Satan has his own angels and his own ministers, he also has his own bibles.


Surprise! You all didn't think that Satan would not have his own aresenal of 'bibles' now would you?

Come on! Where is the discernment?

 

[Ransom]

Not just a burner of Bibles (like a good Catholic) but a blasphemer of God's Holy Spirit.

What is something Biblebeliever, Steve Anderson, and the Roman Catholic Church have in common, Alex?

I wonder which one is really the Catholic shill set up to make real Christians look stupid?

 

[Ransom]

Scott;  not only did I present you with facts. But you continue to willfully reject those facts.

I don't trust the "facts" of a Romanist plant sent to make Bible-believing Christians look foolish, which you clearly are.

 

[prophet]

Face value is a "fully correct interpretation methodology"...for honest people.

Where does the Scripture say such a thing?

Honest people actually believe the Bible, and see within it the full facets. Believers do not attempt to explain it away.

Face value is the opposite of private...

By that standard:

Most interpretors we would consider have said that cold is indifferent and bad.

A few recent ones have said cold is good and refreshing.

Now, going on your rule of "face value", you would have to favour cold is something bad.

The plain reading, the very context of the passage, would indicate that your interpretation is the modernistic, private one.

"Most interpreters" is not the definition of "face value".
Most theologians that were published by 1611 were in line with Rome, and her children, so that they parrot one another brings no merit.

You are hiding from the actual discussion, obviously protecting some source that if shown to be in error, would pull down your throne.

I started a new thread, but am not savvy at copy/paste with this smart phone.

If you can decipher, or follow the link, please move the discussion there,

  Thanks.

 

[Biblebeliever]

I don't trust the "facts" of a Romanist plant

lol!

Romanist plant?

Not me. I believe the Book (AV1611). While you REJECT it.


As a matter of fact; you reject the English text of the protestant reformation while embracing Rome's bibles (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) As well as Rome's corrupt manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Siniaticus).

And you call yourself a Bible believer?

Lol, that's rather funny.

Scott, you sure are good at Jesuit double think.

sent to make Bible-believing Christians look foolish, which you clearly are.

Scott, your not a Bible believing Christian. If you were you would believe God's Blessed Book, the AV1611.

 

[Ransom]

Not me.

I'll bet Steven Anderson denies it too . . . Catholic boy!

 

[subllibrm]

As a matter of fact; you reject the English text of the protestant reformation while embracing Rome's bibles (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.)

Not one of which is used by the Catholic church.

 

[Steven Avery]

Not one of which is used by the Catholic church.

The rcc has fully approved some of the Critical Text versions.  And the Nova Vulgata is now CT based.  So they are using a text with far more corruption than their Vulgate versions.

Steven Avery

 

[subllibrm]

Not one of which is used by the Catholic church.

The rcc has fully approved some of the Critical Text versions.  And the Nova Vulgata is now CT based.  So they are using a text with far more corruption than their Vulgate versions.

Steven Avery

Wow! Do you drive a blue car? I know a guy who drives a blue car and cheats on his wife. All blue car owners cheat on their wives. Doesn't matter make or model, if it is blue you cheat on your wife.

So with that in mind, lets' try again, which Catholic churches USE the NIV for their services?

 

[lnf]

I don’t usually participate in the Doctrinal Forums because I am not a Bible Scholar.  I have not studied Greek or Hebrew.  I have a high school education...and a lot of life experience.  I was saved as an adult in 2004.  I don’t do a lot of independent study, but I have attended Sunday School for about 9 years, the last 5 years or so as the leader of our (very) small group of single women.  Not only am I the youngest person in our class, I am also the “baby” Christian, in that the other members of our class have been saved for several years longer than me.  Our curriculum is supplied to me, although I do get to decide how I will present it.  I try to bring in “real-life stories” as illustrations.  I use my life as an example quite often.  I do this, not presenting myself as any sort of “shining example”, but as a picture of how God uses the circumstances of our lives to show His glory, power, grace and forgiveness…and loving correction!

I am a KJVP.  I love the poetic flow of the King James.  It’s my Bible of choice.  The “Old English” doesn’t usually confuse me, but when I can’t grasp the context of a passage, I simply search out the same passage in other English Bible versions until Holy Spirit shows me the truth.  I don’t search out commentaries, just God’s Holy Words in different versions.  I can’t tell you all the different versions that have brought clarity to me.  Sometimes I “get it” with the first version I select…and sometimes it’s 4 or more…but Holy Spirit always brings clarity!  Because of this, I cannot discount, like some do, versions other than the KJ as being the Word of God.

So why am I chiming in?  Simply because it’s been bandied about how “regular” people interpret the Bible at “face value”.  Well, I am a “regular” person.  So I thought I might explain how I, a regular person, interpret Revelation 3:15-16:

The first thing I do is to look at those two verses in context.  That takes us to verses 14-18:

14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

What is Jesus saying here?  The Laodiceans are lukewarm.  They are neither cold nor hot.  Jesus doesn’t like lukewarm.  The analogy that comes to my mind is chocolate milk.  Hot chocolate milk is yummy.  Cold chocolate milk is yummy.  But lukewarm chocolate milk (whether it started out as hot or cold) can actually make a person sick.  Literally sick.  Food poisoning sick.  Have you ever had food poisoning?  I have.  I vomited my guts out!

Jesus says, “I would thou wert cold or hot.”  So, what does Jesus want for us?  He wants us to come to repentance and accept Him as our personal savior so we can have eternal life with Him as His bride in Heaven. 

So, if it were true, as some claim, that in the context of this passage, that “cold” equals “unsaved”, that would mean that Jesus would prefer us to be either saved (hot) or unsaved (cold), as opposed to “sitting on the fence” (lukewarm), as it were.  I just don’t believe that!  It’s against everything Jesus stands for!  No, the truth of the matter is (in plain English) that Jesus compared hot/cold to lukewarm.  Lukewarm is the inferior position.  He made no distinction is this passage between hot and cold.  And He could easily have done so…such as “To the church of the Laodiceans, thou once wert hot for the Lord, but now wax cold, because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.”

So that’s my “regular” interpretation of those verses.  Take it as you will. 

 

[bibleprotector]

So why am I chiming in?  Simply because it’s been bandied about how “regular” people interpret the Bible at “face value”.  Well, I am a “regular” person.  So I thought I might explain how I, a regular person, interpret Revelation 3:15-16:
...
So that’s my “regular” interpretation of those verses.  Take it as you will.

It is no surprise to me that a post-modernist approach sides with a modernist approach. Same spirit behind it.

 

[Ransom]

Join the modernist club, Inf. That's the penalty for daring to disagree with Bible"protector" and his "apostolic mandate." LOL!

 

[lnf]

So why am I chiming in?  Simply because it’s been bandied about how “regular” people interpret the Bible at “face value”.  Well, I am a “regular” person.  So I thought I might explain how I, a regular person, interpret Revelation 3:15-16:
...
So that’s my “regular” interpretation of those verses.  Take it as you will.

It is no surprise to me that a post-modernist approach sides with a modernist approach. Same spirit behind it.

Mr. Bibleprotector, I have no approach other than the straight reading of the Bible.  I don't know the difference between a post-modernist approach from a modernist approach.  If you can't see that from my post, more the pity to you.  If you want to engage any further with me, use "regular" language, seeing as I am a "regular" person. 

 

[lnf]

Join the modernist club, Inf. That's the penalty for daring to disagree with Bible"protector" and his "apostolic mandate." LOL!

He can call me what he wants, Mr. Ransom.  But truth be told, I am his worst enemy (in his own mind)...a "regular" person, interpreting the Bible in the "regular" way. 

 

[FSSL]

It has become a real laugh at how many times he labels us as "modernists."