Quote:
Just because those verses say God "shall be" their God doesn't mean he is not already their God.


Thank you...that is clear. :-)

Quote:
Yes, I understand what you mean as I have been in the Bible version debate for a long time. My basic position is that 1. the pure word of God is available, and always has been, in multiple translations and manuscripts, and 2. there are at least two aspects of "pure" when talking about the pure word of God: purity in terms of what God's message is, and purity in terms of what I call "ink-on-paper". A Bible can be "pure" in the first sense while not pure in the other. Most KJV-only supporters do not see (or accept this), thinking these two aspects are required to be one in the same. I can explain in more detail if you want.


Yes, I would like to hear your belief.

Quote:
To some extent, that is certainly true. However, it does nothing to prove its purity in the sense of "ink-on-paper", nor exclusively pure in the sense of God's message. Also, 400 years may seem like a long time, but it's really only 20% of all of Church history. There are Bibles still in use that have been around much longer.


Such as the Geneva?

Quote:
As they say, "the proof is in the pudding". Despite some of those things, I can still pick up the NIV or other versions and read "the word of God". God's pure message is still there to be understood.


I agree that people will get the gospel, and can be saved using the NIV, but I believe the NIV is a polluted translation, that used over time would most likely not bring a babe into maturity without error being introduced into their doctrines, making them perhaps an ineffectual witness, or open for a lot of the apostacy that is being taught today.

Quote:
I'm not sure who you are referring to with "men who were not even believers in the deity of Christ". This is a common charge against Westcott and Hort, the men who produced the Greek New Testament in 1881, which basically opened the door for "modern versions". However, I have found that many KJV-only supporters have been fed false information about W&H by certain authors and preachers, and simply repeat these things without looking into it for themselves. If you are not referring to W&H, who are you referring to?


I am referring to W&H, and others...who by their own writings claim an unbelief in the diety of Christ. I have read some of their works, and the books by Westcott's son, Life of Brooke Westcott, and The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott. Have you read these?

Quote:
I know what you mean and I agree. I guess some do it as a "defensive mechanism", because they conversely see KJV-onlyists attack them and their Bible, making them feel like second class Christians with second class Bibles.


Ah, the old which came first the chicken or the egg... LOL The KJB had never been attacked or thought to have any errors until the new translations began to pop out like popcorn. We could find the history of who began the attack on the KJB, but as you probably already know, it was primarily ecumenicalists who began the attack, on what was once known as the bellievers Bible.

By the way, may I ask your affliliation if any, to a belief system or religion? I am a New Testament Christian, and do not belong to a denomination, but to the body of Christ, and fellowship with other believers. :thumbsup

Quote:
Totally! I hope we have more discussions like this in the future!


Well, I most enjoy the fact that I learned something, and not through conflict with you, but through a very open conversation, with room to grow, and the Holy Spirit to work!

So, I too would enjoy more discussions. One I might suggest would be Nestorism...because, although I know the rudiments of the belief, I don't know much about it really, or why exactly it is a wrong belief. I would like to search it out to understand it, and know why we don't believe it, rather than just knowing "about it"...if you know what I mean? :b
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. <br><br><br>Mari