Hi PB1789,
Quote:
|
If you don't believe that The One Who said: "Let There Be light! And there was light." --- Can preserve His Written Word over the many centuries, and that we humans can believe in His inerrant/true/faithful/ Matthew 5:18 kinda Bible... Then,,,
|
I do believe he can (and did) preserve his written word over the many centuries. My point is that if the
form of that preservation was not a single, exclusive, textually-inerrant book for the first 80% of church history, and scripture does not say anything about this changing in 1611, by what authority should anyone believe it changed? Why should those scriptures that talk of preservation change meaning just because someone hand-cranked a printing press? Why claim the Bible is the only source of doctrine, but then hold to a new doctrine that is not in the Bible?
Quote:
|
A Christian would not go around trying to pick apart/sow seeds of doubt concerning the contents of our Bible on an internet site where any heathen/pagan/atheist/agnostic/communist/sex-perve can get ideas to bolster their UNbelief.
|
A Christian should be defending the
truth regardless of how that truth may be abused by others.
Quote:
|
Don't know why some folks come over to a website titled "AV 1611.com," if they don't hold to the AV/KJ...
|
First, I came because I was having this discussion on another board with Kinney but he brought his response to this board (and others) and abandoned the original board, and when I found it here he invited me to continue the discussion here. Second, I do hold to the AV/KJ, just not to the AV/KJ-
only because that is a doctrine I do not find in the Bible. It it is a new doctrine, a doctrine not possible for the first 80% of church history. Only scripture is the authoritative source of doctrine, right? So by what authority should we accept this new doctrine?
Brian