Figured I'd start here

[Magus]

Well hello, Landover. I've noticed that you're quite an interesting bunch, even amongst Christians (which I am, as well). But eccentricity ain't all bad

A little about myself:
*I'm Christian
*I'm turning 19 in February
*I go to UTSA and transfering to UT Austin next year. I haven't chosen a Major yet, but its between Religion and Psychology at the moment.
*I don't agree your (Landover Baptist) methods, but your fervor for the Lord is respectable--so I won't cause too much trouble around here.

If you want to know anything else, then ask.
God bless
--Magus

[Mrs. Mary Whitford]

Re: Figured I'd start here

Do you believe that the King James Bible is the complete and unalterable, word-for-word literal voice of God?

[Magus]

Re: Figured I'd start here

I'm not a KJV Onlyist, but I do believe that the Bible, taken within the context and translations, is the complete and unalterable Word of God written through His chosen authors. God didn't literally write the Bible, but He did breathe the Word into the pens of those He chose. I use the KJV translation in comparison with the other translations to get a better look at what the text is trying to say.

God bless
--Magus

[Star Finder]

Re: Figured I'd start here

but He did breathe the Word into the pens of those He chose.

so the pens were alive? I never heard that theory before. You sound loonier then most of the . .. . nice people I've met here.

I also have a book that was written by GOD. It was a diagram written on sheepskin with charcoal. Very Mysterious!

[Mrs. Mary Whitford]

Re: Figured I'd start here

There is only one true Bible, and that's the King James 1611. If you accept that, you'll be off to a much better start that most newbies.

[Magus]

Re: Figured I'd start here

Lol. I see you caught my bad poetic device. I'll say it in a more plain way: "God used His chosen to write what He wanted them to write."

God bless
--Magus

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Figured I'd start here

I'm not a KJV Onlyist, but I do believe that the Bible, taken within the context and translations, is the complete and unalterable Word of God written through His chosen authors. God didn't literally write the Bible, but He did breathe the Word into the pens of those He chose. I use the KJV translation in comparison with the other translations to get a better look at what the text is trying to say.

God bless
--Magus

Really friend? While I am confused how you can feel you are a good Christian and yet disagree with us true Christians I am curious what Bibles do you compare the Godly KJV1611 with? I mean doesn't it strike you as unchristian to say God is active in the world and yet He can't be bothered to get His message to His creation correct? It makes The Lord seem somehow incompetent if you ask me.

[Magus]

Re: Figured I'd start here

There is only one true Bible, and that's the King James 1611. If you accept that, you'll be off to a much better start that most newbies.

Then I suppose we disagree. I think that all translations serve their purpose of furthering the understanding of the Word, and each has its own ups and downs. For instance, the KJV is often considered "archaic" by the language standards of modern times, and thus harder to understand--but with that, it is beautifully poetic.

*shrug*
God bless
--Magus

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Re: Figured I'd start here

A question for Magus, if you're an xtian, how come you call yourself Magus?

[Mrs. Mary Whitford]

Re: Figured I'd start here

Then I suppose we disagree. I think that all translations serve their purpose of furthering the understanding of the Word, and each has its own ups and downs. For instance, the KJV is often considered "archaic" by the language standards of modern times, and thus harder to understand--but with that, it is beautifully poetic.

You disagree with God? And do you think you're not going to be damned to eternal torture for disobeying His commands.

A question for Magus, if you're an xtian, how come you call yourself Magus?

Good question from a witch, Van Heffer. I'm impressed.

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Re: Figured I'd start here

I'm not a KJV Onlyist, but I do believe that the Bible, taken within the context and translations, is the complete and unalterable Word of God written through His chosen authors. God didn't literally write the Bible, but He did breathe the Word into the pens of those He chose. I use the KJV translation in comparison with the other translations to get a better look at what the text is trying to say.

God bless
--Magus

Apparently opium 'breathed the word' to quite a lot of people through the ages.

Good question from a witch, Van Heffer. I'm impressed.

I for one will be interested in seeing his answer.

[OnYourKnees]

Re: Figured I'd start here

Lol. I see you caught my bad poetic device. I'll say it in a more plain way: "God used His chosen to write what He wanted them to write."

God bless
--Magus

Are you suggesting God used Holy Ghost Writers?

Being a patient fellow, I understand that many folks are raised up with false Bibles. Their Pastors lie and tell them that it's all the same, and there's no reason not to use them.

Now, this is a simple mistake on your part, which can be corrected through education.

The most common Unholy Bible used by false Christians these days is the NIV, or New Infidel (per)Version.

While there are many comparisons between the NIV and KJV (just Google NIV vs. KJV if you like), this is my favorite:

http://www.temcat.com/NIV-KJV.htm

Here's a sample of its text:

As I believe it is my duty to give an answer, I will endeavour to pass on some clear and straight-forward reasons why I do not use the NIV, and never intend to use the NIV, in place of the time-honoured and sure King James Version.



Here is Luke 4:4 in the King James Version. In the NIV the underlined words are cut out:

Luke 4:4 "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."

Luke 4:4 is not the only place where parts of the Word of God have been cut out. There are literally hundreds of omissions in the NIV.

This omission in Luke 4:4 makes the statement of Jesus of little sense. "But by every word of God." Now we have it. The Scriptures are to stay. The Word of God is to feed us. We are to live by the Scriptures. Here Jesus is in conflict with the devil and in this statement our Lord is revealing the efficient weapon against sin and Satan.

Is it not significant that this very mutilated version of Scripture cuts out the very passage that condemns it. This omitted passage condemns the NIV!



Note again that our Divine Guide is showing that man is to live by "every word of God." If "every word" is vital and we need "every word" what can be said in favour of a professed version that omits a whole verse? Not only that but omits scores of passages. I will never use in my work a mutilated version, no matter how popular it may be. The "Scripture of Truth" closes with these important words:-

Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

I would fear to stand before the judgment bar of God, if I knowingly had used and upheld a version that had taken away from the Word of God.

We should remember also that this solemn warning against taking "away from the words" of God’s Holy Book is given by none other than our Lord Himself.

I suggest you give it a read-through, and look for other Bible "version" comparisons on the Web. You'll soon realize why we use the KJV1611 only.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Figured I'd start here

Then I suppose we disagree. I think that all translations serve their purpose of furthering the understanding of the Word, and each has its own ups and downs. For instance, the KJV is often considered "archaic" by the language standards of modern times, and thus harder to understand--but with that, it is beautifully poetic.

*shrug*
God bless
--Magus

Son, there are something like 3,000 different "versions" of the Holy Bible. Are you trying to tell me that each and every one of them "serve their purpose of furthering the understanding of the Word"? What a crazy idea!

Look, if the Holy Bible is the literal Word of God (and we agree that it is), then that means 2,999 of them are wrong. Dead wrong.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Matthew 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all

I know that a boy of 18 is all full of himself and puffed up about thinking he's a man of the world and all, but trust me, you are in no position to be spouting such nonsense. You need to spend much more time in prayer, boy. To embrace false Christianity is to embrace satan himself, as the Holy KJV1611 Bible clearly says.

[Magus]

Re: Figured I'd start here

A question for Magus, if you're an xtian, how come you call yourself Magus?

Heh, I flatter myself. Its more like Neophyte (Candidate, rather, seeing as I haven't been Initiated). But, to answer your question:

http://www.greylodge.org/occultreview/glor_002/img8.gif

((excuse the link to one of Crowley's spawn, the EOGD didn't have any decent pictures))

[Rev. Dr. Davidson]

Re: Figured I'd start here

Your references to Crowley.... Does that mean you're a part of the apostate Golden Dawn that Crowley perverted?

Or do you follow Gardner?