Do you believe this?

[imported_ut1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I have my belief that he does because I can speak to him in prayer anytime, anyplace. That's why I put more substance in prayer and lean on it more in my walk than I do Bible teachings or religious teachings in general. </div></div>

As you should, since prayer is communication with God, but don't neglect the other two.

[imported_ut1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since when does the Declaration Of Independence or the Constitution qualify as a religious text... </div></div>


It's not. The point is that if the Bible should not be taken literally since it was written "by men", then neither should any other article written "by men", up to and including our most cherished historical documents.

[imported_ut1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: neutral88</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think they are saying that since the declaration was written by man, it should be nullified??? not sure....

But for some reason they believe the KJV was not written by man, I will admit it is close, and very much better than none at all, but there are lots of things that were changed to suit the times...

Last but not least I will not associate God with a known Homosexual, in which King James was....

As I keep saying in each post, reasearch King James I, tell me what you find.... </div></div>

I'm not disputing what you're saying about the character of KJ or anyone else. Check my post to supr-beast above as for my main point.

And so what if KJ was a homosexual? The Bible still condemns it. I recall that a whore is included in the "Faith Hall of Fame", proving that God will use whom He will to accomplish His work, be it sinner or saint. He is, after all, God.

[imported_Counts]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ut1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since when does the Declaration Of Independence or the Constitution qualify as a religious text... </div></div>


It's not. The point is that if the Bible should not be taken literally since it was written "by men", then neither should any other article written "by men", up to and including our most cherished historical documents. </div></div>


I would disagree since it has yet to be translated into a different language (many times) BTW it does seem that law makers are continusly tring to reinterpet the consatution

[neutral88]

Well I'm confused, I guess all I was trying to say is how in the world could I myself say I support the KJV or that it is the "best", if there is such a thing...

At first I hear, "well those were all humans talkin about KJ"

So I supply evidence of his own talking, now it's "who cares if he was a homo"

So If you got a Homo as a pastor, would you continue to go to your church, say what you want but I doubt it...

[imported_ut1]

My point from the start is that if you're going to say the KJV is null and void because of who authorized it, because it was written by men, translated by men, etc., then all other written documents must be viewed in the same light.
I couldn't care less if KJ authorized it or the Pope, because I believe God has protected and preserved His Word, is capable of protecting and preserving His Word, and will continue as long as He wills to protect and preserve His Word.

[neutral88]

First off...I never said it was null or void, I said I felt there were much BETTER versions...

Second off I never said I had a problem with it being translated, or written by man...You continue to place words in my mouth...

I have vested lots of time studying this, because after learning some about KJ's character in a college religion class, I began to speculate...

Also, he did not simply authorize this version, he formed the members who translated it, all of whom feared him, and dare not strike a word that he wouldn't like...

Yes I agree with you that God will presserve his word, So if we both believe that then I guess the newest version on the market would be the most truthful, or he would have never let it be produced...Where does the bible teach that God will preserve his word in one 17th century book???

[imported_ut1]

That has not been my argument, as others on here were saying that since man wrote it, translated it, etc., it was inferred that it had to be fallible and couldn't hold all truths. I personally use a Comparative Study Bible, which holds four translations, in my Bible study. My carry-to-church Bible is a Ryrie Study Bible, KJV. I personally prefer the KJV because that is what I cut my teeth on and have studied all these years. I recommend the KJV to others, but also advise they should get a NIV version to help in their studies. I may have confused you with someone else, and do apologize in doing so.

In getting back to KJ, I take all history with a grain of salt, as I've found that sometimes you're just reading a particular person's point-of-view. Specifics are intentionally omitted or added, much to the whim of the author.

[sup-rbeast]

No one has claimed that the declaration or the constitution was written by god through man either. You are missing the point there. Things we write have their fallacies, but no one on here has claimed the declaration or the constitution is perfect either. Plus, neither has been translated 50 blue million times in different languages to dilute their meaning, or half of it taken out and tossed cuz a religious leader doesn't like its message (though Bush has tried with the Patriot Act). That is the error in your comparison.

[imported_ut1]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Its either one way or the other, but not both.