RELIGION....(part 2)

[dead_soul]

---

A Lukewarm Christian...

Jesus said:
"You are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of My mouth..."

Am i to take your comment as a conclusive judgment of me? If yes, please also remember what Jesus said about judging others: " Judge not that ye be not judged".....

WE MUST JUDGE BETWEEN THOSE "WORTHY" AND THOSE WHO ARE "HOGS AND
DOGS" (6)
1. With those who are receptive, we are to be long-suffering in
trying to help them come out of their error - cf. 2 Ti 2:24-26
2. But for those who are not, we are not to waste what is good and
holy on them!
a. Cf. the instructions of Jesus to His disciples - Mt 10:12-15
b. Cf. the example of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch of Pisidia
- Ac 13:42-46
3. Determining who is which requires "judgment" upon our part!

[dead_soul]

My judgement to you is my opinion. And I made a comment out from your post. The truth really hurts and my apology for that...

[Gwynhuever]

My judgement to you is my opinion. And I made a comment out from your post. The truth really hurts and my apology for that...

I am far from being hurt...I am what I am and that is the I AM...if you do not truly understand that then let us just leave it at that...

you can not goad me into answering back quoting passages and dogmas...i am already way beyond that....

SILENCE is the best way...but as i can not manifest silence this time kay wa man ta mag atubang...i had to post my response....sus bro kakita pa lang ka nako karon...i have a very serene smile...kay as i said my heart is at peace....i am already self realized...God is within me.....peace to you..and thank you for your apology it is duly noted.

[lightbringer]

That's not in the Bible. Jesus clearly appointed Peter as the earthly head and had primacy among the Apostles, as shown in my older post. The evidence is quite clear, but your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the verses has no evidence to support it.

Oh I've read your older post..but same as a usual blind man.. and BTW, that's no PERSONAL INTERPRETATION (like... ahem! ).Â* It's what the Bible says, and clearly another issue of this would be Biblical Authority which immature dimwits can never accept.Â*

Yes it does. Rome is referred to as "babylon". The real Babylon HAD NO CHRISTIANS, so what would Peter be doing there? Below is part of my older post:

You kidding? It says Babylon and you refer it as Rome? Prove it from the Bible! No Christians? Prove it again from the Bible. Pervert! And please use AV 1611 KJV Bible..don't use a corrupt one. Ayt? Try again.

The Bible doesn't use the word "Trinity" either, but that doctrine is clearly taught in the Bible. Same with the Papacy.

Papacy? Where? Try again kid!

Next time, try doing some research so you won't look so ignorant.

Oh really! But it's better to "look ignorant" than to be "utterly ignorant!" You better lessen your researching and start on reading and understanding the Bible!!!...Betrayer of the light!Â* Â*

1. Peter was married (Mat. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5), while the Popes are not.
2. Peter refused to allow others to bow down to him (Acts 10:25-26), but the Popes allow such practices.
3. Peter didn't think very highly of tradition (1 Pet. 1:1, yet tradition is the major authority of you know who...
4. Peter believed in waiting for the "crown of glory" (1 Pet. 5:4), while all Popes believe in warning a crown now.
5. If Peter was the Pope in Rome, as the Catholics teach, then why did Paul not mention him in his letter to the Romans? In Romans chapter 16, Paul gives the names over twenty church members, yet he fails to mention Peter. How could this have happened if Peter was the Pope in Rome?
6. If Peter was the head of the church, why did Paul have to set him straight on doctrine in Galatians 2:11?
7. If Peter was the Pope, then why didn't he say so in his epistles? He simply labeled himself "an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:1) and nothing more.
8. Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. Why would "the Pope" write less?
9. Paul spoke of Peter, James and John (not just Peter) being pillars in the church (Gal. 2:9). Peter is never magnified above the other apostles.
10. Don't forget that it was Peter who denied the Lord Jesus Christ three times in one night (Mat. 26:69-75). Does this sound like something that would be done by the head of the church?

The Bible never even hints of Peter being a Pope. It lacks any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT!

[lightbringer]

And the issue is...Final(but i prefer using the word "sole") authority! :mrgreen:

Man can sure get things fouled up, did you know that? We managed to blow complete perfection back in the garden, and then when the solution and answer was set forth in its completeness and simplicity, men managed somehow to get the message discombobulated so that its hardly recognizable (II Cor.11:3). Yes sir, buddy, we can flat sure make a mess of things. I think that I remember reading somewhere in some ol' outdated Book from ages gone by that "God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Yup, the more I think about it, the more I'm sure that I read that somewhere.

Now all you New Evangelical, Promise Keeper, Fundamentalist, Billy Grahamesque, seminary educated, Christian college supporter types may even yet have been able to breathe out a little "Amen" back at the end of the first paragraph, for which I am thankful. Not that I care that much about the "Amen," mind you, but rather I am glad that you still have that spark down in your heart and soul that responds favorably when the subject of the sinfulness of man is preached the simple terms of salvation and eternal life are set forth. I express this sentiment because one day you're gonna need all the spark you can find, since your respective movements in the main (I say, IN THE MAIN) are being sold down the river of ecumenicism and apostasy by your leaders whom, in your disobedience to God, you have not discerned.

I know, I know. I've already offended and lost a bunch of my readers. So now those of you that are left can write me bereaved little notes about the fruits of the Spirit and my castigating remarks. Before you do so, may I remind you that, "...if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded thou one rose from the dead" Folks, when people turn their backs on the scriptures, and for that matter, on an imploring conscience, and further, when they forsake clear and abundant evidence and sound reason, I hardly think that my attitude will contribute significantly to the impending apostasy now at hand.

This, however, does bring me to my subject. But I thank God that it's not just my subject. Naw, man, this subject is way, way bigger that me. The subject is what all the hoopla is about. You know, all this societal, cultural uproar; this women's lib stuff; this hyperpsychological, hyperpsychiatric craze; this hushed and sanctimonious reverence over the theory (yes, dear, it is still a THEORY) that Grampa was a lung fish (or was that my mother-in-law?). You see, beloved, the reason these problems exist is the exact, the specific, the identically same cause for the fact that there is something rotten among the Evangelicals, and in the Billy Graham crowd, and even amidst that "most holy" and much acclaimed gathering of Promise Keepers. Ah, indeed, even those big ol' mean Bible-thumpin' superseperated Fundamentalists are culpable here.

Brother, God and the devil have been fighting over this hallowed ground for 6000 plus years. T'was that old serpent's beef back in Is. 14 and Ez. 28. It continued to be his gripe right through the orchards of Eden and the trend will continue all the way to the precipice of the lake of fire. Eve? Ditto. Cain? Ditto. Noah's neighbors? The same. And Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and Miriam, and Saul, and Pharaoh, and Solomon, and Israel in the wilderness, and the Pharisees, and the rich man in hell, and you.

The Problem, the Issue, is and always has been Sole Authority. Look, perverts, thieves, liars, idolators, women's libbers and evolutionists just do not like the idea that by some eternal, adamant, unwavering and holy standard, they and their ideals are unacceptable and damnable. And, to be frank, the reason why some of you are in the "movements" and churches and fellowships that you are is for the same reason. Whether through utter rebellion at worst, or utter ignorance at best, you have rejected what a perfect and righteous God said in a perfect Book that, though written with paper and ink, was inspired by the breath of God, preserved in perfection by the power of God, and descended to you by the blood and charred remains of men and women who clearly thought more highly of the value of the individual words of God than you ( and perhaps even me).

The trouble is that folks, whether immoral sickos or ecumenical nice guys, have rejected That Book! Whether a vile and open sinners or a dedicated Textus Receptus (TR) man, the sin and mistake are the same. You have a problem with final authority.

"Oh, no, Lightbringer, I read every day from the latest and most updated conservative translation on the market. None of this Good News For Modern Man stuff for me....". OK, pal, are you telling me that you believe every single solitary letter of every word of whatever that thing is that you're reading ? Do you believe that every word of it is perfect and inerrant, incorrupible, unchanging and unchangeable? Would you stake your soul, and the lives of your wife, children, family and friends, and indeed your ministry, on the words of the book or text which you hold precisely as they are written? That's what I thought. Don't worry though. The guy that translated it, that wrote a commentary on it, that taught you what you believe didn't believe it either, so you're not alone. The fact remains that you have a problem with final authority. That's true even if you are a TR man.

Simple concept: If the absolute standard of/in anything is somehow variable, flexible, or imperfect, what comes from it insofar as absoluteness and perfection is concerned is not a secret.

Doubt concerning the practical perfection of scripture is now a theological precept rammed down the heart of every student that heads off somewhere to learn the Bible. They are taught that there is no final authority. Lo, Billy Graham, women's libbers, Promise Keepers, are holding hands with the Pope: These are the fruits of a Christianity (?) without a final authority. They are relativists. They are free agents. The best they can do is what "feels" right. The worst they can do is what "feels" good. They have one thing in common: They have no final authority.

OK. I'll just say it outright. The AV 1611 King James Bible is God's final authority for mankind today. Many of you even know the reasons. Universal language of the last days, manuscript evidence, internal evidence, moral character of its translators, inconsistency of its critics, corruption of its competitors, its fruitfulness through the centuries. All these point to the AV being the crowning work of the Holy Spirit insofar as Bible preservation goes.

In the last days of this 20th century, I can't reasonably expect lost people to embrace the King James as their final authority uninstructed. I can expect God's men, women and children to accept and believe it. Trouble is that experience has shown that lost folks walking according to the course of this world, dead in trespasses and sins, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, those who are by nature the children of wrath....HEY, LISTEN UP....THEY'RE more likely to believe it than the children of God, nay, than the MEN OF GOD! Why? Because ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, lost people oft have less of an authority problem than God's people.

I can sense that some of you might just be rolling your eyes about now. You might be half-honestly ignorant. You might be willingly ignorant. You may not like my tone of writing, or perhaps you're just a whitewashed academic sitting around on your spiritually respectable backside on some chair of higher learning. You might even be a dyed in the wool TR man, who would just love to change the AV in 25-50 places (might as well be 30,000). Maybe you're a Promise Keeper. You have a problem with Final Authority. My brethren, an honest man would sense that in his own heart. An honest man wouldn't be able to rest, much less teach otherwise, until he had sorted out the contradiction in his own heart.

God either lied about His words or He didn't. God either did what He said He would do or He didn't. Either a scholastic is smart enough to correct what God did or he isn't. You either have a plain, pure, inspired, preserved copy of scripture or you are a free agent, without FINAL/SOLE AUTHORITY.

There are two (2) reasons why God's people have sold out God's Book for a mess of potage. Neither have anything to do with the original languages. Final Authority is a heart thing. 'Til then, "let God be true and every man a liar".

[lightbringer]

My thesis was, and still is, that while sin is man's ultimate problem, that sin is further accentuated and facilitated by the fact that man got "too big for his own britches;" "too smart for his own good." Man has now outgrown the fact that someone has to be boss. Someone has to have the final word. There has to be an ultimate standard that is ever and always inflexible and fixed, certainly beyond editing, and ideally beyond even criticism. There has to be a FINAL/SOLE AUTHORITY.
Further, most any dimwit can figure out that personal opinion makes for a sorry final authority. The Charismatics and New Agers need learn the fundamental lesson that feelings and experience make for a deceptive taskmaster. The Moralists must acknowledge the treachery of conscience in that conscience can be both "seared" and "defiled." Mostly though, of all people, it is God's people who need to (in shame) relearn the first principles of final authority. FINAL AUTHORITY cannot be some mythological, untouchable, esoteric, theoretical, fog enshrouded set of writings; writings encased in mystery and currently committed to oblivion, extinct yet nonetheless hailed and exalted as holy. No, if what you have in your lap during Bible reading isn't perfect and entire, you are left adrift clinging to the wreckage of FINAL/SOLE AUTHORITY, yet unavoidably adrift!

There is a long, complex and intermingled spectrum of theories and dogmas regarding final authority. It ranges from, "the Bible is just so much literary dung and can be ignored because nobody knows what God said, even if there is a God," to "the Bible is extremely accurate, and we believe it, bless God! Unfortunately, no translation is infallible." Now, I'll tell you all here before the Lord and everybody else, that the only significant part of either of those extremes is the part they have in common. Neither is able to profess a workable and practical final/sole authority. One professes none, and one professes a final authority only in theory. Friend, if what you have in your hand is not unquestionable, then it is not final! All your noble creeds, dogmas and theologies are moot. It's all just semantics. Which is the way most folks like it anyway. It's one thing thing to wave a Bible, pound a pulpit, turn three shades of purple, and blow your voice upon a theoretical precept of authority. It is another to retreat to the privacy of an office and face the dual edges of a quick and powerful unsheathed sword that with utter and unbounded objectivity is capable of spilling your spiritual innards. Most just prefer to showcase the Bible in the pulpit and then restrict its power elsewhere. Kind of like Jesus and the wafer.

The product of this relative Christian anarchy is ecumenicism, Promise Keepers, and the overthrow of family and church gender roles. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Congratulations, lightbringer, you've just taught people to crawl out on the limb of faith, then sawed off the limb they sat on. Don't you even think about whining that God's people won't live by faith anymore!

I said the last time that the AV 1611 King James Bible is for this latter day the veritable and enduring word of God. I still mean every word of it. This statement seemed to raise the ire of many, if mail is any indication. The intent of the substance in these two articles is not to present the body of evidence for the authority and perfection of the KJV. Nor was I fishing for the responses and questions that were raised. The intent was to present the two chief reasons, in my opinion, why the AV is rejected as final/sole authority. That will be the aim of the remainder of this article. Some of the questions asked, accusations leveled, and presumptions voiced, do in all honesty, beg treatment, though. I guess I'll plan to address those things at a later time. For now though, it is most important to deal with one issue at a time.

Now, you may not like the implications involved in this issue, and it probably runs afoul of your education and intellectual sensibilities, but an honest man interested in the ministry of God's Book, must certainly see the alarming inconsistency in standing up on Sunday morning and screaming that we must live by the ever enduring Word of the living God, the whole time knowing full well that he himself believes the literal and practical fulfillment of the exhortation is impossible. You see, IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, YOU CAN'T LIVE BY IT!!

Why are men unwilling to accept the AV as absolute final authority? The reasons in the end have zilch to do with "originals," poor renderings, texts, tenses, etc. Those things are but smoke and fog blown about to mask the true movements of man's deceitful heart.

1. LACK OF FAITH
If you really believe the Bible, you also believe it is possible that God can perform that which He promised. Ps. 12:6-7 does yet stare you in the face, you know. This is not a Bible study so I'm not going to recite the arm length list of passages that exalt the words of God, exult in the words of God, promise their preservation, warn against foolin' with them, and indeed glorify it ( II Thess .3:1). Do you need reminding of God's unequivicated estimation of the word; of His excoriation of those who misesteem it? You have all the verses in front of you. Most pastors and Christian workers can and do quote them on a regular basis. The problem is that you don't accept them blindly and at face value, in disregard for the geologists, scientists, manuscriptologists, and scholastics. Oh, no! You have to check in with the folks that have "dominion over your faith" (II Cor.1:24) before you can embrace what the Bible clearly says!
Listen! "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." You aren't supposed to have scientific proof for the things you are to believe! God's people have so glorified the "science" of it, the "seen" part, that they have adulterated the "faith" part. Hark! We now must wait with bated breath the next DISCOVERY which will Verify, even Quantify scientifically what you were supposed to believe to start with! Oh, saints, what will happen if science doesn't confirm the Bible? Where then will you be? What then will you do? AVOID...."the oppositions of science falsely so called!" (I Tim.6:20) Some of you have read and absorbed so much of the scholastic propaganda, that you have forgotten that many of the developments that have supposedly overturned that old "outdated" King James, were and are hypotheses! Theories! Like evolution, man. P H I L O S O P H I E S !! Col. 2:8: Beware lest any man SPOIL you through PHILOSOPHY.....

Look, I don't profess the expertise of a lifelong linguist, manuscriptologist, theologian, researcher or scholar. I am, though, a Christian called to preach the word of God, and as such I've been over the river and through the woods, and BACK, over this Bible version issue because in order to minister it, I have to know where I'm at. I've read. I've studied. And I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the evidence, the actual discernible and systematic data, for the AV is voluminous, certifiable, indeed even scientific. The reason folks don't receive it is not a profound lack of evidence. The reason is a profound lack of faith. You want 100% test tube type evidence from God or else "I will not believe." (Jn. 20:25) You and I deserve no evidence. You have all God's promises concerning this matter clearly written, yet you raise your intellectual fist in the face of God and DEMAND proof!

There is a common and predictable objection to our position summarized thusly: "It is nowhere written that God inspired the King James Version." No, it is indeed nowhere written so, and for some that settles the argument once and forever; however, I'll ask you this: Did God promise you and me His infallible word? You may well disagree with me, but I still read my Bible, and the answer to that question is a resounding YES! Once that question is settled by faith, and you begin with an honest search, the road to the AV 1611 is short and sure. Most of your problem is that the original question set forth is never SETTLED. Why? Lack of Faith. Can't take God at His word.

A dying thief can rest his eyes on a naked, bleeding, agonized, crucified Jew and say from the heart, "Lord, remember me...," and you can't by faith embrace a book that has born God's fruit for over 350 years in the English language, that is still the standard by which all new versions are compared, and that by elementary side by side comparison is manifestly superior in its attributes to all others. I bet most of you new version defenders have never undertaken a side by side comparison. You ought to be ashamed. You better be.
You know, it's a good thing you didn't demand as much proof for Christ's death, burial and resurrection before you believed the Gospel as you require before believing the words of God. Sizzle city, friend.

No, sir, you do not have an intellectual problem. You have a heart problem. I know it's a heart problem because you'll believe somebody that wrote a book before you'll sit down for three hours and compare the profound variances between the KJV and the new Corruptions. Furthermore, for those of you who have seen some of those differences and then shrugged your unyoked and frail little intellectual shoulders, you are a case in point.

II. RESPECTABILITY
Our Christianity has lost its impetus. It has had its superstructure of courage and boldness systematically dismantled. That it is my duty to ever and always please God first and foremost, in utter disregard for the stares and the mockery even when those things emanate from among my family, friends and most respected colleagues, is almost wholly lost upon the present generation of Christians. Now it is our priority to be liked. Now our "self esteem" demands that we be properly valued. Mostly though, we must be respectable. See, we've come a long way since Paul, and it is no longer our "cross" to be the "offscouring" (I Cor. 4:13), the "filth of the world" (I Cor. 4:13), the "spectacle" (I Cor. 4:9). Actually, I think most folks have grown to like Jacob's pottage.

Jesus said,"How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and SEEK NOT THE HONOUR THAT COMETH FROM GOD ONLY?" ( Jn . 5:44 )

It is utterly horrifying that your ministerial colleagues, your friends at church, your old professors might laugh at you isn't it? Ah, the nightmare of it all should the words "cult","sect," "fanatic," "bibliolator" be applied, even intimated, to my case! Hey, Haman, what if they made you parade around your alma mater with the sign around your neck that read," RUCKMANITE?"

That's really the issue isn't it? Respectability. May I suggest a Bible study on the matter? You know. Abram leaving Ur, Noah working on the ark, Moses before Pharoah with his puny stick, Mordecai not bowing, David dancing, Nehemiah's travails. And let us not forget Esau, and Saul and Agag, and Pilate, and Herod with John Baptist's bloody head on the platter.

Were you waiting for the King James to become popular? Dare you wet your finger and hold it up in the perverse winds of man's silly opinions?
Of the virtuous woman of Prov. 31, a type of the Church, it says, "She perceiveth that her merchandise is good." I have a treasure that many of you don't have. I "perceive" I know the value of it. Alleluia for the King James Bible!

[mannyamador]

Oh I've read your older post..but same as a usual blind man..

That silly dismissal won't cut it. You have to REFUTE the post. Which, of course, you have FAILED to do.

It's what the Bible says

Wrong. That's what you THINK the Bible says. Again, PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.

and clearly another issue of this would be Biblical Authority which immature dimwits can never accept.

Well, you have to PROVE that so-called "bibilical authority." So AGAIN I challenge you: show me even one verse that explicitly states that the Bible is the SOLE and FINAL AUTHORITY. I've asked for this time and again. So far, you have FAILED to provide even one verse that explicitly teaches what you claim. Surely a doctrine or principle so important to our faith, if it were true, should be in the Bible! But it's NOT.

So where is that verse? Still looking for it? Try not to make us wait all year, OK?

You kidding? It says Babylon and you refer it as Rome? Prove it from the Bible!

From the Bible? This assumes that the Bible is the SOLE and FINAL AUTHORITY. So, please show me where in the Binble it says that the Bible is the SOLE and FINAL AUTHORITY? Can't? You're just out of luck, kid!

Now if you decide to actually THINK instead of relying on some touchy-feely, personal interpetation of verses, you will find from the surviving documents of early Christian writers that the term "babylon" was used to refer to Rome. At the same time, you will probabyl find that there is simply no evidence of any local Christian church is babylon at the time of Peter's active ministry.

And please use AV 1611 KJV Bible..

Why should we use a bastard Bible like the KJV? Tell me, who decided on the canon of the KJV? How do you know what books should be in it? Martin Luther? Now that's PERVERSION for you! You havr to first PROVE that the KJV is the authoritative version to use. And so the question arises: who approved it? Some English King and a bunch of fallible scholars who couldn't even get the canon right? Please spare us this idiocy.

Papacy? Where? Try again kid!

The logic went over your head on that one. Oh well...

Betrayer of the light!

Fanaticism rears its ugly head... Man I can just see you foaming at the mouth! Oh well...

[lightbringer]

That silly dismissal won't cut it. You have to REFUTE the post. Which, of course, you have FAILED to do.

I think it's been refuted ages ago but still you FAILED to accept it.

Wrong. That's what you THINK the Bible says. Again, PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.

eeenkk.. Try again and read.

Well, you have to PROVE that so-called "bibilical authority." So AGAIN I challenge you: show me even one verse that explicitly states that the Bible is the SOLE and FINAL AUTHORITY. So far, you have FAILED to do so. Try not to make us wait all year, OK?

Surely a doctrine or principle so important to our faith, if it were true, should be in the Bible! But it's NOT. Sorry, dude.

Another one of those so called "stupid" statements. Read two posts backward maybe that would enlighten you one way or another.. or not... then you're forever ignorant.

From the Bible? This assumes that the Bible is the SOLE and FINAL AUTHORITY. So, please show me where in the Binble it says that the Bible is the SOLE and FINAL AUTHORITY? Can't? You're just out of luck, kid!

Try again kiddo!

Why should we use a bastard Bible like the KJV? Tell me, who decided on the canon of the KJV? How do you know what books should be in it? Martin Luther? Now that's PERVERSION for you!

Martin Luther? Is that all you know now then? eh? Should I be discussing the whole context on the Authority of the Bible here? I think this is settled before you were born man! Since your were still an infant, this whole issue is settled. You just blindly accept corruption.

The logic went over your head on that one. Oh well...

Aw.... what an excuse.

Fanaticism rears its ugly head... Man I can just see you foaming at the mouth! Oh well...

Well for sure, you won't have the last laugh.

[dead_soul]

My judgement to you is my opinion. And I made a comment out from your post. The truth really hurts and my apology for that...

I am far from being hurt...I am what I am and that is the I AM...if you do not truly understand that then let us just leave it at that...

you can not goad me into answering back quoting passages and dogmas...i am already way beyond that....

SILENCE is the best way...but as i can not manifest silence this time kay wa man ta mag atubang...i had to post my response....sus bro kakita pa lang ka nako karon...i have a very serene smile...kay as i said my heart is at peace....i am already self realized...God is within me.....peace to you..and thank you for your apology it is duly noted.

good... best decision.

[mannyamador]

I think it's been refuted ages ago but still you FAILED to accept it. :idiot2

You're not thinking, as usual. But I'll indulge your mindlessness. Kindly state the refutation. Don't chicken out on this one, OK?

Another one of those so called "stupid" statements. Read two posts backward maybe that would enlighten you one way or another.. or not... then you're forever ignorant.

Aw, too scared to state the proof? Can't supply the verses? That's a pretty lame argument you have there.

Should I be discussing the whole context on the Authority of the Bible here? I think this is settled before you were born man! Since your were still an infant, this whole issue is settled.

It was settled in the early Church Couciles, way before your bastardized KJV. Oh, maybe you're referring to the Jewsih rabbinical council at Javneh? Poor boy. Javneh didn't settle the Old testment canon for Christians. It attempted to settle it for orthodox Jews and was specificlally called to counter the growth of Christianity. Now you're not saying an anti-Christian rabbinical council can define the Old Testament canon for CHRISTIANS, are you?

And yet, it was the canon of Javneh that the bastardized KJV used, as per Martin Luther's influence (Luther used the council of Javenh to justify his canon).

By the way, you seem to have forgotten that Paul was a murderer and oppressor of Christians, and yet God used him. So the silly argument about Peter denying the Lord three times really doesn't hold any water. And the earthly head of the Church is NOT infallible when it comes to his personal opinion, which is exactly what Paul rebuked. Peter NEVER made a doctrinal statement about that. You don't even seem to undertsand what the concept of the papacy is all about, and yet you make all these ignorant statements about it. There's a word for that. Its called PREJUDICE.

So... where oh where is that verse I asked for? PROVIDE me with even one verse explicitly stating that the Bible is the SOLE/FINAL AUTHORITY. Surely you can find it, can't you? You haven't misplaced it, have you? Has the fanatical froth from your mouth covered it up?

Sorry bubba, but bluster and fanatical pronouncements do not make for rational arguments.