Bible? Inspired or Expired?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Herb Evans, Aug 1, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    DID OUR INSPIRED BIBLE EXPIRE?​


    . . . the word of God which liveth and ABIDETH FOR EVER. -- 1 Peter 1:23

    . . . the word of God IS QUICK . . . and IS a DISCERNER of the thoughts and intents of the heart . . . -- Hebrews 4:12

    Define Your Terms​


    As with all man made theological definitions, the [snipped] professor's definition of "inspiration" is fallible nor errant and is subject to error and therefore subject to examination. Any error in definition can mean a more serious error in concept.

    [snipped] educators, like the JW's, have discovered that if we allow them to define or redefine Bible words, then they can establish their own pet theories and heresies. Both [ snipped] and JW'smust be challenged about whether they have a scriptural basis for such arbitrary definitions.

    Transmission​


    [snipped] educators contend that only the "ORIGINAL" transmission of the scriptures constitutes "inspiration." They hold that the "inspiration of the scriptures" and the "transmission of the Scriptures" are perfectly synonymous terms. All the emphasis, in most fundamental universities, is placed on whether the "Originals" were transmitted mechanically, dynamically, verbally, or by illumination; while the "QUALITY" of the scriptures, after they have been transmitted, is all but ignored.

    The Originals

    The "ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS" are lost and no living person has ever seen them (a serious flaw in most Bible Corrector theories). Moreover, if those, who hoot and holler about them, would ever find the "original manuscripts," they would not be able to tell if they really were really the "ORIGINALS" or not or if they were even copies of the originals. They have told us repeatedly that the Bible was "ORIGINALLY" written in Hebrew and Greek. Yet, no one can actually prove that they were so written. They can assume, suppose, surmise, and deduce, but no one can come up with either a proof-text or concrete evidence. Although we do not discount such an original Hebrew/Greek theory, we can base neither our definitions nor our convictions upon it. The first five Books could have been written in Egyptian, the language in which Moses was educated and the country of his people for 400 years. Hebrew is the language of Canaan (Isa. 19:18). One thing is "fer sure,” it twarn't Hebrew that Moses was speakin' "down thayer in Egypt." Much of Daniel is written in Syriac as well as Ezra. The conversations in the Gospels were surely not spoken in Greek. The point is, there had to be some translating going on somewhere, any way that you look at it. Selah! Think of that!

    After the "ORIGINALS" had been initially transmitted, or inspired, or "God breathed" . . . what then? Do the "originals" cease to be inspired? Do they cease to be alive? Do they cease to contain the breath of God after the initial act of transmission is over? Are they still inspired after 40 years have past? Are they still alive? Do they still contain God's breath in them? Did they expire?

    Let us go a step farther and suppose that we made photocopies of the "ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS" before they either perished or were lost. Would the photo copy scriptures be inspired? Be alive? Have God's breath in them? We insist that they must answer these questions with an emphatic, "YES!" It is not the parchment or the ink that is inspired or alive on either the originals or the subsequent copies; it is the words that are inspired and alive, for they are Spirit and they are life! God did not preserve the parchment and the ink; He preserved His "word," the "scriptures."

    God can and did recreate the parchment and ink of the "ORIGINALS," which they burned in Jeremiah. He did not preserve an UN-inspired Bible; He preserved an inspired Bible and it did not expire! It is alive! If it is the scripture, it is inspired. If it is not the scripture, it is not inspired. Only the scriptures are said to be inspired. It cannot even be said that the apostles were inspired. Moved or borne by the Holy Ghost? Yes! Inspired? No! The inspired copies that Timothy knew as a child (2 Tim. 3:15,16) were certainly not the "ORIGINALS," something, admitted by the Bible Correctors themselves. Still, these copies were inspired.

    Alive!​


    Anything that God breathes into or inspires is alive for eternity (somewhere). God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul ever after (man's fall complicates our analogy, but man's soul live somewhere forever). God breathed His Spirit into the scripture, never to be breathed into again (so much for secondary inspiration). The KJB, which we English-speaking folk possess today, is alive. Inspired! It has the breath of God in it and it will never ever expire, because it lives and abides for ever ( 1 Peter 1:23).

    Living things give birth to other living things. Dead things cause the vermin that feed upon them to reproduce. These [Attack on Bible snipped] have never displayed any living characteristics as has the King James Bible for almost 400 years. God's stamp of approval is on the King James Bible. Man's stamp of approval is on the [snip]. It is not a question of which Bible we use, it is a question of which Bible does God use.

    Some people have objected and do object by saying that people are saved through these [attack on Bibles snipped]. They will not put us in the position of endorsing a doctrine because of someone's supposed experience. If we are going to do that, we might as well join the tongues speakers and healers tomorrow. Another man’s experience does not bind me. Let us suppose that folks do get saved through perverted, counterfeit bibles. Still, folks can get saved by reading a commentary. It is possible but not probable. People get saved through tracts, which have only a small portion of the scripture. Is it the corruptible seed of the counterfeit bibles, the commentaries, and the tracts that does the job, or is it the incorruptible seed that gives them birth? ( 1 Pet. 1:23). Shall we use scripture to address this doctrinal issue, or should we use opinion and situation ethics?

    The Test​


    Inspired scripture (2 Timothy 3:16,17) "IS profitable!" The "ORIGINALS" or even the direct copy of the "ORIGINALS" are not profitable to us right now, nor were they profitable to Timothy in his day. Timothy had only copies of copies of the "ORIGINALS." We are told that the scriptures must be PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness and that they must throughly furnish the man of God. Furthermore, they must be alive and be a discerner, according to Hebrews 4:12. The scripture must be an incorruptible "BEGETTER" also, according to 1 Peter 1:23 and James 1:18. We submit that out of all the English Bibles IN USE today, as a whole, only the Authorized King James Bible can pass ALL these requirements. Neither Strong’s concordance, W. E. Vine’s dictionary, nor history can throughly furnish the man of God.

    The King James Bible is unmatched in producing revivals, missionary endeavors, souls saved, founding of sound churches, founding of sound Bible colleges and institutes, doctrinal fidelity, separated morals, influence of Kings and countries, and even translation in other tongues without the benefit of the Hebrew and Greek. It is alive!

    Choose One​


    Baptists "claim" to have but one authority for faith and practice . . . the scriptures. Is it too much to demand and expect that we live up to this claim? Brethren, we are not going to be judged by a history book, a creed, a church decision, a Hebrew/Greek, lexicon/concordance, a Hebrew/Greek Grammar, or a pointy headed scholar or professor, or a Bible in another language. We are going to answer to the word of God (John 12:48) in English. We can believe that the King James Bible is:

    1. not inspired but not alive
    2. not inspired and alive
    3. inspired and alive

    If we believe that it is neither inspired nor alive, our position is consistent, but we must admit preaching a dead Book. If we believe that it is alive but not inspired, then we are inconsistent and contradictory, claiming that the Bible can be alive without the breath of God in it. If we believe that the King James Bible is both inspired and alive, then we can join together in demanding unconditional surrender to a Bible that has not "EXPIRED" by all [inflammatory term snipped] !

    Conclusion​


    He that HATH my word [possession], let him speak it faithfully . . . – Jer. 23:28

    You have to have the faithful word to speak it faithfully. We have it; we possess it. Others are still looking for it. We have the inspired scripture in English, the King James Bible. The so called originals have deteriorated and disappeared from the face of the earth. No, the paper and ink may have deteriorated and disappeared but not the WORDS THAT ARE SPIRIT and LIFE (John 6:6). Let us speak them faithfully . . . that is . . . those of us, who have them.

    Much water has passed under the bridge since a handful of Bible believers first took this issue to the Christian public. Today, hundreds of books and articles are appearing in every nook and cranny of Christendom (seminary students are reading them under the covers at night with a flash light). [inflammatory term snipped] educators, frustrated and unsuccessful in ignoring the issue, are unable to find WHOLESOME words (1 Timothy 6:3) or words that cannot be condemned (Titus 2:8) to dispute or gainsay the issue. They have resorted to everything but the scriptures themselves, i.e., weasel wording, situation ethics, name calling (nuts, heretics, Ruckmanites), and words that men teach (1 Cor. 2:13) in order to prove an "EXPIRED" Bible.

    --by Herb Evans
     
    #1 Herb Evans, Aug 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2006
  2. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    (crickets)

    Yes, the King James Version's pretty doggone nice. I'll use it, the NIV, the ESV, and NASB this Wednesday.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yes, God's word is alive, made and kept alive by its omniscient Author. As with every living thing, it changes over time. If that were not so, there'd be very few Christians today, as very few people can read the oldest-known versions of His word, and even fewer have any access to them. Thus, God has seen to it that His word is current with the languages He's caused us to now use. However, there are some people who seem to believe GOD retired in 1611 & no longer updates His word, at least in English. Where does GOD say he will quit preserving His word? And how would we know He's preserving it if it wasn't before us?


    God has had His word present in English almost from the beginnings of the language. The proof is in the extant copies or parts of copies of the written Scriptures from just about every period in the history of the English language. Those copies were written by and for the people in their respective times, just as the AV 1611 was written for the English users of that time.

    However, each of these versions is frozen in time, same as are the works of Shakespeare. I have seen accusations that some people who wouldn't dream of altering a single punctuation mark in a Skakespeare work don't hesitate to alter the Bible. This is merely an attempt by some KJVOs to justify their myth. You see, there's a VAST difference. While WS was alive, he had every right to alter the works he'd authored, and sometimes he did just that when he saw some of them performed & didn't like cewrtain lines or parts. However, when he died, his works were forever frozen in time, and if anyone altered a work of his whatsoever, the altered version would no longer be a genuine WS work.

    GOD, however, is both alive & IN CHARGE. He has always overseen His word, presenting it in His own time, over a period of some 1800 years. Again, the proof is with the various versions in every language that God has placed it in. And, as WS had the right to change any of his works during his lifetime, GOD has that same right, and much more, as HE'S THE SUPREME BOSS OF EVERYTHING.

    Those who would limit God to just one version of His word have the burden of proof to show that He caused that one version to be made, & then retired. After all, God not only controls his word, but also ALL LANGUAGES. There are those who say English reached its pinnacle in Elizabethan-Jacobean English & that's it's been "dumbed down" ever since. Well, those who believe that theory should BLAME GOD, since He controls English same as He does every other tongue. I believe a practical overview shows God has kept His word in languages current for their times from the gitgo, and that He still does today.

    Dr. Evans has gone from board to board posting the same message, acting as if those who do not submit to the KJVO myth don't believe ANY Bible translation is valid. Actually, the not-valid belief is that God no longer keeps His word current, that He shut the door on any new English versions being produced after 1611.

    But, can he **PROVE** his story? Not by scripture. Therefore, he must turn to the opinion and guesswork of MAN.

    But back to the OP theme...Is the KJV "expired"? Newp! And neither is the Geneva, Bishop's, "Great", Coverdale's Bibles, the translations by Aelfric, nor any other accurate translation. I think most Baptists realize that, so you're barking up the wrong tree, Dr. Evans. YOU have the burden of proof to show us God quit the updating business in 1611. You might wish to focus on that, instead of trying to accuse the brethren of not accepting translations and copies of God's word as the final written authority.
     
  4. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! Another full page of suppositions that are supposed to lead us to the logical conclusion that the KJV is the only inspired english version. Problem is there has yet to be given any biblical evidence for this contention. Therefore this is a man-made doctrine and I could use the same faulty logic for any translation. I love the Word of God in the KJ, NKJ, RSV etc... and I will not let a false man-made theology rob me of God's wonderful gift of His Word in my language.

    Praise Him!!!

    Bro Tony
     
  5. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0

    Well, Brother Tony, I did not see any refutation of those suppositions. Perhaps, you could post us your views on inspiration and preservation USING the SCRIPTURES and your convclusions to those scriptures. It is always nice to get your opponents' views and the scriptures that they use. -- Herb Evans
     
  6. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question is, which one God is going to use. You seem to think that choosing a Bible is like choosing a pair of shoes. I started out that way over 40 years ago, when I used to use each version for whatever agenda I was trying to get across. Then I ran across a little pamphlet, "God Only Wrote One Bibe." I realized that something was wrong with what I was doing, and I recovered myself. Hop that you do also. -- Herb Evans
     
  7. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0

    Since I have dealt with this loose cannon and his looser canon on another forum, and since he has been unable to accept my challenge to present his views on inspiration and preservation, there is no common ground for our discussion. I refuse to sit back and allow someone to take potshots at my position, while they hide their position behind their denials. Thank you Roby for your scholarly post. The topic of my thread is whether our inspired Bible has expired, despite whatever agenda you want to inject into it. -- Herb Evans
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    That's what we Freedom Readers have said for a long time, even we KNOW there's none supporting the Onlyist view.

    And I see you're STILL trying to post your view without making the slightest effort to PROVE it.

    Dr. Cassidy is a member of this board as well as the other one you're in, so you won't avoid him here, either.

    You STILL have the burden of proof to meet for your view. Just posting your view, and, when opposition arises, requesting THEIR justification, WHILE PROVIDING NONE OF YOUR OWN, just won't make it.

    However, lemme give you just one justification for the Freedom Reader view...Compare Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3 with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21, & then come back & tell us JESUS was using the wrong version.
     
  9. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0

    Brother Tony, I did not see anyrefutations of these socalled suppositions. Perhaps, you could post us your views on inspiration and preservation from your Bible. We are always delighted to see the oppositions' use of the scriptures in this regard. Show us your non-man-made theology from the scriptures. -- Herb Evans
     
  10. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    You freedom readers are not free, if you have no scriptural view of inspiration or preservation, something that you refuse to address. I have not been avoiding Dr. Cassidy, he has been avoiding me after I challenged his man-made doctrine of "derivative" inspiration. No, Jesus was not using the wrong version. But what version do you think that He was using? Huh? Do you think that He was using the wrong version? Do you think that He was reading it in Greek in Luke 4:16-21? Huh?

    That's your justification? Hmmmm? Yopu still have not given us scripture for your views on inspiration and preservation. Why? You must do that before we can ever get to your multi-version freedom. -- Herb Evans
     
  11. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    Those who have read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 and similar passages have no problem discerning scripture. Obviously, there are some bibles out there that no one should own ~~ and the spirit of discernment will readily tell them that. Bottom line: You'll spot a weird translation if you have the spritual insight and understanding of Christ, which the scripture reference says is ours..


    Bible Translations to Avoid

    The New World Translation
    A product of the Jehovah Witness group,
    denies the Trinity but presents many gods.
    For a review by Greek scholars,
    http://www.equip.org/free/DJ520.htm

    The Scholar's Bible
    An attempt to remove all the prophecies and miracles
    from the Bible. These "scholars" voted on what should
    go and what should stay based upon believability
    in modern times!!


    The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Edition
    (The New Revised Standard Version Commentary
    )
    Removes homosexuality as a sin. No need for further comment.

    Dakes Study Bible
    The author is unable to interpret figurative language; he assigns a literal meaning, in error. Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Charles Capps, are examples of word-of-faith teachers who rely on it to come up with their strange doctrines.

    Spurious Documents
    The Book of Mormon
    The Pearl of Great Price
    Doctrine and Covenants


    and avoid like the plague the gender-neutral versions!!
     
  12. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Herb, is your entire reason for coming to this board to debate KJVO?
     
  13. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I plan on debating my Local Church only position as well. However, on my two initial posts to feel out the forum, it is the other folks that wish to debate the issue with me, and I am accomodating them. I also plan on posting the ills of the SBC and other convention type denominations. Thanks for your concern. -- Herb Evans
     
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,142
    Likes Received:
    1,307
    Shame on you! I have called you out to debate over 10 times and you have continued to run away and refuse to respond to me.


    If any of the posters here would like to see the thread where Herb has repeatedly refused to respond to me just let me know and I will post the URL.
     
  15. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for letting me know I need to ignore your posts. Have fun on the board. :wavey:
     
  16. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  17. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shame on Tom Cassidy! I have responded to all his posts indirectly, but he has not responded to all mine directly or indirectly. I do not care to have to endure cassidy's insults, i.e., stupid, liar, idiot, and other namecalling and perjoratives as well as belittling one's education. That is why I have responded indirectly to him as I am doing now. -- Herb Evans
     
  18. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Praise the Lord, Jesus, I have found another one that stops up his ears. I do not know if he gnashes on you with his teeth, however. Thank you Jesus! Praise de Lawd! Hallelujah (Hebrew). -- Herb Evans
     
  19. Herb Evans

    Herb Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    If any of the posters here would like to see the thread where Herb has repeatedly refused to respond to me just let me know and I will post the URL.[/QUOTE]

    By all means! I would like you to post the url. Please do it, but do all of it where you and I are concerned. -- Herb Evans
     
  20. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I'm with you on this user.. It seems he only wants to cause strife between other brothers and sisters.


    Jamie

    Proverbs 6:16-19 NIV

    16 There are six things the LORD hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
    17 haughty eyes,
    a lying tongue,
    hands that shed innocent blood,
    18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
    feet that are quick to rush into evil,
    19 a false witness who pours out lies
    and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.



    Or, for the KJVO folks..

    Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV

    16These six things doth the LORD hate:
    yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
    17A proud look, a lying tongue,
    and hands that shed innocent blood,
    18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
    feet that be swift in running to mischief,
    19A false witness that speaketh lies,
    and he that soweth discord among brethren.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...