Inspired Text

What proof do you require? A verse that says this is the inspired, infalliable word of God? You're not going to get that. Do you want a sign?

 

The question isn't what God could do if He so chose. He could and can do anything. He is sovereign.

The questions are:

What did He say He would do?

What info did He give/not give us concerning 'how' He would do it?

And what does the providentially provided evidence for His methods indicate when evaluated according to plain biblical principles?

The reason the KJV is not inspired is because its creators do not qualify as recipients of direct inspiration. They were not Apostles, prophets, nor holy men of old.

Further, they denied being inspired. Even further, some of them were quite likely not saved and none were doctrinally sound per the biblical/Baptist standard.

 

What proof do you require?</font>[/QUOTE] Speaking for Scott, not rc3...

I require scripture or an evaluation of the factual evidence that is based on scriptural/logical/truthful principles.

The principles involved include: no double standards, no misapplications of scripture, no circular reasoning, no selective quoting, no misquoting, no dependence on ad hominem arguments, no straw men, and you must accept and account for all known facts rather than ignoring or evading those that directly disprove your conclusions.

Basically, I am asking you to prove your beliefs in an honest, Christian fashion.

Nice of you to acknowledge that your beliefs did not come from God.

Not necessary. God gave us all we needed in the scriptures themselves. If KJVOnlyism is not directly stated in the Bible and cannot be proven while one remains consistent with biblical principles but rather is disproven by such an effort then the only conclusion is that KJVOnlyism is a false doctrine having its source in either evil men or the father of lies.

 

Psalm 12:6,7

No they weren't, they were sinners, just like the Apostles, prophets and holy men of old. Why did the inspiration stop at the Greek? Besides the originals have been lost for years, so how can YOU be sure what YOU say is correct?

Though I agree they said they were not inspired, I do not know about their salvation, neither do you. I would like to think that if God is going to use someone to write his word, he would use a saved man. Also, the translators probably were inspired, but did not know it. John in the Bible did not know he was Alijah, but he was.

Here's something else just to ponder. Look at this debate forum, what Bible is being attacked more than any. That should make one thing.

 

Though I don't know much about the Hebrew, Greek, etc. etc. I basically just believe in the King James Bible. As I said, there is no verse that says the King James Bible is inspired, just like there's no verse that says the NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc is inspired or even God's word. If we had a verse for everything, we would not be talking about this very issue. Since I believe the King James Bible, all other versions cannot stand up to it. I do however believe that the modern versions contain enough of the Gospel for a person to be saved, but for a more spiritual walk, holy walk with the Lord, I believe the preaching of the King James Bible must be used. It's language, the style, the adjectives, etc., are just convicting. Stop looking at the men who wrote it and start looking at the God who preserved it.

 

That's right and that's what the Bible defines as those through whom God spoke Apostles, prophets and holy men of old not translators, priests of the Anglican Church or the King of England.

Because inspiration itself stopped after the last Apostle wrote in Greek being "moved by the Holy Spirit".
Unless of course you are Roman/High-Anglo/Catholic and believe inspiration still comes down from heaven through God's "authorised" Church.

What criteria do you have for any Bible including the KJV that can live up to this test?
The KJV translators selected among mss which were in disagreement. Why should these men have any more or less wisdom than any of the others who preceded them in translating from the original mss such as Wcliff?

The KJV Bible has had several revisions and editions from 1611-1769 with hundreds of changes.
The original archetype of the KJV was lost within a few years after the original publication of the AV. "so how can YOU be sure what YOU say is correct?", to repeat your own question since YOU yourself have no access to the original 1611 AV.

HankD

 

How do you know when inspiration stopped.?

 

Then, should one not do the same with other translations? KJVO's spend an incredible amount of time talking about issues surrounding other translations, the motivations behind the translators, authors, publishers, etc.

My opinion, from having studied the biblical Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek, is that there are other versions, for me and my spiritual walk at least, than the KJV. Yet I would never insist that anyone else hold to that same view. You, however, have made the claim that (salvation aside) there are certain scriptural things the people of God will get ONLY from the KJV. That's liberal religionism, and crosses the line of heresy, since it adds to scripture.

 

The Scripture indicates it : Hebrews 1:1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Hath in these last days spoken (aorist-past) unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

BTW, since you have asked me how I know that inspiration has stopped, how do you know that inspiration has not stopped?

And what is the difference between these "errors" and the supposed "errors" of the MVs and can you prove it?

What do you believe by faith?
That the corrections are right?
I believe the same for the Traditional Texts of the Greek and Hebrew which are the Words of God without any translation necessary.

The MV users believe that Aleph/B mss to be the more accurate representation of the originals which NNE has had for several centuries including the KJV translators even while they were translating them. Why should the sources (one of which was the Latin Vulgate) of the Church of England be any better than Aleph/B and can you prove it?

No, you can't prove it apart from an exercise of faith.

Why not allow your brother the same soul liberty.

HankD

 

Though I don't know much about the Hebrew, Greek, etc. etc. I basically just believe in the King James Bible. </font>[/QUOTE] Maybe that's your basic mistake. I believe the KJV. However, I believe in God. My faith is in the God, fully revealed in the KJV and other faithful versions- not the word choices of 17th century Anglican scholars.

The scriptures were God breathed through the original writers. That is a scriptural fact.

God's Word is preserved. That is a scriptural promise of God- thus another fact.

The word for word text of the originals has been lost. That is a historical fact.

If all of these things are true then there is an obvious conclusion that you should be able to see. Exact wording was not deemed necessary by God in order for Him to preserve His Word.

There are biblical principles that should govern the study of these issues. We aren't commanded to go off of feelings or to have blind faith. We are commanded to prove all things and hold to that which is true.

I put KJVOnlyism through the "proof" process when I was KJVO. I discovered that an honest treatment of the evidence showed that belief to be false. Rather than attempting to change/deny the facts or biblical principles, I submitted to changing my beliefs about translations.

Your belief does not constitute a proof. This statement makes your opinion- not God's Word, not factual evidence- the final authority in a very significant matter of faith and practice.

Again, this is not stated nor indicated by the KJV. You are making your opinion the final authority and then demanding that you are right and we are wrong.

The Holy Spirit convicts. Please don't attribute His power to the "language, the style, the adjectives, etc." chosen by the KJV translators.

First you say that God inspired the KJV but now you say men wrote it and He preserved it? From what did He preserve it? Preservation and inspiration are not the same thing. Can't you recognize the inherent errors in this one simple statement by you?

The KJV was a unique creation in 1611 that had never before existed. It was not the preservation of any text that had existed before.

It was however a grand preservation of a Word that had existed before- the revelation of God to man, His message to those He loves.

 

Psalm 12:6,7</font>[/QUOTE] This scripture, even if we accept your errant interpretation, does not state, imply, nor provide a principle that indicates the KJV.

Your attempt at evasion is duly noted. Until you actually attempt an answer, I will consider this a passive admission on your part that you are wrong.

No they weren't, they were sinners, just like the Apostles, prophets and holy men of old.</font>[/QUOTE] Research the scriptures Homebound. God gives qualifications for being a writer of scripture. The KJV translators don't meet them.

Because John wrote "the end"... in Greek.

 

Actually, I only know that they affirmed the 39 Articles of Religion which conveys baptismal regeneration. I also know that some were persecutors of Baptists and other fundamental Bible believers. And I know that Archbishop Andrewes preached that the Eucarist was both sacrament and sacrifice (IOW's salvific).

He did. But it is obvious that He used some unsaved men to copy, collate, and translate His Word.

You didn't say "probably"- you said they were inspired.

The Bible records what John says by inspiration. That does not attribute inspiration to what John believed. We have an inspired record of his erroneous belief.

It should. No one is attacking the KJV. KJVO's on the other hand habitually attack other Bibles as well as the orthodox doctrine of the Bible... that should most certainly make you think.

You all are attacking what Bible believers have held since at least Augustine.

 

You see, that is the whole point of the King James Only fallacy. It is what you believe , not what can be proven . You are trying to force your belief (false as it is) upon each and every one. That, my friend, is dead wrong.

Oh, and as for what I believe, I believe the word of God. But not just one translation of it. I choose not to try to limit what God is capable of doing, thank you very much. I trust God to work through many different translators, not just one set of Anglican Catholics in the 1600's.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Hold it right there. What BIBLE is being attacked? The King James isn't. The fallacy of the man-made myth of King James Version Onlyism is, though.

The only Bibles being attacked are those that the KJVOlators are attacking. No one has attacked the KJV (called it a perversion, false, wrong, etc.). However, the KJVOlators have attacked every new translation that they have ever heard of. And you have the gall to accuse all of us of attacking the KJV?

No one here has ever claimed that any of the modern translations were inspired. In fact, the only ones claiming inspiration in a translation are the KJVOlators.

Try to at least get your facts straight, before you go accusing people.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Trotter, we've been saying this for months and months, and the Onlies keep insisting it's an attack of the KJV itself, instead of their view of limiting...
Get the facts straight and stop deflecting the "attacks".
2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." "Old time" does not refer to 1604-1611, and "they" does not refer to the Anglican Translators in 1611.

 

Nor am I. If you want to use another version, then that is you. I just believe that you will get more from the King James Bible.

WOW! Now I'm a liberal. I never thought. Johnv, until you start believing the entire Bible to be true, you'll never grow maturely in the Lord no matter what version you use. But I challenge you to use nothing but the King James Bible for 1 month. Read nothing but the King James Bible and ask the Lord to show you what HomeBound is talking about. If you really want to put it to the test, go to a Independent Fundamental Bible Believing Baptist church, one that believes in the King James Bible to be their authority in faith and practice and see what takes place in your life. The Bible says to test the spirits.

 

Oh my HomeBound, you should take your own advice because the Bible you claim to be THE Bible doesn't say "test the spirits" but "try the spirits"

KJV 1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

So I guess the NASB is the REAL Bible or have you been sneaking in some NASB reading time?

NASB 1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

So which is correct HomeBound?

HankD

 

The Scripture indicates it : Hebrews 1:1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Hath in these last days spoken (aorist-past) unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; </font>[/QUOTE]Great scripture, the King James Bible is great isn't it. But, this does not mean anything. This just says that God spoke in times past.

1 Cor. 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. This I believe to be the King James Bible.

Since I believe the King James Bible is God's perfect word, all others that don't agree with it are wrong.

For me, this is true. And I do allow you the liberty. You can believe whatever you want. If you notice, I said, "I believe." I do not have enough knowledge to argue/debate about the Greek, Hebrew, etc, etc., I just have my faith in God's word. To me, it is simple. The King James Bible gives us all we need, therefore, there was/is no need of additions/improvements. The way I see the modern versions is this: Satan's first attack on man kind was twisting God's word in Genesis and look what happen. Today I believe the same thing is going on with all the so-called bibles. Yes, I believe a person can be saved by reading the Gospel in the modern versions. You cannot get people to believe a lie unless a little truth is mixed in. Again, this is what I believe. One more thing, the churches that have more world in them than them in the world, see what bible their using.

 

OK, the Mormon Church uses the KJV. Most of the modern cults started with the KJV and many continued on (e.g. Jim Jones, David Koresh, SDA). According to your logic what does that say about the KJV?

Please sate this alledged lie that people are believing (presumably from the MVs).

BTW You still haven't answered. Which is correct "try" or "test" the spirits?

HankD