It is Just About Time...

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Dr. Bob,

But there is a great big difference between the two. The mormons have believed a false prophet who claimed to have revelations from Jesus who introduced new doctrines/beliefs. The KJVo crowd, believe in the promises of God to preserve his pure word for every generation, which is evidenced in the Recieved Texts, but not in the (new) Nestles/Aland texts. Believing this, and standing for it does not make it false doctrine. It makes it standing for the faith once delivered unto the saints, among many other scriptures.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Can you provide some sort of evidence that the last half of your statement is what God promised??

You see, that is our contention. YOu have constructed a doctrine with absolutely no statement of God on which to base it. We all believe in the preservation of God's word. We all believe that promise. What we do not believe is the part that you have added to it.

What makes it a false doctrine? It is not based on what Scripture says about itself and it contradicts what Scripture has revealed to us about Scripture. Anything that contradicts Scripture is a false doctrine.

 

Homebound:What authority do you use to tell me that I'm wrong?

The authority of GOD, which He gives the believer to defend the things of God.

Scriptural proof I'm right? The comparison of Luke 4:16-21 with Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 61:1-3 shows us JESUS HIMSELF was NOT limited to one version.

Empirical proof? No two English BVs are alike. They are still with us to compare, from Wycliffe's 1384 LV translation, onward. You DO believe God has preserved His word, I assume? Therefore He's provided it AS HE HAS CHOSEN, regardless of man's little ideas of how THEY think He SHOULD have done it. It's hard to deny this proof that's right before your eyes and not in cyberspace somewhere.

Now, can YOU provide any authority or evidence that KJVO's RIGHT??

 

Wow, thanks for the insight. In my quest for developing my relationship with God and growing closer to Him, I was under the impression I had been seeking out a variety of translations in order to better understand what He wants to say to me and apply it to my life. Now I realize that I am using other versions because i have a deep-seeded aversion to God and His Word. Thanks for the info.

Calling them Sodomites...wow, some powerful slander there.

 

I believe by faith that the KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God.

 

So far as I know, we all agree with you on this point.

 

So far as I know, we all agree with you on this point. </font>[/QUOTE]

Hold on, don't speak for us all. The inspired Word of God is contained in the original autographs only. What we read today, regardless of version, is the PRESERVED Word of God.

 

Most of us would assign derived inspiration to these versions as well. They are certainly not inspired in wording but the sayings (word) they communicate is inspired.

 

I can agree with this as long as we keep in mind that it is a translation derived from the inspired preserved Word of God.

We don't have the originals so we can not KNOW which is most accurate MSS family at this point in time, The Byzantine, the Majority, the reconstructed TR(s), or the eclectic text, so FAITH does enter the formula somewhere. To me, it seems more evident (the faith kind of evidence) that the Traditional Text which comes out of the Apostolic churches of Asia Minor and Europe (before the apostasy of Rome) would be the most likely candidate.

Others see it differently and FWIW, I respect that choice and agree with the KJV translators that all translations ARE the Word of God even the "meanest" (not that I would call anyone's Bible "mean") and having many are good to capture the "sense" of the Scriptures.

HankD

 

I believe by faith that I have one million dollars in my checking account. Does that make it so? Why not, if I am sincere?

A mormon believes by faith that he will become a god in the afterlife. Will he? Why not? He, too, is sincere in his belief.

The terrorists that flew the planes into the tower on 9/11 believed by faith that they would go to Paradise. Did they? Why not? They believed it enough to willingly die.

Blind faith means nothing. It is only as valuable as the object of that faith.

Blind faith in the KJV as the only word of God is only as valuable as the KJV, which I can pick up for $5 at Dollar General Store.

Blind faith in a man-made doctrine is foolishness, pure and simple. It is like saying that the Cubs are the World Series winners, period, and that all others never will be or could be. The Cubs might one day be ONE of the winners, they are not right the ONLY winners (I picked the Cubs because they really stink, by the way).

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I believe by faith that I have one million dollars in my checking account. Does that make it so? Why not, if I am sincere?

A mormon believes by faith that he will become a god in the afterlife. Will he? Why not? He, too, is sincere in his belief.

The terrorists that flew the planes into the tower on 9/11 believed by faith that they would go to Paradise. Did they? Why not? They believed it enough to willingly die.

Blind faith means nothing. It is only as valuable as the object of that faith.

Blind faith in the KJV as the only word of God is only as valuable as the KJV, which I can pick up for $5 at Dollar General Store.

Blind faith in a man-made doctrine is foolishness, pure and simple. It is like saying that the Cubs are the World Series winners, period, and that all others never will be or could be. The Cubs might one day be ONE of the winners, they are not right the ONLY winners (I picked the Cubs because they really stink, by the way).

In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]A good place to put
your faith is in Jesus for salvation.
I can recommend it Highly!
JESUS SAVES!

 

Most of us would assign derived inspiration to these versions as well. They are certainly not inspired in wording but the sayings (word) they communicate is inspired. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I have not thought of it in that exact term before "derived inspiration". On the surface it seems to be accurate and correct, I will have to ponder this for a short time. Thanks for the post, you may have just allowed me to grow a little.

 

Homebound
"What authority do you use to tell me that I'm wrong?"
Why, pope Pius X ofcourse!


What?

 

Hank
"To me, it seems more evident (the faith kind of evidence) that the Traditional Text which comes out of the Apostolic churches of Asia Minor and Europe (before the apostasy of Rome) would be the most likely candidate."
In all honesty (as opposed to my previous post on this thread) I think that is on the whole a solid argument, only marred a little by the fact that from a baptist point of view Eastern-Orthodoxy (guardians of the Traditional Text in a sense) are just as guilty of apostasy as Catholicism.

 

True, that is why I would condition the statement to pre-apostasy. This is if course a difficult time to nail down as to the exact x,y cordinates in the time continuum.

probably sometime after Constantine and the Edict of Milan (311AD) and no later than Charlamagne and the marriage of Church and State whch gave birth to the "Holy" Roman Empire (800AD approx) and the murder of Christians which is their Ichabod IMO.

The Eastern Church lagging behind a century or two (also IMO).

Israel followed this same pattern of apostasy during and after the development of the OT canon.

To me it stands the test of a reasonable faith standard that those churches brought about by the Lord through the Apostle Paul would also be the guardians of the Word. Paul traveled several times through Asia minor and eventually Rome.

BTW There is no Scriptual proof that Peter ever went to Rome and was instrumental in founding the local Church there, only Paul. No apostle that I know of traveling to Alexandria and certainly no epistles written to the same.

Out of the tradition that developed the canon of Scripture (367-451AD) and ratified that canon in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon came the tradition which produced the Byzantine family of MSS which is the bed-rock of the Traditional Text.

Incidently W/H agreed with this date and origin of the Traditional Text but said that it is/was a "conflated" text: John Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1883. Pages 288-290.

Another good book by Burgon is The Traditional Text, 1896 which among other historical facts, he shows the influence of Origen upon the Alexandrian Uncial MSS School.

Many Christians follow after the W/H theories and the resultant eclectic text, I prefer the Traditional Text.

But as I said before I respect their view just disagree in my own personal choice.
Whether this conflict can be resolved in our life time seems doubtful.

In the meantime I will stand with the MV(koine) supporters because IMO the KJVO have gone too far in their unscriptural view of the AV (and against the very views of the KJV translators themselves) though it be by faith.

HankD

 

Askjo:I believe by faith that the KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God.

Faith is believing in the unseen by that which is seen. What we see is a false, man-made doctrine for which we see absolutely NO proof, so my faith, far as KJVO goes, is that it's totally WRONG.

 

Hank, I don't believe Burgon was KJVO either. He said, in Revision Revised, that the Textus Receptus could stand a thorough revision. In his day, in his opinion, the KJV was the best English version then in print.

 

You are correct Roby, Burgon was not KJVO (as currently defined by Dr. Ruckman) he did express the desire for revision and in fact that is what W/H were commissioned to do...

John Burgon The Revision Revised, Page 3.

HankD