Liberalism/Modernism and the Inspired Word of God

Dr. Bob you miss the mark by a long long long shot.

Now granted in the Ruckman camp, of which I oppose, they do teach a double inspiration theory, but thats a small and very vocal group.

To be KJVO does not in any way deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, it fully accepts the inspiration of the Scriptures, but I see why a liberal would not want be this honest and make such a false statement as you made.

What I ahve found in the Bible version debate so far, and I am in no way saying this is how all mv "defenders" think/believe is that God only preserved His words in the originals and that only the originals are inspired and preserved. Yet not a single mv "defender" can direct me to these orginals. IF[/B} and only if, this is also your view then can you direct me to these inspired and preserved originals?

What I see as I view the debate is that to hold to the mv view is to say that God failed in preserving His word and the best we can hope for is what fallible man gives us each time a new version comes out.

Speaking of new versions, since most of them claim to be the most accurate version, which do you say is and why do you disagree with the "scholars" who different?

Your reply, which I am sure will be in usual mv "defender" style will reveal where the rank liberalism does lie and it's not with those who trust God and are Bible believers, but with those who trust man and are bibles believers.


Jim

 

But this position also says that God failed in preserving his Word until 1611, does it not? If the KJV needed to be written, then what does that say about His preservation before that time?

 

Scott, I've monitored these discussions for awhile now, and nobody's really answered your question sufficiently.

 

The KJVO's:kjbO'S have a perverted view of preservation; they believe God has pickled His Word for the English speaking world only in the KJV:kjb. It's a man made myth that has no scriptural support: They've added, in effect to Scripture:"Thou shalt worship and read only the KJV, and it only shalt thou serve and read." that's found in Precepts 2:8; or is it James Ward 1:3???

 

But this position also says that God failed in preserving his Word until 1611, does it not? If the KJV needed to be written, then what does that say about His preservation before that time? </font>[/QUOTE]Ah Scott, but logic is a foreign concept to ___cepts, etc. Their common answer amounts to: blah, blah, blah

 

Liberalism and fundamentalism was never contingent on any one translation being specially inspired. For as far back as I can remember, and I started seminary in 1945, the KJV, was used by both groups to support their viewpoints.

Also, as far back as I can remember, non-USA based Baptist groups always claimed inspiration to include only the original autographs. It was maintained that God has preserved His word down through time, but it not a plenary, verbal inspiration of any one translation. We have sufficient information from which to formulate or confirm the doctrines we hold dear as baptists.

Why don't we just take advantage of the many translations or versions of God's word, and learn from them. It is the same when we speak with persons of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds and see how they would understand certain passages. It can be quite enlightening, if only we are desireous of learning what God is saying rather than dwelling in trivial dogmatism which does nothing but divide and does not build the body.

Cheers,

Jim

PS. I use the same KJV I startd with in 1945, but I am not by any means KJV onlyist. I will quote whichever version best translates how I understand the text.

 

So the KJVO folks are not bible believers then.

Or, What are the KJV translators, chopped liver?

HankD

 

Can you point to an MV defender who says that only the originals are preserved?? That sounds like something you have made up.

 

Oh Stephen,
You would like to have that, wouldn't you? Well, I could send you a photo copy, then you would have a copy of the original....lol

Cheers, mate,

Jim

 

Please do a me a favor, cite the
name of the poster from the left column,
not from your memory. Thank you
for your thoughtful consideration
of my request.

 

The KJVO camp is the liberals.
They are trying to change a fundamental doctrine that is around 2000 years old that only the originals were inspired.

The original fundamentalists had no problems with other versions. I know. I have a Bible History text book from the 1930's that name numerous versions from 1611 to 1930, and none are slandered as not being the word of God.

The original translators understood this concept: even the meanest version is the word of God.

That is what was taught for 1900 years and them people like precepts, ruckman, and the ripper come along and change a orthodox teaching of Christianity.

Therefore, the KJVO camp is the liberals.
Yes we need to stand and fight against this false doctrine.

 

Amen, Brother Tinytim -- Preach it!

 

TinyTim, You obviously weren't around during the KJV vs RSV controversy. There were bitter battles over the use of this "version from the devil" and it was mostly over one verse which said a young woman rather than virgin in Isaiah.

I am afraid that history collection is just not accurate. The RSV was the chice of the liberals and the KJV the choice of the fundamentalists, and this was so even into the late 50's and early 60's.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Uh, well, no. KJVOs are sadly misinformed, but they certainly are not liberal in their theology.

Again, I think you may be mistaken. The concept of "only the original manuscripts were inspired" is not "around 2000 years old" but is, in reality, only about 100 years old. B.B. Warfield, of Princeton Seminary, first articulated that concept around the turn of the 20th century. Prior to that the historic creeds and confessions stated that the Hebrew and Greek copies were inspired and infallible.

Again, no. KJVOs are a lot of things, but liberal is not one of them. They are, for the most part, hyper conservatives to the point of Pharisaical legalism.

I doesn't matter how often you repeat it, it is still a false accusation.

But we cannot fight falsehood with more falsehood.

 

The KJVO stance reminds me of the political New-Age-Liberals of the ACLU who defend certain Indians' right to fry their brains with peyote in the name of religion, while denying someone's right to pray while he/she's performing in an official capacity in public office, or denying an audience's right to hear a prayer before a high school football game-acts which harm no one, while repeated peyote use is MEDICALLY PROVEN to alter the user's mental capacity to the point of his/her not being able to perform the basics of self-care.

The KJVOs are often closet liberals, pretending to be conservative and unchanging in the versions issue while at the same time embracing every silly new notion invented by the latest Onlyist author.

 

Uh, well, no. KJVOs are sadly misinformed, but they certainly are not liberal in their theology. </font>[/QUOTE]KJVOnlyism does seem to parallel a liberal/materialistic progression of thought though. The liberal tries to explain everything in a naturalistic way. He denies the spiritual immaterial... Things must be tangible and measurable.

The KJVO requires that the Bible exist in only one, defined set of words... that he can do a word count on. He refuses to see the transcendant hand of God through out the history of the Bible. He fails to consider that God might not have done what He did in a way that makes sense to the natural mind. He cannot accept that God would preserve His message without doing it in a single text.

 

Good post Scott J.

While the KJVO isn't liberal per say, they certainly parallel the liberal thought process in many ways.