My responses

Yes, I answered it, and you rejected it.

 

May I politely request that both Askjo and robycop3 leave their discussions on the '"Fighting Fundamentals" board' on that board and please don't 'cross post' them here. I do not read or post on the FF board, by choice, simply because I do not have that much time. I also believe that this is against the rules, if not on the BB, at least for this forum, anyway.

Thank both of you for your consideration in this, from one who does not frequent the Fighting Fundamentalists Forum.

Ed

 

YOU tell Robycop3, not me.

 

I did notice that you responded.

However, I told no one anything; I merely "politely" submitted a "request".

Ed

 

Yes, right. Robycop3 brought up his post here first, not me.

I agree with your request. :thumbs:

 

I believe that I am at least somewhat aware of this. I did manage to receive "As" and "Bs" in my Bible Introduction, Bible Doctrine, Hermeneutics, and Systematic Theology Classes, for a total of 22 College Semester Hours credit, as an undergraduate, in these four classes, alone.

YLT, DARBY, NASB, NIV, NKJV, HCSB, ESV, NLT & TNIV read in a similar fashion. However Ps. 105:9 also goes on to say that the Covenant was that which God made with Abraham, and the word (oath) was with Isaac, hence the context shows this is not talking about "the Bible" or God's "written Word" at all. So, no, that is not what Ps. 105:8 is saying, at all. Hence, Sorry! This attempted 'proof-text' eisegesis does not stand, here.

Sorry, this is nothing more than opinion, preference, and 'jingo-ism', all rolled into one, sprinkled with a little misrepresentation, and a generous dose of erroneous statements, added for good measure. Not one sentence in the last section here, is demonstratively factual, or Biblical.

(And I generally prefer the KJV and NKJV, no less! I just do not have any need to inaccurately represent any "why".)

Ed

 

Well,I missed it obviously.Could you post it again so I can read it?

 

Japheth10, this is said to be in the "Fighting Fundamentals" (actually Fighting Fundamentalist) Forum. I have already requested that robycop3 and Askjo leave the discussion, on that forum, and Askjo, at least, has stated that he will do so. :thumbsup:

May I also politely request that you, likewise, please read it there, rather than attempt to import that specific discussion to the Baptist Board?

Thanks,

Ed

 

Stilllearning: // God promised to preserve His Word, not His Message! //

One meaning of 'Word of God' is 'Message of God'. So what you are saying is devoid of content. It is like as if you are saying:

God promised to preserve His Word, not His Word
God promised to preserve His Message, not His Message

Which is very easy to see is words totally devoid of content, words saying no message, a voice crying in the Wilderness: "Nothing to Say".

 

And if that is your choice and opinion then praise God that you have a stand to take.

The problem comes when folks who disagree on things like the 'modern scholarship' are then accused of 'doctrinal error' since no one disagrees that 'God has preserved His word.'

 

Askjo, your argument is based on the incorrect assumption that if different words are used they can't possibly be right. Legitimate Bible translations of modern days use different printed words to convey the message (the word) of God. The same thing was done by the 1611 KJV - it used different words than the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible and the Great Bible to convey the same message from God found in those other translations. Why is it more wrong in the 21st century to use different words than it was in the 17th century? Apparently you think it was perfectly acceptable to use different words in the 17th century, but it's not at all acceptable to use different words in the 21st century - a view that is, to say the least, inconsistent.

Your confusion lies in the fact that you view different words as conveying a different message - a false and disproven presupposition. For example, let's look at the word "prevent" (1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJV). In the 17th century the word meant to go before or to precede, although that meaning is not used today. Since that meaning is not commonly known by modern English readers, it's much better to change the word to "precede" and avoid confusion rather than to insist the word "prevent" remain he same and thus cause confusion. The KJVO position that not a word of your favorite KJV should ever be changed is simply wrong. It's much more important to maintain the integrity of God's message to us than to maintain a particular set of printed words in a language that didn't exist when Scripture was written.

Askjo, the legitimate modern Bible translations give us the same message as the KJVs and earlier English Bible translations but they use different words to do so. It's the retention of words that have changed meanings and words that are no longer used in English that causes the perceived message of Scripture to change. Why do you think God would want His intended message changed? Hint - God would rather keep the message pure and unchanged than to preserve a particular set of English words.

 

Amen, Brother Ed! Preach it!

Furthermore, who elected those who maintain a KJVO stance to determine there is only one legitimate English Bible translation?

IMHO, the question is extremely hypocritical.

 

Amen, sag38! Preach it!

KJVOs stand firmly against a multiplicity of Bible translations. Yet we find a multiplicity of KJVs, shown by the fact Ed Edwards has 11 KJVs and 10 of them are different in some way. The KJVO position is very inconsistent - it accepts differences in the various KJVs while condemning differences in modern translations.

 

Well said.

Ed

 

How in the world do you get so confused so easily, SL? You're still confused between God's Word (Jesus Christ) and God's word (His message to us) even though I showed you the difference previously. Of course God's Word (Jesus Christ) has not been written down although there has been much written about Him in both Scripture and other things. But God's word (His message) has been written down. Try to comprehend the difference.

SL, you maintain the KJVO position which, in effect, says God's perfectly preserved word wasn't completely realized until 1611 (or 1769 or whenever your favorite KJV was published), nor has it been published in any other translation since that time.

If God's written word in English was perfect and pure in the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible and/or the Geneva Bible, why was it necessary to publish the original KJV and its later revisions? Didn't God get it right in those earlier translations? Did He need to update His word for 1611? For 1769? If so, then why does His word not need to be updated for readers in 2009?

Then you're saying it's alright to tamper with the message God intended us to have, as long as the words of your favorite KJV are never changed? That, SL, is not at all what God intended. In a living and evolving language like English, word meanings sometimes change as time goes by. That's why it's important to keep the integrity of the message even though it may be necessary to change some words used to deliver that message. If you and other KJVOs insist on maintaining only the original words, then go learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek because English is NOT the language of Scripture, so the original words are NOT maintained.

It's God's message to us He's more concerned with - not the particular words printed on the page. Let's look at some examples...

Not one of these verses stresses the importance of a particular set of words, SL. But they all stress the importance of the message. IMHO, KJVOs like yourself and others have lost sight of God's true intent and have become focused on the preservation of something God had no intention of preserving - the particular words used.