1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Once again...the 1610 English scriptural authority was...?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Aug 22, 2004.

  1. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    There are possibly thousands of people reading these posts. If you cannot answer the inquiry then you will lose all credibility in spite of your “irrelevant” mantra, in fact the more evasive you become the more people will realize that in reality you have no answer to this question revolving around the pivotal doctrine of your interpretation of Psalm 12.

    --------------------------------------------------


    But you see, I have answered this, many times. Many just do not understand the answer, or disagree with it and falsely accuse me of believing in something I do not believe.

    It is quite irrelevent to this issue today. We do not live in 1610, or previous, and cannot speak honestly about that time. We live here and now today. This issue is about today, not yesturday. Many only like to avoid the issue of today, by falsely turning the attention to the irrelevant past, to which cannot be answered by anyone of us today. We can only honestly and truthfully answer what we know of today, and those things concerning us today, having the faith of God concerning the past.

    One thing that will benefit many greatly, is to come off idolizing the Greek and Hebrew languages. God has provided us his word 100% in 1611, in our language until this very day - church history attests to this, as well as the present church. The omittions and additions, and altering that is evident in the modern versions, is inexcusable. Again, these things do not compare to those things in the past. To turn to the Greek and Hebrew language to show that the KJB is in error to justify these alterations is unacceptable is very wrong, and leading many astray. I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, and I don't know it, and most people don't. This means, that I wuould have to rely upon the scholars (pharisees and scribes) of the day, to tell me what the Greek and Hebrew means. I do not need to, as God provided for me in my OWN LANGUAGE, and I truly believe that He did this for those who believe Him above and beyond those who claim today, they know the languages and try to deceive the naive. He gave me, and many other common English speaking faithful, His word of truth, in my OWN LANGUAGE, so the modern day scholars of today would not be able to deceive me with the vanity of their own mind and wisdom to which stems from their doubt of God's word in the first place.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  2. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Do you not understand? That question is based on a premise - a premise that God perfectly preserves his word in a word-for-word perfect manner. That premise is based on an interpretation of certain scriptures. Those scriptures did not change meaning in 1611 (God's eternal truth is unchanging). Thus, the reason we ask "Where was the word of God in English in 1610 and earlier?" is not simply for historical interest, but to expose the fundamental faulty assumptions of your premise - if your premise is true today, it had to be true in 1610 as well. If it was not true in 1610, it is not true today, for God's promise was fulfilled in 1610 despite your premise being false - thus your whole premise, and approach to this issue, is wrong.
    --------------------------------------------------

    And you couldn't be further from the truth in the above comments. This is cause for your blindness concerning this issue. You are deceiving yourself, and allowing yourself to be deceived. Think with the mind of Christ, not the wisdom of the world. Then you might understand.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  3. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Michelle said "Now you can answer this question, where can one find the word of God perfectly in our own language today?"
    --------------------------------------------------


    Now, please answer this question.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  4. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good response, Michelle. Say I'm wrong, but don't say how, and don't respond directly. Convincing.

    The fact is, if God's promise of preservation was not a lie in 1610 (and it wasn't) despite Bibles with imperfections in them (as you have admitted), then a word-perfect Bible does not need to exist today either for God's promise to be fulfilled (and it is). If there was a word-perfect Bible today, we would have no way of knowing it, for God has not told us this. The "final authority" of scripture itself has not told us this. You instead impose your own preference and understanding, promoting a doctrine that is not sound logically, nor presented in the scriptures - thus you would have us believe your own, extra-Biblical authority.

    Why should we believe you? How do you know the KJV is word perfectly inerrant?
     
  5. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle said "Now, please answer this question."

    I will not answer your question until you demonstrate that the premise of your question is sound. I have explained why I think your premise is not sound.
     
  6. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    The fact is, if God's promise of preservation was not a lie in 1610 (and it wasn't) despite Bibles with imperfections in them (as you have admitted), then

    1. a word-perfect Bible does not need to exist today either for God's promise to be fulfilled (and it is).

    2. If there was a word-perfect Bible today, we would have no way of knowing it, for God has not told us this.

    The "final authority" of scripture itself has not told us this. You instead impose your own preference and understanding,

    3. promoting a doctrine that is not sound logically, nor presented in the scriptures

    - thus you would have us believe your own, extra-Biblical authority.
    --------------------------------------------------

    1. Yes it does, as God has provided it, and it is evidenced He has.


    2. Yes we can, as it not only has been provided, but believed and living in the English speaking churches for generations. We also know because of John 16, 17


    3. Abundant scriptures have been given to you that support we can and will have the pure words of God in every generation. My belief in this doesn't need to rely upon the logic and wisdom of the world, but Faith in God and his word of truth first.


    Now, please answer my question. Where can one find the word of God perfectly in our language today?


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle


    Why should we believe you? How do you know the KJV is word perfectly inerrant?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  7. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Why should we believe you? How do you know the KJV is word perfectly inerrant?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sorry. I forgot to answer this in my last post.


    How can I know? By the Holy Spirit of truth. John 16, 17. You shouldn't believe me. Believe God.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  8. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    "1. Yes it does, as God has provided it, and it is evidenced He has."

    How do you know?

    "2. Yes we can, as it not only has been provided, but believed and living in the English speaking churches for generations. We also know because of John 16, 17"

    How do you know? Belief in the KJV for generations does not make it inerrant. And John 16,17 were just as true before 1611, therefore they cannot be proof of KJV inerrancy.

    "3. Abundant scriptures have been given to you that support we can and will have the pure words of God in every generation."

    You have said that they didn't have the pure words of God before 1611. You go back and forth so many times on this, it's ridiculous.

    "Now, please answer my question. Where can one find the word of God perfectly in our language today?"

    No until you prove your premise is sound. You have yet to do that. All you have given are vague opinion and contradicting statements. You need to clear this up.

    They say that the greatest proof that one understands something is that they are able to clearly explain it to others. So far, you have NOT clearly explained your view to others.
     
  9. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    "How can I know? By the Holy Spirit of truth. John 16, 17. You shouldn't believe me. Believe God."

    By the Holy Spirit of truth? John 16, 17?

    How did the Holy Spirit of truth tell you this? Where does John 16, 17 tell you this?

    Were John 16, 17 true in 1610?
     
  10. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    1
    michelle, my fellow Missourian right up the road from me, I ask this question not to be devisive, but out of genuine interest in your position:

    If God refined His Word between 1610 and 1611, why is it scripturally impossible that He would have refined it further, as the English language developed in complexity? That was one of your points for the translation of the KJB over the earlier English translations. Why could that not still hold true for today?
     
  11. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    michelle there is a huge anomaly in this statement.

    first you say ” God gradually provided his words for the English speaking people, through various translators, as He so willed and saw fit. They were the very words of God for those people, and at that time, but eventually many felt there were corruptions in it(conviction of the Holy Spirit?)”

    Then you say “God provided a better and more accurate translation with the 1611”.

    How can this be that God provided the first translation which was the “very words of God” yet with “corruptions” in it?

    HankD
     
  12. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    How did the Holy Spirit of truth tell you this? Where does John 16, 17 tell you this?
    --------------------------------------------------

    You are christian, and you need to ask me this? I can't help you in this department understand. Did you read those chapters? Tell me, what did you understand from those chapters? Or did you just ignore them and/or the meaning? Do you believe the Holy Spirit leads you to all truth?

    Are you telling me that the Holy Spirit did not lead me to truth and this understanding? Be careful, in answering this. I warn you. This will not be taken lightly by God come the judgement seat of Christ.

    How does one know or can know the word of God is the word of God?


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  13. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    You have said that they didn't have the pure words of God before 1611. You go back and forth so many times on this, it's ridiculous.
    --------------------------------------------------

    No you just lack faith (I am not referring to your salvation) and understanding in this issue.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  14. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    No until you prove your premise is sound. You have yet to do that. All you have given are vague opinion and contradicting statements. You need to clear this up.
    --------------------------------------------------


    No, I have answered you, and I could care less if you think my premise is unsound. My premise is the truth - you just do not yet understand the truth. Stop trying to argue this FACT. Now it is your turn to answer.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  15. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    If God refined His Word between 1610 and 1611, why is it scripturally impossible that He would have refined it further, as the English language developed in complexity? That was one of your points for the translation of the KJB over the earlier English translations. Why could that not still hold true for today?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I have never said God couldn't nor wouldn't, because I don't limit God, nor believe He is limited. What I have said is that so far He has evidenced He hasn't. How does one know? The Holy Spirit of truth, and the evidence of the omittions/alterations that have turned the word of truth into a mixed bag of truth and lies. This is not of God, for God is the author of truth, not confusion, not doubt, and not lies. The mv's are overflowing with these things, to which God has made evident with his word of truth that the churches have had, believed and lived for generations, even until this day. You have the true word of God, and the counterfits. The counterfit is always exposed against the true. The counterfit looks very close to the true, but there are always imperfections, that the spiritually discerned can see. John 16,17


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle:Please refer to the preface of the King James Bible. They make it very clear why THEY decided to make a new one. In short, they looked to the Hebrew and the Greek.

    But YOU said the G&H was irrelevant. Therefore, you have no grounds to stand on & say, "The MVs are corrupted" . Again, just saying, "They aint the KJV" simply won't do, as that would be circular reasoning, which PROVES nothing.

    And they ALSO said they COMPARED THEIR WORK TO OTHER VERSIONS.


    The Bibles prior to the 1611 translation, were all the people had at that time and those people believed and had the word of God perfectly in that time.

    but...WHICH VERSION?? There were several of'em out there then, same as now.


    As God gradually provided his words for the English speaking people, through various translators, as He so willed and saw fit.

    Same as He does NOW...unless you believe He retired in 1611.


    They were the very words of God for those people, and at that time, but eventually many felt there were corruptions in it(conviction of the Holy Spirit?)and desired a new translation.

    Actually, there were two REAL reasons...the Anglicans wanted ONLY ONE VERSION to be in use throughout their bailiwick, and KJ didn't like the GB's footnotes, especially those which denied the DIVINE RIGHTS of a king.

    Now, please provide PROOF that very many English readers...IF ANY...with no denominational axe to grind...believed the Geneva Bible and its predecessors were mistranslations or corruptions in them.


    God provided a better and more accurate translation with the 1611, to which he has preserved unto this very day. God is not doing a new thing, and reversing what he already provided.
    No, He isn't. He's still providing His word in today's language. But the KJV, Geneva Bible, Tyndale's, etc. still exist in their original form. The only two that were changed are the Geneva Bible(quite a few editions between 1560 & 1599) and the AV 1611, with quite a few subsequent editions being made between 1611 and now.


    God is not taking away verses of scripture, from what He provided accurately 400 years ago.

    But...He may have taken away what shouldn't have been there to start with. And He's certainly taken away the need for someone to hafta study up on Elizabethan English before he/she can read God's word with understanding.


    This is not how God works, as is evidenced in History. His word is refined, not destroyed, nor taken away, unless of course it is by the devils doing. We today, do not have an excuse.

    That's right...THE KJVO IS WITHOUT EXCUSE. He/she is denying God's authority and ability to refine His word to meet the changes in the languages He causes/allows. Instead, the KJVO has fallen for a myth started by a known cult official.
     
  17. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    How can this be that God provided the first translation which was the “very words of God” yet with “corruptions” in it?

    --------------------------------------------------

    Because for them, at that time, they were the very words of God, that they had and were available to them. It was the belief eventually that the word had been corrupted. This is why they desired a new translation. Did you read the preface of 1611? If so, then you know what I am talking about. Other than that, all I know, is what was said there. Like I said, I didn't live then to know what people thought. I can only go by what was said in that time. Hank you are seriously in the wrong, condoning the errors in the modern versions over this. I would really think hard about this, and pray to the Lord for HIS wisdom and understanding concerning this issue.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle:This question isn't being answered because it is irrelevent to this issue of today.

    To you, "irrelevant" means, "I'm clueless".


    The question should rather be: "Where is God's word today in English". Then you would have abundant answers. You see, we did not live then, we live now. Do you understand yet robycop?

    And I've answered this question umpteen times~sigh~but I'll answer again, typing slowly so it doesn't go over your head again. TO-WIT:

    "IN EVERY VALID ENGLISH BV, OLD OR NEW."

    That includes in 1610 or earlier.

    And to your statement that you have proven the KJBO side wrong. You couldn't be further from the truth. The truth cannot be proven wrong, as it is the truth.

    My point exactly. There's no truth in the KJVO myth.

    At the risk of having you write another novel, I'll ask you to please post JUST ONE KJVO point someone hasn't disproven.
     
  19. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    But YOU said the G&H was irrelevant. Therefore, you have no grounds to stand on & say, "The MVs are corrupted" . Again, just saying, "They aint the KJV" simply won't do, as that would be circular reasoning, which PROVES nothing.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Yes I do, because the word of God that we have today in our language is from those texts. The mv's are not from those same texts. Even without my knowing about the different stream of texts concerning the mv's and KJB, I still do not need to refer to the Greek and Hebrew to know that the mv's are in error. I have the word of God in MY OWN LANGUAGE and I have CHURCH HISTORY and I have FAITH and I have THE HOLY SPIRIT OF TRUTH and I have THE SCRIPTURES! The Hebrew and Greek are IRRELEVANT TODAY.


    Why is it so hard for you to understand these simple FACTS?

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  20. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So the bottom line to the AnglicanVersion Only myth: there is no evidence but we accept it by faith.

    I have Mormon friends that teach the same theology.
     
Loading...