Our Final Authority

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Pioneer, Jun 6, 2003.

  1. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Editorials/fbcfinal.htm

    http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Foundation/fbcpresv.htm

    [ June 06, 2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
     
  2. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pioneer said:

    Be wary of any opponent of the KJV who contrives impressive sounding buzz words to misrepresent what the defenders of the Authorized Version actually believe.

    And be wary of anyone posing as a "Bible believer" who attempts to cast doubt on the Bible you have in your library by making an unwarranted leap from "God preserved his Word" to "God preserved his Word in the KJV and not in any other translation." Such people wrap arguments in pious-sounding language but are really creating only skepticism and unbelief in the Word of God.
     
  3. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Pioneer:
    Once again, I love the KJV, definitely as much and quite possibly more than you do.
    I simply do not subscribe to unscriptural beliefs like KJV-Onlyism.
    You have never given any Scripture that proves that the Tyndale, ESV, Wiclif, and Geneva Bibles are to be excluded.
     
  4. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Jack Moorman is a scholar like D. A. Waite, Ph.D., Dr. Thomas Strouse, Ph.D.. I think he is better than James White. Jack has excellent essay on the Bible version issues. Jack wrote a new book, "8,000 Differences." He has labored for many months on this documented research to bring to the world--at long last--the proofs, in minute detail, that the critical Greek text in use today differs with our Textus Receptus Greek underlying our King James Bible in over 8,000 places. In this massive document, the New Testament books, chapters, and verses are given together with the exact Greek words in both the Nestle-Aland Greek text and the Textus Receptus Greek text of Dr. Frederick Scrivener, followed by the English translation of both Greek texts.

    Go to see the website here:
    8,000 Differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland NT Greek Text
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought you liked this man?? This group has never been confused with scholars. I do believe that Moorman is a scholar like these men. That is why I put no stock in what he says.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which is what I have said all along and this is what you deny. There are things other than the KJV which can and should be called the word of God. I believe what Timothy and the Ephesian elders had was very similar to what we have in modern versions and there is no way that you can disprove me. All of the evidence supports me, not you.

    I don't think any of us here would dispute with this.

    Ah ah ... once again, someone who agrees with us.

    What you have here is a nice sounding gentlemen who doesn't believe what he wrote. I agree with much of what he said and I hold the biblical position. Your position is not biblical and I don't see any way that you (and probably this author) can really agree with this.

    When I read your title, I thought that you were going to offer support for you position from the "Final Authority." Imagine my surprise when I see that once again, the best you can do is quote a man. Can you not see how inconsistent and unbiblical that is?? Who is the one following the ideas of man here?? It is certainly not us.
     
  7. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Of course, this response was undoubtedly expected, but I can easily say with confidence that what Timothy had, when translated into English, is something very closely resembling the KJV and not the MVs. There is no way that you can disprove me.
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    ROTFLOL - That is really funny!! [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The logic in this is almost Catholic. Do you see it? Inspiration is the one-time miracle . . but it keeps on and on and on like the mass.

    But even given this position, I would ask
    WHAT was "originally inspired"? Greek, not English
    WHAT is "supernaturally preserved"? Greek, not English

    So any attempt of a Kirkegaardian leap from the Greek to the English is ludicrous or, truly, a leap of faith. :eek:
     
  10. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is one of the worst fallacies I've ever read. It is tatamount to, but worse than, circular reasoning. There is no evidence that Timothy had anything resembling the KJV. You cannot make the statement you made and then place the burden to disprove it. It is seen in the following:

    A.

    You cannot disprove A.

    Therefore, A.

    Let's see another example: There are UFOs. you cannot prove there aren't. Therefore, there are UFOs.
     
  11. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    This is one of the worst fallacies I've ever read. It is tatamount to, but worse than, circular reasoning. There is no evidence that Timothy had anything resembling the modern versions. You cannot make the statement you made and then place the burden to disprove it. It is seen in the following:

    A.

    You cannot disprove A.

    Therefore, A.

    Let's see another example: There are UFOs. you cannot prove there aren't. Therefore, there are UFOs.

    This argument has to apply equally to both sides.
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the argument is equal, sure. But is it? Let's see:

    Bob said of his argument:
    You said "with confidence" that Timothy had something that was A, not B, and B was impossible, therefore, A.

    Now Larry said:
    Larry "believes" his statement, A, not B, and B could not be disproven according to his belief.

    Bob= apples. Larry= oranges.

    Sorry, Bob. [​IMG]
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course it would be SIMILAR to the KJV. It just wouldn't have all of those additions that the KJV has.
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    These words are my sentiments exactly.
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The statement following was brought from off this board
    in direct defiance of the rules of this Forum
    as stated at:
    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000821
    which states:

    "3. Do not bring dirty laundry from another forum
    into this forum. This one has enough of its own."

    D.W. Costella: "We can have confidence today that
    we have a Bible that is the holy Word of God
    in the Authorized (King James) Version."

    Amen, brother Costella -- preach it!
    However, your statement is decietful.

    1. No mention is made that there are multiple
    versions of the King James Version.
    The one that was authorized (KJV1611) is probably
    NOT the one you use. Rather the unauthorized
    (KJV1769, KJV1873) versions are used.

    2. The term "authorized" is misrepresented.
    Falsely implied is that the KJV is authorized
    by God. Actually the KJV was authorized by
    the person whose name the version bears, to wit:
    King James.

    3. As typical, no distinction is made in
    these type comments between the Written Word
    of God: the Holy Bible and the Living Word
    of God: Messiah Yeshua. The written word of God leads us
    to the Truth: the Living Word of God.

    Testimony: I was saved 51 years ago when
    reading the KJV (probably KJV1873). I will teach
    next Sunday morning a Sunday School class of
    men 45-60, i will use a KJV1769.

    The KJV1769 is the holy word of God, but the
    KJV1769 is a MV (modern version).

    And Good Morning all! [​IMG]
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But I can offer some strong arguments against you.

    1) The Bibles used by Timothy and the Ephesian elders were in the common vernacular. The KJV isn't.
    2) The textual support for many disputed passages in the KJV does not reach back far enough leading us to believe that those were spurious passages added by scribes along the way. You would have to trace your evidence back much further than you can.
    3) The readings followed by the MV and texts account for the variant readings. The readings followed by the KJV cannot explain how the others came to be. This is a serious problem that the MajT/TR guys have not adequately dealt with, at least that I have seen.

    But more to the point, you miss the obvious point: What Timothy and the Ephesian elders had was not the KJV and it was used with authority. Therefore, it is patently unbiblical to suggest that only the KJV can be used with authority. It is obvious that other things can be. That is, and has been, the evangelical orthodox position. It will continue to be. The people who say that only the KJV is the word of God are simply not telling the truth. (Obviously that is not directed at you Pastor Bob, since you do not believe that). Even the "only word of God in the English language" addendum does not help out since it cannot be shown from Scripture to be the case.

    Therefore, once again, teh KJV position is shown to be totally lacking.
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Pastor Larry -- Preach it!
    [​IMG]
     
  18. Author

    Author
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://abooks.com/images/aralph.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Double 'Amen' from here in the back pew!

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Double 'Amen' from here in the back pew!

    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]What they said: [​IMG]
     
  20. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    They differ from James White, Bruce Metzger, and other naturalistic scholars because they disagree each other.
     

Share This Page

Loading...