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!

Please Read and Give input Here

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Jan 5, 2004.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you saying that non-KJVOs are not Bible believers?
     
  2. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob,

    Could you post what you are referring to?? What is #1 through #5 as you had it defined? Help? It would have been helpful to have it posted earlier. Thanks!
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do you accept the current canon?
     
  5. TheOliveBranch

    TheOliveBranch New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    0
    This may be true, but I have noticed the same argument for MV users. They state that their Bible came from the older and better texts. How do they know that they are better? Many MV users will follow whatever seems to be easier to read, thus the popularity of the NIV.
     
  6. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    No,I'm saying that they dont know which "bible"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)to believe in...

    In short:"How long halt ye between two opinions?"
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Originally posted by timothy 1769:
    [/QUOTE]Why do you accept the current canon? [/QB][/QUOTE]

    Because God, working through men, set it and established it over a number of years, and it's been in place for quite a while now, with no one clamoring that this or that book should be added. The OT canon was set long before Jesus came, & there can be no argument against its structure.

    The epistles of Paul were called Scripture by Peter, and the Gospels were written by men who were Jesus' companions, chosen by Him to be His Apostles. However, there was some debate about whether revelation was Scripture despite its authorship by John. Same for Hebrews, although many believed Paul wrote it, its authorship was never firmly established.

    In summary, the canon was not established overnight; it was established in its present form only after mucho study and prayer, under the auspices of God. If you don't believe it's correct, then feel free to give us your opinion as to what should be added or removed, and why.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No,I'm saying that they dont know which "bible"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)to believe in...

    In short:"How long halt ye between two opinions?"
    </font>[/QUOTE]Thanx for clarifying.

    No two English BVs are alike. What criteria do you have to say Version "A" is valid while Version "B" is not?
     
  9. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    tim: Why do you accept the current canon?

    robycop: Because God, working through men, set it and established it over a number of years, and it's been in place for quite a while now, with no one clamoring that this or that book should be added. The OT canon was set long before Jesus came, & there can be no argument against its structure.

    The epistles of Paul were called Scripture by Peter, and the Gospels were written by men who were Jesus' companions, chosen by Him to be His Apostles. However, there was some debate about whether revelation was Scripture despite its authorship by John. Same for Hebrews, although many believed Paul wrote it, its authorship was never firmly established.

    In summary, the canon was not established overnight; it was established in its present form only after mucho study and prayer, under the auspices of God. If you don't believe it's correct, then feel free to give us your opinion as to what should be added or removed, and why.


    What you say about the canon, I say about the preserved texts, but with extensive biblical support. Most of what you say about the canon, I say about the KJV.

    Can we agree that your position (and mine, btw) on the NT canon is unbiblical (since the canon is not listed there), and ultimately unprovable? Is it not ultimately a matter of faith and trust in God's providential work?
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No,I'm saying that they dont know which "bible"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)to believe in...

    In short:"How long halt ye between two opinions?"
    </font>[/QUOTE]See AA - that is an example of #4 KJV - using the KJV as the ultimate standard. It is not; the Bible is!

    You say we have 200 different "bibles". No. We have one Bible. We have 200 different English translations of the Bible.
     
  11. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob, is your one Bible a real, physical object? or more of a theoretical construct?
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have a Greek Bible that is reliable and accurate from which I can translate a reliable and accurate English.

    It is on my desk next to me, as I'm called on to use it many times a day on the BB!
     
  13. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which is more perfecter, the Stephanus or the UBS?
     
  14. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The UBS could be called better in one way...

    It has all of the TR if you take into consideration the aparatus notes plus (or minus) all the important variants reflecting the differences of all the extant NT witnesses.

    HankD
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV is the inspired Word of God. That means no double/advanced inspiration.

    If the KJV is inspired, it is called, "the KJV inspiration" -- double/advanced inspiration.

    Be careful! The difference between the definition of the KJV inspiration and of the non-KJV inspiration is that you make sure which you believe.
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    originally posted by Askjo
    The KJV is no more inspired than is any other valid English translation.

    Perhaps a better term here would be "influenced". We think of "inspired" to be the original writings of Scripture by the men to whom God directly spoke, such as Moses or John. But at any rate, no one can prove God influenced the making of any one English Bible translation alone.
     
  17. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have both, even though the UBS contains all the former. Why? Just being sure not to step on the toes of the TR-only (KJVO #3 in our definition)
     
Loading...