What's wrong with "bishop" and "bishopric"? Nothing!

You are a great example of subjective truth without any absolutes. That is called relative theology. My God is absolutely true, not true with imperfections. There is only one truth, not truth and exceptions--called truth. Some thing is imperfect book is less than perfect. That makes it imperfect.

 

Mr. Kinney, does or does not John 1 in the NIV say that Jesus was in the beginning with God, and that He created all things? Does it or does it not claim in several other places that Jesus is one with the Father? Does it or does it not record that Jesus claimed to be "I AM THAT I AM" ("before Abraham was, I AM), the eternally existent one...God Himself? Have you even bothered to look in these places to see whether or not the NIV says these things? (I know you've seen these passages, b/c I took quite a bit of time to list them out for you on OB a while back. As I recall, you never commented on them there, just as you have not commented on them here. Are you just ignoring this argument and hoping it will go away?)

JW's and other cult members are adept at twisting Scripture to fit their own purposes. The only thing this statement shows is that you have something in common with JW's when you fail to see (or wilfully choose to ignore) that the weight of NIV Scripture clearly declares Christ's deity and eternal coexistence with God. Am I saying that the NIV is a good translation? The best translation? Nope. I'm just saying that you're not playing fair when you ignore the weight of what the NIV does say...and that if this is how you operate, I cannot trust you when you talk about any version of the Bible, including the KJV.

Then they could do the same thing with John 3:16 in the KJV...They could say, "See...Jesus was begotten and therefore had a beginning." The fact that JW's can twist selected Scriptures to fit their religious views doesn't argue for your position in the least.

Thanks. I scanned through the article and confirmed to myself that I did know what it was talking about (although I did use the wrong reference earlier: Micah instead of Acts, I believe). The fact remains that the weight of NIV Scripture clears this one up, just like the weight of KJV Scripture clears up "troubling" readings in that version. Doctrine is therefore not affected in this instance.

Again, the larger issue is not the NIV, but your trampling upon sound hermeneutics, and your unwillingness to test other versions in the same way you test the KJV for consistency. And, the even larger issue is this, from a previous post, which you have also not addressed:

 

I would suggest that you study some Jewish literature to better understand how the Jews thought and translated. Your information is not consistent with the LXX, which was translated by Jewish scholars of the time.

Where have you gotten your information or are you up to the same plagiarizing actions that you were caught doing a few years ago?

 

With all respect, may I request that Will J. Kenney and Annie5 keep their previous discussions on the "OB" (whatever that is) off the Baptist Board, for the benefit of us who are not even familiar with this group, or have never read it.

FTR, I have absolutely zero interest in even finding out what it is, as I don't have sufficient time to even keep up with the Baptist Board (my one Board I read and post to), let alone any others.

Ed

 

Good lord Will, do you post on every forum out there?

On your actual subject, more specifically your title question. Most AMERICAN PROTESTANTS problem with the terms of "bishop" or "bishopric" is the fact that we do not attend a Church with that office. Given the fact that this is a Baptist board, most likely no one here does.

To most bishop seems reminiscent of Catholicism but in this case the Church of England to which none of us belong.

The word in question is episkopos which means a Christian leader/teacher/officer/overseer/pastor basically one in charge if a Church. One must know that bishop was used to translate episkopos in the KJV since it was translated by and for the Church of England and that office was the proper Church office that best fitted the Greek word.

Is that word the best translation for those who do not acknowledge a bishop but instead have Pastors and Deacons? That is the question for many of us.

Can we just avoid the pokes and jests at this point? There getting a little old and we both know exactly where the other stands by now :thumbs: :jesus:

 

Sure, Ed, I'll be glad to. Let me make sure I understand what you're asking. Are you saying that our discussion here (about versions in general) is not welcome? Or are you saying that I should stop referring to OB (Online Baptist), the board on which I have interacted with Mr. Kinney before? Either way, just let me know, and I'll try to oblige.

A little background: OB is a KJVO board, and did not allow us to finish our recent discussion b/c they censor things like that. If you prefer, I can transfer our current discussion to a new thread so that this one isn't hijacked. Again, just let me know your preference.

 

Yes, they will, b/c they don't use sound hermeneutics in interpreting Scripture, and they refuse to compare troubling verses with the weight of Scripture, just like you are doing now. I don't think that the NIV rendering in Micah 5:2 is the best one, and I'm not arguing for that (although the marginal notation in the NIV I'm looking at right now (online) refers to the Hebrew and indicates "goings out" (for origins) and "days of eternity" (for from old) to clarify the meaning of these terms.

Why doesn't it? You insist that one or two verses which use wording such as "became your father" and "origins" absolutely mean that the NIV declares Christ to have had a beginning. Why can't we take the "I AM" verse along with John 1 and Colossians and say that the NIV teaches that Christ did not have a beginning? Here again, you're not playing fair hermeneutically. The simple fact of the matter is that you are not willing to look at ALL of the verses in the NIV which address Christ's eternality. Your eyes are shut--wilfully shut--as you pick out a couple of verses with doubtful renderings and use them (like JW's do) to "show" that the NIV doesn't teach Christ's eternality.

As you have refused to interact and answer my questions, choosing instead simply to repeat yourself, I can only surmise that you do not have any answers for them. If you do, I'd love to hear them.

 

Will,
No, I won't respond in a convincing way because I've already responded 2 more times than i actually wanted to.

Thanks for the information and may the Lord bless you in reaching many unsaved people for Him.

 

Folks,

Have you so soon forgotten that "Will J. Kinney" has been here before and was thoroughly discredited with his attacks on the Bible? He has nothing new. He has nothing true. All he does it attack the word of God and set himself as an authority over it.

God didn't die and leave "Will J. Kinney" to testify to his Word. God does that himself. We would be better served to ignore this nonsense.

We should, in the words of 1 Tim 1, tell this man to cease teaching heterodoxy, and then send him on his way so as not to be a party to his wickedness.

 

Posting an article is not answering my questions...especially when my questions are about certain things said in the article and flow from the article. Instead of interacting further, you repeat yourself. This answers no questions. It merely gives the impression that you have not thought through your position, and what is worse, that your mind is closed: "Don't confuse me with the facts," as they say.

 

Will, your "KJVO God" is too small.