Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?

Why not just admit you have no inspired Bible?

Those who are not King James Holy Bible onlyists do not have any bible or texts they believe ARE right now, today, the complete, infallible, pure words of God.

Supposedly a poll was taken at Baptist Board and 44% believe ONLY the originals WERE inspired. My, what a bold stand to take for the truth of God. Since it is obvious we do not have the originals and nobody would recognize them if they fell into their laps, this leaves us with no inspired Bible NOW.

Some 13% believe ALL English versions, no matter how much they differ in both texts and meanings, are all the inspired words of God. This fact indicates how loopy modern Christianity has become.

A guy who calls himself Pastor Larry got all upset when I said he had no infallible Bible. He wrote:

Since you have no infallible Bible
------------------------------------------------------------------------"That is an out and out lie. You know it and you should be embarrassed by your disregard for the truth. If you do not tell the truth about little things like this, how will you expect credibility in bigger things like the Scriptures?"

So, when I asked him: "When I said you have no infallible Bible you responded that this is an out an out lie on my part.

OK, Larry, prove me wrong and tell us all exactly what your infallible Bible is. Give it a name, please. Is it the NASB? If it is not any translation, then please tell us exactly which Hebrew and which Greek text is your infallible bible.

I will bet there is no specific Hebrew or specific Greek text which you really believe is the preserved, infallible, complete words of God, but rather your own peculiar, personal, mystical version that exist only in your own mind. Prove me wrong.
Will Kinney"

The answer I got from pastor Larry was.....cricket...cricket....cricket...

I'm still waiting for the title of his infallible Bible.


Brother Scott, over at the Baptist Board answers: "I think that we are still on a quest to find not only the original words that were written in the autographs, but as our language and scholarship changes, so does our ability to effectively translate those manuscripts."

When I asked this same question, a Christian who calls himself Tinytim answers with uncharacteristic honesty: "No one has a complete infallible bible, God seen fit to destroy the originals. If you have a problem with that talk to Him. We do have reliable english translations that give us God's message to humankind, but to say that they are inspired, infallible, or inerrant is a lie. They are merely a translation. God preserved his words in the varying manuscripts. That's why I carry a parallel Bible. There is so much pride in the KJVO beliefs that it is sinful."


So, why don't most of you Whateverists, Originals Onlyists come right out and admit that you do not have RIGHT NOW anywhere on this earth a Holy Bible that you believe to be the complete, infallible, inerrant, inspired, pure and totally accurate words of the living God?

A little more honesty on your part would be greatly appreciated. And if there are any of the 13% who say they believe all the conflicting versions are equally inspired and inerrant, please step forward and explain this nonsense.

Thank you,

Will Kinney

 

Will,"Those who are not King James Holy Bible onlyists do not have any bible or texts they believe ARE right now, today, the complete, infallible, pure words of God."

Hi Charles, you posted:That would depend on your definition of complete, infallible, and pure! Unfortunately we do not have any originals. The manuscripts we do have are slightly different from one another. The English versions are a little different from one another. Even the revisions of the venerable KJB are slightly different. It is thus abundantly clear to me that God did not find in necessary to give us an exact word for word copy. Take Luke 4:18. Jesus quotes from Isaiah - specifically chapter 61.

Charles, the manuscripts are VERY different. Some 3000 words difference just in the New Testament. We are not talking about 10 or 20 words here. There are 17 entire verses omitted in the N.T. in the NIV and even more in the RSV, ESV. The NASB keeps changing from one edition to the next.

And in the O.T. the NASB frequently departs from the Hebrew texts, and the NIV, ESV even moreso.

The editions of the KJB were printing errors, not intentional textual changes. As for your Luke 4 with Isaiah 61, God has the right to quote Himself by way of explanation, amplification, application, as He sees fit.

Charles, you are attempting to minimize the differences, and yet tacitly admit you do not believe we have a complete, inspired, inerrant Bible today.

Luke 4:16-19 compared with Isaiah 61:1-2


Luke 4:16-19

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."


Isaiah 61:1-2

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; "


Some Bible critics like to tell us that Jesus was quoting the Greek Septuagint version rather than expounding the Hebrew Scriptures. There are several problems with this view. There is no historical proof that there ever was such a thing as a widely accepted, authoritative, pre-Christian Septuagint version that Jesus could have been reading at this time. The Jews still spoke and read the Hebrew language.

Secondly, it was the post Christian Septuagint versions that were written to bring them in line with many New Testament quotes, not the other way around.

Thirdly, if Jesus were quoting the Septuagint, He didn't do a very good job of it, because the LXX version also differs not only from the Hebrew texts, but also from the quote as it is found in the Greek New Testament.

In Luke 4:18 and 19, after "recovering of sight to the blind" the Greek N.T. reads "TO SET AT LIBERTY THEM THAT ARE BRUISED, To PREACH the acceptable year of the Lord." In Greek this is: "aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei, keeruxai eniauton kuriou dekton".

However the Septuagint version reads: "to CALL FOR an acceptable year of the Lord, AND A DAY OF RECOMPENSE, to comfort all that mourn." In Greek this is: "KALESAI eniauton kuriou dekton, KAI HEMERAN ANTAPODOSEOS, parakalesai pantas tous penthountas."

We can clearly see that the "quotes" from the so called Septuagint, do not match what is written in the New Testament. The so called Septuagint completely omits "to set at liberty them that are bruised", changes "to preach" into "to call for", and changes "day of VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD" to "and a day of recompense " This is hardly what is recorded in the gospel of Luke chapter four, nor does it match the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61.

In addition to this, the words found in Luke 4:18 "TO HEAL THE BROKEN-HEARTED" are missing from versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NWT, but are found in both the KJB and the Septuagint version. Those who insist on the use of the LXX have departed from it in this verse more so than the KJB.

The words "to heal the broken-hearted" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts and many uncial copies including Alexandrinus of the 5th century. The reading is also found in many ancient versions such as the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, the Georgian, Slavonic, and some Coptic Boharic manuscripts. It is also quoted by early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hipplytus, Cyril, Theodoret, and Hillary.

However the usual suspects of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these precious words from Holy Writ, and so the NASB, NIV and ESV also omit them.

Any man or author is able to freely quote HIMSELF if he
wants to. But no one has the right to freely quote another and put words into his mouth; this is bearing false witness. God can freely-quote or explain further what He means if He wants to, but we do not have the right to change His words.


The Lord Jesus is merely explaining in further detail the sense of the passage as found in the Hebrew Scriptures, just like any good Jewish teacher would do for the sake of the congregation.

It should be obvious that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is not quoting some LXX version. Rather, he is restating the same truths found in the Hebrew text by placing the same ideas in different terms. God has the right to do this, because He is refering to what He Himself has inspired. We, on the other hand, do not have the right to alter God's words or thoughts.


Will K

 

Daniel David posts: Why would I admit a lie? We are to be truth-bearers.
The NASB is the inerrant, perfect word of God. So is the NKJV. So is the ESV."

Ok, Daniel, then let me ask you a couple things. Are the words in Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." part of the inerrant, perfect word or God or not? They are found in the NKJV, but not in the NASB, ESV.

Then in the NASB and the NKJV and KJB we read in Matthew 12:47 "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."

However this whole verse is missing from the ESV. So which one is the true word of God here?

Will K

 

Orvie " Your perhaps well intentioned myth breaks down b/c in spite all your yahoo, before 1611 there was no single text that all agreed upon as Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible, etc, except the language God Almighty chose to write in, namely the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Of course some wrongly believed the Latin corrected the Originals as well. If your myth is followed logically, then God failed before 1611, b/c it's pure conjecture and nonsense to say that God 'waited' till 1611 to get the matter straight in the KJV."

So Orvie, do we now have an inspired, inerrant Bible or not? Yes or No? If Yes, then what is it called, the nasb, niv, esv, rsv, nkjv, or what?

Just admit it. You do not believe we have or have ever had a complete Bible of 66 books all together at one time in one place that is the inerrant words of God. This should not be too hard for you to say, is it?

Will K

 

Hank: "All "errors" of ANY KIND in the Word of God were introduced by MEN whether TR, Majority text or Alexandrian. We do not have the originals of these families of MSS just as we do not have the KJV 1611 original MSS. A reconstruction of the text is necessary."

Same for you Hank. Are you then saying that we do not have an inerrant Bible now?

Will K

 

Tim posts: "A Version (which is what the KJV is) cannot be inspired. Derived inspiration yes."

Tim, this is all I am arguing for. Derived inspiration is still inspiration. Otherwise there is no such thing as an inspired Bible on this earth today, right?

There are a lot that are "infallible" as none destroys any doctrine that can be taught from the KJV."


Tim, I disagree with this. There are several doctrinal issues that are perverted in the new versions. One is the example of 2 Peter 3:12 where the niv, nkjv, esv, nasb all teach that we can hasten or speed the coming of the day of God. This is impossible and contradicts many other clear Scriptures. What do you do with this example?


Tim: "The Bible (original manuscripts) is Inerrant, infallible, and inspired.
Our challenge is to correctly translate the Bible into English. "

Tim, how do you know the originals were inerrant? How do you know they did not have spelling errors in them?

If our challenge is to correctly translate the Bible into English (which origianl Bible we no longer have), then why do the scholars keep contradicting one another both in text and meaning?

What happens to all the promises God made about His words never passing away?

Will K

 

Daniel David, "I reject the KJV as the inerrant word because of the multiple errors I have posted on here, the mocking of God by referring to Christ as a thing, the Holy Spirit as 'it' and their Anglican influence that I have mentioned time and again."

Daniel, you are seeing an error and a "mocking of God" where none exists.

Rather than posting the whole article again, here is the site that clearly explains the use of IT when referring to the Holy Ghost and Christ. Your argument is against God Himself, not the KJB. Check out your other versions on this too. You do not know whereof you speak regarding this matter.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/rom8.html