The problem of 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron 36:9

[RAdam]

First of all, it isn't wallowing in ignorance. Neither the apostles nor the early preachers of God's word were ignorant, except by the standards of arrogant scholars. They didn't attend the finest schools, have a bunch of letters behind their name, or run in the high circles. What they did have was a call from the Lord Himself. What they did have was knowledge of the scriptures.

Paul, again and again, says he doesn't preach with the wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. Paul said he didn't trust in the flesh though he had more natural reason to do so than any other, due it his incredible education and scholarship. Nevertheless, he counted those things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ. He said the widsom of this world is foolishness, and God chose things they consider foolish to confound the wise.

This man, though he often quoted the OT scriptures, never once referred to the originals. He didn't refer to older and better manuscripts. He simply quoted the scriptures, believing fully that what they had in that day were the true scriptures. He believed this so fully that he argued from the singular use of a noun, from a single word, and from a phrase. Apparently Paul wasn't as smart as ya'll because he trusted in a copy to the fullest extent.

You guys set aside God's manner for your own. Understanding of the scriptures doesn't come from scholarship, it comes from God. Flesh and blood doesn't reveal the things of God, they are spiritually discerned. We have received the Spirit which is of God, not the spirit of this world, that we might know the things freely given to us of God. Yet you reject all of this and exalt your own knowledge above God's method of revealing His truths. You say that one can only understand the scriptures if he can read the original languages. Nonsense. There have been many brilliant men in history that couldn't understand anything about the truths of scripture. It isn't flesh and blood, it isn't intellect, it isn't scholarship that understands these things, they are revealed by God. They are revealed by Him after much study. We are to study in order that we might rightly divide the word of truth. Not truth from error, but truth from truth, assembling the truths of God. This doesn't come from knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, or Chaldee, it comes from God. You require men to come to your schools, where you systematically destory his faith in God to preserve His word, after which you convince them that the only way to understand scripture is to "read the Greek." Again, I say you make null and void, not only scripture itself, but every english translation that was or shall be.

You say we need to get as close as we can to the originals. I say man cannot bring this about because man today has never seen the originals. It is only the pride and arrogance of man that leads one to think he can "restore" the bible to the originals, and it is a willfull rejection of God's promise of preservation that leads one to think God needs him to restore the originals. Modern self-exalting scholarship is at odds with scripture.

Now, I am accused of promoting ignorance. Far from it. But an education in biblical things must be above all God-honoring. The first step to knowledge is a fear of God and an acknowledgement of His sovereignty.

 

[Winman]

Well, I disagree, I believe the KJV to be inerrant. Can I prove that? No. I believe it by faith.

I have said all along I simply believe God's promise to preserve his pure word. If the KJV is not that preserved and pure word, then which version is?

And you have a funny perspective of the word pure. You seem to think that God's word can be mixed with error and still be pure. Let me give an analogy.

It is written, "Thou shalt not kill", but that is false. We should kill anyone who gets in the way of achieving our goals, or anyone who offends us.
Now, according to you, that is preserved scripture, because it includes the pure word of God.

Do you see how silly your argument is?

 

[RAdam]

Please point out to me God's pure, preserved word. It's not the KJV since it is based off of these impure manuscripts and is a translation written by imperfect men. So... where is it?

If we don't have it today in the english then the english speaking Christians are hopelessly without it and always will be.

 

[Winman]

Trotter said:

I have completely faith in the scriptures as they are God's word.

I don't see how you can say this with real conviction. If you believe the scriptures are a jumbled mess, containing the pure word of God, but mixed with the errors of men, then how can you have real faith in them? Is this verse the word of God, or did some scribe write it in to advance his personal doctrine?
And this is how I myself came to be one of these hated KJVOs. When I was a teen and only saved a short while, all I had was the scriptures, my family was not religious whatsoever and rarely attended church. But I had a KJV I used to read nearly every day for hours. Then at Christmas my Aunt sent me an RSV which I also read. I immediately saw they were very different, and the footnotes troubled me when they said things like "better manuscripts omit this verse".

Now, how is that to be understood? This RSV was telling me my KJV was inferior and contained mistakes. I can tell you this, this did not give me assurance and confidence, it did just the opposite, it created doubt in my mind and much confusion. I just wanted to know the truth. I would pray and ask God to show me the truth. I did not want to know the teachings of men, I already knew that every man has a different opinion on everything and could not be trusted.

And then one day I read Matthew 4:4 and one single word really spoke to me.

Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

That word "every" hit me like a ton of bricks, I could not get if off of my mind. I thought on this verse for days. I couldn't help but ask myself how a just God could possibly expect me to live by every word unless he provided every word.

It was then that I realized there is an implied, but definite promise in this verse. Jesus himself is promising that he will provide every word so that I could live by it. I knew then that the inerrant word of God existed, but I still did not know where it was. So, I prayed and prayed that God would reveal his inerrant word to me. I talked to a man who gave me some good books on the subject. Boy, these books were tough, I can't even remember the names of these books now, but they were very in-depth. Some were written long ago and were very difficult to read. You know, our language has gone downhill from hundreds of years ago, it used to be far more complex. They told of the process used to translate the KJV, how the other versions came to be, and earlier versions before the KJV. I read many books.

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that the KJV is that preserved and inerrant word. I'm sorry but none of the MVs even comes close by any stretch of the imagination. That may be an opinion, but that is my firm conviction.

And another strong evidence to me has been history. I do not think it coincidence that just as the KJV was translated that England became the first global super-power. England had trade and colonies on every inhabited continent, and the predominant Bible they took with them was the KJV. You see, I don't think God has ceased to work in the world. We might not see it readily, but he is still governing over the affairs of men.

The MVs cannot claim to have taken the word of God to the whole world the way the KJV has. This is not opinion, this is historical fact.

Those who claim that God only preserved his word in the original autographs are actually arguing a form of Deism.

Deism:

1.belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2.belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

Those who say God has not preserved his word but in the original autographs (all of which are lost forever) are saying God finished his work 1900 years ago and stepped out of the picture. Now it is up to fallible man to preserve his word. If this were the case I would be extremely worried. If this were the case I would throw my Bible in the trash because I would know it is corrupt and untrustworthy.

 

[RAdam]

There is no firm conviction in their position. They rely on the wisdom of men and on scholarship than on the sovereignty of God. They, in this endevour, walk by sight and not by faith.

 

[Trotter]

You say we need to get as close as we can to the originals. I say man cannot bring this about because man today has never seen the originals. It is only the pride and arrogance of man that leads one to think he can "restore" the bible to the originals, and it is a willfull rejection of God's promise of preservation that leads one to think God needs him to restore the originals. Modern self-exalting scholarship is at odds with scripture.

Now, I am accused of promoting ignorance. Far from it. But an education in biblical things must be above all God-honoring. The first step to knowledge is a fear of God and an acknowledgement of His sovereignty.

Forgive me for only quoting part of your post, but I didn't want to take up too much space with a quote.

My post above was an extreme exaggeration. I sincerely doubt either of you would go to that extreme. I do not promote scholarship above or equal to God and His word even though you have accused me of it. Scholarship goes hand in hand with God's word. How can one know the scriptures unless you study them? How can one know and understand the nuances of a passage unless you learn of the time, the culture, the habits of the people involved in it? The bible tells us much, but it is usually silent about many things that help us to better understand the why and how of scripture.

That's where scholarship comes in. In order to bring out the fullness of a passage the preacher needs to know all the background. If the preacher starts with only the knowledge of today he will be forcing a modern context on to an ancient situation. I have seen and heard this so many times that I just want to scream. Moses lived in the time of the Exodus, not in the 21st century. King David lived in the time of the kings, not in the 1950's. And yet so many take the bible and try to hammer it into the way we see and understand things today while completely ignoring the actual context and history of the bible itself. THAT is what I deem "willful ignorance".

Holding to the KJV, Geneva, or other "classic" translation is fine, but one must take into account that more manuscript evidence has come to light since they were translated. This evidence does not change any doctrines in the bible, but they do cast doubt on to the authenticity of a few passages. Contrary to what Winman says, that does not shake my faith in God's word in the least. The bible will still be true with or without them, but I prefer to be as intellectually honest as possible with the scriptures. If there is doubt then I have to make the decision to not use it or to disclose this to the congregation. I have done both on difference occasions.

Well, I disagree, I believe the KJV to be inerrant. Can I prove that? No. I believe it by faith.

I have said all along I simply believe God's promise to preserve his pure word. If the KJV is not that preserved and pure word, then which version is?

And you have a funny perspective of the word pure. You seem to think that God's word can be mixed with error and still be pure.

You have your belief and that is fine. The problem is when you try to project this belief on me or anyone else. I believe my wife to be the most beautiful woman in the world, but that does not mean I can call another's wife ugly. A personal conviction is personal and not God's word on the subject.

I don't have a problem with God's word. Maybe it's the way my mind works or whatever, but I can pick up the KJV, NASB, ESV, or one of many other translations and know that I hold God's inerrant word. No two are identical but that's the way translations work. I can also look to the original languages and say that they are God's inerrant word. Again, that is my personal conviction and not yours and I do apologize for acting otherwise.

Those who say God has not preserved his word but in the original autographs (all of which are lost forever) are saying God finished his work 1900 years ago and stepped out of the picture. Now it is up to fallible man to preserve his word. If this were the case I would be extremely worried. If this were the case I would throw my Bible in the trash because I would know it is corrupt and untrustworthy.

Had God stopped working in the world then it would have been up to man to keep His words. Thankfully God did not stop working 1900 years ago or even 400 years ago. He still continues to work in this world, both to preserve His word and in the hearts of men. We don't have the originals, but we still have God's word.

 

[TomVols]

There is no firm conviction in their position. They rely on the wisdom of men and on scholarship than on the sovereignty of God. They, in this endevour, walk by sight and not by faith.

No question this is what the KJVOs do. This is why this position is so untenable.

Responding to someone saying they believed God's word to be true, a poster wrote:

I don't see how you can say this with real conviction.

Once again, the word of God is attacked. To disparage the word of God by questioning its inspiration, preservation, inerrancy and infallibility is arrogance beyond words.

 

[robycop3]

Winman:Well, I disagree, I believe the KJV to be inerrant. Can I prove that? No. I believe it by faith.

Faith in WHAT?

I can prove the KJV DOES have goofs..."Easter" in Acts 12:4, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, & the omission of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25, to name a few.

I have said all along I simply believe God's promise to preserve his pure word. If the KJV is not that preserved and pure word, then which version is?

The ancient Hebrew & Greek mss, from which all valid Bible translations are made.No original writer of Scripture wrote in English.

 

[robycop3]

Winman:Those who say God has not preserved his word but in the original autographs (all of which are lost forever) are saying God finished his work 1900 years ago and stepped out of the picture.

Actually, it's the KJVOS who are saying God retired in 1611. And their KJVO doctrine is Scripturally bankrupt.

 

[Winman]

You have your belief and that is fine. The problem is when you try to project this belief on me or anyone else.

What? I don't have a right to express my opinion, but those who think the scriptures are full of error do? I didn't start this thread, I simply responded to it, I thought that is how forums work.

Responding to someone saying they believed God's word to be true, a poster wrote:
Quote:
I don't see how you can say this with real conviction.

Once again, the word of God is attacked. To disparage the word of God by questioning its inspiration, preservation, inerrancy and infallibility is arrogance beyond words.

This is a real gem, I never disparaged God's word, I simply said that I cannot understand how someone can say the scriptures are "perfectly" preserved and say they have error at the same time. If I thought the scriptures were full of error, I wouldn't say it was preserved, or at least I would not say "perfectly" which the person I was quoting did say. If I preserved some grape jam and then opened the jar later and found insects and mold in it, I certainly wouldn't consider that perfectly preserved, in fact I wouldn't consider it preserved at all.

 

[Mexdeaf]

What? I don't have a right to express my opinion, but those who think the scriptures are full of error do? I didn't start this thread, I simply responded to it, I thought that is how forums work.



This is a real gem, I never disparaged God's word, I simply said that I cannot understand how someone can say the scriptures are "perfectly" preserved and say they have error at the same time. If I thought the scriptures were full of error, I wouldn't say it was preserved, or at least I would not say "perfectly" which the person I was quoting did say. If I preserved some grape jam and then opened the jar later and found insects and mold in it, I certainly wouldn't consider that perfectly preserved, in fact I wouldn't consider it preserved at all.

We're not talking about grape jelly here- we're talking about God's Word and He preserves it the way He wants to, not the way you or I want Him to. H never put a "cap" on it in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic and He didn't do it in 1611 in the KJV either.

Going to be a tough day when all of the "Onlyist" people get to Heaven and find out God DID preserve His Word, just not in the manner that they thought He would.

 

[Winman]

We're not talking about grape jelly here- we're talking about God's Word and He preserves it the way He wants to, not the way you or I want Him to. H never put a "cap" on it in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic and He didn't do it in 1611 in the KJV either.

Going to be a tough day when all of the "Onlyist" people get to Heaven and find out God DID preserve His Word, just not in the manner that they thought He would.

This is the height of hypocrisy, you are an "onlyist" too. I have seen many here that say the inerrant word of God is "only" found in the original autographs, which no one on this forum has ever seen, or ever will see as they disappeared centuries ago. How you can claim something you have never seen is inerrant is beyond me, and absolutely unscientific or scholarly.

You think arguing that something you have never seen is inerrant is a foolproof argument, when really it demonstrates how illogical your thinking is.

 

[TomVols]

How you can claim something you have never seen is inerrant is beyond me, and absolutely unscientific or scholarly.

You think arguing that something you have never seen is inerrant is a foolproof argument, when really it demonstrates how illogical your thinking is.

Have you ever seen the original KJV? What about the original Byzantine mss? TR? How is what you're alleging any different? Is it just YOUR copy of the KJV that's inerrant?

 

[Winman]

Have you ever seen the original KJV? What about the original Byzantine mss? TR? How is what you're alleging any different? Is it just YOUR copy of the KJV that's inerrant?

Go back and read my posts, I have never said I have absolute knowledge that the KJV is the inerrant word of God, I have always said I believe that by faith.

But what I hope you realize now is that those who believe that only the original autographs are inerrant are in the same boat as me. It is something they will never be able to prove through scholarship as all originals are lost. We don't even know for certain that all of the NT books were written in Greek, some may have been originally written in Hebrew and translated to Greek later. So, this argument that a translation cannot not be inspired and must contain errors in translation actually works against you, not for you.

And you are just as scripturally bigoted as me, only you trust in documents you have never even seen. At least I have a Bible I can hold in my hand and can be tested.

You cannot say the KJV (or any other version) does not perfectly agree with the original autographs because you have never seen them, nor will you ever be able to determine exactly what they contained.

 

[TomVols]

And you are just as scripturally bigoted as me, only you trust in documents you have never even seen. At least I have a Bible I can hold in my hand and can be tested.

So you have the original KJV, or original Byz forms? TR? M?

 

[TomVols]

Go back and read my posts, I have never said I have absolute knowledge that the KJV is the inerrant word of God, I have always said I believe that by faith.

So your faith makes the Word of God the Word of God? Wow. I believe the Word of God makes the Word of God the Word of God.

Do you not see you are guilty of what you accuse others of?

Go back and read my posts, I have never said I have absolute knowledge that the KJV is the inerrant word of God

Careful here...you sure you wanna go out on that limb? It's creeking :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

Do you people even realize that 11 of the 12 apostles weren't scholars?

Luke was a scholar of sorts. He was a well-educated doctor and a pretty fair historian.

Many great baptist preachers of old couldn't read Greek or Hebrew, but they knew they had the word of God, they knew the word of God, they were greatly fitted to their work by God, and they did it. Too bad that, according to you, they really didn't know the Bible.

Hmm, you aren't going back far enough. From the 17th to late 19th century I'd say that many Baptist preachers were scholarly.

You scholars have no faith in God's word,...

I'm not in the scholarly group -- but you have no right to say the above. Shame on you.

 

[Rippon]

You know, it has been shown that generally the more education a person has, the more likely they are to be an athiest.[sic]

Are you saying that some here are claiming there is no God?! You are really out on a broken limb.

I do not know how Jesus defied the laws of nature when he walked on water, and I am not going to do a scientific study to figure it out, I am just going to believe it.

That's absurd argumentation.

 

[Rippon]

... anyone who reads the book of Revelations can easily see that God is still working, and has much more work to accomplish in the future.

I don't have the book of Revelations in my Bible translations.

 

[Rippon]

We are to study in order that we might rightly divide the word of truth. Not truth from error, but truth from truth, assembling the truths of God. This doesn't come from knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, or Chaldee, it comes from God. You require men to come to your schools, where you systematically destory his faith in God to preserve His word, after which you convince them that the only way to understand scripture is to "read the Greek." Again, I say you make null and void, not only scripture itself, but every English translation that was or shall be.

Do you believe that godly scholars have and do exist?

Why would you make a shameful charge that anyone here would suggest that someone go to a seminary where one's faith is destroyed?!

You say we need to get as close as we can to the originals. I say man cannot bring this about because man today has never seen the originals. It is only the pride and arrogance of man that leads one to think he can "restore" the bible to the originals, and it is a willfull rejection of God's promise of preservation that leads one to think God needs him to restore the originals. Modern self-exalting scholarship is at odds with scripture.

Man are you ever racking up some non-points. Yes, any scholarship that exalts itself is at odds with Scripture. However, are all Bible scholars in the same category as far as you are concerned?

Though no scholar, I do think that modern conservative Bible scholarship is reconstructing a textual basis that is coming ever closer to what the originals looked like.