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!

Featured Let God Be True

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by SGO, May 30, 2021.

  1. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, and you have given him more than enough answer. His theme verse for the thread, which you only partially quoted in post #2, ends “but every man a liar.” Perhaps it’s time you let the man be. He's more than earned it. :Wink
     
  2. SGO

    SGO Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2020
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    533
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Mr. Nice Guy thanks for the slam.

    "The wisdom from God above and from the Holy Spirit of truth guides me in understanding what is stated in the KJV."

    Prove it not from an English bible which you do not believe is inspired.

    No slam from me but

    Let God be true...

    Praying for you to sometime really, really believe that inspiration of scripture exists today.

    How do you explain your new birth by the living word of God if it is not inspired.

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
    2 Timothy 3:16

    According to you no translation of the living word of God, that is the bible, is inspired.

    Did some preacher read the originals to you and you heard?

    Now faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
    Romans 10:17
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. SGO

    SGO Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2020
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    533
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Someone is missing their temperance.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Stratton7

    Stratton7 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2020
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You said this in response to SGO, but after 1K plus anti-KJO threads, I’m pretty sure you’re set in stone that you can’t be convinced unless Jesus showed up on your door step. I “could” be wrong on this, but unlikely so I don’t suppose you’ll change your tune anytime soon as much as that be an awesome thing. Your words cause believers and new Christians alike to cast doubt on the perfect words of God and if they can be obtained today.
    Isn’t it interesting we don’t really have any NIVO’s or NLTO’s etc.? There hasn’t really been too many issues either with the KJB until the modern versions came around at the end of the 19th century.
    You have to honestly ask yourself what, if anything, would you be willing to accept as evidence.
    God knows and can guide you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am probably far less set in stone than most KJV-only advocates are. I am very open to justly applied scriptural truths and verifiable facts. I am willing to learn from KJV-only books that I read. I have often favorably quoted KJV-only authors when I consider their statements to be correct. A positive, clear, consistent, just, true case from the Scriptures would also be considered by me. It is far easier to reason with me from the Scriptures than it is with typical KJV-only advocates.

    Why should I change my tune from advocating a just application of scriptural truths and from seeking verifiable facts or sound evidence?
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your making an assertion or allegation does not prove it to be true.

    Questioning or casting doubt on blind faith in KJV-only opinions and unproven claims would not be casting doubt on the perfect words of God. Would not being deceived by believing assertions that are not true be far worse than doubting human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning or opinions of men?
     
  7. Stratton7

    Stratton7 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2020
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That’s just it. I have to take the stance that the use of modern versions from W&H is deception that which is worse (in your words of believing assertions that are not true to be far worse) than believing what God has said about preserving His words.
    Psalm 12:6-7, Prov 22:21, 2 Tim 3:15-16 (These verses are not lending to blind faith but faith indeed.) - (Several other verses as well)
    All the translations back to back ending with the KJB then virtually nothing for 300+ years. Kind of makes you go, hm? (In a good way)
    Not that this is tangible evidence you scientific and scholarly guys like, but it’s quite interesting.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I believe what God has said about preserving His words. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

    God has not said that He failed to preserve the exact specific original-language words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that He needed to restore them or regive them in English in 1611. KJV-only reasoning adds opinions of men to what God said so that it does involve blind faith in those opinions of men. Believing assertions that are not true is not biblical faith. By use of fallacies such as begging the question, KJV-only reasoning assumes premises and things that God has not said in the Scriptures. God has not said that His words are bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not a scientific guy. I am a Bible-believing man.
     
  10. Stratton7

    Stratton7 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2020
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I understand that this is what you say, but several times I ask where I can find these words, (if preserved by God then must be perfect) yet have to receive an answer. Getting to the 1611 was a process throughout history.
    This is where I leave for the night. You’re in my prayers.
     
  11. SGO

    SGO Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2020
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    533
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    OK Logos 1560 and those that stand with you in your assertion that "only the originals are inspired",

    show the verses in the bible that say that.

    If true, ("only the originals are inspired"), then no translation can ever be inspired and I will apologize for any misstatements I may have made.

    Right from "a bible believing man", show bible believing verses that say, "only the originals are inspired."

    The word of our God shall stand for ever.
    Isaiah 40:8

    Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.
    Matthew 24:35

    All scripture is inspired of God...
    2 Timothy 3:16

    Let God be true and every one of us a liar.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You already were given an answer on page 5 of the thread about Revelation 16:5. Here is that answer again.

    Although the original autographs are not known to exist on earth, the preserved Scriptures in the original language still exist in the multiple manuscript copies and in printed editions. I believe God is just as faithful to preserve His words today as He was before 1611.

    The KJV was based on multiple, varying original-language editions of the Scriptures so why can't the Scriptures be in multiple varying original-language editions as it was before 1611? I have reprint editions of some of the printed original-language texts on which the KJV is said to be based. Would KJV-only advocates suggest that those editions are not the word of God so that the KJV was not translated from the word of God? Do the Scriptures actually teach that each believer has to have a complete, every-word perfect edition of all the Scriptures in one volume?

    Do you ignore how that new believers in the book of Acts are said to have received the word of God even though they did not have an complete, every-word, inerrant scroll or copy of the entire Scriptures [all the New Testament had not yet been given and written]? It would have likely taken months for the multiple scrolls to be copied that would be needed to contain the entire Old Testament in the original languages.

    While having all the Scriptures in one printed volume has not been demonstrated to be essential, there are some printed one volume editions with both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. One example would be The Interlinear Bible edited by Jay Green, and it also includes an English translation.

    It is inconsistent KJV-only reasoning that seems to suggest that God failed to preserve some of His exact, specific words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that they supposedly had to be restored from imperfect Latin translations or other language translations or regiven in 1611. I do not find that KJV-only advocates present any clear, consistent, sound, scriptural view of the preservation of the Scriptures.
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44). The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4, Isa. 55:11). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 3:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses in the whole of Scripture. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56).

    The exact same words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Rom. 9:17, Exod. 9:16). The whole counsel of God or the overall teaching of the Scriptures would indicate that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The 1611 KJV was translated from multiple, textually-varying original-language texts, and in addition translations based on textually-varying sources such as the Latin Vulgate of Jerome were consulted and influenced the making of the KJV. The printed Textus Receptus Greek NT editions had some readings added from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The Hebrew-Latin and Greek-Latin lexicons used by the KJV translators had Latin definitions for original-language words of Scripture that often or even usually came from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The KJV translators also borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.
     
  15. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let God Be True

    Let him? I sure ain't stopping him.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Stratton7

    Stratton7 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2020
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So in printed editions we have the preserved Scriptures but yet the overall teaching of them indicates there can be none. Got it. :rolleyes:

    The overall teaching (context) actually shows that it can be preserved and not in the just the originals only as God has promised to preserve His words and the originals don’t exist.

    I don’t want to beat a dead horse anymore so I’m ok with leaving this be with you on this thread.
     
  17. SGO

    SGO Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2020
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    533
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Where are those "only the originals are inspired" verses?

    Come on, make more fun of the KJV, you who do not think any translation can be inspired of God.

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
    2 Timothy 3:16

    No inspiration = no scripture.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Dave G

    Dave G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    1,332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Logos, after all of that, where can the Bible believing Christian actually find the inspired words of God...
    without having to learn Greek and Hebrew, and sort through 5 differing versions of the TR, 28 versions of NA, 5 versions of UBS, Tischendorf's work and many others?

    Remember, the originals are long gone.
    As do I.
    I also see that in the above, you're basically stating that His preserved words can be found in all of the existing manuscripts today.

    But there's a problem...
    We mere non-scholars don't have access to them all.
    In fact, the vast majority of humanity has no direct access to them at all.
    Neither do we have the time to learn Greek and Hebrew in order to perform our own translations;

    And all of that is contingent upon us being able to gain access to perhaps 1,000 of the over 5,000 extant Greek manuscripts ( and various pieces of manuscripts ) in order to produce a reliable collated Greek text with which to perform a moderately trustworthy translation.

    To add insult to injury,
    those Greek manuscripts don't all agree with one another.
    For example, "Vaticanus" and "Siniaticus" differ with each other in well over 2,000 places.

    They can't both be the preserved words of God.
    God doesn't lie.:Sneaky

    Finally, what you seem to be telling us is that no translation into any language, English or otherwise, actually reflects ( or preserves ) the original inspiration.
    Stated another way,
    We simply cannot hold God's inspired words in our hands if they are translated from those Greek and Hebrew texts.

    Is this correct?
    I hope not, because telling me that all Scripture is inspired by God, and then me not being able to actually hold it in my hands and trust its words,
    is going to be a real problem for me and others like me
     
    #38 Dave G, Jun 1, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Dave G

    Dave G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    1,332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And I don't find that CT-only advocates present any clear, consistent, sound, and Scriptural view of the preservation of the Scriptures, either.

    In fact, they say that "older-is-better",
    while God's word tells us that where there are two or three witnesses that are in agreement,
    that is what carries the day ( Deuteronomy 17:6, Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16, Hebrews 10:28 ).

    As I mentioned above, the two oldest complete manuscripts ( or "codexes" ) don't agree with one another in well over 2,000 places;
    IMO, that should disqualify them from being used in any way, shape or form for Bible translation.
    Therefore, it seems to me that NA and UBS must be completely re-collated in order to leave out any readings from these two ( formerly ) Roman Catholic-owned codexes...

    Shouldn't they?


    That said,
    When are you going to start questioning them with the same veracity that you question the "KJV-Only" or "TR-Only" side?
    Is it that KJV-Only's are more vocal and seem to need more "shutting up" than the other side does?

    If so,
    did you ever stop to consider that the reason that "KJV-Only's" are being so vocal,
    is because nothing is actually being done about the problem?

    Believe me, it's a massive problem whose differences are not going to go away all by themselves
     
    #39 Dave G, Jun 1, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2021
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wilbur Pickering noted that those “who has collated any number of MS have all demonstrated that the Byzantine bulk of MSS is by no means monolithic. There are any number of streams and rivulets. (Recall that F. Wisse posited thirty-four groups within the Byzantine bulk, with seventy subgroups.)” (God Has Preserved, p. 245). Stephen Brown observed: “The Byzantine texttype in particular can be broken into a number of groups, showing it to be anything but monolithic” (McCollum, Solid Rock Greek NT, p. 715). Frederick Scrivener, who collated several Byzantine manuscripts, noted: “I see no cause for believing such supposed Byzantine standard text had any existence, save in the imagination of certain modern theorists” (Full and Exact Collation, p. lxvii).

    KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged: "There are some readings on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided, making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text. Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow" (KJV Defended, p. 224).

    D. A. Carson asserted: “The argument that ties the adoption of the TR to verbal inspiration is logically and theologically fallacious” (KJV Debate, p. 68). D. A. Carson observed: “There is only a difference of degree between the textual variants that exist within one textual tradition and the textual variants found when two or more textual traditions are compared. If verbal inspiration is tied to one textual tradition, it does not escape the kind of problems presented if more than one textual tradition be admitted” (p. 69).

    Ryan Wettlaufer noted: “Clearly the TR/KJV tradition is incapable of offering any one text that could fulfil the doctrinal idea of a single preserved version of the Scriptures” (No Longer Written, p. 49).

    Harry Sturz asked: "If providential preservation is put on the same level with inspiration, how does it come about that the Byzantine text is composite, i.e., how could the text have differences within it? Furthermore, being composite, how is one to know what the providentially preserved reading is?" (p. 43). Harry Sturz asserted: “Providential preservation, then, has not operated on a level with inspiration and been confined to one text-type. If the chain of argument had been correct, there could be no deviation” (Byzantine Text-Type, p. 44). Harry Sturz affirmed: “Though the Byzantine text is a highly homogeneous text, it is also composite; i.e., it is made up of distinguishable strands” (p. 94).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...