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!

Are we limiting God?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by mcgyver, Dec 24, 2004.

  1. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    ummmmm...Dr.Bob?
    You have missed a salient point if you think I was referring to the languages rather than your assertion that we need you scholars to accomplish this..."spiritually discerned for accuracy and authenticy. It is work sifting. It is science hard thought. It is theology. Baptists and evangelicals working on it."
    You TOTALLY missed the boat. My last comment of that post demonstrates this fact.
    "BTW, who determines "accuracy and authenticity" if you do not have the original autographs?
    Baptists and Evangelicals?
    They can't even agree on the Essentials! "

    The word "DUH!" comes to mind on this one.
    [​IMG] And to think...it is very often YOU who mocks folks for missing the point of a poster's comments!
    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  2. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why, so you can scoff at it? You wouldn't be convinced if I showed you scriptural support. You have already rejected outright that there is any scriptural promise to preserve His word in anything other than a spiritual sense. What kind of scriptural evidence could possibly sway you?
     
  3. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    James wrote:
    Oh, I dunno: why not try us for once?
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    On the contrary. If there is scriptural support for KJVOism, I will gladly retract any and all posts where I have denounced KJVOism.

    Then you clearly have not read my numerous posts on the topic. I have said, many, many times that I truly desire to live my life as scripturally centered as possible. If scripture requires me to adhere to only one translation, then I will do so.

    Far from the truth. I was once KJVO, and abandoned that belief after being unable to find scriptural support for it.
    Anything that's in scripture, and not manufactured dissertations by KJVOists.
     
  5. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I told you, you have already rejected plain evidence. You start by discounting simple promises to keep His word. What could be added to that to make you believe the word He didn't promise to keep was the KJV?
     
  6. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    James wrote:
    Notice the glaring double standard here:

    James, on the one hand, needs it shown to him that the hand of God was on translations other than the KJV. Whereas with the KJV, James' assumption is that God's hand was/is on the KJV; and it's up to others to show him that it wasn't/isn't!
     
  7. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not a double standard. Just answering the question that was asked. Did God not act in the translation of other bibles as much as in the KJV? I think the obvious answer is 'no, not all bibles are of the same caliber as the KJV, or even "faithful" translations (whatever that means)' but the greek scholar would say that yes, God is acting in the very same capacity to produce the Message as He did when the KJV was produced. Which is not at all. He has left it up to us to find the bible.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    You have never, NEVER posted scriptural support for KJVOism.

    Scriptural verses pertaining to preservation are not specific to one sole translation. If you have any scriptural support that supports the idea that preservation referrs toa specific translation, I'm all ears.
    The question is, how does one get the KJV out of God promising to preserve his Word? The history of the KJV itself certainly does refutes it, and the source texts used by the KJV translators do not attest to it. Hence, to adhere to KJVOism, one must add to scripture, which scripture expressly forbids.
     
  9. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a fair question, albeit one for which I think you've selected the wrong answer.

    Let's drop the polar extreme of The Message for a while, and compare/contrast the KJV with, say, the NASB.

    The translators of the NASB uniformly affirmed Salvation by faith alone, sans any works. The largely Anglican translators of the KJV could not/would not have made that same affirmation. Which group should therefore engender more of my confidence?
     
  10. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why should I put my trust in a man based on what he affirms?
     
  11. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not exactly my point- but since you raise the question- when it comes to God's Word, wouldn't you trust it more in the hands of those who believe the core message of the Bible (i.e. Salvation by faith), as opposed to those who do not necessarily believe that?
     
  12. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you reject the plain evidence that the KJV translators had to correct their work, not only once but several times providing indisputable evidence that the KJV translators were not AV1611 Only but proved it.

    How can we believe that the subsequent revisions are the "perfect" word of God if the "well was poisoned" from the beginning (which is a KJVO mantra BTW)? Which works only for the KJVO when it comes to the KJV (whichever one) but not the MV's.

    Which one of the several KJV revisions is the "perfect" and "word for word" Word of God?

    "Things that are different are not the same".

    Another KJVO mantra except when it comes to the differences between the KJV revisions then things which are different suddenly become the same.
    Another example of KJVO "logic".
    A difference of one or two words in most cases but KJVO folks will make battle over the same number. "Passover" vs "Easter" for instance.

    HankD
     
  13. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't trust it to any man who did not have the authority backing him that the King James translators had. Regardless of what any man thinks of King James, or his translators, the man was answerable only to God. The bible affirms the authority of kings, and says that the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord. If this is true, why is it so unimaginable that God might use the KJV translators to produce the Bible in English?
     
  14. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if Charles (or William) one day does ascend the British throne, and then decides to sponsor a completely new translation of God's Word; will you then fully endorse & accept the newly produced translation? If not, why not?
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    That puts the Anglican church in quite a high position. Then why are you a Baptist?
     
  16. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you reject the plain evidence that the KJV translators had to correct their work, not only once but several times providing indisputable evidence that the KJV translators were not AV1611 Only but proved it.

    How can we believe that the subsequent revisions are the "perfect" word of God if the "well was poisoned" from the beginning (which is a KJVO mantra BTW)? Which works only for the KJVO when it comes to the KJV (whichever one) but not the MV's.

    Which one of the several KJV revisions is the "perfect" and "word for word" Word of God?

    "Things that are different are not the same".

    Another KJVO mantra except when it comes to the differences between the KJV revisions then things which are different suddenly become the same.
    Another example of KJVO "logic".
    A difference of one or two words in most cases but KJVO folks will make battle over the same number. "Passover" vs "Easter" for instance.

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]I realize that the KJV bible I have in my hand is not the exact version that was produced in 1611. I don't have a good answer for why it went through revisions, other than Psalm 12:6 -

    The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    I don't like mantras. I don't know if the well was poisoned or not, but I know that God can use a poisoned well:

    Exodus 15
    23 And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.
    24 And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?
    25 And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD shewed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them,

    2Kings 4
    40 So they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out, and said, O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat thereof.
    41 But he said, Then bring meal. And he cast it into the pot; and he said, Pour out for the people, that they may eat. And there was no harm in the pot.
     
  17. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if Charles (or William) one day does ascend the British throne, and then decides to sponsor a completely new translation of God's Word; will you then fully endorse & accept the newly produced translation? If not, why not? </font>[/QUOTE]What if, what if. What if some bone collector digs up a unicorn?
     
  18. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if Charles (or William) one day does ascend the British throne, and then decides to sponsor a completely new translation of God's Word; will you then fully endorse & accept the newly produced translation? If not, why not? </font>[/QUOTE]What if, what if. What if some bone collector digs up a unicorn? </font>[/QUOTE]Your avoidance of a "No" answer leads me to the inescapable conclusion that in, say, 20 years or so we could be faced with a nascent "King Charles Version Only" movement ("KCVO"), should he choose to be the latest British monarch to be patron of a Bible translation!
     
  19. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess we'll deal with that one when it comes. I think the tribulation would be a more likely candidate for 2025 Story of the Year.
     
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you James for that honest answer.

    Jesus said that not a "jot" or "title" would pass from the Law.

    There are at least 19 differences involving words and letters of words between the 1611AV Pentateuch and the 1850 Version.

    Therefore you can't be sure which is the "jots" and "titles" or letter-for-letter "perfect" KJV (unless of course one returns to the original language text).

    BTW, one thing about a "dead language" it never changes and just as Jesus said the Masora has fulfilled his word as opposed to the KJV (1611-1850) with "jots" and "tittles".

    I have yet to see a KJVO person put their stamp of approval on the AV1611 because they all spell "Jesus" with a "J" instead of an "I" (Iesus) as in the AV1611 "original autograph". Well, not exactly, it seems that in or around 1647 the archetypal manuscript from the hands of the KJV translators disappeared, so they had to go back to the Greek and Hebrew sources in every case to continue in their role of "Bible correctors".

    The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times

    So does this mean that from 1611 to 1850 the English speaking world had an "impure" Bible?

    Well, maybe not if you believe Dr. Ruckman's discovery that the King James translation errors were "advanced revelation" which he discovered and revealed (well 200 of them anyway) in the 20/21st century.

    HankD
     
Loading...