Article on Biblical Preservation

Glad you finally admit it.

 

If you mean a scripture that says, "Thou shalt only read the KJV", then of course not. But I wrote a whole article on my "Biblical precedent". Feel free to disagree with that precedent. (Correct me by all means.) But don't ask if I have a Biblical basis.

Lacy [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for your honesty in admitting that you have no Bible reason to state your claim. Others have claimed to have "hundreds of verses" but have never come through.

In essence, what we have is one man's opinion.

 

1Ti 3:1 -
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Pr 11:30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise.

Jas 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Perhaps you are right.

Lacy

 

Some talk as though a great many seminary professors sit in their ivory towers and meditate on how to mislead people.

The average professor where I went to seminary had been pastoring ten years before being a professor. Most of my professors were much older. One man was about 80. I don't think any that I had were under 50.

Before I went to seminary I was so messed up by preachers who didn't know their theology or how to interpret scripture very well. I had so many questions on the basis of what I had been taught. I would ask those same pastors and was often given the same nonsense and then finally an "I don't know." But when I staretd seminary I had so many questions that I was determined to get answers or write if off as a hoax. Did I ever get answers! My life is so different because of what I learned. One of the things I learned is how little I know. It also gave me a great appreciation for the men God has greatly gifted to be our teachers.

The more I study the more I realize how little I know.

Over the years having been in business and hiring people I learned that the man who claims to know much usually knows little.

 

You still seem confused. There is a difference between preaching and being a pastor (Bishop). But, of course, if you don't know the difference, then this discussion is moot.

&lt;Sigh&gt; Do you understand any of the bible? Proverbs 11:30 is not talking about going out and button-holing people into praying a prayer. It is talking about a person who has a righteous way about him and that righteous way allows him to have a beneficial influence on the lives of others.

 

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING:

That's the "inspiration" issue. God told Moses & others to WRITE. There were several works called "Kings" & several works called "Chronicles" written by Hebrew historians, but only two of each was chosen by God to become Scripture. The writers of each differed in their accounts of the same events, I.E, was Jehoiachin eight or eighTEEN when he began to reign? However, who are WE to argue with GOD'S choices?

God presented His word to us by DIRECT COMMAND to write, or by influencing other writers. and later, He influenced the men who "chose" the canon of the NT. I believe He used a similar influence upon various Bible translators of the past, and that He's still doing it today, both in the making of new versions in old languages that've long-had God's word, and in the translation of the Scriptures into languages that've never had God's word written in them before.

 

Dear gb93433,

Please forgive me if I gave the impression that I have contempt for higher learning. I praise God for any opportunity that men have to examine the shoulders which we all stand on. My contempt is for the attitude that a seminary education is synonymous with "wisdom", or perhaps rather that the lack thereof is synonymous with ignorance. When the attitude is accompanied by condescending, hypercritical, railing, it is even worse. It is an affront to every man in history who attained his "education" in some other, non-formal way. (Spurgeon, Billy Sunday, John Mark, etc.) Seminary is fine. Praise God if that is your road. But like Larry Norman said, "Without love, it aint nothin', without love."

God used Paul. Paul was in essence a "seminary graduate". Praise God for brother Paul! But God also used the fisherman, Peter.
Peter still had to study. Peter still had to receive a necessary education. But there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Every believer has the Holy Ghost. I have faith in the Holy Ghost in all believers to "teach [us] all things." There is no excuse for willful ignorance. But there is also no excuse for despising another man's road. (And I guess that calling seminary "cemetary" was a little low, so I apologize too. Sometimes I can get careless when I'm trying to be funny. )

Again, when someone shows me the Biblical mandate to learn ancient languages, or to study the "originals" I'll submit to it. Until then, I'll honor and submit to "scripture".

In the mean time I'll try to learn how to spell "soul winning" and other non-sensical terms so I can be right all the time.

Lacy

 

If they taught you to be presumptuous at that seminary of yours, perhaps you shouldn't tell anyone the name of it either. If you want to debate, let's debate. If you want to keep bringing up rabbit-trail issues which (seemingly) serve no other purpose than to make you feel smart, then no wonder this "discussion" has become moot. "Buttonholing", "Jack Hyles", "adultery", "posing as an expert", etc., all have nothing to do with me, my article, or any of my responses to your on-topic questions (which are very good, by-the-way).

I think I understand a little. We call that "soul winning", or "witnessing", or sometimes "preaching" and I think all Christians are "called" to do it. Some just need some exhortation to help them "desire" to. What you do seems to me a bit more important than what you call it. I praise God you are doing it. (From your testimony, it seems that you have been a very edifying member of your church.) But I'm very bored with arguing with you over what to call it.

 

I'd like to bring the conversation back to this.

The problem with the way you have stated your offer is that you have it backwards. The only passages that deal specifically with inspiration refer to the originals. All the Bible teaching on inspiration relates to the autographs. You need to find a passage that says that God moved a copiest, or God moved a translator, or God moved a textual critic (2 Peter 2:20-21). No where do you find God breathing out a copy or a translation (2 Timothy 3:16).

You show me where God breathed out a copy or God moved a translator and I'll change my position in a heartbeat!

Andy

 

I am still amazed by this concept, even those would not be enough for me Andy.

I want to see where Bro Lacy finds that God moved a publishing house to print a Bible.

 

Thank you!

2Ti 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I've checked every verse in the NT that says "scripture". Unfailingly, the word refers to the copy that the person had available to him.

Verse 15 of 2 Timothy says
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus

What did Timothy know from a child? Scripture. What was it? Copies. (Very likely translated into Greek.)

What is given? Scripture.

Now perhaps I'm just simple. (And that very well could be my problem, I assure you.) But I don't see ANY of the verses (dealing with inspiration) referring exclusively or even directly to the autographs. They deal with "Scripture."

The examples I have already provided (Which deal specifically with some autographs) show that it doesn't really matter how many times it is "given". What matters is this: "Where can it be found?, and "How do we know when we find it?"

Lacy

 

That is somewhat of an oversimplification of my view, but it has excellent shock value.

Oh forget it, it was funny. There, I admit it.

Somebody had to own the finer. I can't tell you why it stopped there. But then again I can't tell you why some books made the cannon (some only by a nose) and others didn't. I can't tell you why hardly anyone preached the second coming, salvation by grace alone, or Solo Scriptura for 1000 years or so. It just happened.

Lacy

 

Lacy;

You seem like a humble, gracious man. So if I might reason with you a little.

First of all I was 39 when I went to seminary. I went because I wanted to learn more so I could be of more use to God. I am very comfortable in saying it has helped me to be better at sharing my faith and helping others to better share their faith by knowing what the historical background of each of the books of the Bible is.

Before I went I asked many questions. I was concerned about how I would come out and how it would affect my family. Over and over I was told that because I was older it would probably help me a lot. I went to learn, not get a degree. I came out with more passion and better able to help others.

The part I want to convey to you is the idea that the doorway to a culture is through the language. I can look at the wording and tell if it is Jewish phraseology or Greek. Much of the NT is written by men whose heritage is Jewish. For example when they write they use the same phraseology a Hebrew speaking Jew would have used but written in Greek. For example Hebrew does not have a word for wife. It uses, "woman of ... (him or a man's name)" In the Greek text it is often the same way especially in the gospels. You can pick up subtle and not so subtle things that help in discovering what the text actually says. It is not all just words but how the words are used. Knowing the language helps a lot to preach from a text that is right. Fro example each Greek sentence has one verb implied or not. But the English may break it down into many sentences. For example in Phil 2:1-4 the verb is "fulfill my" or "make my" in verse two. But verses 1-4 are one sentence in the Greek text. But in my English Bible it is two. In verses 5-8 there is one verb. But in the English there is two.

When someone asks me a question about the text I can much more easily tell them what the text reads and the words that are used. I don't have to worry about whether the word is sheol, gehenna, or hades. I can look at the text and see. I don't have to wonder about how it was translated.

Because I went to seminary it has benefitted me and my family. Before I went I was not very good in English. Every time my daughter asks me about her English homework I am reminded of what I learned in seminary. I am able to help her. She is a sharp bible student too. She reads like you wouldn't believe. She will soon be graduating from the eighth grade. She reads at least 50 books per year. I believe it is because she sees me studying and reading. When she was about two I was taking Hebrew. She often would try and pull herself up above the top of the table to see what I was doing. Later I saw her take books and pretend like she was reading them.

Did seminary help me to know how to disciple people? No, but it did help me to be able to better help those I am discipling now. Just recently a lady in a Bible study I lead told us that her and her husband have been in Bible studies for the past 18 years and they have learned more in the past few months than they did before. I thank God that he gave me that opportunity to enjoy because He also gave me the opportunity to study at a seminary where the professors I had cared.

But in the end you can't make something that isn't there. Certainly there are those who take pride in the fact that they went to seminary. But God will take care of them and discipline them.

When I interviewed for my first pastorate I was asked about what I learned at seminary. My answer was, “I learned more about the compassion of Jesus.” I had graduated with all those classes behind me and did well in the languages and boiled it down to one thing. Seminary was worth it for just that one thing for me. You have to understand I struggle with that aspect of the Christian life.

One thing that compels me to learn is the idea that Jesus spent all that time growing in wisdom and stature and then have His ministry only last three years. Which was greater? The first 30 or the last three?

What if God calls us to prepare and our ministry only lasts a few years? Would it have been worth the preparation?

 

Thank you brother. May God richly bless the lives of those he chooses to touch through your ministry.

Lacy

 

That is somewhat of an oversimplification of my view, but it has excellent shock value.

Oh forget it, it was funny. There, I admit it.

Somebody had to own the finer. I can't tell you why it stopped there. But then again I can't tell you why some books made the cannon (some only by a nose) and others didn't. I can't tell you why hardly anyone preached the second coming, salvation by grace alone, or Solo Scriptura for 1000 years or so. It just happened.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]I still haven't seen by what authority you make your claim?!?

There is a Bible basis for those other issues - your "Bible resurrection" theory has no rational, historical, reasonable, logical, or Biblical basis.

It looks like you just grabbed a publisher and date out of the air and ordained it God's perfect Word all by yourself.

 

Perhaps you should study history a little more. The above have all been preached by the dissenting churches from before the time of Constantine to the present.

 

If an atheist asked me, "Why do you believe the Bible?" And I said, "Because the Bible says so", wouldn't that be circular reasoning? The reason I ask is because neither of us can believe anything without evidence. There is beautiful internal evidence for the Bible but ultimately there must be some external evidence (fruit) as well. My reasons for believing the KJV is inspired scripture are the same reasons I have for believing in the 66-book cannon. We are all "66-Book onlyist." By what authority?

There are certainly scriptural proofs of the doctrines I mentioned. (And as our kind friend reminded us they have been taught by a remnant throughout church history. DUH!) But the fact that these truths were revived, (like a wildfire) when they were, was my point.

But the choosing of the cannon (like the transmission of scripture) is not a Biblical doctrine per say. For its establishment, we had to examine Biblical precedents and fruit. In 1647, the Westminster Confession of Faith listed the exact 66 Books (with no additions in Daniel or Jeremiah) now recognized by conservative, fundamental Christians. That truth was always true and we were never left without a remnant or witness. But the absoluteness of it was revived in the late 17th century.
See:

http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article448.cfm

1769 was providentially the last KJV. (I like them all.) That much is fact. There will not be another one because everything has changed. Likewise, the cannon will never be challenged.

You have to remember that I believe in the absolute preservation of scripture. We differ there greatly. I'm looking around for it. Like John the Baptist looking for the Living Word, I ask,

Matthew 11:3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

Notice Christ's answer

Matthew 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Follow the fruit.


I don't mean to oversimplify the MV position. It seems to me that you believe God got it right the first time and ever since then, it has had flaws. (Entropy, Deism, etc.) I don't see any rational, historical, reasonable, logical, or Biblical basis for this.

Let me be very honest with you, I have experienced incredible freedom since I decided to submit to the written Word completely. I can't talk myself out of the plain teaching of the Bible by rummaging around in a ka-zillion texts, manuscripts, translations, and versions. I've had to change my theology. I've had to study much more. But I bend to the Word and not vice-versa. I have yet to EVER find a "problem text" that couldn't be settled by diligent study of the KJV itself. I also realized that before, when I had gone with popular (modern Seminary) thought and taken the "Greek shortcut", I had missed beautifully awful truths.

Lacy

God bless you. I realize you passionately disagree with my position and I just wanted to thank you for your Godly debating. I just hope this helps you better understand my position. I come here seeking truth. My horn need not be blown for me to enjoy my stay here.

 

Lacy: "1769 was providentially the last KJV.
(I like them all.) That much is fact."

Actually, it is a lie.
I have on my shelve a KJV from 1873
that is at least honest enough to say what it is.
It is different from other KJVs.
It also has the resored Translator footnotes
that are missing from the KJV1769.

We note the simple arithemetic fact:
1873AD comes after 1769.

 

I could make up a new KJV 2004 and try to sell it but it wouldn't be a KJV. (ie NKJV) The validity of your statenebt is historically disputed by the men who were there.

Early "KJV Onlyists" opposed subsequent revisions of the KJV. These revisions were found to be of a different nature than earlier "revisions". For example, in 1857, A. Cleveland Coxe wrote, An apology for the common English Bible; and a review of the extraordinary changes made in it by Managers of the American Bible Society. Coxe revealed that the American Bible Society was going beyond the earlier revision of Dr. Blaney. Blaney had simply desired to "restore the text of the English Bible to its original purity." He removed printing errors and updated spellings, etc. (There were no standards for spelling in 1611.) Later revisers went way beyond these previous revisions. They assumed that the KJV translators had made mistakes that they needed to correct. Coxe quotes the report from the Board of Managers (1851) in regard to their revision of the King James Bible (which began in 1847):

"…here we find that the committee have desired to restore the English version to its original purity, ‘saving the necessary changes of orthography, and other like variations which would assuredly be acceptable to the translators themselves were they living at the present day…’…I do not think they can be quite sure what Bishop Andrewes and others, almost his equals in learning and piety, would have done in 1851, to amend their labours of three centuries ago. I am hardly less surprised at what follows: - ‘The committee have had no authority, and no desire, to go behind the translators; nor in any respect to touch the original version of the text; unless in cases of evident inadvertence, or inconsistency, open and manifest to all.’…"6

Coxe blasts the revisers for arrogance and hypocrisy. He shows that their new "edition" of the KJV is not the same as the earlier revisions, and that they did indeed "go behind the translators." Coxe argues that such minor changes in the AV would open the door to a total apostate revision in less than 30 years:

"Thirty years more, and another generation may see a new experiment, under the sanction of this, which will be carried further; and a vast body of Neologists may entirely control the work of a new translation. Experience demonstrates that I am not a gratuitous alarmist."

(http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article443.cfm)


PS I could try to add or subtract a couple of books from the cannon and call it the Brand New KJV, but it would go over like a box of rocks just like the 1850, 1851, 1873 did. Something changed right about then I think.

Lacy