Great Read

Stilllearning,you have mentioned B.B.Warfield several times (though you have not spelled his name correctly). In your opinion is the Lion of Princeton supposed to be some kind of bad guy?I beg to differ with you.He was as biblically orthodox as they come.As a matter of fact his Inspiration And Authority Of Scripture should dispel all doubts.

 

No, it's not the same thing. It's not even close. Creation is a revealed doctrine of Scripture. The KJVO doctrine is not found in Scripture and in fact is contrary to Scripture. Defending modern versions is much closer to creationism than defending KJVO.

The site linked in the OP is a blatant attack on the Word of God that is based in dishonesty. Everyone who loves God and his word should loudly and publicly refute such teaching, should discipline from their church anyone who propogates such teaching, and should separate from all who endorse it.

 

(MV is the abbreviation for Modern Version, in the usage here on this forum. - Ed)

I'm not sure that I have the intellectual sophistication needed in order to pick up on subtle and "cleaver" attacks on the Bible. However, I am fairly confident that I am able to catch a few of the more obvious ones. This post I am responding to falls in the latter category. :tear:

Let me add that this response I am making here, is actually a very mild one, as well. I had a much stronger (and longer) one in progress, when the power went out to our computer, and I simply do not have the time, at present, to make an attempt to completely redo it. And I'm in no danger of being mistaken for either Jeremiah or Baruch.

Every word and phrase I have bolded in red in the above post, is either (1.) some form of not very subtle attack on the Bible, (2.) an attack on the translators of a version of the Bible, or (3.) an attempt to pawn off one's personal opinion as fact. For good measure, the post has also been fairly well-sprinkled with a few 'slightly couched' pleas for a 'sympathy vote', which I have bolded in green.

I also think it is important to take a stand in defense of God's written word, as well. However, one does not defend God's written word by simultaneously attacking God's written word, IMO.

Ed

 

Hi annsni

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

And thanks for the heads up about this abbreviation(MV’s).
--------------------------------------------------
As for your Bible study habits........

I have found, that your daily routine, when it comes to Bible study, is very common. You would be surprised, how many people use different Bible versions, in different settings, in the same way as you do.

And the question being dealt with here, is “just how beneficial is this”?

Sure enough, is does make some Bible study “easier”, but at what cost?
--------------------------------------------------
Historically, Bible believing Christians, have held to the verbal plenary inspiration in the Bible. (God gave the very words to the Apostles).

And the way we have always explained the distinctive styles of writings, that each Apostle seemed to have, is that God chose the Words that He wanted to be penned down, from the vocabulary of each individual Apostle.

With this in mind, all those Bible versions, that back away from verbal inspiration, are taking us one more step, away from God’s actual Word. I noticed, that you called all of these Bibles, “valid versions of the Word of God”, and that may be true(depending upon what you consider valid), but when a Bible gets away from the actual Words, I personally stop calling them “valid”.

Now this doesn’t mean, that people like you, have to give up your NIV reading at night:
My wife has found a great secular writer that she likes(Tracie Peterson), and she reads one of her books every night. Nowhere in the Bible, are we commanded to keep our noses in the Bible, 24/7, but we need to realize what we are giving up, with those other versions.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you quoted me.....

And you said........

As I have said before, this is a cop-out, that is just meant to sound substantial.
(The original autographs, do not exist any longer; All we have are copies of the originals.)

So to say, “Yes, God Word has been preserved in print, in the original autographs”, isn’t really saying anything.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you quoted me again.......

I don't think any of the copes that we have are 100% accurate. However, with ALL of the manuscript evidence we have, we can be assured that we have pretty close to the full accuracy of the originals throughout all of them.

This is where we really part company. Over the centuries, evil men have been trying to convince us, that God has let us down, by not providentially preserving His Word. And at the same time, convince us to be satisfied with “having pretty close to the full accuracy”,

Pretty close, is not close enough for me. I believe God’s Word is 100% accurate.
--------------------------------------------------
Next, we start getting down to the nitty gritty:

You quoted me.......

And you responded with.......

Well, it is clear, that we disagree. But as for......
“Being assured that God is still at work in His Word and that we have additional Bible versions that are from His hand.”

Why would God still be at work, in His Word(in English)?

I can understand all the work God is doing, in leading people to translate His Word into other languages, that don’t have a Bible yet.

But what more, can be “added”, to His Word in English.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you quoted me, when I said..........

And you asked.......

For hundreds of years, Bible believing Christians, believe and taught that the accurate copies of the original autograph were inspired. B.B.Warfiled was the first scholar of his stature, to teach that they were not inspired. But that he and other scholars had the job of searching for the “lost word of God”!

And here, over 100 years later, people are still saying this same this(it was said on this forum, just last week).

Warfiled wasn’t along in this attack, but he was one of the most respected individuals to make it.

I will leave it to you, to search out the truth about him for yourself. I have already done it, and posted my finding here, but you should do it for yourself.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.........

I am not sure if I have ever said that “modern versions attack the KJV”:
But I have said, that modern versions, is a result of an attack upon God’s Word!
(But I have seen a hatred for the KJV.)

And I am already SURE, that I have an accurate translation of the Bible, but I don’t trust modern scholarship to even update the old words in the KJV.
I will just keep doing that myself.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........

Sure enough, there has been plenty of “ungodly attacks”, from both sides.

And the reason I brought Darwanism into the conversation, is because of the similarities between the attacks that those who believe in creation and those take a stand for the KJV, experience.

And I didn’t say that “scholarly work” was despicable. I said that what BB Warfield, Wescott & Hort did, was despicable.
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said......

This is the most interesting this you have said.

You stand in defense of “ALL of it”.

All the Apostles are dead, and noone should be adding anything to God’s Word today.

God’s Word has already proved itself to be COMPETE and ACCURATE, over the 200+ years(1600's - 1700's), that it was changing lives.
--------------------------------------------------



Sorry of the Long response, but I wanted to answer all of your questions.

 

What Bibles "back away from verbal inspiration"?Do you mean by that that the translators of some versions have not believed that the original autographs were verbally inspired?

"When a Bible gets away from the actual Words".Just what do you mean by that?Are you under the impression that the KJV's uses the "actual Words"?How can an Englsh version of any stripe use the "actual Words" when the original words were not in English?

I wish you could manage to get his name spelled correctly.And you have not quoted Warfield.He was a good guy;not a bad one.You need to learn that.

You're not making any sense.Are you trying to say that modern versions (Since what date?And only in the English language?) have come about for the express purpose of daring to rival the KJV's?!

Is that what you think modern scholarship is occupied with?!You are too KJV-centered.Modern scholars go to the original languages -- not to an early 17th century English text.

You harbor some strange analogies.

What,furthering the Kingdom of God?!

Okay,I know that you equate God's Word with being the KJV's only.So the KJV's were only responsible for changing lives in the 17th and 18th centuries?By 1800 its influence weakened?

 

Hi Rippon

I have been spelling his name Warfield; Is this not correct?
--------------------------------------------------
As for my unfounded attacks upon him; I don’t believe that they are unfounded.

Sure enough he was very “orthodox” and respected, but he used his respectability, when he took a stand against the copies of the original autographs of the Bible.

Does this make him some kind of a bad guy? In my opinion it does!

 

Hi Pastor Larry

You said......

I am not saying that the issues are the same:
But I am saying that the attacks are very much alike.

People like me, who take a stand for Biblical Creation, to people in the world, am attacked as a backward fool, who thinks the world is flat.
(I have received these attacks before.)

And over the last few months, that I have been on the internet, and have taken a stand in defense of the KJV, as a dependable English Bible, I have been attacked in almost the same way, being talked to like I was a fool.
(Take a look at some of the attacks, that I am receiving on this very thread.)
--------------------------------------------------
Please do not get me wrong. I am not complaining at all. I appreciate being called upon to back up the things that I say.

I believe that interaction like this, if very helpful, for EVERYONE INVOLVED!

 

Hi EdSutton

Sorry to hear, that your power went out.

 

You've called him Warfiled numerous times.

Could you please quote something from him which you find "despicable"?You found some things he has said extremely nasty,cruel and evil?!Please document without just throwing out such outrageous charges.

Will you please furnish some quotes of his which in your view makes him such a bad guy.As it is you are only doing some drive-by shootings.

 

What do you expect when you write unsupported and unsupportable statements like:

KJV dependable, sure I can go with that. In the preface to the RSV it was even called “the noblest monument of English prose.”

But you continually place it far above a simple translation.
You've closed your mind to some of its obvious weaknesses.
You have stoppedlearning.

Just because God is unchanageble doesn't mean you should be that way too.

A multitude of versions is a good thing.
One of the first things I teach a beginning students of the Bible is to compare many versions.

...in multitude of counsellers there is safety.
Proverbs 24:6 AV 1873

Rob

 

Actually, this time you just might be better served to be "thankful to hear" above "sorry to hear."

'Nuff said.

Ed

P.S. FTR, the "green print" did not escape notice, here.

 

Drive by shooters do not often offer a good stationary target against which to return fire.

Ed

 

Hi Deacon

So you think, that I am foolish, for saying.........

Well what about........

--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......

You are partly right;
No, I have not stopped learning.
But yes, I will not allow anyone to cast doubt in my mind, about God’s Word.

As for the KJV; I have heard for years, people saying that it has mistakes.
(But mysteriously, no one has been able to show me even “one”!)
--------------------------------------------------
You also said......

I am sorry to hear that. Young Christians need to be grounded in the fact, that God’s Word is perfect, and can be depended upon.
And not indoctrinated into the idea, that nobody knows which words or verses area truly God’s Word.
--------------------------------------------------
And it is true.......
....in multitude of counsellors there is safety.

But this is talking about, the counsel, of Godly men!

 

Regarding B.B. Warfield

I have repeatedly asked you to give me some Warfield quotes which you find particularly "despicable".So far you have ignored my requests.If you don't comply, then do me a favor and don't even mention his name again.

 

Sorry about that Rippon.

These quotes will be coming soon.

 

FROM HERE

(Sorry, my BB Christmas break aside, I could not let the attack on Warfield pass by. He is, of course, one of the great defenders of the absolute authority and inspiration of the scriptures. Have to go now, the family is starting to wake up and don't want them to know I snuck on BB. Happy Christmas and see you around the new year. I appreciate Dr Bob taking the yeoman's load here while I am away. )

 

The problem here is logical,
It's not mysterious:
The way I see it,
you equate the KJV as the only expression of God's word,
and you will not allow any doubt about it into your mind.
Therefore any mistakes that are revealed are ignored.

Re; Warfield: Obviously an uninformed attack against an honorable man of God

And another quote from the closing pages of Warfield's book, Inspiration and Authority of the Bible:

Rob

 

I take no pleasure at all, in badmouthing any man of God, but this is serious.

This post has NOTHING to do, with me “proving that I am right”; But it has everything to do with the attitude that most people have about the Word of God.
--------------------------------------------------
It all starts with the Westminster Confession of faith:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

And what it said about the Bible.........

--------------------------------------------------
In the late 1800's, Satan had so hated the previous 200 years(because of the respect the KJV had), that he had crackpots, coming out of the woodwork, attacking the Bible in every imaginable way.

Then BB Warfield took a great stand for the Bible, in declaring it to be “the actual Word of God”, and therefore shutting the mouth’s of those attacking it.

But then, in 1893, BB Warfield(during his tenure at Princeton), went about to re-interpret the Westminster Confession of faith(Chapter I “Of the Holy Scripture”), in such a way, that he ended up doing greater harm to God’s Word, than all these other men, could have ever done.
--------------------------------------------------
The Church, had previously interpreted this first chapter of the WCF as saying.......

In other words, the copies, were as inspired as the originals.

Therefore God has perfectly preserved His Word for us.
--------------------------------------------------
But in 1893 when Warfiled gave his survey of the WCF,

Here is what he said about the accurate copies of the original autographs......
http://www.apuritanatheart.com/warwest.htm#LinkTarget_18613

He goes on, for dozens of pages, expounding basically how God’s Word has been lost(because the autographs of Scripture are gone) , and somehow, we have to find it.

Here is the main link.........
http://www.apuritanatheart.com/warwest.htm
--------------------------------------------------
Because of BB Warfield’s new interpretation of the WCF, the Church’s perception of the Bible has been turned upside down.

Before BB Warfield’s statement: God and His Word, were the final authority!
-------
But after this statement, man and his critical interpretation, has now become the authority.

This has nothing to do with the KJV, but it has everything to do with God’s Word and it authority.
--------------------------------------------------
I have said, several times, how none of us, should be trusting “modern scholarship”.
And this is why.

Because of BB Warfield’s work, modern scholars, have placed themselves above the authority of the Bible(the accurate copies of the original autographs).

It is not there fault, it is just what they have been taught!

 

I don't think they are. Believing in creation and believing that the KJV is the only word of God in English are two very different beliefs. It reminds me of the principle of Peter's words in 1 Peter 2: If you are attacked for righteousness that is a credit to you. If you are attacked for sin, that is your fault.

If you are attacked for believing in creationism, that is a credit to you. If you are attacked for believing that the KJV is the only word of God in English, that is your fault. That is no credit becuase you believe something you should not believe.

Now, if your contention is that the KJV is "a dependable English Bible," almost all of us all agree. That is a biblical position. But there are some here who have left the Scriptures and in fact have turned against them by asserting that the KJV is the only Word of God in English and all other English versions are wrong.