Honest question

85 to 90% of the New-Testament writers never claimed to be inspired.But yet they were,even if they did not know it. </font>[/QUOTE]Did you do the math before you said this??

List the authors:
1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John
5. Paul
6. Author of Hebrews
7. James
8. Peter
9. Jude

90% of 9 is less than one full person person. Yet we know that Paul, Peter, and John all claimed it (there may be more but those are just the ones I can think of). Paul claimed it for Luke which makes 4.

So that is roughly four out of nine at a minimum which makes pretty close to 50% a far cry from the 85-90% that you claim. It backs my contention that a lot of these arguments would stop if people just thought through what they were saying ...

 

True none the less.

 

Scott, I will be out of town for a couple of days after this post, but I just wanted to respond briefly to your post. My concern, as is yours and every reasonable Christian on this board, is that I do not fall into the trap of the Scribes and Pharisees. I myself have a Master's degree and have been a science enthusiast since I was ten. My primary ministry is in creation science. I, for one, defend the Biblical view of creation and the flood. Most of my time in CSE is spent showing people how much of so-called science is actually belief and interpretation. The Bible commands me to beware of science falsely so-called (only in the KJB). One thing I am sure of, no one can offer absolute proof of anything. I believe the only path is to trust what God said. If one thing is resoundingly clear from the Bible it is that man’s wisdom is foolishness and runs counter to God. The Biblical scholars of Christ’s day were the ones who denied his deity, and the ones who pushed for his execution. The Bible is replete with scripture like I posted previously.

From my CSE work I know all too well we live in a time of massive enlightenment. The cumulative knowledge of humanity is hundreds of times greater than that of just 100 years ago. A reasonable person who understands the extent of the knowledge of man today, who also understands what God’s Word says about man’s wisdom, and who understands that it was man’s wisdom that crucified God when He came in the flesh, will be highly suspicious of the changes made in modern Bibles. A reasonable person of this sort will be skeptical of the modern science of textual criticism used today.

I freely admit the KJV has archaic words in places. I admit it is difficult to read in places. I too at one time thought MVs were the answer to the problem. I no longer think that. There was a man in our Church the Sunday before last that used to be a bum. He was led to the Lord and taught to read out of KJB at age 17. This man has no sympathy for educated Americans that are so lazy and recreation focused that they refuse to master the minor wording and syntax issues in the KJB. People, especially Americans, are more educated today than could have even been imagined 100 or 200 years ago. People today do not understand the Bible, not because it is hard to read, but because they spend all their time earning money and spending money. The issue today is not readability. This issue is not source manuscripts. The issue is that we live in a time of the greatest intellectual enlightenment and most profound spiritual decline in history. This is a time of rampant sex perversion and gross materialism, even in the professing body of Christ. Most professing Christians want a Bible that reads like the back of a cereal box, not because they are hungry for the Word of God, but so they don’t have to waste much time trying to understand it. After all, we have jobs, sports, hobbies, and television, right? Do I believe God could replace the KJB as his Holy Bible in English? Yes. Do I believe He has? No.

 

Nothing characterizes the KJVO position better than this little quirk. Logic, reason, comparison of scripture with scripture, the words of the translators... these do not matter. It's just "True none the less."

 

I can't glean much out of this except that your position is that of one of those big dummies that's got it right and there's no need for thought, study, or comparison. </font>[/QUOTE]No need to resort to name calling. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I have compared Bible versions for 6 years now. I have invested at least a few thousand hours in it. I'm sure that will not be sufficient for you. In fact, I am sure no amount of evidence would convince you.

 

True??? I showed undeniable evidence that 85-90% was an inaccurate figure and you say that it is true anyway??? Astounding.

 

Having studied it for well over six years and more than a few thousand hours, I can say with confidence that your position matches neither the biblical text nor church history. The evidence by which you are convinced has been soundly answered. Which is why we are hesitant to believe it now ...

 

I meant that some never claimed to be inspired;one does not have to be aware of inspiration in order to be inspired.I ment to type in the Old and New testaments in my posts,but that is what happenens when a person "multi-tasks" while he is typing a post.That is to say "I had too many irons in the fire."

 

But this only brings me back to my first question. Where did God say that only the KJV is the Word of God in English or even the best version of the Word in English?

Yes. But that is not limited to scholars who are non-KJVO. In fact, since no one seems to be able to come up with any factual proof of any kind to prove KJVOnlyism while much of it runs in direct contradiction to known facts of scripture and history, how do books like "New Age Bible Versions", "An Understandable History of the Bible", Gipp's "Answer Book", etc. not qualify for your condemnation of man's foolish wisdom? If modern scholars are to be universally judged "foolish" why not include Erasmus and the KJV translators?

Yes. And the Biblical scholars of King James day made a wonderful translation while denying much of what we as Baptist believe to be true and also while persecuting those that opposed them.... like the Baptists.

This testimony stands in direct contrast to the NASB translators that signed a statement of faith that I doubt any of us would have a problem with including an affirmation of inerrancy.

I am not totally convinced of modern critical methods either. But one thing is undeniable. The scholars who have checked and affirmed the work of modern textual scholars are much more in line with the beliefs of conservative, fundamental Baptists than were Erasmus or the KJV translators.

Suspicious? Yes. However, a reasonable person will look at the evidence rationally in spite of and maybe even because of those suspicions. Also, just because modern scholars live in this time does not make them guilty, foolish, or anything by association. In spite of the obvious wickedness of man, there has probably never been a time when more scholars who believe fundamentally as we do were in positions of influence. No Baptist was ever consulted on the development of the TR or KJV.

Just for arguments sake let's twist your argument just a bit. What if we said that "a reasonable man who knows the history of the Catholic church (Erasmus) and the early Church of England (Bancroft/Andrewes), of how they mercilessly persecuted true believers, will be suspicious of any product of their scholarship." Archbishop Bancroft who was over the KJV translating committees also ruled the High Commission court. This court tried dissenters and heretics... which sometimes included Baptists and unruly Puritans.

I am. But why should the scholarship of a Roman Catholic cleric raise any less skepticism?

Following this logic why is it not reasonable to say "I know that Greek and Hebrew are difficult to learn but if modern Christians weren't so lazy they would learn them anyway"?

There are two critical elements in communication as you know, the transmitter and the receiver. It matters not if you have the best transmitter if the receiver isn't on the same frequency. The KJV may be the best translation ever or even the best possible but it only matters if people understand it. God gave the originals in the common tongue of the people (not the language of scholars or classicals). I find no evidence that He has changed this intent

Again why not carry this to its logical extreme. Americans have all of this knowledge, money, information, time, etc. Why should we stop with re-learning 17th century English? Why should we have patience with anyone who will not take the time to learn the Bible in the languages that God Himself chose to communicate it in?

Could God ordain a translation to replace the Bible in the original tongues? Yes. Has He? No.

FFF, No one doubts that you believe what you believe but virtually everything in this post is anecdotal and experiential. Someone in your field more than any should know that you can't just make blanket statements based on your own biases and assumptions. You can't just automatically conclude that modern Christian scholars are foolish and ungodly simply because we live in a day when much of science and society is godless. Isn't that kind of like the great leaps of logic made by evolutionists?

 

85 to 90% of the New-Testament writers never claimed to be inspired.But yet they were,even if they did not know it. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. But neither Erasmus nor the KJV translators were prophets, holy men of old, Apostles, or working under apostolic authority.

If you are implying that God inspired a more than likely unsaved Catholic and some pretty questionable Anglicans then your problems go much deeper than being confused on Bible doctrine.

 

Yes He has,the AV1611.Are we to throw out our English Bible and spend 5 or 6 years to learn the "original tongues" to "truly" get what God has to say? I trow not..

 

And? whats your point?? God can and will use who ever He wants.

Care to elaborate on my "problems"? You see,I have THE final authority in ALL matters of faith and practice;the AV1611.I have no problem with final authority..

 

Yes He has,the AV1611.</font>[/QUOTE] When and where? 2 Timothy 3:16 says that scripture is given by inspiration of God. The KJV wasn't given by God it was translated from another language.

OK. Let's spin that one right back to you. Are we to throw out our English Bibles and spend 5 or 6 years to learn every language nuance of the KJV to truly get what God has to say?

 

And? whats your point?? God can and will use who ever He wants. </font>[/QUOTE] The point is that these are the type men that God used to write scripture. John 14:26 promises that the Comforter would teach the Apostles all things. This ministry of direct inspiration (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21) ceased at the end of Revelation (Rev 22:19).

Nor do I but neither you nor any other KJVO is my final authority. I accept the KJV as the Word of God and thus my final authority but strangely it does not teach what you believe.

 

Absolutly correct;it also says in John 16:12-15 and 1st John 2:27 that the Holy Spirit is the greatest teacher,and He will bear witness to what is right.Now, knowing this,who told you that bibles that derive from North-African Catholic Vatican Jesuit-Rheims texts of the Dark-Ages are the perfect,infallible,inerrant word of God? The Holy Spirit,or Man??

 

The Holy Spirit has borne witness of that to me. He has borne witness that the KJV and TR are not the only word of God. Since you have admitted that the Holy Spirit is the greatest teacher, and since the Holy Spirit has taught me this, how can you argue?

 

Scott,

You said: “Where did God say that only the KJB is the Word of God in English or even the best version of the Word in English?”. Scott, this form of argumentation does not prove anything. God said no where in the OT that the Messiah’s name would be Jesus. When Jesus came, spiritual discernment was necessary to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Those that followed Moses and the factual specificity of the OT law demanded factual proof, and He gave them none. One can simply say the same is true today of Bible versions. The two greatest spiritual events in human history since Christ came were the reformation and the great awakening. The KJB was produced out of the reformation, and was the Bible of the great awakening. This is some serious fruit my friend. Homosexuals run some churches today, and some of these churches are Baptist. So I’m not convinced that we Baptists are spiritual heavyweights compared to the people of the reformation.

You said: “If modern scholars are to be universally judged "foolish" why not include Erasmus and the KJB translators?”. Simple, they were not “modern scholars”. The KJB translators were not steeped in the scientific, historical, and philosophical trash heap as the scholars of today are. Think about it, no evolution, big bang, relativity, quantum physics, cuneiform tablets, archaeological record, and on and on and on. These individuals had not lived through a time that has so thoroughly discredited (in the minds of many) the veracity and literal factual inerrancy of the Bible that the great majority today do not believe in a literal six day creation, a literal worldwide flood where eight souls and 2 of each creature (7 clean) were saved on a boat built by a man 500 years old in a time when it had never rained. And that God followed-up on this miracle by creating “the” rainbow as a visible covenant that He would not do it again. Most educated Christians I deal with today do not believe the Bible is literally accurate in these areas. Do you believe these accounts as literal and factual? I do. Please address this if you reply. After studying textual criticism and its scientific, not faith based roots, I would expect to find bias in the translation of verses that deal with the literal preserving of God’s “words” in modern versions. And guess what, there is bias is there. The KJB translators had no problem with God’s words being preserved in Psalms 12:6-7. The bias of modern scholars is based on the same facts you believe in. That God did not preserve his “words”, that he only preserved his “messages”. I have had a great deal of education, in fact, I’m currently pursuing a doctorate. But when I read the word of God, the authors of scripture never spoke like the scholars do today: “a better rendering would be this”, “the originals did not have this verse”, “we only have a few corrupt manuscripts to support this reading”. I am well educated and have studied a great many things out, but I have not forgotten how small I am, how meaningless facts can be, and most of all, how utterly essential spiritual discernment is in all matters. I, for one, believe God preserved his literal words in the language of the last days when the sun never sets on the British empire.

You said: “The scholars who have checked and affirmed the work of modern textual scholars are much more in line with the beliefs of conservative, fundamental Baptists than were Erasmus or the KJV translators.”. Are you saying the KJB translators twisted scripture in a way that is hostile to our beliefs? I don’t think you believe they did. I think you believe just as I do, they did a very faithful job of translating. In fact, our Baptist forefathers used the KJB to defend our doctrines. I debated a “Bible corrector” about a year ago concerning Micah 5:2. As you know, this is a prophetic verse that revealed within roughly 10 miles where the Messiah would be born. The KJB renders the last part of the verse as “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting”. The NIV renders it “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times". This individual I debated pointed to the fact that the Hebrew word owlam could mean either one. When we pulled-up the lexicon he said “see there, that’s my point, it could mean either one”. My reply was “yes it could mean either one, but it doesn’t mean either one”. I’ll never forget the look on his face. He had never thought about the fact that if the meanings are significantly different, that only one could be correct, and that only spiritual discernment could lead to the correct rendering. Now I know Pastor Larry and all you scholars out there can explain this away and make it seem meaningless with all your facts. But there are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of places like this in the Bible where spiritual discernment, and not textual criticism or Greek language skills, is needed to correctly render the verse. You know, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight (Luke 10:21).

You said: “Suspicious? Yes. However, a reasonable person will look at the evidence rationally in spite of and maybe even because of those suspicions”. I have. I believe that you, Ransom, Brian, Pastor Larry, and many more on this forum cannot see the forest for the trees. I work in corporate management at large firm and I am involved with the strategic planning of the company. To get this position I was subjected to many psychological profiles and intelligence tests. One of the psych profiles I was given was the Human Brain Dominance Indicator (HBDI) test. This test is designed to show a preference for thinking style. It has 4 quadrants. There are two lower quadrants that deal with lower order brain function, and two upper quadrants that deal with higher brain function. The lower brain functions are detail orientation and social awareness (people skills). The higher brain functions are logic and big picture synthesis. I scored strong in the lower quadrants, off the chart on logic and big picture. I was the only one at my company that scored strongly in both these upper quadrants. In fact, the evaluators said this phenomenon is rare. Generally people who score off the chart on logic as I did, score their secondary strength in detail orientation, not big picture. Someone who thinks like I do does not get lost in details, and is not dismayed when others do not like his opinion, based on my scores in the lower quadrants. Someone like me employs logic and reasoning in making decisions to their theoretical limits. Someone like me, however, does not loose sight of the big picture when faced with a billion facts to consider. I can still see the forest when others cannot. I am telling you this in hopes that I will not be ridiculed or made fun of for my openness. Be charitable with your brother. I know that at my best state I’m altogether vanity (Psalms 39:5 only in the KJB). With that said, my interactions with others in business, science and theology often bring me back to this. There are so many facts out there on any subject that coming to a conclusive, big picture realization is almost impossible for most people. A person I debated once said: “let’s not confuse the issue with the facts”. This was a very snappy comeback to something I had said. My reply was: “let’s not confuse the facts with what you perceive the facts indicate”. There are enough so called “facts” out there to keep the brightest minds arguing till Christ comes back. I fully anticipate this will be the case. The facts we have today are much like the facts the Scribes and Pharisees had in Christ’s day, they generally can be construed to have multiple meanings. Everyone I debate with on this forum that is a MV advocate claims that the facts are on their side. This does not surprise me. The KJVO folk have the facts backing up their conclusion also. Now we can debate the veracity of these facts in their given frameworks, but no one short of God almighty himself can say what He has or has not done. For now I know only in part, but later, I will know as I am known (1 Corinthians 13:12). Anybody that knows Greek and Hebrew today seems to think they have the right from God to publish a translation of the Bible. God has allowed the scriptures to be locked away from the common person for hundreds of years in the past. Why? I believe God is in control of how, why, when, and where his “words” are available. It takes something far more important than knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to create a Bible. Anyone who has spent years studying the Bible understands that it requires immense spiritual discernment to understand it. Just think about for a second what it requires to create the entire Bible. Mind boggling isn’t it. I do not believe that it can be done without divine intervention. I see the fingerprints of God all over that KJB. Those other translations, well, leave a lot to be desired from a spiritual discernment perspective. When some of the Scribes and Pharisees went to find fault with Christ and arrest him, they returned to their superiors and were asked why they had not taken him. They answered almost breathlessly that no man ever spoke as this man did (John 7:44-46). My contention to you is that when I read Bible versions, no Bible speaks with authority like the KJB.

You said: “Just for arguments sake let's twist your argument just a bit. What if we said that "a reasonable man who knows the history of the Catholic church (Erasmus) and the early Church of England (Bancroft/Andrewes), of how they mercilessly persecuted true believers, will be suspicious of any product of their scholarship. Archbishop Bancroft who was over the KJV translating committees also ruled the High Commission court. This court tried dissenters and heretics... which sometimes included Baptists and unruly Puritans”. Jesus said to “judge not” based on what you think about someone’s past. The scholars were commanded by our Lord to “judge not” in these instances. After all, the heart of a prostitute or thief may be closer to God that yours, or Pastor Larry’s, or even mine. Do you judge David and Solomon in the same manner? Jesus commanded that we look at the fruit. He was referring to spiritual fruit. This is something that can always be discounted by facts. The scholars of Christ’s day refuted His spiritual fruit with the “facts”, but Jesus said a good tree bringeth forth good fruit. The KJB is as good a tree as there has ever been. New versions would be an entirely different issue if it were not for the sweeping changes to manuscripts and the faithless nature of modern science based textual criticism. The limp-wristed doubting language of the MVs is designed for lukewarm, money-mad, sex crazy Americans. And we are reaping what we have sown in these MVs already. Modern scholars have planted an entire forest of corrupt trees since 1904. Jesus said to the scholars of His day that they could discern the face of the sky, but not the signs of the times. The same is true today. The scholars today are blind spiritually, and this is more than evident in their translations. Just a Jesus said, if the blind follow the blind they will both fall in the ditch, so will those who follow the blind scholars and their MVs.

You said: “Following this logic why is it not reasonable to say "I know that Greek and Hebrew are difficult to learn but if modern Christians weren't so lazy they would learn them anyway?” This is not the same issue at all and you know. Greek is dead. Any experts on Greek today are greatly limited in being able to translate it based on this fact. Also, knowing Greek gives you no spiritual insight into a passage at all. Only God can do that. I don’t believe that the “modern scholars” as I defined them earlier, and as every KJVO defines them, have the spiritual discernment to translate it from English, let alone Greek. You said the KJB is your primary Bible. Why? Why do you use it if it is so impossible to read? I already know why. Something inside you spiritually tells you there is something very special about that book, something that sets it apart from all other versions. My sincere prayer is that you get more in touch with this inner tug.

 

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, He gave the signs of miracles and wisdom, and God the Father testified of Him at His baptism. These are proofs recorded for us so that we might believe. The proof was there for anyone to see in His day. Your example works against, you not for you.

Again, those who refused to accept the proof of Him as Messiah were legalists who had taken the law past what God had said and established rules of their own. They refused The Word because He did not come to them in the manner they expected. Both of these things are far more characteristic of KJVOnlyism than non-KJVO's.

Do you really think these events are greater than the expansion and establishment of Christianity within the first 3 or 4 centuries AD? During this time, all of the Bibles contained variants and were of various levels of completeness. Many contained books that were later rejected from the Canon. It is the Holy Spirit, not a translation, caused these things to occur. Luther's Bible had as more to do with the Reformation than the KJV, and it didn't originally contain the Trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8. Also, Luther and Erasmus didn't much care for each other. One rebelled against the RCC and one didn't.

There are millions being saved and sanctified today through the use of MV's. Fundamentalism was founded by men using the KJV, ASV, and RV. Just by virtue of population growth, worldwide missions, and evangelism, it is very likely that more people were saved during the twentieth century than any other before it. This also is serious fruit, friend.

Yes but that has nothing at all to do with versions. I have only heard one "homosexual minister" in my life. He came on public access TV in Seattle. He talked primarily about prophecy and used the KJV exclusively. They called themselves "Gays for Jesus. Here's the link, notice the scripture references at the bottom: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9647/

I didn't go into the site so they may use other versions as well. I am simply reporting what I saw.

I am or else I would be Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, or some other reformation religion. I am very much convinced that genuine fundamental Baptists are correct doctrinely which yields greater spiritual discernment.

I will try to get to more of your post later.