Is your Bible Inerrant?

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
So, the very year the KJV came out the killing stopped? At Wednesday night prayer-meeting, we'd refer to that as a "praise".

Yeah, after the KJV hit the street, it was one big happy party. All the Baptist and Puritan prisoners were released from prison and apologized to, and all persecution stopped. That's why nine years later, in 1620, the Puritans and early Baptists fled to America - to escape all the love.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
So, the very year the KJV came out the killing stopped? At Wednesday night prayer-meeting, we'd refer to that as a "praise".

Lacy

Yes, the killing stopped. But not the persecution. The persecution of Baptist continued all the way up to and through the American Revolution. I can cite some specific examples once I have access to a few of my books if you would like?

That kind of ruins your historical revisionism doesn't it? The persecution lasted until the American Revolution then, only a relative few years after (1835 for starts), Americans and liberated Englishmen became interested in replacing the Monarch's version of the Bible.

 

[HankD]

John Bunyan was imprisoned for 12 years (circa 1660) by the Church of England though he had 5 children one of which was blind.

One of the charges brought against him was that he prayed without using the Church of England Book of Common Prayer.

http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.John.Bunyan/Sermons.Allegories/Relation.Imprisonment/index.html

HankD

 

[HankD]

Extract from the arrest warrant for John Bunyan (author of Pilgrim's Progress for those who don't know).

) Yett one John Bunnyon of
youre said Towne Tynker hath divers times
within one month last past in contempt of
his Majtie's good Lawes preached or
teached at a Conventicle Meeting or
Assembly under color or ptence of
exercise of Religion in other manner than
according to the Liturgie or practiss of
the Church of England .

HankD

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
Ill try to answer everyone here. Tauf you ask if Ruth or Boaz went into the 'citie'--they both went. Easy enough. Concerning the person that said something about a Roman Catholic plot to add the Apocrypha. Since all Bibles included the Apocrypha up until the KJV, but the "protestant" Bibles had the Apocrypha put either between the testaments or as an addenda, this plot thing makes no sense.
1. Tyndale’s Bible (1525 AD) placed by itself apart from scripture...
2. Coverdale’s Bible (1535 AD) same
3. Matthew’s Bible (1537 AD) placed between testaments
4. Taverner’s (1539 AD) same
5. AV 1611 same
6. Great Bible (1539 AD) placed in an appendix
7. Geneva Bible (1560 AD) same
8. Bishop’s Bible (1568 AD) same

Ive never heard of a plot to install something that already installed... The difference between all these Bible and the Vaticanus and RCC texts which are the basis for all modern versions is that the RCC texts place the Apocrypha AS scripture. Did you know that the underlying text to your modern Bibles ACCEPTED the Apocrypha and the KJV did not accept it? As King James said "I don't accept the Apocrypha because I am no Papist."

Sorry to chime in on this so late, but I didn't not see this post.

If all the "'protestant' Bibles had the Apocrypha put either between the testaments or as an addenda," then it seems to me that by acknowledging this, you have refuted KJV-Onlyism for us.

Thanks.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thank you for your reply!!!!!!!!!

status:

Poll Results: Is your Bible Inerrant? (34-39 votes,
* denotes 1 new vote, first 34 votes are the number after.)
Is your Bible Inerrant?

..-3 the Bible has many major errors and is invalid 0% (0)
*.-2 the Bible has major errors so is only marginally useful 0% (0)
..-1 the Bible has minor errors and should be used with caution 0% (0)
*..0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful 3% (1)
...1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues 15% (5)
*..2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 6% (2)
**.3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 50% (17)
...4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR) 3% (1)
...5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (exclusive of translator notes) 6% (2)
...6 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (including the translator notes) 0% (0)
...7 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJB1769 and/or KJB1873 0% (0)
...8 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR 3% (1)
...9 inerrant in any English translation translated by dynamic equivalence 0% (0)
...10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations 15% (5)
...11 inerrant as implemented in the Doctrine of the Church of England 0% (0)
...12 inerrant implemented in the US Republican Party platform 0% (0)

 

[bryan1276]

Concerning AUTHORIZATION: I forget who brought it up that a church 'authorized' the King James Bible. This is false. The AV 1611 was not given the description of "authorized" but by the people who believed it. It was not an original claim by the King James Bible's translators or any political church. As for the Apocrypha comment by Baptist. I pointed out its placement b/c it was not considered inspired in those bibles. To be honest though, whatever floats your boat about disbelieving the Bible is your business. If you dont want to believe it youll find a reason not to.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
Concerning AUTHORIZATION: I forget who brought it up that a church 'authorized' the King James Bible. This is false. The AV 1611 was not given the description of "authorized" but by the people who believed it. It was not an original claim by the King James Bible's translators or any political church. As for the Apocrypha comment by Baptist. I pointed out its placement b/c it was not considered inspired in those bibles. To be honest though, whatever floats your boat about disbelieving the Bible is your business. If you dont want to believe it youll find a reason not to.

Likewise, I pointed out that your statement does not support the complete and total rejection of all other English translations of God's Holy Word. As with all the other KJVO's on this list, you have failed to provide an argument for this belief. To dismiss KJVO wholly and completely as Unscriptural is not "disbelieving the Bible."
As stated before: God didn't need King James.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

God didn't need King James.

God does not "need" anybody;God did not "need" David to kill Goliath,He could have did it himself;God USES men to get His purpose done.Period

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
So, the very year the KJV came out the killing stopped? At Wednesday night prayer-meeting, we'd refer to that as a "praise".

Yeah, after the KJV hit the street, it was one big happy party. All the Baptist and Puritan prisoners were released from prison and apologized to, and all persecution stopped. That's why nine years later, in 1620, the Puritans and early Baptists fled to America - to escape all the love.
</font>[/QUOTE]And guess which version of the Bible they took with them? Here's a hint -- it wasn't the KJV....

 

[HankD]

My point is NOT to discredit the KJV (my PRIMARY Bible of choice) but to defend it from those who would make it something it isn't.

To do that one needs to point out that the KJV of the Bible originated in a Church at a time that if you entered into one of their local churches in 1611 would look and sound no dfferent than the parent Church, the Church of Rome complete with persecution of those who would not bow the knee to her (Anglo-Catholic).

Here again is the arrest warrant for John Bunyan with words emboldened for emphasis :

Yett one John Bunyan of
youre said Towne Tynker hath divers times
within one month last past in contempt of
his Majtie's good Lawes preached or
teached at a Conventicle Meeting or
Assembly under color or ptence of
exercise of Religion in other manner than
according to the Liturgie or practiss of
the Church of England

In other words every one here (presuming all to be Baptists) had we been born in England at the time shortly after the publication of then "Authorized Version" would be sharing the cell (or worst) with John Bunyan for our beliefs "in other manner than according to the liturgy or practise of the Church of England".

While we aren't British subjects anymore these men and women are part of our Baptist heritage of persecution for the truth's sake.

Personally I don't believe that God had any more to do with this English translation of the KJV Scriptures than He did with the Wycliff or Geneva Bibles.

But/and if He did what does that make the Church of England from whose lips flowed "inspired" Scripture?

Perhaps many here need to rethink their church "affiliation"?

HankD

[ October 03, 2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> God didn't need King James.

God does not "need" anybody;God did not "need" David to kill Goliath,He could have did it himself;God USES men to get His purpose done.Period </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed, which is why God used Tyndale, Wiclif, Luther et al to preserve His Holy Word.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> God didn't need King James.

God does not "need" anybody;God did not "need" David to kill Goliath,He could have did it himself;God USES men to get His purpose done.Period </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed, which is why God used Tyndale, Wiclif, Luther et al to preserve His Holy Word. </font>[/QUOTE]u can include also the NT Textual Studies INstitute in Muenster, the British Museum, Westcott-Hort, unbound.biola.edu, n TBS.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Oh! New vote!!!

was:
2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 6% (2)

is:
2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 7% (3)

 

[Jim1999]

My bibles are not inerrant in themselves, but the Lord of my bibles is inerrant, and that is what matters to me. If I could concentrate on what points are inerrant, I wouldn't have a free moment left in a day to trouble about what is left.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Ed Edwards]

Wow! 2 New votes. Thank you!

1 new vote here:
3. The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs

1 new vote here:
8. inerrant in any English translation based on the TR

Of course, the vote for 3. is more
liberal than the vote for 8.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Poll Results: Is your Bible Inerrant? (39-47 votes,
* denotes 1 new vote, first 39 votes are the number after.)
Is your Bible Inerrant?

..-3 the Bible has many major errors and is invalid (0)
..-2 the Bible has major errors so is only marginally useful (1)
..-1 the Bible has minor errors and should be used with caution (0)
...0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful (2)
*..1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues (5)
**.2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific (3)
*..3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs (19)
...4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR) (1)
...5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (exclusive of translator notes) (2)
*..6 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (including the translator notes) (0)
*..7 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJB1769 and/or KJB1873 (0)
*..8 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR (1)
...9 inerrant in any English translation translated by dynamic equivalence (0)
*..10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations (5)
...11 inerrant as implemented in the Doctrine of the Church of England 0% (0)
...12 inerrant implemented in the US Republican Party platform 0% (0)

Oberservations:
1. the KJVonlyists split their votes among 3 to 5 lines
(5-7 or maybe 4-8)
2. Half the people who vote are united on inerrancy being in the
original autographs

 

[Ed Edwards]

Still only 47 responses!?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Wow! a 48th vote.
The vote is for:
10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations

 

[Ed Edwards]

49, 49 -- anybody want to be voter #49.