Perfect Bible

That has made me feel somewhat uncomfortable with the Alexandrian texts myself.

But there are some examples in history of something being somewhat "hidden" for a time and revealed again:

-Example of Hilkiah's discovery of the Law during Josiah's reign

-Example of the doctrine of justification by faith (Luther/1500's). The Catholics tried to make a big deal out of this being a "new" teaching..when in reality it wasn't new at all,
although it had been distorted and obscured by the institutional "church" for a 1000 years.

Not that those examples are conclusive...just something to think about.

-kman

 

FFF,

The discord is caused by people who will not accept the FACT that the KJV is not the only English bible the God uses today. If it were not for this un-scriptural belief, there would be very little heated debate. The problem is that people, like you and your cronies, try to make everyone out that uses a MV as not being faithful to God. This is totally wrong.

Talk about, Do not judge! The very position of KJVonlyism is founded in judgmentalism. Anyone who disagrees with you, no matter what the bible says, is judged as being wrong.

 

Bad manuscripts are like bad doctrine.

It happens.

HankD

 

Terry,

Now really, KJBO's are totally responsible??? See Terry, I could turn this around and say it was the MVrs that made thousands of changes in the Bible and are responsible for the discord, and round and round she goes. I stand by my statement, you are the one using emotion and personal bias to sow discord in this "thread". Notice I didn't accuse you of being an evil discord sower throughout all of Christendom, just now in this particular thread. This is certainly something I have been guilty of from time to time. Like I said before, do you have anything but anti-KJBO spiel to offer, if not your the discord sower in this thread.

 

Thats not what MY Bible says: 1 Corinthians 2:15 .

 

Hopefully you realize that your point is just that, "your" point, and not God's. That is a ridiculous argument, totally devoid of any scriptural basis. It deserves no place in thoughtful discussion.

 

MV-neverist,

Your bible doesn't have Matthew 7:1 in it? Maybe you need a real bible, the NIV.

 

Yes it does;and it also has 2 Tim 2:15 in it to tell me what to do with MY Bible,the KJB.Your beloved NIV doesn't have that in it..

I do have a REAL Bible,the KJB.

 

Pastor Larry,

You said: "Hopefully you realize that your point is just that, "your" point, and not God's. That is a ridiculous argument, totally devoid of any scriptural basis. It deserves no place in thoughtful discussion".

Yes it does have a place in thoughtful discussion. In fact, this is the key issue. You may not like the way it feels to discuss this, but it is not only a real possibility, it is a belief many today hold, including myself. The one thing that is for sure about this issue, either those manuscripts were preserved by God or the Devil, there is no other choice. I realize you do not like to think about this possibility, but we must not close our minds. The scriptural basis for being weary of such things is well known. The very first mistake the human race made was when Eve subtracted from, added to, and diminished by interpretation what God said. This was the event that led Adam and Eve to sin against God. This was the event that damned the whole human race. Clearly skepticism about the origin of manuscripts that differ with most of the extant manuscripts in thousands of places is not a ridiculous argument devoid of scriptural basis. I am not saying these things to be inflammatory, or to be mean spirited, especially since you and I both do not want to be against God in this matter, I am just pointing out that this is the key issue we should be discussing. As long as both sides are sensitive to this issue there will be no resolution.

 

FFF,

HIs argument was that God allowed the preservation of certain manuscripts to prove to the devil that certain ones (and only certain ones who accept his premise) still believe the word.

My point stands that God never said that. That is a ridiculous argument. I think there are many needed discussions about the textual evidence and reliability of the textual documents. But suggesting that 1) the existence of these manuscripts proves to the devil that some still believe his word, 2) that those who accept those manuscripts as valid evidence are not believing his word, and 3) that God did this for that reason is, in a word, ridiculous.

 

It is one thing to hold to the KJVonly belief no matter how ridiculous it is. It is another thing to come up with some off the wall explanation such as, "God allowed the preservation of certain manuscripts to prove to the devil that certain ones (and only certain ones who accept his premise) still believe the word."

What exactly does this mean?

This just proves that some people will hold to false doctrine no matter what God, the bible, or common sense dictates. Their motto should be, "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the truth."

 

Terry and Pastor Larry,

When you guys start using words like "ridiculous" and "off the wall" it is pretty clear that your feelings are dictating your response. I know it probably does not feel good to think you are deceived by the devil. The fact is, either we are or you are. Now we can discuss this like big boys and girls or we can start ridiculing each other. Pastor Larry, I would like to point out that there is nothing in the Bible about the scholars of the last days restoring the original texts, let alone with two obscure manuscripts. Your belief is just as devoid of specificity as mine is. The Bible does make it clear that Satan’s primary role is to change God’s word and snare believers. The Bible also says there will be a great falling away first before the son of perdition is revealed. Off course nobody knows when that will occur. If that is now, I am assuming you two do not want to be in that camp any more than I do. So let’s be big boys and girls and discuss the facts, not our faith in them, and certainly not how they make us feel.

 

No it's not. "Ridiculous" (the word I used) is a intellectual assessment of the validity of the argument being used. It has nothing to do with feelings and emotions.

I wouldn't know. The fact is that no one on your side has provided even one smidgeon of Scripture that even remotely supports your point, much less proves it conclusively. My point was that the statement was the point of one particular person and in no way resembles anything God said.

If you are KJVOnly and condemn God's word in other translations, then you are.

I haven't ridiculed anyone here.

You miss a very important point. Scripture clearly supports my view.
1) It calls versions other than the KJV the word of God.
2) It treats versions other than the KJV as authoritative.

The point is that you have taken a conclusion that certain ones have drawn and elevated it to a place of authority. But God never said that. Why do you say things God didn't say, and expect other to believe them. I will say what I have always said: As soon as you can show me where God said what you are saying, then I will believe. BUt I refuse to take man's word for it.

Where is this in Scripture?

True, but that has no relevance to translations.

You are right about this.

I wish you would do this. I have discussed nothing but facts. The fact is that the point that was made was a point totally devoid of facts. Your posts are directed at the wrong person. Even you should have been responding to that post to point out its flaws. Now, if you want to discuss like big boys and girls, feel free. Let's do it. But don't try to rebuke me when I wasn't the one who made a ridiculous statement that had no correspondence to the truth.

 

Pastor Larry,

It is obvious that saying someone is deceived by the devil here really strikes a nerve with you. I didn’t say it was you or your side, I just merely pointed out an evident fact. When you said “If you are KJVOnly and condemn God's word in other translations, then you are”, you are clearly condemning me as the one deceived by the devil. Maybe you misunderstood my intent?

When you say “ridiculous” you are using language that is inflammatory. Now I could take many things from your post and say they are ludicrous, absurd, preposterous, comical, farcical (all synonyms for ridiculous) or any number of other adjectives that add emotional energy to the discussion, but that would not further the discussion would it?

With regard to Satan’s role, have you not read Genesis 3, and what about the commands to not add to or take away. Surely you understand this concept don’t you? Satan's primary role is usurping God's authority, and God's authority is His Word. Have you not read of those snared by the devil and taken captive at his will (2 Timothy 2:26)? Could there not be some snared by the devil to corrupt God's Word? I think so.

With regard to translations being linked to the “great falling away”, show me a verse where it says they will not be. Again, imposing specificity on scripture does not prove your point or mine; it is an issue of faith. Just because the Bible does not specifically say not to use cocaine on Monday mornings is not a reason to justify doing this. Your repeated attempts to make application of this flawed reasoning does not make it valid.

Please, do not take this as a rebuke, or in a hateful tone. I want to have a polite exchange with you on this subject.

[ April 29, 2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]

 

Who is a potential candidate?

The 1611 Church of England which persecuted our baptist forefathers, who ordained priests, heard confessions, absolved sinners, baptised babies, celebrated the "eucharist", changed bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ and published a Bible which contained the Apocrypha to justify prayers for the dead, etc, etc...

And in spite of all this God gave them the power of "inspiration" of a translation (a doctrine not found even in the 1611 KJV), which somehow needed hundreds of corrections after said "inspiration" of said translation, which "inspiration" by the way the translators never claimed for themselves).

HankD

 

Hank,

So do you believe the reformation and great awakening were part of this great falling away?

 

Do you believe that the facts about the CoE posted by Hank caused/promoted the Great Awakening? Do those things represent a biblical departure from Romish false doctrines or a clinging to them?

You really can't keep having it both ways. If you are going to use the "Philadephian" age argument to prove that the KJV is the only acceptable Bible then you need to deal realisitically with CoE doctrines, attitudes, and actions.

Would you say that men holding those doctrines were deceived by Satan? If so, how can you be sure they weren't blind to which texts to use and how to translate words? Your "faith" requires you to draw on a supernatural force that kept certain mss with another that kept others. Which side would the KJV translators line up on? If they were on the right side, why did they hate Baptists while embracing many of Rome's false doctrines?

 

Yes it does;and it also has 2 Tim 2:15 in it to tell me what to do with MY Bible,the KJB.Your beloved NIV doesn't have that in it..

Hmmm, my NKJV has it, so my NKJV must be a perfect Bible too

 

Scott,

Do you believe those things posted by Hank about the CoE caused them to pervert the scripture of the KJB? I certainly don't think they perverted the scripture. But that is certainly the choice isn’t it, either they did, or scholars are today. You have chosen to believe scholars are correcting a corrupt text, and I have chosen to believe scholars are corrupting a correct text. You and I will take on faith which is correct because it cannot be proven either way. In the not so distant future this same debate will rage over the canon. Do you believe the CoE has the right to close the canon? That will be the questions that will be asked by people much like yourself. In fact, those are the questions being asked in some circles now. What think ye?

What I think is perverting scripture is this modern belief that when ancient documents are found they are automatically better if they are older. I am not trying to prove the "Philadelphian age" argument in this thread, just show that what many MVrs call facts are just their faith in the facts, or their feelings about the facts. On this particular front KJBO and PVO (poly version only) are on common ground.

I think that PVOs must also realistically deal with the great spiritual fruit that came from this great, and I do mean great, reformation Bible. Part of the reason you hold such disdain for RCC doctrines is a result of the spiritual fruit of the KJB throughout centuries of use and fervent belief in this country that came from having one authoritative source, a final authority. All a Bible is today is some modern scholar’s opinion of what he thinks it means (especially in DEs), or what manuscripts he thinks are accurate. This is the same view of most of Christendom today, and this is not just my opinion. The wide variety of interpretation of scripture is evident in the multitude of denominations, and the fragmentation within denominations. Christians today question being born again, the existence of Satan, the existence of Hell, and on and on and on. They will say “that is just your interpretation”.

No, I think the Bibles today are the fruit of a disbelieving, disobeying, everybody has their own interpretation generation. The protestant Bibles were a “coming out” of the tyranny of the RCC and the KJB was the reformations masterpiece, and I mean masterpiece in every sense of the word you can imagine. It took a while for doctrine to change, but it did, and the Great Awakening was a big part of that.. A faithful and fruitful rock solid Bible made that so. A good old “thus saith the Lord” Bible. If modern scholarship wants to proceed on this cycle on constantly questioning manuscript evidence and valid translation techniques and come out with a new version of the Bible every six months, then so be it. But there are a great many like myself that see the fruit of all this doubt and confusion in the lives of the common person. That is why I believe Psalm 12 means exactly what it says. God will and has preserved his words for the common person, and has preserved them from the so-called godly men who become apostate, hypocrites that set themselves up as the final authority.