The Words vs. the Message

I guess I should have been a little more clear. The rock I was referring to is the OP which appears to have only been posted to provoke thought and possibly lead some to the truth. So I guess really the rock that has been thrown is the truth about the Word of God. I'll leave it up to you to decide who the pack of ...... (well that wouldn't be nice would it?)

 

If the truth is compared to a rock, then the OP is but grains of sand. It was written to provoke debate and to promote one-version-onlyism. The truth is that the words must accurately reflect the message or else the words are useless. That is very plain and simple. Those who place more importance on the individual words than on the true message have no true understanding.

 

I responded to the OP's points in post #7...deaconjd, perhaps you could respond to what I posted. Thanks.

 

That ol' man sure seems to get around... alot of people cite him.

 

They shouldn't. He was into "christian rock"

:applause: :thumbs: :tongue3:

Oops! Wrong thread!

 

A liar once used "research using a simple concordance" to falsely claim the NKJV took "blood" out of the Bible.

Further, the word "words" can mean individual units of speech and it can also mean "sayings". When Jesus said that His "words" would not pass away concerning the prophecies He made... do you really think He was concerned that He be exactly quoted? No. He was saying that His "sayings" or prophecies would not pass away but be fulfilled.

You have hung this argument on an artificial limitation to the definitions of rhema and logos.

Nope. That has been the standard since the first copies and translations were made.

You are right but not in the way you think. The primary folks question God's "Word" are the version onlyists. They are the ones who call translations "perversions" and the like while God is using them to save and sanctify sinners and build His Church. It is primarily you guys that try to instill doubt in people who would otherwise read, trust, and follow their Bible.

That is an academic discussion far less damaging than the wholesale condemnation of faithful translations of the Bible.

Right. And the individual words are only important in translations with regard to how well they transmit the message God originally inspired in completely different languages.

Literally millions of English readers are being saved, sanctified, and fruitful without using the KJV. I know and have known just as many dead KJVO churches as non-KJVO churches.

What is wrong with "commit your life to Christ"? Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all he had, give it to the poor, and follow Him. On many occasions, He challenged people to commit and not just to profess. The NT warns us about false professors who don't commit.

As for the others, they aren't the result of MV's. The easy-believism pushers I've run across have overwhelmingly been rabid KJVO's. Typically they've been in some way associated with or Hyles. One exception would be Billy Graham... and even he does a better job preaching repentance than the Hyles disciples I've heard.

The KJV does not contain a single word directly inspired by God. The KJV translators explicitly denied it and there is no biblical or historical proof otherwise.

 

BTW, even if you proved that the words were primary and the message secondary... you have still fallen terribly short of proving that a) only one set of English words qualify and b) that the words of the KJV are THE right words without deviation.

 

The truth is that you have missed it all together. Unless you have the original autographs, you do not have God's true words! You have man's version of God's words. The KJV is no different than any other Bible version in that it is simply the version of God's words that was agreed upon by those who translated it. The KJV is only one version of God's translated words. There are other versions and most of them convey the message God intended for us to have.

 

The problem with your claim is that this isn't "modern thinking". It is what fundamental, Bible believing, honest Christians have believed since the earliest days of the church.

Your idea (unless you want to use the RCC's Vulgate Only position as an authority) is the heterodox claim.

Really? So if every faithful version is consistent in condeming drunkeness you will disregard all of them if the wording of one of them cannot be claimed to be exclusively God's Word?

Since all of the mss used by Erasmus to collate the TR differed... shouldn't you likewise toss it onto the heap and go get drunk? Obviously if the source texts are corrupt any translation of them will be corrupt, right? Unless of course you believe that an RCC scholar was divinely inspired. If you do, why don't you adopt his theology?

Actually that is a modern approach. An approach contrived relatively recently by vain men.

 

As per my ususal policy this thread is closed at the request of its author.