So, PK from what I am seeing you do not believe in the KJV only per se but rather in the texts that they were taken from?
And you would then admit that the KJV is prone to copy errors etc?
What is Biblical Inerrancy?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JustChristian, Jun 3, 2008.
?
-
No current Bible translation contains any errors
1 vote(s)2.1% -
Current Bible translations are inerrant in message but contain some factural errors
2 vote(s)4.3% -
The original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant but errors were introduced in translation
34 vote(s)72.3% -
The original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant in message but contained some factual errors
3 vote(s)6.4% -
There are no differences between different versions of the Bible
1 vote(s)2.1% -
Only the King James translation of the Bible is without error
5 vote(s)10.6% -
Only the King James translation is inerrant in message but it does contain factural errors
1 vote(s)2.1%
Page 9 of 10
-
Maybe I missed something in those articles PK, but I still don't see an answer from you for my question so I will ask them again:
1. If you insist on a 100% perfect and literal translation, which edition of the KJV contains 100% word for word THE Word of God?
There have been many revisions of the KJV and I highly doubt you use the 1611.
I saw the link you posted but which one of these revisions is with out error?
2. By what authority is the KJV "The Bible" and other translations are not, such as the Geneva Bible, the ASV, the NKJV and the NASB et al?
I didn't see an answer to this anywhere.
3. What was THE Bible in the years prior to 1611 in England and at what exact time did the KJV become "The Bible"
YOu have not answered this either. -
-
-
Askjo: // Look at the Textus Receptus and the Critical Texts. When nearly 10,000 different word variations between the TR and the CT disagreed each other, can they be equally verbally inspired? //
1. I cannot read the Textus Receptus nor the Critical Texts. I don't read Greek so I can't read the LXX either. What I can read, and have, is the NIV; from which the N.T. is derived largely from the Critical Texts. What I can read, and have, is the nKJV from which the N.T. is derived largely from the Textus Receptus.
2. I doubt if there is 10,000 differences, the NT just isn't that long.
3. Who is the author of any differences between the two? I believe that God inspired both the Textus Receptus and the Critical Texts. Furthermore: Everything I known about God leads me to have full confidence in the things that I don't know about God..
4. Both the TR & CT are equally verbally inspired. My proof from Scripture:
2Ti 3:16-17 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For the whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teache, to conuince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect vnto all good workes.
The only way to get whole & absolute is to study the NIV and the nKJV. IF you speak a 300 year old English, feel free to use the Geneva Bible and the KJV1611 Edition (the real KJV, before the Bible Modifiers got their hands on the KJV :( ).
-
Askjo: //Look at the Textus Receptus and the Critical Texts. When nearly 10,000 different word variations between the TR and the CT disagreed each other, can they be equally verbally inspired?//
Consider this from the KJV1611 Edition Bible:
Matthew 1:11
And ||Iosias begat Icchonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
First Translator's Margin Note:
Some read, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat* Iechonias.
* Ed's footnote: 'begat' is the reading in the original - should have been 'begate' - oops!
Translated, one TR source said:
Matthew 1:11 (TR source 1):
And Iosias begate Icchonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
Translated, another TR source said:
Matthew 1:11 (TR source 2):
And Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
Are both TR sources of Matthew 1:11 equally verbally inspired? Or was one source of the TR wrong? -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Well, James White would destroy Gipp's arguments but have you read his book?
If you can't articulate what you believe, you have no belief. You are just parroting what someone else says. You don't have a clue for yourself.
You just have to hope Sam Gipp has done his homework. -
Dale, Dale, Dale...
Is that animosity in your typing? I did not promote this person by name. I only said that the articles summed up the point very well. I do not follow any man but I like how you have been promoting James R. White's teachings over the last couple of weeks. :tonofbricks: -
Bartimaeus -
As For James White, he is an excellent scholar on the issue and is a a scholar in greek. he knows his stuff.
he cites his references he backs up his claims. Is he the final authority on the issue? Certainly not.
But! :) You have yet to really answer my questions :) -
My Question was :
1. If you insist on a 100% perfect and literal translation, which edition of the KJV contains 100% word for word THE Word of God?
There have been many revisions of the KJV and I highly doubt you use the 1611.
So am I to assume that the previous editions had errors that needed to be corrected and the 1769 was the perfecting of the KJV translation?
Also, My grandfather never had a position such as yours as far as I am aware. He in fact did change at one time to another translation but it was more difficult for people in the pew who still had the KJV to follow along so he reverted to the KJV but for a time at least still used the other version for personal study.
As others around him began to make an issue out of the KJV I think he reverted back to it but I am not sure of the reasons as I never discussed it with him.
Also my dad has preferred the TR but is not KJV only per se as you are.
My Next question was:
2. By what authority is the KJV "The Bible" and other translations are not, such as the Geneva Bible, the ASV, the NKJV and the NASB et al?
To which you answered:
Second:
Third:
But if the KJV is the perfect Word of God to the exclusion of all others then that precludes the others I mentioned from being perfect as well, regardless of underlying texts used.
Next I asked:
3. What was THE Bible in the years prior to 1611 in England and at what exact time did the KJV become "The Bible"
To which you answered:
2. If the Geneva Bible was God's perfect Word before the 1611 did it cease to be perfect after either 1611 or perhaps in 1769 when the KJV was apparently perfected?
Is the Geneva still perfect to this day or is it superseded by the KJV?
What of the differences between the two?
For instance the KJV reads in 1 Cor 6:9 the following:
You call me a freshman and unable to debate this issue but you have no idea how much I have studied, nor do I know how much you have studied.
Neither of our sides of the argument are right or wrong based upon the amount of studying we have personally done. -
Dale,
Your post is getting quite lengthy. I am willing to deal with it in it's entirety, but I have been awake since 5 am Sat. and it is now Sun at 10:30. I am very tired and I am afraid I will not be very sharp right now.... the 1789/1769 mistake is my best example right now.
I know this .... if I knew as much about the issue here as you know about mac's I would be exceptionally sharp. Right now I am very dull. Lots to discuss and now I must decline and retire.
Bartimaeus -
Bart, no hurries. I am interested in the truth as you are I am sure.
Take your time to do it right when you have the time. Meanwhile, rest well and God bless you and your family! -
// in the KJV 1769 we read:
Quote:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.//
Apparently that is the Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition??? -
Ed, it seems Bat was not the only tired one last night. Yes, I switched the KJV and the Geneva, got them backwards! Thanks for pointing that out.
-
Wow, I must have overwhelmed everyone with that long post. Looks like I killed the thread :(
-
The issue here is that you are trying to disprove the inspiration of the KJB but God promised to preserve His Word.
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh in you that believe." (1 Thess. 2:13) -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
Besides falling on the side of legalism these guys have a problem. Their a new outcroping of Christianity born out of the missionary baptist debates and seperated themselves out. There is no historical record of them coming down from the apostles through the different churches in Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Greece, Italy, North Africa, Spain, And Gaul through the reformation and finally into the US where these guys actually started. They must insist on the Pre-eminance of KJB over all other scripture and so a perfectly pristine translation handed down through the ages. Historical document don't prove this out. Actual study of Scriptures and the translated text don't prove this out. They don't require facts though it has to be faith. (Kind of like the burning bussom of the LDS) I find that there is a kind of Mantra that they use on most if not all of their websites John 4:24 "God is spirit and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth." Believing that only they have the truth in its entirety which is the KJB. No other text can be accepted. Anything that the bible doesn't specifically mention they are silent as well. I think they would have a hard time with Jude which quotes from the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. I think if they understand how scriptures were handed down to us they would have real issues. I believe these guys can't really be reasoned with because they just believe. the "don't confuse me with the facts" thing. -
Bro. James Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Now that we have introduced the notion that there might be a True Church, is it not reasonable to suppose there might also be a False Church--a synogogue of Satan? Do we turn to the Word of God, the traditions of men, or a combination thereof for a standard faith and practice? Maybe Grandma Moses?
Jesus told us He would build His Church and He gave Her His authority, His Word, and the Holy Spirit to keep Her on the straight and narrow. He said He would be with Her forever. Most of the past two millenia have shown a church never on the straight and narrow even through today. Are we saying that Jesus cannot keep His Bride from being defiled?
He has kept Her, just like He said He would. She has survived the onslaught of the hordes of Hades. You will not find Her listed in Who is Who in Religion. You will find Her waiting and watching for the Bridegroom to return.
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Selah,
Bro. James
P.S. To "Thinkingstuff": how long have you studied this group called Primitive Baptists?
Page 9 of 10