What is Scripture?

--------------------------------------------------
"To judge righteously" requires that we judge what we learn from our senses by a standard. Appearance is not always reality however it is a better place to start than the pre-determined biases that KJVO's operate from.
--------------------------------------------------

We are to judge all by the standards given to us and established in God's words, for ONLY He is the judge and it is ONLY He who is Righteous , not our own thoughts, or feelings.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

-------------------------
We are to judge all by the standards given to us and established in God's words, for ONLY He is the judge and it is ONLY He who is Righteous , not our own thoughts, or feelings.
-------------------------

Amen and amen!

 

That is my point exactly. Why then did they include it? If God was guiding them why did He allow them to sandwich this heretical document in the book called “the Holy Bible”?

You may have discussed it to your satisfaction but you have never explained it.
Namely, my question concerning the whereabouts of God when this piece of profane literature from whence the Church of Rome drew much of it’s heresy when it was included in the Holy Bible.

To say that it not part of the canon is not an answer to my questions which to date you have but circumvented with the obvious that the Apocrypha is not part of the Canon. I repeat that is my point exactly.

Wrong. It is relevant because as we have been told so often (although not recently) “The well has been poisoned by the Alexandrian texts".

No, I am not going to let you get away with this michelle. You keep evading my questions, why should I go any further with anything else? While I might agree with you concerning the “texts and methods” issue, I will not even consider it until I have a credible answer or explanation to my question concerning the “well head” the First Edition of the King James Authorised Version of the Bible.

Where was God when King James authorized the words “The Holy Bible” on the First Edition of the AV1611 which contained the corrupt and heretical Apocrypha within with no internal explanation that it was not Scripture? In fact, they presented it as if it were Scripture in metered chapter and verse, included it in cross-references in the Old and New Testaments and included it in the supplied daily “Scripture” reading calendar.

Why are the MV’s "corrupted" by the Alexandrian texts and the First Edition KJV (both Oxford and Cambridge) (The well-heads of all other KJV’s) not so by the Apocrypha?

What ever happened to "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump"?

Why was it OK with the Lord for the 1611 generation to have the leaven of the Apocrypha in their "Holy Bible" but not for you and I today?

HankD

 

But it(the "corrupt and Heretical"Apocrypha) was,and still IS part of the canon(s) that the Alexandrian washouts came from.A little leaven,remember?

 

You have made the God out to be a liar and gone against scripture because no one has all the answers not even the entire body of Christ because we do not see as God sees. Therefore we are limited in our understanding and knowledge. God has revealed this in His word in 1 Cor. 13.

It is one thing to read scripture as though it is written to us and entire different thing to interpret it as being written to us.

The scripture was never written to us but for all.

In Mt. 22:29 and Jn 5:39 who is the “You?” Context please.

All of the context in those verses is past tense. Even Hebrews 11 ought to give you a hint.

If you would make the claim that all of scripture was written to you then you would have a hard time telling me that you were in every church Paul planted.

When you wrote, “Therefore, Scriptures are meant, and should be read by the Lord's people as they were written to us personally. You did not even state that the scripture was written to you. “As” is a comparative adverb. Sometimes the scripture is written to Israel and that is not us.

You have made claims that God doesn’t even make for us.

 

Michelle wrote:

Perhaps I'm feeling just a little cantankerous today, but since Michelle mentions "judge" in this quote, the satire I wrote a few days ago (in another thread) that served to express my frustration in trying to get a straight answer (let alone any answer) from Michelle comes to mind:

"I can't help but picturing Michelle on the witness stand in a court room. I think it would go something like this:

Judge: Alright Ma'am, please tell the court what you say you witnessed at the scene of the crime.

Michelle: I know the truth of what happened. I don't need anyone else to tell me what I know. No one else knows what I know. I alone am aware of the truth of the matter.

Judge: Well...O.K. then. But if you could just provide us with the facts, the evidence, of what you claim to know.

Michelle: You too could know what I know, if you would just study the facts. Ask God to open your eyes to the truth, so that you too could see the truth...[ed.: Rambling, ten-minute rant on anything-but the question edited for brevity.]

Judge (exasperated): Ma'am, could you please just stick to the facts. Tell us what you claim to know about the incident in question.

Michelle: I've already told you what I know. Do you not have ears to hear what I am saying? Do you not...[Once again, rambling, ten-minute rant edited for brevity.]

Judge (large vein on forehead pounding): Ma'am, were you even present at the crime scene! Do you have anything useful to say here whatsoever?

Michelle: Simply look at history! I can't be expected to provide all of the facts. The proof is out there for all to see; who are willing to see it. I believe that blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada...........

Judge: [The Judge at this point is unconscious. Too many self-inflicted gavel blows to the head, in an effort to try to escape from the relentless, inane ramblings proceeding from the witness stand, have rendered the Judge as such.]"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Can you show me one verse where God says that any translation is inspired?

In response to the last part of what you wrote: God did not write telling you how to write a comoputer. He did not write about a flush toilet. God did give you a brain to think with.

God did not create you as a robot but he created you with a body, soul ands spirit, all of it working together.

God did have recorded in James 1:5 about wisdom outside of His word directly.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Not so. 2 Peter 1 includes knowledge as one aspect of spiritual maturity. Wisdom is a continuing theme throughout scripture. Wisdom is not based on feelings- in fact, the wisest people set aside their own biases and judge according to the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------


Wisdom comes from God, which comes from HIS words of truth speaking in our hearts -understanding, and obediance following. You are saying above to which is contradictory to what you had said to that previously:
--------------------------------------------------
"To judge righteously" requires that we judge what we learn from our senses by a standard.
--------------------------------------------------

Websters New World Dictionary

feeling: 1. the sense of touch, 2. the ability to experience physical sensation, 3. to experience (an emotion or condition); be affected by, 4.to be aware of, 5. to be moved by sympathy or pity,etc.

senses: [< L. sentire, to feel]1. any faculty of receiving impressions through body organs; sight, touch, taste, smell, or hearing 2. a.) a feeling, perception, etc. through the senses b.) a generalilzed feeling or awareness 3. an ability to understand some quality /a sense of humor/
4. normal intelligence and judgement 5. meaning, as of a word - sensed, sens'ing 1. to perceive 2. to detect as by sensors - in a sense to a limited extent or degree -make sense, to be intelligable or logical.


Now I must ask you, by what is the "standard" that one is to make the judgement by? To where does one receive the knowledge that Peter is speaking of for spiritual maturity? 1 Cor. 2:13


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
It is not indicative of the mind of Christ to dogmatically assert the traditions of men on top of the spirit of God's Word. This is exactly what KJVOnlyism does.
--------------------------------------------------

This is untrue about the KJB position, for their position is in faith and trust in God's word to which judges the evidence. This statement above reflects the position of the mv proponents very accurately. Man's wisdom and logic overrules that of God's words. Hence, they aren't looking at this with the mind of Christ, but with the wisdom of men/ the natural man first. 1 Cor.2:5

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
If fruit bearing is your criterion, shouldn't you check out how many people are being saved and growing in the Lord using MV's?
--------------------------------------------------

Fruit bearing wasn't my criteria. I was replying to another poster who implied that it was. I fear you didn't even read my post. I am through responding to you. You have made it clear, that you do not care to read anything with trying to understand, but only to argue and turn the discussion into assumptions that have nothing to do with this issue.

Goodbye Scott, and may the Lord richly bless you and give you knowledge and understanding of His peace, love and truth.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
In 1613, they launched out on another work of re-comparing the manuscripts of "the Originall tongues" and revising their former works.

--------------------------------------------------

Another strawman to avoid the real truth, the one that should be the focus.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
That is my point exactly. Why then did they include it? If God was guiding them why did He allow them to sandwich this heretical document in the book called “the Holy Bible”?
--------------------------------------------------


Maybe instead of focusing on "Why was it there?", you should focus more on "why was it taken out?".


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

But it is OK for you to rant, rave and SHOUT your agenda day after day, hijack almost every thread, insult and accuse the brethren by innuendo and then to add insult to injury, crow like a rooster concerning your superior spirituality?

HankD

 

The Spirit of God pointed out their error to them?

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
You may have discussed it to your satisfaction but you have never explained it.
Namely, my question concerning the whereabouts of God when this piece of profane literature from whence the Church of Rome drew much of it’s heresy when it was included in the Holy Bible.

--------------------------------------------------

It's really ironic, but very sad at the same time, that you go to all these lenghts and extremes to focus upon irrelevant things pertaing to something that wasn't even included as scripture, and was shortly thereafter taken out, instead of focusing your attention on those things of heretics that HAVE been included or omitted from the scriptures.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. It is relevant because as we have been told so often (although not recently) “The well has been poisoned by the Alexandrian texts".
--------------------------------------------------


The modern versions most definately have been by virtue of the texts used and methods of translation of these texts, to which these two things (Apocryph included as a reference in the 1611 vs. Alexandrian texts underlining the modern version translations) DO NOT even remotely COMPARE, as you all are claiming/believing they do.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Now we are finally getting somewhere.

Where does the KJV say that the KJV is God's words or that God inspired the translators? I don't want your interpretation. I want texts that absolutely point to the KJV or that clearly define a principle that can only lead to the conclusion that the KJV is God's words based on historical (including pre-1611) facts.

I can and have given clear scripture that demonstrates that the originals were directly inspired by God Himself.

It is demonstrated by the word "given". The scriptures were "given" by God once through men who were specifically chosen and biblically qualified.

Direct inspiration by God in and of itself guarantees perfection because God is perfect. Again, specific men were chosen and qualified to receive direct inspiration.

It is demonstrated by the claims of the writers themselves of having spoken the Word of God.

It is demonstrated by internal validation, ie. Peter called Paul's writings scripture.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Why are the MV’s "corrupted" by the Alexandrian texts and the First Edition KJV (both Oxford and Cambridge) (The well-heads of all other KJV’s) not so by the Apocrypha?
--------------------------------------------------
What ever happened to "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump"?

Why was it OK with the Lord for the 1611 generation to have the leaven of the Apocrypha in their "Holy Bible" but not for you and I today?

--------------------------------------------------


It is amazing how many times I must REPEAT myself, and others have also, the reasons why. How many times does a person or persons have to explain to you before you understand? Then you accuse me of never answering your questions, to which I have MANY TIMES.

I AGAIN explained the answer to your question in another post, posted today. If you cannot find it, then I will anwer you one more time. I am tired of repeating myself over and over again. If I thought that anyone here REALLY CARED to HEAR the answer, it would be worth the effort. But you all have made it clear you are fighting against some false label that you have conjured up in your own minds, to DENY THE TRUTH IN THIS ISSUE.


--------------------------------------------------
What ever happened to "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump"?

Why was it OK with the Lord for the 1611 generation to have the leaven of the Apocrypha in their "Holy Bible" but not for you and I today?

--------------------------------------------------

The Lord saw to it that it was taken out. That is evidenced, as it is not in our Bibles today. There is not Roman Catholic heresies, or scriptures missing/added, nor altered in the KJB.

I can't answer for you, what ONLY the Lord knows about this. All I can say, is what I believe, to which is only my guess, is that it seems that the Lord's people knew that it should not be included, and they saw to it, it was removed. We also have today, the capability for each individual to own a Bible, rich and poor alike. The culture and the times back then were much different than today, only a few well to do people had the ability to afford one. So the use of these Bibles would have been mostly used by the pastors/preachers. God leading them to preach the truth, and convicting their heart that Apocrypha was wrong.

I truly believe that God insured that he gave us his words perfectly in our own language, at that time, for this very reason we are discussing today. As God has foreknowledge and knows all, he would have forseen this issue. He has made it evident for all of us, who now have been blessed to have our very own Bible. Because today, every man has the ability to have his words each individually and to study them on our own. I believe God knew/knows this, and has provided for each individual, so that they are individually equipped with his words to protect us with against the coming deception and apostacy. This is my best guess, and all I can offer you. Take it as you will.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

No it doesn't. You can't judge anything without being able to gather information through your senses. Perhaps "learn" wasn't the best choice of words- maybe perceive would have been better.

The more objective and unbiased you are about the information, the more likely you are to "judge righteously". This is a principle easily discerned in scripture.

But to your accusation, note that I said we judge what we learn by a standard. The ultimate standard is God's Word. When God's Word does not speak directly on a subject then we apply biblical principles. All of this is done under humble, prayerful submission to the Holy Spirit.

You can't approach an issue from the stand point that you already know the truth and just need the Spirit to confirm it. You have to seek the truth with a sincere willingness to accept something that you don't like if that is where the Spirit and the scripture lead.

My prayer isn't that all you "blind KJVO's will wake up and agree with me". My prayer is that God will teach me the truth if I am wrong and grant the ability to convince others if I am not. And, I pray that you will have discernment on this issue as well.

This is one of the rougher forums on the board. Being a fundamentalist, I consider it an issue of primary importance because KJVOnlyism threatens to divide and destroy biblical fundamentalism in America. Like most folks here, I have much zeal on this topic. However, I can honestly say that I don't have hateful feelings toward anyone including those who question my faith et al.

Websters New World Dictionary

By application of scripture to our life experiences while prayerfully walking in the Spirit... and especially in trials and tests. The next two attributes Peter lists are temperance (self-control in temptation) and patience (hopeful or cheerful endurance of trials). You could also say that the reverent fear of God inherent in godliness as well as the fellowship aspects of "philadelphia" and "agape" play a roll as well.

 

The NASB never had the Apocrypha and was translated by conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists who all affirmed inerrancy and salvation by grace alone.

Can you tell us again why you think Anglican translators (who thought the Apocrypha belonged between the covers of their Bible so much so that they outlawed the printing of the AV without it) are superior to the NASB translators, many of whom are Baptists?

Just to reiterate, I am asking "why", not "if". I am looking for a sound reason.