1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why I am KJV only

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Pioneer, Sep 10, 2001.

  1. Pioneer

    Pioneer Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
    And by your "illogic", Ezekiel is God and Savior because he is called son of man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Ezekiel is referred to as "son of man". Notice the small "s".

    Christ is referred to as "Son of man". Notice the capitalized "S".

    There is a difference in the 2 expressions. Ezekiel was used by God to symbolize what Christ would be.

    Bro. Steve Smith
     
  2. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
    And the "one time" it is found it is incorrectly transliterated from the Latin. The word in Hebrew is helel, meaning a shining one, correctly translated (surprise) in the NASB and NIV as star of the morning. The KJV is incorrect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Hebrew word is "helel" and it is a noun in the masculine singular absolute. Just as "YHVH" is a masculine noun singular absolute and could mean "I am" yet it is nevertheless the Name of God. Just as "Hadad" is a masculine noun singular absolute and normally means "shout" yet it is used throughout the scriptures to name a person called "Hadad."

    Helel occurs only once in Hebrew scripture, and is used in the context of this verse as a proper name, which is why the AV translators used "Lucifer". Hebrew uses many words which could be either adjectives, nouns, or proper names.

    Since a person is being described, it is correct for the word to be translated as a proper name, and since "helel" essentially means "shinning one," which is what "lucifer" means in Latin, it is proper to turn "helel" into a name and call him "Lucifer."

    This type of usage is very common in the OT. The term "Lucifer" for "helel" is no different than hundreds, possibly thousands, of similar instances in the OT.

    "Helel" means light bearer, just as "YHVH" means "I am," just as "hadad" means "shout," yet in each case and hundreds more these Hebrew words are rendered as proper names in the masculine singular absolute. [​IMG]

    [ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:


    It is a well known established fact that 90-95% of all Greek manuscripts agree with the King James Bible. There are some 5,700 manuscripts in all. When you say "that the evidence indicates ..." you are lying. What you are doing is "parroting arguments" that rely solely upon 2 manuscripts out of 5,700 (the Sinaticus and the Vaticanus).
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    #1- I have not seen anyone here accuse you of lying because you believe and repeat something that is false. (You appear to be willfully deceived not willfully deceptive.) You have no basis to accuse anyone here of making intentionally misleading statements.

    #2- The KJV does not agree with the majority text in many places. BTW, it is my understanding (that I am sure others can elaborate on) that in some places there is no majority reading.

    #3- In addition to the two nearly complete copies of the NT you mention, there are numerous less complete manuscripts, the bulk of the early church father quotes, and most of the early versions which support the MV's. In some places, the KJV has little if any support outside of the Latin Vulgate which was most likely influenced over the years by RCC tradition.

    #4- What do you think is the true Word of God? If you say the KJV then did the perfect KJV (including the italics and Apocrypha) exist from before creation? Did God inspire the AV1611 along with all of its revisions? Who in the past had the Word of God if it must perfectly agree with the KJV in every detail?
     
  4. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
    #2- The KJV does not agree with the majority text in many places. BTW, it is my understanding (that I am sure others can elaborate on) that in some places there is no majority reading.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Correct, as far as it goes. The KJV is not based on the "majority text." What is commonly called the "majority text" today is actually two texts, differing from each other, the first published by Hodges and Farstad and the second by Robinson and Pierpont. Both of these "majority texts" are based on the work of Hermann von Soden and Herman Hoskier. Unfortunately these two worthy gentleman did not collate all, or even a majority, of Greek manuscripts, but referenced only slightly over 400 (out of a total of nearly 5,200). Although both texts are good, they are not as complete as some people think they are. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#3- In addition to the two nearly complete copies of the NT you mention, there are numerous less complete manuscripts, the bulk of the early church father quotes, and most of the early versions which support the MV's. In some places, the KJV has little if any support outside of the Latin Vulgate which was most likely influenced over the years by RCC tradition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, there are numerous manuscripts other than Aleph and B, but the bulk of the Patristics do not support either position on the textual issue as they are mixed, and the earliest vernaculars tend to support the Byzantine text-form over the Alexandrian text-form. And, although the KJV does contain readings that are in the Vulgate, it is equally likely they came from the Old Latin (Italia) and not exclusively from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#4- What do you think is the true Word of God? If you say the KJV then did the perfect KJV (including the italics and Apocrypha) exist from before creation? Did God inspire the AV1611 along with all of its revisions? Who in the past had the Word of God if it must perfectly agree with the KJV in every detail?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can't help but think this is a straw man question. You mention the italics and Apocrypha, but seem to over look the fact that the two most prominent of the Alexandrian texts (Aleph and B) both contain the Apocrypha, not between the testaments, as the KJV did, but as part of the canonical Old Testament Text. You talk of the Vulgate being influenced by RCC theology, as I am sure it was, but the RCC is the only major "Church" which views the Apocrypha as canonical, and it appears that Aleph and B are, in fact, early Catholic bibles. As to italics, they attempt to help clarify some difficult readings.

    And the word of God existed prior to 1611, as every KJV advocate will attest to. It existed in English in the earlier versions, and in Hebrew and Greek from the time of the completion of the canon. It has existed in the early vernaculars, and in many, many versions since that time.

    It seems to me that a lot more heat than light is being spread regarding this issue, and we can't lay it all at the feet of the KJVO people. The very questions you ask, predicated on any a priori assumption that is invalid, may contribute to the lack of light on this issue. [​IMG]
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Help correct me scholars. Lucifer, Satan or the Devil WAS at one time the highest commanding angel of the group of angels (AH can't remember the name right now) who are in charge of preserving the glory of God. Lucifer WAS called the "Morning Star", was a beautiful creature and creation of God until he fell to sin and greed made him think he could overthrow God's throne. Satan was like the second in command who commits treason and tries to get his captain thrown in the brig by convincing the crew to follow him (of which 1/3 of the angels did. . .) So, for THIS reason if no other, NEVER underestimate the power of the king of evil. I know this is off the thread somewhat, but I believe this is the way many scholars have viewed many of the statements made about Satan in the Bible and the exact translation of the NIV (and original Hebrew) name is as Dr. Cassidy explained it very well. ;)
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Obviously you like taking people's words out of context.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am not sure you should talk about being "out of context" since it is clear that the Ez and Isa passages you refer to have nothing to do with Christ. You have no problem taking them out of context.

    You are the one who questioned whether or not Jesus was a man because someone in Isa was referred to as the morning star and someone in Rev was referred to as the morning star. Let me ask you this: If I call myself George (which is my first name) and someone calls the president George, does that make me the president???? Oh what a better world this would be ... [​IMG] ... If only your logic were valid.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Using the title "morning star" in Isaiah 14 is blasphemous no matter how you try to slice it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Are you calling Isaiah blasphemous? After all, he is the one who used the word.
    ______________

    Then you reply to Chris about the son of man vs. the Son of man. Surely you know that the Hebrew language has no capitals. There is no way to say "Son of man" and distinguish it from "son of man." Furthermore, in the NT Greek, when you see Christ referred to as the Son of man, it is actually the "son of man" that he is called.

    Is God the same as the angels? After all God is called elohim most places and the angels are called elohim in Psalm 8:6. Or perhaps God is a false God since Ps 97:7 makes him out to be one (cf 2 King 18:33).

    I could give dozens of examples that would show the foolishness of your argument and it doesn't even require jumping language (from Hebrew to Greek to English) or jumping testaments (from Old to New).
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    I can't help but think this is a straw man question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...pretty much! The point of these questions was to try to get Pioneer to recognize the inconsistencies in his position. I am trying in my admittedly weak way to get him to establish or reveal the cracks in his own foundation.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And the word of God existed prior to 1611, as every KJV advocate will attest to. It existed in English in the earlier versions, and in Hebrew and Greek from the time of the completion of the canon. It has existed in the early vernaculars, and in many, many versions since that time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree completely. I am not by any means an enemy of the KJV. I believe that the KJV effectively communicates the Word of God and therefore is the Word of God in English. I just don't believe it has exclusive right to this title.
     
  8. Pioneer

    Pioneer Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
    ... the KJV effectively communicates the Word of God and therefore is the Word of God in English.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Therein is the inconconsistency with your position. Since you state that you believe "the KJV effectively communicates the Word of God and therefore is the Word of God in English", I wish to ask you this question: why do ye not believe its words?

    I would dare say that many (if not all) defenders of modern Bible versions have become like the modernists in that they believe that the Bible contains the word of God but they do not believe that it is the word of God. If one truly believes that it is the word of God then we wouldn't have defenders of modern Bible versions. We would only have defenders of the King James Bible.

    Bro. Steve Smith

    [ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
     
  9. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I would dare say that many (if not all) defenders of the KJV have become like the modernists in that they believe that the Bible contains the word of God but they do not believe that it is the word of God. If one truly believes that it is the word of God then we wouldn't have defenders of The KJV. We would only have defenders of the Geneva Bible."

    Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?
    :rolleyes:

    [ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]
     
  10. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
    "I would dare say that many (if not all) defenders of the KJV have become like the modernists in that they believe that the Bible contains the word of God but they do not believe that it is the word of God. If one truly believes that it is the word of God then we wouldn't have defenders of The KJV. We would only have defenders of the Geneva Bible."

    Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?
    :rolleyes:
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It not only sounds ridiculous, it is ridiculous.
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:


    Therein is the inconconsistency with your position. Since you state that you believe "the KJV effectively communicates the Word of God and therefore is the Word of God in English", I wish to ask you this question: why do ye not believe its words?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I do believe its words. Why do you persist in misusing its words and mine?

    If you read the preface to the AV1611 you will see that what I believe about Bible translations is very much in line with what they believed. They knew that translation choices for both wording and content had to be made...these were human, not direct, divinely inspired choices. They asserted that even the "meanest" (most average, common, plainest, simplest, etc) translation by men of their "profession" contained, "nay" is the Word of God. I agree. Do you?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...If one truly believes that it is the word of God then we wouldn't have defenders of modern Bible versions. We would only have defenders of the King James Bible.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This all goes back to how you define "Word of God." If you define it as one set of words then either:

    a) we don't have it because we don't have the originals, or
    b) God directly inspired the KJV translators (and revisers) without them knowing it and then directly inspired the KJVO's to believe that the KJV was inspired. Inspiration of KJVO's is necessary since there is no scripture to support this belief.

    If however you define it as a message independent of particular human words then we can truthfully and accurately say that we have the Word of God in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, LITV, TR, MT, NA26, UBS4, etc.

    The bottom line is the we do not have divinely inspired words in English. We have the divinely inspired Word. Your refusal to accept or inability to understand this does not make it any less true.

    [ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]
     
  12. Pioneer

    Pioneer Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
    This all goes back to how you define "Word of God"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Sounds like Bill Clinton saying "Well, it all depends what you mean by the word "is"." How can you have "the divinely inspired Word" without having "divinely inspired words"? Talk about theological double speak!

    [ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Sounds like Bill Clinton saying "Well, it all depends what you mean by the word "is"." How can you have "the divinely inspired Word" without having "divinely inspired words"? Talk about theological double speak!
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, it is not at all like Clinton, I am trying to open your eyes not deceive you. Your inability or unwillingness to understand does not constitute double speak on my part.

    BTW, why do you insist on being insulting? If you have legitimate points please make them. I disagree with you and frankly find your evasion from factual debate frustrating but as far as I know, I have not accused you of being a liar or like Bill Clinton. I do care about you. If I did not or if I thought the error that you cling to was benign, I wouldn't try to change your mind.

    That said, I will try again.

    The Word of God = the expressed or manifested will or mind of God. (This is actually a Webster's definition for "word".)

    The words of God = the actual inspired text as given to the writers of the originals in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

    Illustration: The President says in an interview, "Those who are responsible will be found and punished." Later, Colin Powell says, "As the President said earlier, 'We will find and punish those responsible.'" Both of these quotes are later cited in various foreign papers in their native language. a) Did Powell speak the words of the President? No. Did he speak the word of the President? Yes. b) Were the translated quotes of each man their words? No. Were the translated quotes of both men the word of the President? Yes.

    When you say to someone "I give you my word that I will..." is the importance on the words which follow or the mutually understood covenant that you have entered into with the person. If the person re-phrases what you said to third party without adding to or taking away from the agreement in any way, have they lied or misrepresented you?

    NOW, IT IS YOUR TURN.

    If you do not believe that you can have God's Word without having His words then what do you believe? Do you believe that the KJV is divinely inspired in the same sense as the originals? If so, prove it with scripture that says that the Bible will be perfectly preserved in English or with historical evidence.
     
  14. Pioneer

    Pioneer Guest

    Here is my position on the King James Bible:

    #1 - I believe that the very words that were written down in the original autographs have been providentially preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (OT) and the Greek Textus Receptus (NT).

    #2 - I believe that the very words that were written down in the original autographs have been providentially preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the King James Bible.

    #3 - I believe that God, in His providence, was guiding the King James translators so that we would have the very words that were written down in the original autographs preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the English language.

    #4 - I believe that the King James Bible is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God in the English language and that it is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

    That is my position and has been my position for 28 years.

    Bro. Steve Smith

    [ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
     
  15. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of your beliefs are based on turning a blind eye to the facts. I really don't think you have even mentally digested the facts and proofs that have been presented to you. I haven't seen you counter with "no that is not true because . . ." You just ignore truths. In my opinion, a person like that doesn't belong in the pulpit.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#1 - I believe that the very words that were written down in the original autographs have been providentially preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (OT) and the Greek Textus Receptus (NT).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What about the places in the TR where there is no, I mean absolutely no, Greek support prior to the TR? Did God wait to give his full word until the TR? What about the places where the TR contradicts and adds to the Majority text family of manuscripts? What do you do with these additions and changes?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#2 - I believe that the very words that were written down in the original autographs have been providentially preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the King James Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What about places where the KJV does not accurately translate what the TR has? There are several.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#3 - I believe that God, in His providence, was guiding the King James translators so that we would have the very words that were written down in the original autographs preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the English language. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    See above about places where the KJV does not accurately translate the words of the KJV.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#4 - I believe that the King James Bible is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God in the English language and that it is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Since you have cited no Scripture that supports this, why can you not grant deference to those who believe as much as you do in the inerrancy and infallibility of God's word, believe that the word of God is the final authority in all matters of life, yet differ from you on something God has not revealed?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is my position and has been my position for 28 years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Its never too late to learn.
     
  17. Rockfort

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    0
    &lt; #1 - I believe that the very words that were written down in the original autographs have been providentially preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (OT) and the Greek Textus Receptus (NT). &gt;

    Which in particular? since copies do not all agree entirely? And if you know the exact manuscripts Jimmy's guys used, the world just can't wait.

    &lt; #2 - I believe that the very words that were written down in the original autographs have been providentially preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the King James Bible. &gt;

    Then why does the 'King James Bible' insert words, including the name of God, where they are not in the original autographs? If it is 2 or more different languages which attempt to convey the same message, the words in one language are not the "very words" in another, or else there is one language and no translation.

    &lt; #3 - I believe that God, in His providence, was guiding the King James translators so that we would have the very words that were written down in the original autographs preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the English language. &gt;

    Explain why God chose NOT for the English speaking people to have His perfect Word for about 15 centuries. And explain why the KJV translators lied by saying their work was NOT the one and only Word. Does God guide liars?

    &lt; #4 - I believe that the King James Bible is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God in the English language and that it is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. &gt;

    On another forum you stated that anyone who does not believe in the Trinity is doomed to hell. The KJV never says this. So you do not believe it is the final authority.

    &lt; That is my position and has been my position for 28 years. &gt;

    What do you want?-- applause?
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:

    #1 - I believe that the very words that were written down in the original autographs have been providentially preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (OT) and the Greek Textus Receptus (NT).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Which versions of the Masoretic Text and TR do you prefer? The TR had at least 5 or 6 revisions prior to the KJV.

    Also, how do you reconcile the fact that the original TR was collated from 6 or 7 mss of varying completeness which were not in perfect agreement with one another...plus the Latin Vulgate? Did God inspire Erasmus, a RCC scholar, to collate the preserved from the unpreserved?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#2 - I believe that the very words that were written down in the original autographs have been providentially preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the King James Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For which revision do you make this claim? The KJV has been revised at least 6 times.

    BTW, the original autographs were not written in English. What you assert is impossible unless you believe that direct inspiration somehow applies to the KJV.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#3 - I believe that God, in His providence, was guiding the King James translators so that we would have the very words that were written down in the original autographs preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the English language.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This comes very close to a belief in re-inspiration. Either God inspired them or He didn't. If He did then I would expect their doctrine to be favored by Him in which case we should all become Anglicans or Episcopalians.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#4 - I believe that the King James Bible is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God in the English language and that it is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have yet to cite a verse of scripture or a historical fact to support this view. When your beliefs run contrary to scripture and/or historical facts, it is time to change your beliefs rather than continuing to attempt to twist them.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is my position and has been my position for 28 years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The sound Bible doctrine that most of us here recognize has been in existence since at least Augustine. Namely, that the originals were inspired and that copies and translations derive their authority as the Word of God from those originals.
     
  19. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Which versions of the Masoretic Text and TR do you prefer? The TR had at least 5 or 6 revisions prior to the KJV.
    Also, how do you reconcile the fact that the original TR was collated from 6 or 7 mss of varying completeness which were not in perfect agreement with one another...plus the Latin Vulgate? Did God inspire Erasmus, a RCC scholar, to collate the preserved from the unpreserved?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    There were, at last count, over 30 editions of the TR, at least 19 before and about 11 after the English Bible of 1611. Just because the TR of Erasmus was based on only 6-7 MSS (actually more, but I will use your figures) does not mean it is not accurate. If the 6-7 MSS were representitive of the Byzantine text-form (which I believe to be the original text-form) then having several hundred or even several thousand, does not change the readings.

    God did not "inspire" any man. He inspired His word(s). The most we can say about men is that they were "moved" or "borne along" by the Holy Spirit to select the words most suited to the message God was giving.

    As to "perfect agreement" - such a thing does not exist in any mss, text, or edition of any bible, including the KJV.

    And I will overlook the mischaracterization of Erasmus as "the RCC scholar." I have already posted the facts of history, from the perspective of RCC historians which debunk that false assertion.

    As to "preserved" and "unpreserved" there is no such thing. We look at all of the MSS evidence which God has preserved and determin from that source the readings of the original text-form. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For which revision do you make this claim? The KJV has been revised at least 6 times.
    BTW, the original autographs were not written in English. What you assert is impossible unless you believe that direct inspiration somehow applies to the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    The KJV has not be "revised" in the usual sense of the word, but has gone though several editions, unless you consider the work done in 1762/1769 a "revision" which only updated spelling and other minor variants in the text. The rest of your statement is hyperbole. Nobody has ever claimed the autographa were in English. And inspiration, by derivation, certainly does appy to the KJV, and many other English versions. If not, then you are preaching from a dead (expired) book! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This comes very close to a belief in re-inspiration. Either God inspired them or He didn't. If He did then I would expect their doctrine to be favored by Him in which case we should all become Anglicans or Episcopalians.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can't help but believe this may be based on a false view of inspiration. God never inspired men, only His words. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have yet to cite a verse of scripture or a historical fact to support this view. When your beliefs run contrary to scripture and/or historical facts, it is time to change your beliefs rather than continuing to attempt to twist them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Either the bible is inspired and thus inerrant and infallible, or it is not. The bible is replete with verses claiming inspiration. Historically, virtually every orthodox creed affirms the inspiration and infallibility of the bible. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The sound Bible doctrine that most of us here recognize has been in existence since at least Augustine. Namely, that the originals were inspired and that copies and translations derive their authority as the Word of God from those originals.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now I see the problem! You date the bible to the time of Augustine! Sound bible doctrine (at least the sound bible doctrine I believe, preach, and practice) had nothing to do with Augustine of Hippo, the great corrupter of biblical ecclesiology, but dates to the time of the writings of the NT. The canon, and the doctrines of inspiration and preservation have nothing to do with Augustine, but with the very nature of God and His word.

    [ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    Now I see the problem! You date the bible to the time of Augustine!...
    [ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    I am not sure that you do see the problem. My post if read in context is not a statement of my beliefs but an attempt to get Pioneer to see the error in his.

    Please note what I wrote about Augustine. I said that sound Bible doctrine goes back at least to him. Nonetheless, let me clarify that by adding the word 'formalized' to doctrine. As a stated doctrine, it goes back at least that far.

    Also, I was not asserting that Erasmus or the translators were inspired. The challenge was for Pioneer to see that what he stated as his beliefs would inevitibly lead to that conclusion or, if you prefer, that they wrote words directly inspired by God.

    Otherwise, I acknowledge everything you wrote but I am a little confused about why you seemed to answer my post out of its context (as a response to Pioneer). I know you have reasons for what you believe and those reasons are well rooted in fact. You have earned my respect, if not agreement.

    God bless.
     
Loading...