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 would you be this?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by SaggyWoman, Jun 23, 2002.

  1. Farmer's Wife

    Farmer's Wife New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian, I'm not telling you what y'all believe. Y'all have said it plenty of times...that Psalms 12:6-7 is referring to preserving the 'man' and NOT God's Word. So, therefore, y'all don't believe He has preserved His true and perfect Word!
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian, I'm not telling you what y'all believe. Y'all have said it plenty of times...that Psalms 12:6-7 is referring to preserving the 'man' and NOT God's Word. So, therefore, y'all don't believe He has preserved His true and perfect Word!</font>[/QUOTE]You think this entire issue hinges on one specific modern interpretation of a single verse?
     
  3. Farmer's Wife

    Farmer's Wife New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Brian, I think it boils down to if you really believe that God preserved His true and perfect Word as He promised in Psalms 12:6-7.
     
  4. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    :rolleyes:

    If I believed God didn't preserve his word, I certainly wouldn't be spending any time on a discussion board such as this. [​IMG]

    I believe God preserved his word. I believe Psalm 12:6-7 is not talking about that. Is that so complicated?
     
  5. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. I think it is important that we use the proper names. The KJV is a "Version" (look at the title page in any copy; it is not a King James Bible). The NASB is a "Bible" (look at the title page in any edition). This is so simple and common sensical that it shouldn't have to be said.

    2. Why does the KJV omit the love of God from Jude 1? Are we to believe that Jude didn't believe that God loved the people? I could say that I hate versions that omit the love of God. It is such an important doctrine. Any version that omits God's love like the KJV did should be considered Satanic and never used. Of course, I could say that but since I understand the realities of 2000 years of manuscript transmission that resulted in 5000+ copies, I won't make such a ridiculous comment. I would encourage you not to do the same
     
  6. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am rather glad you said that. It makes you a candidate as the answer to question posed on another thread. So tell us: the 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV have differences between them or they could not be identified as different editions. Which one (if either) is the true Word of God and which other one is therefore satanic?
     
  7. Farmer's Wife

    Farmer's Wife New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Pastor Larry, I'm not politically correct (never will be) and old habits are hard to break! ;)

    Cynic...I'm not famaliar with what you're talking about. I've never done a complete side by side comparison between the two.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not about being politically correct. It is about being honest with the titles we are talking about. And "old habits are hard to break" is a cop out. In writing and communicating, it is proper to refer to things by their given name or an accepted abbreviation of such.
     
  9. Farmer's Wife

    Farmer's Wife New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    0
    The abbreviations I used are the accepted abbreviations around here in my neck of the cottonfield...just ask 'Bubba'! :D

    [ July 22, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Farmer's Wife ]
     
  10. John3v36

    John3v36 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Textus Receptus Greek is the word of God in the New testemant.

    It is the Bible the church fathers used. I can tell they did not use the NIV. :D
     
  11. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are places where the Early Church Fathers' quotes seem to support alternate readings (found in modern versions) against the TR. We cannot make a sweeping generalization like "It is the Bible the church fathers used", especially when it wasn't even compiled until the early 1500s. And there were many church fathers, spread over a huge area, spread over many languages, and spread over many centuries. Sometimes a reading supports the TR, sometimes not. And sometimes they quote a reading that is not in any of our Bibles today! We must consider all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports our view.

    [ July 22, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
  12. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought you said you knew unequivacally what THE Word of God is. It appears you do not.
     
  13. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    They didn't use any English translation, bud. And what is your proof that the "Textus Receptus is the word of God in the New Testament," and not older manuscripts? And if it is, what ONE manuscript within the TR is THE Word of God?
     
  14. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    What is your proof that the Alexandrian text is the word of God in the New Testament, and not other manuscripts? And if it is, what ONE manuscript within the AT is THE Word of God?

    Or, you fill in the blanks: "What is your proof that the ________________ is the word of God in the New Testament, and not some other manuscripts? And if it is, what ONE manuscript within the ________________ is THE Word of God?"

    Straw man questions can be asked by both sides. [​IMG]

    Oh, and, by the way. "Proof" is a mathematical concept. I suspect the word you really meant to use was "evidence." [​IMG]
     
  15. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is your proof that the Alexandrian text is the word of God in the New Testament, and not other manuscripts? And if it is, what ONE manuscript within the AT is THE Word of God?

    Although this has the appearance I am being addressed here, I said nothing at all about the Alexandrian texts, so the question is as worthless as [cruditity edited].

    Oh, and, by the way. "Proof" is a mathematical concept. I suspect the word you really meant to use was "evidence."

    Yes, "Proof" is a mathematical concept I have had more to to do with than I would like (but at least I didn't have to learn the Greek alphabet from scratch [​IMG] ). Yet to say there is no method of proof in the validity of biblical texts is to admit the entire subject is based upon presumptions.

    &lt; Straw man questions can be asked by both sides. &gt;

    [ad hominem edited]

    [ July 23, 2002, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
     
  16. Maverick

    Maverick Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Because he should. Until a good translation is done from the TR and the notes from the sorry texts are left out of it the KJV is the only trustworthy translation out there. Even the NKJV muddies up some areas that I understood in the KJV. I could at least tolerate that one as a good try if they would have left out the psuedo-scholastic notes from the bogus manuscripts out of it.
     
  17. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  18. I think that if most of you would get your hands on a book called New Age Bible Versions by GA Riplinger, it would give you all the proof that you need to show you that the KJV is the only preserved version of the Bible. Any of the newer versions that have come out in the past 40 years: the NIV, the NASB, the NRSV, etc have one thing in common. They take away the diety of Christ and slowly attempt to bring God down to the level of man. This attempts to make man's sin less offensive to God and we can all live together in peace and harmony and not offend anyone. That way, no one will go to hell. We will all go to heaven and be happy little angels together. That is not what the men who wrote the Bible or God, who inspired it, had in mind! :eek:
     
  19. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ironically, it is *precisely* this book that is the reason I began opposing KJV-onlyism. It is a Christian equivalent of tabloid journalism, full of misrepresentation (even admittedly deliberate!), misquotes, selective "evidence", and faulty logic.

    Brian
     
Loading...