Originally Posted by bibleprotector

God preserved His Word throughout all ages, it is evident. But God never lost control of it, though it were scattered. The person who rejects the King James Bible as true, pure and perfect is actually believing or implying that God has lost control over His Word. This is easy to show: They cannot supply a true copy which matches exactly what was inspired.

To imply that God somehow re-"revealed" His Word in 1611 is to ascribe false beliefs to King James Bible believers. To call old Anglicans antagonistic names is not befitting, and the lie about the Catholic priest is just crude and venomous.

Erasmus was not a Catholic priest?! Anglicans were not Paedobaptists?! I think I've fallen down the rabbit hole.

Thank you for the courteous answer, bibleprotector, and thanks especially for not calling me names.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

There is a vast difference between believing that the Word of God has been generally preserved in a vast number of copies (and translations), all of which differ slightly one to another, as opposed to those who believe that while God has been able to keep His Word, He has also been able to providentially manifest it exactly correct in one particular version. Therefore, we all do not agree upon "all".

What one particular version was God's perfect and preserved Word in 1311 AD? Who had it, and who did not have it?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

All objective data is interpreted. We always approach the subject with presuppositions, but if our starting point is belief in the Scripture itself, and we then apply Scripturally-consistent scientific and natural methods to interpret how the Scripture has come to us, we are going to get to correct conclusions, as opposed to a view which does not start with Scripture being in one's hand, but relagates truth to some ancient age when it was first inspired (therefore deemphasising the truth of what is in our hand).

Starting from the original texts, can you follow the transmission of the perfectly preserved Word all the way to 1611, or are there gaps?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The problem is more primary. If you are not KJBO, you do not have any Scripture in your hand which you can rely upon to begin with. Once you start from Receiving God's Providentially Appointed Word, you then believe what the Scripture says about itself. You then understand about the originals, about copies and about history in line with that. Finally, you then examine whether or not deletions or additions have taken place in various texts, and you judge so, not only on the basis of scientific hypotheses (e.g. dittography, aural conditioning, etc.) but also on the firm foundation that you actually have the Word of God which claims to be the Word indeed, and incorrupt. In this self-authenticating reasoning, you will find that the King James Bible always matches up exactly, and that there are no unresolvable problems.

If you start with natural reasoning only, and start from a modern version in your hand (which was made by natural-only reasoning), your whole inquiry will collapse and fail, and you will come to the unbelieving conclusion that the King James Bible suffers from deletions and additions.

Honestly, I don't start from any version, since versions are 1) late to the party, and 2) the work of man.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Of course, the KJBO view is smeared as "circular reasoning" (rather than as a self-evident truth), but the modern view is just as "circular", viz., 1. error exists, and all things are subject to error. 2. this is a Bible which exists, and error is exhibited in the past in copies, and we observe errors being made in the present. 3. therefore all Bibles are to some degree erroneous.

The syllogism you give here is not circular, it is linear (all things have error, the Bible is a thing, therefore the Bible has error). I agree it has fallacy in it, but then, it is not my argument.

The reason the KJO argument is circular is that it starts with the KJV and then argues back to the KJV. You did this in the paragraph that starts with "The problem is more primary. . ." The circular reasoning charge is a valid one.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

You can start with a KJB in your hand and yet have the modernist naturalistic thinking, and come to the wrong conclusions. Unless you view that God is able to work despite error, and is able to THWART error in history, you will always come to the wrong conclusions in this matter.

I agree that God DID thwart error in history. The proof is the fact that New Testament Christianity is still found in the world. The doctrine of the remnant is holding fast. I believe there will be people who love God's Word all the way to the end of the world.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The Puritan view is that God is able to work against error in history, and would do so by manifesting truth. The King James Bible, that Bible which was made the official Puritan Bible in the 1650s, is true: "But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." (Daniel 7:26).

The Puritan view is more like "God works through error" than "God works against error", but your point is well taken.

Thanks again for the courteous discussion.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by solabiblia

Erasmus was not a Catholic priest?!

Erasmus renounced his priesthood and monasticism.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by solabiblia

What one particular version was God's perfect and preserved Word in 1311 AD? Who had it, and who did not have it?

God was preserving His Word in many scattered copies at the time. The refining to one perfection version took place later. In the mean time, there was ongoing preservation. People in 1311 had sufficient access to God's Word.

Originally Posted by solabiblia

Starting from the original texts, can you follow the transmission of the perfectly preserved Word all the way to 1611, or are there gaps?

In reverse, we look at what is today, and look backward. This is what anyone has to do when they receive the Gospel. The Gospel is not "The truth was long ago, a message I cannot tell you, because it is far away in the past." No, the Scripture must be known NOW first.

Originally Posted by solabiblia

Honestly, I don't start from any version, since versions are 1) late to the party, and 2) the work of man.

I don't mean to accuse you unnecessarily here, but you are actually arguing that people become Christians by having NO Scripture. If you do not start from a present version (e.g. an English translation), you are not starting from anything. You need an extant form of Scripture as a starting point.

Versions existed all the way back in the earliest centuries, as in Latin, Syriac, etc. To claim all such work is merely "human" is to undermine anything of the Church, doctrine, Confession etc., because all such things are human. Calvin was human. The Apostle Paul was human.

Originally Posted by solabiblia

The reason the KJO argument is circular is that it starts with the KJV and then argues back to the KJV.

Notice that the same argument applies when proving why God is God.

Also, any argument which has the assumption that "error is", whether it is implied or stated, is going to fail. Such as, "there is no perfect version because error is present", or "we cannot know which Bible is perfect because error is present", or, "many Bibles are close because none can be perfect, and none can be perfect because error is present in the world." etc. etc.

Originally Posted by solabiblia

I agree that God DID thwart error in history.

So, where is the Bible freed from error, or, when shall it come to pass in history?

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by solabiblia

Still no answers. Are these questions so dangerous or frightening that you have to run from them?

I got one for you Barry: What is a Gnostic?

Grace and peace

Tony

[George]

Aloha to all genuine Bible believers on the AV1611 Forum,

By now it must be obvious to all - that it is a "fruitless" endeavor trying to deal with "solabiblia". The following is just a tiny example of the worthless "CIRCULAR REASONING" that "solabiblia" employs in trying to undermine the faith of genuine Bible believers:

05/08/09- “solabiblia’s” 16th. Post {Thread >Bible Versions > Sam Gipp’s degree > Post #60}

Originally Posted by peopleoftheway {Post #56} “That is wonderful stuff, you teach scholars from it, you have it on your computer, you have memorized 50 chapters, fantastic, you love it, cherish it, quote it and live by it. But Do you live by it, do you hold it as the infallible inerrant word of God, or do you simply "prefer" it to other versions?”

solabiblia’s “response” ???

“Both, actually.”

Did you get that? “BOTH ACTUALLY”! Talk about “CIRCULAR REASONING”! Do you see WHY, once I discover someone is a SOPHIST, I cease dealing with them? You cannot reason with a Sophist. I reprove them or rebuke them, and then I move on. I refuse to continue trying to “reach” them – they are unreachable (un-teachable), since they already KNOW EVERYTHING there is to know!

“BOTH ACTUALLY”!!! These people (solabiblia, greektim, and the Bible correctors that came here before them) want to have it BOTH WAYS! I quote solabiblia: “I probably would think long and hard before attending a church that did not use the KJV. I love it, cherish it, quote it, and live by it” – BUT on the other hand, IF he can find a reason to ADD to it; or SUBTRACT from it; or CHANGE it; he WILL! {Oh well - so much for “love” & “cherish” IT! } And if there is a chance - if he THINKS “long” and “hard” about it, he “probably” could even go to a church that didn’t USE it!. Talk about “CIRCULAR REASONING” – how much more “CIRCULAR” can you get? They can “get away with it” - for NOW, but rest assured they will answer to God for their DUPLICITY:

1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

I won’t document the next nine (9) Posts that solabiblia has made (in the last 2 days), except to say that they are just MORE OF THE SAME: the same old “QUESTIONS” (Sophist); the same old “DOUBTS” (Sophist); the same old “CRITICISMS” {Pharisee}; and he even has added “TAUNTING” (Childish) to his list of “OFFENSES”.

“Still no answers. Are these questions so dangerous or frightening that you have to run from them?”

Isn’t it obvious, by now, (solabiblia had 15 Posts in 4 months and he is up to 9 Posts in the last two days) that solabiblia is “enjoying” being the center of attention? (He is in his “element”, i.e. DEBATE!) WHY bother with this man? If we all IGNORE him he will find some other place to spread his poisonous LEAVEN, and we might actually have some “peace” {that is - until the next Bible denying “Critic” shows up!}

2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Originally Posted by solabiblia

I think I've fallen down the rabbit hole.

You have no idea...

solabiblia; do you believe there is one BOOK ON THIS EARTH TODAY THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong...?

[Winman]

Bro George posted

2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Yep, Bro George, you are correct. These folks come here for one reason only, to try to spread doubt and confusion. And you are correct about wanting to have it both ways. They claim they believe in a God who can preserve his word, and then out of the other side of their mouth say he didn't.

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

These Bible doubters do not even know what they believe themselves, yet criticize those who have faith in God. And you are also correct that these folks simply enjoy causing mischief.

Prov 10:23 It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.

[Fredoheaven]

Bro. George, you're right. It is a useless and fruitless things to answer him considering a know it all man but cannot even quote any single verse of the bible to prove. Well we all have answered him already and I think that is enough. He's nothing but a bible deniers.

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

You have no idea...

solabiblia; do you believe there is one BOOK ON THIS EARTH TODAY THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong...?