AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Inerrant scripture and imperfect translations? (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1272)

MPeak 05-23-2009 07:45 AM

Inerrant scripture and imperfect translations?
 
Here is an article I posted on my blog. I thought it might be do some good here.

During my research into bible translations, I came across the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It is an evangelical declaration of the doctrines that Christians hold concerning biblical inerrancy. For the record, inerrancy is defined as being exempt from error.

Article X of the Chicago Statement affirms that inspiration applies only to the original autographs and the following exposition states, “God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,” and that “…no translation is or can be perfect …” It seems a contradiction to say that current copies of scripture are without error when all that Christians possess are imperfect translations. Can an imperfect document claim to be without error? That seems contradictory and seems to require some major intellectual hoops to reconcile.

Now granted, the word "perfect" generally denotes completeness instead of without error. To be imperfect is to never be complete. In that sense, no translation is perfect because as language changes so translations change, thus presenting a never-ending imperfection.

At the same time, what makes a translation "imperfect"? What causes a scholar to look at scripture and declare that there is need for change or improvement? It would seem that there are errors in the translation. Those errors make it imperfect and requiring correction. This completely destroys the doctrine of inerrancy.

Christians continue to affirm both the imperfection of translations and the inerrancy of scripture, contradicting one another. If scripture is inerrant and the translations are imperfect, then the translations are not scripture. And if translations are scripture, then they are imperfect and with error. Inerrant scripture should be considered perfect, without need for correction or improvement.

The point is that Christians deny what doubters openly affirm and there continues to be a deliberate ignorance of the fact that people will not trust mistakes. Liberal scholars who doubt the legitimacy of scripture because it is imperfect have a clearer understanding of the problem than evangelicals. They call scripture imperfect because they believe it is erroneous, containing error.

I believe that the majority of Christians do not trust scripture. They read it and believe it, but they will not trust their daily lives to the very words written under the title of Holy Bible. If it is not perfect then it is not without error and not trustworthy.

For now, I am left with the option of rejecting Christian scholarship and believing that the King James Bible I hold is perfect and without error. It is a matter of faith because the education establishment definitely sees things different.

Winman 05-23-2009 08:32 AM

Quote:

For now, I am left with the option of rejecting Christian scholarship and believing that the King James Bible I hold is perfect and without error. It is a matter of faith because the education establishment definitely sees things different.
This is my stand as well Matthew. I am no scholar, and I could never argue with Bible correctors and deniers on this plane. And honestly, I do not try to prove the Bible to them. I have God's Word, why should I be on the defensive?

But I believe the scriptures can only be understood spirtually.

1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I believe the King James Bible to be the infallible Word of God because I believe God's many promises to preserve His Word. Perhaps this is wrong, but I do not worry much about scholarship. I simply read the Bible and ask God to give me wisdom, understanding, and discernment of his scriptures.

Those who try to understand the Bible without first placing their trust in Jesus and the Bible will never understand it. It cannot not be understood by the natural man.

bibleprotector 05-23-2009 08:42 AM

Quote:

I have God's Word, why should I be on the defensive?
Let us recognise that the proper King James Bible Only view is an "offensive" view. I mean that it offends enemies because it takes their ground.

tonybones2112 05-23-2009 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MPeak (Post 20479)
Here is an article I posted on my blog. I thought it might be do some good here.

During my research into bible translations, I came across the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It is an evangelical declaration of the doctrines that Christians hold concerning biblical inerrancy. For the record, inerrancy is defined as being exempt from error.

Article X of the Chicago Statement affirms that inspiration applies only to the original autographs and the following exposition states, “God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,” and that “…no translation is or can be perfect …” It seems a contradiction to say that current copies of scripture are without error when all that Christians possess are imperfect translations. Can an imperfect document claim to be without error? That seems contradictory and seems to require some major intellectual hoops to reconcile.

Now granted, the word "perfect" generally denotes completeness instead of without error. To be imperfect is to never be complete. In that sense, no translation is perfect because as language changes so translations change, thus presenting a never-ending imperfection.

At the same time, what makes a translation "imperfect"? What causes a scholar to look at scripture and declare that there is need for change or improvement? It would seem that there are errors in the translation. Those errors make it imperfect and requiring correction. This completely destroys the doctrine of inerrancy.

Christians continue to affirm both the imperfection of translations and the inerrancy of scripture, contradicting one another. If scripture is inerrant and the translations are imperfect, then the translations are not scripture. And if translations are scripture, then they are imperfect and with error. Inerrant scripture should be considered perfect, without need for correction or improvement.

The point is that Christians deny what doubters openly affirm and there continues to be a deliberate ignorance of the fact that people will not trust mistakes. Liberal scholars who doubt the legitimacy of scripture because it is imperfect have a clearer understanding of the problem than evangelicals. They call scripture imperfect because they believe it is erroneous, containing error.

I believe that the majority of Christians do not trust scripture. They read it and believe it, but they will not trust their daily lives to the very words written under the title of Holy Bible. If it is not perfect then it is not without error and not trustworthy.

For now, I am left with the option of rejecting Christian scholarship and believing that the King James Bible I hold is perfect and without error. It is a matter of faith because the education establishment definitely sees things different.

This statement of faith means nothing, they back it with no Scripture.

“God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,” and that “…no translation is or can be perfect …”

They have Scripture for these allegations? I have Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, confessions of faith that all have Scripture to back their statements. I hate to sound bigoted but the word "evangelical" speaks volumes.

I have Scripture to prove initial revelation, I have Scripture to prove "double" inspiration of copies and translations, and I have Scripture to prove triple inspiration of God's word in action. Do the "bible" publishing companies and their toadies, the "colleges" have any proof for their Jesuit claims?

Don't hold your breath my friend.

Grace and peace

Tony

MPeak 05-24-2009 01:57 PM

Further Thoughts
 
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17), so writes Paul.

The Christian faith is said to come about because we hear the word of God and believe what is says. If scriptures are imperfect, there will not be faith, but a compulsive obsession to perfect what is imperfect, to complete what is incomplete, to fix what is broken through repeated translations.

And while we translate again and again to assuage our doubts, atheism has taken hold of the culture and the Godless have taught their ways to our children. I am convinced in my own mind that I cannot trust modern translations and will instead cling to what was produced in 1611, the King James Bible.

Jassy 05-24-2009 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MPeak (Post 20479)
Here is an article I posted on my blog. I thought it might be do some good here.

[I]During my research into bible translations, I came across the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It is an evangelical declaration of the doctrines that Christians hold concerning biblical inerrancy. For the record, inerrancy is defined as being exempt from error.

Article X of the Chicago Statement affirms that inspiration applies only to the original autographs and the following exposition states, “God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,” and that “…no translation is or can be perfect …”

How utterly SHAMEFUL for some so-called "wise scholars" to make a Statement on Biblical Inerrancy - which actually throws down and stomps the Word of God underfoot as IMPERFECT!!!

How DARE they!!!

First of all, the Word of God is TRUE and INSPIRED:

2 Peter 1:21 - "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Secondly, the Word of God is PURE and TRIED:

Psalm 12:6 - "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

Thirdly, the Word of God is PRESERVED:

Psalm 12:7 - "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

We HAVE it and we are so BLESSED to have it! The KJV is preserved perfectly. It isn't only the "original autographs" or manuscripts that are perfect, but the KJV has actually been spiritually inspired, translated, protected, and preserved.

We must believe that our LORD God is powerful enough, and perfectly capable of doing, just as His Word promises.

Fourthly, remember:

Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Compare that with other translations, by their use of the Alexandrian texts, an impure source, they have: done away with, changed, added to, and taken away from, the TRUE Word of God. God blessed the source of the Antiochian original autographs!

The LORD GOD that I worship is capable of doing what He promised.

tonybones2112 05-25-2009 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MPeak (Post 20546)
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17), so writes Paul.

The Christian faith is said to come about because we hear the word of God and believe what is says. If scriptures are imperfect, there will not be faith, but a compulsive obsession to perfect what is imperfect, to complete what is incomplete, to fix what is broken through repeated translations.

And while we translate again and again to assuage our doubts, atheism has taken hold of the culture and the Godless have taught their ways to our children. I am convinced in my own mind that I cannot trust modern translations and will instead cling to what was produced in 1611, the King James Bible.

Matthew, in the 1980s I spent 7 years collecting 135 versions of the bible. I invited any Christian who wished into my home and examine all of them to see 134 were all the same bibles, and the one left over was given by inspiration, the KJV. 134 translations of Vaticanus.

Paul says in Romans that each person may be fully persuaded in their minds, but 7 Scripture verses convinced me of the KJV's status as the inspired words of God, not manuscript evidence. We walk by faith, not by sight.

You ever see the size of a redwood tree seed and then the size of those fully grown redwoods in California? We are the size of those seeds, but if we study the KJV, rightly divide the KJV, then apply it in our lives and others, we can be the size of the tree, not the seed.

Grace and peace to you. For the first time in history we hold all the original manuscripts in our language between two covers.

Tony

Greektim 05-26-2009 05:40 PM

Let's not miss the point that the Chicago statement is not a statement of faith or a doctrinal statement in the typical sense. They are just stating their views..."we affirm/we deny." There was plenty of Scripture used at the gathering.

tonybones2112 05-26-2009 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 20745)
Let's not miss the point that the Chicago statement is not a statement of faith or a doctrinal statement in the typical sense. They are just stating their views..."we affirm/we deny." There was plenty of Scripture used at the gathering.

Brother, there was no doubt plenty of Scripture used, there was very little believed apparently.

1Th 2:13 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 also in you that believe.

I doubt there is 9 out of 10 Christians truly understand the meaning of the verse above and how it applies to inspiration.

Grace and peace

Tony

Will Kinney 05-28-2009 06:19 PM

Open denial of the inerrancy of Scripture
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 20745)
Let's not miss the point that the Chicago statement is not a statement of faith or a doctrinal statement in the typical sense. They are just stating their views..."we affirm/we deny." There was plenty of Scripture used at the gathering.

Hi Tim. And let's not miss the crucial point that what they are clearly doing is to deny the inerrancy of Scripture, just like you do.

“God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,” and that “…no translation is or can be perfect …” It seems a contradiction to say that current copies of scripture are without error when all that Christians possess are imperfect translations."

This is right out of the Genesis 3 "Yea, hath God said...?" society of which, if memory does not fail me, you too are a card carrying member.

Will Kinney

Greektim 05-29-2009 10:38 AM

Hi Will. Please don't miss a crucial point that I do not deny the inerrancy of Scripture.

Bro. Parrish 05-29-2009 10:57 AM

Speaking of crucial points,
Greektim you never responded to my question on the other thread...

What do you consider the COMPLETE, INERRANT WORD OF GOD for today's believer, and what is you FINAL AUTHORITY on doctrine and spiritual matters? Please do not answer with a cop out like "THE BIBLE" because we are way beyond that here, and we would expect to know exactly WHICH BIBLE you consider the complete Word of God for today's believer....

Greektim 05-29-2009 11:56 AM

I decided not to respond b/c...well...I was given the advice to not engage in that debate here. I am willing to respond, but I would prefer to do it on neutral ground.

tonybones2112 05-29-2009 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 20989)
Hi Will. Please don't miss a crucial point that I do not deny the inerrancy of Scripture.

"Scripture" is a term for something written, I think you and I are in agreement that the Neo-orthodox/BArthian view of the "message" is wrong. So given that, which written version or combination of versions do you consider inerrant Tim? I'm not baiting you to get into a devate, I wish to establish a reference point for you position.

Grace and peace

Tony

Greektim 05-29-2009 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonybones2112 (Post 21033)
"Scripture" is a term for something written, I think you and I are in agreement that the Neo-orthodox/BArthian view of the "message" is wrong. So given that, which written version or combination of versions do you consider inerrant Tim? I'm not baiting you to get into a devate, I wish to establish a reference point for you position.

Grace and peace

Tony

I can say without any hesitation that at the very least, what was originally written was inerrant. I can also say that I believe the original words and meaning from the originals (I know you hate the originals only view) can be determined from the extant mss data we have. As to what version or combo of versions (what are you referring to as a version?) I am not convinced that the UBS or NA, MT, TR, Byzantine text and so on are perfect. I don't know that we have a Greek compilation of the NT that is perfect in that it reflects 100% the original reading. But that doesn't bother me b/c with the mss data we have, I feel confident that it is easy to determine. But I will also say that I don't believe the W&H text contradicts the TR. It differs textually but it does not contradict (i.e. blatantly teach something opposite).

I should probably shut up for now b/c I know I am going to be lambasted for stating my views. If you want to discuss this in depth (which I am all for), I would ask that we either correspond through email or go to a neutral territory for discussion. Brother Tim and I have tried that before.

At this point, It would help to understand what we mean by inerrant. Is it simply the fact that the text does not contradict itself, science, history, geography, theology, etc...? Or is it something more?

PS - yes I agree that the neo-ortho view is very wrong. I believe that inspiration goes down past the word and to the very letter written (jot and tittle refer to Hebrew letters or markings of letters that distinguish one letter from another; i.e. the KJV translators imply the superiority of the Hebrew language ;); doh Tim shut up!)

George 05-29-2009 08:10 PM

Re: " Inerrant scripture and imperfect translations?"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Kinney (Post 20902)
Hi Tim. And let's not miss the crucial point that what they are clearly doing is to deny the inerrancy of Scripture, just like you do.

“God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,” and that “…no translation is or can be perfect …” It seems a contradiction to say that current copies of scripture are without error when all that Christians possess are imperfect translations."

This is right out of the Genesis 3 "Yea, hath God said...?" society of which, if memory does not fail me, you too are a card carrying member.

Will Kinney

Aloha brother Will,

:amen: Amen & AMEN :amen: - to ALL that you said. :amen:

Praise God - I believe that brother Matthew has gotten a hold of the truth. No matter how long, or how hard we study the issue of "Which Bible is God's Holy word" - at some point FAITH (in God's promises) must take hold and lead the way to a firm conviction in the King James Bible as being the Holy, infallible word of God without error.

"Intellectual Christianity" is the BANE of all that is true, pure and holy about our faith! "Intellectual Christianity" is seated in the "MINDS" of Academic "Christians", and NOT in their "HEARTS"!

Psalms 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: {NOT MY "MIND"}

Psalms 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. {NOT THE "MIND"}

Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.
{NOT MY "MIND"}

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart
. {NOT THE "MIND"}

Most of modern day Academic "Christianity" is a "religion" of the "MIND" and NOT the "HEART". There is a total absence of "the love of the truth" (you cannot truly "love" something you don't know) in today's highly educated ("schooled") Christian. If God does not pierce through the "FOG" of doubt and unbelief and shine the light of His truth on a skeptic's or a doubter's HEART - NOTHING that we say or do will change it. That is why I do not spend much time with "intellectual Christians" - it is an exercise in futility, and there is NO spiritual "profit" to be had! :eek:

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


logos83 05-30-2009 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MPeak (Post 20479)
Here is an article I posted on my blog. I thought it might be do some good here.

During my research into bible translations, I came across the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It is an evangelical declaration of the doctrines that Christians hold concerning biblical inerrancy. For the record, inerrancy is defined as being exempt from error.

Article X of the Chicago Statement affirms that inspiration applies only to the original autographs and the following exposition states, “God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,” and that “…no translation is or can be perfect …” It seems a contradiction to say that current copies of scripture are without error when all that Christians possess are imperfect translations. Can an imperfect document claim to be without error? That seems contradictory and seems to require some major intellectual hoops to reconcile.

Now granted, the word "perfect" generally denotes completeness instead of without error. To be imperfect is to never be complete. In that sense, no translation is perfect because as language changes so translations change, thus presenting a never-ending imperfection.

At the same time, what makes a translation "imperfect"? What causes a scholar to look at scripture and declare that there is need for change or improvement? It would seem that there are errors in the translation. Those errors make it imperfect and requiring correction. This completely destroys the doctrine of inerrancy.

Christians continue to affirm both the imperfection of translations and the inerrancy of scripture, contradicting one another. If scripture is inerrant and the translations are imperfect, then the translations are not scripture. And if translations are scripture, then they are imperfect and with error. Inerrant scripture should be considered perfect, without need for correction or improvement.

The point is that Christians deny what doubters openly affirm and there continues to be a deliberate ignorance of the fact that people will not trust mistakes. Liberal scholars who doubt the legitimacy of scripture because it is imperfect have a clearer understanding of the problem than evangelicals. They call scripture imperfect because they believe it is erroneous, containing error.

I believe that the majority of Christians do not trust scripture. They read it and believe it, but they will not trust their daily lives to the very words written under the title of Holy Bible. If it is not perfect then it is not without error and not trustworthy.

For now, I am left with the option of rejecting Christian scholarship and believing that the King James Bible I hold is perfect and without error. It is a matter of faith because the education establishment definitely sees things different.


No real surprise here Paul wrote of those who corrupted the Word of God during his time II Corinthians 2:17--"For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
I have never understood this issue either how can people question certain verses of the Bible in the modern translations than say we have God's Perfect Word. They must be smarter than me, because I don't understand it. Maybe I should ignore Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; Revelations 22:18-19.

Will Kinney 05-30-2009 07:02 AM

Inerrant Scriptures?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 21055)
I can say without any hesitation that at the very least, what was originally written was inerrant.

Tim, how can you possibly know that what was originally written was inerrant? You have never seen it, and it doesn't exist. Isn't that a position of faith taken from 'bibles' that you yourself seem to imply are not inerrant?


Quote:

At this point, It would help to understand what we mean by inerrant. Is it simply the fact that the text does not contradict itself, science, history, geography, theology, etc...? Or is it something more?

Tim, Can you tell us which of these texts do not contradict each other and are representative of your professed inerrancy?

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV) or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).


Thanks, Will K.

tonybones2112 05-30-2009 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 21055)
I can say without any hesitation that at the very least, what was originally written was inerrant. I can also say that I believe the original words and meaning from the originals (I know you hate the originals only view) can be determined from the extant mss data we have. As to what version or combo of versions (what are you referring to as a version?) I am not convinced that the UBS or NA, MT, TR, Byzantine text and so on are perfect. I don't know that we have a Greek compilation of the NT that is perfect in that it reflects 100% the original reading. But that doesn't bother me b/c with the mss data we have, I feel confident that it is easy to determine. But I will also say that I don't believe the W&H text contradicts the TR. It differs textually but it does not contradict (i.e. blatantly teach something opposite).

I should probably shut up for now b/c I know I am going to be lambasted for stating my views. If you want to discuss this in depth (which I am all for), I would ask that we either correspond through email or go to a neutral territory for discussion. Brother Tim and I have tried that before.

At this point, It would help to understand what we mean by inerrant. Is it simply the fact that the text does not contradict itself, science, history, geography, theology, etc...? Or is it something more?

PS - yes I agree that the neo-ortho view is very wrong. I believe that inspiration goes down past the word and to the very letter written (jot and tittle refer to Hebrew letters or markings of letters that distinguish one letter from another; i.e. the KJV translators imply the superiority of the Hebrew language ;); doh Tim shut up!)

Tim, thank you for replying to me. I have never debated you or lambasted you, have I? I apologize if you even think I have done either or been impolite to you in any way. But you just said only the original manuscripts are inspired and that all that remains inspired is Barth's theory. Is there a difference between "meaning" and "message"? I don't see one. Is there a difference?

Hey, if I lambaste you or you feel picked on by me don't respond. Brother I know how things can degenerate in even a simple discussion of an inflammatory topic, go read the water baptism thread and see how it has been made into a schoolground slapfight. I had hoped for a reasonable discussion, it was in vain. Anyway, thanks for the response.

Grace and peace

Tony

Greektim 05-30-2009 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonybones2112 (Post 21128)
Tim, thank you for replying to me. I have never debated you or lambasted you, have I? I apologize if you even think I have done either or been impolite to you in any way. But you just said only the original manuscripts are inspired and that all that remains inspired is Barth's theory. Is there a difference between "meaning" and "message"? I don't see one. Is there a difference?

Hey, if I lambaste you or you feel picked on by me don't respond. Brother I know how things can degenerate in even a simple discussion of an inflammatory topic, go read the water baptism thread and see how it has been made into a schoolground slapfight. I had hoped for a reasonable discussion, it was in vain. Anyway, thanks for the response.

Grace and peace

Tony

I was not referring ot you in the lambasting (is that how you say it???). What I mean by meaning is interpretation. I said that the words and letters and meaning was inspired. At least that's what I was intending to say.

Bro. Parrish 05-30-2009 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Kinney (Post 21092)
Tim, how can you possibly know that what was originally written was inerrant? You have never seen it, and it doesn't exist. Isn't that a position of faith taken from 'bibles' that you yourself seem to imply are not inerrant?
Thanks, Will K.

Bro. Kinney you beat me to it, that is the first question that came to my mind when I read his statement about inerrant originals... at that point I was going to ask it myself, but then I saw your post and remembered that Greektim likes to ASK questions, but flat out refuses to ANSWER the really good questions we ask him. I see a pattern developing here... (see post no. 13)

tonybones2112 05-30-2009 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 21183)
I was not referring ot you in the lambasting (is that how you say it???). What I mean by meaning is interpretation. I said that the words and letters and meaning was inspired. At least that's what I was intending to say.

Okay brother, let's go one further, is the first copy of Leviticus just as "inspired" as the original? The Levites made a copy of the OT Scriptures and then destroyed the one they copied from. NT Christians did their best under the circumstances to preserve their copies of the Scriptures but there is just a point when they have to be recopied onto other media, but the Jews destroyed the worn copies of the OT. I have held in my hands a NT in the Russian language written on toilet paper for obvious reasons: it was easy to conceal from KGB informers among the people and it was the only media they had to write on.

Grace and peace

Tony

Greektim 05-31-2009 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonybones2112 (Post 21189)
Okay brother, let's go one further, is the first copy of Leviticus just as "inspired" as the original? The Levites made a copy of the OT Scriptures and then destroyed the one they copied from. NT Christians did their best under the circumstances to preserve their copies of the Scriptures but there is just a point when they have to be recopied onto other media, but the Jews destroyed the worn copies of the OT. I have held in my hands a NT in the Russian language written on toilet paper for obvious reasons: it was easy to conceal from KGB informers among the people and it was the only media they had to write on.

Grace and peace

Tony

My answer should be consistent throughout the rest of the steps you take further. Was the first copy as "inspired" as the original? I would say that it is inspired to the extent that it agrees with the original. If it was a perfect match to the original, then yes...it was just as inspired.

As a side note, I am curious about destroying the original copy once a new copy is made. Was that an ancient BC custom or do we only see that practiced by the Masoretes?

Greektim 05-31-2009 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 21187)
Bro. Kinney you beat me to it, that is the first question that came to my mind when I read his statement about inerrant originals... at that point I was going to ask it myself, but then I saw your post and remembered that Greektim likes to ASK questions, but flat out refuses to ANSWER the really good questions we ask him. I see a pattern developing here... (see post no. 13)

To say "it doesn't exist" almost implies "it never existed." But I don't have to see it to believe it. Call it a matter of faith that the originals were inspired and inerrant. I doubt you would deny that, though these days I have been surprised on more than one occasion by KJVO views.

OH...by the way, I answered a question to Tony. He is pursuing dialogue through calm, courteous, and kind manner. I can respect that.

bondservant40 06-03-2009 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonybones2112 (Post 20602)
....

Paul says in Romans that each person may be fully persuaded in their minds, but 7 Scripture verses convinced me of the KJV's status as the inspired words of God, not manuscript evidence. We walk by faith, not by sight.

[/I]

Tony

Tony,

Amen. We walk by faith.

I am curious which 7 Bible verses convinced you of the status of the KJB?

thanks and God bless you brother.

tonybones2112 06-03-2009 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bondservant40 (Post 21504)
Tony,

Amen. We walk by faith.

I am curious which 7 Bible verses convinced you of the status of the KJB?

thanks and God bless you brother.

Here you are:)

1.De 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

If you read the passage in Deut. 17, you see this is the future kings of Israel. Custody of the Scriptures were not given to the king, but to the Levites, the priests. Why did God place such emphasis on the king making a "copy" and not just go over to the Temple and study the "original manuscripts"?

2.Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Beth, the "MV"s and original Manuscript Frauds of this world bleat that we teach "double inspiration" if we say the KJV is given by inspiration. If only they knew. I teach triple inspiration.

1. The original manuscripts
2. Copies and translations of the original manuscripts
3. The Holy Ghost working in you to give you understanding.

3. Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Simple statement any child can understand. In the OT, in the NT times, post apostolic and all through history God has kept His words somewhere in a "book".

4. 2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Nearly all the knowing liars who deny Beth a copy of the original manuscripts in her language say the "holy" Scriptures are "only inspired in the original manuscripts". Yeah? Kewl. Then Timothy had these original manuscripts all his life?

5.2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All Scripture is given by inspiration, not the original manuscripts was given. Everything God does is by His inspiration.

6.Ac 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Are any of the "books" of the Bible "lost"? What about I John 5:7, Acts 8:37, John 7:58-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, the ending of the Lord's prayer and the last 6 verses of Revelation 22?

*7*I Thes. 2:13 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 also in you that believe.

This was the verse caused me to see what inspiration is. The problem with the MVs and unbelievers in God's preserved words is that the verse they say don;t belong still work effectually in the Christians who preach and believe them.(see the list above of "missing verses").

Beth, these 7 verses are the ones that really hit me between the eyes and opened them, there are hundreds of verses, thousands, that praise the word of God and testify for it and Him. These 7 are the most salient to me, there is a list of what I call The Five Verse Annex, would you like those?

Grace and peace sister

Tony

bondservant40 06-03-2009 05:06 PM

Tony - this is great! I am going to print them out right now. I have thought of some of the same arguments, but you gathered them all so succinctly! :-)

Oh - and I love your triple inspiration - AMEN!

Yes, I'd love the other verses. I'll print them out too. God bless you dear brother! Thank you.

Side note: tears in my eyes as I write this, though I am not an extremely "emotional" person....but it is SO GOOD to talk to other people that believe God preserved His Word!!! And there is so much less fighting here than on many KJ boards. What a treasure you all are!

tonybones2112 06-10-2009 11:36 PM

The "Five Verse Annex"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bondservant40 (Post 21542)
Tony - this is great! I am going to print them out right now. I have thought of some of the same arguments, but you gathered them all so succinctly! :-)

Oh - and I love your triple inspiration - AMEN!

Yes, I'd love the other verses. I'll print them out too. God bless you dear brother! Thank you.

Side note: tears in my eyes as I write this, though I am not an extremely "emotional" person....but it is SO GOOD to talk to other people that believe God preserved His Word!!! And there is so much less fighting here than on many KJ boards. What a treasure you all are!

Sorry for the delay sister:)

8. Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Every gospel tract ever given out with His words, every sermon that was ever preached with His words, every word of God that Beth has ever spoken to anyone at anytime anywhere, will not return to Him empty. Beth, this is why I quit arguing "manuscript evidence" with the Original Manuscipt Frauds. The manuscript evidence issue is a good one to study, the final factor in determining a person's decision on whether or not he or she has God's words in their hands today that can be bought in any thrift shop or Dollar Store is through the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves.

9. 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

"We can see that there is a clear mistranslation of what Matthew actually wrote..." Matthew never wrote a word. Neither did Luke, Peter, or Moses. They dictated the Scriptures:

Ro 16:22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

Paul gave a salutation in his own handwriting for each Epistle, and he appears to have written the book of Galatians himself. Peter was a fisherman, we have evidence of course he could read, we have no evidence Peter could write. My grandmother in Kentucky never went to school, she could spell words out and read them, she could not write. Jeremiah 36 is another pattern for how the Scriptures were actually written. Another problem the Original Manuscript Frauds have is that the "authors" of a given Scripture spoke under God's inspiration, the scribes were not "inspired". We have no evidence from any "original manuscript" of Romans that Tertius could spell correctly.

10. Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The Original Manuscript Fraud says "only the original manuscripts are inspired". If that were true, what they are saying is this:

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the original manuscripts.

If there are no "original manuscripts" by their teaching, there is no faith and no salvation, salvation is by grace through faith. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, if there is no "word of God", there is no faith.

Do you see the corner these fools paint themselves into?

11. Lu 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Did Jesus Christ read from the original manuscript of Isaiah, or did He have a copy? He had a copy and called it Scripture.

12. Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Beth, ask an Original Manuscript Fraud what is the Name above every name? The Lord Jesus Christ is what they will tell you, and they are correct. Ask them what the final authority for all matters are, they will say God.

What is God's final authority?

His words.

Grace and peace sister Beth, I hope this has been helpful to you. Part Three of Triple Inspiration is on it's way.

Tony

bondservant40 06-11-2009 11:38 AM

amen, thanks Tony! Looking forward to it. :)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study