Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BrianT
Sorry for getting your name wrong earlier. I hope you realize no offense was intended, it was a simple mistake.
|
That's easy enough to say, now that the damage is done. It broke my heart, quite frankly. But my heart's been broken before. I'm not bitter: oh no, not me....
Quote:
|
Then where does it come from? Why seven stages (again, Waite lists the KJV as the 17th complete English Bible)? If it's not a fulfillment of prophecy, then is it not based simply on fallible understanding and assumptions about history?
|
Where does
what come from? The King James Bible, or the seven-stage thing? The seven stages form a happy and convenient matrix for my understanding of the issues. They are not the integration point of my theology, as Francis Schaeffer used to say: the resurrection of Christ is that integration point. But the seven stages, or the several sets of seven stages, add to my appreciation and enjoyment of the Bible. As for a "fallible understanding ... of history," I certainly plead guilty; that's one reason why I depend so completely an a final and infallible authority: God's propositional revelation, the Authorized Version.
Why, man, my own understanding of
myself is fallible! How could I be expected to get
history right? Some of the brightest minds at my university tried to teach me history, and on occasion they succeeded; but I did not join this forum because of my prowess as a historian.
(By the way, Donald Waite's schematizations are as utterly irrelevant to me as Paris Hilton's tastes in evening attire. The Dean Burgon Society is like today's Republican Party: neither fish nor fowl, fundamental or neo-orthodox, hot or cold: just a confused, inarticulate dinosaur. Let Donald Waite and John McCain go commiserate over the mysteries of the cosmos: I'm sure they'd have a happy time of it.)
Quote:
|
What, if I may ask, are some of the others?
|
The Valera edition in Spanish comes to mind, as does Luther's German translation. Neither achieves the perfection of the Authorized Version, but they are accurate and dependable, and are understood by a much larger percentage of the world's population than Greek or Hebrew.
Quote:
|
If I were to purify some silver 7 times in a furnace of earth, what would be the practical difference between the 6th purification and the 7th? Is not the 6th purification "pure silver"? What if I did an 8th - does it somehow become less pure than the 7th?
|
Go to, brother! You're jabbering like a Jesuit. I mean no offense; but it should be obvious that if something so base as silver needs seven refinings, so does something as sublime as the word of God. Actually, it matters very little to me (as I have mentioned a few times already) whether God's word was refined seven times, or seventy times seven; the point of the discussion is that the final purification came with the Authorized Version. Do you, Brother T, actually believe that the NASV or the NIV are improvements over the AV? I certainly won't throw rocks at you if you say "yes;" you'll only be speaking for the majority of American Christians. But is that really your position?
And, if those versions (or the other 225+ versions) are
not improvements, then what's the point?
Quote:
|
As a simile, the whole verse is clear enough. It is not worded like other prophecies, it is not explained in other scripture, it is not seen as a prophecy by anyone (that I can find) until a 7th Day Adventist preacher in the 1930s.
|
Let me say, in as friendly a manner as possible, that I do not give a hoot in Hell (Is. 34:11)
when a truth is discovered, or by whom it is discovered, as long as it is true. As for the wording of prophecies, it varies widely and, one might say, wildly. Some of the most personally meaningful prophecy in the entire Bible, to me, is found in the Song of Solomon: but it isn't prefaced by "thus saith the Lord."
Quote:
|
But how can you identify which [multiple fulfillments of prophecy] are real, and which aren't? Without a real authority identifying them, it's all just near-worthless speculation at best, and just more causes for schisms and divisions and fights at worst.
|
What on earth are you talking about? A prophecy says, "Jerusalem will fall." It falls in 70 AD. If it falls again later, after having been rebuilt, is that second fall less "real" than the first? The facts of history are not subjectively discerned; they happen, or they don't.
Quote:
|
If you mean "perfect" in the KJV-only sense, why is this sad? Haven't you guys been saying this is how it was for the first 80% of church history? Was it sad then? Why did God make it all so sad?
|
You have never heard me say that the Christian church was without scripture for the first 80% of its history. As for sadness in general, God allows a lot of it, for many reasons. Usually, it is intended as a didactic or disciplinary tool.
Quote:
|
Consider: two people can both read the KJV exclusively, and yet (as demonstrated even on this forum) disagree on doctrine, yet two people can read differing versions and end up agreeing on doctrine. If one KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is true, and another KJV-only supporter concludes Trinitarianism is false, do they both really have "the word of God"? If a KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is not true, but a "modern" version reader concludes it is true, is it not the modern version reader that has God's word hidden in his heart? Is not the correct understanding more important than the correct text?
|
I believe that an illiterate aborigine can receive revelation about the Trinity and the Second Advent from the revelation of nature; and he can derive a pretty good sense of morality from the revelation of conscience. Does that mean that no propositional revelation is needed?
No kidding: does it? And, if a propositional revelation
is needed, why shouldn't I, using your reasoning, choose the Koran over the Bible? How do you know that the Muslims don't have that all-important "correct understanding?"
I'm being serious, by the way. I await your response.