Hi Stephanos,
Quote:
|
I wish I knew why you making this point will prove anything.
|
Primarily it simply clarifies a basis for discussion. It is very hard to have a discussion with someone who sometimes argues for one thing, and at other times argues for the opposite. Kinney is arguing that certain scriptures mean the preservation of a "book" is promised, while at other times arguing that no "book" existed until 1611. He is arguing that God's word has always been pure and preserved and did not pass away, while at other times arguing that it wasn't pure and preserved but passed away and had to be purified / resurrected.
Quote:
|
Paul said that there would be something perfect to come, and that those things which were done 'in part' would be done away with.
|
So your answer to my question is "no"? That there wasn't a pure, perfect word of God before 1611 A.D.? That the verses KJV-only supporters use to "prove" the necessity of a pure, perfect, preserved word of God were not true until the 1 Cor 3:8-10 was fulfilled in 1611?
Quote:
|
We believe God wants us to know His Word, and that He is not slack in providing it.
|
Was God slack in providing it for the first 80% of church history?
Hi Bibleprotector,
Quote:
|
That's like saying "Do you believe there was a Christian in 1600 B.C.? Yes or no.
|
No, that's not like that at all. Your question spans the coming of Christ. My question does not span the finalization of scripture. I am not asking if one could be "KJV-only" in 1600 A.D., I am asking if there was a single "hold in your hand" complete inerrant perfect Bible in 1600 A.D.