View Single Post
  #16  
Old 11-29-2008, 09:28 PM
Will Kinney's Avatar
Will Kinney Will Kinney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado, a beautiful state with four distinct seasons; sometimes in the same day!
Posts: 252
Default Answering the Why's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT View Post
Hi Will,


You answered questions I didn't ask. Your answers dealt with how you think God's word was preserved. I already know how you think it is preserved.
Hi Brian. You told us that there never was a perfect Book of the Lord and is not one now. I affirmed that there both was and is now. That was the reason for the "how" I think God preserved it.

Quote:
My question deals with why. Here are my WHY questions I have not yet seen an answer for yet:

- If Isa 34:16 is about "most likely just the book of Isaiah though it may have included other parts of the Old Testament", why are you using it as a proof text in your articles that "He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth"???
Because that is what the verse says. "Seek ye out of THE BOOK OF THE LORD and read". There is such a book. In fact, that BOOK that eventually became the complete Bible including both Old and New Testaments was a WORK IN PROGRESS.

Where in the Bible is it ever taught that there would NOT be such a thing as a perfect, inspired and inerrant Bible? Do you have any verses that teach what YOU believe?

Quote:
Why do you believe an extra-Biblical doctrine (re:1611) while claiming the Bible is the only source of doctrine?
See above.

[QUOTE]- Why should we accept your idea of secondary fulfillment of Psa 12:6-7, when scripture itself doesn't explain or indicate this secondary fulfillment, like it does with other passages that have secondary meaning?
Quote:

Looking back on history and what actually happened in the English language and how God has used the King James Bible, I can now see that in those verses. So do other Bible believers.

Quote:
- Why does "purified seven times" have this mystical secondary meaning, but "in a furnace of earth" does not?
Why do you have a problem with the phrase "as silver tried in a furnace of earth"? Silver had to be progressively heated and purified of impurities. I do not at all see why you have a problem with this verse. Perhaps you could explain why you don't think it fits.


-
Quote:
Why do you think Psa 12:6-7 is about preservation of his "word" (singular), when it clearly says "words" (plural)? Do you think God's "words" were ever unpure, needing purification?
I do believe it is talking about His wordS because that is what it says.
Yes, Absolutely - God's words did become unpure as scribes and Satan corrupted the texts. God's words are very definitely corrupted in all modern versions. They are getting worse and worse. Thousands of inspired words missing. False doctrine, contradictions and foolish statements abound in them, and fewer and fewer people actually believe them every day.

All English Bibles beginning with Tyndale and going through Coverdale, Great bible, Geneva bible and Bishops' bible were basically the same with all the main contended verses today in them all, and was gradually being purified and refined till the final product of the King James Bible was produced.

- WHY is my position a problem, when it is the same as what you already believe happened for 80% of church history? WHY was this fine for the first 80% of the the church, but not fine for us? Since you said there was no complete and inerrant words of God in Book for the first 80% of church history, then what you are really opposing is not my position on no complete and inerrant translation, but rather my reluctance to accept the extra-Biblical unauthoritative idea that things changed doctrinally in 1611. I have explained why I don't accept this (or any extra-Biblical doctrine), and you have yet to explain why I should (or why you do). This is the fundamental problem with the KJV-only position, and the problem you are avoiding.Brian
No, our positions are quite different. I said I believe the Book of the Lord for the Old Testament was the Hebrew Scriptures. All your modern versions like the niv, nasb, rsv, nrsv, esv, net, Holman and even the NKJV often reject these very same Hebrew texts. This is proof that they are not from God.

As for the New Testament Book, I said it was most likely preserved in the Old Latin copies and among the Waldensian believers till the time of the Reformation. Then I believe God began the process of combining both Books into the singular Bible we now have today. Did most of the "church" not have an inerrant Bible? Sure. Most of them did not, and most of them do not even today. But they can still get saved and believe in the only Lord and Saviour using what they do have. The gospel of salvation through the Lamb of God is still found even in the most corrupt of bible versions out there. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there exists today what can honestly and truthfully be called the perfect, complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. I believe there is one and it is called the King James Bible.

You do not believe one exists nor ever did. This is where we radically differ one from another.

Will K