Hi pbiwolski,

THANK YOU. Finally someone, after 9 pages in this thread, acknowledges my question of authority. However, either you don't quite understand the point, so I have problems seeing how your answer makes sense:

The authority for the claim is chiefly the same authority for any truth - the Authorized King James Bible, Amen!

But the KJV doesn't tell us that the KJV is the final authority. Therefore, that claim comes from somewhere else. What is that something else, and does that something else have real authority?

The authority is The Authority.

That's the shortest circular argument I've ever seen.

It really is as simple as this - there is NO PROVEN ERROR within the text of the Authorized King James Bible. You cannot and will not find one credible fault with that Book. Because we have found and proven this to be absolutely true, it is plain to the King James Bible believer that that Book is holy - the holy Bible. This can be said of no other book found on our planet today (finding fault with every other version is elementary - pretty soon my son will be able to do it ).
You prove an error in the Book we believe, and we will all change our minds.

What's the criteria? What would constitute "proof" for you? Can it be consistently applied?

God bless,
Brian

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by BrianT

There are many items in my list, because I was breaking the logic down into very small pieces.

And I showed about 5 clear difficulties in the list. If the presumptions are wrong (e.g. inerrancy in the original autographs as the pertinent concept), the conclusions are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by BrianT

Item A only deals with the inerrancy of original scripture. Either they were or they weren't, yes or no..

When you tell me specifically what is "original scripture" then I will tell you if I believe it is inerrant. Are you talking about a book ? Scraps of paper ? Writings by Mark ? Translation to Greek by another ? Since I have little idea about texts, size, books or authors, I will not claim for myself a concept that has no application. Where and when did these particular texts occur. Was it ever in a single book form ? Multi-book ? What languages ? What words ?

The skeptics understand this well, and laugh at a concept so insipid as declaring "inerrancy" in that which can never be defined or seen.

"Yes, Mr. Skeptic, the original autographs are inerrant .. however I can never tell you with certainty what the original autographs say".

That such a doofus construction is taken seriously in Christendom only reflects on the modernist inroads and other factors (perhaps flouride in water or seminary indoctrination has addled brains). That is why you simply did not discuss the present tense aspect of Scripture given in the Bible itself.

Originally Posted by BrianT

You don't need to disect every line of the progression,

That way a reader could see the main flaws in a row.

Originally Posted by BrianT

only indicate where/why you disagree with any single line, so we can see where we first start to diverge.

The first major divergence is A, your use of a presumption of no definition.

To give a detailed example, you did not comment on Mark being written in Latin or Graeco-Latin. Apparently you understand that is a real possibility scholastically and in every other way. So would the "translation" into Greek then be Scripture ? It definitely would not be the "original autograph". Or was pure Scripture then lost and unfound as early as the 1st or 2nd century ? No longer was there pure and perfect Scripture.

Until you address such fundamental paradigmic stuff the rest is fluff.

Similar with the aspects of the Tanach (Old Testament). You never address how that was referred to as Scripture. Was the Old Testament impure or pure in the 1st century? Under your thinking, how could it be pure, if it was a change-over from a Paleo-Hebrew, if it had been at the hands of fallible man for centuries ? When was it all in one book, pure ?

When Jesus and Paul referred to "Scripture" .. somehow they missed all your concerns. Fallible copyists, dialects and languages, perfection only in the "original autographs". Why were Jesus and Paul able to call their texts, or the text read by Timothy as a youth, Scripture ? Did they need it all in one perfect, complete volume to use the term ? Wouldn't they have to be concerned that Inspiration was only in the "original" but not preserved in the copied texts ? Or perhaps they allowed for impurities and imperfections ?

Perhaps your concern is only for the NT, if so, say so. Perhaps you think they had pure OT Scripture in the 1st century, but we are not so enabled today. Then say so. Perhaps you felt they worked around imperfections and errors but called it Scripture anyway. Then say so.

So we disagree at the beginning. That is why I just ran through the other stuff.

Originally Posted by BrianT

I agree. What does this have to do with agreement or disagreement with any specific items in the list?

As I just pointed out, since you have no clear, consistent definition of Scripture, and a fallacious view that emphasizes the "original autographs" that does not account for preservation .. as per the OT through to the 1st century .. everything else falls to the ground. Your foundation crumbles, the rest is of only minor scholastic interest.

Originally Posted by BrianT

Since you seem to agree that one full, single, collated volume did not exist for the entirety of church history, I'll take that to mean that you also agree with the specifics of points F,G,H.

I made it clear that my textual theory does not depend on F,G,H. While I cannot say what existed when, it is simply not particularly relevant. I see no difficulty at all with the Reformation scholarship and the advent of printing gathering the words of God into one complete, pure volume, if they had been preserved earlier in diffuse, scattered form. This is so trivial I wonder why you cannot seem to comprehend.

Why do you insist that there had to be a different method of preservation that that which occurred ? Of course you do not have the faintest idea whether the Reformation Bible is correct or the corrupt alexandrian manuscripts are pure Bible. Or both at the same time. So you come up with convoluted constructs to try to mask your multi-confusions.

Originally Posted by BrianT

since there was a time in Church history that "the word of God" existed yet did not exist as a single perfect complete volume, then verses that talk about the word of God existing for all generations could not mean in a single perfect complete volume.

All Bible verses certainly are consistent with the formation of a single perfect complete volume. They do not insist on such a pure and perfect volume in every city, in every language, or in every century. All of that is the providential hand of God.

Such verses mean that God's word exists in fullness in all time. From heaven to earth. There never was a book lost, or a single verse lost, or a word lost. Even when the Hebrews lost the book of the law for some centuries, the word of God was still available. Even when the Christian world had the NT word slightly scattered among the Greek and Latin texts, the word of God was still available.

Ultimately there was a spiritual imperative (if you are a believer in the pure word) that the word would be available 'in toto' for the ploughman and the seminarian. That was the great and beautiful desire of men of faith and purpose like Erasmus and Tyndale. Any dissonance would be resolved, the pure Bible text would be available.

And either that was fulfilled in the Reformation Bible --> King James Bible or .. something else. I could see a deluded person thinking it would be fulfilled some years or centuries in the future by some new discovery (yes, this view exists). That would be rather insipid, and difficult from a preservation standpoint, yet more logical than your shifting sand. My view is that history and clarity and faith and scholarship and truth and purity and perfection has already fully converged. Through the Reformation Bible --> through the English Bibles, including Tyndale and Geneva, unto the pure and perfect and majestic King James Bible.

Originally Posted by BrianT

If you disagree with this, you have to explain how a single perfect complete volume existed for every moment of church history since the the last scripture was originnally penned.

You are wrong on all ends.

You never showed the "last scripture", what and when and how it was, what it said, why it was special. (Was Timothy's Scripture less authoritative than the "originals" written perhaps piecemeal centuries earlier in a difficult or unknown dialects ? - You never answer this.). You never showed that anything at all in any language actually ever qualifies to you as pure Scripture, at any time or place. Since you do not know the "originals" you must insist that there simply is no pure and perfect Scripture today, nor was there OT Scripture at the time of the NT (against the very NT proclamations).

So instead you try to work out redefinitions, to make purity only in that which is undefined and unfindable and unexpressible. This you contrast to what exists, which you view ass imperfect and unpure, but the best you have, ok for the message. However since it is all you have left (through the convoluted construct) you insist on trying, flailing, to call the imperfect and unpure the word of God, Scripture.

Oh, .. you simply have no comprehension of my simple explanation to you of the "perfect complete volume" being something that was very possibly only fulfilled by the providential hand of God through the Reformation and the advent of printing and the labours of men of faith.

Originally Posted by BrianT

This is not shortening the hand of God, it affirms his power to work despite imperfection.

That is, your view is that errant writings, contradictions, uncertainties, confusions, "imperfections" should be accepted and believed as fully the word of God.

Originally Posted by BrianT

Do you agree or disagree with the idea "scripture does not change meaning"?

This is an irrelevant question since you can never point to a single verse and say for sure "this is identical the original autograph, Scripture". Since you have no tangible Scripture, asking if the ethereal changes meaning is simply confusion. You do not know the meaning of Scripture. e.g. You do not know if it says "God was manifest in the flesh" (yes, it does) or "the only-begotten god" (no it does not). So if you do not know meaning, you can never discern if it changes meaning. This is your conundrum.

Originally Posted by BrianT

Point N is part of the progression. It comes after point M for a reason. You ask "Are you saying the "word of God" can be imperfect ?", after just having read points A through M, and not indicating where you disagree with the statements in A through M.

I indicated many disagreements, starting with A.

Originally Posted by BrianT

You're getting side tracked.

My "side-tracked" is pointing out the illogic on your end. Thus I ask you again.

Are you saying the "word of God" can be imperfect ? Errant ? Contradictory ?

Can an error be the perfect and pure word of God ?

Or are you simply saying there is no pure and perfect word of God today ?

All of your hodge-podge is simply to avoid giving straight answers to these questions. Or to deal with the contradictory answers you have given in the past.

Shalom,
Steven

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by BrianT

But the KJV doesn't tell us that the KJV is the final authority. Therefore, that claim comes from somewhere else. What is that something else, and does that something else have real authority?

It's not a matter of who says what -who cares where a claim comes from. It's a matter of a perfect book that has the power and authority of God all over it.

As to proof. Proof is proof - it's undeniable. Sorry, I've gotta go (Bro. Donovan is preaching about 2 1/2 hours away, and I'm a going!)

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by BrianT

What's the criteria? What would constitute "proof" for you? Can it be consistently applied?

God bless,
Brian

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1 Corinthians 2:12-14 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. 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. 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.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

I know because Jesus Christ, and the indwelling Holy Spirit, bears witness with my renewed spirit that the King James Bible is the preserved written word of God. Sorry, that’s my shallow, uneducated proof and authority.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

It's not a matter of who says what -who cares where a claim comes from. It's a matter of a perfect book that has the power and authority of Go

Similarly, we all know that the Bible nowhere says "The Bible is 66 books". How do we know this is true ? Christians are to be men and women of faith and discernment.

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

What really amazes me is the yeoman efforts of our friend to try to prove a type of unbelief.

"I don't believe God's word is perfect. Why ? Well ... I start with a dubious A which might mean B which sort of implies C which combined with D develops the possibility that E confronts F ... "

Result -

"I can now believe there is no such thing as the pure and perfect word of God. It is all now justified in my own little mind. I can sleep semi-comfortably having convinced myself that God's word will never be pure, in my hands, Final Authority."

Oh, if only those efforts would be used to seek and embrace and declare and defend the pure and perfect word of God. Even if our friend was still unsure of its identity, he could fight to seek and acknowledge and find and declare. He might only receive today the "TR" yet it would still be such a spiritual advance. It is interesting to see how much effort can be placed behind a conceptual disaster of unfaith.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Hi Steve,

I think you are making this WAY too complicated, but if you think item A is where we start to diverge in our views, then that is where we'll start.

Item A says "The original words were "God-breathed" and inerrant". Let's break item A down even further, and see where/if disagreement over A actually exists. By "original words", I simply refer to the words of what we today call the Bible, as they were first written. I.e. the words Luke himself wrote (regardless of when or what language he wrote them in) that would eventually be called "The Gospel According to St. Luke", the words Hosea himself wrote (regardless of when or what language he wrote them in) that would eventually be called "The Book of Hosea" in Christian and Jewish scripture, etc. By "God-breathed", i borrow the term from the common definition of "theopneustos", the Greek word in 2 Tim 3:16. By "inerrant", I mean free from error. So do you disagree with "The original words were "God-breathed" and inerrant"? If so, what exactly? If not, progress down the list until the next disagreement and clearly explain where the disagreement lies.

All of your hodge-podge is simply to avoid giving straight answers to these questions.

The answers will be straightly given, with full understanding, only if we can progress through the list to see where we diverge. Jumping ahead, without going through the path of reasoning for my answers, will be no more fruitful than the last many months you and I have discussed such things elsewhere.

Christians are to be men and women of faith and discernment.

True, but is our individual discernment authoritative? No, it is not. That is why two KJV-only supporters, each claiming spiritual discernment and Biblical backing, will disagree on something as central as Trinitarianism.

God bless,
Brian

Hi pbiwolski and Forrest,

pbiwolski said:

It's not a matter of who says what -who cares where a claim comes from. It's a matter of a perfect book that has the power and authority of God all over it.

Who cares where a claim comes from? Well, I do for one. So should you. Doctrine should not come from just anywhere, it needs to come from something with authority, otherwise it is just man's fallible opinion. Since the KJV does not claim perfection for the KJV, that doctrine comes from somewhere outside of the KJV, something/somewhere without authority.

As to proof. Proof is proof - it's undeniable.

People deny proof all the time, on all sorts of subjects. So again I ask, what would be an example of proof for you that the KJV is not perfect?

Forrest said:

I know because Jesus Christ, and the indwelling Holy Spirit, bears witness with my renewed spirit that the King James Bible is the preserved written word of God. Sorry, that’s my shallow, uneducated proof and authority.

The Holy Spirit does indeed bear witness to us and guides us. But is that really "authority"? As I just replied to Steve, two KJV-only supporters each feel the Holy Spirit is bearing witness to them about the truthfulness of the doctrine of the Trinity, but come to opposite conclusions. Are both conflicting doctrines therefore authoritative? Or does authority have to come from somewhere outside of ourselves?

God bless,
Brian

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Hi pbiwolski,

THANK YOU. Finally someone, after 9 pages in this thread, acknowledges my question of authority. However, either you don't quite understand the point, so I have problems seeing how your answer makes sense:

< snipped for brevity >

To paraphrase you: After 10 pages in this Thread: We now learn that you (Brian T.) do not know that St. Luke penned his Gospel in Greek, or that Hosea was penned in Hebrew.

If you are wanting people on this forum to find a verse for YOU that does not exist,,,: "The King James Authorized Version of the Bible is true and it is the correct version for Faith and Practise." --- You are wasting your time and ours---YOU followed Will K. over here from another site where you are one of the Mods. and can get what you want/say what you want... Not here.

Instead of coming up with retorts and replies... Do a simple test: Pick up a K.J.V./A.V. and read say-- John chapter 4 (one of my favorite chapters) --- then pick up whatever "flavor-of-the-month translation you have handy and read the same chapter. Now, BrianT. ,,, be honest; Which one(s) sounded/read like something "Godly" and which ones read like mushy/slushy.?

Brian T.--- I would suggest that rather than trying to win your arguement on this forum (which I warned you about in my first Post in this thread) , you would spend some time reading Halley's Bible Handbook, and getting some good basic Background information about the Bible. Please look at some of the charts and information on the front page of this website.

Have you ever read the book titled: "Defending The King James Version Of The Bible" , by Dr. Hills ? Read that one. He was not a "country bumpkin" or a uneducated loud-mouthed doofus. Click over to the Trinitarian Bible Society's website and look at/read their articles about the A.V-K.J.V. in the margin. There is good info out there. "Take up and Read!"

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

By "original words", I simply refer to the words of what we today call the Bible, as they were first written. I.e. the words Luke himself wrote (regardless of when or what language he wrote them in) that would eventually be called "The Gospel According to St. Luke",

Every strong King James Bible defender, and Reformation Bible defender, has a 100% conviction that Luke's words includes Acts 8:37, written by Luke. You do not. So unless we can settle this question "A" remains the first flaw.

If you allow the "original words" to include the omission of Acts 8:37 then your definition of "original words" includes errant texts, confusions, a book not fully God-breathed. You have already created a textual bifurcation that contradicts the holiness and accuracy and perfection of the word of God. (A confusion that is non-existent to any defender of the Reformation Bible.) You have already lost the discussion by insisting that either alternative, written or not-written by Luke, can both conceptually be the pure and perfect, inerrant word of God. You are already enmeshed in the quagmire of contradiction.

Of course I could give examples within the Gospel of Luke, however since this is critical doctrinally and is well-known, I leave Acts 8:37 as the example.

Braian, overall, you are the one making this far too complicated.

Remember, this problem is at the heart of your confusion and you even went so far as to claim that both the inclusion and omission were the "word of God" (your words in the similar John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 examples). You start with a basic fallacy and try to build on sand.

================================================

Your multi-comments involving doctrinal difference with King Jame Bible defenders are simply silly misemphasis. Clearly defenders have different interpretations (just peruse this forum) and God knows in every difference, soteriology, eschatology, Messiahology, every doctrine and consideration, what view is approved.

We all simply know and receive and accept the plumbline, the source of doctrinal proof, the pure and perfect Holy Bible, the King James Bible. You have switched to trying to emphasize doctrinal differences (you can see spirited debates here on Calvinism and Arminianism and a dozen other issues as well) simply because the fact that we know the identity of the pure and perfect word of God is too discomfiting. So you try hard to obfuscate and divert.

Let us know when a poster says:

"all King James Bible defenders will see identically on all these doctrines ... Calvinism, soteriology, Messiahology etc."

(Beyond e.g. items like:

the Deity of Messiah == "God was manifest in the flesh.."
the virgin birth, weakened in some versions
the purity and perfection of the Bible, weakened in the versions.

Then you will be welcome to point out that this supposed agreement is not correct, with hearty agreement from myself and others. )

Of course the modern versions really cannot defend the tangible purity and perfection of the Bible, since they are loaded with corruptions, like the swine marathon from Gerasa.

Note, there will be dozens of other agreements among King James Bible defenders, based clearly on the Bible text as written, where the modern versions are over the map. I doubt that you will ever find a defender today talk of the "only-begotten god" -- which you have to find acceptable since you never know which Greek is true. Or say that infants are the individuals subject to baptized (simple exegesis including Acts 8:37 as a primary text). It might be a good exercise to come up with many more of these.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Hi PB1789 and Steve,

After 10 pages in this Thread: We now learn that you (Brian T.) do not know that St. Luke penned his Gospel in Greek, or that Hosea was penned in Hebrew.

I don't see how you reached that conclusion. I was simply explaining that item A in the list does not deal with such issues, i.e. Steve should be able to agree with item A, as it stands, regardless of what language he believes various books were originally written in. He's the one that said "you did not comment on Mark being written in Latin or Graeco-Latin", and I was simply explaining that if one person believes a book was originally written in one language, and another believes that book was originally written in another language, those two people can still agree that item A is true for item A does not specify language. And if those two people can agree on item A, then their disagreement has to be at item B or after. Steve is getting hung up on item A for things that are irrelevant for item A to be true. It's like he's objecting to the statement "1 + 1 = 2" by saying "but are you talking about 2 cookies or 2 watermelons? Unless we can settle this question, the statement is flawed". For the record, although it is irrelevant to the point I am making, I believe Luke wrote in Greek and Hosea wrote in Hebrew.

Do a simple test...I would suggest...Please look at...Have you ever read...Click over to...

I'm not a newbie to this issue. I've done those things, read those books and seen those websites. None of them deal with the main issue I'm bringing up, the question of authority and the doctrinal contradiction of KJV-onlyism.

Your multi-comments involving doctrinal difference with King Jame Bible defenders are simply silly misemphasis.

Yes, I understand why you need to believe that, Steve. Sorry, but what people believe is much more important than all having the same book on their shelf.

God bless,
Brian