[PB1789]

Diligent.... We need some more "smilies" icons.

After 10 pages of this Thread---

I suggest that you get the one with the head-banging against a brick wall,,, and/or the "smilie" of the person pulling out their own hair.

PB1789,

Yes, you are right, this has gone on too long. 10 pages without an answer to my fundamental question is enough. The only person who tried to answer my question of authority didn't even really understand it and simply posted a contradiction in response. If there is anyone reading this thread that actually wants to carry on this conversation with me, I am willing to take it to email. You can write to me at "brian_AT_tegarttech_DOT_com".

God bless,
Brian

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by BrianT

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

The Holy Spirit does indeed bear witness to us and guides us. But is that really "authority"?

I will answer you this way. Yes, what the Holy Spirit does is absolute, perfect authority. And no, our mortal minds are not perfect, inspired (free from error), or infallible (incapable of error). What I do is not authority, what the Holy Spirit does is authority. There is a conflict going on because we have yet to be changed into that final and glorious eternal state. We are still mortal.

Yes, of course our understanding of the “word” of God is always subject to proper interpretation, and no one “human being” reads the scripture and gets it right 100% of the time. Does that negate the work of the Holy Spirit? Does our fallible mind prevent God from preserving His infallible word? Every word?

Those who are born from above have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. The Holy Spirit inspired the word of God and, therefore, we have something far more superior than mere human intellect and reasoning. I simply refuse to debate the Holy Spirit in this matter. I receive, in faith, that the word of God is preserved in written form.

That is why I wrote: “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.”

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.

• The Spirit of God inspired the word of God.
  
• The Holy Spirit teaches the word of God.
  
• The words of God are spiritually discerned.
  
• Every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit who inspired, teaches, and gives discernment.

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

Are both conflicting doctrines therefore authoritative? Or does authority have to come from somewhere outside of ourselves?

No, conflicting doctrine is not authoritative. The word of God is authoritative. Our spiritual understanding, unction, and discernment of His word that comes from the Holy Spirit, is only authoritative because it is of the Spirit, not man. Will we disagree on doctrine? Yes. Will we make mistakes? Yes. But the Holy Spirit doesn’t. “…does authority have to come from somewhere outside of ourselves?” Yes, it does. And it does!

Did God preserve every word? Do we have in our possession today an English Bible that contains every word of God in written form? If so, which Bible is it?

I and many others on this Forum believe it is the King James Bible. Is that specific statement authoritative? Nope. You need to settle that for yourself. I have, but I cannot be your Holy Spirit.

…and guides us

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Sure the Holy Spirit guides us. Specifically He guides us into all truth. You have the Holy Spirit…if you arrive at a different conclusion than I do, so be it.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[Will Kinney]

Amen, brother. Very well said and undeniably true. The "every man for himself bible agnostics" just hate it that they can't prove one error in our King James Bible. They try awfully hard to find one but have yet to nail down a single one that will stick.

God knew what He was doing when He put together the greatest Book the world has ever seen.

Will K

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

What you want is proof (or an explanation) of why we believe, preach, defend, and exalt the King James Bible as being the very words of God - preserved in purity for us today.

"The proof is in the pudding."

The authority is The Authority.

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.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

"Steven .. you did not comment on Mark being written in Latin or Graeco-Latin",

And you never related to the fact that the "original texts" (normally called one or another Greek text) may well themselves not be original. You are deliberately talking about an ethereal item that has no definition or substance, one that can become two or three or four different items per your convenience, so of course a theory about that is irrelevant. One point was Mark and Hebrews, and along with that the OT part you also never addressesed. These examples help expose the first, fundamental flaw in your presentation. You use terms that have no meaning or import, and on which you contradict yourself repeatedly, and try to use your own contradictions as a base on which to build a convoluted construct of non-faith and non-belief in the pure word of God. Very, very strange.

Originally Posted by BrianT

what people believe is much more important than all having the same book on their shelf.

Oh, please Brian, you don't have to play dumb.

Doctrinal discussions are wonderful where appropriate. You yourself saw how the anti-pure-KJB minions go haywire when they think they have a doctrinal angle to attack -- rather than discuss the actual Bible issue directly. Then you come here and try the very same tactic you saw and we discussed on your own forum and you yourself said was not appropriate. You really wanted to do anything possible here to divert from your contradiction of allowing contradictory verses to both be "original autographs" and "the word of God". So you pointed out that King James Bible defenders have doctrinal differences ! What a revelation .

And while we have not discussed the "authority" issue much (which you complain something about above) I did do a post about faith being the key, quoting from Hebrews. If that was not satisfactory to you, please indicate why. If you want a specific verse in the Bible that says "King James Bible" please indicate why you do not request a specific verse that says "66 books", as an RCC could surely do, and others.

Shalom,
Steven

Hi Forrest, Will, and Steve,

Forrest, I agree with almost all of what you said. The only thing I really want to respond to is where you said:

Did God preserve every word? Do we have in our possession today an English Bible that contains every word of God in written form? If so, which Bible is it?
I and many others on this Forum believe it is the King James Bible. Is that specific statement authoritative? Nope.

Thank you for being the first KJV-only supporter I have ever met that admits that the doctrine of KJV-onlyism is not authoritative. The question then remains as to why so many KJV-only churches and organizations use this unauthoritative doctrine in their doctrinal statements, while simultaneously claiming only the Bible is the source of doctrine.

Will said:

The "every man for himself bible agnostics" just hate it that they can't prove one error in our King James Bible. They try awfully hard to find one but have yet to nail down a single one that will stick.

I have yet to see any KJV-only supporter explain what would constitute proof for them, and have that proof be consistently applied.

Steve said

These examples help expose the first, fundamental flaw in your presentation.

Steve, you are so far off understanding what I am saying. I give up, forget the list.

You yourself saw how the anti-pure-KJB minions go haywire when they think they have a doctrinal angle to attack -- rather than discuss the actual Bible issue directly. Then you come here and try the very same tactic you saw and we discussed on your own forum and you yourself said was not appropriate.

It is not inappropriate to discuss the preservation of words to include the preservation of the meaning those words convey. What was in appropriate on my own forum was the constant topic-changing interjections about specific doctrines when those doctrines were not the topics at hand.

divert from your contradiction of allowing contradictory verses to both be "original autographs" and "the word of God"

I don't know why you keep misrepresenting what I said.

while we have not discussed the "authority" issue much (which you complain something about above) I did do a post about faith being the key, quoting from Hebrews. If that was not satisfactory to you, please indicate why.

Because scripture doesn't tell us to have faith in KJV-onlysim. Mormons have faith in certain things, JWs have faith in certain things, Muslims have faith in certain things. "Faith" in just anything doesn't validate, just because it's "faith". If the Bible tells us something, great! If not, "faith" in it isn't worth more than faith in the tooth fairy.

If you want a specific verse in the Bible that says "King James Bible" please indicate why you do not request a specific verse that says "66 books", as an RCC could surely do, and others.

I have requested such a verse from folks that put "66 books" in their doctrinal statement who simultaneously claim the Bible is the only source of doctrine. I believe it is contradictory for those that claim the Bible is the only source of doctrine to put things like KJV-onlyism, 66 books, original autographs only, or any other extra-Biblical doctrine in their doctrinal statements.

If other posters who have not responded in this thread for a while (e.g. Vendetta Ride or MC1171611) post something, I will likely respond to it here. However, I can see that things are wrapping up and I don't want to belabour things here, so my invite to email is still open to everyone.

God bless,
Brian

[Debau]

What doctrines would you try to omit or incorporate from extra (or perceived lack of) biblical authority? Modalism, antinomianism, or perhaps adoptionism. These are all valid if this statement is not true:

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

"The question then remains as to why so many KJV-only churches and organizations use this unauthoritative doctrine in their doctrinal statements, while simultaneously claiming only the Bible is the source of doctrine."

There is doctrine that is implicit, though not to the satisfaction of those who will not yield themselves to His Teacher. Yes, the Bible in its verbal plenary preserved form in English, the King James Bible, is the only source of authority for any doctrine.

What is not understandable about:

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

In case that is not easily understood, God supplied this statement three times, twice more here.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

God expected doubters, and does test men on these in this age of grace.

Job 33:14 For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.

Some seem to seek empirical evidence that the KJB is ALL of God's Words, but He will not have it so, as He will also confound the wisdom of the evolutionist who cannot accept special divine revelation in His creation, He confounds those who seek worldy wisdom to confirm the preservation and complete revelation of His Words.

That the KJB is all of God's Words is accepted by faith.

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

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.

Without faith I cannot accept even this:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God hath given unto us ALL THINGS, and He doeth ALL THINGS well.

2 Peter 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

I accept that He gave us ALL His Words by faith. This answer will not be acceptable to the skeptic.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

What more proof do you want?

Hi Debau,

The doctrine of KJV-onlyism could not be derived from those verses prior to 1611. I believe all those verses were true prior to 1611, did not change meaning in 1611, and thus are not about the product of 1611.

God bless,
Brian

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

I have requested such a verse from folks that put "66 books" in their doctrinal

If I understand you here, you do not accept the Reformation Bible canon, the 'Protestant' canon, at least not with any conviction.

While I am not very surprised (a little) it would be interesting to know what is to you definitely "the Bible".

(Please don't play around with the number of books, we should know to what that refers.)

Originally Posted by BrianT

I don't know why you keep misrepresenting what I said.

No misrepresentation at all. Originally you clearly said that you accepted both versions of John 1:18 as the word of God, also 1 Timothy 3:16, the two examples we were discussing. Then you specifically said that one was a textual error. Then you went back to theories that were willing to make no distinction in terms of the "originals". Contradictory is a light term for this movement.

Shalom,
Steven

Steve,

I accept the Reformation Bible canon with conviction, but I don't accept it as authoritative doctrine. Personal conviction is not inherently authoritative.

The concept is very simple: if you claim doctrine can only come from scripture, you can't also claim a doctrine (any doctrine) that doesn't come from scripture, at least not without contradicting yourself.

This is why I keep asking about authority.

Then you went back to theories that were willing to make no distinction in terms of the "originals".

Please quote me where I made such a statement. I do not believe both were "originals"