[Will Kinney]

Excellent points brother. And, Yes, the "message" is very confused among the modern bogus bibles. End result? Most Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (ANY Scripture in ANY language) and read their "made for modern men bibles" less and less. Modern Christianity is about as deep as a parking lot puddle.

Will K

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Something that I think needs to be addressed is the continual importance, placed by proponents of modern or multiple versions, on the "message" or "ideas" of Scripture above the words. Jesus never ONCE taught them meanings, He emphatically spoke WORDS to them.

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

John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Matt. 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.

(emphasis mine)

I don't see much in there about "messages" or "meanings," but I do see a lot talking about WORDS. Words convey a message, but God places the importance upon the WORDS, not the message.

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

(emphasis mine)

Hmm...the WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE. Apparently we wouldn't even be saved without the WORDS, eh?

1Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

(emphasis mine)

Let's not put the emphasis on the wrong thing here, people. God magnified His WORD above His name, not His "message."

[Will Kinney]

Excellent points,Steve. Thanks.
Will K

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

And before the Reformation zeal and scholarship and faith and the advent of printing you would be hard-pressed to find any Bibles that were the full 66-book canon in one volume. And you would be hard-pressed to find full Bibles that were clearly can unequivocally the 66-book canon and nothing else. You would be, as Will points out, hard-pressed to find the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture clearly expressed.

God providentially used the Reformation Bible in many ways, doctrinally as well as in terms of Bilbiology, its development being in the hands of men seeking God. We saw as well as in the defeat of the Vulgate as God lifted up his word, and we had as well the clear rejection of extra-canonical books, not Scripture.

(Ironically, this Vulgate is even itself far superior to the modern version counter-reformation junque, the Greek NA and UBS and the "modern versions" now peddled by shills of the Bible Version Industrial Complex to the duped and unwary and deceived.)

Thus it is no surprise at all that we cannot point to one extant volume before the Reformation and say what we can say about the King James Bible .. in our hands, for the ploughman and my friends and family and even for the seminarian, is the full and perfect and true and pure word of God.

Also, the Reformation Bible scholarship was an 'uphill' synthesis (the principle of 'scattering and gathering' as Matthew points out) -- not devolution .. this superb analysis and scholarship corrected the small number of mistakes in the generally excellent Greek NT manuscript line. Where most Bibles had lost Acts 8:37, the Johannine Comma, "her purification" and a bit more. Men of faith worked under the anointing of God to give us the pure and perfect Bible.

One key to understanding Bible history is to understand the Reformation Bible .. study Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, and the defenders like Whitaker and Turretin, learn a bit about the RCC rear-guard .. Cajetan and Catharinus and Bellamine. You will see the excellence of our Bible. Then in the English Bible you will see the complementary uphill action .. Tyndale through to Geneva to the King James Bible (with 4 intermediaries )

The King James Bible was simply the purity and excellence and majesty of this process .. brought to perfection through the providential hand of God.

Shalom,
Steven

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by BrianT

I have no doubt that Will Kinney just wants to argue, and no matter what I say about those verses, all he's looking for is more excuses to verbally attack me. So I'm not going to waste my time and effort. Basically, all I do for such comparisons is the same thing I do for similar comparisons when I use only the KJV, i.e. when two passages, which talk about the same thing, appear to have differences.

Translation: "Since I have no possible way of defending my ludicrous position that Tyndale is "in the same way the words of God" as is the King James Bible, and cannot sanely nor logically defend my loony toons idea that by reading a variety of conflicting and contradictory versions I can get a better sense of what the "Scriptures" say, then I will accuse Will K of being verbally abusive and a waste of my precious time."

When caught in an indefensible lie, it is good strategy to accuse the other side of being unreasonable, and hope others will buy into it.

Nice display, Brian, of where your Biblical unbelief is leading you.

Will K

I bless you Will, and pray God will bless you richly. I mean it.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

To try to help the communication here, please understand that when Brian has to try to reconcile Scripture views that appear at face to be contradictory Brian resorts to a 'dual-scripture' doctrine. Thus Scripture can be both the existence and non-existence of a verse. (And one can see how this could be his reasoning to undo the import of the Tyndale-King James Bible differences, even if Brian hesitates to express it here.)

When Brian was asked to conclude what was Scripture in John 1:18 -- where there is "only begotten Son" in the pure Bible while the literal translation of the alexandrian text is "only-begotten God" (or god) as in the NASV and NWT - Brian's unusual response (full text - emphasis added) was:

"Yes, I admit I don't know which was originally written. However, I accept both as the word of God. The meanings do not require different meanings nor different doctrinal understandings, just as various differences in accounts between gospels do not mean contradictions - except only for faithless skeptics who want them to be contradictions. Jesus is begotten. Jesus is Son. Jesus is God. No problem, and I have no burning desire to "know" which is originally written as I have the correct understanding and word of God."

Notice that Brian does not simply "accept both" as true doctrine (insipid and false as that would be) Brian actually "accepts both" as the word of God ! For this to be true, God would have to be behind the variant, deliberately and consciously augmenting the "inerrant autographs" (one of the two readings) with an auxiliary God-breathed alternative complementary Scripture (the other reading). Thus a scribe around the early second century, changing the text acidentally or purposefully, was in fact creating more Scripture ! (in the Brian-in-Wonderland world).

Thus it helps to understand the Brian mindset. Brian believes that two grossly contradictory readings, even on a major doctrinal battleground verse (same on 1 Timothy 3:16) are both the word of God, applying a Brianian dialectic.

Once you understand this, there is simply no surprise that the inclusion or omission of a verse is of no real import to him and Tyndale and the King James Bible are simultaneously both the word of God, even when they disagree. Why even if they differed on Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma both could be fully pure 'Scripture' in the amazing world of Brian.

Now we understand that this is an example of the depths of illogic of those whose main Bible text concern is opposition to the purity of the King James Bible. And this is close to being a paradigmic aspect of Brian's confusion ('Scripture' can be defacto contradictory while perceived harmonious). Which is why dozens of posts and discussions will accomplish little. Brian's basic discordance and difficulty runs very deep.

Shalom,
Steven

[PB1789]

Steve Avery:--- Yep! I recall him posting that about John 1:18...

CRINGE!! For 20 some years when I would read that verse, I would say: "Why oh why did the NAS folks do that to that verse"... Of course the Kitchen table never answered ... (All they had to do [If not sure] was to turn over to Is. 9:6 and get a clue: ..." unto us a Son is given..." )


Which was one of the reasons I stated that Brian T is either "confused or confusing"... He uses a Cross for his avatar { Wish I coulda found that one.. and figured out how to put one up.} , so I assume he believes like me in what Jesus did on the cross at Calvary...

What Brian T doesn't seem to understand--- at least from what I've read of his posts--- is that a major reason for King James to Authorize a Standardized Bible in the English language was so that the confusion of various translations would be avoided. In other words: Get the folks "on the same page".

{ BTW--- Brian T, if you read this Post--- I said "Bugle" because for years the Army, Marines, and the swabbies used Bugles... Not trumpets. Trumpets have valves and would get stuck and be worthless in some of the places where our Troops have gone over the centuries. Have you never seen "The Horse Soldiers" ? }

Hi Steve,

And one can see how this could be his reasoning to undo the import of the Tyndale-King James Bible differences, even if Brian hesitates to express it here.

I do not hesitate to express it. I've readily expressed it many times in the past. I hesitate to express it to Will, for reasons already stated. The King's speech is still the King's speech even though it is not translated equally by all translators. A man is still made in the image of God even though he may have warts or scars. Textual errors do not equal doctrinal errors. Doctrinal errors are the result of misinterpretation, regardless of if the text is "perfect" or not.

I note that at least one KJV-only supporter in this thread has claimed (and I have heard it claimed numerous times in the past) that Luther's translation is "the word of God". Yet it has similar textual differences (e.g. Luther's translation does not have Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36 and 1 John 5:7, it is "missing" entire phrases from John 19:38, James 4:6, 1 John 2:23, Revelation 18:23, and Revelation 21:26, it has "morgenstern" (morning star) in Isa 14:12, etc.). Some editions have "fixed" some of these things since Luther's death (i.e. without his knowledge or approval). My view on Tyndale's (and Luther's) translation is no different than other KJV-only supporters view on Luther's (and others).

Notice that Brian does not simply "accept both" as true doctrine (insipid and false as that would be) Brian actually "accepts both" as the word of God ! For this to be true, God would have to be behind the variant, deliberately and consciously augmenting the "inerrant autographs" (one of the two readings) with an auxiliary God-breathed alternative complementary Scripture (the other reading).

Either you misunderstand my position, or your are deliberately misrepresenting me. I do not believe both variations are God-breathed. I believe one of them is a textual error. I am simply saying that both can be understood in a doctrinally correct way, and thus both convey the King's message. Jesus is Son, Jesus is God, Jesus is begotten.

Thus it helps to understand the Brian mindset. Brian believes that two grossly contradictory readings, even on a major doctrinal battleground verse (same on 1 Timothy 3:16) are both the word of God, applying a Brianian dialectic.

I often spend time discussing "contradictions" in the Bible with atheists and skeptics. Their approach is always the same: they start by interpreteting the text in the most contradiction-supporting way the words themselves will allow. For example, when they see "hearing a voice" in Acts 9:7 and "heard not the voice" in Acts 22:9 as undefendable contradiction. Same with Exodus 15:3 vs. Rom 15:33, Deut 24:16 vs. Isa 14:21, Gen 32:30 vs. John 1:18, Gen 22:1 vs. James 1:13, etc., etc., etc. They are so intent on finding "contradictions" that they are unwilling to consider any explanation that reconciles such passages. They prefer to see things in the most faithless way possible. And you know what? I see the exact same approach used by KJV-only supporters when they discuss differences between translations. It's astonishing how a KJV-only supporter can come up with the most inventive explanations to reconcile "contradictions" within the KJV, but ask them to reconcile a "contradiction" with another translation and they suddenly turn off their reconciliation abilities and revert into the skeptic mindset. What's even worse is that I've seen atheists and skeptics take note of this hypocrisy, solidifying their rejection of Christian reconciliation explanations in general.

God bless,
Brian

Hi PB1789,

Steve Avery:--- Yep! I recall him posting that about John 1:18...
CRINGE!! For 20 some years when I would read that verse, I would say: "Why oh why did the NAS folks do that to that verse"... Of course the Kitchen table never answered ... (All they had to do [If not sure] was to turn over to Is. 9:6 and get a clue: ..." unto us a Son is given..." )

Saying Jesus is God does not deny or contradict that he is also Son. I fail to see how this is so hard to understand. Jesus is both God and Son, and Jesus is begotten. Which part of that makes you cringe?

What Brian T doesn't seem to understand--- at least from what I've read of his posts--- is that a major reason for King James to Authorize a Standardized Bible in the English language was so that the confusion of various translations would be avoided. In other words: Get the folks "on the same page".

I understand it, I just don't see that the goal worked. Yes, you can be "on the same page" in terms of paper on your bookshelf, but "not on the same page" doctrinally. For example, I know that at least one KJV-only supporter in this discussion denies the doctrine of the Trinity, while I (who strongly agrees with the doctrine of the Trinity) am strongly opposed from all sides because I see no authoritative reason to believe KJV-onlyism (even though I use the KJV)! This is completely backwards, in my opinion.

{ BTW--- Brian T, if you read this Post--- I said "Bugle" because for years the Army, Marines, and the swabbies used Bugles... Not trumpets. Trumpets have valves and would get stuck and be worthless in some of the places where our Troops have gone over the centuries. Have you never seen "The Horse Soldiers" ? }

I read all your posts (in this thread, at least). No, I have not seen "The Horse Soldiers". My point was simply the words the KJV uses is "sound" and "trumpet", not "tune" and "bugle" - yet I was able to completely and perfectly understand you despite your textual errors.

God bless,
Brian

[PB1789]

A Quick Post before I head off to work...

I said "Cringe" , because as a gent who used to have a radio program called "The Mission to Utah" Broadcast ( John Henry Yount) told me:

"That is an unfortunate Gnostic reading/interpretation of the Text."

Beware of Alexandrian influences Brian T. Stick with Antioch!

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

My view on Tyndale's (and Luther's) translation is no different than other KJV-only supporters view on Luther's (and others).

You simply deceive yourself. Likely every King James Bible poster here will tell you that a Bible that omits the Johannine Comma is not the full and pure word of God. That it is errant in that respect. Luther got caught in a bit of a quaqmire on that issue (e.g. he originally worked with the early editions of Erasmus) and the Luther Bible had a significant omission, an error. You might find one poster on a forum who sort of implies otherwise, but so what ? (You can ask him to explain his position more fully.)

Will, myself and a dozen others will tell you simply : the omission of the Johannine Comma is a significant textual error and problem. As is the omission of any pure Bible verse. If that is not correct, Will or Tim or another can jump right in and say so.

In fact you yourself say that in such situations one side or another must be a "textual error" right below. How in the world can a "textual error" be part of the pure and perfect word of God ? It is simply an error.

Tyndale and Luther were generally working with the superior text, their Bibles were generally very superior to the Vulgate and vastly superior to the corrupt alexandrian texts used today by many in the deluded and deceived Christian public, their Bibles had many marks of excellence. And these two Bibles were used mightily of God (Tyndale's excellent work was mightily used by the superior English Reformation Bibles, including the Geneva and King James Bible) they were moving in the right direction .. however they simply were not the pure and perfect word of God.

Originally Posted by BrianT

I do not believe both variations are God-breathed. I believe one of them is a textual error. I am simply saying that both can be understood in a doctrinally correct way, and thus both convey the King's message.

Then you say very specifically that "textual error" is the "word of God" .. whether it is a major doctrinal battle-ground or a missing verse. The same verse variants about which you now say one is a "textual error" you earlier said were both accepted by you as the "word of God". Brian, this is insipid.

You take one position, and then another. Yes, you are almost forced to do so by the lack of a pure Bible combined with your desire to pretend that you actually have a consistent, sensible position. However the dance is an ugly, stumbling shuffle. Also it is a bit boring after awhile, since you refuse to comes to grip with the problem, and bumble the same stumble from post to post, forum to forum, thread to thread.

And you are surprised that you are not taken as somebody who can have an earnest, significant, edifying, profitable discussion ? First come to grips with your fundamental disharmony, seek the root of the difficulty rather than the fluff and puff.

Shalom,
Steven