Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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 .... 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.

I'm not sure that "insipid" is the word I'd use, brother; in my understanding, it's "insipid" when Shelton Smith publishes an average of ten pictures of himself in each issue of his so-called newspaper. Apart from that, however, I couldn't agree with you more. The inclusion/acceptance of the Johannine Comma, along with Acts 12:4, are the acid tests for genuine belief in the Bible. (I do not attach the same doctrinal importance to both verses, of course.) There are others that are just as bad, but those two stick out like sore thumbs in any discussion of the authentic text.

A man or woman who claims to believe 1 Jn. 5:7, and to believe the marginal note disclaiming its authenticity, is a man or woman with no final authority. I was in that position for the first third of my Christian life. When I pledged allegiance to the NASV, I all too often found myself wondering if I would ever know what God had really said.

Originally Posted by Brian T

When I want to know how to program a computer, I read a computer manual, not a cookbook. When I want to know what the King's message is, I read a translation of the King's speech, not a translation of the memoirs and philosophies of a violent pedophile. But just because I read the King's speech does not mean I'm going to understand it all correctly, even with the Holy Spirit's help - it still goes through the filters of our bias and limited, fallible comprehension. But I stand a much better shot of getting the King's intended message by reading the King's speech and not something else.

That's a fine confession of faith, dear brother, but it's an equally fine evasion. You didn't answer my question. The Muslims believe that they have the propositional message, too. Without an infallible, demonstrably inerrant Bible, how do you know (apart from personal experience) that they're mistaken?

This is no debater's trick I'm employing, nor is it a game I'm playing. Thousands are going to Hell this evening for lack of an answer to this question.

Hi Steve and Vendetta Ride,

Steve said:

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.)

Good idea, Steve. So Vendetta Ride, will you please explain yourself more fully? Earlier you said "I do not believe that the King James Bible is the only written word of God on earth", and I asked you what they were, and you named Luther's and Valera's. Now, when Steve says the above, you reply to him "I couldn't agree with you more". So how do you agree with Steve, yet call Luther's and Valera's "the written word of God on earth"?

Steve said:

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.

I have already explained this. The King's speech is still the King's speech although not translated with equal quality, and a man is in the image of God even with scars and warts.

Consider the alternative (which takes us full circle): if a textually inerrant, complete, pure and perfect Bible is the necessary definition of "the word of God", then "the word of God" did not exist prior to the publication of such a Bible.

Let me know where you disagree with this logic:

A. The original words were "God-breathed" and inerrant
B. God cannot lie
C. God, who cannot lie, said in those original inerrant words that his words are pure and they (as "the word of God") will be preserved
D. We no longer have those original manuscripts (or at least have failed to recognize them if we do).
E. Fallible man was involved in copying and translating throughout the centuries
F. The writings of scripture were not combined into a single volume until decades or centuries after the original writings were finished.
G. Given F is true, a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible did not exist at least until after the writings were collected and collated.
H. Given G is true, there was a time in Church history when a pure, perfect complete Bible did not exist yet God's promise of pure and preserved words was still true
I. Given H is true, then the meaning of God's promise was not about a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant volume, but about something else
J. Given I and F are true, the meaning of God's promise in C was that "the word of God" existed and was preserved in what the Church did have during that time, namely a range of incomplete texts and imperfect volumes.
K. Scripture does not change meaning
L. Even if scripture did change meaning, nobody on earth has the authority to dictate to the Church what these changes would be
M. Given J, K, and L are true, what scriptures meant when a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible did not exist are what those scriptures mean today.
N. Given M is true, "the word of God" (the existence of his pure preserved words) does not require a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible to exist
O. Given N is true, a Bible can have textual errors in it and still rightfully be called "the word of God"
P. Given O and K are true, it is unbiblical and unauthoritative to say that "the word of God" must exist as a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible
Q. Given P is true, it is further unbiblical and unauthoritative to claim any particular translation is a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible
R. Given Q is true, it is yet further unbiblical and unauthoritative to claim any particular translation is exclusively a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible

I'm not saying the above logic is bullet-proof, but I hope this accomplishes two things: 1. to answer your question as to why I believe and can rationally explain how a Bible that has textual inaccuracies can still be "the word of God", and 2. to give you (and others) a chance to specifically identify and explain where the differences in our opinions start.

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.

To be honest, it is a bit boring to me as well, for I have yet to have anyone clearly and directly explain how I am wrong and they are correct. That's happened in several other issues (I have taken the correction and changed my views), but all I get from the KJV-only crowd is reiterations of their presumptions with a generous helping of personal insults. Will you break the trend? Please? Pretty please?

Vendetta Ride said:

That's a fine confession of faith, dear brother, but it's an equally fine evasion. You didn't answer my question. The Muslims believe that they have the propositional message, too. Without an infallible, demonstrably inerrant Bible, how do you know (apart from personal experience) that they're mistaken?
This is no debater's trick I'm employing, nor is it a game I'm playing. Thousands are going to Hell this evening for lack of an answer to this question.

First, any evasion was not intentional, I tried to answer your question as I understood it. Perhaps I still don't understand it, unless you are looking for the answer "we can't ultimately know, we must have faith", for again if an "infallible, demonstrably inerrant Bible" is required to know they are mistaken, then I don't see how anyone in the first 1600 years of the church could know that they're mistaken. (Yes, I realize you have said that you don't deny "the word of God" existed prior to the KJV, but the only ones you have listed so far you have since agreed with Steven that they are in fact not infallible, demonstrably inerrant).

As for evading questions in general, I have endeavored to answer all your questions. I have noticed however, not only that many of my questions have gone completely ignored, but also that my main point in this whole thread has yet to be even acknowledged, let alone explained, by you or anyone else (hint: the question of AUTHORITY for the doctrinal claims of KJV-onlyism).

God bless,
Brian

[bibleprotector]

I. Given H is true, then the meaning of God's promise was not about a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant volume, but about something else

You are interpreting as if a verse only has one or a particular meaning. Psalm 12:6, 7 was both true at the present as well as prophetic concerning the future.

I will show you an example:

Jesus said, in Matthew 17:11, 12, that there are at least two fulfillments of the Elijah prophecy, "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them."

We know that John the Baptist is one fulfilment. The other is future.

[bibleprotector]

As I have pointed out elsewhere, an argument based on error, or that error is greater than God, is really a doctrine of antichrist.

E. Fallible man was involved in copying and translating throughout the centuries

J. Given I and F are true, the meaning of God's promise in C was that "the word of God" existed and was preserved in what the Church did have during that time, namely a range of incomplete texts and imperfect volumes.

L. Even if scripture did change meaning, nobody on earth has the authority to dictate to the Church what these changes would be

O. Given N is true, a Bible can have textual errors in it and still rightfully be called "the word of God"

In other words, God is limited by the existence of error, God is limited by man's fallibility, etc.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by BrianT

The King's speech is still the King's speech although not translated with equal quality, and a man is in the image of God even with scars and warts.

Brian. The examples I posted before which you refuse to address in any concrete way are NOT examples of the king's speech not being translated with equal quality, but are rather clear examples of one Bible (or even many in these cases) which has the complete verses and another that does not even have them, let alone "not translated with equal quality".

So which one represents the kings' speech?

Originally Posted by BrianT
Yes, I believe the KJV is "the word of God", but in the same way that the Geneva Bible was "the word of God", Tyndale's translation was "the word of God" Brian


Hi Brian. Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Luke 17:36 - “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left.”.

Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Mark 11:26 - “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. “

Amazingly, Tyndale’s N.T. also omits all these words from James 4:6 - “Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”

In the book of Revelation Tyndale omits the words: “And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee” from Revelation 18:23 and the entire verse in Revelation 21:26 which reads: “And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.”!!

Now, how in the name of sound reasoning can Tyndale's version be called "in the same way" the "the word of God" and the King James Bible also be called "in the same way the word of God"?

Consider the alternative (which takes us full circle): if a textually inerrant, complete, pure and perfect Bible is the necessary definition of "the word of God", then "the word of God" did not exist prior to the publication of such a Bible.

Brian. Why does not the historical existence of the book of the Old Testament in the Hebrew texts (which your modern whateverist versions often reject) and the historical existence of the Old Latin and the Waldensian New Testament scriptures till the time of the Reformation meet the standard of the preserved words of God?

Can you PROVE that they were not the preserved words of God in book form? It seems your whole argument breaks down if this is the way God did it.

Let me know where you disagree with this logic:

A. The original words were "God-breathed" and inerrant
B. God cannot lie
C. God, who cannot lie, said in those original inerrant words that his words are pure and they (as "the word of God") will be preserved
D. We no longer have those original manuscripts (or at least have failed to recognize them if we do).
E. Fallible man was involved in copying and translating throughout the centuries
F. The writings of scripture were not combined into a single volume until decades or centuries after the original writings were finished.

Not a single volume of both the O.T. and the N.T. but both in separate places. They would still be the perfect and preserved words of God in book form. You cannot prove that this is not the way God did it. Why? Because hundreds if not thousands of manuscripts have been destroyed by the persecuting Catholic church. The remaining evidence is inconclusive but it clearly points to the texts that underlie the King James Bible as having been the preserved words of God through history.

One undeniable proof of the truth of the KJB (which you vainly tried to address with your original post about all those alleged KJB departures from the Hebrew texts) is that God guided the KJB translators to use the Hebrew Scriptures for the O.T. ALL your modern fake bibles like the nasb, niv, rsv, esv, net, Holman, and even the nkjv sometimes, often reject these Hebrew readings.

The sovereignty of God in history points to the King James Bible as being the perfect, preserved and inerrant words of God in the end times universal language of English. No other Bible version has this distinction.

Satan knows this and that is why I believe there are SOOOOO many fake English bibles being pumped out year after year. No other language has nearly the number of "bible" translations as does the English language. You counterfeit REAL money.

Will K

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Matthew and Will already pointed out a couple of major flaws in the Brian syllogism attempt. If only such efforts would actually be used in defending the purity and perfection of the word of God rather than trying to claim imperfection.

Originally Posted by BrianT

Consider the alternative (which takes us full circle): if a textually inerrant, complete, pure and perfect Bible is the necessary definition of "the word of God", then "the word of God" did not exist prior to the publication of such a Bible.

Since we live today, not 1000 years ago, it is always hard to say. As far as I know there was not a single volume before 1500 which actually had every book of the Bible in one volume. Why would this be a difficulty ?

Let me know where you disagree with this logic:

A. The original words were "God-breathed" and inerrant

In terms of Bible text, we can never see those "original words" nor do we know for sure what languages they were written in, nor what dialects. So "A" as a theory is of no import.

Perhaps Mark wrote in Latin or Graeco-Latin. Perhaps Paul (the very possible author) spoke Hebrews in Hebrew and a friend put it into Greek. In such cases, which words were "original" ?

What is of import is Scripture today -- alive, active, sharp.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Ahh, now this is a reference to inerrant Scripture, present tense, referring to what we have in our hands today.

B. God cannot lie
C. God, who cannot lie, said in those original inerrant words that his words are pure and they (as "the word of God") will be preserved
D. We no longer have those original manuscripts (or at least have failed to recognize them if we do).
E. Fallible man was involved in copying and translating throughout the centuries

Much like fallible man was involved in writing those pure words. Did the providential element exist only for a second when pen met ink ? I trow not. And Hebrews 4:12 and many other scriptures say not.

Inspiration without preservation is a doctrine of no substance. The scriptures at the time of Jesus were pure and unbroken, every jot and tittle, even though many dialects or languages may have been involved over many hundreds of years. When pure, holy Scripture was referenced (e.g. to Timothy) what was referrred to was the Bible he read as a child, not writings from centuries back.

F. The writings of scripture were not combined into a single volume until decades or centuries after the original writings were finished.
G. Given F is true, a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible did not exist at least until after the writings were collected and collated.
H. Given G is true, there was a time in Church history when a pure, perfect complete Bible did not exist yet God's promise of pure and preserved words was still true

All of this is based on your theory that Psalm 12 only applies to God's word being historically preserved in one full, single, collated volume. Since that is not at all my understanding of preservation of the word of God, the attempted syllogism does not apply. Some words could easily be scattered and gathered, and the Reformation Bible and the advent of printing were the major tool of God's gathering, fully refined and focused in the King James Bible.

I. Given H is true, then the meaning of God's promise was not about a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant volume, but about something else

Actually in a sense you are right here, by the stopped-clock syndrome. The promise of Psalm 12 was generally about preservation and refinement of the words of God. The fulfillment in an available single volume was only clearly achievable with the advent of the Reformation Bible and printing.

J. Given I and F are true, the meaning of God's promise in C was that "the word of God" existed and was preserved in what the Church did have during that time, namely a range of incomplete texts and imperfect volumes.

That was not the "meaning of the promise" that was the aspect of the promise that yearned to be fulfilled on a world-wide scale. The promise was fulfilled through the providential hand of God through the Reformation Bible and its majestic and pure and perfect result, the King James Bible.

K. Scripture does not change meaning
L. Even if scripture did change meaning, nobody on earth has the authority to dictate to the Church what these changes would be.
M. Given J, K, and L are true, what scriptures meant when a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible did not exist are what those scriptures mean today.

This is full muddle. All you are trying to say is that if there was no tangible full one-volume scripture available before the Reformation, the Reformation Bible could not then be pure and perfect. You would like to shorten the hand of God.

N. Given M is true, "the word of God" (the existence of his pure preserved words) does not require a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible to exist

You have to be very specific here. Are you saying the "word of God" can be imperfect ? Errant ? Contradictory ? In the past you have taken that position, then you pulled back, now you are taking it again.

O. Given N is true, a Bible can have textual errors in it and still rightfully be called "the word of God"

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 ? Choose one.

P. Given O and K are true, it is unbiblical and unauthoritative to say that "the word of God" must exist as a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible

Let's get the language straight. Our assertion is that such a volume does exist today. Your assertion is that it cannot exist today.

Q. Given P is true, it is further unbiblical and unauthoritative to claim any particular translation is a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible

Now you have switched to "translation" ? Why ? Speak of the Bible as a whole. Do you believe it is wrong to speak of any Bible as pure and perfect and complete and inerrant ? E.g. Would you be happy with the assertion that Scrivener's Greek is pure and perfect and not the King James Bible ?

R. Given Q is true, it is yet further unbiblical and unauthoritative to claim any particular translation is exclusively a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible

Same problems as above. This is not worth addressing (even ignoring all the difficulties leading up to this point) until you make clear why you switched to talking about "translation" rather than Bible text, in any language.

I'm not saying the above logic is bullet-proof,

Quite obviously.

Shalom,
Steven

Hi bibleprotector,

You are interpreting as if a verse only has one or a particular meaning. Psalm 12:6, 7 was both true at the present as well as prophetic concerning the future.

Not at all. I've already talked bout secondary meanings (with no direct responses) in posts #52 and #55 in page 6 of this thread.

In other words, God is limited by the existence of error, God is limited by man's fallibility, etc.

Quite the contrary. God can work despite man's fallibility. God is not limited to working with perfection. After all, God was able to work during the Church age before your PCE existed, right?

God bless,
Brian

Hi Will,

The examples I posted before which you refuse to address in any concrete way are NOT examples of the king's speech not being translated with equal quality, but are rather clear examples of one Bible (or even many in these cases) which has the complete verses and another that does not even have them, let alone "not translated with equal quality".

If a man is missing a finger, or has an extra toe, is he no longer a man made in the image of God? As for Tyndale, asked and answered.

Now, how in the name of sound reasoning can Tyndale's version be called "in the same way" the "the word of God" and the King James Bible also be called "in the same way the word of God"?

Is it not obvious? Because I don't hold the KJV as textually perfect either, yet I consider it the word of God. They are the word of God in the same way.

Why does not the historical existence of the book of the Old Testament in the Hebrew texts (which your modern whateverist versions often reject) and the historical existence of the Old Latin and the Waldensian New Testament scriptures till the time of the Reformation meet the standard of the preserved words of God?

I've already addressed this as well. I believe the are the preserved words of God. The Hebrew textS and the various NT BibleS are (not just "contain", as your website says) the preserved word of God. But are any of them a complete, textually inerrant, pure, preserved word of God in the same sense KJV-only supporters hold the KJV to be? No.

Can you PROVE that they were not the preserved words of God in book form? It seems your whole argument breaks down if this is the way God did it.

It is not my job to prove the contrary of someone else's assertion. Can you PROVE your own assertion? Even if you could, you are still left with 3 facts: neither are "complete", 2. neither are exclusive (there are multiple textS, multiple BibleS), and 3. you just move the argument back in time (i.e. where was the "book" before the Waldensian's came along? Where was the "book" before canon was defined? Moving the dividing line to a different place on the timeline doesn't change the fact that you still have a dividing line.)

The remaining evidence is inconclusive but it clearly points to the texts that underlie the King James Bible as having been the preserved words of God through history.

Do you still not understand??? I AGREE WITH THAT. Is that clear enough for you? Just because the textS that underlie the KJV are the preserved word of God does not mean they are either textually perfect, nor exclusive, nor translated perfectly by the KJV translators.

One undeniable proof of the truth of the KJB (which you vainly tried to address with your original post about all those alleged KJB departures from the Hebrew texts) is that God guided the KJB translators to use the Hebrew Scriptures for the O.T. ALL your modern fake bibles like the nasb, niv, rsv, esv, net, Holman, and even the nkjv sometimes, often reject these Hebrew readings.

My initial list may have been wrong in many cases, but that does not mean every example that could be put forth is therefore wrong, nor does it mean that the KJV translated the Hebrew consistently and perfectly.

The sovereignty of God in history points to the King James Bible as being the perfect, preserved and inerrant words of God in the end times universal language of English.

For the umpteenth time, BY WHAT AUTHORITY can you make this claim? This is the fundamental problem with the KJV-only position, and the problem you are avoiding.

God bless,
Brian

Hi Steve,

Since we live today, not 1000 years ago, it is always hard to say. As far as I know there was not a single volume before 1500 which actually had every book of the Bible in one volume. Why would this be a difficulty ?

As I've already explained numerous times, and again in the very post you were responding to, it is a difficulty because if that's how God's word was preserved then, and scripture does not change meaning, than that is how scripture is preserved now. To claim differently is to claim scripture changed meaning and/or new doctrine exists for the church that did not exist before - and these things can only be valid if given by authority, not just someone's fallible opinion.

Let me know where you disagree with this logic:

A. The original words were "God-breathed" and inerrant

In terms of Bible text, we can never see those "original words" nor do we know for sure what languages they were written in, nor what dialects. So "A" as a theory is of no import.

There are many items in my list, because I was breaking the logic down into very small pieces. Item A only deals with the inerrancy of original scripture. Either they were or they weren't, yes or no. You don't need to disect every line of the progression, only indicate where/why you disagree with any single line, so we can see where we first start to diverge.

Inspiration without preservation is a doctrine of no substance. The scriptures at the time of Jesus were pure and unbroken, every jot and tittle, even though many dialects or languages may have been involved over many hundreds of years. When pure, holy Scripture was referenced (e.g. to Timothy) what was referrred to was the Bible he read as a child, not writings from centuries back.

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

F. The writings of scripture were not combined into a single volume until decades or centuries after the original writings were finished.
G. Given F is true, a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible did not exist at least until after the writings were collected and collated.
H. Given G is true, there was a time in Church history when a pure, perfect complete Bible did not exist yet God's promise of pure and preserved words was still true

All of this is based on your theory that Psalm 12 only applies to God's word being historically preserved in one full, single, collated volume. Since that is not at all my understanding of preservation of the word of God, the attempted syllogism does not apply. Some words could easily be scattered and gathered, and the Reformation Bible and the advent of printing were the major tool of God's gathering, fully refined and focused in the King James Bible.

That is not my understanding of Psalm 12 at all, nor was Psalm 12 the thought behind points F,G,H. 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. Given H is true, then the meaning of God's promise was not about a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant volume, but about something else
Actually in a sense you are right here, by the stopped-clock syndrome.

OK, still waiting for where you disagree with the list...

J. Given I and F are true, the meaning of God's promise in C was that "the word of God" existed and was preserved in what the Church did have during that time, namely a range of incomplete texts and imperfect volumes.
That was not the "meaning of the promise" that was the aspect of the promise that yearned to be fulfilled on a world-wide scale.

Item J does not deal with a future fulfillment, it is still looking only at the "stopped-clock" situation. It is simply saying that 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. 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.

K. Scripture does not change meaning
L. Even if scripture did change meaning, nobody on earth has the authority to dictate to the Church what these changes would be.
M. Given J, K, and L are true, what scriptures meant when a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible did not exist are what those scriptures mean today.
This is full muddle. All you are trying to say is that if there was no tangible full one-volume scripture available before the Reformation, the Reformation Bible could not then be pure and perfect. You would like to shorten the hand of God.

This is not shortening the hand of God, it affirms his power to work despite imperfection. Do you agree or disagree with the idea "scripture does not change meaning"?

N. Given M is true, "the word of God" (the existence of his pure preserved words) does not require a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible to exist
You have to be very specific here. Are you saying the "word of God" can be imperfect ? Errant ? Contradictory ? In the past you have taken that position, then you pulled back, now you are taking it again.

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. If you agree with A through M, yet you disagree with N, simply explain why A through M are true but N is false.

O. Given N is true, a Bible can have textual errors in it and still rightfully be called "the word of God"
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 ? Choose one.

P. Given O and K are true, it is unbiblical and unauthoritative to say that "the word of God" must exist as a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible
Let's get the language straight. Our assertion is that such a volume does exist today. Your assertion is that it cannot exist today.

...

You're getting side tracked. Stick to where you see the facts/logic of the list breaking down, so we can identify where/why our views diverge, and then it will be much easier to discuss your questions.

God bless,
Brian

[pbiwolski]

Ahhh, I had to do alot of swimming to get through this thread. It, as always, is alot of the "same old," but ya gotta do it - what's more important than the precious words of God?

Originally Posted by BrianT

For the umpteenth time, BY WHAT AUTHORITY can you make this claim? This is the fundamental problem with the KJV-only position, and the problem you are avoiding.

So to get to YOUR point.

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

You state that you understand and believe in the preservation of the word of God. You believe that the word of God is incorruptible (I Pet. 1:23) and, therefore, perfect. If I understand you, your issue is that this said word of God does not necessarily exist completely and erroneously within one binding. How'm I doin' so far?

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.