[bibleprotector]

In response to BrianT.

I said that the KJB is right. It has "heaven" in Genesis 1:1. Therefore "heaven" is correct, because it is self-consistent, objectively true and true upon internal, external and holistic examination. The highest argument is the self-consistent one, which you deride as "circular reasoning". If the KJB is not self-authenticating, then the doctrine of KJBO would explode. But it doesn't.

I am not saying the KJV is in error here, I am challenging the idea that the NKJV must be in error for translating a plural as a plural.

If you challenge truth with something different, it must be an error. There are not two different truths. You are really saying that your present unauthoritative knowledge is that the Hebrew means "heavens". You seem pretty dogmatic for someone who does not claim authority.

As for you spending time bashing modern versions, you yourself started this entire discussion on Gen 1:1 by saying "The NKJV already messes up Genesis 1:1..."

That was one spark I made: "Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" (James 3:5).

I am certain that you are applying a false meaning to the Hebrew today that did not exist there in the distant past, not only in Genesis 1:1 (despite whether or not the "exact same Hebrew is translated as 'heavens' in dozens of places in the KJV"), but in regards to your view of every word... you judge the correctness or error of the KJB on a PRESENT KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCT which appeals to a hermetical "Hebrew" as a matter of course, and to various sources as convenient.

The ultimate reason why an anti-KJBO person cannot identify where the exact Word of God is perfectly present in a definitive form on Earth today, is because they believe that error is in power.

Yes, error is a power, and it is used of God (e.g. Joel 2:25) but there is a higher law. That is why the King James Bible is able to be supersuccessionary in history. This is because of God’s “goodwill”. His counsel, providence and superintendence is for the revelation of knowledge, not for the enthroning of mystery.

The Scripture says, "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was." (2 Tim. 3:8, 9).

Wow, that's a lot of comments, circular arguments and ad hominem to try to explain why a plural is in error, when it's also a plural in the Hebrew. I've made my points, I leave the dead horse beating to others.

for the readers, since we have many excellent threads about that distinction, grammar and exegesis, and with Matthew Henry and other good helps available for discussion, and hopefully more insight today, that will be planned to be continued on another thread dedicated to "faith of Christ".

Looking forward to it, Steve.

Originally Posted by BrianT

I do not pretend my view is authoritative. However, if using a plural is wrong, than scripture was broken for millennia, which I cannot accept. Also, it means the KJV is not a preservation of scripture, but a correction of scripture. The NKJV agrees with the Hebrew in this verse, and I cannot call it an error without saying scripture was always in error. If you can do that, that's your choice, but I don't see why my reluctance to say scripture was always in error until 1611 causes some here to oppose me, and take threads off topic just so they can be spiritually condescending, call me names and misrepresent my views.

God bless,
Brian

No one is misrepresenting your views.
Here is your EXACT QUOTE, word for word:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now"

There it is, like a dead blowfish on dock.

LOL, Brian, don't make me pin you to the wall again.
Here you are trying to "challenge" real Bible Believers about errors. Yet, because you do not accept the existence of an inerrant Bible, you have ALREADY STATED YOU THINK SCRIPTURE IS IN ERROR. We pulled the cover off your rusty wagon weeks ago, and the snake oil you are peddling is becoming an embarrassment to you, please stop.

Throughout this thread, you have been patiently shown the problems in the NKJV, I have put up many references myself. If you want it, it's yours, have at it. But please, play with it outside!

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I just want to point out to Will and Matthew and the readers that Brian really has taken two totally different stances at the same time. (A double minded man...). Note that my #147 awaits a response, which I wrote simply to help Brian out of the morass.

Brian is apparently clueless about the Hebrew grammatical forms and how they translate to English number, the cluelessness however did not prevent him from accusing the Bible of error.

Here are the statements where Brian very clearly defacto accused the King James Bible of error in Genesis 1:1. If these statements were true (they are not) then of course the King James Bible would be in error.

Originally Posted by BrianT Post #132

The Hebrew word is plural in this verse.

Originally Posted by BrianT Post #146

it is plural in Hebrew.

Both of these blunders await correction.

Brian does not understand the basics, the distinction between grammatical form and translation to the plural of number in the target language, English. In fact, even Bible beginners often know this from the many discussions of Elohim. And shamayim and mayim are similar words, grammatically, in Hebrew.

Worse, Brian compounded this with an insipid and ignorant analysis. (Yes, those are harsh words, not lightly used, however they are 100% accurate, I was quite surprised to see this from a Bible version writer.)

Originally Posted by BrianT Post #146

In Hebrew, the suffix "-im" (pronounced "eem") indicates a plural ending, as "-s" does for English. The singular form of this word (without the "-im" suffix) appears in verses that have both "heaven" and "heavens" in the same verse, such as Deut 10:14, 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chron 2:6, 2 Chron 6:18, and Neh 9:6.

This leads to post #147, awaiting Brian's response. Hopefully he will just chuck all these previous statements above as at least 'inoperative' and start fresh.

At the same time as these blunders and accusations, BrianT has taken a different tact. A vapid cover-attempt at "King James Bible textual accusation with a human face.." (think Prague spring.)

Originally Posted by BrianT Post #146

I am not arguing that the KJV is wrong ... I am not saying the KJV is in error here

Wow, thank you Brian . However, quite obviously, if any of the preceding statements above had been true, the King James Bible would be wrong. Even Brian should be able to see that.

If you give a deficient analysis that purports to show an error in the pure Bible, it is simply hypocritical and two-faced to then turn around and say you are not claiming any error.

And if you are right about a textual issue (e.g. when we accuse the Westcott-Hort text and the Critical Text of abject corruption in claiming that Mark did not include the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus Christ) especially to the point where you actually write on a public forum seeking to explain to others .. then you should definitely have the courage of your convictions and clearly state the error you are accusing. If I claimed that the Critical Text blunders in saying those 12 verses are not scripture and are only the tampering of man (and this I do) then I surely should have the courage to denounce the blunder of the Critical Text tampering. (Same with 1 Timothy 3:16, Acts 8:37, etc.) And not try to paper over my accurate analysis by saying .. "well I am not accusing the Critical Text of error".

Returning to Genesis 1:1.

The problem here is in the understanding of Brian about Hebrew and English and the Bible .. no more .. no less.

The far bigger problem is that Brian is willing to accuse the pure word of God simply based on his own blindness and ignorance.

And, underlying all of this (why go to such efforts to err ?) Brian's antipathy to God having made available to us, to every ploughman and even the seminarian, the scriptures, the Holy Bible, the tangible and pure and perfect word of God, the Authorised Version, the King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Bro. Parrish,

I don't know why you think you've uncovered some great secret (I have always been open about my views) and I don't know why you keep taking threads off topic to reiterate your opposition to me. I've already explained why I hold that view, so instead of sounding like a broken record player, start a new thread (as to stay on topic) to explain why I should accept a doctrine that is not taught in the Bible.

And try to keep the ad hominem to a minimum, as it's not exactly one of the fruit of the Spirit. All of my posts here have been on topic and free of ad hominem, and I don't know why you and so many others are free to bend the rules of this board as well as disobey clear scripture that talks of patience, peace, gentleness, etc. Do you really not see how this common attribute of KJV-only supporters not only contradicts the message of the Bible you're upholding, but also pushes away the very people you want to convince?

God bless,
Brian

Excellent work Steve,
now let's connect the dots so everyone can see the snake oil...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT Post #146
I am not arguing that the KJV is wrong ... I am not saying the KJV is in error here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now"

God is not the author of this confusion folks...

[George]

Aloha all,

Please compare:

BrianT states:

"I am not saying the KJV is in error here, I am challenging the idea that the NKJV must be in error for translating a plural as a plural."

Brother Will Kinney responds:

"The King James Bible is correct in saying In the beginning God created the heaven (singular) and the earth. The modern versions that say "heavens" are incorrect."
Will K

Now which of these men has a SOUND MIND? BrianT CANNOT have it BOTH WAYS! In the context it is either SINGULAR or it is PLURAL! It CANNOT BE BOTH! Could anything be more clear (to anybody in his "right mind")? If the King James Bible is NOT in error in Genesis 1:1 (as BrianT says: "I am not saying the KJV is in error here"), then the NKJV MUST BE IN ERROR!

I wrote in a previous Post (#135): "SO? Which is it? Which English "version" is RIGHT?" . . . . . . {For all of us genuine Bible believers} . . . . . "The King James BIBLE is RIGHT! Why? Because IT is our FINAL AUTHORITY in all matters of faith and practice."

For BrianT "They are ALL RIGHT" - even if they "disagree" with each other! (which is, under any circumstances, IMPOSSIBLE ) WHY? Because HE (BrianT) is the final arbiter of all Truth! He is his OWN Final Authority! And as such - it is FUTILE to try to convince him of anything! You could talk to a wall and get as much of a satisfactory response, as you will in dealing with a Sophist!

You have to ask yourself: WHY is this man here? {On a AV1611 Bible Forum}? WHAT is he trying to accomplish? And in the light of:

Romans 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.

Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

2 Corinthians 12:19 Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

WHY does he continue participating in a Forum (and amongst Bible believers) where almost all of his ideas (about "textual matters" i.e. the Holy words of God) are in direct opposition to the vast majority of the members of this Forum? Hmmm?

If you think that this endless "vain jangling" is of any benefit to the brethren (other than demonstrating how a Sophist thinks and operates) please show me (from the Holy Scriptures) why we should continue dealing with him.

If you think that anything that BrianT has to offer is edifying to any of us on this Forum please show me (from the Holy Scriptures) why we should continue to engage him in a "meaningful dialogue".

BrianT is not interested in edifying Christians - He is interested in endless arguments and debates; in demonstrating his "expertise" in textual matters and language skills; in showing off his ability to twist and contort words so in the end they have NO MEANING (other than that meaning he assigns to them - personally). 2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

There can be no more benefit (to genuine Bible believers) in dealing with this man. He has served his purpose (in demonstrating how sophists think and operate), if we will ignore him - he will soon go back to where he came from and take his DOUBTS with him!

Steve,

I recognize that sometimes a plural can be translated as a singular, and vice versa That is why I am not saying the KJV is wrong. I am simply challenging you to demonstrate that this must be one of those instances, without resorting to circular arguments and ad hominem, and considering the possibility that verse 1 may be an overview statement of what the first two chapters are about. That's all. Can you do that?

God bless,
Brian

Originally Posted by BrianT

Steve,

I recognize that sometimes a plural can be translated as a singular, and vice versa That is why I am not saying the KJV is wrong.

Nonsense, you ALREADY STATED you think the KJV is wrong, here it is again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now"

Am I getting through yet?

[MC1171611]

My question is how BrianT knows what the Fruit of the Spirit even is, since he has no authority besides his own opinion.

I know he hasn't technically broken any rules, but would a majority vote to ban him be sufficient?