Is this common sense?

[Logos1560]

After quoting John 6:63, Mike Holloway wrote: “The Word of God, the Bible, is alive because God’s Word is also the Holy Spirit” (Common Sense and the King James Bible, p. 122). Mike Holloway wrote: “The KJV is God’s divine seed, because it is the Word of God. It is not a tool of the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit in printed form” (pp. 122-123). Mike Holloway asserted: “The Holy Spirit IS God’s Word” (p. 123).

Concerning the KJV, Mike Holloway asserted: “If it is not perfect, but only a faithful translation, then God did not preserve His Word because His Word is perfect” (Common Sense, p. 81). Mike Holloway claimed: “The King James Bible cannot be any less accurate or less perfect than the original manuscripts, or else it is no longer the Word of God, because it would then be less than perfect. It is either EQUAL, or it has not been divinely preserved as God has promised which means every word is inspired” (p. 60).

Perhaps Mike Holloway forsook common sense when he in effect suggested that God did not preserve His Word in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and that the pre-1611 English Bibles were not the word of God. Is Mike Holloway in effect suggesting that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles which are not the word of God if they were not perfect?

 

[JD731]

After quoting John 6:63, Mike Holloway wrote: “The Word of God, the Bible, is alive because God’s Word is also the Holy Spirit” (Common Sense and the King James Bible, p. 122). Mike Holloway wrote: “The KJV is God’s divine seed, because it is the Word of God. It is not a tool of the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit in printed form” (pp. 122-123). Mike Holloway asserted: “The Holy Spirit IS God’s Word” (p. 123).

Concerning the KJV, Mike Holloway asserted: “If it is not perfect, but only a faithful translation, then God did not preserve His Word because His Word is perfect” (Common Sense, p. 81). Mike Holloway claimed: “The King James Bible cannot be any less accurate or less perfect than the original manuscripts, or else it is no longer the Word of God, because it would then be less than perfect. It is either EQUAL, or it has not been divinely preserved as God has promised which means every word is inspired” (p. 60).

Perhaps Mike Holloway forsook common sense when he in effect suggested that God did not preserve His Word in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and that the pre-1611 English Bibles were not the word of God. Is Mike Holloway in effect suggesting that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles which are not the word of God if they were not perfect?

Logos, I don't think you understand the word of God and how precise it is and I do not think you understand why Jesus is called in the NT, the WORD. In the same context he then says the WORD was made flesh. Which of these descriptions do not fit the Lord Jesus, the flesh or the WORD, in your opinion?

You are even calling yourself the word.

 

[Logos1560]

Logos, I don't think you understand the word of God and how precise it is and I do not think you understand why Jesus is called in the NT, the WORD. In the same context he then says the WORD was made flesh. Which of these descriptions do not fit the Lord Jesus, the flesh or the WORD, in your opinion?

You fail to demonstrate that I do not understand the word of God and how precise it is.

Are you suggesting that you agree with Mike Holloway's assertions?

The same word can be used with different meanings such as Word referring to the Lord Jesus Christ and word referring to Scripture. The Scriptures do not teach that the written word of God is the Holy Spirit or that the Holy Spirit is God's word [referring to written Scripture] as Mike Holloway claimed.

Logos1560 refers to the written 1560 Geneva Bible.

 

[Logos1560]

Which of these descriptions do not fit the Lord Jesus,

Mike Holloway wrote: “The KJV is God’s divine seed, because it is the Word of God. It is not a tool of the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit in printed form” (Common Sense and the King James Bible, pp. 122-123).

It is clear that Mike Holloway claimed that "it [the KJV] is the Holy Spirit in printed form" so do you agree with his assertion?

 

[JD731]

You fail to demonstrate that I do not understand the word of God and how precise it is.

Are you suggesting that you agree with Mike Holloway's assertions?

The same word can be used with different meanings such as Word referring to the Lord Jesus Christ and word referring to Scripture. The Scriptures do not teach that the written word of God is the Holy Spirit or that the Holy Spirit is God's word [referring to written Scripture] as Mike Holloway claimed.

Logos1560 refers to the written 1560 Geneva Bible.

I do not know Mike but I do not agree with him in the context you have posted. Maybe there is a larger context.

The WORD is set forth in the Godhead as a person in John 1. Why is it so hard for you to believe that be is still the word on earth. Isn’t that the point?

 

[JesusFan]

Logos, I don't think you understand the word of God and how precise it is and I do not think you understand why Jesus is called in the NT, the WORD. In the same context he then says the WORD was made flesh. Which of these descriptions do not fit the Lord Jesus, the flesh or the WORD, in your opinion?

You are even calling yourself the word.

The bible is NOT the Holy Spirit, and inspiration to provide for perfection and inerrancy ONLY applied towards the originals

 

[JesusFan]

You fail to demonstrate that I do not understand the word of God and how precise it is.

Are you suggesting that you agree with Mike Holloway's assertions?

The same word can be used with different meanings such as Word referring to the Lord Jesus Christ and word referring to Scripture. The Scriptures do not teach that the written word of God is the Holy Spirit or that the Holy Spirit is God's word [referring to written Scripture] as Mike Holloway claimed.

Logos1560 refers to the written 1560 Geneva Bible.

To claim ANY translation is the Holy Spirit is blasphemy, as no created thing can ever compare and be equal to the Creator

 

[JesusFan]

I do not know Mike but I do not agree with him in the context you have posted. Maybe there is a larger context.

The WORD is set forth in the Godhead as a person in John 1. Why is it so hard for you to believe that be is still the word on earth. Isn’t that the point?

Jesus is NOT the bible, nor is the Holy Spirit

 

[JesusFan]

Mike Holloway wrote: “The KJV is God’s divine seed, because it is the Word of God. It is not a tool of the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit in printed form” (Common Sense and the King James Bible, pp. 122-123).

It is clear that Mike Holloway claimed that "it [the KJV] is the Holy Spirit in printed form" so do you agree with his assertion?

He is dead wrong, as the Holy Spirit authored thru those men the word of God, but that would not be God Himself

 

[John of Japan]

After quoting John 6:63, Mike Holloway wrote: “The Word of God, the Bible, is alive because God’s Word is also the Holy Spirit” (Common Sense and the King James Bible, p. 122). Mike Holloway wrote: “The KJV is God’s divine seed, because it is the Word of God. It is not a tool of the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit in printed form” (pp. 122-123). Mike Holloway asserted: “The Holy Spirit IS God’s Word” (p. 123).

Concerning the KJV, Mike Holloway asserted: “If it is not perfect, but only a faithful translation, then God did not preserve His Word because His Word is perfect” (Common Sense, p. 81). Mike Holloway claimed: “The King James Bible cannot be any less accurate or less perfect than the original manuscripts, or else it is no longer the Word of God, because it would then be less than perfect. It is either EQUAL, or it has not been divinely preserved as God has promised which means every word is inspired” (p. 60).

Perhaps Mike Holloway forsook common sense when he in effect suggested that God did not preserve His Word in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and that the pre-1611 English Bibles were not the word of God. Is Mike Holloway in effect suggesting that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles which are not the word of God if they were not perfect?

Not only did he forsake common sense, he wrote heresy--the idea that the KJV is the Holy Spirit. Absolutely awful doctrine, contra the Bible which says that Jesus is the living Word.

 

[JD731]

The bible is NOT the Holy Spirit, and inspiration to provide for perfection and inerrancy ONLY applied towards the originals

Just out of curiosity, Fan, why are you telling me this?

 

[Logos1560]

Mike Holloway claimed: “If a Bible has but one mistake in it, it cannot be the Bible” (Common Sense and the King James Bible, p. 110).

Mike Holloway asserted: “If a Bible contains a single error, it is not a Bible and should be discarded forever” (p. 97).

 

[JesusFan]

Just out of curiosity, Fan, why are you telling me this?

You seem to be agreeing with that person who equated Holy Spirit is the bible

 

[JesusFan]

Not only did he forsake common sense, he wrote heresy--the idea that the KJV is the Holy Spirit. Absolutely awful doctrine, contra the Bible which says that Jesus is the living Word.

No bible translation would be perfect, but all 3 Persons of the trinity certainly are perfect

 

[JesusFan]

Mike Holloway claimed: “If a Bible has but one mistake in it, it cannot be the Bible” (Common Sense and the King James Bible, p. 110).

Mike Holloway asserted: “If a Bible contains a single error, it is not a Bible and should be discarded forever” (p. 97).

He would by his own logic have to throw away then the Kjv