Are the preservation verses clear?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by av1611jim:
Why? Oh why must you folks constantly attack the validity of God's pure words? I ask a simple question? How can one set of words IN ENGLISH be God's pure words and another set of opposite words IN ENGLISH also be His pure words?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who has attacked the validity of God's pure words?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has God's exact words been preserved? Yes. Are they in English? Yes, and in Spanish and in Danish and in Russian, and in Greek and in Ethiopian, etc. The fact that Russian is different than English doesn't mean a thing to the God Who has GIVEN us language in the first place. ( See Genesis 11) The words in English may be different than the words in Russian, BUT they are still the words of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you now admit that different sets of words can still be the same word of God. This is what we have always said and it is what the biblical doctrine of inspiration supports.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you who would now ask," Where does it say that in the Bible?"...I reply, don't be obtuse. You KNOW it is not there per se, but you also KNOW it is there IN PRINCIPLE,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you now admit that your doctrine is not found in the Bible, but rather has been added to the Bible. That is why we disagree with you. For those of us who hold only to the Bible as our final authority, we cannot tolerate the addition of doctrine.

Pastor Larry:
How very dishonest of you. You have taken each of my comments out of context and replied to them in such a way as to make your comments SEEM truthful.
It is obvious to anyone who can read that you either chose not to reply to the point of each comment or that you rather chose to ignore the point. For example, your comment that I admit that a different set of words can still be God's word, completely ignores the point I was making that the different LANGUAGES will have different words for the same thing but in ENGLISH those words which are opposite of each other CANNOT BOTH be God's word. Of course I do not expect you to see the difference. You are sold on the idea that as language changes we NEED God's words to change with it. But by making such an assertion you ignore my point that it is utterly dishonest to think or propose that our English language has changed so much in this century as to NEED revising and updating every TEN years. And I assure you I am being gracious with my estimate of ten years. These last 25 years has seen such a rapid influx of NEW AND IMPROVED Bibles that one's head is set to spinning. Again you ignored my other comment. Do you honestly, with a straight face expect me to believe the English language has changed THAT much?
And I have one more question for you. WHICH Bible is God's word? Perfectly preserved and infallible? Which one? Which one of the over 200 since 1881? (By the way, you know perfectly well why I chose 1881) You say there are none that are perfectly preserved? Then tell me sir; How do you KNOW you are saved? I know I'm saved because the OKJB TELLS me so and it is written by my God who cannot lie nor allow His words to be lost. Tell me, you say the Bible is the final rule of faith and practice? Which one? Do you stand on ANY Bible at all? ( He who will not stand for something will fall for anything.) For goodness sake sir, at least show some integrity and STAND on one! I will not fault you for making a choice. But do not expect me to find any validity in your claim, "thus saith the Word of God" if you cannot or will not show me WHICH one it is!
And by the way, please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say the doctrine was ADDED to the Bible. I said it was there IN PRINCIPLE. The same way as ABORTION is not addressed specifically but is there in principle. Are you not able to see the difference? Forgive me if this sounds like a personal attack. No doubt some will assume it is such. I assure you it is not. All I want is some integrity from BOTH sides of this issue. Misquotes and innuendos are not it.
I will hold my OKJB up in the air and say," This IS God's pure words." Can you do the same with your Bible? Will you? If not, then how do you expect some lost sinner to listen to you when you say, "You must be born again."?
It is sad that the fellow soldiers in the foxhole are aiming their "Swords" at each other and saying in effect," MY sword is real but yours is not". Shame. Why not rather say,"I believe my Sword is given to me from God Himself and I will use it for His Glory." God don't make no junk as it is said. So sir; STAND on something. And I must add, don't even play the Greek and Hebrew card in this deal. We are talking English. And I assume you are PREACHING to English speaking folks are you not?
AV1611Jim

 

tryhard;
2TIM3:16,17 -i guess whatever translation you read this in; it pretty well says
GOD said it & i believe that!

 

CC you are funny. Perhaps your moniker should be "Cristian Comic"?
AV1611Jim

 

well???? i guess i just believe god when he says things like his word will not return void;people say the bible is a living thing (excuse thing lack of brains this am.) soooo...
ck.this out jn.1:1; 1cor.13:10-11; isa.60:19 jer.31:34 hab.2:14 hope this helps. bill

 

I think I took your comments for what they said. Perhaps you meant something different than the words you chose communicated. If you meant something different, than I apologize. I did not choose to ignore anything. The vast majority of your post centered around the comments I made.

As every generation of believers in church history has. The English language is significantly different in meaning and structure. Anyone who can read knows that. I am not justifying all the new translations. Many of them are bad and many are unnecessary. However, I believe that the language of the KJV is not the language that we speak today. I believe God wants his word in the language that people speak. Therefore, I use a translation that is in the language that I speak and the language that my congregation and neighbhorhood speaks.

Any translation that accurately translates the original language texts is the infallible word of God. That has been the orthodox position of bibliology for 2000 years of church history. It is only in the last 40 years or so that this new doctrine has arisen. The position I hold is the one that the KJV translators held. It is in fact what gave the KJV translators liberty to make a new translation.

As does the NASB, the NIV, the NKJV, and a host of other good translations. The message of salvation is found in any faithful translation.

[/qb}Yes. I stand on the Bible as God delivered it and as translators through church history have translated it. This is really a straw man. Any faithful translation is the word of God, just as the KJV translators said. You fail to understand the reality of the issues involved in this discussion.

You admitted there is no verse that identifies the KJV version as the word of God. In fact, every verse that you use to support your position is in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc. It in reality supports my position not yours. As for abortion, I believe the Bible does directly address it. It says, You shall not murder. That is not "in principle;" that is direct. I can see the difference. I am not sure that you have wrestled through the issues here.

Absolutely without question.

I have not said your sword is not real. To the contrary, I have affirmed that the KJV is indeed the word of God. It is you who are indicted by your own statement. It is you who has turned to a fellow soldier and said his sword is not real. It is you who has maligned the word of God. It is a shame. But don't blame me for it.