1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Clint Kritzer, Sep 17, 2004.

  1. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Will,
    Your defence of the definition of the word "conversation" is pitiful and makes little sense. We can both play the same game. My scholars are better than your scholars. HaHa! The trouble with your reasoning is that you quote old English sources instead of sources from the Greek. English sources do not define Greek words. It just doesn't happen that way. I am not concerned with old English meanings. I am concerned with the proper meaning of one word. The meaning of the Greek word, "politeuman" used in Phil.3:20 erroneously translated "conversation. Consider:

    From Phil. 3:20 "conversation"
    politeuma politeuma pol-it'-yoo-mah
    from 4176; a community, i.e. (abstractly) citizenship (figuratively):--conversation.

    1 Tim.4:12
    anastrojh anastrophe an-as-trof-ay' from 390; behavior:--conversation.

    The word "anastrophe" is used 13 times and every time is translated "conversation," everytime.
    The word "politeumai" is used only once in the NT, and is translated "conversation." It has a different meaning as other translations show it does. The lexicons, Greek dictionaries, and commentaries show that the word has another meaning. It's primary meaning is citizenship. There is another word for "conversation," which was consistently used by the KJV translators, anastrophe. This word in Phil.3:20 is not anastrophe. The English reader would not know this. It is deliberate confusion, an error on the part of the KJV translators.

    Our citizenship (hmwn to politeuma). Old word from piliteuw (Phi_1:27), but only here in N.T. The inscriptions use it either for citizenship or for commonwealth. Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship and found it a protection. The Philippians were also proud of their Roman citizenship. But Christians are citizens of a kingdom not of this world (Joh_18:36). Milligan (Vocabulary) doubts if commentators are entitled to translate it here: "We are a colony of heaven," because such a translation reverses the relation between the colony and the mother city. But certainly here Paul's heart is in heaven.
    (Robertson's Word Studies)

    Phi 3:20 - Our conversation - The Greek word is of a very extenslve meaning: our citizenship, our thoughts, our affections, are already in heaven. (Wesley)

    Note I can use the same source (Wesley), by quoting the entire quote, and show how he believes that word means citizenship. Certainly it may have a variety of meaninngs. The primary meaning of the word is citizenship. The Greek has another word for conversation, which is not used here. The translators made a mistake, which you refuse to admit. I am certainly glad that we are able to check the meanings of words by the Hebrew and Greek where God has preserved his word. It is awfully embarassing to say that God's infallible Word is contained in a fallible translation such as the KJV. No translation is infallible. That is why we have the Greek and Hebrew to help us with the meanings of words and phrases, not just in the KJV, but in translations of the Bible in different languages all over this world.
    DHK
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,550
    Likes Received:
    15
    It is quite clear that what you have done is a case of copy and paste from somewhere else. Page 526 in Kittel’s is under the heading of ...in the OT. You should read a bit further under point 3. You should also read on page 535 where Kittel directly addresses the word used in Phil. 3:20. In point number 4 the author writes, “The Basileia twn ouranwn is the politeuma of Christians.” In that same paragraph he also writes, “The commonwealth to which Christians belong, their “homeland,” is in heaven.

    Then in Liddell & Scott 9th edition the word politeuma is not even listed. I loked at page 1434 wheer it should be listed and it was not even there.

    Louw and Nida write, “
    11.71: polivteuma, to" n : the place or location in which one has the right to be a citizen - `state, commonwealth, place of citizenship.' hJmw'n gaVr toV polivteuma ejn oujranoi'" uJpavrcei `our place of citizenship is in heaven' #Phil 3:20

    Do you really expect people to believe you when you do not even quote the source and especially lift it out of context to say something it does not.
     
  3. artbook1611

    artbook1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clint
    You use such language as charlatan, poor witness,strutting like a rooster,no honor,defeated champion etc.
    I think the truth lies in the fact that Will has done his homework on the version issue and is doing a commendable work and guys like you would like to silence him forever.
    This is not much different from the serpents wishes back in Gen 3. "Yea, Hath God said"?

    I am not a KJO because of Will or Ruckman, I come to this realization years before I ever heard of these men. I have read numerous articles by Will and have never ever found him to be rude or offensive unlike many on this baptist board.
    Your remarks to him are out of place and if this board has any scruples, they would edit your posts for personal attacks.
     
  4. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    See the post right above yours for just one example of Will's "homework".

    His articles? Maybe not. If you are making this claim for his posts, then you are very selective in your reading.

    This board does have scruples and allows a wide variety of views and opinions. I am merely holding Will accountable for his statements that can be proven false. He is breaking the 9th Commandment repeatedly and being called on it. Wouldn't you rather have an honest apologist championing your cause? (Though it is amusing to me that you put Ruckman and Will in the same category. Ruckman's the guy who claimed he found 200 "new" inspirations in the KJV that were not present in the Hebrew and Greek. His name makes most credible KJVOs cringe.)

    I have no intention of editing my post! Again, I will urge you to watch the thread and see what techniques he may use next to avoid answering the questions I posed. He won't answer gb's either, nor will he address Natters question of the KJV differing from the Hebrew texts and the Waldenese Bibles. Hey! Maybe if YOU asked him, Art! Nah, he still wouldn't answer. Why would one who holds the truth withhold answers? How can one who holds a truthful position be effectively refuted with no response? Why would one who stands on the truth corrupt or make up his sources? Why does Will never cite his sources?

    Throw your support behind the KJV, that all good and well. I know many strong, effective Christians who prefer it. Defend a position that is nonscriptural, you will be corrected but not chastised by me. We all have a right to be wrong. Lie and use unethical strategies in your debates, you will be called on it. Will has had two and one half weeks to show some credibility. He has not done so. To the contrary, he just keeps feeding himself more rope.
     
  5. artbook1611

    artbook1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    What??
    Just look at those pathetic rebuttals of Jason Gastrich. He too uses cheap shots and no matter "how many questions Will does answer", you guys just keep saying that he will not answer the questions and deny anything he says anyways. The fact is some of you guys have your mind made up and no amount of evidence will convince you. In this regard only, "the god of this world hath blinded your eyes".
    Instead of looking for a sharp rebuttal to Artbook, why don't you guys think about the damage you are doing to a new born baby christian.
    Do you tell them " well young christian , your KJ has errors in it and so do all the versions. You must learn greek and hebrew to find out the truth. But be careful , there are 1000's of manuscripts to study from and good luck finding the ones that are the most accurate."
    If I were that young man, I would say to myself "why bother, it will take me a lifetime to learn greek and hebrew".
    Meanwhile I had a post deleted on the debate page for personal attack. I said to Jason " you got some nerve"...
    And you have said 10 times worse things to Will and refuse to acknowledge it. What kind of christian are you anyway?
     
  6. Jason Gastrich

    Jason Gastrich New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think intends to silence anyone forever. This is awfully paranoid. On the contrary, non-KJV-Onlyists who are worth their salt are happy to have people like you and Will say anything and everything you want. It never makes your case any more believable or tenable. It's still an extreme minority viewpoint that strongly resembles the cults. The ungodly and unbiblical doctrine of KJV-Onlyism is its own worst enemy.

    I disagree. I support the moderators at this board and I think they are doing a fine job. Despite your complaints, they are letting you and your KJV-Onlyist group say anything you please. It seems that you are the only one trying to silence anyone as you critize Will and the other people posting on this board.

    Sincerely,
    Jason
     
  7. Jason Gastrich

    Jason Gastrich New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tsk, tsk. YOU were the one who was just complaining about someone personally attacking you. You should practice what you preach.

    I see you are following in the pattern of the cults; using the scriptures as weapons to hurt people who don't believe like you regarding non-essentials, in fact, trying to make them seem as essentials.

    We are far more concerned with the truth than with how people think or feel about it; despite their age. You should check your priorities.

    As far as I know, nobody has ever said this. This is a gross mis-characterization of the non-KJV-Onlyist inerrantist. There are only very small, inconsequential errors in the KJV. However, there are still errors.

    People can get saved by trusting the gospel message in any English translation. This isn't necessarily the position of many of the people in your camp, though.

    By the way you are talking, you wouldn't or couldn't lead the kid to Christ. You would be telling him what he wants to hear because that's what means the most to you.

    You should respect the moderators of this forum. They don't have to let you post here. Have you encouraged them, lately? If you hate them, then why are you here?

    This is a personal attack. Questioning someone's Christianity is rude and has nothing to do with KJV-Onlyism. If you want the moderators to let you stick around and post, I'd change my attitude if I were you. Plus, you should take this conversation regarding moderation to email. I doubt the owner of the Baptist Board appreciates you publicly questioning and criticizing the people who are volunteering their time as moderators.

    Sincerely,
    Jason
     
  8. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not Jason Gastrich. What exactly is your point?
    There is nothing damaging about the truth, at least not when it comes to recognizing that the KJV is merely a translation of the Scriptures, not the original. I would tell the new, baby Christian to put his faith in Christ, not in the ability of a team of 17th century scholars overseen by Anglican clergymen.
    I and others on these threads have repeatedly shown all the readers how to use commentaries, lexicons, and a variety of resources to discern the truth of God's word. You don't have to learn Greek or Hebrew, but to accept one source or translation as authoritative is folly.
    The debate thread is supposed to be for no other participants than Will and Jason. That is my guess as to why you were edited, though, granted, it is just a guess. I did not do the editing.
    No, I acknowledge what I have said to Will and have a clear conscience in doing so. Will needs correction on his false doctrine before he drags more people down the wrong path. I am a Christian prepared to defend the truth. Small errors or debatable matters in doctrine slide by me every day ususally with no involvement. Others can answer for me on those matters and, as I said, people have a right to be wrong. Will Kinney is supporting a false doctrine with falsehoods and teaching others to do the same. It does not seem possible that one can gather so many sources on the subject and still not recognize the error of their ways. By not answering our questions he has confirmed that he sees the truth, but refuses to utter it. This requires correction. Paul said so:

    1 Timothy 1
    3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
    4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
    5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
    6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
    7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
     
  9. artbook1611

    artbook1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    quote

    And you have said 10 times worse things to Will and refuse to acknowledge it. What kind of christian are you anyway?

    You call this a personal attack? Then what do you call Clints? I don't doubt Clints christianity at all,I assume he is a sinner saved by grace like you or I. But I am concerned how he can address a fellow believer in the way he has in an earlier post.
     
  10. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Art's comments do not offend me and, as far as I am concerned, he is completely free to express his opinion of me. Even if I disagree with what he has to say, I fully support his right to say it. I am glad he is still reading along.

    He recognizes that I have called Will to task and his comments merely allow me to further lay out my position. His posts are not a hindrance to me. To the contrary, they are a platform. When Will still won't answer the list of questions I posted, perhaps Art may reconsider his position about him.

    Yes, the time for subtlety is past. Two-score pages of grasping at straws and falsifying resources has driven us past that.

    Thanks for the thought, Jason, but I am made of sterner stuff than that.
     
  11. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    I see you are following in the pattern of the cults; using the scriptures as weapons to hurt people who don't believe like you regarding non-essentials, in fact, trying to make them seem as essentials.

    --------------------------------------------------


    Jason,

    If this is true, then why then did you do this very same thing in your round 7? Were you trying to hurt others? I think that you indeed were, but your accusation of art is false. As you called me, and many others cultists, foolish, uneducated, blind faith, etc. All these names however, are very untrue and quite slandering. How is it Jason, that you think you are serving others? How is it that your last round was edifying and glorifying our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? I find that your last round has proved how very wrong you are, and how much you boast and brag about yourself and how much you have placed the wisdom of your own mind above that of faith, and hopefully the faith of many other christians will not have been affected by your false claims.


    1 Cor. 1

    10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
    11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
    12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
    13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
    14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
    15. Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
    16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
    17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
    18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
    19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
    21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
    22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
    23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
    24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
    25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
    26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
    27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
    28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
    29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.
    30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
    31. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  12. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi gb, you write: "It is quite clear that what you have done is a case of copy and paste from somewhere else. Page 526 in Kittel’s is under the heading of ...in the OT. You should read a bit further under point 3. You should also read on page 535 where Kittel directly addresses the word used in Phil. 3:20. In point number 4 the author writes, “The Basileia twn ouranwn is the politeuma of Christians.” In that same paragraph he also writes, “The commonwealth to which Christians belong, their “homeland,” is in heaven. "

    gb, you are correct about Liddell and Scott adressing the noun in Phil. 3:20. What I was pointing out is that the lexicons give several meanings of the VERB from which this noun comes. As you pointed out, his examples in the O.T. have to do with the "walk" rather than the "citizenship".

    The point being that the verb of this noun is used twice in the N.T. and both times it refers to ones life or behaviour, not to one's citizenship. Liddell and Scott also give the definitions of this verb as "to deal with (in private affairs) and "to behave" and they list Phil 1:27 as the reference.


    My point is the word has several meanings and one of them is clearly "conversation" in the old sense of "manner of living" or "behaviour".

    The KJB translators and others saw it one way and most modern versions see it another. I was providing the information that supports the KJB reading. I'm not writing a Doctorate thesis; I'm just showing why the KJB translated it the way they did. There is good reason for it.

    Will K

    Will K
     
  13. New In Christ

    New In Christ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, as I was doing my Bible reading yesterday, I came across the following:

    2Ti 3:14 But you keep on in what you learned and were assured of, knowing from whom you learned,

    2Ti 3:15 and that from a babe you know the Holy Scriptures, those being able to make you wise to salvation through belief in Christ Jesus. (LITV)

    (I actually read it in the KJV, but figured I'd post it in the LITV).

    What were these "holy scriptures"? Presumably, they weren't the original Old Testament autographs. Were they copies...translations? What had Timothy learned from that Paul was confident enough to refer to as the "holy scriptures"? Obviously, Timothy was studying and learning something.

    All this talk about errors in the translations is interesting and I'm glad to read the thoughts, but it seems to me that, at some level, the talk has to progress to highlighting the degree to which we are able to place our confidence in the Bible as Scripture. Like I said at the outset of my post, Timothy, most likely did not have the original manuscripts. He may have even been using a Greek translation of the Scriptures (correct?). Even so, Paul seemed confident enough in the scriptural authenticity of whatever Timothy had been exposed to to simply call it "Scripture"

    I know I sound like I'm trying to make a KJVO point here, so I figured I'd use the LITV to show I'm not pushing KJVO, per se. But, at some point, it seems we have to see a translation as scripture. While not evaluating his arguments themselves, to me, Will's most compelling point is to stress that the KJVO's, at least, have a book that they can point to as being God's Word, without qualifications.
     
  14. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    But, at some point, it seems we have to see a translation as scripture. While not evaluating his arguments themselves, to me, Will's most compelling point is to stress that the KJVO's, at least, have a book that they can point to as being God's Word, without qualifications.
    --------------------------------------------------


    Yes, and Baptists of the past also believed this, so this is not something foriegn, new, nor of false doctrine as many falsely claim:

    http://www.pb.org/articles/mcfaith.html

    http://www.pb.org/articles/lcf1689.htm#Chapter%20

    http://www.ancbt.org/Beliefs/articles.pdf

    http://carmichael/baptist.org/Articles%20of%20Faith/pcof1.htm

    http://www.nationalbaptist.com/images/documents/z6.pdf


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  15. Jason Gastrich

    Jason Gastrich New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you care to quote from the pages below? I just visited all of them and none of them mention the KJV or its inerrancy.

    No mention of the KJV.

    This page didn't even work.

    There is no mention of the KJV.

    This page didn't even work.

    This page didn't even work.

    Did you just copy and paste these pages from some web site? Half of them don't work and the others don't even mention the KJV.

    Sincerely,
    Jason
     
  16. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    That is where you are wrong. There was no good reason for it. There was every reason for them not to translate the word conversation. They erred in not doing so. You are persisting in defending a mistake, and for what reason may I ask--your own ego perhaps? Pride is a terrible thing. To admit, to say, "I have made a mistake," is very humbling. But that is what the KJV translators did, not once, but many times. Yet you blindly follow this cultish attitude that everything in this translation must be perfect and infallible, inspite of the fact that it is a translation, translated by sinful men. The Greek word does not mean conversation; it means citizenship. That is its primary meaning. Anastrophe is the word commonly translated as conversation.
    DHK
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,550
    Likes Received:
    15
    I have no idea where you got such an idea about Liddell Scott. The same word nor its root is listed. And I have the large ninth edition.

    Most every word has several meanings. Just as the word bat does. But context will tell you what it often means. At other times how it was used in that day will also lend other clues to its meaning. For example today if we were to run over a cat or dog with a car and it was killed, we would not say it was murdered. If a person died we might say he passed away. Certainly we would not say murdered unless it was killing with mal intent.

    My point was that you cannot proof text and use someone else as a source unless you quote them in context. You did not quote Kittel in context.

    If you have talked with any JW's you will notice they do that all the time. They are quilty of quoting A.T. Robertson all the time out of context. In fact if one reads what he actually writes it very much disproves their assertions.

    I get the impression you are trying to go into something you know nothing about. From what I see you know just enough to be dangerous and sound good to those who know nothing. you know just enough Greek to not really know.

    Just as when I take my car to the expert because I don't know how to fix something so should you do the same thing with Greek until you do some more studying.
     
  18. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A fair question deserving a fair answer.

    I answered Steaver about the same issue on the first thread: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2767/11.html?#000159

    it continued here:
    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2767/12.html?#000177

    I will add to those posts an analogy. If I were to ask you for a "dollar," and you were willing to give it to me, you would probably hand me a one dollar bill, or four quarters, or ten dimes, etc., etc. We would both recognize these as a "dollar." However, we both know that none of those representations are actually a "dollar." They are representations of that amount of currency. Until the 70s, the standard in the US was gold. When you handed me a dollar "bill", it was a promisary note for that amount of gold. The only difference between a one dollar bill and a twenty dollar bill is the artwork and the intent behind the note.

    When we refer to the "Scriptures," we are usually referring to a representation of the originals, a faithful promise of what they are. The true Scriptures are the originals.

    Yes, if you are using a faithful translation, you can be confident that you are reading a good likeness of the originals. Study is important for discerning the finer points.

    To the contrary, I think you have made a very valid point towards a multitude of translations.

    The KJV translators made the same point:

    Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

    http://www.bibleword.org/kjvlet2.html
    First sentence under the Heading: AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES

    Yes, the KJV is the word of God. Tyndale's version is the word of God. Wycliffe's translation is the word of God. The NIV is the word of God. The HCSB is the word of God. The LITV is the word of God. etc., etc., etc.

    [ September 22, 2004, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]
     
  19. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Quite right, Michelle! Let's look at one of the working links you posted:

    From page 2 of that source:

    Article One:Of The Scriptures
    We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired;that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter;and therefore is,and shall remain to the end of the age,the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct,creeds,and opinions should be tried.

    1.By “The Holy Bible ” we mean that collection of sixty--six books,from Genesis to Revelation,which, as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God,but IS the very Word of God.

    2.By “inspiration ” we mean that the books of the Bible were written by holy men of old,,as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,in such a definite way that their writings were supernaturally and verbally inspired and free from error,as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired.

    Psalm 19:7-11;119:89,105,130,160;Proverbs 30:5-6;Isaiah 8:20;Luke 16:31;24:25-27,44-45;John
    5:39,45-47;12:48;17:17;Acts 1:16;28:25;Romans 3:4;15:4;Ephesians 6:17;2 Timothy 3:16-17;1
    Peter 1:23;2 Peter 1:19-21;Revelation 22:19
     
  20. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry for the delay in posting this. The list is quite abundant on the web:

    source 1
    source 2
    source 3
     
Loading...