Search results

I have also listened to Bart debate, and read several of his books. Here's what I think of Bart in a nutshell -- Bart has heard the Truth. Perhaps, he is under conviction. He is doing great damage to the cause of Christ. But, Bart is a smart guy. He claims to have given up his Christianity...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=44651&highlight=goliath&page=7 See my Post #66

I am shocked that some one seemily interested in this subject could be so willing ignorant of the historical facts concerning development of the Bible, and then display it in public. What "scholars" do you think were determining the NT variants well before 1600? BTW, it was not Eramus' purpose...

That's not nonsense. Now, am I misquoting you or making my own statement?

I also lean toward the 'preservation of spoken words' view. The clues in the passage are the words "lips", "tongue", and "speak".

AF is factually correct, as usual.

For a moment I thought you were going to have to make a decision as to whether you would just continue believing what you had always believed, or actually consider the possibility you could have been wrong. (I guess that will never happen).

There is no evidence that Satan was attempting to quote God here. Satan was not adding or changing God's words; Satan was merely making his own statement.

And Trotter has revealed that you did NOT read his post carefully in its' context. You have proved your point! The heart of the problem is that people don't read for comprehension!

Let's just cut to the chase. You prayed and did research and concluded that the KJV was the only inerrent "word of God". If I can show you one error in the KJV then it would not be inerrent, would it? What manner of error would satisfy you? Would added words, missing words, mistranslated...

No, it seems for you that it comes down to mindset. You have no idea why a change was made in the KJV text; you don't seem to care at all whether the change was actually necessary for translational accuracy. You just simply have put your trust in the KJV. Oh, you have read a few books and...

It is ridiculous to state that "words have been added to the KJV". No words were ever added to the KJV. [Except for a few edits, such as "of God" at 1 John 5:12] What you probably meant was that through the process of translation words were added to the 'Bible text'. Almost every English...

Name one verse that specifically indicates God will preserve "scriptures" (written revelation); Nevermind, you can't (because there aren't any). You must project your presupposition on the text that when terms like "word", "precept", "judgements", "promises" etc. are used in a verse that it...

You don't have to agree, it is just a fact of translation (whether speaking of secular literature or sacred). Of course, a "glass of water" (short sentence) would be no problem. We have already established that Bible versions agree with one another in over 90% of the text. It is in a lengthy...

Neither the ASV nor the RSV are inerrent. They cannot be inerrent because they are translations (NOT because "they are not the same"). What "letter of the word" do you find "being important"? Which "words" do you feel have "definite meaning"? Certainly, you must not be speaking of any...

No, there is only one possibility: There are NO perfect and inerrant translations done by human beings. Translations of literature cannot be "perfect" (that is, correspondingly identical) since they are merely approximations of the original material represented in another language. The Holy...

'Progressive revelation' is recognized. Perhaps, you discribe a similar Sovereign activity we could call 'progressive transmission' (and then 'progressive translation' follows).

You admit that the original autographs, the collaborative work of God through men, do not "exist any more". Your statement does not seem to be a very positive endorsement that God has indeed preserved His written words.

Yes, inspired written revelation from God is inerrent. Since God is the Author, His work could not contain any error.

These two paragraphs are essentially true to the historic facts. Yes, the translation was "in response" to criticisms of some of the previous early English translations; but particularly of the Geneva Bible which was popular among English layfolk. James didn't actually participate in the...