Archangel7
New Member
Then please show me the original source text and I will correct myself. </font>[/QUOTE]The original source text for this verse (2 Tim. 2:15) can be found in *any* Greek NT, since *all* of them are 100% in agreement.
-
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!
Did God Die In 1611?
- Thread starter Craigbythesea
- Start date
So you are saying that the copies are NOT the word of God? And, since the originals are gone, we no longer have the word of God? </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for answering my question...
Nope.Well, I was responding to what AA actually SAID rather than what you mis-characterized him as having said.
I see. So you redefined "rooted in" to fit your argument rather than using it in the context AA was using it?</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. I simply accepted the definition. The root is the source. If you want to include all of the areas that the scriptures were copied to early on then that would absolutely include the areas that he claims are biblically unqualified for being associated with faithful Bible preservation.
"Later" being the operative term that undermines your whole premise in these messages.
The letters were first sent to those to whom they were addressed. Shortly after, they were shared with churches around the Roman Empire, all along the Med. trade routes.
The English word "study" is one of those words in the KJV that now has a very different meaning. The word "study" as used in the KJV in 2 Timothy 2:15 then meant to "be diligent." Paul is not telling Timothy to study the Bible; he is telling him to be diligent in his Christian walk, displaying conduct showing that he is approved by God, rightly dividing the word of truth. (Even a quick glance at the Greek text will show this to be so.) </font>[/QUOTE]Now this is a prime example of why the modern versions are not the complete word of God. The passage is talking about the word of God, hint the last four words, "the word of truth." There are divisions in the word of God that you must study to be "diligent" in your Christian walk to be approved unto God.
Throw away those modern books and pick up the word of God, the King James Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, Craig is correct. The Greek verb in 2 Tim. 3:15 is spoudazw, which according to the BDAG lexicon means (1) "to proceed quickly, hurry, hasten;" (2) "to speed up a process, expedite;" (3) "to be especially conscientious in discharging an obligation, be zealous/eager, take pains, make every effort, be conscientious." It's the same verb used in 2 Tim. 4:9, which the KJV translates as "Do thy *diligence* to come shortly unto me;" and in 2 Tim. 4:21, which the KJV translates as "Do thy *diligence* to come before winter."
So pick up your King James Version if you must, but remember that it's a *translation* of a Greek source text, and as a translation must always submit to the final authority of that original source text. </font>[/QUOTE]Click here: the LINK
skanwmatos
New Member
LOL!
According to your "logic" the man was not John Doe until later. LOL! ROFLOL!
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Askjo,
I read the article that you posted the link to about 2 Tim. 2:15. According to the article, the translation “be diligent” more accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek word being translated. However, the Greek word DOES NOT MEAN to be "diligent in studying the Bible." To say that is to add to what the Bible actually says.
By the way, have you ever used the BAGD lexicon?
I read the article that you posted the link to about 2 Tim. 2:15. According to the article, the translation “be diligent” more accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek word being translated. However, the Greek word DOES NOT MEAN to be "diligent in studying the Bible." To say that is to add to what the Bible actually says.
By the way, have you ever used the BAGD lexicon?
Questions for the KJVOs: why the KJV (any date)in particular? Why not the Geneva Bible, Tyndale, Darby or Schofield reference? How did you arrive at your decision? Were you brought up that way, persuaded into that view by someone else, or undergo a revelatory Damascene conversion on the point?
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
RaptureReady
New Member
I do not have the knowledge to prove this the way you are looking for, nor do YOU have the ability to prove me wrong.
I believe by faith that what I have today is God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God. The Holy Spirit will bear witness to the truth and he has in my life.
DO YOU believe in a inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God?
RaptureReady
New Member
N
However, it's also used in the AV elsewhere, endeavour 3, do diligence 2, be diligent 2, give diligence 1, be forward 1, labour 1, study 1. With this said, it looks like it could be either study, diligent, or any of the other words above. But, my God decided to use study and that is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God that I believe to be true. Oh, it also makes better since.
Then please show me the original source text and I will correct myself. </font>[/QUOTE]The original source text for this verse (2 Tim. 2:15) can be found in *any* Greek NT, since *all* of them are 100% in agreement. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, I looked at a strong's concordance with greek and hebrew lexicon, the word is question is spoudazo {spoo-dad'-zo}(4704) which means, to hasten, make haste, to exert one's self, endeavour, give diligence, so I stand corrected.
However, it's also used in the AV elsewhere, endeavour 3, do diligence 2, be diligent 2, give diligence 1, be forward 1, labour 1, study 1. With this said, it looks like it could be either study, diligent, or any of the other words above. But, my God decided to use study and that is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God that I believe to be true. Oh, it also makes better since.
DO YOU believe in a inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God?
Yes I do. I believe he NASB is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of the Most High in that it is a translation just like the 1611 KJV, etc... The message contained in the NASB is perfect just like the KJV, Geneva, etc.... the text of the NASB may have an error just like the KJV has textual errors.
Next trick question? If not then let's get back to the issues at hand!
I do not have the knowledge to prove this the way you are looking for, nor do YOU have the ability to prove me wrong.
I'm not required to prove you wrong. You do a good job of that yourself. You have no proof outside of the faith based claims that many in error use as a crutch. I have history on my side, the faithful translations of the scriptures, the AV1611 translators, etc... agree with my position on the bible version issue.
If you do not have the knowledge or scripture to prove your myth then you might want to dig a little deeper into it. You will discover, as I did when I was a KJVO, that you are standing on a man made doctrine that has no scripture to support it.
The AV1611 reprint proves your position wrong. To jusify your position then the AV is in error therefore God goofed in 1611(by the way it was man who goofed in 1611, etc...). Until you provide proof as to why the 1769 is perfect and the 1611 is in error then you my friend are a bible corrector. Why did I call you a bible corrector? Well, if the AV is perfect then why did it go through a revision? All this KJVO spin about no proven error is blown away by the AV1611 in that they:the KJVO making this claim, uses a revised KJV!
You say that the KJV is without error, but many of us have shown you that the KJV family disagrees within itself. You have yet to prove your position outside of the faith based reasonings that every Mormon missionary gives me when I discuss Mormonism. Without proof your stance is just a preference that is based upon a myth started by a SDA.
How many times are you proven wrong before you admit that you are wrong? Personally I think that you are a waste of time in that you refuse to accept the truth about the bible version issue.
Yes I do. I believe he NASB is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of the Most High in that it is a translation just like the 1611 KJV, etc... The message contained in the NASB is perfect just like the KJV, Geneva, etc.... the text of the NASB may have an error just like the KJV has textual errors.
Next trick question? If not then let's get back to the issues at hand!
I do not have the knowledge to prove this the way you are looking for, nor do YOU have the ability to prove me wrong.
I'm not required to prove you wrong. You do a good job of that yourself. You have no proof outside of the faith based claims that many in error use as a crutch. I have history on my side, the faithful translations of the scriptures, the AV1611 translators, etc... agree with my position on the bible version issue.
If you do not have the knowledge or scripture to prove your myth then you might want to dig a little deeper into it. You will discover, as I did when I was a KJVO, that you are standing on a man made doctrine that has no scripture to support it.
The AV1611 reprint proves your position wrong. To jusify your position then the AV is in error therefore God goofed in 1611(by the way it was man who goofed in 1611, etc...). Until you provide proof as to why the 1769 is perfect and the 1611 is in error then you my friend are a bible corrector. Why did I call you a bible corrector? Well, if the AV is perfect then why did it go through a revision? All this KJVO spin about no proven error is blown away by the AV1611 in that they:the KJVO making this claim, uses a revised KJV!
You say that the KJV is without error, but many of us have shown you that the KJV family disagrees within itself. You have yet to prove your position outside of the faith based reasonings that every Mormon missionary gives me when I discuss Mormonism. Without proof your stance is just a preference that is based upon a myth started by a SDA.
How many times are you proven wrong before you admit that you are wrong? Personally I think that you are a waste of time in that you refuse to accept the truth about the bible version issue.
Homebound:Okay, I looked at a strong's concordance with greek and hebrew lexicon, the word is question is spoudazo {spoo-dad'-zo}(4704) which means, to hasten, make haste, to exert one's self, endeavour, give diligence, so I stand corrected.
You're making progress.
However, it's also used in the AV elsewhere, endeavour 3, do diligence 2, be diligent 2, give diligence 1, be forward 1, labour 1, study 1. With this said, it looks like it could be either study, diligent, or any of the other words above.
Long as it is within the real definitions.
But, my God decided to use study and that is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God that I believe to be true. Oh, it also makes better since.
Actually, the AV TRANSLATORS were the ones who decided to use 'study'. YOUR claim could be construed as part of the bogus "re-inspiration" theory.
You're making progress.
However, it's also used in the AV elsewhere, endeavour 3, do diligence 2, be diligent 2, give diligence 1, be forward 1, labour 1, study 1. With this said, it looks like it could be either study, diligent, or any of the other words above.
Long as it is within the real definitions.
But, my God decided to use study and that is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God that I believe to be true. Oh, it also makes better since.
Actually, the AV TRANSLATORS were the ones who decided to use 'study'. YOUR claim could be construed as part of the bogus "re-inspiration" theory.
RaptureReady
New Member
David J, you may want to go here http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1667/3.html and see what the men who wrote that book you have has to say about God's word. You may be surprised, I'm not.
Also, no one has proved me wrong about the King James Bible being the inpsired, infallible, inerrant word of God. How do I know this, because the originals are not around to be 100% sure, therefore, you cannot refer back to them.
In closing, I believe it by faith brother.
Also, no one has proved me wrong about the King James Bible being the inpsired, infallible, inerrant word of God. How do I know this, because the originals are not around to be 100% sure, therefore, you cannot refer back to them.
In closing, I believe it by faith brother.
Homebound:I do not have the knowledge to prove this the way you are looking for, nor do YOU have the ability to prove me wrong.
Why not? We all have the AV 1611 and other KJV editions available. Both premises are easily provable if you wish to do it.
I believe by faith that what I have today is God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God. The Holy Spirit will bear witness to the truth and he has in my life.
Faith in WHAT or WHOM? While not questioning your faith in JESUS, your faith that the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV is based upon nothing, and the KJV does NOT sanction BLIND faith. Blind faith is a Mormon thing.
DO YOU believe in a inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God?
Yes, and I know He's provided it in several versions in English alone.
Do YOU believe God can do ANYTHING? If so, can you please tell us where and how He's limited to producing His word in one version alone?
Why not? We all have the AV 1611 and other KJV editions available. Both premises are easily provable if you wish to do it.
I believe by faith that what I have today is God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God. The Holy Spirit will bear witness to the truth and he has in my life.
Faith in WHAT or WHOM? While not questioning your faith in JESUS, your faith that the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV is based upon nothing, and the KJV does NOT sanction BLIND faith. Blind faith is a Mormon thing.
DO YOU believe in a inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God?
Yes, and I know He's provided it in several versions in English alone.
Do YOU believe God can do ANYTHING? If so, can you please tell us where and how He's limited to producing His word in one version alone?
RaptureReady
New Member
And this is were we differ. If I believed that the translators were the only ones behind the King James Bible, I would be more inclined to believe the modern version. I however believe that the translators were inspired by God, even though they did not know this. Just as John did not know that he was Elijah in the bible. I believe that inspiration stop after the King James Bible though. Why? Because God saw fit to put his word in the language of the day. That language is still here today except for some different word spellings and some words that may not be used by everyone.
Homebound,can you answer my question please?
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
RaptureReady
New Member
If the answer you are looking for is that I went to some school and got educated in the bible, then I will have to disappoint you, because that has never happened.
I was raised using the King James Bible, first in a SBC church and finally in a Independent Fundamental Bible Believing church. My pastors believed and preached from the KJB. They said that it was God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word to us in the English language. As you know, I still believe that to this day. I've seen the preaching of this Bible change lives, obviously it is the Holy Spirit that does the changing, but if were not for the preaching of the word of God, we would not be saved, for faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Everything we know of God is in the Bible and I don't think God would allow something corrupt to talk about him.
Homebound:And this is were we differ. If I believed that the translators were the only ones behind the King James Bible, I would be more inclined to believe the modern version. I however believe that the translators were inspired by God, even though they did not know this.
What *PROOF* do you have? I can make the same statement about the translators of other versions, but without PROOF for any of our statements, they all have equal validity. Your statement is pure GUESSWORK. You have NO EVIDENCE to place God with the AV translators nor to remove Him from the translators of later versions.
Just as John did not know that he was Elijah in the bible.
Apples and oranges.
I believe that inspiration stop after the King James Bible though. Why? Because God saw fit to put his word in the language of the day.
Just as He'd done in Aelfric's day, in Tyndale's day, and in OURS. God is NOT LIMITED to any one version, time, language, or style within any given language. If you disagree, please post some Scriptural proof.
That language is still here today except for some different word spellings and some words that may not be used by everyone.
No, it isn't. We do NOT use Elizabethan English in everyday communication. Your own posts are in an English style quite different from that of the KJV.
The AV 1611 was written in the English of its day & was the most modern English of its time. About the only then-slightly-archaic thing in the AV was its use of'thee, thy, thou, thine', which had begun to fall into disuse, although many contemporary authors such as Milton used these words in their works.
God did NOT retire in 1611. He still provides His word in OUR languages, in TODAY'S styles.
What *PROOF* do you have? I can make the same statement about the translators of other versions, but without PROOF for any of our statements, they all have equal validity. Your statement is pure GUESSWORK. You have NO EVIDENCE to place God with the AV translators nor to remove Him from the translators of later versions.
Just as John did not know that he was Elijah in the bible.
Apples and oranges.
I believe that inspiration stop after the King James Bible though. Why? Because God saw fit to put his word in the language of the day.
Just as He'd done in Aelfric's day, in Tyndale's day, and in OURS. God is NOT LIMITED to any one version, time, language, or style within any given language. If you disagree, please post some Scriptural proof.
That language is still here today except for some different word spellings and some words that may not be used by everyone.
No, it isn't. We do NOT use Elizabethan English in everyday communication. Your own posts are in an English style quite different from that of the KJV.
The AV 1611 was written in the English of its day & was the most modern English of its time. About the only then-slightly-archaic thing in the AV was its use of'thee, thy, thou, thine', which had begun to fall into disuse, although many contemporary authors such as Milton used these words in their works.
God did NOT retire in 1611. He still provides His word in OUR languages, in TODAY'S styles.
Homebound:Also, no one has proved me wrong about the King James Bible being the inpsired, infallible, inerrant word of God.
No one is trying to prove you wrong about this; what we've proven wrong is the myth that the KJV is the ONLY such Bible version. When you say that, you're automatically wrong. There's simply NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for the KJVO myth.
How do I know this, because the originals are not around to be 100% sure, therefore, you cannot refer back to them.
Neither can the KJVO. You simply cannot prove, nor know, that the KJV alone is God's word in English.
In closing, I believe it by faith brother.
Faith in WHAT??????????????????
Blind faith, something not sanctioned in Scripture.
No one is trying to prove you wrong about this; what we've proven wrong is the myth that the KJV is the ONLY such Bible version. When you say that, you're automatically wrong. There's simply NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for the KJVO myth.
How do I know this, because the originals are not around to be 100% sure, therefore, you cannot refer back to them.
Neither can the KJVO. You simply cannot prove, nor know, that the KJV alone is God's word in English.
In closing, I believe it by faith brother.
Faith in WHAT??????????????????
Blind faith, something not sanctioned in Scripture.
skanwmatos
New Member
Of course you do! All you have to do is compare the 1611 with the 1762/1769 and you will see the words are different in the verse references I posted! All you have to do is look. The only reason I can think of for your not looking, is that you are afraid to look!
So, the AV1611 was NOT "God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God." Is that what you are saying?
Yes, I do. Do you? If so, which one is it, the 1611 or the 1762/1769 and how do you know which one is correct?
According to your "logic" the man was not John Doe until later. LOL! ROFLOL! </font>[/QUOTE]Nope.
I am rebutting your logic.
According to your logic, it would be proper to say "in 1,200 AD Indians in the United States were more fragmented than in 1700 AD." The problem being that there was no United States in 1200 AD or 1700 AD so introducing the United States into the discussion is an error. Neither Byzantium nor the Byzantine Empire have anything to do with "the root" of God's Word because they didn't exist when "the root" took hold.
skanwmatos
New Member
Only if you limit "root" to mean the autographs and only the autographs. And, of course, the death knell to your "logic" is that the autographs don't exist and, in all probability, did not exist at the time that any of the extant manuscripts were copied. So, according to your logic, none of the existing manuscripts are the word of God.
I can suggest a good on-line logic course if you are interested.
I can suggest a good on-line logic course if you are interested.