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!

Featured Do you believe in the scriptures being Infallable?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Yeshua1, Sep 4, 2016.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 6
  1. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Don't forget the waw consecutive usage in Genesis chapter 1.
    AOBTW what in your opinion is the significance of its obvious use?

    My opinion is that verses 3ff are inseparable so that no day-age with gaps theory is possible.

    HankD
     
    #21 HankD, Sep 5, 2016
  2. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,536
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Brother Jordan,

    What verses in the KJV do you see are not correct...I.E. in error?
     
    #22 SovereignGrace, Sep 5, 2016
  3. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As a former KJVO devotee (recovered of course) , I agree completely.

    HankD
     
    #23 HankD, Sep 5, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I beg your pardon, it was no false accusation. he misspelled infallible!







    :Biggrin
    Just kiddin'
    HankD
     
    #24 HankD, Sep 5, 2016
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The problem is that there is no waw consecutive in verse two. The first waw consecutive is found in verse three. Verse two starts with a waw disjunctive (also called a waw circumstantial).

    See my brief exegesis following the next quote.

    Short version:

    Verse 1: Here is what we are going to talk about.
    Verse 2: Here is the situation at the start of the story.
    Verse 3 and following: Here is what God did and when he did it.

    I agree. The gap theory is completely untenable, grammatically, theologically, inferentially, and logically.

    Exegesis:

    Syntactically, the first word in the verse is (we-ha'arets). The initial we- is translated “and” in many Bibles. Hebrew scholars describe this particle as a “waw circumstantial”, as opposed to a “waw consecutive”, the form opening verse 3.

    This waw circumstantial is typically (as is the case here) attached to a following noun and not to a verb. Thus we have literally, comparing verses 2 and 3:

    Now the earth was, . . (Hebrew form we- + noun) indicating circumstances or condition of the earth at the time of the beginning of the narrative.

    And said God … (Hebrew form wa- + verb)

    So the first clause in verse 2 is circumstantial, while the first clause in verse 3 is consecutive, it follows, both chronologically and logically from the circumstances of verse 2. The event in verse 3 happened after the situation in verse 2, whereas the situation in verse 2 represents circumstances existing at the start of the beginning of the narrative.

    We can then understand the full meaning from the form of the particle waw and from the order of words.

    For consecutive events the verb precedes the noun, but for circumstantial statements the noun precedes the verb when the noun is the center of attention. Word order is as important in Hebrew as it is in English.

    So, verse two is separated from verse 1 by the use of the disjunctive form of the waw-circumstantial while verse 3 is connected to verse 2 by use of the waw-connective.

    What is being said here is simply that "God created the heavens and the earth." That is a statement of fact without any indication of time. There is no "when" attached to the statement.

    When did God create the heavens and the earth? God does not say, so we should not speculate.

    But God does tells us when he formed the as yet unformed (tohu, shapeless) earth, and when he filled the as yet unfilled (bohu, empty) earth. He did it in six consecutive days (as each subsequent verse begins with the waw-connective).

    The gap theory is impossible because it teaches death existed before death was imposed on creation and for many other reasons I will not go into here.

    Again, great discussion! It is threads such as this one that restores my esteem for the Baptist Board and for many of the people posting here. :):Thumbsup
     
    #25 TCassidy, Sep 5, 2016
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, I know of the different waw's, I had a real Jewish "rabbi" (converted of course - Dr. Daniel Goldberg) as my Hebrew professor and he instilled in me the love of Hebrew.

    I see what you are saying, very interesting and I agree.

    IMO, It can still be vav connective in that the text sees the creation as a closed rose blossom opening or perhaps an egg.

    In the beginning was the egg
    and the egg was an oval sphere
    and the egg hatched and the chick climbed out
    _________________

    and the chick peeped
    and the chick pecked at the ground
    and the chick scratched the ground with is foot
    and, and, etc...

    Just a thought

    HankD
     
    #26 HankD, Sep 5, 2016
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But it can't be. As it is attached to the noun, and not a verb, it is by definition a circumstantial and not a connective/consecutive. It describes how the earth was, and not when it became that way. Every English translation agrees with that by saying "And the earth was (circumstantial) without form and void" or similar words indicating a similar understanding.

    There is no doubt that every verse after verse 3, with the exception of only one, begins the same way, but verse two is incontestably a circumstantial/disjunctive. :)
     
    #27 TCassidy, Sep 5, 2016
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, I knew that about the verb vs noun.
    But maybe its an exception. All the vav's line up.
    That's why I said "just a thought".

    HankD
     
    #28 HankD, Sep 5, 2016
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Think again.

    (LOL! I just crack me up! :D:D:D:D:D:D)
     
    #29 TCassidy, Sep 5, 2016
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why, are you an Egghead?

    :Roflmao

    HankD
     
    #30 HankD, Sep 5, 2016
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes. A good egg. Seriously cracked, but still . . . . . :D
     
    #31 TCassidy, Sep 5, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  12. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    5,536
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "I think we've drifted here." Andy Taylor as he was talking to his son Opie.
     
    #32 SovereignGrace, Sep 5, 2016
  13. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Welcome to the club!

    :)

    HankD
     
    #33 HankD, Sep 5, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  14. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why? Aren't we in Kansas anymore?

    HankD
     
    #34 HankD, Sep 5, 2016
  15. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Now when you say Byzantine Textform, what exactly do you mean? would that also be the same as a text type? because I am not asking for a text type, but an actual phyisical text. Where can I get a physical copy of the infallible Byzantine text? Is there a Greek text you can point me to?
     
    #35 Jordan Kurecki, Sep 5, 2016
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I mean the Byzantine Textform.

    It can be used that way, yes.

    Okay.



    Yes, I just gave you the URL where you can order it.
     
    #36 TCassidy, Sep 5, 2016
  17. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Luke 2:14 KJB, NKJV - "on earth peace, GOOD WILL TOWARD MEN."

    NASB, RSV, ESV, NET - "on earth peace AMONG THOSE WITH WHOM HE IS PLEASED."

    NIV, Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - "peace on earth TO THOSE ON WHOM HIS FAVOR RESTS."

    Do you also believe that the NIV is without "error of fact" when it says "to those on whom his favor rests"?
    Do you believe that he angels historically said "to those on whom his favor rests"?

    "In the Textus Receptus the rich young ruler calls Jesus "Good Master" and Jesus responds asking the ruler, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." In the Nestle-Aland the conversation is about "what is good" rather than about Jesus being good and the inference that Jesus must therefore be God." http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-are-...he-textus-receptus-and-nestle-aland-important

    is Nestle Aland text here without "error of fact" that Jesus said "what is good" rather than "why callest thou me good" ?

    Revelation 22:19: The Textus Receptus says "book of life", not "tree of life" as opposed to the Alexandrian.

    Are you to tell me that "book of life" and "tree of life" are both not a "error of fact"?

    For you to try and imply that between the different Greek source texts that there are not substantial, factual, differences is deceptive. There's one thing between a differences in choices of translations of words for English translations, but the above examples are quite different than that. In the examples I cited above, it's clear that at least one of the two texts are in error. You should be honest and admit that the Alexandrian text does in fact have "errors of fact", or at least be honest and admit you don't really think that the Byzantine textform is Infallible, because if you really do, the above examples from the Alexandrian texts are in fact errors.
     
    #37 Jordan Kurecki, Sep 5, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2016
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,030
    Likes Received:
    3,657
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am no fan of the NIV but you need to understand your posts on this subject are foolish. You are treating the english translations as if they are the original language. This is a serious error. You need to go find you a good concordance and look carefully at each word. Unfortunately when you do you will be embarrassed of your posts.
     
    #38 Revmitchell, Sep 5, 2016
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Obviously you didn't read my
    Whole post because I gave two other examples where the Greek texts have differences of real substance.

    I simply used an English translation issue for the first one to show the inconsistency of claiming all translations are infallible.
     
    #39 Jordan Kurecki, Sep 5, 2016
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They are infallible according to the definitions given in the thread.
    Only the originals are perfectly infallible.
    We do not have the originals.
    The 1611KJV English text is no exception as it has a similar problem.

    We do not have the originals of the First Edition KJV1611.
    They have been lost in the passage of time.
    There were two editions of the KJV1611, the Oxford and Cambridge.
    Scan through the KJVO archives to find lists of the differences.

    Some say the Cambridge is "pure".
    http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm

    Some say it is a counterfeit.

    https://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

    Hmm...

    HankD
     
    #40 HankD, Sep 5, 2016
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 6
Loading...