Do You Limit a Sovereign God?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Donna: I relate this to the title you chose for this thread.

HP: Thanks Donna. I believe I understand your desire to avoid the question I asked.

 

[DHK]

Do you limit a Sovereign God?
No, God puts limits on himself.
God cannot lie. God cannot do anything that is contrary to his nature.
God cannot do anything contrary to His Word
"He is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent. Hath he not said, and shall he not do it? Hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19)

Can God make a round triangle? No he cannot.
This is not a matter of power; or whether he can do something of power?
This is a matter of definition, or language. If man chooses to redefine words that is his problem. A triangle, by definition is geometrical figure that has three sides. It is not a matter of power to change that into a circle. It is a matter of definitions. It has nothing to do with power.

It is like saying "Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?
These are questions that atheists ask BTW.
The question is not of power; it is question of logic.

God can do anythning; anything that is possible to do; anything that is not contrary to His nature or His Word.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: God can do anythning; anything that is possible to do; anything that is not contrary to His nature or His Word.

HP: I agree with your comments as I understand them.:thumbs:

In relationship to the OP, is there any reason to believe that God does not have His hand in the translation of His Word? Is there anything in God’s nature that would be opposed to the possibility that He might allow some to be led by the Spirit in the translation of His Word, and yet others to operate solely within their human abilities, even to the extent that God’s intents might in fact be misconstrued by some translations in the end? Can one simply state that translations are solely human effort? Is the Bible first and foremost a spiritual book that must be spiritually discerned, without which no correct rendering of at least portions of the text can be reasonably ascertained? Does the human mind, in and of itself apart from the aide of the Holy Spirit, have any ability to understand or comprehend spiritual matters in relation to Scripture?

 

[DHK]

HP: I agree with your comments as I understand them.:thumbs:

In relationship to the OP, is there any reason to believe that God does not have His hand in the translation of His Word? Is there anything in God’s nature that would be opposed to the possibility that He might allow some to be led by the Spirit in the translation of His Word, and yet others to operate solely within their human abilities, even to the extent that God’s intents might in fact be misconstrued by some translations in the end? Can one simply state that translations are solely human effort? Is the Bible first and foremost a spiritual book that must be spiritually discerned, without which no correct rendering of at least portions of the text can be reasonably ascertained? Does the human mind, in and of itself apart from the aide of the Holy Spirit, have any ability to understand or comprehend spiritual matters in relation to Scripture?

Is there anything to say that God does not have His hand in the translation of His Word?
Yes and no. To a man submitted to the Holy Spirit, God has his hand in all that he does, whether in fellowship with other believers, witnessing to the unsaved, or in preaching the Word. None of the above produces "inspiration" or "revelation" as we know it today.
With my limited knowledge of Greek I am able to translate most of the first chapter of John. Would it be inspired? No. Would God have his hand in it? Why not? It would give me a better understanding of God's Word, and in that way God would have his hand in it. But in no way would my translation, the KJV translation, or any translation in the world be inspired. Only the original manuscripts written by the prophets and apostles themselves are inspired. God promised to preserve his Word, not the original inspired manuscripts. To that end we have the preserved Word of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: But in no way would my translation, the KJV translation, or any translation in the world be inspired.

HP: Are you saying all the above ‘cannot’ be inspired, or that they simply ‘are not’ but ‘could be?’ Is God’s Spirit shortened that He cannot speak His thoughts directly to man? I am not asking if in fact the Bible itself can be added to. You know we agree on that. I firmly believe we are clearly warned as to what will happen if we add or detract from the Bible itself.

I am asking if in fact God can, if He so desires, speak to you, even in an audible voice if He so chose, and that God, by His Spirit does not in fact confirm truth to our heart as we read the Word of God, translate the Word of God, or communicate the Word of God in such a way that one can rightfully say, God revealed that truth to my heart?

May I add for clarification that God has never spoken to me audibly, but I certainly do not limit God by saying that such a possibility could in fact happen. God has so impressed my via the Spirit that there was absolutely no mistaking as to a message He has desired to deliver to me personally. Certainly most if not all could say that could we not? God still speaks to men.

 

[DHK]

HP: Are you saying all the above ‘cannot’ be inspired, or that they simply ‘are not’ but ‘could be?’ Is God’s Spirit shortened that He cannot speak His thoughts directly to man? I am not asking if in fact the Bible itself can be added to. You know we agree on that. I firmly believe we are clearly warned as to what will happen if we add or detract from the Bible itself.

When you read carefully the Book of Acts and study the missionary journeys of Paul, you find how the Holy Spirit led the Apostle Paul. Remember, however, that the book of Acts was historically a transitional period, during which the NT was being written, and thus it was a period of miracles as well. But there were many occasions when the Spirit led Paul without a vision, without an audible voice and without a vision. (Though the above took place as well). The Lord has distinctly led me to do things and go places. It was his leading; the Holy Spirit working in my life. The Holy Spirit has led me to say certain things at certain times.

What I am saying is that it is not God's way in this dispensation to inspire translations today. Nor will it ever be. He doesn't work that way. Think, that if those inspired manuscripts had survived, man (because of his own degenerate nature) would seek them out and bow down before them and worship them. Even now we have enough "pieces of the cross" that man bows down to, that if gathered up would be enough to build a house.

I am asking if in fact God can, if He so desires, speak to you, even in an audible voice if He so chose, and that God, by His Spirit does not in fact confirm truth to our heart as we read the Word of God, translate the Word of God, or communicate the Word of God in such a way that one can rightfully say, God revealed that truth to my heart?

More accurately, God confirmed that truth to my heart. If it is in the Word of God, God confirmed it. It was already there. I just discovered it. God only revealed it in the sense that he showed it to me. There was no new revelation. The Bible is closed. We have a closed canon. There is no new revelation being given to man. It is all in the present canon that we have today.

May I add for clarification that God has never spoken to me audibly, but I certainly do not limit God by saying that such a possibility could in fact happen. God has so impressed my via the Spirit that there was absolutely no mistaking as to a message He has desired to deliver to me personally. Certainly most if not all could say that could we not? God still speaks to men.

It is unusual for God to speak audibly to people, but I would not limit God. I have heard of stories, especially from Muslim converts facing great persecution, how God spoke to them in an audible voice, protecting them from imminent danger to their lives. These are anecdotal. But at this time I have no reason to doubt them. But it is the exception, not the norm.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: What I am saying is that it is not God's way in this dispensation to inspire translations today. Nor will it ever be. He doesn't work that way.

HP: Please be patient with my questions, and even forgive me DHK, for I know you are trying hard to make yourself clear, but are you 100 % sure of that or could there be the possibility that He in fact might have or even could in the future if He so desired to act in that manner?

I see a great danger in dealing with God, placing Him into a box without allowing for the possibility of my being in error. Certainly there are things Scripture tells us that we can say with 100% accuracy, such as God cannot lie, etc, but when it comes to things Scripture is basically silent on, such as to His involvement or the lack thereof in translating His Word, who are we to say that the possibility does not exist that He in fact has, or as I said will in the future, superintend over the translation of His own Word? Not I. I certainly would that possibility for God to act in any such manner if He so chose to or chooses to in the future.

For me, God would have to do something unusual for me to accept another translation for me to place my faith in as to the truth of salvation God has revealed to me via the pages of the KJV. If no one follows me in my faith of the accuracy of it, I will continue on alone…... But God be thanked I am in good company! I certainly do not go to the extremes of many KJVO if in fact the sentiments of those expressed here in some posts are indeed the sentiments of the group as a whole, none the less, the KJV is my Bible the Spirit uses in my life to guide me to that Heavenly City. I have full faith and confidence in its veracity and faithfulness to God’s Inspired Words when it was given.

Let me add that I would not say that the Spirit is not bound to the KJV, it is just the one He has placed my confidence in, a place to stand firm with full trust and assurance, not cast about between differing notions.

 

[DHK]

DHK: What I am saying is that it is not God's way in this dispensation to inspire translations today. Nor will it ever be. He doesn't work that way.

Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

God's Word is forever settled in Heaven, not in any translation.

Translation's are not inspired. When I go to another nation and I preach through a translator, meaning is always lost. In the KJV, meaning is lost from one language to another. Therefore it is impossible to have a perfect translation. If it is not perfect, how can it be inspired? It is translated by fallible men who make fallible mistakes. There are passages, idioms, adages, that just don't make sense in any other language. They are germane to the native language only. Thus only the original Greek and Hebrew could be inspired of God. Those were the languages in which the Apostles and Prophets spoke in when the Scriptures were being written.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The prophecy (or word of God) did not come by the will of man, not by my will, or the will of the KJV translators, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Those holy men of God were the authors of the Bible that we have today, and none other. All others are excluded.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

God's Word is forever settled in Heaven, not in any translation.

HP: First , you still avoid the direct questions I ask, but that is your privilege.

Second, the fact that God’s word is settled in heaven, does not in any way preclude it being accurately transcribed in His Word called the Bible. God's Word may remain aloof from others, but it is forever settled in my Bible for me.

DHK: Those holy men of God were the authors of the Bible that we have today, and none other. All others are excluded.

HP: It must be field day with the Word of God. Step right up! Pick your favorite version. If you don’t like one, just try another. Gender neutral? No problem! Have a problem with a text? Pick one that has over 3000 omissions! Don’t like one worked over by only those believing in the Diety of Christ, we might just the one for you. Have a problem with verbal inspiration, how about one following the theories of men that didn’t either!

God help us!

 

[DHK]

HP: It must be field day with the Word of God. Step right up! Pick your favorite version. If you don’t like one, just try another. Gender neutral? No problem! Have a problem with a text? Pick one that has over 3000 omissions! Don’t like one worked over by only those believing in the Diety of Christ, we might just the one for you. Have a problem with verbal inspiration, how about one following the theories of men that didn’t either!

God help us!

As you have followed the KJV debate you can see that different ones have different convictions. They fall into basically two camps (other than extreme KJVO) which both reject. The one believes that Bible has been preserved in majority text that was used by the "majority" of the churches both in the early centuries and also down throughout the centuries. It is also the "received" text for the same reason--it was recieved by the majority of the churches down throughout the centuries. Historically it has been the one that believers have used. The KJV and NKJV have been translated from the received text.

The other camp, which Pastor Larry has set forth is that of the Critical Text. This follows primarily two texts: Alexandrian and Sinaiticus, both very old. It has been called by many an "eclectic" text by the nature that it was originally put together by Westcott and Hort. No one ever heard of the text itself until Westcott and Hort, though the Manuscripts were in existence long before that time.

Thus in reality there are only two Bibles; many translations, but only two Bibles. There is one that is derived from the Critical Text and one that is derived from the Majority Text. All the Modern Versions come from the Critical Text, and the KJV comes from the Majority text.

It is wise to study the pros and cons of each camp. Unfortunately too many go into this study with their minds already made up about which one is right and which one is wrong. Study is key.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Thus in reality there are only two Bibles; many translations, but only two Bibles. There is one that is derived from the Critical Text and one that is derived from the Majority Text. All the Modern Versions come from the Critical Text, and the KJV comes from the Majority text.

HP: That is my sentiments from what I have read as well. You put it very clearly and fair I believe with one exception. I would far rather term the W&H text in words that more closely resemble the facts. “Critical” needs always to be modified by adding ‘if you buy into their novel ideas of textual criticism, which is NOT a trustworthy scientific approach in the least.’ Their theories are based on assumptions, assumptions and theories that I believe are clearly in error, that have been proved wrong by great men and laymen alike.

I have before me several books, including Hermen Hoskier’s 2 volume book, entitled, “Codex B and its Allies.” I have tried to do my homework as best I can, and I can tell you what stands between the truth and the buying into the W&H theories of textual criticism. The difficult and arduous scientific approach of textual examination, something most are unwilling and few qualified to do it. It is a sad truth, but men seem always looking for a quick easy fix to their problems, a few easy to grasp theories that seem right on the surface that they can sink their teeth into. The truth is that such an approach may make one feel warm and fuzzy, seemingly with all the answers, but I for one believe they are faulty from their core.

It really boils down for most of us, trying to raise families, grandchildren, working long hours and handling family crisis after crisis at times, that the best we can do is to read about the issues as we can, pray that the Lord will grant to us wisdom, and place our faith where the Holy Spirit leads us. I can rest easy, knowing full well that God has not led me or my family astray with the 'faithful to the truth' KJV, and that by faith. It was good enough to carry my faithful forefathers heavenward bound and I will trust by faith in it to guide me safely to my heavenly reward!

There will be a day when the modern critics will stand speechless before the Author of that sacred book as so will we all. We shall all have our day in His Holy Court. I would not desire to be in some of their shoes.

 

[DHK]

HP: That is my sentiments from what I have read as well.

It is a sad truth, but men seem always looking for a quick easy fix to their problems, a few easy to grasp theories that seem right on the surface that they can sink their teeth into. The truth is that such an approach may make one feel warm and fuzzy, seemingly with all the answers, but I for one believe they are faulty from their core.

Amazing. We actually agree on something. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

We need to move quickly pass this agreement lest we kill good debate.:laugh:

Here is an issue that has not been raised thus far. Other than Ed, which has found, in his own mind at least, a version(s) to support individuals falling out of their graves thus signifying the rapture at a time his theology must need us all out of here, has there been any eye opening spiritual truth, any deeper spiritual insight, gained by any from the renderings of these modern versions?

 

[Amy.G]

We need to move quickly pass this agreement lest we kill good debate.:laugh:

Here is an issue that has not been raised thus far. Other than Ed, which has found, in his own mind at least, a version(s) to support individuals falling out of their graves thus signifying the rapture at a time his theology must need us all out of here, has there been any eye opening spiritual truth, any deeper spiritual insight, gained by any from the renderings of these modern versions?

HP, Ed's interpretation of the "falling away" has nothing to do with modern versions. That is his personal view, which he is entitled to. I disagree with him. The word used here is "apostasia" or apostasy, a falling away from the faith. I use the NKJV, which is translated from the TR just as the KJV is. It uses the same word, "apostasia" as the KJV does. There will be a "falling away" from the faith in the last days.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: HP, Ed's interpretation of the "falling away" has nothing to do with modern versions.

HP: Nor reason I might add.

Amy: That is his personal view, which he is entitled to. I disagree with him.

HP: Certainly. You are wise to do so.

Amy: The word used here is "apostasia" or apostasy, a falling away from the faith. I use the NKJV, which is translated from the TR just as the KJV is. It uses the same word, "apostasia" as the KJV does. There will be a "falling away" from the faith in the last days.

HP: You raise an interesting point. Tell us Amy, how does one “fall away from the Christian faith?” You may be on to discovering some clear Biblical truth.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: You raise an interesting point. Tell us Amy, how does one “fall away from the Christian faith?” You may be on to discovering some clear Biblical truth. [/FONT][/COLOR]

It is my opinion that the apostasy spoken of in 2 Thess. does not refer to an individual, but to the church as a whole.
Apostasy is occurring today by way of watering down essential doctrines instead of preaching the word of God. Now for you and me, that isn't going to diminish our faith, but the ear tickling done by false teachers and the neglect in our own churches to "contend earnestly for the faith" will produce a generation of weakend churches after you and I are gone. The next generation will be even worse, and so on until the "church" as a whole will be entirely apostate except for maybe a few remnants.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: It is my opinion that the apostasy spoken of in 2 Thess. does not refer to an individual, but to the church as a whole.

HP: The Church is nothing more or less than the collective body of individual believers. How can it be said that the Church is falling away from the faith into apostasy without individuals falling from the faith and moving into an apostate relationship?

When you are speaking of the Church, you are speaking of individuals. The church would be as hollow as a dried ham hanging from a ceiling hollowed out by a rat without individuals. I cannot see the validity of the distinction you are making. Possibly you can expound to make your point clearer.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: The Church is nothing more or less than the collective body of individual believers. How can it be said that the Church is falling away from the faith into apostasy without individuals falling from the faith and moving into an apostate relationship?

When you are speaking of the Church, you are speaking of individuals. The church would be as hollow as a dried ham hanging from a ceiling hollowed out by a rat without individuals. I cannot see the validity of the distinction you are making. Possibly you can expound to make your point clearer.

Of course the church is made up of individuals, but the church is the whole body. God has always had remnants that stayed faithful to Him. So there will always be those in the church "body" that remain faithful. But there have also always been some in the church body that are not true believers. It is this group of people that will continue to grow until the majority of the "body" is apostate.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

AMY: Of course the church is made up of individuals, but the church is the whole body. God has always had remnants that stayed faithful to Him. So there will always be those in the church "body" that remain faithful. But there have also always been some in the church body that are not true believers.

HP: The notion that this verse is directed at the church body, which according to your statement now is anyone that evidently darkens the door of the church building, is simply not an idea that one can gain from this text or any other. That is false conjecture that is unsupported by Scripture, and represents a complete misunderstanding as to who comprises the church. ‘Believers’ comprise the body of Christ, the Church, not unbelievers.

Unbelievers cannot fall away from a body they have never been a part of. Do I need to repeat the things persons can do outwardly but have no relationship whatsoever of being part of God’s church? Darkening the door of a church, placing ones name upon a roll, preaching in the pulpit, singing in the choir, nor anything other than being born again, places one within the body of Christ known as the Church.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: The notion that this verse is directed at the church body, which according to your statement now is anyone that evidently darkens the door of the church building, is simply not an idea that one can gain from this text or any other. That is false conjecture that is unsupported by Scripture, and represents a complete misunderstanding as to who comprises the church. ‘Believers’ comprise the body of Christ, the Church, not unbelievers.

Unbelievers cannot fall away from a body they have never been a part of. Do I need to repeat the things persons can do outwardly but have no relationship whatsoever of being part of God’s church? Darkening the door of a church, placing ones name upon a roll, preaching in the pulpit, singing in the choir, nor anything other than being born again, places one within the body of Christ known as the Church.

Are you saying that only true believers fill the pews of our churches??? You need to read Jude.


Remember Paul speaking of Israel and true Israel?