Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
You must define that "evil" and not presume when it comes to the Word of God, or didn't you know that?
-
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!
Doctrine verses "Versions"??
- Thread starter Plain ol' Ralph
- Start date
Plain ol' Ralph said "You must define that "evil" and not presume when it comes to the Word of God, or didn't you know that?"
Oh, I see. So pulling verses out of various versions and using them to point out imperfections in said versions is dependent only on proper interpretation of said verses which can only be provided by YOU? Why should I accept YOUR authority in matters of interpretation?
Oh, I see. So pulling verses out of various versions and using them to point out imperfections in said versions is dependent only on proper interpretation of said verses which can only be provided by YOU? Why should I accept YOUR authority in matters of interpretation?
Jesus spoke of people like those referenced in Ps 78:36 in Mark 7:6-7:Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
You wonder why we "haven't"? We have, you reject, we still stand.
The verses are found ion context and harmony with the entirety of Scripture, that CANNOT be said about the mv's, and still be telling the Truth.
NasV: God is "deceived" in Ps 78:36
Nkjv: God is equated with the deceptive practice of the wicked, in CONTEXT?!? Job 24
The KJB is accurate.
6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7
BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
You know that, but you still pull phrase out of context and use it to slander others. Isn't there a commandment that says "thou shalt not bear false witness."?
You must define that "evil" and not presume when it comes to the Word of God, or didn't you know that?
</font>[/QUOTE]But you did not explain, in context, what the NASB meant. You just pulled out a phrase out of context and used it to blast another translation of God's written Word.
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Nope, my examples are quite clear, as well as the KJB being clear what sort of evil and who calls it evil that the LORD does, that is not necerssarilly "evil" as meaning of the devil, so don't confuse Scripture, define it!
Your examples are a clear picture of dishonesty. Any one can pull a word or phrase out of context and use it like you did. But, that does not make it right to do so. As I pointed out, Jesus said people like those in Ps 78 draw close to Him with their lips, but their heart is far from Him. They think that they are deceiving God, but they are not.
TC: "Where does the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT promise a perfect English translation? And where is it stated that the KJV (which ever edition)is it?"
POR: "They don't, neither do they promise it in any other language EVER, so your premise is not only rooted in deception, but is found to be 'moot'."
Amazing admission from the KJVO side. For once I agree....
As POR stated so eloquently, the whole KJVO position is *not* supported by Scripture, and is therefore a moot point. So why then all the nonsensical discussion promulgated by KJVO advocates trying to justify an indefensible position by claiming some unstated or unclear Scriptural "support" for such a position?
POR: "They don't, neither do they promise it in any other language EVER, so your premise is not only rooted in deception, but is found to be 'moot'."
Amazing admission from the KJVO side. For once I agree....
As POR stated so eloquently, the whole KJVO position is *not* supported by Scripture, and is therefore a moot point. So why then all the nonsensical discussion promulgated by KJVO advocates trying to justify an indefensible position by claiming some unstated or unclear Scriptural "support" for such a position?
James_Newman
New Member
I'd still like to know how we came to believe in an inspired 66 book canon. When was this decided, by who, and Is there scriptural support for it?
It was not decided but rather recognized based on a set of criteria. One being apostolic authority in the writing.
It was not humanly decided. God decided. Man's role was simply to recognize and accept.
The NT validates the OT in several places.
The best NT proof seems to be indirect.
This coupled with the Peter's citation of Paul's writings as scripture, the internal witnesses, the claims of authority by the title "Apostle", and the authority with which the books were written.
James_Newman
New Member
But where in the bible does it say 66 books?
Sorry Bob, didnt see your post, but you know what I'm talking about, dont you.
Sorry Bob, didnt see your post, but you know what I'm talking about, dont you.
It doesn't. It also doesn't specify the number of prophets. It simply gives principles for evaluating which prophets (or books) qualify as true and which ones don't. The number takes care of itself by virtue of counting the books that meet the criteria.
You seem to be trying to establish that since the Bible doesn't specify 66 books then it is possibly that only the KJV is valid without any scriptural basis.
The problem is that KJVOnlyism has no consistently applicable biblical principle that supports it. It does not follow a discernable thread back to the original words. Recognition of the canon does/did both.
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Scott, you have the Originals to back up that prolific statement?
Look at the Harmony of Scripture, that best explains the Canon, which BTW, explains BEST why we should not divert and depend on anything other than the KJB for the English rendition, except where a dictionary is needed, but that applies anywhere, anytime.
Look at the Harmony of Scripture, that best explains the Canon, which BTW, explains BEST why we should not divert and depend on anything other than the KJB for the English rendition, except where a dictionary is needed, but that applies anywhere, anytime.