Forget the KJB. Is there any version that you believe is perfect?

ok... new kjv

 

The answer to the OP question is no.
Now, coward, answer my question: US Paul in danger of hell fire because he said, "Thou fool,..."?

 

Then you really don't have something that is trustworthy and infallible ( without error ), do you?

I've highlighted what I agree with...
To me, the originals were the only ones that God "dictated" to His apostles and prophets.
All Scripture is "God-breathed" by the Holy Spirit ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21 ).

So, I agree with you( at least in principle ), on part of what you said.
As for the first ( the inerrancy part ), it seems to me that you're admitting that you cannot hold in your hands the actual inspired and inerrant word of God, since the originals are long turned to dust.

As it stands, if you are completely unable to trust any translation and any manuscript in existence to be the 100% accurate and faithful word of the living God...
Then you have no Bible, do you?

Do you see the road you're going down, my friend?
Do you see where it leads, when one believes that it all stopped with the originals, and that God did not providentially preserve His words for ( and make them accessible to ) His people down through the centuries?

The foundations for the faith get eroded right out from under the believer, don't they?

Instead of gaining comfort from words that were written for them ( Romans 15:4 ),
they are now told, by men, that those words might not have been written for them at all.

 

Where did you get that information from?

The inerrant, inspired word of God?
Or from something that cannot be totally trusted because only the originals can be?
What exactly is it that you're saying?
I'm confused.

On the one hand it seems that you're stating, with conviction, that Paul never doubted that he was called as an apostle...
But then you admit that the very Book that you're getting your information from, is ultimately not able to be 100% trusted.

Therefore, what I'm understanding from you is that when you quote Scripture, you're essentially quoting something that you believe are God's actual words on the one hand, but that you have doubts about some of them even being His words on the other.
Please help me to understand what you're saying, if you're so inclined...

As in the above, apparently you claim to trust the God of the Bible, but then you claim that no Bible is 100% accurate...
Which leads to not being able to actually and fully trust anything that is in it.

Second question:

How do you even know which words, of the "99%+", are true and which are not?

 

I place my faith in both, as His word is where I get my information from.
For example,
I heard the inerrant, inspired words of God preached in 1978, and I believed them.
I was baptized not long after that.

Question:

How do you trust Him if the information that you have been given to go on, is unable to be trusted completely?
Respectfully,
I'd say you have a massive contradiction, my friend.

 

Who was the father of Joseph: Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Eli (Luke 3:23)?

• "Jacob was the father of Joseph" (Matthew 1:16)
• "Joseph, the son of Eli," (Luke 3:23)

 

See post #18

 

Speaking of “inspired not knowing” ...

Who was the father of Joseph: Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Eli (Luke 3:23)?

• "Jacob was the father of Joseph" (Matthew 1:16)
• "Joseph, the son of Eli," (Luke 3:23)

 

Jacob.

" 16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." ( Matthew 1:16 ).

" And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli," ( Luke 3:23 ).

Both lineages trace themselves back to David...
One through Nathan, and one through Solomon.
It's the same in the NASB.

What is your point, sir, if I may ask?

 

To whom, specifically, did God inspire to write each and every word of the NIV?
Should we regard them as a modern Apostle (inspired directly by God to write the word of God)?
Does that inspiration extend to the Study Notes included with my particular printing, or are they uninspired?
Are other books by that author also “100% inspired”?

I am attempting to understand what YOU mean by “100% given by inspiration”.

 

In Jeremiah chapter 36, the Lord instructed Jeremiah, to put all the words that the Lord had given Jeremiah, in print on scrolls. And for the Lord's words to be read off the scrolls to the people. Jeremiah dictated the Lord's words to his scribe and the scribe wrote the words. And the words were read numerous times to the people. And eventually to the political class, and finally to the wicked king. And the wicked burned the scroll in the fire, thinking he could destroy the Truth.

Then the Lord simply commanded Jeremiah to reproduce the scroll and add to it, assuredly to include the actions of the wicked king and the curse pronounced on him and his seed.

Assuredly the wicked have always been prone to destroy, alter, and manipulate the scriptures in pursuit of their own vain ambitions.

But I have no doubt in the Lord's enduring ability to provide the Truth to His people. However He sees fit. My duty is to trust Him and His word that He has graciously provided.

Based on the historical fruit of the enduring KJV, the testimony of my ancestors who were blessed by it, and the conviction of the Holy Spirit to cling to it; I know that the KJV is provided to me by my Lord.

 

Matthew says that Jacob was the father of Joseph and Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli. So was Joseph born to a same-sex couple of Jacob and Heli?

Who is Jacob’s actual father?
Whose son is Jacob?
They are supposed to be the same person!

My point is the apparent contradiction would seem to be a fly in the ointment of 100% perfect transmission of inspired scripture (or God is confused about who Mary’s husband was descended from).

If I trace your family tree from your father to his father to his father, etc. I should get the same results as anyone else that traces your family tree from your father to his father to his father. We should not get two different fathers who each came from a different grandfather.

 

Your question has been demonstrated to be invalid because it is based on unproven premises. Your human reasoning behind your question has been demonstrated to be inconsistent and incorrect.

You dodged and avoided the fact that a consistent, just application of your allegations in this thread would condemn the Church of England makers of the KJV.

Because some may choose to answer an invalid question does not make your question valid.

 

There is no need for anyone to answer your invalid question in the OP.

A question can be answered with a question. You would be wrong not to accept a counter-question as a sound answer to your question.

You do not practice what you preach as you duck and avoid valid questions that are asked you. You dodge and avoid the truth that is a problem for your human, non-scriptural opinions.

 

No.

Jacob's actual father was Matthan, according to the Matthew account.

I agree.
It is an apparent contradiction.

But "apparent contradiction" or no, that is what it says, and therefore it's up to us as believers to believe...whatever it says.
We trust God to show us the understanding of it, just as we trust Him for everything else in this life, my friend.

 

I agree.

But have you considered, based on what is revealed in the Old Testament about how families were organized, that each "house" is/ was patriarchal, and all lineage was established through the father to the son(s)?
Daughters were said to be "begotten" of their fathers, not necessarily their mothers.
Have you considered that one lineage ( the one in Luke ) is tracking Mary's descent back through Nathan to David,
while the one in Matthew is tracking Joseph's back through Solomon?

Legally and based on adoption in the physical sense, the Lord Jesus was raised as Joseph's son and was a son of his house...
Even though He is the Son of God by the Spirit and through Mary.

Therefore, on both "sides" of His lineage, whether actual or legal, He is the son of David.

Cool, huh?

 

You think incorrectly. Your likely use of the fallacy of false dilemma may be exposed in your erroneous reasoning. Your two choices are not the only choices. Your alternative is not what other posters actually believe. It is your bogus straw man misrepresentation. You are falsely claiming that those who believe the Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles are 100% given by inspiration of God do not believe any Bible. That is wrong and deceitful. You are demonstrating your own erroneous reasoning and non-scriptural opinions.

Why do you encourage others to deceive themselves and believe something that is not true or encourage them to be deceived by you to believe something that is not true? According to a definition of deceive, to believe something that is not true is to be deceived.

The Scriptures do not teach what you ask them to believe.