franklinmonroe said:
My Bible tells me in Hebrews Chapter 11 that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph ALL had saving faith
before there were written scriptures (some speculate that Moses had sources to draw upon for his writing of the Pentatuech). These pre-Moseaic people had
heard the word of God proclaimed; that is, they had
heard the true message of the collective revelation of God to mankind. The truth of Romans 10:17 was true before 1611. God's truth was probably widely spread by Adam himself (although not likely in written form). Notice Romans 10:14 (KJV) --
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
The Greek word
kerusso (Strong's #2784) is rendered here as "preacher"; it means a 'proclaimer'. I think Adam was a proclaimer, and we know Noah was a proclaimer of the word of God. It is my opinion that even as Paul wrote these words in Romans that he was not thinking of "the word of God" as something that was primarily (or only) contained on a paprus scroll or written with ink on parchment.
With all due respect, I believe that you may have possibly misunderstood the main thrust of my original post.
My primary intention wasn't in any way intended to indicate that no one had received saving faith from God before there was a written form of God's Word.
Of course there were people who received saving faith from God prior to Moses compiling the Pentateuch in written form. To believe otherwise would be ridiculous. If what I posted led you to believe that I hold to such a view, then I humbly ask your forgiveness.
My principal point was simply this:
If there
was a written "Word of God" in existence in the English language before AD 1611, why would have it been necessary for God to have a completely
new "Word of God" published in AD 1611?
Did our omniscient, immutable God somehow come to the conclusion that any written works that dared to presume themselves to be His written revelation in the English language that were published prior to AD 1611 were so inherently corrupt that they could not possibly convey in English what He had intended for English-speaking people to know about Himself and His relationships with His created human beings that He
now once and for all must inspire certain scholars of the early 17th century Church of England to pen what is commonly referred to as the Authorized (not by God Himself but by King James I of England) Version (a/k/a the "KJV")?
If one should lay aside his/her preconcieved notions regarding the KJV and spend some time in doing some personal research about the intentions of the KJV translators themselves, one would quickly realize that even these scholarly men (and they were indeed
the leading experts of their times in not only Hebrew and Greek, but also in other Semitic languages and cultures!) claimed no special "inspiration" from God Himself.
What they produced was the result of some half-dozen + years of exhaustive research not only in the original languages of both the OT & NT, but also all that they had available at that time about Near Eastern culture and customs, combined with both extensive examination and cross examination of their own specific textual translations on several levels within their respective translating committees and then to the "general" committees as well.
Very little of what these translators knew for their day and time evaded such careful scrutiny.
Yet, if one is to claim that what they produced is completely, totally, 100% without error in the very slightest degree, then they will have cast aside any historical, logical or even ethical consistency and go far, far beyond what few, if any, reasonable person who would have lived either in their day and age or at least as far forward until perhaps the late 1800's atrributed to the KJV translation.
My point (which I thought I stated in my post) is this:
Either there
was a written Word of God in the English language before AD 1611 or there
wasn't!
If indeed there
was a written Word of God in the English language before AD 1611, why would God have to inspire
another written Word in the English language that was published in AD 1611?
This, to me at least, is a much more basic and vital question than all of the other "word studies" (important as they may be in their place) that so far have been posted in this entire thread.
I again humbly and respectfully challenge any one to give me a detailed, rational, "spin-free" answer in their own personal words (no "cut and paste" jobs as Dr. Bob warned against) to my question(s).
Of course, detailed documentation from reliable sources to support your position would be very helpful.
)