No, it's not. NO non-Scriptural doctrines of faith/worship are true.
-
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!
"Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?"
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
No, it's not. NO non-Scriptural doctrines of faith/worship are true.
Surely you realize (or maybe you don't care) that the KJV was not around when scripture was written. Therefore, mentioning KJV or KJV-onlyism, by definition and by necessity, could not be scriptural.
To quote another famous member here: "I don't know why I have to explain this to you."
You seem to imply that the KJV is perfect. And you seem to believe the KJV was inspired by God, while other versions were not. Sorry, Sir, neither premise is true.
GOD, who knows the future entirely, could've made it clear somehow in His word that supports the KJVO myth if He actually did. However, he mentions no then-future translations at all, except to say the Gospel will be preached to everyone everywhere, which, of course, implies translations. And we know all translations are made by men, except when the Holy Spirit caused everyone in the audience to hear Peter's preaching at the "first pentecost" in his/her own best language.
Thus, men are free to make Bible translations, & no one is more-"inspired" than another.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
I don't know him but I pastor Hope Baptist Church in Montreal (by God's grace) and I've had Gus Olstroon come in from them to do a presentation against evolution to which we invited plenty of lost people. It was great. We even had T-shirts printed. Wearing one here:
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
The short answer is "yes". Hear me out for a moment.
The word of God repeatedly teaches that a translated copy can be inspired: Luke 4:21, John 5:39, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 2Timothy 3:15, 1Peter 2:6, 2Peter 1:20.
Now, I agree, the word of God did not say that the King James Bible, specifically, was inspired.
- So, I believe that translated copies can be inspired, because of scriptural declaration.
- However, I believe that the King James Bible is such a copy, because of personal faith.
Why didn't you stop it?
Perhaps we should take our cue from what the New Testament Scriptures say about the Old Testament Scriptures, over our much learning which may make us mad. These tell us that the scriptures were given by inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16) and that the scriptures they had are authoritative and profitable (e.g. Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17), without worrying with conjectures about whether only the autographs were inspired or whether they still existed.
I see. So kind of a reverse/inverse "God of the gaps" fallacy. Along with a dash of mind reading of the Almighty.
What else did God, who knows the future in its entirety, could have put in the Bible but chose not to?
You seem to be ignoring or avoiding the fact that the quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are part of the giving of the NT Scriptures by the direct miracle of inspiration of God.
The OT quotations are part of the process of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God, and they are not actually the making of a translated copy of any complete Old Testament book or of the entire Old Testament.
Great video! Dawkins knows mutations are always a loss of information. He sounds like Bill Nye who has stated that we may have come from Mars.
The links in my signature discuss the scientific impossibility of Evolution because of the complexity of DNA. In short the average strand of DNA has 250 molecules made up of 20 different amino acids which is 20 x 20 x 20 until you have done it 250 times. And that is just one strand and DNA has to be precise or there is mutation and death due to loss of information.
As for Deep Time, I have a thread on it in the Creation section. It came with tje atheistic enlightenment through the Greeks and from Hinduism. Jesus implied that Adam and Eve were present at the creation of the universe because He said that from the beginning He made them male and female.
If I ever get to Montreal, I will attend your services.
cmg
I wasn't there.
God "inspired" every valid translation in whatever language the same. Yes, the KJV is among them. But it's far from exclusive, & is now outdated.
The fact is, God does NOT support the KJVO myth, or He woulda said so. Of course I don't know how He woulda worded it.
As for what else He chose not to place in Scripture, I have no idea. But man-made doctrines of faith/worship nhave no place in our service to God.
You may be "outdated", but the KJV certainly isn't. And there is no scriptural support for such a ludicrous claim. A child born in any generation has the same capacity to learn and the same access to the Holy Spirit.
I was & it was the Ice Age that got them for the most part.
Are you not ready to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason for your hope concerning the KJV?
Several KJV-only advocates or KJV defenders have asserted that the KJV is not inspired.
In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, H. D. Williams wrote: “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop. Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v). Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394). D. A. Waite contended: “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning on Gail Riplinger’s, p. 32). D. A. Waite observed: “The accurate view of Bible inspiration is found in 2 Timothy 3:16. That verse refers to the way that the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words were produced by God’s true plenary verbal inspiration” (p. 20). Charles L. Surrett wrote: “There is no theological reason (no statement from God) to believe that a translation into any language would be inspired in the same way that the original writings in Hebrew and Greek were. No translation has been ‘God-breathed,’ as 2 Timothy 3:16 says of the originals” (Certainty of the Words, p. 75).
D. A. Waite wrote: “God never once caused any human writers or translators to operate any more under his DIVINE INSPIRATION of the words in any translation or version throughout human history thus far (nor will He in the future) in the same or even in a similar sense as He did when He originally gave His Word under DIVINE INSPIRATION” (Dean Burgon News, August, 1980, p. 1). H. D. Williams wrote: “Inspiration refers solely to the original and preserved God-breathed Words, which were recorded by the prophets and Apostles” (Pure Words, p. 20). H. D. Williams asserted: “The Greek word, graphe, in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the autographs” (Hearing the Voice of God, p. 193). In the preface of Kirk DiVietro’s book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite concerning the three Greek words that make up the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16. Waite noted that “these three Words refer exclusively to God’s miraculous action of His original breathing out of His Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Old and New Testaments” (p. iv, also p. 2). Waite added: “These Words do not refer to any Bible translation in any language of the world” (Ibid.).
H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite as noting: “Theopneustos is a compound adjective which comes from two Greek words, theos (God) and pneustos (an adjective meaning ’breathed’). Pneustos comes from the verb, peno ’to breathe.’ It does not come from nor is it synonymous with the noun, pneuma. It comes clearly from the verb, pneo (to breathe)” (Cleaning-Up, p. iv). Waite asserted: “Gail Riplinger and others are totally in error to claim that an adjective (pneustos) could be taken as a noun (pneuma). This is contrary to all Greek grammar, whether classical or Koine. It is clearly false teaching and false doctrine” (DiVietro, Cleaning-Up, p. iv).
KJV defender Ian Paisley noted: "And let me emphasize that inspiration has only to do with the writing of the original Scripture and is divinely limited to that. Inspiration has not to do with the translation of the Bible into English or any other language" (Fundamentalist Digest, January/February, 1995, p. 15). Charles Kriessman asserted: “The proper interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that it refers solely to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that were originally given by God” (Modern Version Failures, p. 48). Thomas Strouse wrote: “The word behind ‘is given by inspiration of God’ is theopneustos, meaning literally ‘is God-breathed.’ Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa [original autographs] is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (The Lord God, pp. 42-43). Homer Massey wrote: “No passage of Scripture tells us that God ever performed or planned to perform the operation of inspiration on any copier or translator. Again: Bible proof nowhere extends inspiration, the inerrant work of the Holy Spirit, to acts of copying the Greek manuscripts or to tasks of translating Scripture into other languages” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, October, 1980, p. 2). Homer Massey added: “Strictly speaking, the inspiration (as it has been discussed) only took place when God moved upon the human writers of Scripture in their original writings. No claim should be made for that which cannot be clearly proved by Scripture” (Ibid.).
David Cloud indicated that inspiration concerned “the divinely-guided writing of the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21) (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 45). William Byers asserted that “the process of inspiration is spoken of in 2 Timothy 3:16” and that “in 2 Peter 1:21, you see the personnel of inspiration” (History of the KJB, p. 7). Concerning 2 Timothy 3:14-17, David Cloud wrote: “The term ‘given by inspiration’ applies directly only to the original process of the giving of Scripture. The same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Faith, p. 54). Cloud added: “No translation can lay claim to this process. No translation is ‘given by inspiration’” (pp. 55, 593). Evangelist Harold Boyd, a KJV-only advocate, asserted: “If you want a good definition for inspiration, I believe you will find this in 2 Peter 1:21” (Flaming Torch, August, 1981, p. 3). D. A. Waite wrote: “By the term ‘inspiration’ we must understand primarily the process by which God caused His original words to be penned down by the ‘Holy Men of God’ (2 Peter 1:20-21) whom He assigned to that task” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1980, p. 3). H. D. Williams wrote: “Other verses refer to inspiration without using the word, inspiration, but teach that men were ‘moved by the Holy Spirit’ to record the Words in the autographs, the original manuscripts” (Hearing the Voice of God, p. 194).
Perhaps you show that you are merely trying to read erroneous human KJV-only reasoning into verses that do not actually declare what you claim. You fail to demonstrate that the verses declare what you try to claim.
So you've got special revelation on the idea that God deliberately didn't put support for KJV-onlyism in the scripture, but as far as other things God decided to omit, you can't comment.
I guess that explains why you keep bringing up KJVO.
- Status