Is this a contradiction?

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
For some the process simply meant accepting the tried and true 1769 KJV (very very few use the 1611).
--------------------------------------------------


This of course, is where you are wrong. Our KJB of today is the same thing as that in 1611. If you so desire to believe that the printing/spelling/typeface errors, constitute true errors in the words of God, even though they were and are corrected, then by all means. But know this, all that can come from your belief is to sow doubt to others, and encourage doubt and confusion of others and in oppostition to the obvious and wonderful truth that our God is faithful and that He has indeed provided for us as He has promised.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[av1611jim]

So, if we can “ retain 100 percent of the inerrant Word of God,” and I believe we can, then it has to be a product of the Received Text or a product of the Critical text. It cannot be both because the two texts are not the same, and “things that are different are not the same.” [/QB][/QUOTE]

First you make a distinction between the two, then you say 'EVERY TEXT IS A CRITICAL TEXT'.

I alluded to your first comment when asking if the "Critical" text existed (as such) before or even 100 years or so after the KJB.
On the one hand you imply I am correct, and on the other you state I am not.
Can't have it both ways my fellow servant!!!
As Michelle has pointed out (I do not always agree with her but here I do) the contradictions are obvious.
BTW, your bio says you are a college prof? In light of this, I wonder just why you ridicule my intelligence with your stupid sophomoric comment, "duh!" ? Are you really a prof or are you really in Middle School?
In His service;
Jim

 

[manchester]

This of course, is where you are wrong. Our KJB of today is the same thing as that in 1611.

You should not bear false witness.

If you so desire to believe that the printing/spelling/typeface errors, constitute true errors in the words of God, even though they were and are corrected, then by all means.

If the originals say one thing and the KJV says something else, the KJV is in error and the error is NOT "in the words of God" as you so often claim.

But know this, all that can come from your belief is to sow doubt to others, and encourage doubt and confusion of others and in oppostition to the obvious and wonderful truth that our God is faithful and that He has indeed provided for us as He has promised.

Perhaps that is the difference. We look for the truth and make conclusions from it. You decide what conclusion you would like to believe, then rationalize the facts to fit your conclusion. If the truth "sows doubt," it is still the truth.

 

[pastorjeff]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
For some the process simply meant accepting the tried and true 1769 KJV (very very few use the 1611).
--------------------------------------------------


This of course, is where you are wrong. Our KJB of today is the same thing as that in 1611. If you so desire to believe that the printing/spelling/typeface errors, constitute true errors in the words of God, even though they were and are corrected, then by all means. But know this, all that can come from your belief is to sow doubt to others, and encourage doubt and confusion of others and in oppostition to the obvious and wonderful truth that our God is faithful and that He has indeed provided for us as He has promised.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Michelle,
What about the doubt sown by telling a teen they either do not know Christ as their savior, or can't grow spiritually because they don't use the KJB???

 

[manchester]

When you tie in the KJVo 4 and 5 with Christianity, and you say that if one is false they both are, you are setting up people to reject Christianity.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by pastorjeff:

What about the doubt sown by telling a teen they either do not know Christ as their savior, or can't grow spiritually because they don't use the KJB???

Most of the people in the churches in the NT could not read. I wonder how they grew if they couldn't read the KJB?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Clearly a place where only God Himself can sit, who alone is able to judge the thoughts and intents of the human heart.

James 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

--------------------------------------------------


You are correct and only God knows this and to which only God's words can convict.


--------------------------------------------------

What is clearly wrong IMO are those who want to play God, issuing innuendo and insults accusing others of being liars and fools without being able to look into their hearts with threats of the final judgment concerning one's spirituality and/or salvation simply because the choice of others is not the same as their own.

--------------------------------------------------

Really? Are we not to test the spirits? Are we not to judge all things? This is contrary to what the scriptures say

[snipped]

How do you love one another Hank?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ October 19, 2004, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

[Phillip]

Now, aren't we dancing (oh, Baptists aren't supposed to dance) around on the ole hornets nest.

Here is how I can say this: God's Word is a set of "stories, principles, Jesus' Words, God's commands, THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST (first and foremost), predictions and prophecies, history and so on. It is God's revelation of Himself to the human race. THIS is the Word of God, inerrant and complete.

At the risk of sounding like a KJVo, I do believe that God has provided His Word for all generations and that may not mean exactly what everybody has assumed that it means, here's why: When Old Testament verses are quoted, it is obvious that it must be referring to the laws of Moses which were maintained, not so much as a document, but a series of laws that were written and kept. The Penteteuch, was available and considered God's Word.

In the new testament, many of the epistles were written before the gospels were. Paul went around telling people about "The Way" without having a book of Luke to show the churches. This was why he wrote letters explaining what we as Christians are to believe. (Whether or not Paul actually knew He was writing scripture has been debated, but there is at least one point in one letter that indicates that he felt His letters were inspired.)

I know this may sound conflicting, but many translations do contain the complete, inerrant Word of God.

Yes, this sounds a lot like circular reasoning and I will be challenged, but I hold to the fact that the KJV, the NKJV the NASB probably the Bishop's and since I am not that familiar with all of the older translations, I know there are a lot based on the charts I have seen, I have no doubt that many of these contain an accurate Word of God.

I think our problem lies in the strict definition of "Word" or "Words". This obviously cannot mean individual "words" as spelled out. It means something much deeper. John calls Jesus the Word. Taken in this context I think we find the inerrant Word in many different and varying translations.

Again, if you look at the ending of Mark, whether it is there or not can be considered legitimate. I know your break out of the wording, Dr. Bob, but I Jesus also told his disciples to do things that we are not expected to do. So, therefore, whether or not that ending there does not "add" or "take away" from the "WORD" of God.

The Word of GOd is often considered the "living Word of God."

Does this make sense? It is a difficult concept, but it is also primary to our understanding of the Word of God.

...just my thoughts, not necessarily a conclusion.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, you should be very careful about claiming God had no Word until the KJV was (mis)translated in 1611. Biblical scholars rejected the KJV when it was invented:
--------------------------------------------------


Where have I said this? I haven't. You are putting words into my mouth. I have never said such a thing, and do not believe this. You human reasoning, and false logic that you have approached in this issue is NOT BINDING upon me, nor God's truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:

Where have I said this? I haven't. You are putting words into my mouth. I have never said such a thing, and do not believe this. You human reasoning, and false logic that you have approached in this issue is NOT BINDING upon me, nor God's truth.

Somehow I though that's what you believed too. So could you clearly state what you believe.

 

[Bro. James]

Re: Gospel of John, Chapter 3. Jesus said to a man called Nicodemus, "You must be born again...you are a master of Israel(right reverend doctor) and do not understand these things?" So much for higher textual criticism.

Point: It is possible for unregenerated theologians including translators to be in spiritual darkness, in fact some are given over to strong delusion.

Point: Translators are not inspired like the"holy men of God who were moved by The Holy Spirit" to receive the Word of God. Example: in the KJV and other English translations, the word "baptize" is not translated but rather transliterated. In the Greek, the word (baptizo) means to immerse. Since most of the KJV translators practised "infant sprinkling" as "baptizm", the mode, immersion just does not fit the theology paradigm.

This actually exposes two serious doctrinal departures: baptism regeneration and infant baptism. These are the basic issues which have separated true churches from pseudo churches for centuries. Millions of Christians have died refusing to bow to infant baptism. Read about the "heretics" during the Dark Ages--on the www.

God's Word is revealed--we are without excuse.
He does not contradict Himself--contradiction is part of the failing of mankind--we do it by nature.

Salvation is of the Lord.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
EVERY greek text we have today is a "critical" text - as in someone took various manuscripts, codices, uncials, fragments, etc and BLENDED them into a "text". They were "critical" in seeking what was the closest, most accurate reading to the original inspired writing.

Erasmus did this with pathetically few resources.
Elziver, Stephens and others continued to add/delete from their text.
--------------------------------------------------


And where was God then, and where is God today in this whole debate? Can you, and do you not see God's providential care in this, and His presense in this today? Or does God just sit upon His throne in heaven, without one iota of concern or care, and allow His words to be decided upon by scholars own judgements rather than faith? I am sorry, but I could not believe like you and many others, as your belief seems not to start first with faith, but rather doubt to which ultimately leads to contradiction and confusion. This is what textual criticism is, and it is not faithful.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[manchester]

And where was God then, and where is God today in this whole debate? Can you, and do you not see God's providential care in this, and His presense in this today?

You mean in faithfully giving us the HCSB? Preserving the manuscripts so that we could have the HCSB?

Or does God just sit upon His throne in heaven, without one iota of concern or care, and allow His words to be decided upon by scholars own judgements rather than faith?

You pick and choose which scholars you believe are inspired by God, and which you believe were not. You have given no basis for your beliefs. Nothing from the Bible, nothing from history, just bald assertions.

I am sorry, but I could not believe like you and many others, as your belief seems not to start first with faith, but rather doubt to which ultimately leads to contradiction and confusion. This is what textual criticism is, and it is not faithful.

Fine. Let's start with FAITH: the HCSB was given to us by God, and it is the ONLY Word of God in the English language. God's hand was directly involved with the HCSB and prevented it from error. Starting from there, we can attack all other translations as false. Happy?

 

[natters]

michelle said "Or does God just sit upon His throne in heaven, without one iota of concern or care, and allow His words to be decided upon by scholars own judgements rather than faith?"

God does care. But why did he have men do the copying and translating, instead of doing it himself an floating the KJV down from heaven to us on a golden pillow?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle,
What about the doubt sown by telling a teen they either do not know Christ as their savior, or can't grow spiritually because they don't use the KJB???
--------------------------------------------------

No one here has ever said such a thing, nor have they ever implied such a thing, and have said quite the opposite. The scriptures do not sow doubt, and to believe and know the scriptures in the KJB are the very words of God in our English language, and to claim that does not. However, for many to claim all versions existing today are the very words of God and inerrant and infallible to which is evident they are not, or that none of us can have God's words perfectly today and all have errors, can only cause for confusion and doubt in reality. This can hurt the faith of some, and keep others from coming to faith.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
In the new testament, many of the epistles were written before the gospels were. Paul went around telling people about "The Way" without having a book of Luke to show the churches. This was why he wrote letters explaining what we as Christians are to believe. (Whether or not Paul actually knew He was writing scripture has been debated, but there is at least one point in one letter that indicates that he felt His letters were inspired.)
--------------------------------------------------


In order for you to believe what you say you believe, then you have contradicted yourself. You seem to be approaching the scriptures in a critical and analytical way, which is very foriegn to me. Pauls words in the New Testament are the INSPIRED WORDS OF THE LORD, and NOT PAULS own words, nor what PAUL THOUGHT. No one today, could even KNOW what Paul thought. You either believe that what is in the New Testament is the very inspired words of God, or you don't and therefore at best is and can be just a story and his own opinions. You have NOTHING to base your faith on. I don't mean to be harsh, but this is the only conclusion I can come to of your belief.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Now I see "WHY" the "undecided" wrest so much about the ISSUE "they" introduced, "they aren't surer what theyr're talking about, unless you ask them if they are sure, but then by rweading what they say they're "sure" about, you find they are still unSURE.

We have faith there is God? YES. We have faith that the AV 1611 is the Word of God to the English speaking people and that alterations, omissions, and total misinterpretations of text given by questionable MSS are NOT the Word of God, but now, PROVE that you have God's Word inany of your versions, now you'll have to prove there is even a God to be able to have His Word.

Can anyone else see where all this has led?

It's all surmised and comprised and totalled up as, "Is there really a God?"

 

[manchester]

I think the vast majority have faith that the KJV is not the inerrant, full and faithful transmission of the Word of God to the English people. Only a small minority hold to the (very new) tradition of believing KJVo.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I think our problem lies in the strict definition of "Word" or "Words". This obviously cannot mean individual "words" as spelled out. It means something much deeper. John calls Jesus the Word. Taken in this context I think we find the inerrant Word in many different and varying translations.
--------------------------------------------------


This is contrary to what God has said about HIS OWN WORDS in the scriptures themselves. Not only that, but words are what make the message. You alter the words you alter the message. You add to the words, you have added/changed the message. You take away from the words, you take away from the message. God did not give HIS words, ANY ONE OF THEM for NO PURPOSE or REASON. God does EVERYTHING for a REASON and PURPOSE. This is just one of the many verses of scripture - Gods very words, about HIS WORDS:

Deut. 8

3. And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.


Now, are you going to be the judge of WHAT is EVERY WORD OF THE LORD? or is God the the judge and make it OBVIOUS? Does God expect us to have Faith, or doubt? I thought faith was logical. If logic only proceeds from God, how then can we have logic, if not grounded in faith first? Where does faith come from and what makes it logical, and what determines it is? By the words of the Lord. That is how. You start to doubt that, and your faith crumbles.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

Plain 'ol Ralph said "It's all surmised and comprised and totalled up as, "Is there really a God?"

Ridiculous. Of course there is, and he gave us his word in the 1560 Geneva. To deviate from it and "correct" God's word with the KJV is really to doubt the existence of God himself.

Logic is your friend.