• 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 your Bible Inerrant?

Is your Bible Inerrant?

  • 10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 11 inerrant as implemented in the Doctrine of the Church of England <img border="0" title="" alt=

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 12 inerrant implemented in the US Republican Party platform <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    96

michelle

New Member
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,

Ed,

I also has gestational diabetes when I was pregnant with my first child. If you need any advice for her, I have been through this and know what it is like. I will be praying for her and her baby.

May the Lord richly bless you Ed, and your daughter and unborn grandbaby , and family, ecspecially through this crisis.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord,
michelle
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Thank you, Brother Jim Ward. I'll continue
to pray (maybe not public) daily for the
good success of you, your family, and
your ministry.

wavey.gif
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Originally posted by michelle:
I also has gestational diabetes when I was pregnant with my first child. If you need any advice for her, I have been through this and know what it is like. I will be praying for her and her baby.
Thank you Sister Michelle. May God's blessing be double what
you asked for my family, nay! TRIPLE! Amen!

wave.gif
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
We notice even yet that NOBODY has voted
for the two answers that say the
Bible is inerrant in that it is applied
without error. This is interesting, there
is a lot more variation in how people
understand the KJV than there is between
the translation of the
KJV and some MV like say: nKJV.

wave.gif
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
I believe the Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that my understanding
of all the Bible is inerrant.

You believe your Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that your understanding
of all your Bible is inerrant.

wave.gif
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Recall it is Baptist Board (BB)
bulletin board (bb) policy that the
Holy Bible is inerrant.

BB SOF (statement of faith):

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men
divinely inspired and is God's
revelation of Himself to man. It is
a perfect treasure of divine instruction.
It has God for its author,
salvation for its end,
and truth, without any mixture of error,
for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is
totally true and trustworthy. It reveals
the principles by which God judges us, and
therefore is, and will remain to the end
of the world, the true center of Christian
union, and the supreme standard by which
all human conduct, creeds, and religious
opinions should be tried. All Scripture is
a testimony to Christ, who is Himself
the focus of divine revelation.
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Oh! Oh! #77 voted.
I'll check it out later........

Thank you, voter #77.
Nobody has voted since 12 Feb 2004,
over a month?
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Wow, 2 votes today, total is now 80.

Thank you voters!!

Poll Results: Is your Bible Inerrant? (80 votes.)

left column:(6 votes since #74, new votes)
right column: Total votes
Central column the categories:

== -3 the Bible has many major errors and is invalid 0% (0)
== -2 the Bible has major errors so is only marginally useful 1% (1)
== -1 the Bible has minor errors and should be used with caution 0% (0)
+1 0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful 5% (4)
== 1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues 11% (9)
== 2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 10% (8)
+3 3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 45% (36)
+1 4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR) 4% (3)
== 5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (exclusive of translator notes) 5% (4)
== 6 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (including the translator notes) 3% (2)
== 7 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJB1769 and/or KJB1873 1% (1)
+1 8 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR 4% (3)
== 9 inerrant in any English translation translated by dynamic equivalence 1% (1)
== 10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations 10% (8)
== 11 inerrant as implemented in the Doctrine of the Church of England 0% (0)
== 12 inerrant implemented in the US Republican Party platform 0% (0)

Again, thank you for voting.
wave.gif
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
My Bible is still inerrant.
I just counted 20 Bibles on my computer
desk (so, it has a hutch with
shelves on top of the hutch).
4 are flavors of the KJV and 12 are
modern versions (MVs). Yes, i have
two KJV1611 editions i'm comparing,
same same so far.
 

Jim Ward

New Member
Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
My Bible is still inerrant.
I just counted 20 Bibles on my computer
desk (so, it has a hutch with
shelves on top of the hutch).
4 are flavors of the KJV and 12 are
modern versions (MVs). Yes, i have
two KJV1611 editions i'm comparing,
same same so far.
Out of all your Bibles, which Bible is the one that you say is inerrant?

Bibles = plural
Bible = Singular
 

Jim Ward

New Member
Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
I believe the Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that my understanding
of all the Bible is inerrant.

You believe your Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that your understanding
of all your Bible is inerrant.

wave.gif
Why, I do beleive this is the best thing you have ever posted on here that I have read.
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Now, if the TMB is the inerrant Bible why have all the other errant Bibles laying around?
Sir, i have 16 Bibles on
my computer desk alone -- all inerrant.
(BTW four of them are KJV versions).

wave.gif
 

Jim Ward

New Member
Ed you said your Bible (which is a singular word) is inerrant, not that the Bibles (this is a plural word) were inerrant.

Why do you mv lovers have such a hard time with simple math?

Now Ed, it was you who said: "My Bible is still inerrant.
I just counted 20 Bibles on my computer.
"

and then said: "My Bible is inerrant.
My Bible is the THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE (TMB)



So you twice refeed to a single Bible as being inerrant, made reference to have a plural amount of Bibles on your desk and said that your inerrant Bible is the TMB. Are you trying to not stand behind your clear statements?
 

michelle

New Member
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

For all of you who desire and recieve great pleasure out of bashing Erasmus, in order to stir others away from the truth of the corruptions in the very texts of the modern versions, and the beliefs and life of those responsible, let us look now to what Erasmus himself believed, shall we:

"Would you please Peter and Paul? Then emulate the faith of the one and the charity of the other. Thereby you will do better than if you make ten pilgramages to Rome...You honor a statue of Christ in wood or stone and adorned with colors. You would do better to honor the image of his mind which through the Holy Spirit is expressed in the gospels. Are you excited over the seamless robe and the napkin of Christ and yet doze over the oracles of his law? Far better that you should believe than that you should treasure at home a piece of the wood of the cross. Otherwise you are no better than Judas, who with his lips touched the divine mouth. The physical presence of Christ is useless for salvation...In a word, let all your possessions, all your concern, all your care be directed toward the imitation of Christ, who was not born for himself, lived not to himself, died not to himself, but for our sakes..

We are assured of victory over death, victory over the flesh, victory over the world and Satan. Christ promises us remission of sins, fruits in this life a hundred fold, and thereafter life eternal. And for what reason? For the sake of our merit? No, indeed, but through the grace of faith which is in Christ Jesus. We are the more secure because he is first our doctor. He first overcame the lapse of Adam, nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood, which has been confirmed by the testimonies of the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and virgins and by the universal Church of the saints. He added the seal of the Spirit lest we should waver in our confidence...What could we little worms do of ourselves? Christ is our justification. Christ is our victory. Christ is our hope and security. Unto us a child is born. Unto US, born for us, given for us. He it is who teaches us, cures our diseases, casts out demons, for us suffers hunger and thirst, is afflicted, endures the agonies of death, sweats blood, for us is conquered, wounded, dead, and resurrected, and sits at the right hand of God the Father..

As we approach the sacraments, are not to be despised, but of greater importance is faith and charity without which is all else vain. I believe there are many not absolved by the priest, not having taken the Eucharist, not having been annointed, not having received Christian burial who rest in peace, while many who have had all the rites of the Church and have been buried next to the altar have gone to hell..."
(Taken from "Myths about the Modern Versions" by David Cloud, quoting from "Treatise on Preparation for death" by Roland H. Bainton from "Erasmus of Christendom".)

Also quoted in the above book we see Erasmus attitude toward the bible with this quote: Then glancing disdainfully at the traditions of men, he said: "It is not from human resevoirs, fetid with stagnant waters, that we should draw the doctrine of salvation; but from the pure and abundant streams that flow from the heart of God."

Erasmus also rejected the Latin Vulgate, and his own Latin New Testament was opposed to the Catholic Vulgate, that the Roman Catholic church considered it an attack on the Vulgate. Erasmus was branded by the Roman Catholic Church as a heretic.

I assume this won't change many people's views here who are stubborn to learn the truth, but it is for the benefit of those who desire to know the truth about Erasmus.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by michelle:

For all of you who desire and recieve great pleasure out of bashing Erasmus,
First things first... if you will notice, the "bashing" of Erasmus is only in response to baseless attacks against those who have worked on modern texts or versions. We have not picked this fight... but when you establish a criterion for judging someone's work then you should be prepared to have the criterion applied to those whose scholarship you embrace.

I lament the fact that Erasmus probably died lost. I hope that at some late hour he embraced salvation by grace alone. However, he opposed Luther on this point.

We all owe Erasmus a great debt. He took the first massive step back toward the originals as the authority rather than the "authorized version", the Latin Vulgate. He has more in common with our side of this debate than yours and would have never accepted the notion that a single translation was perfect. His denial of this set him at odds with those who made claims about the LV... that are almost identical to your claims about the KJV.
...by the universal Church of the saints.
Who do you think this refers to? The RCC? He acknowledged the authority of church tradition and of the Pope.
(Taken from "Myths about the Modern Versions" by David Cloud, quoting from "Treatise on Preparation for death" by Roland H. Bainton from "Erasmus of Christendom".)
I noticed all of the elipsis' even before seeing who had written your source. David Cloud is notorious for using only those parts of a quote that say what he needs them to say. Not only is it necessary to provide the additional material omitted from these quotes before presuming to interpret Erasmus' words, it is also necessary to look at the entire work it came from and his writings on whole.

Also quoted in the above book we see Erasmus attitude toward the bible with this quote: Then glancing disdainfully at the traditions of men, he said: "It is not from human resevoirs, fetid with stagnant waters, that we should draw the doctrine of salvation; but from the pure and abundant streams that flow from the heart of God."
And for the RCC this includes papal declarations and Church tradition.

Erasmus also rejected the Latin Vulgate,
Please cite proof for this. I have never heard this claim before but have read quotes where he praised it in introducing his own work.
and his own Latin New Testament was opposed to the Catholic Vulgate, that the Roman Catholic church considered it an attack on the Vulgate.
Amazing parallel wouldn't you say? Erasmus sought to go back to the original languages to purge the Latin Vulgate of errors (mostly additions if I remember correctly) and was condemned. Modern translators and textual critics seek to go back to the original languages and consider all of the evidence for what the originals said... and we have KJVO's claim they are attacking the KJV.
Erasmus was branded by the Roman Catholic Church as a heretic.
Erasmus texts could not have been published in Europe without the approval from the Church. He was condemned and widely hated for his criticisms of abuse by the clergy. He wanted to see the RCC purified of its abuses, not reformed in its theology.

I assume this won't change many people's views here who are stubborn to learn the truth,
I am not stubborn to learn the truth but I am cautious about anything coming from David Cloud... especially when it is filled with partial quotes and is stripped from its context.
but it is for the benefit of those who desire to know the truth about Erasmus.
The truth about Erasmus? I am not claiming to be an authority on the man but have seen other quotes from him that support the things I contend.

One short quote, editted by David Cloud, is not "the truth about Erasmus." From all I can find, he was a very conflicted man. He was an absolutely brilliant scholar and perhaps a quite vain/arrogant in that regard which contributed to the jealousy/contempt/hatred harbored for him by RCC clergymen.

I hope that at some late hour of his life he embraced salvation by grace alone. But his writings in context do not seem to reflect this view. His refusal to leave the church plus opposition to Luther on the topic give a sadly strong testimony to the opposite view.
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Why do you mv lovers have such a hard time with simple math?
Why do you KJBOs have such a
problem with even simple English?


My dictionary says:
Bible 1. the collection of
sacred writings of the Christian religion

I have ONE COLLECTION,
it currently has about 20 Bibles
in it: individual collections.
Well, one book actually has 4 Bibles
in it
 

michelle

New Member
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
ScottJ quoted:

I noticed all of the elipsis' even before seeing who had written your source. David Cloud is notorious for using only those parts of a quote that say what he needs them to say. Not only is it necessary to provide the additional material omitted from these quotes before presuming to interpret Erasmus' words, it is also necessary to look at the entire work it came from and his writings on whole.
--------------------------------------------------

If you are claiming about David Cloud something this serious, I now have to ask you to prove it. You said he is notorious of misquoting others, just as others claim about Gail Riplinger. Please show me proof that David Cloud has taken this quote out of it's origional context. You are making the claim, now you prove it! This is a serious accusation against a brother in Christ Jesus the Lord, and who has been a great blessing to me, and tells the truth out of love and concern for the churches. I cannot say the same for those on the mv side. All one cares about is winning the debate, bashing those who stand for the preserved word of God, and those who are warning others of the dangers presented in them. You go ahead, and believe the lies that tickle your ears. I do not need to know all this information for myself, for I KNOW ABSOLUTELY that God has preserved his word for me, and all who speak english, in the KJV. To attack it, and make others doubt it in order to justify the omittions and corruptions done to our God Almightys pure word of truth and promises, is discusting to me.

If you actually still believe after reading his testimony that Erasmus was not a saved man, then I do not know what you call a saved person. How then is one saved? If I had the choice, based on all I have read of Westcott and Hort, and all I have read about Erasmus, I would say that Erasmus was in better standing. If you cannot see the wrong that is being done with the modern versions because of the work of those two men, against that of the KJV, then I really do not know what else to say to you, but that you are being duped, and you know what the Lord says about that, if the blind follow the blind, they both fall into the ditch. Besides, Erasmus was just one of the many that the KJV translators used for the underlying text of the KJV. Westcott and Horts methods are more disturbing than their beliefs and associations, but these things just add to this. I will continue to convince others as best as I can, and the Lord allows, that the methods of those two men, and the manuscripts they held in high regard, that underline the mv's, have caused the many corruptions in them, and to the very word of God. These versions should be rejected by those who love God's word of truth.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 
Top