Is she still alive? She is no star like her father whom was a legend.
-
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!
KJV Only and Sword of the Lord
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
Is she still alive? She is no star like her father whom was a legend.
Who do you mean by "they"? GARBC fundamentalists? BBF? FBF? SBF? Bible Presbyterians? There are many groups of fundamentalists out there, all somewhat different.
Yes.
I bet I have more than you, even though I'm only an ignorant fundamentalist.
Thank God He doesn't require any of us to try to replace or imitate any other, except as they follow Christ.
By the way, Shannon Lee has a neat little book out of Bruce's sayings with a bunch of photos. I brought one back for Ushiro San, who did Kyokushinkai Karate, and he was thrilled.
Thanks, bro! :wavey:
I would say with the slew of really bad translations out there, that perhaps making SOTL KJVO was an act of preservation.. maybe? RB Oulettes book "A more sure word" sure changed my perspective on a lot of things. Glad I always was reading KJV
Why do you think man has the authority to "preserve" the Scriptures?
That is God's word, and His responsibility.
Do you know that the Separatists considered the KJV as a perversion rather than a true version. They preferred the Geneva Bible to all others.
The ASV is (in my opinion) one of the very best translations done in the American English.
I know there are some "bad" translation work that has been done, my problem is basically from what original text does the translation draw.
I would suggest that it is the Word of God that the Holy Spirit uses, and if it comes from even a perverted mouth (think of the high priest's statement that one must die for the multitude) it is still the word of God.
I bet I have more than you, even though I'm only an ignorant fundamentalist.
There is a difference between quantity and quality of books.
Look, I was just kidding around with you. But here you are once again accusing fundamentalism of ignorance. I've never before told anyone a list of what I'm reading, but since you are making an issue of it, I'll give you what one fundamentalist has by my bed for evening reading:
Honor and Shame, by Roland Muller--a sociological approach to missiology concentrating on the shame-based societies of the 10/40 Window.
Japan's New Day, by Edwin Dozier--the post-war situation in Japan by a famed SBC missionary.
"The Use of the Aorist Imperative in the Pastoral Epistles," by Paul Himes (my IFB son), from Filología Neotestamentaria, (2010) vol. 23, no. 43, p. 73-92.
A Theory for Bible Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model, by James Price, OT editor for the NKJV and HCSB (an old prof and friend, member of an IFB supporting church).
The Story of Language, by Mario Pei--linguistics.
Changed into His Image, by Jim Berg from BJU, on the Christian life.
Your turn. What is in your stack?
Actually, I personally believe that the physical preservation of Scripture (textual criticism, translating, printing, distributing, memorizing, advocating) is a responsibility of believers. Note that we believe in the priesthood of the believer, and the OT priests were the ones who physically preserved the OT. I first ran across this concept in the writings of Edward F. Hills.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
John, I rarely disagree with you and I'm not a fundamentalist. But here I'm going to have to disagree to a certain extent.
I do believe that we as individual believers have a responsibility to defend the faith and in that responsibility we should examine how scripture is translated, who its printed by, etc, and that we should warn others of deliberate mistranslations intended by design or by ignorance to change the context or application of scriptures. However, beyond that, the responsibility for preserving scripture is up to God. In essence, He uses Christians(and sometimes others) for the purpose of preserving scripture through all those ways you mentioned, but in the absence of any, His words would persevere.
Look, I was just kidding around with you. But here you are once again accusing fundamentalism of ignorance. I've never before told anyone a list of what I'm reading, but since you are making an issue of it, I'll give you what one fundamentalist has by my bed for evening reading:
Honor and Shame, by Roland Muller--a sociological approach to missiology concentrating on the shame-based societies of the 10/40 Window.
Japan's New Day, by Edwin Dozier--the post-war situation in Japan by a famed SBC missionary.
"The Use of the Aorist Imperative in the Pastoral Epistles," by Paul Himes (my IFB son), from Filología Neotestamentaria, (2010) vol. 23, no. 43, p. 73-92.
A Theory for Bible Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model, by James Price, OT editor for the NKJV and HCSB (an old prof and friend, member of an IFB supporting church).
The Story of Language, by Mario Pei--linguistics.
Changed into His Image, by Jim Berg from BJU, on the Christian life.
Your turn. What is in your stack?
Follow me by David Platt
Dont waste your Life by John Piper
Why Jesus by Ravi Zacharias
Angels by David Jeremiah
The Glory of Heaven by John MacArthur
God is the Gospel by John Piper
Deliver us from Evil by Ravi Zacharias
How to keep your dream alive by Erwin Lutzer
I still have other books in my stack I have not started but did not mention here. I have allot of reading to do today. Of your stack Changed into His Image is a real winner.
I've had Beal's book for years, just never gotten around to reading it, so I stuck it in my stack to get started.
I have a couple by John Piper, but can't get into his view of missiology in Let the Nations be Glad. To me it didn't show much knowledge of actual missionary work--just Piper's theory.
Of course God preserves His Word. That is a given not only because of relevant Scripture (such as Ps. 119:89, where we learn that the Word is settled in Heaven, where of course it is perfectly preserved), but because He really preserves everything (Neh. 9:6, Col. 1:16-17, 2 Sam. 22:3, Job 7:20).
However, the instruments of His preservation on earth must be and are humans. There is no evidence in Scripture of any miraculous, unilateral preservation efforts by God of His Word on Earth. His preservation on Earth is providential, not miraculous, through people, not without people. So he leads people to discover new manuscripts, edit the original language texts, translate the Word, print the Bible, etc.
So I disagree with you that "in the absence of any (human preservation), His words would persevere." I don't see that in Scripture, unless you mean by that His words persevere (are preserved by Him) in Heaven perfectly.
P. S. Sorry I didn't get around to answering this until now. It was swimming around in my head, though.
Last edited by a moderator:
menageriekeeper
Active Member
I understand swimming, it's been swimming in mine too.
So the next question is how does this idea that God must use men for the preservation of scripture here on earth, without any "miraculous, unilateral preservation efforts by God" mesh with the idea that God Himself is unchangeable. We humans are immensely changeable and if God left us to ourselves we toss aside scripture as just another book of ancient myths and go our merry way. I'm not certain an unchangeable God would just sit back and let man do as he pleases with the scriptures which are supposed to reveal Him to mankind without interfering in some manner or other, whether or not we humans consider that interference to be "miraculous". (That is a nice run on sentence that I'm sure is very clear)
I think I have another objection as well but it's still swimming around in my brain. Maybe by tomorrow I can articulate it.
So the next question is how does this idea that God must use men for the preservation of scripture here on earth, without any "miraculous, unilateral preservation efforts by God" mesh with the idea that God Himself is unchangeable. We humans are immensely changeable and if God left us to ourselves we toss aside scripture as just another book of ancient myths and go our merry way. I'm not certain an unchangeable God would just sit back and let man do as he pleases with the scriptures which are supposed to reveal Him to mankind without interfering in some manner or other, whether or not we humans consider that interference to be "miraculous". (That is a nice run on sentence that I'm sure is very clear)
I think I have another objection as well but it's still swimming around in my brain. Maybe by tomorrow I can articulate it.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
oops!
OOPS! John...I think you meant Berg....not Beal. It is an excellent book....I'm about 3/4 through it right now. Much to think about! Bro.Berg led me to faith in Christ on Oct.13,1977.
Bro.Greg:saint:
OOPS! John...I think you meant Berg....not Beal. It is an excellent book....I'm about 3/4 through it right now. Much to think about! Bro.Berg led me to faith in Christ on Oct.13,1977.
Bro.Greg:saint:
While my position on the Greek NT is Byzantine priority, I believe that God has providentially preserved His Word so that in any original language text, no doctrine, no name of Christ, no devotional content is ever lost. So the Holy Spirit of God providentially leads a born again textual critic or translator in his work. As a Bible translator I have experienced a deep feeling of peace and joy when reading the finished product of our efforts--the Word of God rightly translated!
Remember the difference between providential and miraculous. God can lead someone in the right path without a miracle, which is when God does something that is crosses the bounds of natural law. So God preserves on earth providentially but not miraculously. When a Jewish king was commanded by God to write out his own personal copy of the Law (human preservation), God did not promise that he would make no copyist errors.
You're right, brother, thanks! :wavey:
originals were inspired and inerrant, our texts today would be infallible!
menageriekeeper
Active Member
I'm going to add this to the pool and think on it a while longer.
We have NO originals extant to us now, so we do have greek/hebrew texts essentially same as them, but NOT inspired perfect bythe HS, as God preserved to us what is needed to make infallible, not perfect versions!