KJVO

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
Just a few questions to help clarify your position, giving you ample opportunity to clearly state your position so it will not be possible for me to misrepresent you, since you will have finally clearly stated your position.
...
I am aware you could explain these things away by using the conflicting Greek sources, but what about English? You have said the KJV Bible is so hard to read, so why must we instead have to learn Greek to finally get it right? Or will you do it for us, so you will be the channel of communication?

I will answer each of the following *without* explaining them using conflicting Greek sources. Will that make a difference for you? We shall see.

Also, keep in mind that finding problems with other versions is not the same as proving the KJV inerrant. And I am not even remotely trying to prove that whereever a modern version differs from the KJV, the KJV is wrong and the modern version is right.

[*]Is my KJV Bible trustworthy with Mark 3:5 and John 2:15? Are the versions that take out the words “without a cause” in Matthew 5:22 trustworthy, even though they show Jesus a sinner for being angry?

Yes, both are trustworthy.

It is not a sin for being angry, but the potential is there. Does having "a cause", as the KJV has, remove this potential? How is it even possible to be angry "without a cause" in the first place? When Cain was angry and killed Able, he had a cause. When Hitler killed the Jews, he had a cause. Nero had a cause. Satan has a cause. The Antichrist will have a cause. Certainly not righteous causes, but the text of the KJV doesn't say "righteous cause", it just says "cause".

Also, the verse doesn't even say "sin". It doesn't even say "judgment". It says "*danger* of judgement". If I were to say "whosoever is camping in the mountains shall be in danger of bear attack", does that mean every person who camps in the mountain will, with 100% certainty, be eaten by a bear? Of course not. If I were to say "whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (as it says in the immediately prior verse in the KJV, without using the phrase "without a cause"!), does that mean that every time someone is killed, the one who did the killing is sinning? God killed Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. Did God sin, according to the Matt 5:21 in the KJV? He did if your argument is valid.

[*]Is my KJV Bible trustworthy where it says “prophets” in Mark 1:2, and are other versions trustworthy where they say “Isaiah” in Mark 1:2?

Yes, both are trustworthy. It was not uncommon to combine two references to the OT and only mention the dominant prophet. This is what the KJV did in Matt 27:9, which is attributed to Jeremiah, but mostly comes from Zech.

[*]Is my KJV Bible trustworthy where it says David killed Goliath, and are the other versions that say Elhanan killed Goliath also trustworthy?

Yes, both are trustworthy. The KJV has added "the brother of" to this passage, as indicated by the italics. There is no textual varation here in the Hebrew. If the modern versions are wrong, so is every Hebrew Bible in history. Maybe, just maybe, there is an explanation that you personally have not thought of for the reading.

[*]Is my KJV Bible trustworthy in Matthew 6:13, and are the versions that delete those fourteen words used in my Bile also trustworthy?

Yes, they are both trustworthy. If omitting those words make a Bible untrustworthy, the KJV is untrustworthy for omitting them in Luke 11.

[*]Is my KJV Bible trustworthy in Mark 10:24, and are the versions that make it hard for everyone to enter the kingdom of God, as they have Mark 10:24, also trustworthy?

Yes, both are trustworthy. The context is riches, and in the immediately prior verse, Christ says ""How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" The verse you mention says "But Jesus said again 'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'", so obviously the meaning is the same in context.

[*]Is my KJV Bible trustworthy in Luke 4:4, and are the versions that say, well, they don’t say what we are to live by, but are they also trustworthy there?

Yes, the are both trustworthy. Matt 4:4. If having the words present in one verse and not the other makes a Bible untrustworthy, the ending of the Lord's prayer (as discussed above) makes the KJV untrustworthy.

[*]Is my KJV Bible trustworthy where it tells me whom to believe in, with John 6:47, and are the versions that do not say whom to believe in there also trustworthy?

Yes, they are both trustworthy. First, the context makes it clear where the belief is to be placed (verses 35 and 40). If not being specific, in every single verse, about what to believe in makes a Bible untrustworthy, the KJV is untrustworthy in Mark 9:23, Rom 1:16, Rom 10:4, 1 Cor 7:12, etc.

[*]Is my KJV Bible trustworthy where it tells me about fasting, in verses Acts 10:30; 1 Corinthians 7:5; 2 Corinthians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 11:27; Matthew 17:21; Mark 9:29; and are the versions that delete reference to fasting also trustworthy?

Yes, they are both trustworthy. I won't get into the manuscript issues here (because I said I wouldn't), but modern versions support and teach fasting in many other passages.

[*]Are there times fasting is indeed needful, as my KJV Bible says, or is that not true, and if it is true, how is one to know that from the versions that delete reference to fasting?

Casting out demons is not done by following a specific formula.

[*]Must multiple choice version hopping be used to find the truth, and when the truth is found, how is a person to know they have the truth, if contradictory sources are to be perused?

Because they are usually not really contradictory. When you find a "contradiction" *internal* to the KJV, do you not find a way to explain it, or trust that it's not, anyway? Why not put forth the same effort here? Also, I have been basically asking YOU (and others) that very question about 1605, since there were already 16 complete English Bibles in existence by that time.

[*]Should a person be a Christian, Baptist, Buddhist, Muslim, Roman Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, etc etc all at once to be sure of having all the bases covered, if they are required to peruse different and contradictory versions of “trustworthy” versions to get it right?

Maybe I don't understand your question, but my first impression is that it is a ridiculous question. Besides, it is not even about the words of scripture, but about the interpretation. Even if we had the KJV as the *only* Christian Bible available, we'd *still* have all those groups.

[*]Is my KJV Bible trustworthy at Romans 14:10 where it tells me about the Judgment Seat of Christ, showing we will be giving account to God, and showing Christ to be God, and are the versions that leave out the Judgment Seat of Christ et al also trustworthy?

Yes, they are both trustworthy. I could not find a version that leaves it out, and even if there is one, not having specific words present in all relevant verses does not make a Bible untrustworthy, as I've demonstrated a couple times above using the KJV.

God bless,
Brian

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
Not wanting to mislead or misunderstand you based on what you said previous, now, do you say my Bible is trustworthy as it is, or is it trustworthy if other sources are considered along with it?

First, I do not see where any of these questions are issues of major trustworthiness. Second, since you do not have the originals, you are operating on probabilities of what the author actually said. You cannot prove your point apart from assuming your position ot be right (when it has been shown not to be). Third, trustworthiness is a much more significant issue than you have given it here. Trivializing to the point of questioning variant readings that God has preserved for us is not good for the discussion.

I could go through and answer all your questions but it would probably be more time than its worth and my suspicion is that if you were really interested in answers, you would do your own homework. All of these questions have been answered in print by theologians who hold to inerrancy and inspiration. There are no real problems here. I will hit just a couple of highlights.

As for Matt 5:22, were you unaware that other passage such as Ephesian 4 are still in the MVs? There is clearly says it is possible to be angry and sin not. Not all anger is sin. Since Jesus is perfect, we know that his anger was not sinful. Part of teh problem with your position is that you rip a few verses out of context and pretend like they are the only ones in the Bible.

John 6:47 is another case where you make your point only be ignoring teh context in which it is found. Do you really expect us to believe that v. 47 does not have verses 1-46 and 48 to the end of the chapter with it? How silly do you think we are? The MVs make abundantly clear the object of our belief.

These are just two quick examples that point to the fact that you are using a faulty method of study. You would do better to follow the advice of the KJV translators who admitted the benefit of other senses. You have simply missed the truth on this issue.

 

[sodzei]

you have probably heard this before, but i'll bring it up anyway. is the KJV inerrant in it's tribute to the legendary playwrite Shakespeare?

the KJV was being finished as was Shakespeare's 46th birthday. Did King James give a tribute to Shakespeare or is it only an odd coincidence?

Psalm 46... 46 words from the beginning... 46 words from the end.

 

[AV Defender]

this vile kjvo cancer

Balderdash!! the KJV & it's supporters are'nt cancerous;they will never go away!

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by sodzei:
you have probably heard this before, but i'll bring it up anyway. is the KJV inerrant in it's tribute to the legendary playwrite Shakespeare?

the KJV was being finished as was Shakespeare's 46th birthday. Did King James give a tribute to Shakespeare or is it only an odd coincidence?

Psalm 46... 46 words from the beginning... 46 words from the end.

I think it's just coincidence.

What I find more amazing is that someone actually discovered this.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Word of Explanation - Please understand my barbs at brother Bob (from "cult" to "cancer") are just a "shot across the bow" between two old - emphasis on old - friends and fellow-warriors.

Would not want any to misunderstand that. I of course vehemently disagree with the KJVO position. But give 100% deference to those who do hold it.

I am a moderator and administrator on the BB, but that does not mean I am neutral! Like you didn't know that already!

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Word of Explanation - Please understand my barbs at brother Bob (from "cult" to "cancer") are just a "shot across the bow" between two old - emphasis on old - friends and fellow-warriors.

Would not want any to misunderstand that. I of course vehemently disagree with the KJVO position. But give 100% deference to those who do hold it.

I am a moderator and administrator on the BB, but that does not mean I am neutral! Like you didn't know that already!

Bob Griffin:

Your use of words for shock value is great, and your imitation of Gene Scott is great, it shows you want to emulate him, but really, you need to try a little harder.

Aside from all that, I sincerely hope you are well. You certainly seem frisky.

Bob Krajcik

 

[Bob Krajcik]

KJV Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Here I Stand

To clear something up, I never said the newest versions, or even older versions, do not contain the word of God. They certainly do, at least the ones I have seen do. I have Scriptures that I can search to prove that. But I can prove the sources that are false, as well, because I have Scripture to prove that, and my Scripture is not contradictory.

What I have said is the authoritative King James Version is lacking nothing, and is wholly true and wholly complete. Some say it is wrong, but where is their final authority? Is it simply in their head, and subject to change? The complaints made against me in this matter, and the complaints against my Bible are ones that can not be proven. The things being said, if I follow that criteria I am not able to prove, because the criteria the critics advance is that one is to go look at contradictory readings.

Some have been making a mock of the fact I let another decide what the word of God is. They boast, and they go from source to source, reading one conflicting thing after another, and then deciding themselves what the word of God is to be, but they never show they are able to repeat what they find with certainty. With their private interpretation, they have never been able to articulate after they claim to find God’s word, just what it is they decided was actually the word of God. Some claim the contradictions are to be counted as God’s word. Pointing to a number of contradictory sources and saying, “Go read those and decide for yourself” is making self the final authority. Everyone does that which is right in their own eyes.

The authoritative King James Version Bible is rejected by many, and many of those rejecting it scamper about from one contradiction after another, saying, “Yea, hath God said...”

KJV Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

Bob Krajcik

 

[DRenicky]

First, I do not see where any of these questions are issues of major trustworthiness.

Well, what? Minor trustworthiness, then? What a truly mortal cocept that is: that the Word must prove its trustworthiness to the man who holds the key to his own understanding. One does not have to be a scholar to understand the issue of trustworthiness. Not so long ago, it became clear to me that I could not trust a modern translation that omitted entire verses. Truth was being kept back by those who knew best what God should say. But a text that inspired truth, was and is truth - not one that earned it - was preserved so that I could know the difference between the truth and a lie. Praise God for His inerrant Word!

Trivializing to the point of questioning variant readings that God has preserved for us is not good for the discussion.

I know of those who profess Christianity who say we should enjoy cocaine and hashish, because God has preserved these things for us to enjoy despite the intercession of worldly laws and senseless legalisms. Indeed, God allows these things to exist, but He also tells us not settle for anything less than the best He has prepared and preserved for us. The tares are to remain until the harvest, whereupon they will be burned. This is hardly trivial.

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. (Matthew 13:40)

There is clearly says it is possible to be angry and sin not. Not all anger is sin. Since Jesus is perfect, we know that his anger was not sinful.

Yes, but elsewhere it is said... For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. (James 1:20)

Since none of us is Jesus, we may rightly assume that anger is to be avoided, and is not profitable for the Godly. You attempt to lay blame on Mr. Krajcik for an error you commit yourself, and furthermore your testimony is that the Bible (or at least *A* Bible) supports you in this endeavor.

The MVs make abundantly clear the object of our belief.

Amen, and amen. And the KJV, the Object of ours.

The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him. (Nahum 1:7)

--DAR

 

[Steve K.]

Steve K.
Member
Member # 5052

posted December 28, 2002 10:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Try Answering These From Your NIV
By Rex L. Cobb

INSTRUCTIONS: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the
following questions.

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must
take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the
text).

Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________
them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for
them that __________ and persecute you."

According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this
type of demon?

According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?

According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?

In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were
fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in
Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.

In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to:
____________

According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?

According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter,
etc.). What is his title or last name?

In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?

In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this
verse, what did He come to do?

In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription
written?

In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ.
According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.

Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the
chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?

Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament
concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the
flesh?

In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ?
And, what do we Christians do?

Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of
Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the
A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more
than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed
the test, you receive a big goose egg.

(These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your
"accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?

If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can
take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.

 

[Steve K.]

Check this nugget out,a quote from the chief editor of the NIV.
This {his NIV} shows the great error that is so prevelant in some orthodox Protestant circles,namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith...and that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as his savior.
Few clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God.

 

[Scott J]

A recent poster wrote these words of wisdom:

"...there is a final authority higher than the people trying to tear down others faith in the scripture."

The premise of this "test" is based on the false conclusion that the KJV = the original autographs. One could just as easily take the TR, translate it word for word, and make up a similar test that someone using a KJV would fail.

I don't even like the NIV but the basis of this quiz is patently dishonest and works to do exactly what you condemn: "tear down others faith in the scripture."

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by Steve K.:
Steve K.
Member
Member # 5052

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must
take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the
text).

Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,_kissthem that curse you, say arivaderci mi amor to them that hate you, and pray for them that barbecue and persecute you."

According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this
type of demon? A rabbit's foot and a tobacco pouch filled with garlic.

According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth? To do some prospecting.

According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name? Stunt.

In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were
fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in
Matthew 27:35 from the NIV. "Them there wicked soldiers is a-gonna part his garments."

In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: replace them with elves.

According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear? Huh??

According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter,
etc.). What is his title or last name? Big Bad John

In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know? That there would some day be the web talking about how ignorant they were.

In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? Bungee jump. According to this
verse, what did He come to do? Stay for supper.

In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus? Enough

According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription
written? Fortran, Pascal, and Cobol

In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish? Hushpuppies.

John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ.
According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man? Gone hunting

What happened each year as told in John 5:4? The Super Bowl

In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus? At night-- his office hours were Nic-at-Nite.

In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism? Deep enough water.

What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6? "Who's callilng, please?"

Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34. the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15;34.

Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? Slickered him. What was the
chief captain's name? Bligh What did the chief captain command? "Eat your supper, Mr. Christian."

Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV. Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament
concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the
flesh? James VI of Scotland; I of England.

In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? By flapping their tongues. d, what do we Christians do? Play a game called 'church'

Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7? Word, Water, Blood.

Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of
Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the
AB and O-negative, theuniversal recipientand the universal donor...blood, that is"

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more
than needed. You sure was right! If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed
the test, you receive a big goose egg. Gee thanks! Maybe it'll hatch and I can have that goose for next Thanksgiving.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Brother Larry, you have missed again.

You complained I misrepresented you, so I gave you opportunity to correct that:

Bob Krajcik said: Not wanting to mislead or misunderstand you based on what you said previous, now, do you say my Bible is trustworthy as it is, or is it trustworthy if other sources are considered along with it?

Just a few questions to help clarify your position, giving you ample opportunity to clearly state your position so it will not be possible for me to misrepresent you, since you will have finally clearly stated your position.

Instead you talk about how you think it should not be necessary "for you to state your position" if I would just do my homework? Larry, it should not be left to me to state your position. Indeed, you claimed I misrepresented you, and so I asked you to clearly state your position. Larry, it was your position that was the core of the matter.

Brother Larry said: I could go through and answer all your questions but it would probably be more time than its worth and my suspicion is that if you were really interested in answers, you would do your own homework. All of these questions have been answered in print by theologians who hold to inerrancy and inspiration.

You missed again, and misrepresent matters by accusing me. For your position you point me to contradictory and conflicting sources, not authored by you. I must say I have come to expect that from you. I'm not interested in going further with this, as time is at a premium.

Putting this behind, in the future we could possibly find other things we would be able to share in a friendly manner.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Steve K.:
Check this nugget out,a quote from the chief editor of the NIV.
This {his NIV} shows the great error that is so prevelant in some orthodox Protestant circles,namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith...and that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as his savior.
Few clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God.

Steve,

This quote has been documented to be a false quote obtained by editing words that clearly mean the opposite of what they say here. It is unethical for you to continue to post something untrue when you have been shown it is untrue.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
Brother Larry, you have missed again.

The only reason you think i missed is because you want me to go through a bunch of work to reproduce the work that has been done in numerous places. Do your homework Bob. Get out the books and the sources and studies these variants. You may not agree but at you will understand why they are chosen. I simply do not have time to go through all that work for someone who is not interested. I have made my position clear for over 4000 posts in this forum. I answered two of your posts showing how you have clearly misused Scripture by omitting certain parts of it to prove your "omitted doctrine." BrianT did a good job of refuting your post as well.

I have not pointed to conflicting and confusing sources. If you would study them you would know that. That is the heart of this matter. Compare your beliefs to Scripture and to the historical realities of transmission and translation and you will very quickly be disabused of this notion of KJVOnlyism. It cannot stand in the face of the evidence when it is honestly handled.

This is really a simple matter. You cite Scripture that proves our point and then reject the very teaching that you cite. It is inconsistent. Time and time again in this debate I will return to Scripture because it is the final authority. When I do so, it will be noted that your side never produces one verse teaching that the KJV is the only word of God while our side (and yours) produces many verses that clearly say that things other than the KJV are the word of God. So long as Scripture remains the authority, your point will never be proven.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
Brother Larry, you have missed again.

The only reason you think i missed is because you want me to go through a bunch of work to reproduce the work that has been done in numerous places. Do your homework Bob. Get out the books and the sources and studies these variants. You may not agree but at you will understand why they are chosen. I simply do not have time to go through all that work for someone who is not interested. I have made my position clear for over 4000 posts in this forum. I answered two of your posts showing how you have clearly misused Scripture by omitting certain parts of it to prove your "omitted doctrine." BrianT did a good job of refuting your post as well.

I have not pointed to conflicting and confusing sources. If you would study them you would know that. That is the heart of this matter. Compare your beliefs to Scripture and to the historical realities of transmission and translation and you will very quickly be disabused of this notion of KJVOnlyism. It cannot stand in the face of the evidence when it is honestly handled.

This is really a simple matter. You cite Scripture that proves our point and then reject the very teaching that you cite. It is inconsistent. Time and time again in this debate I will return to Scripture because it is the final authority. When I do so, it will be noted that your side never produces one verse teaching that the KJV is the only word of God while our side (and yours) produces many verses that clearly say that things other than the KJV are the word of God. So long as Scripture remains the authority, your point will never be proven.</font>[/QUOTE]Very well, Larry. I will not expect to be discussing anything with you in a friendly manner, based on your accusations. That i think is unfortunate. But I will put this behind. That should settle the matter.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
Very well, Larry. I will not expect to be discussing anything with you in a friendly manner, based on your accusations. That i think is unfortunate. But I will put this behind. That should settle the matter.

Why can't we discuss things in a friendly matter? What accusations are you talking about? I certainly hold no ill will against you. If there is unfriendliness here, it is not because of me. I too think it would be unfortunate if that were the case. I should hope that we find something we agree on; this is not it. This is a matter on which we disagree for clear reasons. I do not think it is reasonable for you to expect to sit by when the doctrine of Scripture comes under the microscope. However, that does not reflect any dislike for you or unfriendliness towards you. I hope you will not harbor such unfriendliness towards me.

 

[Author]

Originally posted by Steve K.:
... Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must
take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the
text). ...

I do not agree with Rex L. Cobb

.

GOD is the final authority, not the Bible. To say otherwise is biblio-centric or even Bibliolatry (worshipping the Bible or any other mere book instead of God). This latter term, Bibliolatry, is not that new. People like Dr. E.Y. Mullins (who contributed in a major way to the 1925 Baptist Faith & Message) in his writing refers to Christ as "the life" and the Bible as "the literature." To quote the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message, "...The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ. ..." The Bible is not God's word, it's A RECORD of God's word. And Baptists used to believe that. But you'll not find the above quote in the 2000 BF&M, it was omitted. However, many of us oldtime conservative Baptists still believe in God instead of worshipping a pile of paper.

That sounds harsh and I do not want anyone to think that I don't love and cherish the Bible, because I do--KJV, World English, all of them. It's just not the final authority. And once you realize and accept this, differences in translations are no longer threatening, just interesting. It is to be expected that a human record of God's Word would be imperfect, as they all are. That's why we keep trying to improve them. Bless ye the translators and scholars, for they seekth the truth amidst scraps of papyri.

--Ralph

[ January 03, 2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Author ]