-
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!
Please provide scriptural support for KJVOism.
- Thread starter Johnv
- Start date
- Status
Entire books have been written about the doctrine of inspiration. It also has much to do with how our canon of Scripture came to be what it is today.
For example, when discussing the OT canon of Scripture, The Hebrews would not even consider a book that was written after the date of 400 A.D. to be included in the canon. (That would automatically exclude the apocrypha).
The books were written authoritatively as coming straight from the hand of God. For example, the exact phrase "the saith the Lord," is used 430 times in the OT. If we include all the variations of the phrases that mean the same thing the number would more than double. It is God's Book, God's Word, God's instruction to us.
It seems that the people, especially the prophets and apostles had a way of telling which books were inspired and which were not.
2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter refers to the epistles of Paul as Scripture. It was evident that not all of Paul's writings were inspired. But Peter seemed to know which ones were inspired. He compares them to the other Scriptures, (the OT) that the unlearned would wrest to their own destruction.
Look what Peter had written earlier in the same chapter:
2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--He tells them to remember, to be mindful of the words of Scripture--those words that have been authored by the prophets of the OT, and those words that have been authored by the apostles. He puts the apostles on an equal footing with the prophets, which Jewish Christians held in high esteem.
It is not simply that the words were accurate, perfect, infallible, but that they were the very words of God that were written on those early parchments. They were coming from the mouth of God to the minds of holy men via the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
And the people determined that these were inspired books from manuscript copies (not the autographs).
And most of those very same words were copied accurately, and where God's chosen words without error remain in original language MSS they are just as inspired as the first time they written down.
This simply is not true.
Look at the thread that compares all the differences just between the various editions of the KJV, and even between the Cambridge and Oxford. That alone should serve as an example of how men make mistakes. There are literally hundreds of differences. Some of them are so different that the Oxford edition is saying the total opposite of the Cambridge edition. My and thy are total opposite of each other and change the meaning of an entire passage. These mistakes cannot be overlooked.
The same is true of the copies in the MSS handed down to us.
Sorenson, in "Touch not the Unclean Thing," quoted D.A. Waite for this information. The fact is that between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the two main MSS which make up the basis for most modern versions, there are thousands of variations.
The are not without error!
[/FONT]
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I have said nothing about translations. I want you to tell me how the God-chosen accurate words in the original language in a manuscript copy are different than the same words in the autograph. Don't tell me how the accurate words may be surrounded by human errors; I want to know why the individually inspired words that are accurately preserved in copies no longer are 'inspired'.
And it could become 15 HUNDRED pages without any S.S. for KJVO for the simple reason that THERE ISN'T ANY!
franklinmonroe
Active Member
It doesn't matter which MSS are examined for my question. They all have accurate words, and they all some scribal errors. I want to know why the accurate words are no longer considered 'inspired' in the places where they are exactly the same as in the original language autograph. Try this as a syllogism --
Premise 1: God-chosen words first written in autographs are called 'inspired' (they are accurate, inerrant, infallible words)
Premise 2: Those same God-chosen words are also preserved in various (original language) manuscript copies
Conclusion: God-chosen words in manuscript copies (which would be the same words found in the autographs) are 'inspired'
Premise 2: Those same God-chosen words are also preserved in various (original language) manuscript copies
Conclusion: God-chosen words in manuscript copies (which would be the same words found in the autographs) are 'inspired'
Last edited by a moderator:
The simple reason is that, like Pentecost, inspiration was a one time event. It happened when the Holy Spirit came upon "holy men of old" and used those men and only those men to pen the words that God wanted them to pen. The words that they wrote, were written on specific parchments. It was those parchments which were inspired. Inspiration happened but one time in history. It is not an on-going process. Only the originals are inspired. God used the prophets and the apostles to write inspired words on parchments we no longer have.
We have a preserved Word. He promised to preserve his word. That is a promise we can trust. Only the originals are inspired. Perhaps it is that way because otherwise man would worship a book as he would an idol.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Your statement directly above makes it sound like you believe the men were inspired, rather than the words they wrote.
Your statement directly above makes it sound like you believe the original parchments were inspired, rather than the words that were written on them.
Words are not things of actual substance. When written words are composed of alphanumeric symbols which when arranged in a prescribed order and context are intended to convey a particular meaning. Words are not concrete objects. When spoken words are comprised of audible sounds which when articulated in a prescribed order and context are intended to correspond to a peculiar understanding.
You conspicuously did not continue the phrase "holy men of old" to the next word which is "spake". I would like to know if you think that the words that the prophets "spake" were inspired at the moment they spoke them or were their words only inspired after the words were written down? Were both the spoken word and the written word inspired? And if both forms of the words were inspired, then was the written word inspired separately (a second inspiration) or, does the written word simply 'inherit' its inspiration from the inspired spoken word? The written word is just a representation of the spoken word, after all.
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
If you cannot deny either of the premises then you cannot really deny the conclusion.
Deny the Bible prediction, do you? I do not talk about the KJV ONLYISTS, i.e. Ruckman, Riplinger. I do not talk about the KJVO's theology, i.e. the KJV inspiration. What do I talk about is the Bible. See my post #37.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you being so nit-picky on purpose. Here I used the phrase "holy men of God" on purpose, quoting from the text itself (2Pet.1:21). Most people will agree "only the original MSS were inspired." Check some statements of faith. That is the way they are worded. Why are you trying to confuse the matter. It was the original MSS that were inspired. Period.
Those words had to be written on something in order to be preserved. Hence the original MSS were inspired.
This is almost dishonest of you, isn't it? You have sliced and diced my post to make it look like I didn't use the phrase "holy men of old" when I did. Why are you saying I didn't? As for the word "spake" I am quoting without any Bible near me, but from memory. I am sorry that I omitted a word. My memory isn't word perfect all of the time. Read the rest of the verse. My point is simply this: the Holy Spirit used "holy men of God." True or false? God used these men, and the words that they produced were the inspired words of God written down on parchments. Again, only those MSS are inspired.
I think you have way too much time on your hands.
Were they inspired when they entered their mind?
When they were at the end of the "pen" or writing utensil?
When the utensil was half way to the paper?
When the writing utensil was just about to hit the parchment?
As the writing utensil was beginning to write the first letter?
As the writing utensil was writing the last letter?
You have too much time on your hands.
It is simple, and I stand by a simple statement: Only the original MSS were inspired. The process I leave in God's hands.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Clearly, you have misread my post. First, I'm not (almost) dishonest. Second, I have not "sliced and diced" your post; your first paragraph was quoted in full (just in two parts) without a single word omitted. Third, I did not accuse you of making it look like you "didn't use" a phrase; in fact, I quoted that you did. Fourth, I did not care that you misquoted the verse ("old" instead of "God"). The point was that you had stopped short of the word "spake". That was it.
I do not know what you think was "nit-picky" about my response. You seemed to intentionally avoid stating that it is the words themselves that are inspired (by mention of the "men" and then the "parchments"). Nevertheless, I am familiar with the creeds; I know that many subscribe to the idea that only the autographs are inspired. I am not "trying to confuse the matter". I'm asking an honest question which you seem to be unable to give a direct answer. (If you've forgotten the question: How would the same original language words in manuscript copies be different from those in the autographs?)
The questions I asked I did not ask to be frivolous or trivial (as you mocked). Why do you work so hard to not answer them?
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Perhaps I couldn't see the question through all the words:
It is better when it is just simply put.
Yes, I had forgotten your question.
Simply put, God Himself authored the original MSS.
All other copies, translations, etc. were done by man.
God is perfect; man is not. If there is but one mistake in a MSS then that MSS is not perfect; not infallible; not inerrant--the definition of inspired.
Only the original MSS, by very definition can be inspired, for only God is perfect. Copyists make mistakes. They are human. They may be small rather insignificant mistakes, but mistakes nevertheless. Only God is perfect.
It must include the parchments. We don't have words floating around in space. They are written down for us. Only those documents on which those words are written are inspired.
I have posted it before; here it is again:
[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
According to the Scripture, it said all Scriptures are inspired. The word, "Scripture" refers to the WORDS. The Scripture is "graphe" in Greek meaning "written down." When the orginal writers wrote down the God-speaking, "Scripture," these words on the autographs were inspired by God.
- Status