Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LRL71:
Yes, your English Bible (and it *does not matter* what properly translated version you use) is sufficient to ascertain good doctrine, but if someone did not have the skills to properly point out the meaning from the original text, then his knowledge is useless! I already possess the education that many IFB pastors do not have, and I feel that it is important that they know even *more* than I do.
The Pharisees already possessed the education that John the Baptist did not have but I would have rather stopped and listened to John preach all day than sit for one hour under a Pharisee.
** Are you saying that that the Apostle Paul, possessing the equivalent of knowledge of the Jewish leaders, is someone whom you would
not want to listen to? Education is very important to know the Scriptures, and wanton blissful ignorance is hardly something to be proud of. I would venture to say that even John the Baptist had possessed a great knowledge of Scripture-- and he already knew the original languages!
**********************************************
Jesus said that we are to live by "Every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Just what language did God speak in? Did He speak the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek or are they mere translations of the "originals?"
** Again, here is where the KJVO's pervert the meaning and context of the Word of God. Where is this verse that you are quoting? Perhaps we should take another look at Matthew 4:4. John Knox, in his commentary, said, "And therefore I measure not the truth and favour of God by having or by lacking of bodily necessities, but by the promise that he has made to me. As he himself is immutable, so are his word and promise constant, which I believe, and to which I stick, and do cleave, whatever can come externally to the body. And therefore I measure not the truth and favour of God by having or by lacking of bodily necessities, but by the promise that he has made to me. As he himself is immutable, so are his word and promise constant, which I believe, and to which I stick, and do cleave, whatever can come externally to the body."
This verse, as Pastor Bob has quoted it, does not say anything about preservation of Scripture nor does it imply that there is a 'providential preservation' of Scripture. Pastor Bob is also ignorant of the Greek, where we are to trust every word (translated from
rhemati) which is all the Word of God! Funny how God confounds the ignorant! He used
rhemati in the Greek rather than
logos! This means utterance or voice, not meaning "words" as like in written form! Here is Strong's Greek Concordance definition of this word, Strong's number 4487:
"Text: from 4483; an utterance (individually, collectively, or specifically); by implication, a matter of topic (especially of narration, command, or dispute); with a negative naught whatever". Strong's 4483 indicates that this is the noun form of the verb
rheo, which also has this in its definition in Strong's: "perhaps akin (or identical) with 4482 (through the idea of pouring forth); to utter, i.e. speak or say:"
Perhaps what Jesus is saying is that it is not His written Word that is in view here, but rather the corpus of utterances from God! This is an excellent verse to prove the Bible's infallibility, but is otherwise silent about the providential preservation of the Bible text.
***********************************************
Nowhere in the Bible will you find that God refuses to use or bless someone for their own personal inadequacies. In fact, just the opposite is true. God very often chose to use those who were unskilled and unlearned to do His finest work.
** And He also used the most highly learned men for His purposes too. See King Solomon & Apostle Paul. I sense here that Pastor Bob is making up excuses for being 'inadequate' in knowledge. We should be like the Berean Church, which searched the Scriptures to see if things that are spoken were 'so' (Praxeis-- Acts 17:10-13). The Bereans were commended because of their scholarly excellence in examining (Greek,
anakrinontes, a compounded verb that uses
ana and
krinoo) the Scriptures in that they were scrutinizing, investigating, interrogating, in order to determine (see Strong's number 350).
************************************************
Shamgar was just a farmer. He did not have the proper "tools" to fight off the enemy of God but he used what he had available to him and God blessed him greatly. He was able to kill 600 Philistines with an oxgoad, not a sword and shield. The lack of proper training or tools did not stop him; he was available and willing to be used. That's all God wants from us.
David was a shepherd. We was not properly trained in the art of warfare. He did not possess the proper equipment for the task at hand. In fact, he refused the proper equipment and faced the giant with his sling and five stones. God used him over all the men of war in the camp that day. Why? because he was willing and available to fight for the right cause.
I could go on to name Gideon, Moses, the fisherman that God used to turn this world upsidedown, and dozens of others. The point is, knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew may be beneficial, it may have it's advantages but it is in no way mandatory to being a man of God. I have in my library all the tools I need if I want go back and research what the Greek and Hebrew says. I never use this to "correct" the Bible; I use it to aid my understanding of a portion of scripture.
** Again, you are taking the meaning of the Bible's teachings out of context to suit your points. Each of these OT examples were demonstrating God's power; we no longer live in such an age that God is supernaturally demonstrating His power like He did with these men of God from ages past.
I am in no way suggesting that you are 'not a man of God' because you do not possess the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. My example of Psalm 12 in analysis of the Hebrew shows that only knowledge of English
can leave the man of God stunted in his understanding of Scripture. If I were on a church committee to examine a prospective pastor, I want him to possess the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew so that he may draw out of Scripture from the very languages He chose in writing them from the pen of the Prophets and Apostles. You yourself should also pursue such knowledge so that through your expository preaching of the Word you can better ascertain the meaning of Scripture. There is nothing wrong with having knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew, but there is something wrong with making excuses-- and using Scripture to defend excuses-- why you should remain ignorant. This is not in keeping with being a Berean Christian!
*********************************************
Pastor Bob has stated that Matthew 24:35 is a 'proof' text that God has 'preserved' His Word in only the KJV (or, any like translation)-- yet hermeneutically this is untenable. The verse does not state that God's written Word has been providentially preserved.
I agree with you that this verse does not state that God's written Word will not pass away, but it is saying that God's spoken Word (logos) will not pass away. God's spoken Word's were written down by divine inspiration for you and I to live by. That is providential preservation.
** OK, you have now just said that providential preservation
equals inspiration! Heresy, I would say! Providential preservation does not mean that God has 'inspired' His word for you and me everytime we sit down and read the KJV-- or any other version in any other language. Do you possess perfectly what God wrote in the original manuscripts? If so, prove your point. You have a mountain of error-prone manuscripts that all do not have agreement on the exact wording of the NT text, so how do you know if the TR, KJV, or anything else out there is
identical to the orignal manuscripts?
I think that you have proven my point about how KJVO's take Scripture out of context! It is good that you now agree with God on Psalm 12 as well as Matthew 24:35. Again, you have isogeted your bias into what the true and Biblical meaning of this verse is clearly stating.
**********************************************
...but don't tell me that *God Himself* has overseen the preservation of His Word in the KJV!
God Himself has overseen the preservation of His Word. He has preserved the text of the OT and NT in a very pure form and it has been readily available to Christians in every age for the past 2000 years.
** OK, now it's time for you to prove your point! You have made an erroneous (and arrogant!) assertion that God has 'preserved His Word in a very pure form'. Where does God say that He is obligated to perform this, let alone any verse (you have been proven wrong before!) that says that God preserves His Word in a pure form. If you couch your definintion of preservation in Scripture, then I would have to say that you are injecting your words into God's Word-- Beware of Revelation 22:18!
*************************************************
The original Scriptures were given by direct inspiration of God. I am not claiming that this applies to any translation of the originals as far as a direct inspiration from God. My confidence in the preservation of God's Word is closely linked to the doctrine of inspiration. If God inspired His Word, then He must also preserve His Word. What good would it serve to say only the originals were accurate? Do we not have the information that God intends for us to have today? If preservation were not a fact, then inspiration would be academic. It would have no value to you or I today.
** Again, you have made an error in your argument about preservation. Did God say *anywhere* in the Bible that He is obligated to preserve His Word exactly like the original manuscripts? God's answer is obvious: we haven't got the originals, nor is any one manuscript error-free. If you postulate that God has done something when in fact He hasn't, then you are in error. Your definition of providential preservation is therefore in error because none of the facts line up with your argument!
***********************************************
It is my belief that God preserved His Word, true to the originals, wherever it is accurately translated from the Textus Receptus regardless of what the langauge might be. It is just as much the Word of God as the KJV.
** Why only the TR? Again, you are making blind assertions of fact when you are in error. What do you mean exactly by the TR or KJV being 'true to the originals' and *how* do you know this to be an accurate statement? I can
prove that the TR has errors in it! How then is it possible to have a 'perfectly' true-to-the-original-manuscripts Greek NT text? By postulating that God did this because you *believe by faith* that God did it *exclusively* in the TR? Again, God did not say that He would 'perfectly' preserve His Word in *any* NT text-type or manuscripts! To put words in God's mouth is indeed a great error-- and even could be considered..... heresy!
**************************************************
Following is a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
"The OT in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages , are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
It goes on to say:
"But because these original languages are not known to all the people of God who have right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."
** The Westminster Confession is not necessarily known to be a confession that even Calvinist Baptists like myself would subscribe to, much less any other kind if IFB! Anyway, here is the full text of the section that Pastor Bob has quoted:
8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
The Westminster Confession does not assert 'providential preservation' as does the KJVO's or even with Pastor Bob 63, nor does it offer any Scriptural evidence that it does teach "providential preservation".
My church subscribes to the New Hampshire Confession of faith, but with some reservations against two points (Christian Sabbath and also the vagueness of the NH Confession's statement on Eschatology-- it is not "premillennial"). The benchmark of a confession of faith is in the Scriptures, not in the confession itself.
The NH confession is no more or less authoratative than the Westminster Confession, so long as it reflects the true meaning and context of the Scriptures.
************************************************
I am not a champion for the KJVO camp. I speak for myself alone. I believe God inspired His Word in the originals, and then preserved His Word down through the ages in the descendants of the originals. I believe the KJV and its predecessors that use the Traditional Text as it's basis are the preserved Word of God. In addition, all other translations, regardless of langauge translated from this text are also the Word of God.
** In and of this statement by itself is perfectly fine with me! So long as this is stated that it is only your *opinion* and not Bible truth! But again, you have to prove that God
did say that He would 'perfectly preserve His Word' from the Bible to make it comparable as a Bible doctrine. It is impossible to counter the fact that out of all of the manuscripts where the transmission of the text throughout the ages, no manuscript is free from error. God is not obligated to perfectly preserve His Word in any one manuscripts or through any one group of text-types. God did not say this, and to base one's argument that God *performed this act* is complete heresy. Again, why only the TR? Did God say that he would only preserve His Word in the TR to be 'like the originals'? Don't put words in God's mouth and make your 'postulations' as if they are Bible truth!
***********************************************
You cannot define (as KJV-onlyists have done) that providential preservation means that God perfectly preserved the extant manuscripts to be perfectly equal to the original manuscripts and then say that since the KJV translators used a 'perfectly' preserved, that is equally error-free as if they read exactly as the original manuscripts, Greek compilation of the manuscripts (the TR), then God has also equivically made the KJV to be perfect and 'preserved' like the original.
Why?
** Well, why not? As stated in this post earlier, you are making false presumptions about how God 'preserved' His Word. In no way could you possibly prove that the KJV=TR=original manuscripts *perfectly* or *faithfully*! In no way did God say that He preserved His Word only in the TR or the majority of manuscripts! In no way did God miraculously preserve the transmission of the text from errors! To believe any or all of this is *blind faith*. True faith is to believe *only* what God has stated in the Bible, and not to "make-believe" that God said anything more than that was already said in Scripture.
*************************************************
Pastor Bob, if he will forgive me!
Assuming you're asking for forgiveness regarding your arrogant attitude in previous posts, I forgive you. There is a way that you can convey your opinions in a godly manner. No argument is worth losing your testimony. Remember, the truth does not need defending. Silence is not an admission of defeat.</font>[/QUOTE]** Amen! But consider this, and this is in no way to be considered an 'excuse' for my previous behavior: the use of sarcasm and humor is not one to be taken lightly! I would appreciate that one has a sense of humor and not to take anything too seriously. It is not my intention to belittle anyone whether intended or implied, but rather their silly and uneducated opinions about their own KJVO positions. It is in a sense of retribution that I say some things with heat and rancor because of the lies and distortions of some of the extreme KJVO's, and their horrendous attitudes against those of my persuasion. I have read books by recent authors such as Gail "God-And-Me" Riplinger and William Grady; these authors have been most 'unchristian' in character! Yes, such retribution is not in character with the Historic Christian faith, and I would appreciate such correction on your part upon me.
[ September 20, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]
