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!
That has to do with the underlying texts. </font>[/QUOTE]You might want to read the passage again JYD. It doesn't say that He was speaking independently much less adding to the quote. It says He was reading from Isaiah and what He read is different from what the KJV says.
It would appear He added it to Luke.Again, ask HIM..I looked up this "contradiction" in a NIV it has the same.
It would appear He added it to Luke.Again, ask HIM.. </font>[/QUOTE]No, it wasn't added to Luke. In the passage in Luke it says *it was written in Isaiah*. Why was it written in Isaiah *then*, but not written in Isaiah in the KJV *now*? Why did God take it out of the KJV? If God is in the habit of adding and taking away things from the scripture, how can you even use the word "perservation", since by definition that means unchanging?
I will. But I'd also like your opinion. Also, I would like to hear how you explain how word changes like this is not in direct opposition to the basic KJV-only understanding of "preservation". This phrase wasn't "preserved" in the KJV-only sense, as you agree because you say God took it out. Regardless of the reason why it was taken out, you are still left with the issue of a breakdown of "preservation", are you not?
Brian, my opinion why God does certain things is irelivant;I wish I could help.
Like I said, even the MV"s has this rendering.But I am not a advocate of the MV's
Not me, I have no problem with preservation or final authority.
just trying to help;take it for what it is worth.
And I told you that the MV's also have this rendering;now how can you claim they are preserved?? do you claim this??
And I told you that the MV's also have this rendering;now how can you claim they are preserved?? do you claim this?? </font>[/QUOTE]Because I don't believe "preservation" means the same thing you do, ie. word-for-word like KJV-onlyism does. And thus my question, which AGAIN you avoid answering. How it is "preserved" in the KJV-only sense if it has also "changed"? Doesn't "preserved" mean "unchanged"?
And I told you that the MV's also have this rendering;now how can you claim they are preserved?? do you claim this?? </font>[/QUOTE]JYD, why are you avoiding answering this question? What are you afraid of? Wouldn't it be more honest to accept the historical, orthodox view of scripture that assigns verbal inerrancy only to the originals than to continue kicking against the pricks?
On the contrary,the KJV is the standard by which the MV's are judged.I was simply trying to prove a point;take it for what it is worth..
On the contrary,the KJV is the standard by which the MV's are judged.I was simply trying to prove a point;take it for what it is worth.. </font>[/QUOTE]Is this the only part of my post you can answer? Please explain these two passages that do not agree but are said to be the same thing by the Bible.
Just like I said in another thread the Pharasees were quizing Jesus about divorce,Jesus directs them to Deut 24:1-4 and tells them what Moses wrote down,THEN he ADDS TO WHAT MOSES SAID IN DEUTERONOMY;see MAtt 19:7-9. Now like I said before,Jesus is God & He can add to His Word if He so desires,Jeremiah 36:32 is another fine example of Him doing so.My question is, what will be your response to HIM adding to His Word???