[sarcasm]Lack of scriptural support [/sarcasm]

No, but neither do I hold to it as a formal authoritative doctrine - so no problem.

 

I don't quite understand the distinction you are making. Either the Autographs are inspired or "scriptures" are inspired. We obviously disagree.</font>[/QUOTE] If you don't understand then how can you say that we disagree?

The "words" of the Autographs were God-breathed. He directly superintended those writers. Theirs was a special calling. Those were a special set of words.

As a result of the perfect wording, the message (scripture) was also communicated perfectly.

I am always pressed for scriptural support, yet there is none for this "doctrine". Does the Bible say, "Thou shalt recieve no other prophet after John?" I believe it, but it's not directly stated in the Bible.</font>[/QUOTE] 2 Peter 1:16-19 to start.

Then compare 2 Peter 3:2. Peter equates the teachings of the Apostles with that of the prophets. (note: he declared his apostleship in 1:1).

Finally, see ch. 3 vss 15-16. Paul (the beloved brother of Peter) wrote scripture.

I am kind of counting on the notion that we truly do share this belief and so I am not making my case quite as coherently as I can if you so require. It will take more time though.

The first sentence is scriptural. The rest is conjecture.</font>[/QUOTE] Conjecture? No. Extrapolated or projected maybe.

This is absolutely antithetical to the common definition and application of the term "scripture" as it is used throughout the Bible.</font>[/QUOTE] Read what I wrote more carefully please. I did not say that copies and translations were not scripture. I said that God did not directly speak through copyists and translators the way He did the holy men of old and apostles.

Timothy had a set of "perfect" words. 2 Tim. says so. </font>[/QUOTE] "Perfect" has meanings that do not equate to facsimile.

When we refer to "scripture" or the "Word of God", it is not confined to one set of words. I think you and I would agree on that. It is the accurate transmission of the message of the original words that is critical... And that can be done with more than one set of English words.

You force yourself to believe that because of the other precedents you have embraced. Yet this is not scriptural

lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, if I could "force" myself to do believe something without conscience then I would be KJVO. It would actually be easier for me. I used to be KJVO but I could not reconcile the inconsistency and unscriptural nature of that position with scriptural principles.

 

I personally believe you have dual inspiration with regard to the originals. What God said and the words He used to say it.

I believe that any version that accurately transmits what God said is scripture... even if the words are not strictly of divine origin.

Therefore, I have no problem calling the Geneva, KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, and a few others "scripture". I do tend to have more of a problem with versions like the NIV that use a more dynamic method... I think it brings human interpretation into the translation more than is wise. I don't accept paraphrases as scripture in the strict sense. They might be useful in some sense but they have greatly introduced human fallibility into the equation.

 

I agree but we explain supposed conflicts within versions including the KJV. As long as the explanations are no more strained than those used to explain why Ahaziah was said to be 22 in one place and 42 in the parallel passage then I don't see a reason to toss either version out.

Again, these supposed differences have legitimate explanations that are no more extreme than explanations of problem passages within the KJV... and much less strained than Michelle's contention in another thread that "the" = "our".

I agree. I don't think any of the mainstream translations quite do that... but that is also the reason I prefer as little dynamic equivalency as possible. The more human opinion is introduced, the more opportunity for error.

 

God bless you brother.

 

Sure it is supported by Scripture by the mere (and very basic) fact that God inspired apostles (holy men of old) to write Scripture. Inspiration and the guarantee of perfection is given to no one else. That is the clear doctrinal teaching of Scripture. All copies that come after are not promised perfection. In fact, we see from the numerous OT quotes in teh NT that absolute letter for letter perfection was not a criteria for authority. So, in actuality, not only is the initial point proven wrong, but the modern position is proven right.

Of course, none of this is new. But we can tell who has been listening and learning.

 

Lacy: "Notice that the one time the King James NT quotes the OT and gives the exact reference the quote is likewise exact! (Acts 13:33, Ps 2:7)"

I would note, however, that the KJV OT has "art" in italics, indicating that this word was *not* present in the Hebrew but was supplied by the KJV translators. On the other hand, KJV NT has "are" in regular type, indicating that "are" (= Gk. EI) was present in the underlying Greek from which they translated.

So the KJV does have a difference (small, but significant) between its OT and NT rendering of Ps 2:7.

 

Lacy, if you don't believe the myth that the AGs alone are Scripture, then shouldn't you also reject the myth that the KJV alone is the only valid English Bible translation? Neither view has any Scriptural support.

 

I recently used this EXACT answer as one of the several explanations as to how Mark 1:2 can be true in modern versions. The KJV-onlies wouldn't buy it.

And this means...?

 

With all due respect, Lacy...Nice try, but it won't work. First, the fact that the Autographs were Scripture should be a no-brainer without any further explanation. Scripture had to have an earthly starting point, and, for example, we cannot find Psalms before David's lifetime. Since there's universal agreement that David wrote Psalms, those Scriptures speak for themselves in support of themselves by the fact of their existence.

OTOH, the KJVO myth tries to limit God to just one version in English, and this theory does NOT speak for itself...it is a theory developed by men outside of Scripture. It requires some supporting evidence which is quite obviously lacking.

 

I am however talking about the fruit of that book, it's absolutely incomparable effects on the world, on language, on the church, and on millions of Christians who trusted it unquestioningly.

The same can be said about the NIV.

 

Since this AGAIN is boiling down to a KJVO argument. I ask you, Lacy:

What was the 100% letter perfect Word-of-God in 1580?