Yeah, I caught my faux pas too late and couldn’t correct it. I stated it in a later post.
-
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!
The Bible Agnostic Test.
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
I can say the exact same thing about my NASB.
If that's what you feel comfortable with that is what you should use.
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi SG. Then you admit that you do not believe that any Bible you can show us is the complete and inerrant words of God. And of course even though you use a present tense verb - ARE - when you tell us " The autographs ARE the ones who are error free", when you have never seen or read a single word of the autographs (which never even came close to making up an entire Bible in the first place) and you cannot show them to anybody simply because the DO NOT EXIST (present tense verb).
You are expressing your faith in something that does not exist.
And since you are your own authority you then ignorantly claim that the King James Bible is in error in Romans 5:11 where the KJB and many others correctly reads "atonement". For those who have ears to hear, here is why the KJB got it right, as it always does.
Romans 5:11 Atonement or Reconciliation?
Another King James Bible Believer
KJB - "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the ATONEMENT."
NKJV (ESV, NIV, NASB, LSB) - "And not only that, but we rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the RECONCILIATION."
Here is just a part of the whole article. Click on the link to see the whole Biblical explanation as to why "atonement" is the best word to use in this context and what several well known Bible commentators say about it.
Bibles that say ATONEMENT.
Not only has the King James Bible translated Romans 5:11 as "by whom we have now received the ATONEMENT" but so also do the following Bible versions: Tyndale 1525 - "by whom we have receavyd the ATTONMENT.", Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible (Cranmer) 1540 - "by whom we haue now optayned the ATTONMENT.", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557 to 1602 "by whom we haue nowe receiued the ATONEMENT.", The Beza New Testament 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, the Clarke N.T. 1795, Webster's 1833 translation, The Morgan New Testament 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Dillard N.T. 1885, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible "by whom we have now received THE ATONEMENT.", God's First Truth 1999, Tomson New Testament 2002, The Evidence Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 (Vince Garcia), The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Conservative Bible 2010, The BRG Bible 2012, and the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 - "through whom we now received THE ATONEMENT."
The King James reading of ATONEMENT is totally accurate and it, unlike the modern versions that render this as "reconciliation", shows the final sacrifice of the Lamb of God as the fulfillment of all the Old Testament sacrifices which atoned for the sins of God's people.
I and many others will stick with the Book God has honored far above all others - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.
Whole article here -
Romans 5:11 Atonement or Reconciliation?
Another King James Bible Believer
God bless.
Will J. Kinney
Member
Ohh.... You mean the constantly changing Vatican supervised text NASBs that teach that the children of Israel DECEIVED God in Psalms 78:36? That one? The one that keeps changing both its Hebrew and Greek texts from one edition to the next? That NASB?
The Ever Changing NASBs - 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 and 2020 editions.
Another King James Bible Believer
Can God be deceived? In Psalms 78:36 The NASB 1972-1995 editions, NET and the Legacy Standard Bible tell us that the children of Israel deceived God. Not just "tried to deceive" or "thought they had deceived" but deceived Him. Is God gullible? Is that even possible? Not even the ASV, ESV, NIV, NKJV read that way.
Another King James Bible Believer
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
God bless.
Will J. Kinney
Member
"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
Another King James Bible Believer
Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
To all Bible agnostics and Vatican Version promoters. Like James White, you completely rip this quote from the KJB Preface completely out of context, when the simple FACT is, they were condemning the Vatican's versions which most of you are using. It doesn't get much more ironic than this.
Find out Why their statement does not mean what you think it means.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
God bless.
Will J. Kinney
Member
"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
Another King James Bible Believer
Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
To all Bible agnostics and Vatican Version promoters. Like James White, you completely rip this quote from the KJB Preface completely out of context, when the simple FACT is, they were condemning the Vatican's versions which most of you are using. It doesn't get much more ironic than this.
Find out Why their statement does not mean what you think it means.
Another King James Bible Believer
Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
To all Bible agnostics and Vatican Version promoters. Like James White, you completely rip this quote from the KJB Preface completely out of context, when the simple FACT is, they were condemning the Vatican's versions which most of you are using. It doesn't get much more ironic than this.
Find out Why their statement does not mean what you think it means.
Will J. Kinney
Member
So, Logos, put your theory to the test. Take what you referred to as "all verses directly given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles are the pure and perfect word of God." and in other places you refer to the Hebrew and Greek originals or autographs as being your final authority. Take those things and apply them to two of the examples I gave you in the Bible Agnostic Test and let us know which are the true and inspired readings. Can you do that for us?
Looking forward to your response. Thanks.
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
If the original autographs do not currently exist, how do you know they never came close to making up an entire Bible? Each original autograph was composed at different times by various authors, but they are referred to as a group, when saying they were inerrant.
Seems odd that God would wait until 1611 to provide a perfect version of the Bible.
It used to be that independent Baptists separated themselves from other Christians over important doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ, the deity of Christ, baptism, communion, sanctification, or the inspiration of the Scriptures.
Today, the independents are separating, even among themselves, over issues such as Bible translations, music style, and dress.
Rising to the forefront of the fundamentalist squabbles is the King James Only controversy.
The extreme legalistic KJO position is Ruckmanism, the cult based on Peter Ruckman, a man of harsh spirit, vulgar language, and weird ideas.
Some of the choice names Ruckman calls men who disagree with him are the following:
• “jackass”
• “poor, dumb, stupid red legs”
• “silly asses”
• “apostolic succession of bloated egotists”
• “two-bit junkies”
• “two-faced, tin-horned punks”
• “incredible idiots”
• “egotistical jack legs”
• “conservative asses whose brains have gone to seed”
• “cheap, two-bit punks”
• “stupid, little, Bible-rejecting apostates”
Dr. Ruckman can get very mean spirited. He calls the New American Standard Version “more of the same old godless, depraved crap” (Satan’s Masterpiece--the New ASV, p. 67).
In The Unknown Bible, p. 100, Ruckman says, “You see how people get all screwed up?”
Ruckman believes God has called him to speak like this:
“God called me to sit at this typewriter and pour forth VINEGAR, ACID, VITRIOL, AND CLEANING FLUID on the leading conservative and fundamental scholars of 1900 through 1990. ... God is in charge. He ... destines me to sit at this typewriter and LAMBASTE, SCALD AND RIDICULE these Bible rejecting fundamentalists who ‘believe the Bible is the Word of God,’ ... I hereby dedicate myself anew to the task of DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AND NEGATIVE BLASTING against every adversary of that Holy Book...”
(The Bible Believers Bulletin, Dec. 1985).
Peter Ruckman is not taken seriously, due to his strange thinking, his multiple divorces, his angry spirit, his arrogance, his Alexandrian cult mentality, his extremism regarding the KJV being advanced revelation, and his bizarre private doctrines tend to cause men to reject his fanatic worship of the King James Version.
Virtually all of today’s cults (excepting the Jehovah’s Witnesses) prefer the King James version over the rest, including the Mormons, who also preach a “works-salvation.”
No one today reads from the 1611 version, which also included the Apocrypha. The 1769 revision is the most common version of the King James translation, and this one includes thousands of differences compared to the original.
The 1611 King James Version included thousands of footnotes which offered different readings for different verses.
No. I don't believe they were; certainly not at the time they wrote, and given the qualification they made which you conveniently omitted. You should read the arguments they give for making that statement.
I do not need to find out. I have the complete 'Preface to the Reader' in the front of my Authorized Version Bible (that is what the KJV has always been called in England). I am fully aware that the translators were criticizing the Church of Rome for insisting that the Bible should not be translated into English because Jerome's 'Vulgate' Bible was in some way so perfect, that any translation must be inferior. Sound familiar?
The preface is quite long, and quite prolix. Why don't you post those extracts that you think support your argument, and we can discuss them? If you are not prepared to do that, you are being disingenuous, to use no stronger term.
I don’t have to have a perfect translation to trust a perfect Savior.
Oh, you mean the KJV that’s had more revisions than you can shake a stick at?