• 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!

verses that prove preservation

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by HomeBound:
See, this is what I'm talking about. If there is know perfect Bible, then how do you believe what you believe to be true? How do you KNOW your saved.
The answer is VERY VERY simple. I'll give you a hint: how could English Christians believe something in 1605? How could they know they were saved?

God bless,
Brian
 

RaptureReady

New Member
Originally posted by HankD:
KJV Ephesians 4:
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

grieve: vb 1 to cause grief or sorrow to : DISTRESS : 2 to feel grief : sorrow.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary

If one causes grief or sorrow torwards another person one needs to sooth that person:

Were the KJV translators wrong in saying that a sovereign God could be "grieved"?
Know, they were right in their translation. You can grieve the Holy Spirit of God. He dwells inside you and then you go out and do the things you do and believe me, it does grieve the Holy Spirit that you are doing those things instead of serving God.
KJV Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Who ever heard of a sovereign God repenting?
Were the KJV translators wrong with this particular choice of a words?

HankD
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. There's that grieved word again, this time talking about God Jehovah. To answer your question, God was grieved, sorrowful that he had made man because of what man was doing. :(
 

RaptureReady

New Member
Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
That's just it, I use the King James Bible as my final authority. If something does not line up with it, it is wrong, no matter what it is.
Nope, you are using the 1769 Revision. King James was dead in 1769.

Jesus didn't use the 1769 Revision, he used the Septuagint. Your statements (here and in other threads) impliy that you identify the Bible with King James, rather than God.
</font>[/QUOTE]So can I go out and buy a Septuagint? No I can't. Besides, I couldn't even read it. The Bible is God's word, not King James. God used King James and his scholars to pen the scriptures that I have today. Sure I use a 1769 edition, but it's not a revision.
 

RaptureReady

New Member
Originally posted by BrianT:
Homebound, it is good that you want to be practical. It is good that you have faith. And it is fine to be still studying and learning. But we don't understand *why* you have faith in KJV-onlyism instead of in something else. I know someone that "has faith" that Adam and Eve carried around a leather-bound, English KJV. I know someone else that "has faith" that after we die, the righteous will each be given their own planet to populate. I know someone else that (used to) "have faith" that Jesus was going to return in 1999. Why do people "have faith" in things that are not in scripture? Scripture not only doesn't tell us to have faith in those things, it doesn't even mention them! So why have faith in them? Scripture not only doesn't mention to have faith in KJV-onlyism, it doesn't even mention KJV-onlyism - so why have faith in it? The verses about preservation are wonderful verses, but the moment you interpret them to support KJV-onlyism, you imply those verses were lies before 1611. Those verses were *true* before 1611, before the KJV existed - thus they are not about the KJV, and any faith in KJV-onlyism is *additional* to scriptures.

God bless,
Brian
Why do you all keep saying, “Scripture not only doesn't mention to have faith in KJV-onlyism, it doesn't even mention KJV-onlyism.” Of course it doesn’t, I know this. Just like it doesn’t even say BIBLE, but you still call it the BIBLE. Why should I have faith in a NIV, NASV, NKJV, etc.? They are not in the Bible. BTW, what are you using to judge me by?
 

RaptureReady

New Member
Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
See, this is what I'm talking about. If there is know perfect Bible, then how do you believe what you believe to be true? How do you KNOW your saved.
The answer is VERY VERY simple. I'll give you a hint: how could English Christians believe something in 1605? How could they know they were saved?

God bless,
Brian
</font>[/QUOTE]I’m not worried about 1605. I’m sure they had God’s word.
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by HomeBound:
So can I go out and buy a Septuagint? No I can't. Besides, I couldn't even read it.
Sure you can. Benton's English/Greek parallel Septuagint is available at most Christian bookstores, amazon.com, etc.

Why do you all keep saying, “Scripture not only doesn't mention to have faith in KJV-onlyism, it doesn't even mention KJV-onlyism.” Of course it doesn’t, I know this. Just like it doesn’t even say BIBLE, but you still call it the BIBLE.
But the scriptures talk of the scriptures - inspiration of the scriptures, history of the scriptures, etc. The scriptures never mention KJV-onlyism.

Why should I have faith in a NIV, NASV, NKJV, etc.
Because, like the KJV, they are scriptures. It is good to have faith in the KJV, as it is scripture. Having faith in the KJV and having faith in KJV-onlyism are two entirely different things.

BTW, what are you using to judge me by?
The scriptures, the KJV. I cannot find KJV-onlyism taught in the KJV, thus I challenge it as I would any other man-made doctrine not taught in the KJV.

I’m not worried about 1605. I’m sure they had God’s word.
You are correct, they did. And it wasn't word-for-word identical to the KJV. That's the whole point.

God bless,
Brian
 

RaptureReady

New Member
Originally posted by BrianT:
Because, like the KJV, they are scriptures. It is good to have faith in the KJV, as it is scripture. Having faith in the KJV and having faith in KJV-onlyism are two entirely different things.
So what you are saying is, I should have faith in the KJB and all other versions that call themselves the scriptures?
You are correct, they did. And it wasn't word-for-word identical to the KJV. That's the whole point.

God bless,
Brian [/QB]
So since they didn’t have word for word back then means that we can’t have it today?
 

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Let's go with the assumption, for the sake of argument, that pre-1611 did not have a preserved, infallible, inspired translation of the Bible (not saying I believe this, but for the sake of argument). What happened in 1611 to suddenly make King James English translation inspired, infallible, and preserved?

Joseph Botwinick
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
Originally posted by HomeBound:
So can I go out and buy a Septuagint? No I can't.
Actually, yes you can.

Besides, I couldn't even read it.
Why not? I have one right here beside my desk and I can read it.

The Bible is God's word, not King James. God used King James and his scholars to pen the scriptures that I have today.
You are absolutely wrong here. King James and his scholars DID NOT "pen the Scriptures." First of all, King James had absolutely nothing to do with the translation itself - he merely commissioned it. Secondly, "his scholars" DID NOT "pen the Scriptures." God's Holy Word was penned by the Hebrew prophets and the early Christians, and it was Divinely Inspired. If you honestly believe that King James and his scholars penned the Scriptures, then you have taken your 1769-Onlyism to a very disturbing level. Once again, you have equated the Bible with King James.

Sure I use a 1769 edition, but it's not a revision.
It absolutely IS a revision. If you actually had a copy of the Authorised Version you would know that.
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
Originally posted by HomeBound:
I guess you can say that Dr. Griffin, Pastor Larry, and other bring things from the more educated side of the discussion while I try to use practical judgement.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
Homebound, let me say that I have been amazed as I have read this thread. So many posters here will not be happy until they are able to get you to renounce your belief in the KJV.
tear.gif


I appreciate how you continue to hold to your convictions. You do not have to change one bit.

I feel that some here do not understand that there are other reasons for using the KJV. I would think that since English is truly a world language, God would give us His preserved Word in English. I would also think that since I have to decide for myself which English bible this would be, it would be a safe bet to choose a bible that God has blessed for hundreds of years. Therefore Homebound, it is easy for me to understand why you would believe the way you do.
thumbs.gif
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
You are correct, they did. And it wasn't word-for-word identical to the KJV. That's the whole point.
So since they didn’t have word for word back then means that we can’t have it today?
</font>[/QUOTE]By *why* do you think we have it word-for-word today? Is it not because you interpret the scriptures that way, is it not because you believe that's what scripture is teaching? If that's what scripture is teaching, then those scriptures don't mean one thing in 1610 and another thing in 1612. If that's what those scriptures mean today, then those scriptures were lies in 1605. If however, those scriptures were *true* in 1605 (which they were) and did not mean that preservation is word-for-word, then that is what they still mean today, for scripture doesn't change meaning just because someone shouts "happy new year, 1611!"

God bless,
Brian
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Lest an unsuspecting person read this thread and think the verses listed by Timothy or Askjo were all correct, we all know (tho some are too obstinate to admit) that Psalm 12 does NOT talk about the preservation of the Word.

Even the strongest KJVO proponent should attempt honesty on that one. Come on, guys. It's not rocket science. It's words that have meaning, whether you like it or not.

Carry on . . .
The naturalistic theory believes Psalm 12:6-7 refer to the preservation of the people. How long will the people live on the earth? It is not forever!

The Consistently Christian theory believes Psalm 12:6-7 refer to the preservation of the Words that God provides us. How long will God's Words live on the earth? It is forever! From the apographs to Bible accurate translations (Romans 16:26) hereafter, God's Words are still alive on the Earth. That's how the KJV is alive for almost 400 years.
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by Askjo:
The naturalistic theory believes Psalm 12:6-7 refer to the preservation of the people. How long will the people live on the earth? It is not forever!
Where does the passage specify the preservation is limited to earth?

From the apographs to Bible accurate translations (Romans 16:26) hereafter, God's Words are still alive on the Earth. That's how the KJV is alive for almost 400 years.
I agree. But you said "translations" (plural). What other translations do you believe are "God's Words"?

God bless,
Brian
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by Daniel David:
Okay, Timothy 1769 has proven my point that the KJVO group has arbitrarily chosen the KJV to be God's preserved word.
God's preserved Words did not die; the KJV does not die, yet. :D
 
Top