-
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
- Thread starter tinytim
- Start date
RaptureReady
New Member
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.
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
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.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Actually, I think you could go buy a copy of the Septuagint. I could be wrong though.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph Botwinick
RaptureReady
New Member
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
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.
Sure you can. Benton's English/Greek parallel Septuagint is available at most Christian bookstores, amazon.com, etc.
But the scriptures talk of the scriptures - inspiration of the scriptures, history of the scriptures, etc. The scriptures never mention KJV-onlyism.
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.
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.
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
So what you are saying is, I should have faith in the KJB and all other versions that call themselves the scriptures?
So since they didn’t have word for word back then means that we can’t have it today?
RaptureReady
New Member
Got to go, back later. God bless.
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
Joseph Botwinick
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Actually, yes you can.
Why not? I have one right here beside my desk and I can read it.
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.
It absolutely IS a revision. If you actually had a copy of the Authorised Version you would know that.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
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.
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.
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.
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
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!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 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.
