What is Scripture?

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Yes, but your theory of inspiration is quite the same as Mormonism and Islam. According to you there is room for inspiration after the canon was closed and scripture completed.

According to our theory of inspiration, which book did the KJV translators add to the canon?

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]It is not which book but a second inspiration issue. No translation is inspired. If we could claim inspiration for any work we did then we are just as guilty as the Mormons and Muslims for claiming our work is inspired. None of which the KJV translators claimed until those who are KJVO claimed it for them and putting words in their mouths long after they were dead.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:


Through the examples given, we learn and understand HOW and WHEN to apply what the Holy Spirit teaches us. It is learning through example. (James 5:10, 1 Peter 2:21, Jude 1:7)The instructions are directed at us personally, on how we are to behave with one another, love one another and treat one another in the Lord Jesus Christ. Was that particular letter written directly to me from Paul? No. But, you don't know what God knows either. This letter might be meant for certain of God's people today, to which he speaks directly to them from it, in their time of need.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

My point exactly.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I did not read the whole article. It was too long, and too many inconsistencies for me to follow. That does not change the point about grammatical gender not being physical gender.

BTW, if God put these there for a reason, then why did the KJV remove gender in other places where gender is used? God put those there for a reason to, but the KJV translators took them out. How are those places "preserved"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And what places are those? Do you not believe that God has control over His words? Do you deny God this ability, care, and control to know what are the best words and way to convey to us in our language? He is the creator of all languages. God knows best.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
No translation is inspired.
--------------------------------------------------

And from what scriptures gave you this understanding? Where does God ever say that he would not inspire a translation? It is EVIDENCED he did. Otherwise, you nor I, nor any other english speaking person would be saved and having this discussion.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "And what places are those?"

Anywhere where the original languages use gender, but the KJV doesn't. I was recently reading on a page (that is more focused on the "gender inclusive" issue) where even the translators of the KJV noted many places where they removed the gender that was present in the Hebrew and Greek, such as in Exo 18:16, Lev 22:12, 1 Sam 11:7, Psa 29:1 and many other places. More examples are found at this page: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/kjvinclusive.html

"Do you not believe that God has control over His words?"

Yes.

"Do you deny God this ability, care, and control to know what are the best words and way to convey to us in our language?"

No.

"Where does God ever say that he would not inspire a translation?"

He didn't. No one is questioning that he COULD, we don't believe that he DID. How could you possibly know? How can you possibily claim inspiration for one version and not for any other? As an example, how do you know the KJV in inspired, and not the Geneva or the ESV? Just because something is used by God, is commonly accepted or is familiar does not mean is it perfect, let alone inspired. You say it is evidenced that it is inspired, yet when asked for this evidence, all you put forth is personal opinion and vague comments about faith and guidance. I could say the Geneva is inspired, and none of your "evidence" could disprove me.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by michelle:
Where does God ever say that he would not inspire a translation?

Where does God ever say that he would not GIVE ME A BMW to drive?

Arguing from silence? What kind of logical fallacy is this nonsense?

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michelle:
Where does God ever say that he would not inspire a translation?

Where does God ever say that he would not GIVE ME A BMW to drive?
</font>[/QUOTE]That doesn't stop the word-faith people.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Arguing from silence? What kind of logical fallacy is this nonsense?
--------------------------------------------------

The same silent and logical fallacy it is to ask this nonsense:

Where does God say he would inspire a translation?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[superdave]

That doesn't stop the word-faith people. [Laugh]

I have been hinting around this for a couple weeks, not calling names, just indicating that extrabibilical mysticsm that seems to be the basis for KJVonlysim.

Dr. Bob, I am really getting a strong feeling that I think is the Holy Spirit telling me to go out and buy that Mercedes. So I think that you are way off base. Where is your scriptural support that God wants you to have a BMW! IF we are going to argue, we could probably come up with more Biblical positions on which german high performance car to buy than which version is more appropriate.

 

[superdave]

According to me? When did I ever say that I believed that there was "new" doctrines and "new" prophecy being given? Do you doubt that God inspires people today?

How about the "new" doctrine that the King James is the only reinspired version that is the word of God.

God does not "inspire" people today in the sense that he did with the authors of scripture, and the more you argue around this position, the more and more you slip into dangerous areas of extrabiblical doctrine. Who is today writing scripture? Now I'm starting to get downright scared about what you believe!

If you look at what God did during the writing of scripture, it is different from our current understanding of the word "inspiration" Why do you think over the years the doctrinal statement of many has had to include the words verbal plenary inspiration. Because some view what God did as the same as if I said, "God inspired me to write this hymn, or that book" That may very well be true, but not in the sense of the writers of scripture. God through the Holy Spirit breathed his word into men, who wrote in their own personality and speaking/writing style the very words of God. That is far different from me being inspired to make a 700 foot Jesus in my backyard out of Lard. (something that I have had very clear Holy Spirit direction to do BTW, I just have to wait for winter )

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
God does not "inspire" people today in the sense that he did with the authors of scripture, and the more you argue around this position, the more and more you slip into dangerous areas of extrabiblical doctrine. Who is today writing scripture? Now I'm starting to get downright scared about what you believe!
--------------------------------------------------


I guess you ignored the rest of my post.
You are free to believe what you want. But I have shown you how my belief is Biblical in every aspect.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
No translation is inspired.
--------------------------------------------------

And from what scriptures gave you this understanding? Where does God ever say that he would not inspire a translation? It is EVIDENCED he did. Otherwise, you nor I, nor any other english speaking person would be saved and having this discussion.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Ahh, so what you are saying is that the very fact that there are saved english-speaking people is EVIDENCE that there must be an inspired translation into English. And it seems clear from your statement that you believe that persons are saved only from a inspired translation. I see. And you obviously believe that the inspired translation for english-speaking people was produced in 1611.

Let's assume that I am an english-speaking resident of London, born in 1542. I grow up never learning to speak, read, or understand any other language- and first read God's Word in Tyndale's Bible; and later the Geneva Bible. In 1605, at the age of 63, I die. Since my death preceded the publication of the AV1611 by six years, I had no chance to be saved, right? After all, God's inspired translation for english-speaking people wasn't published until after my death.

Or let's skip ahead to the present. Assume I speak, read, and understand only Mandarin Chinese. Your quotation above leaves me out of the picture, since it only refers to "english-speaking person(s)". For me to be saved, there must then therefore be a inspired translation in Mandarin Chinese too, right?

Or let's assume I'm one of the folks who speaks a language into which the Bible has not yet been translated. (And these groups exist even yet today.) Since God's Word hasn't yet been translated into my language (let alone in the inspired translation your belief demands) I must suppose that I am simply doomed to an eternity in Hell. Since you claim that an inspired translation is necessary for people to be saved, I guess it really doesn't matter that the missionary who speaks my language can preach the Gospel to me- no, I must have God's Word in a inspired translation in my own tongue for me to ever be saved.

-----------------------------------------

Michelle, doesn't your belief that a person must have a inspired translation in their language to be saved lead to these conclusions?

[ August 04, 2004, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: LarryN ]

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
And it seems clear from your statement that you believe that persons are saved only from a inspired translation.
--------------------------------------------------


I have never said this, nor have I implied this.
I know many people who are saved, yet have only studied/read the mv's, including all of you. This
above statement/assumption is something I do not believe, nor would I believe.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Or let's assume I'm one of the folks who speaks a language into which the Bible has not yet been translated. (And these groups exist even yet today.) Since God's Word hasn't yet been translated into my language (let alone in the inspired translation your belief demands) I must suppose that I am simply doomed to an eternity in Hell. Since you claim that an inspired translation is necessary for people to be saved, I guess it really doesn't matter that the missionary who speaks my language can preach the Gospel to me- no, I must have God's Word in a inspired translation in my own tongue for me to ever be saved.
--------------------------------------------------

You are thoroughly confused not only on what inspiration is, the importance of and the need for God's perfect words for the saints, but how one also is saved. You are confusing salvation with growing, and making the two things the same, to which they are not.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
And it seems clear from your statement that you believe that persons are saved only from a inspired translation.
--------------------------------------------------


I have never said this, nor have I implied this.
I know many people who are saved, yet have only studied/read the mv's, including all of you. This
above statement/assumption is something I do not believe, nor would I believe.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

And yet you clearly seem to state that you believe that a inspired translation is necessary for salvation: "Where does God ever say that he would not inspire a translation? It is EVIDENCED he did. Otherwise, you nor I, nor any other english speaking person would be saved and having this discussion."

If you really do believe that people can be & are being saved from translations which are not inspired, then why do you demand in your statement above that the very fact that "you nor I, nor any other english-speaking person" is saved is evidence of an inspired translation? If you believe that some can be saved from non-inspired translations- then what prevents you from believing that everyone who is saved can be saved from non-inspired translations? Why demand that there must be even one?

I know many people who are saved, yet have only studied/read the mv's, including all of you.

BTW, I was shown the plan of salvation & accepted Christ as Saviour from a KJV. The KJV has also been the Bible I have predominately used for most of my life. So don't presume things that aren't correct.

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Or let's assume I'm one of the folks who speaks a language into which the Bible has not yet been translated. (And these groups exist even yet today.) Since God's Word hasn't yet been translated into my language (let alone in the inspired translation your belief demands) I must suppose that I am simply doomed to an eternity in Hell. Since you claim that an inspired translation is necessary for people to be saved, I guess it really doesn't matter that the missionary who speaks my language can preach the Gospel to me- no, I must have God's Word in a inspired translation in my own tongue for me to ever be saved.
--------------------------------------------------

You are thoroughly confused not only on what inspiration is, the importance of and the need for God's perfect words for the saints, but how one also is saved. You are confusing salvation with growing, and making the two things the same, to which they are not.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Michelle, do you know the meaning of the phrase "let's assume"?

I'm not claiming to think this way or believe this scenario, I was simply pointing out that it seems like the logical outcome of your seeming statement that w/o a inspired translation people aren't saved.

Attempting to put words in my mouth or trying to turn the tables on me doesn't clarify your belief regarding the inspiration of translations.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by LarryN:
And it seems clear from your statement that you believe that persons are saved only from a inspired translation.

That would be a mis-statement. Folks get saved by believing the gospel.

Let's assume that I am an english-speaking resident of London, born in 1542. . .

Or let's skip ahead to the present. Assume I speak, read, and understand only Mandarin Chinese. Your quotation above leaves me out of the picture, since it only refers to "english-speaking person(s)". For me to be saved, there must then therefore be a inspired translation in Mandarin Chinese too, right?

I must have God's Word in a inspired translation in my own tongue for me to ever be saved.

Again, you confuse the discussion with the salvation issue. Michelle's advice is good:

"So don't presume things that aren't correct."

Translate the Bible into Chinese, or whatever language! Read it and study it. No KJVO I know ever said no translation besides the KJV has any validity. What we do say is that we believe we have a final authority in the KJV just as you trust the autographs for your final authority. If you would like to get together for coffee and compare my final authority with yours, that would be fine. Translate it into Mandarian, then send them to school to learn English. It's the same thing you believe, just substitute "Greek" for "English".


"Those poor people with no perfect Bible!"
The very confusing mantra of the MVs (who ALL believe there never ever ever ever once was a perfect Bible.

Lacy

 

[HankD]

No KJVO I know ever said no translation besides the KJV has any validity.

Here's one...

The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 BC and slammed it shut again in 1611

Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books Pensacola, 1973, p. 9).

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:


Thanks for reading the article. I was not trying to prove KJVOism. One small point like that would be insufficient proof. I was just responding to a challenge to show a doctrine left out of the NIV. I did that.

God decides what is important. The gender of the moon may seem insignificant when examined in isolation. But many times one little picture like that opens up other substantial truths.

With that in mind, I noticed that you avoided responding to my rebuttal. If the NIV is doctrinally unsound by leaving this gender distinction out. Why don't you draw the same conclusion at 2 Peter 1 when the KJV leaves out the potentially doctrine effecting definite articles?

 

[Ziggy]

Since Bro. Lacy brought it up once more, let's return to the issue of the supposed “gender” of the moon as female in KJV English and the supposed theological implications derived therefrom.

Superdave rightly asked,

“Whatever the reason, has anyone answered what the original language has as the gender for moon?”

Here is the answer (from the BDB Hebrew lexicon): “yareach n. m. moon” = noun masculine, meaning “moon”.

Likewise, the Hebrew text of the relevant portion of Isa 13:10 reads as follows:

w’yariach lo yaggiyah owrow,

Literally translated, this phrase states, “And (the) moon does not shine forth his light” (the suffix at the end of the word “light” (owrow) is 3 masc sing).

In fact, according to the Hebrew, the preceding clause also states literally, “the sun in his going forth is dark”. Thus, the suffix applied to the light qualities of both “sun” and “moon” in this verse happens to be masculine.

Given these facts, what does this do for Bro. Lacy’s speculation regarding divine reflection: “The KJV teaches that the moon is female. This is a beautiful picture of how the bride (church) reflects the light of the husband (Christ) and produces no light of her own. The NIV leaves it out. There. Proof”?

Sounds to me like the KJV must have had “advanced revelation” to accomplish such a feat.