-
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!
What is Scripture?
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
--------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------
Do you understand the difference between salvation and growing? Between inspired and uninspired? Do you realize that God spoke through an ass? (Numbers 22).
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
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?
--------------------------------------------------
Do you understand the difference between salvation and growing? Between inspired and uninspired? Do you realize that God spoke through an ass? (Numbers 22).
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Lacy wrote:
If you need to see her exact words again, here they are: "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."
Great Lacy- you & I agree on how folks get saved. Now if Michelle can just be persuaded that salvation isn't just through any one particular translation...................
No, once again, my poking holes in Michelle's statement doesn't mean that I believe the scenarios I gave to be true. They show the flaws in the belief that salvation resides in a single translation of the Word of God (the KJV); as opposed to the incarnate Word (The Lord Jesus Christ). Michelle plainly stated that w/o a inspired translation being extant that people couldn't be saved.
If you need to see her exact words again, here they are: "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."
Yes,
He has, several times. Even an ass is correct when he properly exegetes the very words of God. I'll admit that is a rare occurrance however...
Who exactly are you applying this particular truth to anyway?
BTW, I did read the rest of your post. You clearly are not distinguishing between the two connotative definitions of inspiration.
Man today is not inspired (God-breathed) as the writers of scripture were. you are asking if I believe that God inspires anyone today, my response is not in the same context as he did while the scriptures were being given. Either the canon is closed or it is not, and to believe that there is special revelation given to specific people today and not to others is dangerous theological territory. If that is the case, than how can you say that Joel Osteen, or Joyce Meyer are not recieving the words of God directly through the Holy Spirit as they claim to? Who will discern who is truly led of the Spirit and who is being led about by demons? That is the reason that Fundamental Christianity, and Baptists in particular hold to a closed canon and the cessation of revelatory sign gifts, and the authority of the Scriptures.
You have clearly indicated that in reality that you do not hold to these, even if you say you do, your positions on the KJV have clearly defined your stand outside of the ranks of Big B Baptist and Fundamentalism, like many if not most of the KJVO crowd.
"I believes da Bible from Civa to civa, and I beleives the civa too, cause it says holy Bible"
-The Ordination of Uncle Zeke
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
But, those things are not REALLY different, they are only sorta, kinda different. Close enough is ok as long as it has KJV on the cover, unless of course it has MKJV, NKJV, or KJV21.
KJVO logic - "Things that are different are not the same unless I say they are the same. Then, and only then are things that are different the same."
My point is that there is NO WAY for michelle or any KJVO to know except by a personal choice of the 1769 revision, which, although indeed supports the new-ageism of the use of "the Christ" does reflect the inspired text.
The AV1611 was in error and did NOT reflect the inspired text. The absence of the definite article (the) preceding "Christ" dimished the fact that Jesus is THE Christ, the Seed of the woman so long expected, not just another "annointed" one but THE Christ.
This revelation came directly from God the Father to the mind of Peter and is recorded in BOTH the TR and the W&H koine text WITH the definite article.
As I posted in a previous note, the Greek and Hebrew texts were the "river of life" to the KJV translators. They knew that blunders had been made and always referred back to the original language texts for their "bible corrections".
The AV1611 was in error and did NOT reflect the inspired text. The absence of the definite article (the) preceding "Christ" dimished the fact that Jesus is THE Christ, the Seed of the woman so long expected, not just another "annointed" one but THE Christ.
This revelation came directly from God the Father to the mind of Peter and is recorded in BOTH the TR and the W&H koine text WITH the definite article.
As I posted in a previous note, the Greek and Hebrew texts were the "river of life" to the KJV translators. They knew that blunders had been made and always referred back to the original language texts for their "bible corrections".
HankD
Yes, to all three questions.
Salvation is by Grace, through faith, and is a one-time, instantaneous event. It is not a process over time, as some teachings/denominations believe.
Growing (oftentimes termed Sanctification), is a life-long process. Spiritual growth can & should occur in a saved individual at any age, regardless of how long it has been since that person was saved.
Inspiration is the miraculous act that God, through the Holy Spirit, performed when He gave us His revealed Word in the original autographs. The subsequent copies (MSS) of those originals are nowhere in God's Word promised to be free from the errors of fallible human scribes. To claim infallibilty on the part of any scribes or translators, without specific promises in God's Word attesting to His ongoing inspiration of such, is to place one's faith in the creation (man); instead of in the Creator.
Yes, I do, thank you for the Bible lesson. Your point here eludes me though.
Great post Ziggy.
Lacy, a few pages ago I posted a link to a picture of a pagan idol that depicts the marriage of the sun and moon.
Here Ziggy has shown that the moon is masculine in Hebrew meaning that the KJV translators departed from the text in Hebrew.
Hopefully someone has a good resource but I am beginning to smell the RCC's incorporation of pagan symbols and ideas all over this one- which were then carried on by the Anglo-catholic translators. Sounds like this text would be great for Mariolators who call Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and mother of God... like the ancient pagan goddesses were.
--------------------------------------------------
If you need to see her exact words again, here they are: "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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You clearly do not have an understanding of inspiration. How is it then, if you didn't have a translation in your language of the words of God, that you would have then heard/read/learned the gospel? Did you go to the Greek and Hebrew? Did someone preach to you the gospel in your language from the Greek and Hebrew? How is it, that you heard/read/learned the gospel if God had not inspired an English tranlsation?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
If you need to see her exact words again, here they are: "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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You clearly do not have an understanding of inspiration. How is it then, if you didn't have a translation in your language of the words of God, that you would have then heard/read/learned the gospel? Did you go to the Greek and Hebrew? Did someone preach to you the gospel in your language from the Greek and Hebrew? How is it, that you heard/read/learned the gospel if God had not inspired an English tranlsation?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
How would you decide which edition/version of the KJV to bring along? Would that be the 1611, the 1769, the Oxford, the Cambridge, the.....................(do you get my point)?
--------------------------------------------------
I have already answered this question many times. The one God has EVIDENCED it is. (John 16)
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
How would you decide which edition/version of the KJV to bring along? Would that be the 1611, the 1769, the Oxford, the Cambridge, the.....................(do you get my point)?
--------------------------------------------------
I have already answered this question many times. The one God has EVIDENCED it is. (John 16)
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Which is:
A) 1611
B) 1762 Cambridge
C) 1769 Oxford
D) other
A, B, C, or D michelle?
A) 1611
B) 1762 Cambridge
C) 1769 Oxford
D) other
A, B, C, or D michelle?
--------------------------------------------------
Man today is not inspired (God-breathed) as the writers of scripture were. you are asking if I believe that God inspires anyone today, my response is not in the same context as he did while the scriptures were being given.
--------------------------------------------------
Well then, we might just be coming to more common ground now. With now understanding that inspiration can come in different ways, and in light of the guidance and providence of God concerning his words, we might be able to discuss this with a better understanding.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Man today is not inspired (God-breathed) as the writers of scripture were. you are asking if I believe that God inspires anyone today, my response is not in the same context as he did while the scriptures were being given.
--------------------------------------------------
Well then, we might just be coming to more common ground now. With now understanding that inspiration can come in different ways, and in light of the guidance and providence of God concerning his words, we might be able to discuss this with a better understanding.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
So, if I had been saved from someone presenting the plan of salvation to me from an NIV, NASB, or ESV (and not from the KJV, which in fact was the version that was used when I was saved)- you would say that any of the versions I've mentioned other than the KJV would have to be inspired also, just as you believe the KJV is inspired? You've already stated on a previous page in this thread that you believe that people can be saved from translations other than the KJV.
Can you just plainly answer this question with either a yes or no answer, and not go off on some tangent that avoids the question? Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------
Either the canon is closed or it is not, and to believe that there is special revelation given to specific people today and not to others is dangerous theological territory.
--------------------------------------------------
The KJB mirrors the texts it was translated from in our own language, as God saw fit (through his inspiration/guidance/providence/care/
foreknowledge. Do you understand now? It was not "new" scripture, nor was it "new" revelation.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Either the canon is closed or it is not, and to believe that there is special revelation given to specific people today and not to others is dangerous theological territory.
--------------------------------------------------
The KJB mirrors the texts it was translated from in our own language, as God saw fit (through his inspiration/guidance/providence/care/
foreknowledge. Do you understand now? It was not "new" scripture, nor was it "new" revelation.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
michelle said "The KJB mirrors the texts it was translated from in our own language, as God saw fit"
But it does not mirror it perfectly. It has some minor changes. If these changes are "corrections" as you have claimed, then not only does it mean that that which was prior was NOT perfect NOR preserved, but it also means that those changes are both NEW scripture and NEW revelation. Do you understand now?
But it does not mirror it perfectly. It has some minor changes. If these changes are "corrections" as you have claimed, then not only does it mean that that which was prior was NOT perfect NOR preserved, but it also means that those changes are both NEW scripture and NEW revelation. Do you understand now?