What is Scripture?

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but this cannot be answered with just a "yes" or "no" answer. The words of God that were used to bring you to salvation in that translation were inspired. This doesn't mean that the translation you were saved from is inspired.
Do you understand the difference?

I will give you an example from my own experience. When I was saved, it wasn't from a preacher, it wasn't from reading the Bible, it was from reading the words of God in a book I was reading. Of course I had heard the gospel message before, and I had seen movies about the crucifiction, but it was the words of God in a book that convicted my heart of my sin and need for redemption. Was the book inspired? NO. But the words of God in the book were. Does this help you to better understand me now?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is not true. God saw to it, under his providence/guidance and care that we received in our language exactly what was meant for us in our own language, to which mirrors the texts. You all are asking me and others to accept "new" revelations, and "new" scripture, contrary to that which God has provided within the churches for generations even up to today.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

Michelle said "This is not true. God saw to it, under his providence/guidance and care that we received in our language exactly what was meant for us in our own language, to which mirrors the texts."

It IS true. The KJV differs from the prior Bibles, and even the "texts" it was translated from. It "mirrors" NOTHING perfectly.

You said "You all are asking me and others to accept "new" revelations, and "new" scripture,

No we aren't. But even if we were, how could you know the new versions weren't just God using his providence/guidance and care, giving exactly what was meant for us, correcting that which was already present? THAT is the whole problem with your position - it is entirely subjective and dependent on your own personal unsupported opinion.

 

[LarryN]

Was the book inspired? NO. But the words of God in the book were. Does this help you to better understand me now?

Please clarify: By "words of God in the book" are you refering to actual Scripture verses contained in the text of the story; or are you referring to a strictly narrative presentation of the Gospel message?

 

[HankD]

You all are asking me and others to accept "new" revelations, and "new" scripture, contrary to that which God has provided within the churches for generations even up to today.

What are these "new" revelations from these "new" Scriptures? Do you mean like those who teach the theory of "advanced revelation"?

HankD

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
It IS true. The KJV differs from the prior Bibles, and even the "texts" it was translated from. It "mirrors" NOTHING perfectly.
--------------------------------------------------


No this is incorrect. All bibles prior to the KJB were based upon the same texts, and mirror it and one another. If you are claiming they are different in the same respect that these new versions are to the KJB, please show me. And these new versions are translated with different texts, and different methods and is a new thing. These mv's do not have the same type of errors in them, nor the same reasons they are there as did the other Bibles prior to the KJB. In God's providence, he guided his words in the beginning of our English language through to it's perfection.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "No this is incorrect. All bibles prior to the KJB were based upon the same texts, and mirror it and one another."

No, it is correct. All Bibles prior to the KJV were generally in agreement, but they all still differed from each other. You even admitted this yourself earlier, calling these changes "corrections" in the KJV. And some were not even from the same texts, but were translated from the Latin Vulgate, such as Wycliffe's and the Douay Rheims.

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?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
What are these "new" revelations from these "new" Scriptures? Do you mean like those who teach the theory of "advanced revelation"?

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

No, I mean the one's that have omitted scriptures and have weakened the doctrines of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I mean the one's that have said that Jesus was not grasping to be God while he was a man. I mean the ones that have omitted the atoning blood of Jesus, I mean the ones that make Jesus a liar, etc. etc.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
No, it is correct. All Bibles prior to the KJV were generally in agreement, but they all still differed from each other. You even admitted this yourself earlier, calling these changes "corrections" in the KJV. And some were not even from the same texts, but were translated from the Latin Vulgate, such as Wycliffe's and the Douay Rheims.

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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, I have understood what your position is, but you are wrong. They do not differ in the same manner as the mv's differ - and most of them are dead bibles today. (John 16)


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "Yes, I have understood what your position is, but you are wrong. They do not differ in the same manner as the mv's differ"

What does it matter that the differences are not "in the same manner". Who are you that you get to determine which changes are acceptable and which are not? The fact remains that since the KJV differs from all that existed before it, and these differences are "corrections", 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? Simply address this and stop avoiding it!

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Please clarify: By "words of God in the book" are you refering to actual Scripture verses contained in the text of the story; or are you referring to a strictly narrative presentation of the Gospel message?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In a christian book concerning the last days, and it was the scripture verses given in the book that convicted my heart. As I have said before, I had already heard (never read) the gospel message and had seen movies about Jesus with the gospel message, and had been taught (basics) of the gospel of Jesus Christ prior to this. But it was the words of God (the scripture verses) in the book that convicted my heart to repentance.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Trotter]

Simply address this and stop avoiding it!

Uh, Natters, you're talking to Michelle. If you haven't noticed, it's easier to pull jaw teeth than to get a straight answer from her.

As for avoiding...she ain't avoiding you. She just picks a phrase in your post to respond to instead of your question. See, don't that make you feel all nice and warm inside?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by michelle:

In a christian book concerning the last days, and it was the scripture verses given in the book that convicted my heart. As I have said before, I had already heard (never read) the gospel message and had seen movies about Jesus with the gospel message, and had been taught (basics) of the gospel of Jesus Christ prior to this. But it was the words of God (the scripture verses) in the book that convicted my heart to repentance.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

To that, michelle, I think we can say a whole-hearted amen! I have NO PROBLEM with that.

 

[Trotter]

Michelle,

I do believe that you have the words "inspiration" and "illumination" confused.

You may want to look them up. But use a Bible dictionary, since you need to know what they mean as far as the bible and not the world.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by michelle:



Yes, I have understood what your position is, but you are wrong. They do not differ in the same manner as the mv's differ - and most of them are dead bibles today. (John 16)


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Where does John 16 talk about dead Bibles sister?

 

[Scott J]

Bump to Lacy. You seem to have a habit of avoiding things that directly refute you... especially if it gets too close to being a direct contradiction to your core premise.

I would really like to know your answer on this.

Originally posted by Ziggy:
...
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.

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.

 

[natters]

Trotter said "As for avoiding...she ain't avoiding you. She just picks a phrase in your post to respond to instead of your question."

I find it disheartening that someone so intent on defending the truth is unwilling to examine and comment on a simple fact. If she were truly intent on having "truth", she would address such things because either they are the truth, or the truth could expose the error in them. Yet she completely avoids them. If she was honest with herself and honest with God, she would deal with these things. Honesty and truth demand it!

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
What does it matter that the differences are not "in the same manner". Who are you that you get to determine which changes are acceptable and which are not? The fact remains that since the KJV differs from all that existed before it, and these differences are "corrections", 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? Simply address this and stop avoiding it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I didn't avoid your question and I answered it. You just do not agree with it. But please, stop accusing me of not answering your questions, just because you disagree with the answer. Here is the answer I gave, and your disagreement to it, and then the circular reasoning and arguments:

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle said "This is not true. God saw to it, under his providence/guidance and care that we received in our language exactly what was meant for us in our own language, to which mirrors the texts."

Natters said:
It IS true. The KJV differs from the prior Bibles, and even the "texts" it was translated from. It "mirrors" NOTHING perfectly.

You said "You all are asking me and others to accept "new" revelations, and "new" scripture,

No we aren't. But even if we were, how could you know the new versions weren't just God using his providence/guidance and care, giving exactly what was meant for us, correcting that which was already present?

THAT is the whole problem with your position - it is entirely subjective and dependent on your own personal unsupported opinion.
--------------------------------------------------


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by natters:
Trotter said "As for avoiding...she ain't avoiding you. She just picks a phrase in your post to respond to instead of your question."

I find it disheartening that someone so intent on defending the truth is unwilling to examine and comment on a simple fact. If she were truly intent on having "truth", she would address such things because either they are the truth, or the truth could expose the error in them. Yet she completely avoids them. If she was honest with herself and honest with God, she would deal with these things. Honesty and truth demand it!

IMO, Michelle's basic problem in doing what you say is that she really doesn't draw a distinction between what she feels and has pre-determined about this issue and what God has to say about the issue.

This explains why she can post "proof" text that have nothing whatsoever to do with proving her points then become indignant because "we don't get it."

This is why she could basically care less what the original language texts prove that God was saying in Psalm 12 or any other passage. What she feels as colored by her KJVO preconceptions determines what God's Word means- not Greek or Hebrew grammar.

Finally, this is why she thinks she IS giving proof when she gives her opinion accompanied by unrelated scripture passages.

 

[natters]

michelle, denying what is plainly evident by examining the texts themselves is not answering the point about the differences. I provided examples of how the KJV differs from the texts it was translated from, as you requested, and instead of answering the argument, you simply ignored the argument and denied the facts which you can read for yourself. This is not an honest examination of the issue.