What's wrong with "bishop" and "bishopric"? Nothing!

[Will J. Kinney]

"answering" a question by switching topics. Say what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Annie, you can assume whatever you like, but I am asking you to not go on assumptions but on what the actual TEXT of the NIV says.

And I'm asking you to do the same. (As a matter of fact, as someone who professes to be such a scholar on this issue, it should just be a given that you had already done the necessary exegetical and hermeneutical homework before even posting what you have here. That you have not done so is very telling when it comes to your credibility.)

Just a slight correction here first, Annie. I have never claimed, nor do I consider myself to be a "scholar", unless of course you take the literal meaning of "one who is learning". I have never been to Seminary and I thank God for it. I almost went when I was much younger, but thankfully, God had other plans for my life. I am pretty sure that if I had gone to seminary I would have come out like most people do today who go to one. They would have taken my money, reamed out my brain pan, and stolen my faith in the inerrant words of God.

Previous

Does the NIV teach in its text that the Son of God had ORIGINS? Yes or No? Does the text of the NIV teach that there was a certain day when God BECAME the Father of the Son of God? Yes or No?

I'll answer these questions with a question, and in so doing will make my answer--and my point--clearer: Does the KJV teach in its text that we are saved by works? James 2:24 (KJV) says, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." And your answer is...?

Uh, Annie. "Answering" a good, simple and solid question with another question that changes the whole topic is not an answer. By the way, you totally mixed up the meaning of what the true Bible says in James 2:24. It does not say nor does it "teach in its text that we are saved by works". Once again, you are reading things into the text that are not there, and not seeing what IS there. But that is a whole other topic.

Actually, if you wish, I will be happy to explain to you what James 2:24 means, but you must first answer the simple question I previously made. Here it is again if you want to take another shot at it. OK?

Does the NIV teach in its text that the Son of God had ORIGINS? Yes or No? Does the text of the NIV teach that there was a certain day when God BECAME the Father of the Son of God? Yes or No?

God bless,

Will K

 

[Annie5]

Hi Annie. Since you do not believe that there exists such a thing as a one volume book called the Holy Bible that is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God, I seriously doubt that you will be persuaded to change your opinion just because I post again all those verses that tell us there is a book of the Lord, that heaven and earth will pass away but not the words of Jesus Christ, and that the Scripture cannot be broken.

I accept every single one of these verses for exactly what they say, not for what YOU say they say. You twist their meaning and put words in God's mouth by interpreting these verses in the manner in which you have. The fact remains that you cannot build an "important doctrine" on one verse (the "book of the LORD"), and assimilate all other verses to fit that one verse. No responsible person treats the Bible in this way. No other Christian doctrine has such little basis. I am beginning to wonder if you know what I mean when I use the term hermeneutics. Is that word familiar or foreign to you?

You just explain them away in such a manner as to deny that such a book exists.

I am simply saying that God has never promised us such a book, and it is manifestly obvious to any objective person that none of the translations/versions out there right now qualify as such a book, as each one clearly displays the effects of translational ambiguities and copyist errors.

This is the fundamental difference between our two points of view and our beliefs. I believe in The Book, and there is only one. You do not have such a Book. It is really just that simple. I hold no animosity towards you. I just think you are flat out wrong and I know very well that, save for the sovereign grace of God, I would be in the same position of unbelief as you and many others are today.

Mr. Kinney, why believe in something that God has not promised?

 

[Annie5]

Uh, Annie. "Answering" a good, simple and solid question with another question that changes the whole topic is not an answer. By the way, you totally mixed up the meaning of what the true Bible says in James 2:24. It does not say nor does it "teach in its text that we are saved by works". Once again, you are reading things into the text that are not there, and not seeing what IS there. But that is a whole other topic.

No, it is not a whole other topic, Mr. Kinney. It is precisely what I am talking about. The text in James plainly says "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." You see, when someone picks a verse totally out of the context of the rest of the passage and the rest of Scripture (like you have with the Micah and Acts verses in the NIV), he gets a skewed view of what the Bible really teaches. We all know that the KJV doesn't teach salvation by works, because we #1) look at this verse in context and #2) compare it with a whole lotta other verses like Galatians 2:16 ("Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law...") Titus 3:5 ("Not by works of righteousness which we have done"; Eph. 2:8-9 ("not of works"); etc., etc. This is exactly what you have refused to do with the NIV verses you have mentioned. I think what disturbs me the most is that you obviously KNOW the basic principles of interpretation and yet do not apply them fairly. This, sir, is deceitful on your part. I am usually sparing with strong language, and try to speak in a measured way. But there's just no other word to describe what you are doing here.

Once again (third time?), I have NO interest in defending the NIV. I'm simply suggesting that your arguments and methods are either woefully uninformed or downright deceitful. In any case, they are not to be trusted. (I'm pretty sure you referred to the version we're talking about as "my NIV," even though I've already told you I don't like the NIV, nor do I even own one. That's why I felt the need to post this clarification.)

Actually, if you wish, I will be happy to explain to you what James 2:24 means, but you must first answer the simple question I previously made. Here it is again if you want to take another shot at it. OK?

Does the NIV teach in its text that the Son of God had ORIGINS? Yes or No? Does the text of the NIV teach that there was a certain day when God BECAME the Father of the Son of God? Yes or No?

I'll answer it as soon as you answer (with a yes or no) my questions about the NIV. (And about the TEXT of the James passage I mentioned.) Last time, you dodged them with a paragraph that didn't answer the question. Look, we could go round and round shouting verses at one another, and miss the truth. The truth is that I am being consistent and you are not. I look at the James verse, which states: "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," and I think to myself: "Hmmm...That sounds weird. Let's check the context, and then let's compare this verse with the weight of Scripture." Then, having done that exegetical homework, I then conclude the proper interpretation of James 2:24. I have done the same thing with the Micah and Acts verses you brought up: check the context and compare with the weight of NIV Scripture. You, on the other hand, totally isolate a couple of verses (ignoring even the clarifying marginal notes), ripping them out of the context of the whole work, and say that that version is guilty of teaching false doctrine. Yet, you do not treat the KJV James passage (or others like it--there are many in the KJV, as in every other translation) in that way. You speak out of both sides of your mouth, which is ignorant at best, and deceitful at worst.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Explaining away what the Bible says about itself

I accept every single one of these verses for exactly what they say, not for what YOU say they say. You twist their meaning and put words in God's mouth by interpreting these verses in the manner in which you have. The fact remains that you cannot build an "important doctrine" on one verse (the "book of the LORD"), and assimilate all other verses to fit that one verse. No responsible person treats the Bible in this way. No other Christian doctrine has such little basis. I am beginning to wonder if you know what I mean when I use the term hermeneutics. Is that word familiar or foreign to you?

Hi Annie. Two points. First, if by hermeneutics you mean seminary graduates using high sounding technical words to impress his advanced education upon the mind of the common man and convince him that the Bible doesn't really mean what it seems to say, then Yes, I am familiar with hermeneutics.


Second point: Can you explain for us what Isaiah was referring to when he says: "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD and read; no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16. This "one verse" seems to have put a bee in your bonnet. If I can't build an important doctrine upon one verse, as you say, (though I have many others as well), then what do you do with a verse like Galatians 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." where God not only builds an important doctrine on a whole verse but on a single word and whether it is singular or plural?

Now, about that previous question concerning the NIV teaching that the Son of God had origins and when exactly was that "day" when God became the Father of the Son....


Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

I double dog dare ya

nce again (third time?), I have NO interest in defending the NIV.

True, Annie. You do not defend any Bible as being the complete and inerrant words of God. Why? Because you simply do not believe that such a thing exists.

I'll answer it as soon as you answer (with a yes or no) my questions about the NIV. (And about the TEXT of the James passage I mentioned.)

Sorry, Annie. It's not going to happen. I asked you first. You avoided answering the clear and simple question. You previously stated that there were NO false doctrines taught in all these modern versions like the NIV. Now you are telling us that you don't really like the NIV anyway, and you refuse to deal with the theological implications of what the NIV, RSV and a couple other "Evangelical" modern versions teach about the eternality of the Son of God. So, now you want to change topics. Sorry. Not gonna happen.

Blessings,

Will K

 

[Annie5]

Sorry, Annie. It's not going to happen. I asked you first.

Actually, Mr. Kinney, if you'll refer back to post #82, you'll see that I asked you first. (You asked me in post #97 after dodging my question.)

You avoided answering the clear and simple question.

I avoided it? On the contrary, I answered it clearly. You are the one who is avoiding the clear and simple truth: that you do not play fair and therefore cannot be trusted.

You previously stated that there were NO false doctrines taught in all these modern versions like the NIV.

Mr. Kinney, I think you know I never said that. I challenge you to produce any statement I made to that effect.

Now you are telling us that you don't really like the NIV anyway, and you refuse to deal with the theological implications of what the NIV, RSV and a couple other "Evangelical" modern versions teach about the eternality of the Son of God. So, now you want to change topics. Sorry. Not gonna happen.

As I said, it is not changing topics at all. The fact is that you have demonstrated that you DO know how to correctly interpret verses like James 2:24, which seem to state something that is heretical (justification by works) until considered in immediate context and in the larger context of Scripture as a whole. You are more than willing--eager, even--to apply these hermeneutical principles (rules of interpretation) when explaining a verse like James 2:24 in the KJV, but you flatly refuse to do the same thing with the Micah and Acts verses you mentioned from the NIV. Deceitfully, you yank these verses totally out of context and stubbornly refuse to examine them in the light of the rest of the NIV translation, which clearly declares Christ's eternality and deity numerous times. You then conclude that the NIV teaches doctrinal error. Play fair, Mr. Kinney, and maybe more people will listen to you.

 

[Annie5]

Hi Annie. Two points. First, if by hermeneutics you mean seminary graduates using high sounding technical words to impress his advanced education upon the mind of the common man and convince him that the Bible doesn't really mean what it seems to say, then Yes, I am familiar with hermeneutics.

So, you don't "know" about hermeneutics, yet somehow you clearly, eagerly, and purposefully (and correctly!) use them as you interpret James 2:24. And then you forget about them when it comes to other versions. As I've said, your inconsistency in this matter suggests that either you are ignorant/misinformed, or else you are deceitful. Or maybe you are so desperate to cling to your belief in KJVO-ism that you've simply talked yourself into believing something that a more objective party would immediately recognize as irrational.

(Correctly used, the term hermeneutics simply means the rules used to discover the meaning of any text. The most basic rule of hermeneutics is to consider a verse in context, both of its book/passage and of the rest of Scripture. You're really good at doing this with the KJV...)

Second point: Can you explain for us what Isaiah was referring to when he says: "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD and read; no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

No, I cannot. The specific meaning is not clear enough for either you or me to determine. Generally, it is speaking of a book which belongs to God, and which Isaiah's readers are to examine, and the words of which will come to pass. It could be referring to a prophetic writing, or, as the cross reference in two of my KJV Bibles indicates (Mal. 3:16), a "book of remembrance" that was written at a certain time in past history. I have not studied this verse out at all, or looked at any commentaries on it. But to say that it definitely means "a complete, infallible record of all the words God has ever spoken to man" is certainly not indicated by the text at all. You have to read into it to get that meaning.

If I can't build an important doctrine upon one verse, as you say, (though I have many others as well), then what do you do with a verse like Galatians 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." where God not only builds an important doctrine on a whole verse but on a single word and whether it is singular or plural?

Mr. Kinney, you are not God. God did not build a doctrine on just one verse, anyway; that doctrine you just referred to is found in numerous places in the Bible. Yes, Paul referred to that OT verse/word as he (under God's inspiration) communicated and developed that doctrine. But it is not the only place that doctrine is found.

 

[annsni]

I just read through the whole thread and I can see that Mr. Kenney has a double standard - or else blinders on - when it comes to the truth of Bible translation. That's too bad.

 

[Rippon]

Good job Annie5.

 

[gb93433]

Hi gb. Maybe I never explained it because it makes no sense at all in Spanish. The first part ¿Cómo estás? is perfectly good Spanish and just means How are you?. It is the informal form. However ¿Cóma está? is pure nonsense. If you said that to a naive speaker they might look at you and say ¿Qué? = Huh? It doesn't mean anything in Spanish. Maybe you should brush up on your Spanish speaking skills.

Perhaps you should study Spanish better because I have heard that used many times in my work with folks from Mexico. It is short for ¿Cómo está usted? The use of "usted" is implied in the verb.

Perhaps before coming back with what you think perhaps you should try www.google.com first just to make sure you are not wrong.

 

[gb93433]

I just read through the whole thread and I can see that Mr. Kenney has a double standard - or else blinders on - when it comes to the truth of Bible translation. That's too bad.

Blinders? What are those? Do we have to doubt what his fruit is?

Imagine the Christians being misled according to a quote from him in post #112, "As for before 1611, as I pointed out, I do not believe God brought forth His perfect Book in one volume until 1611."

This man is a false teacher through and through. He does not have enough knowledge to discuss translation with someone who knows Greek and Hebrew. He keeps referring back to the 1611 text that has undergone many revisions since 1611. He does not refer to the original text because he is inable ot discuss that text and believes that the KJV is the perfected version of what the early Christians used. He has enough knowledge to be dangerous but enough to know what he does not know.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Perhaps you should study Spanish better because I have heard that used many times in my work with folks from Mexico. It is short for ¿Cómo está usted? The use of "usted" is implied in the verb.

Perhaps before coming back with what you think perhaps you should try www.google.com first just to make sure you are not wrong.

Spot on. I was a missionary to Mexico for 9 years. I do not profess to be any expert in the Spanish language, but you are correct and Mr. Kinney is wrong.... as usual.

He is an attention [personal attack snipped] who jumps around from board to board and spews his heretical notions just so he can show off his gnostic superiority.

 

[Tater77]

Hi tater. If you have read the study on the word bishop you would see that a bishop is an elder is a pastor is an overseer. They are all the same thing. Don't follow tradition; follow the Bible. But of course I know from past dealings with you that you yourself do not believe that any Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God, so you are free to be another Every Man For Himself Bible Versionist and pick and choose for yourself according to your own personal preferences what you want to have in your "bible" and what you want to exclude.

That is why you and I take a fundamentally different approach to what God's perfect words are and where to find them. I have a single Book called the Holy Bible. You do not have a single book that you think is the inerrant words of God. Thus the differences between you and me on this issue.

I hope you are doing well,

Will K

The parts in italics are what I specifically asked if we could avoid. They have become ad hominem for us and take away from the subject of the debate :smilewinkgrin:

Yes I know what a Bishop is, which is why I said they choose the best word for the KJV at the time. I have never said Bishop was wrong. But I have always stated that the use of Bishop shows an Angelican slant to the KJV.

As far as how I've been. Its been a busy day at Church today. New pastor got elected, big dinner, then a busy evening service. What a day, but a great one. :godisgood:

 

[gb93433]

I have never been to Seminary and I thank God for it. I almost went when I was much younger, but thankfully, God had other plans for my life. I am pretty sure that if I had gone to seminary I would have come out like most people do today who go to one.

Why ever go to school to learn anything if those who are out there are still learning upon the foundation of others? Why ever go to school when you are smarter and more spiritual than anyone else? By your attitude and actions I would assume that you have never been discipled or discipled anyone because you might have learned something and passed it on.

Wisdom is knowing what you do not know.

Most of the time those who fail are those who think they know when those who really do know realize they will fail because they do not know.

Your profile says that you are a furnituremaker. I am curious what kind of furniture do you make?