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

[Will J. Kinney]

What are you referring to when you talk about "the Bible"?

I can't speak for Dr. Bob or anyone else on here but it is not that we believe the Bible has errors in it at all. We believe that it was written by God, who does not make errors. But the translations were written by men and they - like you and I - do make errors.

I know that this won't placate you or convince you that we are not unbelievers and liberals, but as someone who has stood for God's Word as inerrant and infallible I resent like crazy your implication that because I don't see the KJV or even the textus Receptus the same way you do that I am a liberal.

Hi Tom. You said it is not that you believe "the Bible" has errors in it at all. What exactly are you referring to when you talk about "the Bible"? Is it a specific book made of paper and ink? Is it something we can hold in our hands, read, memorize and believe every word? Or is it just a hypothetical bible that doesn't really exist, but it sounds nice to say you believe in it?

Again, you say that you have stood for God's word as inerrant and infallible. That is great to hear. But again, what specifically is this infallible and inerrant word of God you speak of? Do you have a copy of it anywhere? Have you ever seen it and can you give it to somebody else?

Is there anywhere I too can take a look at it to see if it really is inerrant and infallible as you tell me it is?

Have you really thought through your stated position about what you really believe about this "Bible" you guys seem either unwilling or unable to identify for us?

Just trying to get these things out in the open so we can examine if our statements really make any sense or not, or if we are just sounding off pious sounding religious words that really mean nothing.

So, please tell us where we can get a copy of this inerrant and infallible words of God you refer to?

Thanks,

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

apology

Apology accepted.

I do believe in the inerrancy of the original autographs, which has been the historic conviction on Bible believers up until the some began to assign that attribute solely to the KJV. No translation, by definition, can attain to the inerrancy of the originals which were the only 'God-breathed' words.

Hi Mexdeaf. Thank you for accepting my sincere apology. I really had no idea of your physical handicap and I certainly did not mean to offend you in this way.

I also appreciate the fact that you are now at least attempting to deal with the issue rather than "ignoring us and hoping it will go away".

Your own confession of only the originals were inspired leaves you with NO inspired, complete and inerrant Bible NOW. Who taught you that "only the originals were inspired"? Does the Bible (any bible) say that?

Where did you ever get the idea that "no translation, by definition, can attain to the inerrancy of the original." Does the Bible teach that?

The Bible in fact teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired words of God. Did you know that? Yes, it's true. Here is part of an article I wrote about it. Please let me know what you think.

God bless,

Can a Translation be Inspired?

I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they happen to admire, but is it the truth?

Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.

It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book, and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.

So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, and it does so many times.

In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.

A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharaoh and speaks with him face to face. Pharaoh does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

Brother James Melton has written a very good article on why he believes the King James Bible is the true word of God. In his article he mentions what the true Holy Bible says about the word "to translate". (http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html)

Brother Melton writes: The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is "only a translation." Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul's kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What's the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Cor. 2:9; Gal. 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE "ORIGINAL GREEK" ISN'T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text! - (end of quotes from brother Melton. See his article. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html It is very good!)

Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is translated into another language.

" And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.

It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".

So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.

Will K

 

[pilgrim2009]

Daniel 3:25

Doesn't it bother you that words are missing from the KJV that are in the Greek and Hebrew?

I have seen fruit from many Bible translations. I began a church on the mission field using a Bible that was not a KJV. I am now pastoring in the USA and seeing fruit from a Bible that is not the KJV.

There isn't any new ground being plowed here so I'll leave you all to your delusions.

God bless. :thumbs:

It`s according to which Greek and Hebrew you are talking about?


Yes I can witness without a bible from what I have memorized.I rejoice you are seeing fruit.

You know Daniel 3:25 talks about Shadrach,Meshach,and Abed-nego in the furnace blazing with fire.Jesus was the fourth man in the midst the Son of God.Most bibles say son of the god`s small s and small g.

The King James says Son of God capital S capital so people will know this refers to Jesus i.e Deity.

To say son of the gods in this verse with small s and g is blasphemy.What does your favorite version have?

Atleast the NKJV has this one verse right Son of God capital S and G.

[Attack on the word of God deleted]

In Jesus.

Steven.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

the Bible is wrong

My God is too big to be limited to one sole English version. And He needs no help "defending" it. There will be no crowns in Heaven for doing so, I'm afraid.

He would be more honored by people getting out there and sharing the truth from whatever version they have instead of going around trying to prove that everybody else's Bible is wrong.

Hi Mexdeaf. You apparently are unaware of what is really going on with this whole Bible version issue. The attacks against the King James Bible in a public and widespread way began with the liberal theologians who put out the RSV way back in 1950. In their introduction which you can still see if you pick one up, they tell us: "the King James Version has grave defects...these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation." Page iv of their Preface.

In fact, the attacks against the accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible itself began earlier than this, and are continued today. Here are some quotes from various scholars, and notice that not one of them is a King James Bible believer. It is the seminaries that are pouring out today's pastors who are brain washing them into not believing in the inerrancy of any Bible or any texts.

It is NOT the King James Bible believers. We are telling the world that there really is a Standard by which all others are to be measured.

Please read through these quotes and think about them. Remember, these people are not even KJB onlies.

The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."

"...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

By His grace, believing the Book,

Will K

 

[pilgrim2009]

[Attack on a good translation of God's Word snipped - PUBLIC WARNING to the poster that he will be immediately suspended if he goes that direction again. God's Word is too precious to have bigots attack English translations out of their own stupidity.]

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Kinney:So, please tell us where we can get a copy of this inerrant and infallible words of God you refer to?

Well, it aint the KJV...it has obvious goofs such as "Easter" in Acts 12;4, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, & the omission of the words "through our Lord Jesus Christ, before all time" in Jude 25.

However, those goofs are MEN'S, not God's.

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Kinney, you just cannot get past the fact that there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO. It's totally man-made, and is false, as are all other MAN-MADE doctrines of worship.

To believe your stuff, one has to believe that GOD retired in 1611.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

No Scriptural support?

Mr. Kinney, you just cannot get past the fact that there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO. It's totally man-made, and is false, as are all other MAN-MADE doctrines of worship.

To believe your stuff, one has to believe that GOD retired in 1611.

Hi robo. You always do appear on the scene with your tired mantra about "Where is the Scriptural Support?". I know you have seen my response to this question, but it doesn't seem to faze you in the least. You might want to tell the folks here what YOUR answer is as to where God's inerrant words are found today.

You give a really fascinating answer. Maybe they'll get a kick out of hearing what you think.

Another commonly raised question by the "no Bible is the only inspired words of God" group is this little gem. "Where is your Scriptural support for your view that the King James Bible is the only 100% true and inerrant Bible?"

In spite of the fact that I and many others repeatedly post a long list of Bible verses showing that God will preserve His words on this earth till heaven and earth pass away, they come back with: "Well, no where do the Scriptures mention the King James Bible." This is admittedly true. But let's turn the tables around, shall we? They are demanding something from us which they themselves cannot provide. Where in any Bible version does it ever support what they believe? Does any Bible version tell us that God would preserve His words "only in the originals" or even in the Hebrew or the Greek? Does any Bible version tell us that God would preserve His words "out there somewhere" among 400,000 variant readings and that it is up to the scholars, who never agree with each other and keep changing their minds every few years, to tell us where the true words of God might be found? Neither does any Bible version mention the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard, NKJV nor the Daffy Duck Version.


And the Bible certainly does not mention this really looney toons view that I have heard some like Robycop, Brian Tegart, Ed 1611 and a few others who try to tell us that God's inerrant words are found in

"any reliable (whatever THAT means) version like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, KJV, Holman Standard, etc. that follows its SOURCES (no matter how different nor contradictory). They are all the inerrant words of God (in spite of literally thousands of textual differences and hundreds of different meanings, and scores of different names and numbers), but the KJV, though "inerrant" still has several goofs, boo boos, wrong texts and wrong translations."

Where is the Scriptural support for what anything the anti-King James Bible only people think? Short answer: NOWHERE.

Let them rant and rave away and continue to promote the idea that No Bible and no single text in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek is now the 100% true and infallible words of God. We King James Bible believers are quite content to maintain our position affirming that God has given us the true Book of the LORD in the English language. We'll leave the results with Him.

Will Kinney

 

[Will J. Kinney]

A very confused mind

Mr. Kinney:So, please tell us where we can get a copy of this inerrant and infallible words of God you refer to?

Well, it aint the KJV...it has obvious goofs such as "Easter" in Acts 12;4, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, & the omission of the words "through our Lord Jesus Christ, before all time" in Jude 25.

However, those goofs are MEN'S, not God's.

Hi Roby. You continually bring up the same things as alleged errors that you have "proved". Yet you contradict even yourself. On the one hand you have stated many times that you believe the King James Bible is the inerrant words of God. But then, you turn right around in the same breath and tell us that the KJB has many goofs, boo boos, error, wrong texts and omissions. Now, how in the name of sanity and sound reasoning you can hold such completely contradictory views and still think it makes any kind of rational sense if frankly beyond me.

As I have pointed out before, try taking the argument (which you do) that such contradictory "versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, KJV and Holman Standard are all the inerrant words of God except for the boo boos, goofs , wrong texts and wrong translations" before a court of law or even a high school debating team and see how long it takes before your arguments are tossed out of court or laughed out of the room.

For those interested in the 3 "obvious goofs" you mention, I will provide 2 links (so as not to give long posts here) and I just might post what I have studied on your Jude example.


#1 Easter is correct.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html

#2 1 Timothy 6:10 the love of money is the root of all evil

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/rootevil.html

And for the Jude one I will make a separate post.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

 

[Will J. Kinney]

The book of Jude in the various "inerrant" bible versions

I decided against posting the whole study on the book of Jude. It is too long and not everyone would be interested. James White criticized the KJB for being based on "inferiour" texts, and he tries to make us believe that versions like the NASB, NIV are based on "superior" texts. My study of what these "superior" texts actually say blows his theory out of the water.

For those who are interested in seeing the textual and translational differences just in this short little book of Jude, here is the link to my new site.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jameswhitejude4.htm

God bless,
Will K

 

[Annie5]

In spite of the fact that I and many others repeatedly post a long list of Bible verses showing that God will preserve His words on this earth till heaven and earth pass away,

Mr. Kinney, I've never seen a list of verses showing "that God will preserve His words on this earth" in one volume or in one language. You admit that this is true (that Scripture does not teach this). You then proceed to say...

But let's turn the tables around, shall we? They are demanding something from us which they themselves cannot provide.

This is not true. Their (and my) position is that God is silent on the issue. He doesn't say that all of His words will be found in one volume or language. In fact, He doesn't say anything about where His words will be found. Therefore, to assert (and try to convince others) that God HAS to have fulfilled a promise He didn't make goes against the message of Scripture. Those who compare manuscripts (like Erasmus and other language scholars have done through the ages) aren't making any dogmatic claims about any one volume or manuscript. They aren't doing anything new. The KJVO's, on the other hand, have elevated their beliefs (that God has preserved His word inerrantly in the KJV) to the level of fundamental Christian doctrine...basing that "important doctrine" on.....er....what? Nothing found in Scripture. Do you see the difference? The burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim. I make no claims about exactly where God's words may be found preserved inerrantly. So, the burden of proof does not rest on me. It rests on those who insist that God's words are preserved inerrantly in the KJV. Did God promise that He would preserve His words inerrantly in one volume/language? If not, then why look for such a volume? It's that simple.

 

[EdSutton]

In that case I sincerely apologize. I did not know that he was actually physically deaf or impaired. I am sorry for what I said.

However, please try not to over react to my unwitting ignorance of his physical state. It would have been better to inform me that he was physically impaired and that what I said was inappropriate. I can see that now. However when you call for shutting down the topic, I suspect that far more motivates you than just my comment about his deafness.

By the way, it doesn't go unnoticed that you yourself have not exactly turned the other cheek, by referring to me as "spiritually impaired". Does an intentional insult cancel out an unintentional insult?

Let's deal with the issue of the inerrancy of the Bible, if you're up to it.

Will K

My comment about being "spiritually impaired" was not intended to be any personal insult, in any manner, but was a broad characterization for any and all who attempt to impose any 'man-made' doctrine onto Scripture. Any "Onlyism" including 'KJVO', 'VULO', or any other version 'O', fits this description, IMO.

Also, FTR, several of our BB posters, including but not limited to, Mexdeaf, Askjo, and DeafPosttrib, among some fairly frequent posters, are physically impaired with hearing, as several posts have mentioned, in various fora. One who has read some of these could have surely noticed that without a great deal of searching, IMO.

And yes, I am/was 'motivated' to ask for the closure by 'personal attacks' on a couple of individuals, and 'assaults' on the Bible, which come from any direction, and toward any version, as opposed to actually investigating the texts, translations of words and phrases, etc,. which I do consider to be entirely legitimate inquiries. For one example, entirely germane to this thread, as you noted the word "epsikopos" appears five times in Scripture, and I believe both 'bishop' and 'overseer' was and are a good translation of this word. You also correctly noted that the WYC used this word, as well. However, I would suggest that the additional some 35 times that the WYC renders another word as 'bishop' are poor renderings, to say the least, so let's not confuse the issue by 'picking and choosing' which parts of the WYC we are supporting, while eliding the places where this is a poor rendering.

Oh yeah! One more question. If God did not give Scripture in one volume, in the original languages, and he didn't, why do you assume that we should have it, in this manner, now??

And also, FTR, my personal choice of the overall 'best' Bible editions generally available, happen to be a particular editon of the KJV and a particular edition of the NKJV, both of which are effectively based on the same underlying texts.

Also FTR, one of the 'rules' listed for posting in this forum, one of which is specifically #9, makes one of the terms or phrases you have used, in this thread as 'off-limits' in this forum. You might want to check out the 'rules' by which all of us have agreed to abide.

And I again ask, as I have asked before, what is it that 'elevates' the KJV (of whatever particular flavor one prefers) above, say the GEN or MCB, except for your or my own personal preference?

Now, I am going to :sleeping_2:

(And I still hope the thread is closed, and if desirable, another opened on the issues, without the initial 'flame', 'personal attacks' and attacks on the Bible that have been seen so far in this one!)

G'nite all.

Ed

 

[Annie5]

My comment about being "spiritually impaired" was not intended to be any personal insult, in any manner, but was a broad characterization for any and all who attempt to impose any 'man-made' doctrine onto Scripture. Any "Onlyism" including 'KJVO', 'VULO', or any other version 'O', fits this description, IMO.

Well said, Ed! :laugh:

And yes, I am/was 'motivated' to ask for the closure by 'personal attacks' on a couple of individuals, and 'assaults' on the Bible, which come from any direction, and toward any version, as opposed to actually investigating the texts, translations of words and phrases, etc,. which I do consider to be entirely legitimate inquiries. For one example, entirely germane to this thread, as you noted the word "epsikopos" appears five times in Scripture, and I believe both 'bishop' and 'overseer' was and are a good translation of this word. You also correctly noted that the WYC used this word, as well. However, I would suggest that the additional some 35 times that the WYC renders another word as 'bishop' are poor renderings, to say the least, so let's not confuse the issue by 'picking and choosing' which parts of the WYC we are supporting, while eliding the places where this is a poor rendering.

Good point.

Oh yeah! One more question. If God did not give Scripture in one volume, in the original languages, and he didn't, why do you assume that we should have it, in this manner, now??

Yes, this is one question that I have never heard any KJVO answer straight. If God's words aren't "sure" and "pure" unless they're all in one inerrant volume, then they were neither sure nor pure (according to the KJVO's) until 1611...which means that God failed to keep His words "sure" and "pure." If they don't need to be in one volume in order to be "sure" and "pure," then why do we need to look for such a volume?

And also, FTR, my personal choice of the overall 'best' Bible editions generally available, happen to be a particular editon of the KJV and a particular edition of the NKJV, both of which are effectively based on the same underlying texts.

This is true for me as well. I love the KJV and am more familiar with it than with any other version. Yet when I enter discussions about this issue, I am accused of "attacking" the KJV or of "detracting" from it. (???)

Also FTR, one of the 'rules' listed for posting in this forum, one of which is specifically #9, makes one of the terms or phrases you have used, in this thread as 'off-limits' in this forum. You might want to check out the 'rules' by which all of us have agreed to abide.

This is a good reminder. Bellicose language does its user (and his position) no favors.

And I again ask, as I have asked before, what is it that 'elevates' the KJV (of whatever particular flavor one prefers) above, say the GEN or MCB, except for your or my own personal preference?

Great question.

Now, I am going to :sleeping_2:

Me, too!

(And I still hope the thread is closed, and if desirable, another opened on the issues, without the initial 'flame', 'personal attacks' and attacks on the Bible that have been seen so far in this one!)

Reasonable discussion is always better than rants and diatribes.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Where is "the book of the LORD"?

Mr. Kinney, I've never seen a list of verses showing "that God will preserve His words on this earth" in one volume or in one language. You admit that this is true (that Scripture does not teach this). You then proceed to say...

Hi Annie. Let's take one thing at a time, OK? If I am not mistaken, aren't you the Annie that just a couple weeks ago admitted to me that you do not believe that there exists any Bible in any language (including "the" Greek and Hebrew) that is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God?

If you are not that particular Annie, then is this still your view too?

Now to the second part. Where did I ever admit that God's word does not teach that there would be a one volume Bible that contains all the words of God? I do not remember ever saying that.

Here is what I believe about the Bible.

What does the Book say? God told the prophet Isaiah in chapter 59:21 "This is my covenant with them; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 19:7: "The law of the LORD is PERFECT, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is SURE, making wise the simple." The "law and testimony of the LORD" = His words.

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19

These verses seem to clearly teach that God will have "the book of the LORD". I and many others believe such a Book exists. You, apparently do not.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Conclusion: There is not inerrant Bible in any language

Their (and my) position is that God is silent on the issue. He doesn't say that all of His words will be found in one volume or language. In fact, He doesn't say anything about where His words will be found. ... I make no claims about exactly where God's words may be found preserved inerrantly. So, the burden of proof does not rest on me. It rests on those who insist that God's words are preserved inerrantly in the KJV. Did God promise that He would preserve His words inerrantly in one volume/language? If not, then why look for such a volume? It's that simple.

Hi Annie. You bring up some interesting points here. I have seen several people at this forum talk about how they believe "the Bible" or "God's Word" IS both inspired and inerrant. They never get around to identifying for us where we can get a copy of these inerrant words, but you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that no such book or Bible exists.

So, just to be very clear on the matter, is it your contention that there is no such thing as any Bible (66 book canon for both O.T. and N.T. together) that IS the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God?

Please address or answer this simple question. I ask you not to ignore it or avoid it. Yes, No, or I dunno.

Thanks,

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Talking about onlyisms

My comment about being "spiritually impaired" was not intended to be any personal insult, in any manner, but was a broad characterization for any and all who attempt to impose any 'man-made' doctrine onto Scripture. Any "Onlyism" including 'KJVO', 'VULO', or any other version 'O', fits this description, IMO.

Hi Ed. Aren't you being just a tad inconsistent here with this view of outright condemning any form of "onlyism"? I have seen several posters here at this forum, and in fact, almost any Baptist church site that posts any section on what they believe about The Bible, is the clear statement that "ONLY the originals are inspired and inerrant; translations are not."

Why they keep using the present tense verb "are" as though these originals were something that they have actually seen and compared and that still exist is a mystery to me, but in any event they and several people at this very forum keep telling us that ONLY the originals were inspired and inerrant.

Now, isn't THAT a very clear case of "onlyism"? Why don't you jump on that form whenever you see it?

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Question I would like to address in the future

Yes, this is one question that I have never heard any KJVO answer straight. If God's words aren't "sure" and "pure" unless they're all in one inerrant volume, then they were neither sure nor pure (according to the KJVO's) until 1611...which means that God failed to keep His words "sure" and "pure." If they don't need to be in one volume in order to be "sure" and "pure," then why do we need to look for such a volume?

Hi Annie. I would like very much to address this question in the near future if possible, but I would first like to hear back from you about your own beliefs on whether there exists any Bible in any language or any Bible in original language texts that ARE (present tense verb) the inspired, complete and inerrant words of God.

So I hope to be able to give you a response to this interesting question.

God bless,
Will K

 

[Mexdeaf]

Hi Will,

Time doesn't permit me to address all the points that you made in your article on inspiration, but I do want to address this part-

Brother James Melton has written a very good article on why he believes the King James Bible is the true word of God. In his article he mentions what the true Holy Bible says about the word "to translate". (http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html)

Brother Melton writes: The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is "only a translation." Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul's kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What's the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

First of all, this is poor exegesis on Bro. Melton's part. The instances of "translating" that he mentions here have 'zero, zip, nada' to do with the translation of the Scriptures from one language to another. IOW- "does not compute."

Secondly, if the last statement is indeed true- "The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating"- then how do we judge if God was involved in the translating or not?

There are other points in your article that deserve analysis and critique but I'll leave that to others with more time on their hands.

 

[Annie5]

Hi Annie. Let's take one thing at a time, OK? If I am not mistaken, aren't you the Annie that just a couple weeks ago admitted to me that you do not believe that there exists any Bible in any language (including "the" Greek and Hebrew) that is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God?

I am the Annie you refer to, Mr. Kinney. And, if you remember, my answer was that when it comes to exact words, no translation or manuscript is free from copyist error and/or translational ambiguity. But when it comes to doctrinal messages, overall themes, and instruction for daily living, there is more than one version which is inerrant and reliable.

Here is what I believe about the Bible.

What does the Book say? God told the prophet Isaiah in chapter 59:21 "This is my covenant with them; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

When these words were spoken by God, was there a complete, inerrant volume containing all the words and only the words of God? Or was Scripture in pieces, separate scrolls/copies/mss, not in the same location? If Scripture was not "all in one piece" then, why must this verse mean "all of God's words in one inerrant, infallible book"?

The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

For God's words not to pass away, must we have an intact, infallible volume containing all the words and only the words of God? If so, where was it when Jesus (who quoted from the Septuigint) spoke these words?

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

And so it shall! But, again, there's no reference to a volume which contains all the words and only the words of God here.

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Yes, God will keep His word. Not one of His promises will ever fail. No mention here of a collection of writings, though.

Psalm 19:7: "The law of the LORD is PERFECT, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is SURE, making wise the simple." The "law and testimony of the LORD" = His words.

Yes, God's law is perfect--because He is God, not because all of His words are gathered together in one place and only in one place.

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Again, these verses speak of the enduring quality of God's decrees and judgments. They do not speak of man's records of God's judgments.

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

Another familiar verse...In our other discussion, you asserted that there was no perfect collection of Scripture until the KJV was published in 1611. So...was Scripture broken until then (if "broken" indeed means "not gathered together in one inerrant, infallible volume)?

God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away.

He did? Where? And where was that book between 500 B.C. and A.D. 1611? We know the TR/KJV wasn't translated straight from one manuscript/book, but was the result of a comparison of manuscripts which all differed from one another...and that the KJV translators themselves didn't always know which reading to accept (hence the marginal notes), and sometimes sacrificed exact wording for preservation of meaning (as also indicated in the margins). The holes in this argument of yours become apparent when held to the light of what actually happened--what history documents for us.

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

Is this "book" talking about the KJV? If so, how do you know? What was God saying to write in this book? IOW, what is the context here? What is the antecedent to the pronoun it?

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

We discussed this verse at length at OB. There is no reason to suppose that "the book of the Lord" has to mean one and only one completely infallible volume.

"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19

Right. Men are not to tamper with God's words. They are not to manipulate them (verbally or in written form) to mean any more or any less than what God intends them to mean. Anyone who does this will be judged. But this isn't what we're talking about when we're considering copyists who made small, unintentional errors, or translators who did their best, but were not able to render a word here or there correctly.

These verses seem to clearly teach that God will have "the book of the LORD". I and many others believe such a Book exists. You, apparently do not.

There's that wording again (that you have used in our previous discussions): SEEM coupled with CLEARLY. If something is clearly taught, and you are arguing in the tenor that you are for something that is supposedly abundantly obvious, the word seem is out of place. The use of the word seem indicates some doubt about the issue on your part. Which is it, Mr. Kinney? "Seem" OR "clearly?"

 

[Annie5]

So, just to be very clear on the matter, is it your contention that there is no such thing as any Bible (66 book canon for both O.T. and N.T. together) that IS the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God?

I answered this question in my previous post, but I'll add something here. The Scriptures were given by inspiration of God; they were breathed out from the Holy Spirit, through the original authors, onto the parchment upon which they were recorded. At that time, they were not complete, as in located in the same volume/place (anyone would agree with that). When the last apostle (John, I believe) penned his final word, there were many, many OT texts in circulation, including the Septuigint, which was the common version of the day, and from which Jesus and his disciples quoted in their interactions with various people. Since that time (and even before then), what we have are many, many manuscripts--copies of copies of copies. I think the total to date is over 5500. Talk about preservation, especially compared to the number of ancient manuscripts we have of Caesar and other ancient men's writings, which can be counted on two hands! Any translation/version which has come into being since NT times has resulted from a comparison/compilation of several manuscripts--only the ones which were available to the translator at that particular time in history. None of these manuscripts agreed with one another completely. The KJV translators themselves acknowledged that none of these manuscripts were complete, inerrant, and infallible, either, since they would not have had to compare various readings, and express doubt in their margins, if they were translating from just one complete, infallible book. When we compare various manuscripts/versions/translations today, we are merely doing the same thing that Erasmus and the KJV translators did 400 years ago: studying the available documents to learn what God said.