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

[gb93433]

Hi gb. Not true. There have been updates on spelling and the correction of a few unintentional printing errors.

You are a great example of subjective truth without any absolutes. That is called relative theology. My God is absolutely true, not true with imperfections. There is only one truth, not truth and exceptions--called truth. Some thing is imperfect book is less than perfect. That makes it imperfect.

 

[Annie5]

Hi Annie. Again, not true. IF all you had was the NIV, it cleary teaches that the Son of God had origins and that there was a day when God became his Father.

Mr. Kinney, does or does not John 1 in the NIV say that Jesus was in the beginning with God, and that He created all things? Does it or does it not claim in several other places that Jesus is one with the Father? Does it or does it not record that Jesus claimed to be "I AM THAT I AM" ("before Abraham was, I AM), the eternally existent one...God Himself? Have you even bothered to look in these places to see whether or not the NIV says these things? (I know you've seen these passages, b/c I took quite a bit of time to list them out for you on OB a while back. As I recall, you never commented on them there, just as you have not commented on them here. Are you just ignoring this argument and hoping it will go away?)

In fact, the Jehovah Witnesses use Micah 5:2 and Acts 13:33 as they stand in the NIV as well as proof texts to teach that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is NOT eternal God.

JW's and other cult members are adept at twisting Scripture to fit their own purposes. The only thing this statement shows is that you have something in common with JW's when you fail to see (or wilfully choose to ignore) that the weight of NIV Scripture clearly declares Christ's deity and eternal coexistence with God. Am I saying that the NIV is a good translation? The best translation? Nope. I'm just saying that you're not playing fair when you ignore the weight of what the NIV does say...and that if this is how you operate, I cannot trust you when you talk about any version of the Bible, including the KJV.

So when the JW's get to those passages that seem to teach that Jesus is God, they will say, Well, yes, but a CREATED God and one who is less than ETERNAL God.

Then they could do the same thing with John 3:16 in the KJV...They could say, "See...Jesus was begotten and therefore had a beginning." The fact that JW's can twist selected Scriptures to fit their religious views doesn't argue for your position in the least.

You obviously do not understand what Acts 13:33 is talking about. Maybe this will help.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Acts13-33.html

Thanks. I scanned through the article and confirmed to myself that I did know what it was talking about (although I did use the wrong reference earlier: Micah instead of Acts, I believe). The fact remains that the weight of NIV Scripture clears this one up, just like the weight of KJV Scripture clears up "troubling" readings in that version. Doctrine is therefore not affected in this instance.

Again, the larger issue is not the NIV, but your trampling upon sound hermeneutics, and your unwillingness to test other versions in the same way you test the KJV for consistency. And, the even larger issue is this, from a previous post, which you have also not addressed:

What promises? That is the question you have never answered. He has never promised a "perfect and preserved book." Those who say that He has have to extrapolate and stretch an obscure verse like the one you're pulling out of Isaiah that does not at all clearly refer to "a book" that contains all of God's words, and only God's words. None of the other verses about "God's words" that you have quoted refer to any collection of writings, let alone "a book." The idea of one and only one infallible book is totally missing in the pages of Scripture. You cannot base an "important doctrine" on one verse which is not definitive in the least. We can talk about manuscripts and contradictions all day long, but unless we agree on this matter, we won't get anywhere at all.

 

[gb93433]

I notice that in both examples you bring up of individual words you tell us that the word “nations” and “castles” ISN’T IN ACCORD WITH THE HEBREW. Well, brother, that is your first wrong assumption and you only reveal here that the English translation is not in accord with YOUR understanding of the Hebrew. Other Bible translators and some of them Jewish, who probably know their own language a little better than you do, disagree with you on this.

I would suggest that you study some Jewish literature to better understand how the Jews thought and translated. Your information is not consistent with the LXX, which was translated by Jewish scholars of the time.

Where have you gotten your information or are you up to the same plagiarizing actions that you were caught doing a few years ago?

 

[EdSutton]

With all respect, may I request that Will J. Kenney and Annie5 keep their previous discussions on the "OB" (whatever that is) off the Baptist Board, for the benefit of us who are not even familiar with this group, or have never read it.

FTR, I have absolutely zero interest in even finding out what it is, as I don't have sufficient time to even keep up with the Baptist Board (my one Board I read and post to), let alone any others.

Ed

 

[Tater77]

Good lord Will, do you post on every forum out there?

On your actual subject, more specifically your title question. Most AMERICAN PROTESTANTS problem with the terms of "bishop" or "bishopric" is the fact that we do not attend a Church with that office. Given the fact that this is a Baptist board, most likely no one here does.

To most bishop seems reminiscent of Catholicism but in this case the Church of England to which none of us belong.

The word in question is episkopos which means a Christian leader/teacher/officer/overseer/pastor basically one in charge if a Church. One must know that bishop was used to translate episkopos in the KJV since it was translated by and for the Church of England and that office was the proper Church office that best fitted the Greek word.

Is that word the best translation for those who do not acknowledge a bishop but instead have Pastors and Deacons? That is the question for many of us.

Can we just avoid the pokes and jests at this point? There getting a little old and we both know exactly where the other stands by now :thumbs: :jesus:

 

[Will J. Kinney]

"there is only one truth" - agreed!

You are a great example of subjective truth without any absolutes. That is called relative theology. My God is absolutely true, not true with imperfections. There is only one truth, not truth and exceptions--called truth. Some thing is imperfect book is less than perfect. That makes it imperfect.

Hi gb. Are you having problems with your "inerrant and infallible" NASB and is that why you are getting a bit testy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gb93433
Better check again. Your information is wrong for sure on the NASB 95.

Well gb, unless they have changed it AGAIN, the 1995 copy of the NASB I have right here in front of me says "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned FORTY TWO years over Israel."

So, what does your 1995 NASB edition say?

Will K

 

[Annie5]

With all respect, may I request that Will J. Kenney and Annie5 keep their previous discussions on the "OB" (whatever that is) off the Baptist Board, for the benefit of us who are not even familiar with this group, or have never read it.

Sure, Ed, I'll be glad to. Let me make sure I understand what you're asking. Are you saying that our discussion here (about versions in general) is not welcome? Or are you saying that I should stop referring to OB (Online Baptist), the board on which I have interacted with Mr. Kinney before? Either way, just let me know, and I'll try to oblige.

A little background: OB is a KJVO board, and did not allow us to finish our recent discussion b/c they censor things like that. If you prefer, I can transfer our current discussion to a new thread so that this one isn't hijacked. Again, just let me know your preference.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

The NIV's created Son of God

Mr. Kinney, does or does not John 1 in the NIV say that Jesus was in the beginning with God, and that He created all things? Does it or does it not claim in several other places that Jesus is one with the Father? Does it or does it not record that Jesus claimed to be "I AM THAT I AM" ("before Abraham was, I AM), the eternally existent one...God Himself? Have you even bothered to look in these places to see whether or not the NIV says these things?

Annie. The NIV clearly teaches that the Son of God had ORIGINS in Micah 5:2. So does the liberal RSV and the JW version. Once you have established that He had an origin or a beginning, then every other time it may infer or teach that Jesus Christ is God, the liberal theologians and JWs and any other Arianism advocate will just say, Yes, he is God but a created God.

By the way, when Jesus says before Abraham was I am, this by itself does not mean in the NIV that He is eternally existent God. You are reading that into the white spaces because you want to see it there. Now I fully believe that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God, the from everlasting to everlasting God, but you will not find this specific teaching anywhere in the NIV that I am aware of. If you have the verse, then show it to us.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Acts 13:33 in the NIV

In fact, the Jehovah Witnesses use Micah 5:2 and Acts 13:33 as they stand in the NIV as well as proof texts to teach that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is NOT eternal God.

JW's and other cult members are adept at twisting Scripture to fit their own purposes. The only thing this statement shows is that you have something in common with JW's when you fail to see (or wilfully choose to ignore) that the weight of NIV Scripture clearly declares Christ's deity and eternal coexistence with God. Am I saying that the NIV is a good translation? The best translation? Nope. I'm just saying that you're not playing fair when you ignore the weight of what the NIV does say...and that if this is how you operate, I cannot trust you when you talk about any version of the Bible, including the KJV.

Hi Annie. Your NIV clearly says in Acts 13:33 "You are my Son; TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."

Annie, can you please tell us when this particular day was that God became the Father of Jesus? If there was a certain day when God BECAME his Father, then BEFORE that day, God was NOT His Father. Can you explain this for us?

Thanks,

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

"the book of the LORD"

The even larger issue is this, from a previous post, which you have also not addressed:

Originally Posted by Annie
What promises? That is the question you have never answered. He has never promised a "perfect and preserved book." Those who say that He has have to extrapolate and stretch an obscure verse like the one you're pulling out of Isaiah that does not at all clearly refer to "a book" that contains all of God's words, and only God's words. None of the other verses about "God's words" that you have quoted refer to any collection of writings, let alone "a book." The idea of one and only one infallible book is totally missing in the pages of Scripture. You cannot base an "important doctrine" on one verse which is not definitive in the least. We can talk about manuscripts and contradictions all day long, but unless we agree on this matter, we won't get anywhere at all.

Yes, Annie. I did answer this question about the perfect book of the LORD.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/KJBonly.html

You just didn't like the answer and it goes against your fundamental unbelief in the existence now or ever of any Bible in any language on this earth that IS the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. You do not believe such a thing as a completely inerrant Bible exists nor ever did exist. You are free to believe this way if you wish. But I and many other King James Bible believers do not share your doubts.

Will Kinney

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Can't people read anymore?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
I notice that in both examples you bring up of individual words you tell us that the word “nations” and “castles” ISN’T IN ACCORD WITH THE HEBREW. Well, brother, that is your first wrong assumption and you only reveal here that the English translation is not in accord with YOUR understanding of the Hebrew. Other Bible translators and some of them Jewish, who probably know their own language a little better than you do, disagree with you on this.

I would suggest that you study some Jewish literature to better understand how the Jews thought and translated. Your information is not consistent with the LXX, which was translated by Jewish scholars of the time.

Where have you gotten your information or are you up to the same plagiarizing actions that you were caught doing a few years ago?

Hi gb. It is totally amazing to me that someone could allegedly read the whole study I did on these two words and then come back with the comments you make here. You did read it, right?

Didn't you see how many different Bible translations out there translate the same Hebrew word as nations and people? Or even to a lesser degree the example of "castles". Check your sources again. Or read the article again and this time slow down and think about it before you post again.

Thanks,

Will K

 

[Annie5]

Annie. The NIV clearly teaches that the Son of God had ORIGINS in Micah 5:2. So does the liberal RSV and the JW version. Once you have established that He had an origin or a beginning, then every other time it may infer or teach that Jesus Christ is God, the liberal theologians and JWs and any other Arianism advocate will just say, Yes, he is God but a created God.

Yes, they will, b/c they don't use sound hermeneutics in interpreting Scripture, and they refuse to compare troubling verses with the weight of Scripture, just like you are doing now. I don't think that the NIV rendering in Micah 5:2 is the best one, and I'm not arguing for that (although the marginal notation in the NIV I'm looking at right now (online) refers to the Hebrew and indicates "goings out" (for origins) and "days of eternity" (for from old) to clarify the meaning of these terms.

By the way, when Jesus says before Abraham was I am, this by itself does not mean in the NIV that He is eternally existent God.

Why doesn't it? You insist that one or two verses which use wording such as "became your father" and "origins" absolutely mean that the NIV declares Christ to have had a beginning. Why can't we take the "I AM" verse along with John 1 and Colossians and say that the NIV teaches that Christ did not have a beginning? Here again, you're not playing fair hermeneutically. The simple fact of the matter is that you are not willing to look at ALL of the verses in the NIV which address Christ's eternality. Your eyes are shut--wilfully shut--as you pick out a couple of verses with doubtful renderings and use them (like JW's do) to "show" that the NIV doesn't teach Christ's eternality.

As you have refused to interact and answer my questions, choosing instead simply to repeat yourself, I can only surmise that you do not have any answers for them. If you do, I'd love to hear them.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

a bishop is an elder is a pastor is an overseer

Good lord Will, do you post on every forum out there?

On your actual subject, more specifically your title question. Most AMERICAN PROTESTANTS problem with the terms of "bishop" or "bishopric" is the fact that we do not attend a Church with that office. Given the fact that this is a Baptist board, most likely no one here does.

To most bishop seems reminiscent of Catholicism but in this case the Church of England to which none of us belong.

The word in question is episkopos which means a Christian leader/teacher/officer/overseer/pastor basically one in charge if a Church. One must know that bishop was used to translate episkopos in the KJV since it was translated by and for the Church of England and that office was the proper Church office that best fitted the Greek word.

Is that word the best translation for those who do not acknowledge a bishop but instead have Pastors and Deacons? That is the question for many of us.

Can we just avoid the pokes and jests at this point? There getting a little old and we both know exactly where the other stands by now :thumbs: :jesus:

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

 

[Tom Bryant]

I doubt you will respond in a convincing way to support how the NASB can be infallible and inerrant when it deliberately keeps on changing both its O.T. and N.T. texts from one edition to the next, but if interested, here are some documented examples you can look up and see for yourself.

Will,
No, I won't respond in a convincing way because I've already responded 2 more times than i actually wanted to.

Thanks for the information and may the Lord bless you in reaching many unsaved people for Him.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Folks,

Have you so soon forgotten that "Will J. Kinney" has been here before and was thoroughly discredited with his attacks on the Bible? He has nothing new. He has nothing true. All he does it attack the word of God and set himself as an authority over it.

God didn't die and leave "Will J. Kinney" to testify to his Word. God does that himself. We would be better served to ignore this nonsense.

We should, in the words of 1 Tim 1, tell this man to cease teaching heterodoxy, and then send him on his way so as not to be a party to his wickedness.

 

[Annie5]

Yes, Annie. I did answer this question about the perfect book of the LORD.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/KJBonly.html

Posting an article is not answering my questions...especially when my questions are about certain things said in the article and flow from the article. Instead of interacting further, you repeat yourself. This answers no questions. It merely gives the impression that you have not thought through your position, and what is worse, that your mind is closed: "Don't confuse me with the facts," as they say.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

origins or not? It's just that simple

Yes, they will, b/c they don't use sound hermeneutics in interpreting Scripture, and they refuse to compare troubling verses with the weight of Scripture, just like you are doing now. I don't think that the NIV rendering in Micah 5:2 is the best one, and I'm not arguing for that (although the marginal notation in the NIV I'm looking at right now (online) refers to the Hebrew and indicates "goings out" (for origins) and "days of eternity" (for from old) to clarify the meaning of these terms.



You insist that one or two verses which use wording such as "became your father" and "origins" absolutely mean that the NIV declares Christ to have had a beginning. Why can't we take the "I AM" verse along with John 1 and Colossians and say that the NIV teaches that Christ did not have a beginning? Here again, you're not playing fair hermeneutically. The simple fact of the matter is that you are not willing to look at ALL of the verses in the NIV which address Christ's eternality. Your eyes are shut--wilfully shut--as you pick out a couple of verses with doubtful renderings and use them (like JW's do) to "show" that the NIV doesn't teach Christ's eternality.

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. 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?

Thank you,

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Who is really attacking the words of God?

Folks,

Have you so soon forgotten that "Will J. Kinney" has been here before and was thoroughly discredited with his attacks on the Bible? He has nothing new. He has nothing true. All he does it attack the word of God and set himself as an authority over it.

God didn't die and leave "Will J. Kinney" to testify to his Word. God does that himself. We would be better served to ignore this nonsense.

We should, in the words of 1 Tim 1, tell this man to cease teaching heterodoxy, and then send him on his way so as not to be a party to his wickedness.

Hi Larry. Thank you for your wonderful summary of things as you see them. Larry, it is not I who am telling people that there is no such thing as a complete, infallible and inerrant Bible on the earth today.

Do you personally believe that there is such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language? A simple "Yes, and here is where you can get a copy and compare it to all the other bibles out there so you can see the differences and similarities." Or a "NO, I do not believe there is such a thing as a single volume Bible in any language that is the 100% true and inerrant words of God."

Will you do that for us, Larry?

So is it now heresy to teach that there is an inspired and inerrant Bible that God has providentially given us, and it is now orthodoxy to deny that such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible exists? When did this happen?

Wouldn't we expect such a strange turning of things upside down to happen in the last days as prophesied in the Bible when there will be a falling away from the faith?

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

"the book of the LORD" - Does it exist or not?

Posting an article is not answering my questions...especially when my questions are about certain things said in the article and flow from the article. Instead of interacting further, you repeat yourself. This answers no questions. It merely gives the impression that you have not thought through your position, and what is worse, that your mind is closed: "Don't confuse me with the facts," as they say.

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

Blessings,

Will K

 

[Mexdeaf]

Will, your "KJVO God" is too small.