Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Amen Brother Archangel7 -- Preach it!
I have the inerrant, inspired, preserved
Bible; I have New King James Version (nKJV)
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
I have the inerrant, inspired, preserved
Bible; I have New King James Version (nKJV)
Michelle:I do believe what Luke says exactly as it says.
Then do you believe what Isaiah says, exactly as it says? It's different from what Luke says. How do you explain those differences except that Jesus was reading from another version
I am not the one trying to prove that Jesus Christ used another version to read from other than the Hebrew like you are.
I don't have to prove it. The KJV itself proves it to me. If you believe every word of the KJV exactly as written, it should've proven it to YOU.
I take it as it says, and the only thing that says, and don't add to the scriptures that he read "exactly" what was written.
Any evidence-or reason-why He did or should NOT have read exactly what was written?
I am not the one limiting the Lord Jesus Christ and his authority and his word. It is you, and all others who have added to what the plain text reads.
How?? Isaiah says this; Luke says Jesus read that.
It is plain to see, when you reference back to the book of Isaiah that he read from where the scripture is, that he included Isaiah 49:8,9 in his reading. It is a great leap from the plain truth in the scriptures, to say that Jesus was reading from any other version than the Hebrew.
There's a lotta difference in Isaiah 49:8-9 and in Luke 4:18-19. However, I'll assume you meant to include Isaiah 42:7 with Isaiah 61:1-3 in your discourse.
Now, if Jesus had been reading from a Hebrew version, it was obviously a different one from the Masoretic version translated into many of our English versions. The fact is, there were other versions of the Old Testament in use while Jesus was here, and He chose to read from one in use in the synagogue in the city of His residence, a version familiar to every Jew in town. Obviously this was a different version than the one handed down to us. Simple cold, hard fact.
Then do you believe what Isaiah says, exactly as it says? It's different from what Luke says. How do you explain those differences except that Jesus was reading from another version
I am not the one trying to prove that Jesus Christ used another version to read from other than the Hebrew like you are.
I don't have to prove it. The KJV itself proves it to me. If you believe every word of the KJV exactly as written, it should've proven it to YOU.
I take it as it says, and the only thing that says, and don't add to the scriptures that he read "exactly" what was written.
Any evidence-or reason-why He did or should NOT have read exactly what was written?
I am not the one limiting the Lord Jesus Christ and his authority and his word. It is you, and all others who have added to what the plain text reads.
How?? Isaiah says this; Luke says Jesus read that.
It is plain to see, when you reference back to the book of Isaiah that he read from where the scripture is, that he included Isaiah 49:8,9 in his reading. It is a great leap from the plain truth in the scriptures, to say that Jesus was reading from any other version than the Hebrew.
There's a lotta difference in Isaiah 49:8-9 and in Luke 4:18-19. However, I'll assume you meant to include Isaiah 42:7 with Isaiah 61:1-3 in your discourse.
Now, if Jesus had been reading from a Hebrew version, it was obviously a different one from the Masoretic version translated into many of our English versions. The fact is, there were other versions of the Old Testament in use while Jesus was here, and He chose to read from one in use in the synagogue in the city of His residence, a version familiar to every Jew in town. Obviously this was a different version than the one handed down to us. Simple cold, hard fact.
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
--------------------------------------------------
Archangel7 quoted:
I've never denied that the KJV is the word of God. Nobody on this board has
--------------------------------------------------
Archangel,
When people on these boards claim that the KJV has errors, that is denying that the KJV is the word of God. God's word of truth does not have errors in it. God is the God of truth, not errors. He has promised to preserve his pure word for every generation and forever.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
Archangel7 quoted:
I've never denied that the KJV is the word of God. Nobody on this board has
--------------------------------------------------
Archangel,
When people on these boards claim that the KJV has errors, that is denying that the KJV is the word of God. God's word of truth does not have errors in it. God is the God of truth, not errors. He has promised to preserve his pure word for every generation and forever.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
Robycop3,
I am sorry, but you are not understanding what I have said concerning this, nor have you understood what others have said concerning this. I am not going to continue to go round and round in circles with you as a dog chases its own tail. It is pointless. I have said all I need to say on it, and now leaving it to rest.
BTW, thanks so much for your great instructions concerning email the other day. I appreciate that very much and thank you for all your efforts.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Robycop3,
I am sorry, but you are not understanding what I have said concerning this, nor have you understood what others have said concerning this. I am not going to continue to go round and round in circles with you as a dog chases its own tail. It is pointless. I have said all I need to say on it, and now leaving it to rest.
BTW, thanks so much for your great instructions concerning email the other day. I appreciate that very much and thank you for all your efforts.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Interesting, here
we are trying to figure out how the KJV
is without error. Instead of helping us with
your insite, you claim we are "denying
the KJV is the word of God".
Here, quit bleating like a sick sheep and
read this:
The KJVs are each seperately and
all collectively the inerrant, inspired,
written Word of God preserved by the
Divine Providence of God for the saints
in:
KJV1611 - 18th century (1701-1800)
KJV1769 - 19th century (1801-1900)
KJV1873 - 20th century (1901-2000).
God has a different inerrant, inspired,
written Word of God preserved by the
Divine Providence of God for the saints
in the 21st century (2001-2100).
[ March 11, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi sister Michelle, you said (and very well, I might add) "If you believe that the Bible does not contain the very words of God, then you are not believing and trusting his promise to you, and others. I believe him, and not you, or any other scholar or person. I know that God Almighty himself is faithful and true and keeps his promise, and when he tells us repeatedly in his word of truth that man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD, then I will with all my heart and strength believe it, share it, and live it and stand for it. It is up to you, to believe him or not. Apparently you don't.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Spoken like a true child of faith. God bless you dear saint.
Will K
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Spoken like a true child of faith. God bless you dear saint.
Will K
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi precepts. My name is Bob. I wanted to "cyber-shake" your hand.
Since there are 5500+ differences in all of the various KJV revisions, WHICH ONE has the "actual words" of God in English? Want to be sure I get the correct one.
Thanks.
Hi Bob, I guess you don't need to worry about which one because you have stated earlier that ALL the bible versions are inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Right?
Other than a couple hundred printing errors that were soon corrected, and changing the type from Gothic to Roman, where did you come up with the 5500 plus number?
Any documentation we can look at for this claim?
And, Dr. Bob, if all the bibles are inspired by the same Holy Spirit, as you have said, then is Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" part of this inspired Scripture and words that were spoken by the Lord Jesus who said that heaven and earth would pass away but not His words?
This phrase is in the "inspired" NKJV, KJB, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, Young's, the Third Millenium Bible, and now in the upcoming Holman Christian Standard, and even in the abominable modern paraphrase called The Message.
But these words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ only once are missing from your "inspired" NIV, RSV, NASB, ESV, and ISV. So, doctor (this is only one of hundreds of examples I can give), how is it that these words are inspired in some Bibles and equally not inspired in others? Did God intend for these words to be in His Book or not?
This example and hundreds of others apparently are of little concern to you, but some minor printing errors in the various KJB printings are. Funny how different minds work, isn't it?
So, let's hear it from the horses mouth, so to speak. How are bibles that contain these words and those that do not all inspired by the same Holy Spirit?
Waiting for an intelligent answer...
Will Kinney
Since there are 5500+ differences in all of the various KJV revisions, WHICH ONE has the "actual words" of God in English? Want to be sure I get the correct one.
Thanks.
Hi Bob, I guess you don't need to worry about which one because you have stated earlier that ALL the bible versions are inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Right?
Other than a couple hundred printing errors that were soon corrected, and changing the type from Gothic to Roman, where did you come up with the 5500 plus number?
Any documentation we can look at for this claim?
And, Dr. Bob, if all the bibles are inspired by the same Holy Spirit, as you have said, then is Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" part of this inspired Scripture and words that were spoken by the Lord Jesus who said that heaven and earth would pass away but not His words?
This phrase is in the "inspired" NKJV, KJB, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, Young's, the Third Millenium Bible, and now in the upcoming Holman Christian Standard, and even in the abominable modern paraphrase called The Message.
But these words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ only once are missing from your "inspired" NIV, RSV, NASB, ESV, and ISV. So, doctor (this is only one of hundreds of examples I can give), how is it that these words are inspired in some Bibles and equally not inspired in others? Did God intend for these words to be in His Book or not?
This example and hundreds of others apparently are of little concern to you, but some minor printing errors in the various KJB printings are. Funny how different minds work, isn't it?
So, let's hear it from the horses mouth, so to speak. How are bibles that contain these words and those that do not all inspired by the same Holy Spirit?
Waiting for an intelligent answer...
Will Kinney
Archangel7
New Member
Does the Tyndale Bible contain errors? Does the Geneva Bible contain errors? Do any of the different revisions of the KJV between 1611 and 1769 contain errors? If the answer is "yes," does that mean the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the pre-1769 KJV's are *not* the word of God? Or does it mean that they are good, though flawed translations of the word of God still worthy of being called the word of God? The KJV translators themselves believed the latter:
"A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it." (From the Translator's Preface to the 1611 KJV).
I have given you an "intelligent answer" to these contentions on several occasions. You have yet to present a rebuttal to it. But for the sake of repetition, here it is:
Someone's "word" is what they mean in what they say.
Someone's "words" is the mechanical elements of language used to transmit a message.
It is completely and totally valid to say we have someone's "word" without having their exact "words". If the evidence for what they meant is strong enough (and in the case of the Bible it is overwhelmingly so) then it is not necessary to be absolutely certain how someone original worded a statement.
We have the "word" of God as evidenced by thousands of original language manuscripts, ancient translations, and early witnesses. We do not have the "words" of God as spoken in the originals as evidenced by the same thousands of original language manuscripts, ancient translations, and early witnesses.
Simple, rational, intelligent deduction tells us to look for consistent meanings rather than identical wording when evaluating someone's "word".
No matter how hard you try, there is no escaping the FACT that there is absolutely no scriptural nor historical evidence to support KJVOnlyism in any form. Your arguments are always logical progressions from a false premise rendering them nothing more than pretty lies.
Since the KJV translators do not qualify biblically as writers of scripture, the words they used could not have come directly from God. Their prophecies (forth-tellings) were false- they believed and taught false doctrine.
I have always used the KJV and continue to do so. I teach from it and have memorized significant portions of it. It is a grand work of scholarship that has been validated, rather than contradicted, by modern translation efforts. Its wording is not perfect in the sense of being without flaw or room for improvement. But its message is perfectly, completely the Word of God. It lacks nothing essential to the Word of God. It adds nothing contradictory to the Word of God. The proper use of it will establish all of the truths God set forth in the originals.
...but it is NOT the only English version for which these statements are true.
That is totally false Michelle. When I was a kid, I had no doubt that I would get a spanking for disobeying orders from my dad even if my mom didn't use the exact same words to express his orders. It was the meaning of his word that was authoritative... not the words used to express his word.
This, BTW, is the only way we can have God's Word in any language other than those He inspired it in. The KJV translators in their preface used a relevant analogy. They asked if the king's word would not continue to be so if translated into a different language... even if various translators did it differently or with less quality. They contended that it was. They acknowledged that their work was not "perfect" in the sense that KJVO's understand perfection.
Further they said that when God in His providence had seen fit to leave doubt about the wording of a passage, that fear rather than certainty was to be preferred. They contended, as we do, that none of the "questionable" passages effect doctrine.
With all due respect Michelle, no you don't. God has never said what you believe. Further, He has providentially left overwhelming evidence to disprove what you believe. It has been shown time and time again here.
Even the most elementary study of historical evidence shows your interpretation of God's promises to be flawed. For instance, if only one set of words in a given language can be God's Word, how do you account for the fact that every handcopied Greek mss that we know of was different from all others?
Was God's promise not valid prior to the printing press or is your interpretation wrong?
I believe Him, not your fallible interpretations.
As will I. What I won't do is say things He didn't say, like "the KJV is "EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD". God never inspired the Bible directly into English words. It is just that simple.
I hope maybe my response to Will might help you. But in the mean time, replace "WORD" with "SAYING" in the above quote and it will help you arrive at a valid interpretation.
I do believe Him... in actuality, a great deal more than you do since I do not have to deny incontrovertible FACT to understand His promises. Any time you must deny the truth in order to believe someone, you make that person out to be a deceiver.
I believe God and I accept the truths of scriptural and historical evidence.
You say you believe God but you reject facts... in reality, you believe yourself and other false teachers... to repeat, God didn't say what you believe- you did.
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
--------------------------------------------------
ScottJ quoted: (AND FOR ALL TO SEE)
As will I. What I won't do is say things He didn't say, like "the KJV is "EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD". God never inspired the Bible directly into English words. It is just that simple.
I hope maybe my response to Will might help you. But in the mean time, replace "WORD" with "SAYING" in the above quote and it will help you arrive at a valid interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------
I literally cannot believe what my eyes just witnessed, and for all to see. You also proved my point, that you do not fear God whatsoever. You just told me to change God's word from "word" to "saying".
WHERE IS YOUR FEAR OF GOD? WHERE?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
ScottJ quoted: (AND FOR ALL TO SEE)
As will I. What I won't do is say things He didn't say, like "the KJV is "EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD". God never inspired the Bible directly into English words. It is just that simple.
I hope maybe my response to Will might help you. But in the mean time, replace "WORD" with "SAYING" in the above quote and it will help you arrive at a valid interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------
I literally cannot believe what my eyes just witnessed, and for all to see. You also proved my point, that you do not fear God whatsoever. You just told me to change God's word from "word" to "saying".
WHERE IS YOUR FEAR OF GOD? WHERE?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
From the thesaurus on "dictionary.com" under w-o-r-d:
[/qb] When referring to "information", which is the case with your citation, "word" and "saying" are synonomous.
If that isn't good enough here is a link to the Strong's definition for "rhema": http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4487&version=kjv
Note at the bottom that the KJV translates this word "saying" on 9 occasions.
I do fear God. My interpretation of this passage is valid while yours is not... and you should apologize for falsely accusing me.
It is believing that this passage applied to all time and not just since 1611. It is in the humble acceptance of what God said rather than foisting my opinion on top of what God said.
The phrase you quoted did not proceed from the mouth of God. It is a translation of a phrase that proceeded from the mouth of God... through the "mouth" of the writer of scripture. Where is your fear of God? It is you that put words into God's mouth. It is you that make claims He never made.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
As will I. What I won't do is say things He didn't say, like "the KJV is "EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD". God never inspired the Bible directly into English words. It is just that simple.
I hope maybe my response to Will might help you. But in the mean time, replace "WORD" with "SAYING" in the above quote and it will help you arrive at a valid interpretation.
</font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Scott J -- Preach it!
I still will not admit I have no inspired Bible. Either every valid version is inspired to some degree or none are. There's NO special inspiration for the AV 1611 or its children, the various KJV editions. Neither Will Kinney nor any other Onlyist can prove otherwise.
Xthe_unknown
New Member
I believe that all of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, and they teach absolute truth. I further believe that not only were the original manuscripts inerrant, but God has also preserved the Scriptures by superintending the process of canonization and by seeing to it that a false reading of a passage (whether a transcription error or a deliberate alteration) in some copy of the Scriptures can be detected and refuted, not by a philosophical or “critical” process, but by the “majority text principle” of letting the countless copies which are undamaged in any given verse out-vote the damaged copies. The bottom line is that the Scriptures were reliable when first given, and they’re still reliable today.
Uh, like now God's Word is determined by the democratic process?
There was once a gathering of axe murderers in the nearby woods. One "AM" decided his axe had to be double-edged with a 23 degree angles on his head for the best chopping. Another objected and said, no, we need to maintain a 21 degree angle and opened the floor for debate. After countless hours of one "AM" to the next offering his view, the group decided to finalize the best angle of the sharpening of the axe heads by bringing it to a vote. Right when it seemed the 21 degree angle had succeeded as the best by majority and opinion, a preacher of righteousness stepped in with a two-edged sword, sharper than anything they had ever really seen before, chopped them all to bits, discerning their thoughts and the intents of their hearts and severed the marrow from their bones with the AV 1611 KJB.
So much for the democratic process.
No "fire", just hack, hack, hack!
There was once a gathering of axe murderers in the nearby woods. One "AM" decided his axe had to be double-edged with a 23 degree angles on his head for the best chopping. Another objected and said, no, we need to maintain a 21 degree angle and opened the floor for debate. After countless hours of one "AM" to the next offering his view, the group decided to finalize the best angle of the sharpening of the axe heads by bringing it to a vote. Right when it seemed the 21 degree angle had succeeded as the best by majority and opinion, a preacher of righteousness stepped in with a two-edged sword, sharper than anything they had ever really seen before, chopped them all to bits, discerning their thoughts and the intents of their hearts and severed the marrow from their bones with the AV 1611 KJB.
So much for the democratic process.
No "fire", just hack, hack, hack!
Precepts: "Uh, like now God's Word is determined by the democratic process?"
It was in 1611. What do you think the committee process they used was? Certain parts went to certain committees and when it was complete it was sent to the others for evaluation and in the end, the majority decision ruled - just like the democratic process.
It was in 1611. What do you think the committee process they used was? Certain parts went to certain committees and when it was complete it was sent to the others for evaluation and in the end, the majority decision ruled - just like the democratic process.