Written authority?

[Ransom]

James Newman said:

It seems odd to me that Christians who expect the Lord to keep His promises in regard to preserving their bodies perfectly, would think He might not keep the same promises when made about His word.

Here's a free clue: "God preserved his Word" does not mean "God preserved his Word in the KJV only."

KJV-onlyism is to be rejected because it is nothing more than pious-sounding sophistry.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
The Masoretic Hebrew OT and the Textus Receptus Greek NT together are the Traditional Text and is my final written authority.

HankD
--------------------------------------------------


But myself, and many other faithful English speaking christians do not know these languages, and many other generations of christians did not either, and OUR FINAL AUTHORITY is and will ALWAYS BE the KJB. Same equivalence to those foreign languages you call your final authority, only in our own language, to which we can understand, and many have understood, rather than relying upon and taking the chance of being decieved by modern day scholarship telling us that what their interpretations of it are now different than what God already wonderfully provided for English people.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

And again michelle has elevated herself to the judge of who is and is not deceived by her own circular reasoning. Sorry, sweetie, the 1611 KJV was "modern day" then. So, I guess using your line of reasoning, it wasn't much of an authority then. Funny, too, it's had so many changes since 1611. The Word of God just appeared in 1611. Wow...I feel sorry for all of those poor "DECEIVED" souls who believed they had it in other VERSIONS!~

michelle, you truly are deceived. Until you can admit what even the translators admitted, that the kjV is just that, a version, you will be guilty in many people's eyes of bibliolatry.

AVL1984

 

[DeclareHim]

I believe in the preserved pure Words of God. Words indicating that all MV's are God's Word. Each is God's Word. God said He would preserve His Words and He has. The KJVO movement denies this promise found in God's Holy Word.

1cross+3nails=4given

 

[AVL1984]

I can see how you are trying to "prove your position", but this is stating that the words of God...every word he's spoken...are pure words. It has nothing to do with versions. In fact, if you'll read the whole chapter, God had promised to preserve the faithful man, NOT his words. If he was to preserve all of his very words, the world would be overrun with the works of them according to the Bible. The KJVO's use vs. 6&7 of Ps 12 to try and prove their point, which it doesn't. We shouldn't try to use the same fallacy.

AVL1984

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by natters:
Apply that thinking to 1610 and earlier and see what happens.

I suppose that what I said about God resurrecting His word didn't sink in. Why should I assume that because I have in my hand a perfect Bible, that it was always here? It is true that a Christian can get saved from any Bible, no? Are you saying that it would not be fair for God to have preserved His word by resurrecting it perfectly in English in the last days? I don't know if there was a perfect Bible on the earth at that point or not, it doesn't really matter much to me. I just know that my God is able to keep His words. He is able to preserve them. I don't think you would disagree with me on that... now I think He did preserve them, there is where you draw the line? If it makes you smarter than me to not believe that God has given us an authoritative source of doctrine, than I will be simple in this matter, rather than believe that you can tell me what God meant to say better than God.

My question is why do we believe in a God of miracles, but insist he use earthly means to preserve His word? That is not very consistent with His nature. He didn't produce a reliable Jesus on the third day, but for a time, Jesus was gone. Jesus is the Word made flesh. So if the Word was not to be found for a time, and He resurrected it, it would be perfectly consistent with His ways as they have been revealed to us.

 

[natters]

James Newman said "I suppose that what I said about God resurrecting His word didn't sink in. Why should I assume that because I have in my hand a perfect Bible, that it was always here?"

"resurrecting his word"??!? OK, let's take a step back first: why do you believe you have a perfect Bible in your hand right now? Is it not because you interpret scripture to teach this kind of preservation? If so, then if that interpretation is true now, it had to be true in 1610 or else those scriptures were lies then. Instead, if you don't have this believe based on scripture but based on something extra-Biblical, then I challenge the belief from the get-go. The idea of "resurrection his word" is non-Biblical. Where did you come up with this concept? It borders on reinspiration.

James Newman said "Are you saying that it would not be fair for God to have preserved His word by resurrecting it perfectly in English in the last days?"

No, "fair" has nothing to do with my argument. I am simply asking you to examine whether this doctrine is Biblical or not. Sounds to me like you made it up simply to support KJV-onlyism.

James Newman said "I don't know if there was a perfect Bible on the earth at that point or not, it doesn't really matter much to me."

It does matter to me. We get doctrine from scripture. Scripture didn't change from error to truth, and doctrines don't come out of thin air, simply because a new Bible was produced in 1611. Any doctrinal position on preservation of scripture MUST be historically consistent from the moment scripture was penned.

James Newman said "If it makes you smarter than me to not believe that God has given us an authoritative source of doctrine, than I will be simple in this matter, rather than believe that you can tell me what God meant to say better than God."

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there, it's kind of a run on sentence or something. I do believe God has given us an authoritative source of doctrine. That authoritative source of doctrine does not teach KJV-onlyism or "resurrection" of his word. That authoritative source of doctrine didn't have its authority pop into existence in 1611, its authority is consistent on both sides of 1611.

James Newman said "So if the Word was not to be found for a time, and He resurrected it, it would be perfectly consistent with His ways as they have been revealed to us."

OK, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct, and God's word was missing for a while but was later resurrected. How could you know this? By what authority?

Maybe it was missing until it was resurrected in the LITV of 1976. Or the Geneva of 1560. Or the ASV of 1901. How could you possibly, let alone authoritatively, argue against it being any other version instead of the KJV?

 

[Marcia]

Posted by citizenofheaven
At the time the KJB was translated, both languages (greek and english) were at their pinnacle of purity.

Who says? Why is 17th English pure? Who is the arbiter of "pure" language? Please explain.

Citizenofheaven, I still want to know why Greek and English were at "their pinnacle of purity" and what proof there is for it. I was unaware that Greek was at its "pinnacle of purity" in the 17th century. And who says English was?

 

[Craigbythesea]

The clearest scripture that proves the trinity is changed in modern translations so as to render it useless in proving the trinity.

I see that we have a misprint here. This sentence should read,

"This clear addition to Scripture, to prove the Trinity, is omitted in almost every translation of the Bible into almost every language, thus avoiding the appearance that the doctrine of the Trinity is such a flimsy doctrine that it is necessary to add the words of men to the Bible to prove the doctrine."

I believe that it is the duty of all Christians on this message board to proof-read their posts to be sure that they do not post messages that include such serious typographical errors.

 

[James_Newman]

hahaha, very funny

You must acknowledge that if God wills the verse to say what it says, then thats what it says. This is a futile argument, and the truth of the matter is I am not trying to persuade you of anything. But others should see both sides of this argument so they can decide for themselves.

Jeremiah 36
23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.
28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.
32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

Here we see exactly what you say God could not/would not/should not do with the scriptures being done in the scriptures. The pure words were lost, and God resurrected them, even adding some more words for good measure.

I think it makes men uneasy to have the authoritative word of God in a presently readable form. This would lower their standing in the eyes of an awestruck laity who say "Dr Suchnsuch is so smart, he knows ancient greek and hebrew and can tell you what God really meant when he said
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
He really meant to say
2 Timothy 2:15 (NIV) Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. "
Why would anyone who spent the time and $$$ to go to seminary to learn Greek and Hebrew tell a common man that he could know God's will just by reading a common Bible? Oh, he wouldn't.

So you can say I havent a leg to stand on, but in reality I have a leg you do not see. The leg of faith

 

[Craigbythesea]

The leg of faith

Presumption is not faith; it's a delusion from hell.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Why would anyone who spent the time and $$$ to go to seminary to learn Greek and Hebrew tell a common man that he could know God's will just by reading a common Bible? Oh, he wouldn't.

I am thankful for the education that God blessed me with because before I got it, I was living in ignorance and I didn’t even know it!

 

[natters]

James Newman, I was really hoping you would not simply ignore my comments about a resurrected scripture.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The leg of faith

Presumption is not faith; it's a delusion from hell. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen and Amen.

AVL1984

 

[James_Newman]

Which comment natters? I understand your concern that if God were going to preserve His word, we would need a little more to go on? God is not bound to do things in a way that pleases us or makes sense to us, is He? You say that if God was going to provide us with the Word today, He would have to have provided it before 1611 as well. That argument doesn't stand up on its own. At times when the Jews were disobedient the Word was taken from them, and when they returned to the Lord it was restored to them. The first glaring example would be Moses smashing the ten commandments when he came down and found the children playing. They got right, He gave them their stone tablets back. Another instance would be in 2 Kings 22. Hilkiah found the book of the law in the house of the Lord when Josiah reigned and "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord."

Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, and He was resurrected, why should it be strange for God to resurrect His written word? Now, if we can accept that God might do such a thing, your next question is why the KJV? Well, for starters it was authorized by a king.

Ecclesiastes 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

You can't argue that the authorization of the Bible in English was NOT ordained by God. I am not saying that King James was a holy man, or that he was somehow inspired. But he was the ruler of England. God sets up kings and God knocks them down. He uses them to perform His will on earth in the ultimate sense, even when they are not following Him. God is in total control of this world from beginning to end.

Thats just one of a number of reasons why I believe the KJV to be the perfect Word, if indeed there be a perfect Word.

I personally would have a hard time believing that a God who created the universe, and claims to be able to keep me, would not be able to keep His word. If you say 'of course He can, but He didn't', I say prove it.

 

[natters]

James Newman said "Which comment natters?"

Most of them, actually. The idea of resurrected scripture comes from you, not from the Bible. Where does scripture say this will happen, and what of the other verses that speak of preservation - were they lies until 1611? Where does it say HOW and WHEN it will happen? How do you KNOW it happened in 1611 and not some other time, or some time we have not even yet reached?

James Newman said "You say that if God was going to provide us with the Word today, He would have to have provided it before 1611 as well. That argument doesn't stand up on its own. "

Sure it does. I believe God preserved his word because scripture tells me this. If God "resurrected" his word in 1611, those scriptures were lies before 1611.

James Newman said "Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, and He was resurrected, why should it be strange for God to resurrect His written word?"

Because the KJV didn't die for my sins. Just because Jesus died and was resurrected, doesn't mean scripture follows this pattern. Just because Jesus was tempted by Satan does not mean scripture was tempted by Satan. Just because Jesus ate some bread and fish does not mean scripture will eat some bread and fish.

James Newman said "why the KJV? Well, for starters it was authorized by a king."

So what? How does that prove resurrection, inerrancy, exclusivity, or any other suble form of Bibliolatry?

James Newman said "Thats just one of a number of reasons why I believe the KJV to be the perfect Word, if indeed there be a perfect Word."

That's one of your reasons??? Circumstantial historical factoids and out-of-context scripture? What's another one of your reasons, that 1+6+1+1 = 9, which is the number of fruits of the Spirit? Or how about it took 7 years to produce, and 7 is a wonderful number? Or maybe the King's name was James, and your name is James, thus God is sending you secret messages via Bible codes? Please. Come back to earth, and learn to rightly divide the word of truth.

James Newman said "I personally would have a hard time believing that a God who created the universe, and claims to be able to keep me, would not be able to keep His word. If you say 'of course He can, but He didn't', I say prove it."

But that's what YOU are saying happened until 1611. Do you get it now?

 

[James_Newman]

Sorry natters, you seem to be overly emotional about this subject. I don't mean to push any buttons, but your overlooking the point, and merely pointing fingers. God did or did not take the word away from Israel at any point in time? God did or did not restore it to Israel if He did remove it? All I'm saying is that it is His right, you cannot tell God what he must or must not do.

Now to insinuate that I worship a book is intellectually dishonest. I worship the Author of that book.

I'm not trying to convince you natters, so don't worry about it, but please refrain from pretending that I don't have any reasons to believe what I believe. I have just as much reason to believe what I believe as you have to believe that any one of a myriad of random translations may or may not be the correct one. The difference is I have decided to let God be my authority, and you have decided to be your own. Choose your own doctrine is great for itching ears and you can find a version to support anything these days. How wonderful that we now have a gender neutral translation so we won't be 'homosexual offenders' anymore.

 

[James_Newman]

http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/offend.html
just in case anyone doesn't get it

 

[Michael52]

Originally posted by James Newman:
...
You say that if God was going to provide us with the Word today, He would have to have provided it before 1611 as well. That argument doesn't stand up on its own. At times when the Jews were disobedient the Word was taken from them, and when they returned to the Lord it was restored to them. The first glaring example would be Moses smashing the ten commandments when he came down and found the children playing. They got right, He gave them their stone tablets back. Another instance would be in 2 Kings 22. Hilkiah found the book of the law in the house of the Lord when Josiah reigned and "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord."
...

You say that if God was going to provide us with the Word today, He would have to have provided it before 1611 as well. That argument doesn't stand up on its own.

James Newman

Are you seriously implying that prior to 1611, Christians were not bound by the Word of God because it did not exist? Were the promises of God not fulfilled for Christians in 1411 so that they were doomed to hell without His Word?

Are you saying that when Moses smashed the tablets, that the Israelites were not bound by the Word of God because without a written example of God's truth and commands were not existing?

Now I've heard everything! Before you continue in your KJVO career, you need to seriously read and study your KJV. Ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to you just as Jesus promised He would. I'll pray for you, brother.

 

[James_Newman]

Ok brother, no I am not saying that a Christian before 1611 could not be saved. What is the Gospel? Does believeing the Gospel require you to have a fully qualified Bible in your hand? You know better than that (I hope)

Now as for 'doomed to Hell', I believe that a saved Christian can go to Hell, but thats a subject for another forum.

Don't confuse saving truth with a perfect Bible. One would assume I had said you couldn't get saved with a modern version. Some may believe that, that is patently rediculous. Where was the perfect Bible from the time that Christ was crucified and John wrote His gospel? or the book of Revelation was penned?

 

[Michael52]

James Newman

What you did say:

You say that if God was going to provide us with the Word today, He would have to have provided it before 1611 as well. That argument doesn't stand up on its own.

Unless I misunderstand, your are saying that God did not provide His Word before 1611. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that is rediculous. I don't need any scholars or MV's to convince me of that. The KJV says it plainly.