Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Matt Souza

Where do we draw the line for IFB?

Recommended Posts


To be honest, I'm undecided on it and I'm not really 100% sure what "double inspiration" actually is!


"Double inspiration" would be the view that the scriptures in the original languages had become tainted/impure/unknowable until they were re-inspired in 1611 in the KJV. Frequently this is tied in with the idea that the KJV contains advanced revelation, and generally includes the idea that the "KJV" should be translated into other languages instead of going back to the original languages(which are regarded as untrustworthy) when making a new translation into another language. Typically this type of view is espoused by the likes of Peter Ruckman and those who learned from him either directly or indirectly ... Edited by Seth-Doty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any evidence to suggest that the KJB translators were inspired. Scripture clearly tells us the original authors were inspired and that God will preserve His Word, but there is no suggestion that anyone else would ever be inspired to write Scripture or to translate Scripture.

Let's not forget that it wasn't only copies of the ancient texts that were looked at in the making of the KJB. The KJB translators also looked at the previous English language Bibles and followed much of what was already there.

I trust the KJB but if the translators had been inspired, they wouldn't have had to compare all the many things they did, inspiration from God would have been enough.

Another key factor is the KJB translators made no claim of inspiration but rather of the difficult task they had and of the hope they did well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with chosing the TR over the KJV is that you are by default saying the the KJV isn't perfect anymore.

When it comes to translating, I can understand consulting the TR or other original languages as some words have genders ("they" "them" etc) in other languages (such as spanish) that they do not in English. That being said, the KJV is perfect and I'm not going to trust anything over it and I'd never dare correct it with anything that claims to be an original - because the originals do not exisit anymore.

You either believe in preservation or you don't, the King James Bible is either perfect or it's not.

Regardless, if a guy did believe in double inspiration I believe it would be absolutly ridiculous to say that "disqualified" him from being IFB.

Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...you are by default saying the the KJV isn't perfect anymore.


Which edition? 1611, 1620, 1769? I am not talking about spelling differences and I know they are very close, but you did say "perfect" so I want to know what you mean by that. Also the oxford or Cambridge editions? Again I realize we are talking a handful of minor differences, but if we are talking absolutely perfect...


Regardless, if a guy did believe in double inspiration I believe it would be absolutly ridiculous to say that "disqualified" him from being IFB.


I would consider such a individual to be a borderline cultist. It flies in the face of the doctrine of preservation. In many ways it is similar to what Joseph smith taught just "one step back" if you will. Joseph Smith taught that all Christianity had been corrupted including the KJV bible, and that while the KJV was "good" it contained many errors which he "corrected" by "divine revelation". Likewise the extreme fringe of KJVO which holds to things like double inspiration teaches that the scriptures in the original languages were "good" but corrupted till the KJV came along to make things "perfect" again. The general thinking is the same, just a difference of degrees.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there, regardless of what is or is not "IFB" this section has a fairly basic statement of faith that one needs to agree with in order to post in this section. If you can agree with it fine, if you can't agree with it that is your call to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Which edition? 1611, 1620, 1769? I am not talking about spelling differences and I know they are very close, but you did say "perfect" so I want to know what you mean by that. Also the oxford or Cambridge editions? Again I realize we are talking a handful of minor differences, but if we are talking absolutely perfect...



I would consider such a individual to be a borderline cultist. It flies in the face of the doctrine of preservation. In many ways it is similar to what Joseph smith taught just "one step back" if you will. Joseph Smith taught that all Christianity had been corrupted including the KJV bible, and that while the KJV was "good" it contained many errors which he "corrected" by "divine revelation". Likewise the extreme fringe of KJVO which holds to things like double inspiration teaches that the scriptures in the original languages were "good" but corrupted till the KJV came along to make things "perfect" again. The general thinking is the same, just a difference of degrees.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there, regardless of what is or is not "IFB" this section has a fairly basic statement of faith that one needs to agree with in order to post in this section. If you can agree with it fine, if you can't agree with it that is your call to make.

:goodpost:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good posting, Seth.

I think the misunderstanding comes in with misunderstanding the definitions of the words. Preservation is exactly that: preserving of something that already exists. God promised to preserve His Word. He did not have to re-inspire it in order for it to be preserved, because it was already available. And God used the men He did to translate it from its original languages - had He not preserved it, there would have been no way to translate it.

Had no documents been available for translation, THEN God would have needed to inspire again. Inspiration, as relating to Scripture, means God-breathed. So, if men could not translate what was already there, there would be no preservation involved, there would be re-inspiration. But that wasn't necessary, because God did preserve His Word. And he allowed men to translate it. He did not breathe every word out, as He did originally, because it was already there. He guided their understanding, which was absolutely necessary, but that is not the same as inspiration.

Double inspiration is actually re-inspiration. If we are to believe the Bible when it tells us God is perfect, there is no need for re-inspiration, is there?

One of the real problems with the idea of double (or actually re-) inspiration is that if God would re-inspire once, perhaps He would do so again. Thus causing many of those who believe in that strongly to believe that they can actually "read between the lines" of scripture to see things in there that aren't. Wouldn't happen? Au contraire, it has. I've heard it from two different "camps," both of which have Bible colleges, so guess what's being taught...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good posting, Seth.

I think the misunderstanding comes in with misunderstanding the definitions of the words. Preservation is exactly that: preserving of something that already exists. God promised to preserve His Word. He did not have to re-inspire it in order for it to be preserved, because it was already available. And God used the men He did to translate it from its original languages - had He not preserved it, there would have been no way to translate it.

Had no documents been available for translation, THEN God would have needed to inspire again. Inspiration, as relating to Scripture, means God-breathed. So, if men could not translate what was already there, there would be no preservation involved, there would be re-inspiration. But that wasn't necessary, because God did preserve His Word. And he allowed men to translate it. He did not breathe every word out, as He did originally, because it was already there. He guided their understanding, which was absolutely necessary, but that is not the same as inspiration.

Double inspiration is actually re-inspiration. If we are to believe the Bible when it tells us God is perfect, there is no need for re-inspiration, is there?

One of the real problems with the idea of double (or actually re-) inspiration is that if God would re-inspire once, perhaps He would do so again. Thus causing many of those who believe in that strongly to believe that they can actually "read between the lines" of scripture to see things in there that aren't. Wouldn't happen? Au contraire, it has. I've heard it from two different "camps," both of which have Bible colleges, so guess what's being taught...

True, and this same "logic" is what has led some to declare that ONLY the KJB is Gods' Word and all non-English speaking people on the planet must learn to read English in order to read the KJB because no translations in any other langauge is "inspired" as they say the KJB is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

80% of the KJV comes from the Geneva Bible which was also translated from the Received Text and previous incomplete bibles. King James didn't like the marginal notes of the Geneva and so he commissioned this Bible which took about 100 or more years to come into widespread use after 1611. Besides the Geneva and KJV, is there another bible written in English that was translated correctly from the Textus Receptus??? I'm not aware of any. Even the NKJV has been corrupted by Wescott and Hort's work.

If there isn't another faithfull translation than it seems to me to be a facetious argument. We're then KJV only because there isn't anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about foreign languages and their translations, but I've been told by solid Believers that there are sound translations in other languages. To be clear, that's not to say that all non-English translations are sound, some most certainly are not and there are some "better" than others, but from what I've been told by some who should know, there are at least some sound non-English translations of the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if its a good idea to let them view where they cannot post. It might be better in the long run for them not to view it. As for me I would not want to read post that I cannot reply to, I would rather they be blocked off from my sight.

There has been a couple or so sly remarks about not being able to view all of the forum, it they are able to view it those remarks will probably be even slyer.

If I went to a RCC forum & they had areas for RCC members only, I would not feel left out. I feel that any group, weather its Baptist, Methodist, JW's, Pentecostal, Mormons, coC, or what ever names they chose to go by has ever right to have a section that's for members of that type of church.

Those who feel left out, those who get aggravated about this, are genearlly those that are trouble maker, & trying to spread what they believe hoping to make converts.


Turns out you had good insight into this problem/discussion we had. I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremiah 36:32, "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."

I don't believe the King James editions have to match for them to all be perfect. In Jeremiah there were multiple editions of the same "originals" and they all varied. Typographical errors are a non-issue, I think we'd both agree on that.

Brother Seth,

Do you think someone is a borderline cultist for thinking that the Bible they hold in their hands is perfect? Did I get you right on that? Please clarify. Where is the perfect word of God, is there such a thing?

I'm not trying to argue or set a trap, these are honest questions.

I have never been able to answer if there was a "perfect word of God" before the KJV. Obviously there were the originals and they were perfect. But as far as what the KJV came from - it didn't come from "one perfect book," even though it is "one perfect book" now though. I know enough about manuscript evidence to know that the KJV not only came from the TR, but some parts of it rejected the TR and went with the Siniaticus and Vaticanus. Those are the corrupt manuscripts that all modern versions are based off of that we all soundly reject here.

So what do we do in that situation? Stick with the TR and reject the KJV or what? I know that situation is a rarety, and an in-house discussion among KJVO people, but it's still something to be considered. Where is the "one perfect book in Greek?" Honestly, is there such a thing? I don't know if there is or was at the time of the KJV translating.

By faith I trust what God has given me in the King James Bible and believe it to be perfect.

Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about foreign languages and their translations, but I've been told by solid Believers that there are sound translations in other languages. To be clear, that's not to say that all non-English translations are sound, some most certainly are not and there are some "better" than others, but from what I've been told by some who should know, there are at least some sound non-English translations of the Bible.


I agree. I was on the mission field for two years and used the KJV translation of the New Testament in Melanesian Pigin. I only knew of one place in it where it did not agree with the English KJV. It said we should confess our "sins" one to another, and our Bible says to confess our "faults." Big difference, obviously.

The idea that someone must learn a specific language to read the perfect word of God isn't a new idea. I do not believe that the perfect word of God is isolated only to English, but never forget, when the Bible was in Hebrew only you had to learn Hebrew if you wanted the word of God. When it was in the Greek originals, you had to learn Greek. I don't think you have to learn Hebrew, Greek, or English to have God's perfect word. I don't see any reason to think that God can't have it translated into other languages. That being said, I KNOW it's perfect in English, and so that's what I trust. If any other language disagrees, I stick with the English. Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the King James editions have to match for them to all be perfect. In Jeremiah there were multiple editions of the same "originals" and they all varied. Typographical errors are a non-issue, I think we'd both agree on that.


Yes, we would both agree typographical errors are a non-issue.

Brother Seth,

Do you think someone is a borderline cultist for thinking that the Bible they hold in their hands is perfect? Did I get you right on that? Please clarify. Where is the perfect word of God, is there such a thing? I'm not trying to argue or set a trap, these are honest questions.


No, I think they are a borderline cultist for thinking the KJV was "re-inspired" rather than simply retaining existing inspiration by being a faithful translation of the already inspired word of God. If the KJV had truly had been re-inspired in 1611(or technically a bit earlier, during the translation process) further editions would not have been necessary.

Let me give you an example. Right now, as I sit here writing this I have two KJV bibles in my lap. One is a second edition rock of ages study bible and the other is a a Thomas nelson pocket bible.

When you open the rock of ages KJV bible to Joshua 19:2 says "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,"

On the other hand the Thomas Neslon pocket bible when opened to the same verse says this: "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and Moladah,"

Now that is not just a spelling difference, that is a meaning difference albeit on a very minor issue. I will tell you that in my opinion that the rock of ages KJV has the correct reading. The question is this though, could you hold each KJV bible in your hands and say it is the perfect word of God in spite of a very small but real difference? If not you need to narrow down the definition of Gods perfect word a little more tightly than simply the "KJV". If you could accept both KJV bibles with that minor difference then I don't see why you would not accept the TR as equally valid. It is important to note that when comparing different editions of the the KJV, the TR, or most manuscripts in the "majority text" line there are some differences. The vast majority of them are going to non-issues. Spelling, punctuation, or a different word that still means the same thing. A very small number do change the meaning though. It should also be noted that the number of real differences is minuscule when compared to the vast number of both major and minor differences in the "critical text" line and the versions translated from them.


I know enough about manuscript evidence to know that the KJV not only came from the TR, but some parts of it rejected the TR and went with the Siniaticus and Vaticanus. Those are the corrupt manuscripts that all modern versions are based off of that we all soundly reject here.


I know enough about manuscript evidence to call you on that. :wink For one thing at the time the KJV was translated Sinaiticus wasn't even know beyond the monastery it was eventually discovered at in the 1800's, and while Vaticanus was known, it wasn't used. I would like to see you provide any evidence of where the KJV follows either of those two manuscripts more closely than the TR or the majority text.



So what do we do in that situation? Stick with the TR and reject the KJV or what?


Me personally, I don't have a problem with accepting both. I know their are a few small differences, but I also know the genuine differences are few and almost nothing when compared to the considerable differences in the critical text line. Edited by Seth-Doty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I agree. I was on the mission field for two years and used the KJV translation of the New Testament in Melanesian Pigin. I only knew of one place in it where it did not agree with the English KJV. It said we should confess our "sins" one to another, and our Bible says to confess our "faults." Big difference, obviously.

The idea that someone must learn a specific language to read the perfect word of God isn't a new idea. I do not believe that the perfect word of God is isolated only to English, but never forget, when the Bible was in Hebrew only you had to learn Hebrew if you wanted the word of God. When it was in the Greek originals, you had to learn Greek. I don't think you have to learn Hebrew, Greek, or English to have God's perfect word. I don't see any reason to think that God can't have it translated into other languages. That being said, I KNOW it's perfect in English, and so that's what I trust. If any other language disagrees, I stick with the English.



This might be a bit off topic, but I would like to mention this. There are some of our fellow Baptist brothers & sister, along with some of the educated pastors, & many churches that has the name Baptist in the name of their church, that believes a man is not qualified to hold the office of pastor unless he holds a degree from a seminary & can read the Bible in the original languages.

I know of many pastors that would not meet that qualification including me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




This might be a bit off topic, but I would like to mention this. There are some of our fellow Baptist brothers & sister, along with some of the educated pastors, & many churches that has the name Baptist in the name of their church, that believes a man is not qualified to hold the office of pastor unless he holds a degree from a seminary & can read the Bible in the original languages.

I know of many pastors that would not meet that qualification including me.



That is an area where I suspect we would all agree. Not only is it not a "necessary" qualification going to the "greek" is a frequently abused practice. If done carefully and properly it is no problem, indeed it can be an asset, but quite frequently it isn't done that way at all. Rather the greek word is misapplied or misunderstood in a passage and the preacher tells the congregation that "in the greek" the word "literally means" something totally different than what the real meaning of the passage is. Without thinking about it some preachers come across as engaging in bible correcting from the pulpit. When that type of preacher "goes to the greek" it tends to get them in trouble by making them think they know or see something "new" that they really don't. Edited by Seth-Doty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some of our fellow Baptist brothers & sister, along with some of the educated pastors, & many churches that has the name Baptist in the name of their church, that believes a man is not qualified to hold the office of pastor unless he holds a degree from a seminary & can read the Bible in the original languages. I know of many pastors that would not meet that qualification including me.


And they would be completely wrong. Such requirements are nowhere in the Scriptures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




That is an area where I suspect we would all agree. Not only is it not a "necessary" qualification going to the "greek" is a frequently abused practice. If done carefully and properly it is no problem, indeed it can be an asset, but quite frequently it isn't done that way at all. Rather the greek word is misapplied or misunderstood in a passage and the preacher tells the congregation that "in the greek" the word "literally means" something totally different than what the real meaning of the passage is. Without thinking about it some preachers come across as engaging in bible correcting from the pulpit. When that type of preacher "goes to the greek" it tends to get them in trouble by making them think they know or see something "new" that they really don't.

Agreed. Sadly, I knew a man who was called of God to preach. He didn't have a degree, felt no calling to attain one, and the evidence of the Spirit being present and active in his ministry was there. This man began doing prison ministry, ministering in nursing homes and various other places as he awaited the Lord's further leading. Eventually several area pastors/churches became upset (jealous?) because of this mans ministry. Some of them confronted him and said unless he came under their authority, went to seminary, etc., he couldn't be preaching and teaching the Word. The man politely refused. The local pastors got together and went around to every place that man ministered and put pressure on the prison, nursing homes, etc., until they all dropped that man from being allowed to minister in those places because the local pastors had "informed" them this minister of the Gospel was sanctioned by them and didn't have a degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Agreed. Sadly, I knew a man who was called of God to preach. He didn't have a degree, felt no calling to attain one, and the evidence of the Spirit being present and active in his ministry was there. This man began doing prison ministry, ministering in nursing homes and various other places as he awaited the Lord's further leading. Eventually several area pastors/churches became upset (jealous?) because of this mans ministry. Some of them confronted him and said unless he came under their authority, went to seminary, etc., he couldn't be preaching and teaching the Word. The man politely refused. The local pastors got together and went around to every place that man ministered and put pressure on the prison, nursing homes, etc., until they all dropped that man from being allowed to minister in those places because the local pastors had "informed" them this minister of the Gospel was sanctioned by them and didn't have a degree.


Isnt it a good thing that Paul, Peter and any other preachers in the bible were not required to have a degree. I dont remember Jesus calling all of the disciples off the boat then taking them to the nearest Seminary school. I think that a preacher can preach and even lead a church with out a degree. I have never set under a preacher that used the old language bible, just the KJV. So to say that they have to read it would be like telling us we have be able to read it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note, sissy - no degrees are mentioned per se in relation to Paul, Peter, etc. - but Paul was an exceptionally well educated man, speaking many languages and having sat at the feet of Gamaliel. Personally, I believe God chose the fishermen to show that uber education isn't important in order to be a follower of Christ, and that He chose Paul (and some others) to show that even the well educated have their place in His ministry.

...to say that they have to read it would be like telling us we have be able to read it as well.
So true! And those who cannot read the ancient languages would just have to trust what's being told them...just like people had to do before scripture was translated into the common tongue. Isn't it great to be able to read God's Word and let Him teach us directly, instead of having to rely on a man who may or may not be a megalomaniac?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note, sissy - no degrees are mentioned per se in relation to Paul, Peter, etc. - but Paul was an exceptionally well educated man, speaking many languages and having sat at the feet of Gamaliel. Personally, I believe God chose the fishermen to show that uber education isn't important in order to be a follower of Christ, and that He chose Paul (and some others) to show that even the well educated have their place in His ministry.

So true! And those who cannot read the ancient languages would just have to trust what's being told them...just like people had to do before scripture was translated into the common tongue. Isn't it great to be able to read God's Word and let Him teach us directly, instead of having to rely on a man who may or may not be a megalomaniac?


Sort of like "narcissism" on steroids..

Theory*:
Could this be the driving force behind Calvinism? Men have always tried to make their god in their own image..........

Romans 1:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good response Seth, I appreciate it! I'm not "anti-TR," but I'm always a little cautious when doubt is cast upon the KJB. As far as the manuscripts thing, I'll try and dig around and find that info that you "called me on." :) Brother Gipp has an excellent little book called Is Our English Bible Inspired, it's very good and there's certainly nothing radical in it like I've heard in this thread. He talks a lot about inspiration and preservation and how they work hand-in-hand. No where in the book is there a suggestion that the KJB was "re-inspired," but perhaps he says that the inspiration was preserved. I don't remember exactly.






Yes, we would both agree typographical errors are a non-issue.



No, I think they are a borderline cultist for thinking the KJV was "re-inspired" rather than simply retaining existing inspiration by being a faithful translation of the already inspired word of God. If the KJV had truly had been re-inspired in 1611(or technically a bit earlier, during the translation process) further editions would not have been necessary.

Let me give you an example. Right now, as I sit here writing this I have two KJV bibles in my lap. One is a second edition rock of ages study bible and the other is a a Thomas nelson pocket bible.

When you open the rock of ages KJV bible to Joshua 19:2 says "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,"

On the other hand the Thomas Neslon pocket bible when opened to the same verse says this: "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and Moladah,"

Now that is not just a spelling difference, that is a meaning difference albeit on a very minor issue. I will tell you that in my opinion that the rock of ages KJV has the correct reading. The question is this though, could you hold each KJV bible in your hands and say it is the perfect word of God in spite of a very small but real difference? If not you need to narrow down the definition of Gods perfect word a little more tightly than simply the "KJV". If you could accept both KJV bibles with that minor difference then I don't see why you would not accept the TR as equally valid. It is important to note that when comparing different editions of the the KJV, the TR, or most manuscripts in the "majority text" line there are some differences. The vast majority of them are going to non-issues. Spelling, punctuation, or a different word that still means the same thing. A very small number do change the meaning though. It should also be noted that the number of real differences is minuscule when compared to the vast number of both major and minor differences in the "critical text" line and the versions translated from them.




I know enough about manuscript evidence to call you on that. :wink For one thing at the time the KJV was translated Sinaiticus wasn't even know beyond the monastery it was eventually discovered at in the 1800's, and while Vaticanus was known, it wasn't used. I would like to see you provide any evidence of where the KJV follows either of those two manuscripts more closely than the TR or the majority text.




Me personally, I don't have a problem with accepting both. I know their are a few small differences, but I also know the genuine differences are few and almost nothing when compared to the considerable differences in the critical text line.
Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not recall where it is in the Old Testament, yet there is some scriptures referring to schooling or studying in the Old Testament that some use to build the doctrine that pastors must have Bible degrees to be a pastor of a New Testament Church. I heard it spoken on one time by the president of a Baptist seminary. He did not come right out & say the pastor must have a degree, yet in a round about way he spoke it seemed to be his belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 27 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...