Inerrancy of Scripture - Bible believer or bible agnostic?

[Guest Guest]

trc, as you've seen, Annie's position creates a cloud of uncertainty when it comes to the Scriptures. It's not certain, this word might be better, this might be translated this way, a better rendering might be, that translation says this, this manuscript excludes that passage, etc. etc. The main issue is that people don't like to be held accountable to the truth, so if there's room to wiggle in between all 5,500 manuscripts, then they go for it. It all comes down to final authority, which is loathsome to those who have been called the "Alexandrian Cult."

Btw, the "meaning" of scripture is clear from context and a study within the Bible. Other than a few words that are used but once in the Bible ("neesings" in Job, for example), the KJB cross-references itself by a simple word search. There really isn't a need for a true Bible Believer to study all sorts of other books and commentaries: the Bible is its own commentary.

[Jerry]

2. I find it disingenuous (possibly even hypocritical) that those who claim the KJV doesn't need some updating due to language evolution over the last 400 years happily sit under preaching that constantly does word studies in order to "explain" the true meaning of the passage so that the "common man" sitting under their preaching can understand God's Word. Seems to me this is precisely what the RCC did with the Latin Bibles for years in order to control the people and place the priesthood in dominance over the people. I hope none on this board are in that type of situation' date=' but I've seen it in churches by the multitude.[/quote']

Are you for or against word studies? Even the oldest and wisest Christian still has to look up words in a dictionary on occasion. That isn't a defect with the King James Bible, but with us.

Yes, there are some here that are absolutely against any kind of update of the KJV - but there are others that are not opposed to the idea of updating the KJV; however, there has never been one yet (and probably won't be) that is faithful and accurate. Too many so-called updates change the meaning of many passages.

[Guest Guest]

the KJB cross-references itself by a simple word search. There really isn't a need for a true Bible Believer to study all sorts of other books and commentaries: the Bible is its own commentary.

Very well stated---KJB. I would definetly agree on that one. :thumb

[Guest Guest]

Are you for or against word studies? Even the oldest and wisest Christian still has to look up words in a dictionary on occasion. That isn't a defect with the King James Bible' date=' but with us.[/quote']


Jerry, I am really laughing on this one. What dumb sheep ALL OF US human beings are. :goodpost:

[Jerry]

Annie has proven that she has settled for a lowest common denominator approach to the words of the Bible - well, taken together they all say such and such. What about all the passages and words/phrases omitted? Or are those just not God's Word?...

Also, it is simply willful blindness and wishful thinking to believe that no changes or different renderings in different Bible versions affect the meaning. How about John 1:18, where some MVs render the passage as "the only begotten God." So Jesus' godhood was begotten? I would say THAT was different doctrine! How about some MV renderings that "a young woman will be with child" in Isaiah 7:14? That does away with the prophecy of the virgin birth! How about "they hacked off my hands and my feet" in Psalm 22:16? The passage is referring to Christ's hands and feet being pierced by His crucifixion - no different doctrine? How about "He did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped" in Philippians 2:6? What Jesus was not equal to God (the Father)?!? How about changing "Lucifer" to "Morning Star" in Isaiah 14:12 - making it a reference to Jesus being expelled from Heaven, instead of Satan?!? No different doctrine? What have you been smoking?

[trc123]

Jerry,

I don't have any issues with word studies to help clarify the precise meaning.

[Guest Guest]

Jerry, am just laughing so hard. I can't help it. :lol This "Jesus is a Woman Bible" :roll :ooops My hubby was doing a "comical" RAP Bible imitation this morning. The future Bible for all the heathens.

I went from the Latin Vulgate to the KJB in one fell swoop. Oh, and a little NIV in there along the way. I just don't get all this confusion about the KJV? Oh, as brother Bruce says "Men are in love with their minds." These guys probably sit around sipping brandy in the recliner---and, conjure up new creations daily. Oh, how sinful we really are. :sad

[Annie]

"Deuteronomy 30:11-14 For this commandment which I command thee this day' date=' it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."[/quote']

Here God is addressing Moses, placing His commandment (that He was commanding him at that moment) in his heart and mouth. But this verse does not promise to do that for all of God's people for all time, does it? This verse is not talking about preservation of God's word at all...just a moment of inspiration. What am I missing?



Yes, this is a direct quote from Moses. Paul is using it to introduce new information to Israel--who knew of Moses' words--and who needed salvation, about how Christ fulfills the law. I don't see what this verse has to do with preservation of all of God's words at all times for all believers.



This is a perfect example of the parallel form of Hebrew poetry. (You probably already know that what distinguishes ancient Hebrew poetry from prose is not that it has meter and rhyme, as much of our poetry does, but that it is formed by repeating the same idea twice, using different wording. That is exactly what is going on in this verse.) "He hath remembered his covenant for ever" is the first way of expressing the thought. "the word which he commanded to a thousand generations" is the second way of expressing the same thought. "Covenant" is expressed as "the word which he commanded" in the second statement. "For ever" is expressed as "to a thousand generations." IOW, the psalmist is not saying that God has commanded anything to (direct object) a thousand generations. We know from the structure of Hebrew poetry that both statements express the same thought: that God will keep his promises for all time. "The word" is talking about "His covenant," or promise, not "every word that He has ever spoken being preserved all in one place that is publicly accessible."



Indeed it shall. He keeps His word "to a thousand generations," or forever. What is missing in this verse is a reference to the availability of God's words.



I'm so glad God's word abides forever; if it didn't--if He was always changing His mind, or going back on His promises--then how would we ever be saved? What He has spoken will come to pass; it will stand throughout time. But again, what is missing from these verses is any reference to common availability of every single word God has spoken.

[Annie]

Annie has proven that she has settled for a lowest common denominator approach to the words of the Bible - well' date=' taken together they all say such and such. What about all the passages and words/phrases omitted? Or are those just not God's Word?...[/quote']

Jerry, for some reason you have refused to answer my questions, choosing instead to make blanket statements that cover up the real issues. So, I'll post my questions for you again.

You have accused me of making myself the final authority...of "picking and choosing" what I believe to be the word of God. But wouldn't you have to agree that you too have "picked and chosen" what manuscripts, Bible, and Bible passages you will accept? You have picked and chosen the KJV/TR only. I don't understand how what you are doing is any different than what I'm doing. Please explain.

You mention that passages and words/phrases have been omitted...Omitted from what? No doubt you mean omitted from what the KJB says. But what makes the KJB (or any other Bible) the standard? Scripture, please.



Did He? Has His Word been available forever (at all times) to His people? Can you show that it has? I won't argue with Scripture.



Assuming God has promised this, why would my "wading through" multiple manuscripts (that are AVAILABLE--your key word) be an indication that God has not kept this promise? According to you, if JUST ONE person had to wade through multiple manuscripts to access these words, then God has not kept His promise. We all know that many more than one person has waded through multiple manuscripts to access these words...Otherwise, we wouldn't have the KJB!



You know, Jerry, since I don't believe God ever said that He would perfectly preserve every one of His words in one and only one location, I don't stress out that I might not "know" where every single one of His words are, down to the last jot and tittle. "Believing that God has preserved His Word," and "not knowing the exact location of every single one of those words" are not two conflicting concepts. It is manifestly obvious when you compare various versions what the foundational doctrines and practical instructions for Christian living are. It is amazing to me that, in over 5500 different manuscripts (none of which agree completely with any other mss), even the most "significant" variants don't affect any major Christian doctrine or instruction for life, since every major Christian doctrine is repeated over and over, so that confusing or inaccurately translated verses can be clarified by comparing them to the clear repetitions of those doctrines elsewhere in scripture. Now, that's preservation if ever I've seen it! In short, I don't have to accept that a translation contains nothing but God's exact words, and only God's exact words, for me to embrace it, teach it, and live by it. Simple comparisons to other translations reveal that there is much more agreement between (more reliable) versions than disagreement...and that the disagreements are not earth shattering in the least.



Have I ever said that meaning is not affected? I don't believe I have. In fact, I've acknowledged that variant manuscripts do differ significantly in many places. The fact is that these differences are more than cleared up when they are compared with the rest of the scripture in that volume. Let's take your examples, for instance:



Different than what? Surely if this passage is confusing to you (I can't see that it would be, considering that Jesus IS God, and He is also the "only begotten" part of the Godhead)...but if this passage is confusing to you, all you would have to do is compare it with the other Scriptures in that version to know that it is not saying that Jesus' "godhood" (a word that isn't even in that verse) is the "thing" that was begotten. "God," not "godhood" was begotten. Surely you don't deny that Jesus (the only begotten) is God??? Now, that would be a different doctrine for sure!



The only way that this would "do away with the virgin birth" is if this version doesn't record Mary's words, "How can this be, seeing I have not had relations with a man?" as well as other references to the virgin birth. Anyone who sees that Mary has said these words will, when studying out the doctrine of the virgin birth, consulting other translations, commentaries, and/or language helps, understand that "virgin" is the better translation of the word in the Isaiah passage. Even if they don't study it out that extensively, they will still believe in the virgin birth because of Mary's words (assuming they are there). I agree that "a young woman" is not the best translation of the Hebrew there, since we know by comparing this prophecy with its fulfillment that Jesus was born of "a virgin." This is where it is actually helpful to compare what different versions say. Hebrew words that can be (and are) translated differently are clarified when such comparisons are done. (I will add here that the Hebrew word almah in Isaiah very well could be translated "young woman." To this day, almah means "damsel" (a young woman or girl) and "miss" (a young or unmarried woman). So, the words "young woman" are not incorrect. But we know by comparing the fulfillment with the prophecy that "virgin" is a clearer translation, and is more accurate. "Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman[4] and children born to an almah would be illegitimate.[5] The English word that corresponds most closely to this concept is maiden or maid which means 'an unmarried girl (especially a virgin)'[6]" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah).

Here's another link to an article that references the controversy surrounding the word almah. Short version: There is apparently a different Hebrew word that specifically means virgin. This is not the word used in the Masoretic text in Isaiah 7:14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14



I'm not going to address all of these, Jerry, because I don't want to give the impression that I think every single Bible out there today is a reliable translation. I will say that Lucifer does literally mean "Day Star," so it really isn't a mistake to refer to him that way. (The KJB says, "Lucifer, son of the morning.") I would be interested in knowing which version uses the wording, "they hacked off my hands and feet."

[Guest Guest]

Annie, after dozens of posts on several topics and different subjects, it seems apparent that you look for any reason NOT to accept one Bible. It's not like you have so many reasons to do so, but that you're searching for an excuse not to submit yourself to the Bible. Instead you submit the Bible to your own interpretation, which is expressly forbidden in scripture. Well at least in the KJB.

Your position is pure humanism and German rationalism, as is modern Textual Criticism. It subjects the scriptures to man's determination and decisions, when man is a worm, a piece of nothing. A person that doesn't accept the KJB on the evidence that supports it either is blind to the truth (willingly or otherwise) or doesn't want to submit themselves to a Final Authority.

[brandplucked]

trc, as you've seen, Annie's position creates a cloud of uncertainty when it comes to the Scriptures. It's not certain, this word might be better, this might be translated this way, a better rendering might be, that translation says this, this manuscript excludes that passage, etc. etc. The main issue is that people don't like to be held accountable to the truth, so if there's room to wiggle in between all 5,500 manuscripts, then they go for it. It all comes down to final authority, which is loathsome to those who have been called the "Alexandrian Cult."

Btw, the "meaning" of scripture is clear from context and a study within the Bible. Other than a few words that are used but once in the Bible ("neesings" in Job, for example), the KJB cross-references itself by a simple word search. There really isn't a need for a true Bible Believer to study all sorts of other books and commentaries: the Bible is its own commentary.

Hi brother. I totally agree with all you say here. As for Annie's position that her various "Bibles" all teach the same things, and that it is not logical nor reasonable that God would have His pure words ONLY in one Book (the King James Bible), is, I believe, in total error. The very people who put out the modern versions all harshly criticize the KJB. The RSV says in its intro: "The King James Version of the N.T. was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of 14 centuries of manuscript copying. We now possess many more ancient mss. of the N.T., and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text." Yeah, they are really friendly toward the KJB, huh?

People behind the modern versions like James White, Gleason Archer of the NASB NIV, Rick Norris, Daniel Wallace, James Price (nKJv), Doug Kutilek etc. ALL constantly criticize the KJB as having wrong mss., errors and poor translation. Yet Annie presents herself as being all sweetness and light in that she accepts them all and no doctrines are changed.

No Doctrines Are Changed?

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

Apparently she never got around to reading the links I provided, or else she is just flat out blind to the facts. It would be a pointless waste of time to try to reason with someone who is set in their ways that all the 'bibles' out there are just fine and all the true words of God. People are NOT rational and not logical when it comes to spiritual truth. God hides spiritual truth from the wise and prudent, and reveals it unto babes. He takes the wise in their own craftiness.

Anybody that would defend the nasb/Holman that say people deceived God (Psalm 78:36), or there are two Gods (John 1:18), or the NIV's teaching that Christ had "origins" (Micah 5:2) or that there was a day when God became Christ's Father (Acts 13:33), or that we can "speed up" the coming of the day of God (2 Peter 3:12), or all these versions that omit anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses from the N.T. plus another 2000-3000 words are all "just fine", is most likely beyond recovery to a sound mind.


Will Kinney

[Annie]

Hi brother. I totally agree with all you say here. As for Annie's position that her various "Bibles" all teach the same things

Brother Kinney, again you broadbrush someone else's position, while completely ignoring certain questions I've asked you. Why have you not answered them? I would have a lot more respect for you and your position if you would interact with me instead of monologuing and broad brushing (as if you don't know the answers??).

and that it is not logical nor reasonable that God would have His pure words ONLY in one Book (the King James Bible), is, I believe, in total error.

All I have said is that God has never said that he would preserve ALL of His words in the same language or in the same volume. Did He, or didn't He? As I've said, I base my beliefs on what God has said, not on human reasoning. But again, you have dodged all of my questions. Is it because you don't know the answers? Your refusal to interact on these points does your position no credit.

The very people who put out the modern versions all harshly criticize the KJB. The RSV says in its intro: "The King James Version of the N.T. was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of 14 centuries of manuscript copying. We now possess many more ancient mss. of the N.T., and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text." Yeah, they are really friendly toward the KJB, huh?

Don't you believe that the discovery of more manuscripts would naturally prompt a reevaluation of existing translations? If not, why not?

Annie presents herself as being all sweetness and light in that she accepts them all and no doctrines are changed.

What do you mean by "accepts them all?" I have never said that I believe any one translation is completely accurate...so, exactly what am I accepting?

Apparently she never got around to reading the links I provided, or else she is just flat out blind to the facts.

You seem quite good at pointing out "facts," but are extremely reticent to defend them and interact about them. To prove to you that I have indeed read what you have written in this article about doctrine, I will address its content. If you are a true gentleman, you will respond and attempt to answer my questions.

I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and defend the multiple modern versions say: "Well, no doctrines are changed in the different versions." But is this true?

I have not said that "no doctrines are changed." Of course many doctrinal texts read differently in different versions.

There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agrees with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. This is easily proved and well noted by many atheist, Muslim and Bible basher sites on the internet.

I agree with this statement.

Which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or have the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised? Is it true that "no doctrines are changed" in the various conflicting versions?

None of these Bibles are infallible; all have translational or scribal errors, which is readily apparent to anyone who reads them. God has never promised to preserve all of His words all together in one volume. Has He?

Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

No, because God has promised to preserve His word. The fact that we have over 5500 ancient manuscripts of the scripture, as compared to just a handful of ancient secular manuscripts, proves that He has indeed done so.

I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV.

Where is this evidence? And why would you look for evidence that God has done something that He never said He would do? You talk about "textual evidence." Did anyone have to go from book to book, comparing manuscripts (none of which completely agreed with the other) and studying ancient languages to find God's Word?

However, one can argue back and forth over the textual evidence till you are either blue or red in the face, and prove nothing. For me and many other Bible believers, we clearly see the Providential hand of God placing His divine approval upon the King James Bible that has been universally recognized as THE BIBLE of the English speaking world for almost 400 years.

Again, the silence is resounding. Divine approval? 400 years is such a short time compared to the rest of history. All of this "evidence" is based on extrabiblical, human reasoning, since God never expressed that He would indeed preserve His words in one book...and claims of "divine approval" apart from scripture is adding to God's word, indeed! Talk about subjectivity! We might just as well say that God has placed His divine approval on the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox Churches, since they were universally recognized as THE CHURCH in the West and East, respectively, for over a thousand years. This kind of reasoning is obviously fallacious.

One of the clear and convincing proofs that the King James Bible is the complete, inerrant, and pure words of God is the purity and truth of its Christ exalting doctrines. Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God.

Are you saying that there are no Christ-exalting doctrines in other versions? Again, what makes the KJB the standard instead of the ancient manuscripts? Sounds like you're employing the textual criticism you despise here. You have chosen a text which you believe is inerrant. I have not presumed to do so.

Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English.

Human reasoning again, and pragmatism, pure and simple (unless you can give the scripture upon which this is based).

The "Any Bible Will Do" position

These words do not describe my position.

leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, which omits some 45 entire verses from its text, and the ESV (omits 18 entire verses), when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Your use of the word "omitted" indicates a standard of some sort...Again, I ask, what makes the KJB the standard? Obviously, the translators of these other Bibles used far more ancient manuscripts than the translators of the KJB, making them the basis for their work. What is wrong with that?

Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have an "ORIGIN from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard,and Jehovah Witness New World Translation, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One rendering teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origin or a beginning.

Do these other versions categorically deny Christ's deity? I think you will find that there are multitudes of passages in these other versions that confirm it. This doctrine is repeated enough that a confusing phrase like this one can easily be reconciled when the greater weight of scripture is considered. We do this with the KJV all the time. We run across a verse that SEEMS contradictory (see the whole book of James, for example--salvation by works? That would be a different doctrine if there ever was one). So do you say of the KJB that the doctrine of salvation by faith and grace has been watered down because of James' writing? Of course not! You look at the whole of Scripture to interpret the seemingly contradictory Scripture. This is Hermeneutics 101.

Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB and ESV read?

John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast.

Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV, Holman Standard, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.

However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The fickle nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast."

Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: " Most mss (

[Annie]

Annie' date=' after dozens of posts on several topics and different subjects, it seems apparent that you look for any reason NOT to accept one Bible. It's not like you have so many reasons to do so, but that you're searching for an excuse not to submit yourself to the Bible. Instead you submit the Bible to your own interpretation, which is expressly forbidden in scripture. Well at least in the KJB.[/quote']

I'm not "looking for any reason not to accept one Bible." I don't have to. No one has been able to tell me on what scriptural basis I SHOULD accept just one Bible. Where does God say that all of His inspired words will be perfectly preserved in the one place, and only in that place? I don't see why I should look for them in one place if He hasn't said that they would be in one place.



KJB Princess, on what SCRIPTURAL basis do you choose the KJB? You yourself have "determined" and "decided" that the KJV is the only place where God's inspired words reside. On what authority have you done so? If you cannot give a scriptural reason why, then you are depending on human reasoning, pure and simple (which manuscripts are more reliable, how do these differing manuscripts compare, etc.). I base my beliefs on what God has said: that He would preserve His word. I do not put extra words in His mouth, as the KJVO's do.

[Guest Guest]

Don't you believe that the discovery of more manuscripts would naturally prompt a reevaluation of existing translations? If not' date=' why not?[/quote']

Annie, those manuscripts came from the Vatican and Egypt, and were rightly unused for centuries because of the heresy that the preparers of those manuscripts believed in. So no, just because something "older and better" is found doesn't demand a reevaluation of the Bible that God already provided. The KJB was finished years before the French Revolution occurred, before German Rationalism and Humanism came to popularity, and before all those clearly corrupt manuscripts were found. I'd say the KJB came at just the right time; God knows what He's doing, unlike men. :smile

[Revelation3:20]

"2 Peter 1:16-21 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Scripture declares that it is a "more sure word of prophecy" than a voice directly from heaven. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. The Bible, all of it, is the word of God.


"John 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

"Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

By claiming the Holy scriptures contain errors you "speak not according to this word". Scripture gives its verdict.