Inerrancy of Scripture - Bible believer or bible agnostic?

[Guest Guest]

Well, I'm not sure how it is in Japan, but I know they study a lot of English in Korea from the time they're little until high school and most Koreans can't say more than "hello" and a few other basic phrases. I think it's that way in a lot of Asian countries, maybe Katie can tell us how it is in China.

I am going with personal experience in both cases. I retired in 2003...and I taught for 16 years in Cleveland. So, that isn't really that long ago. I know for certain, that we hosted the German girls in 1980...b/c I was a Sophmore in high school. The German teacher was "straight" from Germany, actually...and, arranged for a group of students to come from West Berlin. I vividly remember being in awe at what they knew and how fluently they spoke, read, and wrote the English language. The Gymnasium (higher learning high school...in Germany) was equivalent to a doctorate program in the USA...at that time. Who knows what it is like now? 28 years later. Hmmm. I have NEVER thought the Germans were a country we could close our eyes on. They are tough...as you know. :Green


That is interesting about Korea. :ideas: My SIL can't remember one word of Korean, really. Although, like I said...she was 6 when she moved over here. I do know for sure that "Bearing Precious Seed" has been working diligently...day and night, to get those Bibles done. :pray

Katie...have you had your second bundle of joy, yet? We would like to know about the Chinese people. :frog

[Guest Guest]

Yes...Bro Ed, "blinded by the foolishness of men's wisdom." and, we know how wise man really is...if left to his own devices? What dumb sheep we are without the KJB. :sad And, we are still dumb, at that.

Will...you are awesome, brother! Keep up the great work for Our Lord and Saviour...Jesus Christ. As you know...we need MIGHTY men to stand strong on the KJV 1611 AV.

My hat is off to both of you powerful, God fearing...preachers. :amen:

[kevinmiller]

I am going with personal experience in both cases. I retired in 2003...and I taught for 16 years in Cleveland. So, that isn't really that long ago. I know for certain, that we hosted the German girls in 1980...b/c I was a Sophmore in high school. The German teacher was "straight" from Germany, actually...and, arranged for a group of students to come from West Berlin. I vividly remember being in awe at what they knew and how fluently they spoke, read, and wrote the English language. The Gymnasium (higher learning high school...in Germany) was equivalent to a doctorate program in the USA...at that time. Who knows what it is like now? 28 years later. Hmmm. I have NEVER thought the Germans were a country we could close our eyes on. They are tough...as you know. :Green


That is interesting about Korea. :ideas: My SIL can't remember one word of Korean, really. Although, like I said...she was 6 when she moved over here. I do know for sure that "Bearing Precious Seed" has been working diligently...day and night, to get those Bibles done. :pray

Katie...have you had your second bundle of joy, yet? We would like to know about the Chinese people. :frog

It must also be taken into account, though, that often the students that demonstrate the greatest ability are given these kinds of opportunities. It would be difficult to be able to go to an American school unless you had your English up to par to be able to do it. And if they went to a privileged or private high school, that gives them an even greater boost. Many Koreans do come to America to study if they have studied and worked on their English enough to get it to where it needs to be, or oftentimes they come here to learn English while going to school. But still, the majority can't speak it well, at all. I would imagine it's that way in most countries. It's difficult for any person to learn a language in your school classroom.

[Guest Guest]

It must also be taken into account' date=' though, that often the students that demonstrate the greatest ability are given these kinds of opportunities.[/quote']


Very true. :smile My sister and my BIL hosted a German student 2 years ago. His dad was a doctor, and his mom has a degree in nursing. She stays home and raises the kids. Tobias (Toby) is his name. Of course, my sister had him going to the RCC...which, he told me he couldn't stand. At his "Confirmation-8th grade Sacrament in the RCC" we went down to St. John's Cathedral in DT Cleveland. The priest from their church in Amish Country held the services there. He is also on TV-Mass in the mornings on Sunday, sometimes. He is a real sweet guy...so sweet, and so lost. :sad

Well, we gave Toby a KJV 1611 AV Bible in English, and his eyes lit up. He said "thank you" and was very happy. :smile I notice body language with people---a teacher thing. I keep Toby and his family in my prayers.





Well, these Japanese children were my best students in Cleveland (academically and socially.) In fact, last I heard they did not need ESL classes in Cleveland for any of the Japanese children. Contrary to what the media puts out about big school districts...the Cleveland Municipal School District has been making GREAT strides in the area of education. In fact, before bussing started in 1982, Cleveland was the "premier" school district in the nation. Parents from Canada would send their kids to Cleveland to get an education. Bussing destroyed to district. When Judge Batisti passed on...then the BAN lifted. Anyway, the "Gifted Program" in the world was started in the Cleveland Schools. A man named...Charles H. Lake---they have a school on the east side that is named after him---created what Cleveland calls "Major Work" or "Gifted and Talented." Well, these Japanese students are in "Major Work" classes and raise the bar for the rest of the district...so to speak.


On the standardized testing (Stanford Achievement Tests) they are at the top. The Stanford tests are the best in the world for measuring what a child knows and what he/she still needs to be taught. When my son was in the Montessori School until 2nd grade...he took Stanford Tests. They are awesome! :thumb Testing is mainly done to see how much teachers still need to teach, and where we are falling short...and, in what areas. Each student is evaluated, individually. You can kind of say that teachers keep a whole lot of records on each student. :thumb

[Annie]

Mr. Kinney, in case you've lost track of my questions through the course of this thread, I decided to repost them here in order to give you the chance to tie up the loose ends. I'm not trying to overwhelm you with this looooong post, but I would be interested in hearing answers for these questions. If you have already addressed them, and I missed it, I apologize. Perhaps you could direct me to that interaction. If you do not wish to answer my questions, that's fine--just say so. No one else on here has been able to answer them, and you seem to be as knowledgeable about the KJVO position as anyone else, so I thought I'd ask them to you. Thanks in advance for your responses.

What people really believe about ?The Bible? can essentially be broken down into 5 different positions regarding the inspiration' date=' preservation and inerrancy of the Bible. Four of them are complete nonsense, yet normally intelligent people often spout them off as though they were irrefutable facts. Only one of them is Biblically correct and in keeping with the truth and faithfulness of Almighty God.[/spoiler']

Barry, what this means to anybody who thinks about it and takes language literally, is that you believe in something that you know does not exist.

MY RESPONSE: Hi Barry, I did see the post. In it you mention that you believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture, and then you immediately put as a qualifier "original manuscripts".

In the interest of fairness, I would add that the fifth position (the one you advocate) is often "spouted off as though it were an irrefutable fact." Confusing phrases like "the logic of faith" (whatever that might be) are used to support this "irrefutable fact," along with Scriptures that appear to be taken out of context. In a thread I started a week or two ago entitled "the scriptural basis for KJVO," no one on here could give any Scripture in which God promised to preserve all of His words in one language, much less in one publicly accessible volume. The Scriptures they did quote are the same ones upon which I base my own view of preservation. I'd be interested to hear any verses you'd like to bring up that show that God did indeed promise to preserve all of his words in one language, or in one volume.

This is an interesting way to put it...Again, it depends on what you mean when you say "believe in." I do not "believe in" God's Word as some kids "believe in" Santa Claus, or as I "believe in" Christ for salvation; I "believe" God's Word. There is a difference. My belief is IN the speaker of the Word, but I "believe" what He has said. Since I believe that God has promised to preserve His words, then I know He has done so. My belief is not IN the original autographs; it is IN the living God, whose Holy Spirit teaches me through His preserved word. I find your terminology confusing.

1. We believe "that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," by which we understand the whole of the book called the Bible; nor do we take the statement in the sense in which it is sometimes foolishly said that works of human genius are inspired, but in the sense that the Holy Ghost gave the very words of the sacred writings to holy men of old; and that His Divine inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all parts of these writings, historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical and to the smallest word, and inflection of a word, PROVIDED SUCH WORD IS FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTES: 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:13; Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Acts 1:16; 2:4." Now THINK about what these men are actually saying. If they were to be cross examined in a court of law, or even by a high school debating team, their "bold confession" would be found to be an empty show of pious sounding words signifying NOTHING.

The Niagara Bible Conference also resulted in the fourteen point creed otherwise known as the "Niagara Creed."

I think this creed was poorly worded, which is unfortunate for these men. But I think you go too far in saying that it is "an empty show of pious sounding words signifying NOTHING." If I understand them correctly (which is difficult to do, given the awkward wording), they are simply saying that God, not men, wrote the original manuscripts which have, through history, been copied and translated into what we now call "the Bible." I don't understand what is so illogical about this statement; there's really no "reasoning" to argue with here...just a statement.

They like the philosophical concept of the inspiration of Scripture' date=' but utterly lack the reality of an inspired Scripture they can hold in their hands. Notice these last qualifying words (which are just like your own) - "PROVIDED SUCH WORD IS FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.?[/spoiler']

Your confession of faith in the Inerrancy of Scripture "provided such word is found in the original manuscripts" means NOTHING! It is a very poorly thought out piece of nonsense which contradicts itself on the foundational level. You are claiming to believe in something you KNOW you do not have and have no way of proving one way or the other.

Do the words of God suddenly cease to be inspired (or preserved, or true) when they are included in a book with words that are not inspired by Him?

I would never have worded the confession in the way they did. But why is "proof" necessary? Did God or didn't God promise to preserve His word? If He did, then what's the big deal about the autographs?

In addition' date=' this 'confession of faith' in the inerrancy of Scripture effectively steals the Bible from every common Christian who doesn't have a thorough knowledge of the original languages.[/spoiler']

And even if he or she did know these original languages' date=' it would still not do him or her any good, because it is an undeniable fact that we do not have any hope at all of ever seeing one sjunk of your "original manuscripts" foundation.[/spoiler']

First' date='when you say "God does not inspire translations", you didn't get this from the Bible. Seminary maybe, or from some other pastor who likewise does not believe in an inerrant Bible, but certainly not from the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired words of God.[/spoiler']

Secondly' date=' when you say God only inspired the originals, and the originals no longer exist, then the ONLY logical conclusion is: THERE IS NO INSPIRED BIBLE NOW. But, of course, this is what you really believe isn't it?[/spoiler']

MY RESPONSE:....<<>>...Now' date=' let's look at your theory, shall we. You tell us that what we now have are 5000 pieces (mostly scraps and small sections of diverse verses), and not a single one of these is a complete Bible - not one. Not the goofy Sinaiticus nor the Vaticanus mss. are complete Bibles or even New Testaments, and they disagree with each other some 4000 significant times in the New Testament alone. You do not accept all the conflicting readings found in these 5000 + manuscripts, and will not take a stand on anything for sure as being the complete and 100% true words of God.[/spoiler']

God calls us to faith in His words and promises. I believe The Book. You do not. You don't even have "the book" to believe in. Instead you now have 5000+ scraps of wildly conflicting readings and you do not know which ones are right and which are not.

Did God or did not God promise that His word would be preserved in a volume accessible to "every common Christian?" You yourself deny this fact by acknowledging that God in fact did not promise that "every common Christian" could have a copy of His Word in his/her language. So, by your words above, "every common Christian," do you mean only "English-speaking common Christians?" Your rhetoric here expresses a sense of indignation that someone would say that Christians need knowledge of a language other than their own in order to know what God said, but it is apparent by your own words further down that you have said exactly the same thing: that "every common Christian" cannot have a perfect translation which he/she can understand in his/her own language. With all due respect, this looks like a case of the "pot calling the kettle black." You are assuming that the men of whom you are speaking do not believe that God will preserve His word, when, in fact, they do believe this. So, as I've said, the absence of the originals isn't a "faith-shaker" at all. The question for you to answer is not "CAN it (be the inspired word of God)?" but, "MUST it be?" or, more pertinent to this discussion, "IS it?" You simply cannot base an adamant claim ("IT IS!") on a possibility (It--as you say above--CAN BE). God has promised to preserve His word. You jump so quickly from "the originals" to "a Bible," as in ONE BOOK. The originals were not "one book," yet you feel justified in equating the two concepts, as if they're one and the same. How can you make this leap? Is this a problem? Why is "a stand" necessary on something about which God has been silent?

Let's talk about faith in God's words and promises. Where has He promised to do exactly what you say He HAS to have done (preserve all of His words in only one language/volume)? I agree that our faith should not be based on anything God has not said. So, what has He, in fact, said? Here again, you equate "His words and promises" with "The Book," as in only one book: the KJV. On what scriptural basis can you do this?

Your view of Preservation is like saying God's words are preserved in Webster's unabridged dictionary - "they're in there SOMEWHERE' date=' all mixed up with thousands that are not right and all out of order, but Hey, they're "preserved" somewhere in there."[/spoiler']

Now' date=' you can dispute all this as much as you please, but the end result is that I and thousands of other Christians believe we have the perfect Bible (all present 66 books in a single volume), and You do not have nor believe in any bible in any language as the pure and complete words of God.[/spoiler']

You keep telling us you have faith in what "the Bible" teaches' date=' yet it is abundantly obvious that you have no such tangible thing as "the Bible"; instead you have 5000+ scraps of conflicting partial readings. What I think is a more honest evaluation of your position is that you have faith in SOME PARTS of what WOULD make up a bible IF there WERE such a thing.[/spoiler']

You say there is no such "Book" and tell us that the Bible never promises there would be a perfect book. However the Scripture definitely seems to teach that there is "the book of the LORD" somewhere in existence on this planet' date=' and it definitely would not be in those 5000+ wildly divergent readings found in these confused and contradictory scraps. That is not a book nor are they "The Bible" you say you have faith in.[/spoiler']

There are a multitude of verses that teach there will be a tangible Book. Sure' date=' the revelation of God's words was a continuing process carried out over centuries, and even a silence of more than 400 years between testaments, but "the Scripture cannot be broken". Your "scripture" is all broken up into 5000+ conflicting and partial manuscripts, and that is not even considering the Hebrew texts that are so often rejected by such modern versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and even the NKJV, and not even in the same places.[/spoiler']

1) Scripture cannot be broken/corrupted. 2) Scripture has been broken/corrupted (see Alexandrian texts, modern versions, Septuagint, etc.). Both statements cannot be true. Scripture either can or cannot be corrupted. It either has or has not been corrupted. Which is it? Let's look at what was going on when Jesus uttered the words you mentioned. Basically, He was proving a statement based on a scripture that He quoted. He said (and I paraphrase): "If that scripture (in Psalms) calls people 'gods,' and scripture can't be broken, then why are you saying I am blaspheming by claiming to be God?" (It is interesting--and detrimental to your position--to note that Christ did not use every word of the OT Scripture as rendered in the KJV, even though he clearly was, as you say, quoting that Scripture: "I said, Ye are gods." You'll note that He left out the have that was in the original passage...and that "quote" is right in the same sentence as "scripture cannot be broken.") Here's a comparable modern-day scenario: Let's say that I wrote each of my kids a letter promising each one a surprise sometime during the next month. A couple of weeks pass, with no surprises. They begin to question me about it. I remind them of what I wrote in each of their letters, and tell them that since I will not break my word (my word will not be broken), they can expect that what I said would happen will indeed happen. The fact that I will keep my word demonstrates that what I have said is TRUE. This seems to be a whole lot more sensible way of looking at the meaning of the word broken than what you have suggested.

This is where you lose me. Here is your reasoning:

This is a misrepresentation of this man's position, and I think you know it. Webster's Dictionary has no common themes throughout, no parallel passages, nothing with which to compare, no reiterated truths, no overriding messages. God's words are by their very nature pure, wherever they are found. God has promised to preserve these words. That's all I need to know, isn't it? Why the insecurity over "where exactly every word is" when we have the Holy Spirit residing in us, to teach us and help us to discern what God has said? No, the Holy Spirit doesn't teach us a different language...Fortunately, language helps abound--language helps that are so simple that a child can use them. In this technologically advanced age, it is so very easy to access and compare what different manuscripts say. Much of our work has been done for us; it's not hard at all! Mr. Kinney, do you believe that the doctrine of preservation could possibly be found repeated at least a few times in, say, at least half of these manuscripts? In other words, do you think it's a common theme? Evidently it is, since the manuscripts used to translate the KJV as well as more modern versions contain this doctrine, repeated a number of times. This argument is IMO absurd. I think it's pretty obvious that the man with whom you were speaking has figured this out. "Definitely seems to?" What does this mean? "Definitely" does not go with "seems to." It either "definitely" teaches it, or it "seems to" teach it. I'm not trying to pick on you here; just trying to figure out what you mean. The fact that you tempered your "definitely" with "seems to" indicates some doubt on your part. I'd be interested to see the verses you are talking about. If the "Scripture cannot be broken," then how is it that you say "it has been broken?" I asked someone else this question recently, and never got a straight answer. I'll try to paste here my remarks about the statement about which you are talking.

You accuse me of using circular reasoning' date=' and yet your reasoning has left you with no sure or perfect words of God. I see my reasoning as the logic of faith. God said there would be "the book of the Lord" and I assume He really meant what He promised. I then look for the evidence of where this book is found NOW, and all the evidence clearly points to the King James Bible as being the providentially approved true Bible.[/spoiler']

You say you believe God has preserved His words. OK then. Please tell us exactly WHERE you think they are preserved today.

All you arguments fall flat on their face if you yourself have no inerrant Book.

Only One Bible?"]Some godly friends believe that to have an inerrant Bible, we need more than perfect original MSS. They insist that divine preservation must extend to every word of our Bibles. They say that if we allow for any error of transmission or translation, the Scriptures cease to be trustworthy. Their logic suggests that if we allow for any uncertainty, all certainty is lost. A flawed text produces a flawed authority; a flawed authority produces a flawed faith...This kind of thinking sounds compelling. But it is misleading. The one-version-only argument is offset by the principle of inspired repetition. By repetition, the Author of the Bible has protected us from the dangers of a miscopied text or an inadequate translation. The Spirit of inspiration did not limit Himself to one statement about salvation by faith, the distinctions between law and grace, the mission of the church, or the danger of a real lake of fire. He did not limit Himself to one pronouncement about misdirected sexual behavior, the misuse of alcohol, or the importance of prayer. Sacred Scripture repeats its doctrines over and over again through historical narrative, law, poetry, prophecy, parables, and letters. The 66 books of the Bible reflect a wonderfully orchestrated symphony of testimony.

Here's that phrase: "the logic of faith." What does that mean? That you base your position on both faith and logic? I've looked for a reference to the place God promised to preserve all of His words in one language/volume, but I can't find it. Could you provide that reference? God never told us "where" they would be, or that they would be all in one place...He merely promised to preserve them. And preserve them He did. I believe that every follower of Christ should make it a matter of habit to study out the wealth of manuscripts that are available to us today (5500, as compared to just a handful of other kinds of preserved ancient documents). This study is not hard to do; in fact, much of it has already been done for us. The burden of proof always rests on the one who makes a claim. I make no claim about any "specific place" that ALL of God's inspired words HAVE to be. You do. Upon what Scripture do you base the claim that all of God's words have to be preserved in one place, and only in that place? I've asked a number of people this question, and no one has been able to answer it. I base all of my doctrinal beliefs upon Scripture. I have found no Scripture anywhere (and that's a bigger deal for me, since I study out of several versions, including the KJV) that remotely indicates that we should expect God to preserve all of His words in one language, or one volume, and only in that language/volume. If you have such a promise from Scripture, please produce it. How could this be true? Are not Christian doctrines (like preservation) and instructions for living repeated again and again and again throughout many, many different manuscripts? I quoted the following portion of the book Only One Bible? by Beacham and Bauder on a different thread, but it's so good that I'll post it again here.

[brandplucked]

Hi annie. I'm sorry, but right now school has started up again and I am way too busy to take part in long conversations about the Bible version issue. I will briefly mention a couple of things. First, it is a fact that fewer and fewer Christians believe in the inerrancy of The Bible or any bible or any complete text for Old and New Testaments in any language. This is a fact.

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

Secondly, not all bible versions teach or mean the same things in literally hundreds of verses. You seem to be saying that a few general Christian truths are found in all bibles and that makes them OK. I agree that God can and does use any bible version or partial texts to reach His people and bring them to faith in Christ. I do not deny this. However, I still maintain that a bogus bible (ALL of them are inferiour to the Holy Bible - King James Bible) will result in a weakened faith. For instance, you say the NIV teaches the deity of Christ. Well, it SORT OF does. The NIV teaches that Christ has "origins" in Micah 5:2 and that there was a day when God became the Father of Jesus in Acts 13:33 (in spite of the fact that NO Greek text even reads this way). So, people can say from the NIV that Jesus Christ is "God", but he is a created God who was not the eternal Son of God. This is exactly what the JW's believe and in fact their one JW version reads the same as the NIV in both Micah 5:2 and Acts 13:33!

The NIV often rejects the Hebrew readings and perverts several other doctrines as well. It is not the pure words of God.

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

Here are just a few examples to deal with for those who try to maintain the idea that "all versions are historically true, and thus the very words of God" (which fewer and fewer people every day actually believe)

If God has preserved His words, as you seem to agree with, then which of these following are the true, preserved and inerrant words of God? You cannot have it both ways. Either there exists a pure Bible by which all others are judged, or else there is no inerrant Scripture like the atheists, Muslims, liberals, bible bashers and most Evangelical seminarians keep telling us.


The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these ?details? are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 ?forty years? (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR ?four years? (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or the fine linen being the ?righteousness? of saints or the fine linen being the ?righteous acts? of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 ?this day have I begotten thee? (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or ?today I have become your Father? (NIV).

If God did in fact preserve His pure words, then it should be abundantly obvious that not all these are right. Something is seriously wrong here, and these are just a small sampling of all the hundreds of very real differences among the various bible versions.

I believe God has given us His pure Scripture, and it is the King James Bible. A person is either a Bible believer or a bible agnostic and doesn't know for sure what God may or may not have said. The Bible agnostic has no final written authority, and his case is getting worse with every new perversion that comes down the pike.

May God grant you repentance to the acknowledging of the truth and the faith to believe The Book of the Lord.

In Him,

Will K

[Alimantado]

All of the above points have already been given in previous posts of yours and Annie has since responded to them, so the conversation has moved on. If you don't have time to carry it on, perhaps better to leave it at that than repost stuff that's already been tackled.

As a spectator, I'd say this has been quite a good thread, even if no common ground has been reached!

[Annie]

Hi annie. I'm sorry' date=' but right now school has started up again and I am way too busy to take part in long conversations about the Bible version issue.[/quote']

I understand. Having been a school teacher once myself, I remember the busy schedule and long hours. Once I begin our homeschooling year here in a couple of weeks, I too will not have the time to get so involved in online discussions.



You mentioned this fact before. I'm pretty sure that most Christians believe that the original autographs were inerrant, but that no one translation (or one volume) is inerrant. That's where I am, anyway. I'm pretty sure this has been the way most Christians have viewed the issue for centuries. Only recently (twentieth century) has there been a significant movement which insists that one and only one collection of writings is the inerrant scripture.



I have acknowledged this.



I am not saying this, and I think you know it. By repeatedly misrepresenting my position, you are purposely sidestepping the points I've made and the questions I've asked. If this is your standard operating procedure, it is unfathomable to me that any thinking person would listen to you.



Would you say that the KJV (or any other Bible) "sort of" teaches salvation by grace and faith, since it contains James' writings which say that salvation is by works? No, you take what James says and reconcile it with the multitude of clear teaching on the subject, right? That's what we all do when there's a verse that seems to present a different doctrine, or looks confusing or contradictory. You have said, on the basis of how the NIV renders a couple of verses, that it only "SORT OF" teaches the deity of Christ. Please see the direct quotations from the NIV below, and then see if you can still say that it "SORT OF" teaches Christ's deity.



And there are several more unquestionable references to Christ's deity found in this translation that I didn't mention.

Look, I'm not defending the NIV...I don't even own a copy of this translation, and never use it. I'm simply calling for KJVO's to play fair and end the hypocritical arguments which zero in on seemingly contradictory verses in other translations and trot these verses out to "prove" that these translations have "watered down" important doctrines, when this is not at all how they deal with seemingly contradictory verses in the KJV. The fact is that when the two NIV verses you mentioned are compared with the weight of other NIV scripture dealing with Christ's deity, any confusion is more than cleared up.



Since you are a language expert (Spanish, I believe), I think you will understand what I'm saying when I note that your subject does not agree with its corresponding predicate noun in the above sentence. I'm not just nitpicking grammar here. This sentence demonstrates your insistence that "IT" (one book) must be exactly synonymous to "the preserved words of God" (which are many). I have asked repeatedly for scriptural support that all of God's words would be preserved in a single language/volume, and have received absolutely none from you or anyone else. This is the most serious problem with your position: it has no scriptural basis.



Again (and again), this is not my position at all. I have already agreed with you that this is an untenable position.

Mr. Kinney, you have not addressed a single one of my questions or observations by simply repeating the same information over again. This reticence to address such foundational problems with the KJVO position (like, does it find any actual support in scripture) should give all KJVO's pause. Again, I do understand and sympathize with your busy schedule, but if there are simple answers to these questions, it shouldn't take all that much time to give them. Apparently, the scriptural evidence for your position isn't that obvious..or perhaps there is no scriptural evidence at all.

[Guest Guest]

All of the above points have already been given in previous posts of yours and Annie has since responded to them, so the conversation has moved on. If you don't have time to carry it on, perhaps better to leave it at that than repost stuff that's already been tackled.

As a spectator, I'd say this has been quite a good thread, even if no common ground has been reached!

Alimanado.

Molly

[Guest Guest]

You mentioned this fact before. I'm pretty sure that most Christians believe that the original autographs were inerrant, but that no one translation (or one volume) is inerrant. That's where I am, anyway. I'm pretty sure this has been the way most Christians have viewed the issue for centuries. Only recently (twentieth century) has there been a significant movement which insists that one and only one collection of writings is the inerrant scripture.

Wrong. The whole of scripture is built on the assumption of it's inerrancy. You cannot provide a single bible verse that would lead us to believe otherwise, and there are many verses that are based on the assumption that we can know the word and will of God is contained perfectly within the scriptures. As to your claim that "Only recently (twentieth century) has there been a significant movement which insists that one and only one collection of writings is the inerrant scripture.", even the cover almost universally placed on the bible bears witness to the belief that it is perfect. What does the cover of your KJV say? "Holy Bible" right? Look up the meaning of "Holy" if you like, but I will tell you that anything holy is also pure. Everything therein attests to the same Holiness.

"Romans 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)"

Here are also a handful of MANY verses based upon the assumption that God has and will keep scriptures available which are 100% trustworthy.

"Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;"

"Psalm 111:7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure."

"Psalm 119:66 Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments."

"Psalm 119:86 All thy commandments are faithful: they persecute me wrongfully; help thou me."

"Psalm 119:151 Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth."

"Deuteronomy 6:17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee."

"Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

"2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

"Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:"

"John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments."

"1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."


Just a few more:

"Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

"Exodus 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

"John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

This last verse shows that you can't even truly love God as you should without having and keeping his commandments...

[Guest Guest]

BTW the Holy Spirit just brought to mind another good verse.

"Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."

[Annie]

Wrong. The whole of scripture is built on the assumption of it's inerrancy. You cannot provide a single bible verse that would lead us to believe otherwise, and there are many verses that are based on the assumption that we can know the word and will of God is contained perfectly within the scriptures.

I have never said that we cannot know that the word and will of God is contained perfectly within the scriptures. What I have said is that there is no scriptural basis (in any translation, including the KJV) that all of the original words of scripture are preserved in one and only one volume.

As to your claim that "Only recently (twentieth century) has there been a significant movement which insists that one and only one collection of writings is the inerrant scripture.", even the cover almost universally placed on the bible bears witness to the belief that it is perfect. What does the cover of your KJV say? "Holy Bible" right? Look up the meaning of "Holy" if you like, but I will tell you that anything holy is also pure. Everything therein attests to the same Holiness.

"Holy Bible" is written on the covers of translations other than the KJV. I don't understand your point here. The words contained within the volumes entitled "Holy Bible" are translations of the scriptures, handed down throughout the ages. Any Christian, KJVO or not, understands this. There is not just one translation entitled "Holy Bible." All of the translations include the same books (Genesis through Revelation), so they are all called "The Holy Bible," but the wordings/translations are obviously different. I have no problem saying that God preserved His words through "The Holy Bible"(and through the manuscripts upon which the translations of the Holy Bible are based)...Most Christians agree about that. But that is not what we're talking about...We're talking about a specific version, and only one version, of "The Holy Bible." There is no scriptural basis for that position.

"Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;"

Are you saying that those who are not KJVO do not know or keep God's commandments? I don't understand why you think that this verse supports the KJVO position.

"Psalm 111:7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure."

Amen! God's commandments never fail; they are true and sure. Again, please explain how this verse supports the idea that all of God's words will be preserved perfectly in one and only one translation.

"Psalm 119:66 Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments."

I pray that David's testimony will be mine as well. I believe all of God's commandments. What evidence does this verse give that God's words will all be preserved in one language/translation?

"Psalm 119:86 All thy commandments are faithful: they persecute me wrongfully; help thou me."

"Psalm 119:151 Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth."

"Deuteronomy 6:17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee."

"Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

"2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

"Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:"

"John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments."

"1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."


Just a few more:

"Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

"Exodus 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

"John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

This last verse shows that you can't even truly love God as you should without having and keeping his commandments...

After addressing just a few of these wonderful verses individually, I realized I'd be typing the same thing over and over again, and decided to just address the rest of them together. Seth, I both HAVE and strive to KEEP God's commandments. I believe wholeheartedly that God has preserved His Word. WE AGREE ABOUT THIS! :smile I repeat: What evidence do these verses give that ALL of God's exact words, and ONLY His exact words will be preserved in one and only one volume/language/translation? I'm not sure you understand what I am asking. Who is to say that God has not preserved His commandments, along with the rest of scripture (testimonies, sure and true words, historical narrative, etc., etc.), in translations other than the KJV? I believe all of these verses, yet I do not view any translation as completely inerrant. But that doesn't mean I cannot know and follow God's commandments.

To clarify, I believe the KJV to be a faithful translation of the sure words of God. I believe that there are other faithful translations as well. By "faithful," I don't mean that they agree 100% on every word. (The KJV doesn't even do that internally--for example, when Christ and the apostles quote OT scripture--and the KJV has minor disagreements and contradictions within itself, as do other translations.) No translation is "perfect." There is no biblical evidence that we should look for a single volume/translation which is inerrant. Looks like I'm going to have to post that selection from the B/B book again...Do you know which one I'm talking about? No? :lol OK, you asked for it!

Some Godly friends...insist that divine preservation must extend to every word of our Bibles. They say that if we allow for any error of transmission or translation, the Scriptures cease to be trustworthy.

Their logic suggests that if we allow for any uncertainty, all certainty is lost...This kind of thinking sounds compelling. But it is misleading. The one-version-only argument is offset by the principle of inspired repetition...The Spirit of inspiration did not limit Himself to one statement about salvation by faith, the distinctions between law and grace" (ETC.).

Maybe I should ask you this: What commandment(s) of God would a non-KJVO-er not be able to know and keep? Can you name even one commandment of which a person like me (who studies from different translations, as well as from Greek and Hebrew) would be unaware? I honestly do not get your argument.

[Guest Guest]

Seth, I both HAVE and strive to KEEP God's commandments. I believe wholeheartedly that God has preserved His Word. WE AGREE ABOUT THIS!

No, you do not believe that God preserved his word, and no we do not agree. In reality you are attempting to redefine the meanings of preserved, pure, etc. Their actual meanings do not fit with your opinion of Gods word. It is almost as if you are saying that if all the parts to scripture "exist", even if they are scrambled among errors, it is pure and preserved. That is not the case, each of the sixty-six books must exist intact and free from taint in order to be pure and preserved. Each one of the sixty six individual books IS Gods PURE word, and each one exists in a perfect, pure, and preserved volume.

Just so the meanings of "preserved" and "pure" are clear I will post them here.

"Preserve
Pronunciation: pri-?z?rv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pre

[Annie]

[Guest Guest]

Seth, you have taken a great deal of pains to define the word preserve. My question for you is this: Is the word preserve ever used in connection with God's words in the KJV? The links below may help you with the answer..... What ramification, if any, do these findings have on the KJVO position? Apparently, we are dealing with a word which nowhere in scripture is used in connection with God's words.

Yes Annie, it is. At any rate even if it wasn't, you said that you believed that his word was preserved and I was showing that you did not really believe that.

"Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

God's words are pure because He is God...not because His words are unmixed with human words. God's words remain pure wherever they are found...on a gospel tract (mixed with words that are not directly inspired by Him), or scrawled in grafitti on a highway overpass next to whatever other ungodly material is there. The location of God's words do not affect the words themselves. They remain pure."

So is gold always pure gold even when it is unrefined and mixed with waste? No it is not. That is a poor argument. The examples you mention are not the same because the tract makes no claim to be Gods word etc. Gold is not pure until the whole lump is gold, and scripture is not pure unless it is ALL Gods word.

Again, you jump from "words"/"scripture" to "books.

That is because all scriptures are his words, and the bible is the collection of all the scriptures.