Inerrancy of Scripture - Bible believer or bible agnostic?

[zealyouthguy]

Annie,

This tack that you took on the issue of "preservation", is the typical line that people take who don't believe that God is capable to preserve His word for us. Actually it even goes further because it leaves the door open for further revelation and it rings of the beginning of a Mormon's argument. So I have to ask, does the book of Mormon "contain" God's word? Does the Gospel of Judah? The Maccabees? I mean, since you are making the argument that the Bible never says it will be preserved, then maybe what I am writing is inspired/preserved? OK, that was tongue-in-cheek, but if those verses that Seth quoted aren't talking about the Bible as we have it, then we have no Bible at all, because it's always one discovery away from being changed, negated, or over ruled by the latest greatest scripture.

So do you believe that the Book of Morman, the Koran, all the various "gospels", or the Apocrypha contain God's word?

A simple yes or no would be most helpful, followed by any expounding you would like to do.

[Annie]

Ah, but you forget that I am not claiming that any version/translation of the scriptures is ALL God's word and nothing but God's words (another subject/predicate noun disagreement)...so my analogy remains consistent. Let's take your analogy of gold. Gold is an element (Au). A gold atom retains its identity (Au = gold) even when mixed with other substances. The "mixture" is not "pure gold," but the atom is "pure gold." The Bible says that God's words are pure. God's words remain pure even when mixed in with things that are not God's words (like the graffiti, or the tract). The Bible never gives any indication that "a book" or "a collection" will contain all of God's pure words, and nothing but God's pure words. It just doesn't. It speaks only of His pure words.

[John the Baptist]

[Guest Guest]

Ah, but you forget that I am not claiming that any version/translation of the scriptures is ALL God's word and nothing but God's words (another subject/predicate noun disagreement)...so my analogy remains consistent. Let's take your analogy of gold. Gold is an element (Au). A gold atom retains its identity (Au = gold) even when mixed with other substances. The "mixture" is not "pure gold," but the atom is "pure gold." The Bible says that God's words are pure. God's words remain pure even when mixed in with things that are not God's words (like the graffiti, or the tract). The Bible never gives any indication that "a book" or "a collection" will contain all of God's pure words, and nothing but God's pure words. It just doesn't. It speaks only of His pure words.

LOL that seems to be grasping at straws, it also doesn't make biblical sense. As I said before, it has nothing to do with tracts which make no pretence of being Gods word, it has to do with passages right in scripture, part of Gods word. Lets look at the biblical principal of leaven. Leaven is nearly always a picture of sin, mans works, etc. in scripture.


"Exodus 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land."

"Exodus 34:25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning."

"Leviticus 2:11 No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire."

"Luke 13:20-21 And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

"1 Corinthians 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"

"1 Corinthians 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."


"Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

Yet is spite of the fact that God says that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, you believe that God has allowed all copies of his word to contain leaven. In essence you are saying that a loaf of bread containing leaven is really pure and unleavened and that the leaven "with" it doesn't change anything. That is not true, it changes everything. Would you have us believe that somehow we can start with a leavend loaf and still get the pure, unleavend word of God?

"Amos 4:5 And offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven, and proclaim and publish the free offerings: for this liketh you, O ye children of Israel, saith the Lord GOD."

You don't mean what you said, anyway...you mean "the King James Bible" is the collection of all the scriptures.

I mean exactly what I say. :Green I am not a ruckmanite, I do not believe the KJV is the only bible in all world, I do believe that it is the only bible currently available in english which is pure. There is a big difference. I believe the other currently available english versions contain leaven.

[Guest Guest]

These verses in Psalms were written before the KJV Bible came into existence.

Also This verse was written before the KJV Came into existence.

2Ti 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

What does this say about your theory of KJV being the "perfect Book of God?

It doesn't do anything to hurt it. :Green There was scripture around before the KJV, and there are scriptures in other languages contemporary with the KJV. They say the same thing, just in different languages. The KJV is merely the only accurate translation of the correct Greek and Hebrew texts in english(no I don't care to argue with you which texts are correct on this thread, I know where you stand from other threads and I believe you are wrong).

[trc123]

I have recently found some software called e-Sword on the Internet that is free.

I have to tell you, this is a HUGE blessing..........I've been able to have all the bits and pieces from about 15 different translations of the Scriptures in ONE PLACE!

There, problem solved! One complete Bible!

(Chinese Standard, Chinese Traditional, KJV 1611, KJV Red Letter, KJV Strong References, MKJV, NKJV, Darby, Vietnamese, NET, NLT, Greek, Hebrew, etc.)

Add Scofield, Barnes, Poole, and Henry's notes.......not a bad score...........

[Annie]

Annie,

This tack that you took on the issue of "preservation", is the typical line that people take who don't believe that God is capable to preserve His word for us. Actually it even goes further because it leaves the door open for further revelation and it rings of the beginning of a Mormon's argument. So I have to ask, does the book of Mormon "contain" God's word? Does the Gospel of Judah? The Maccabees? I mean, since you are making the argument that the Bible never says it will be preserved, then maybe what I am writing is inspired/preserved? OK, that was tongue-in-cheek, but if those verses that Seth quoted aren't talking about the Bible as we have it, then we have no Bible at all, because it's always one discovery away from being changed, negated, or over ruled by the latest greatest scripture.

So do you believe that the Book of Morman, the Koran, all the various "gospels", or the Apocrypha contain God's word?

A simple yes or no would be most helpful, followed by any expounding you would like to do.

I'll ask you a simple "yes or no" question in return: Does this post (as in my post right here) contain the word of God?*

For the record, I am not saying that "the Bible never says it will be preserved." I believe that God has preserved His words. I was simply asking Seth how many verses he could find that actually use the word "preserve" in connection with scripture. There is one verse that does so. How is it that we have "no Bible at all?" We have several different translations of the Bible, including 5500 manuscripts in Greek. I think you might misunderstand my position.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life.

*Zealyouthguy (love your name!), if you answered that my post does indeed contain the word of God, are you using the same reasoning as Mormons and Muslims?

[Guest Guest]

I have recently found some software called e-Sword on the Internet that is free.

I have to tell you, this is a HUGE blessing..........I've been able to have all the bits and pieces from about 15 different translations of the Scriptures in ONE PLACE!

There, problem solved! One complete Bible!

(Chinese Standard, Chinese Traditional, KJV 1611, KJV Red Letter, KJV Strong References, MKJV, NKJV, Darby, Vietnamese, NET, NLT, Greek, Hebrew, etc.)

Add Scofield, Barnes, Poole, and Henry's notes.......not a bad score...........

Danke, trc123. I will have to look at this e-Sword Internet site. :amen:

[zealyouthguy]

I'll ask you a simple "yes or no" question in return: Does this post (as in my post right here) contain the word of God?*

For the record, I am not saying that "the Bible never says it will be preserved." I believe that God has preserved His words. I was simply asking Seth how many verses he could find that actually use the word "preserve" in connection with scripture. There is one verse that does so. How is it that we have "no Bible at all?" We have several different translations of the Bible, including 5500 manuscripts in Greek. I think you might misunderstand my position.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life.

*Zealyouthguy (love your name!), if you answered that my post does indeed contain the word of God, are you using the same reasoning as Mormons and Muslims?

I am sorry, I missed your "yes" or your "no".

We aren't discussing if the Bible (or A bible) CONTAINS the word of God, we are discussing whether it IS the word of God.

I don't misunderstand your position, I am just extrapolating it to it's fullest conclusion.

If you believe that the "word of God" is contained in the bible, but can't be identified (and that's ultimately the claim of this argument) then you don't have the word of God because who could identify it or know it? If you believe the "word of God" is equally contained in a multitude of english versions, then you really don't believe in the "word of God", but the "mind of God" idea (BJU's position) which means that there is no "word of God" to know and that every translation EVERY SINGLE translation or manuscript is equally valid (unless of course they disagree and then YOU get to choose what the "mind of God" really meant. You already stated that you don't believe that the God ever says he will preserve his word in a complete volume anywhere and the fullest and best that I can figure out that would mean that we don't have a complete Bible, that God may reveal more of it to us. Unless of course you make an arbitrary and artificial line in the sand and say that God ended his revelation at THIS point... which means that God's revelation stopped at a very specific time and place. Of course the danger of that thought is that there is indeed a knowable, real WORD of God that has been revealed and not forgotten... so that brings us full circle.

By the way, the only way I could answer your post about "containing the word of God" as a "yes" is that I have the word of God and KNOW what it is without error... otherwise I would have to answer your post no... because... hey... there COULD be errors there.

[Guest Guest]

I am sorry, I missed your "yes" or your "no".

We aren't discussing if the Bible (or A bible) CONTAINS the word of God, we are discussing whether it IS the word of God.

I don't misunderstand your position, I am just extrapolating it to it's fullest conclusion.

If you believe that the "word of God" is contained in the bible, but can't be identified (and that's ultimately the claim of this argument) then you don't have the word of God because who could identify it or know it? If you believe the "word of God" is equally contained in a multitude of english versions, then you really don't believe in the "word of God", but the "mind of God" idea (BJU's position) which means that there is no "word of God" to know and that every translation EVERY SINGLE translation or manuscript is equally valid (unless of course they disagree and then YOU get to choose what the "mind of God" really meant. You already stated that you don't believe that the God ever says he will preserve his word in a complete volume anywhere and the fullest and best that I can figure out that would mean that we don't have a complete Bible, that God may reveal more of it to us. Unless of course you make an arbitrary and artificial line in the sand and say that God ended his revelation at THIS point... which means that God's revelation stopped at a very specific time and place. Of course the danger of that thought is that there is indeed a knowable, real WORD of God that has been revealed and not forgotten... so that brings us full circle.

By the way, the only way I could answer your post about "containing the word of God" as a "yes" is that I have the word of God and KNOW what it is without error... otherwise I would have to answer your post no... because... hey... there COULD be errors there.

Brother, zealyouthguy. If this doesn't make "perfect" sense....then?? :puzzled:

[JerryNumbers]

Danke, trc123. I will have to look at this e-Sword Internet site.

:hijack: Sorry!

http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html

Its good, I use it, but I don't use those junkey translations which are not God's true preserved Word. I use the old KJ. :thumb

Oh, the very center verse in the Bible.

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the Lord: then to put confidence in man.

And to think, many will not trust the KJ Bible, but pick and chose what they believe out of each and ever version and therefore become their very own god.

[Annie]

I am sorry' date=' I missed your "yes" or your "no".[/quote']

Since I have never studied any of the books you have mentioned, I would have to answer, "I don't know." My parents (who used to belong to the RLDS cult) have told me that the Book of Mormon in particular extensively quotes the King James Version of the Bible. So, assuming this is true, would you say that it contains the word of God?



This is not my position. I have never said that the word of God cannot be identified as such (at least not to my knowledge). That's certainly not what I believe.



I don't, and neither does BJU. (I know because I went there.)



Do you believe that God has ever said He will preserve all of His words, and only His words, in one and only one language and/or volume? If so, when/where has He said this?



Where is "a complete Bible" (as in, only one perfect collection of writings) promised in scripture?



I do not understand your terminology. I think we all agree that God ended his revelation (inspiration) with the writings of the apostles. What am I missing?



You answered correctly. I would have answered exactly the same as you did, even though I'm not KJVO. My answer would not be based on the fact that I believe the KJV is an inerrant translation.

[Annie]

How is it grasping at straws, when the KJV translators themselves acknowledged what they did about their translation work? (I won't quote it here, but you know what they said, I believe.) They never claimed that the Bible they had translated was "without error." The reason it is not grasping at straws is that I take God at His word, and don't add my own ideas to it. If the Bible says that "all of God's words are pure words," I don't somehow come to the conclusion that it is talking about a single collection of writings which contain all of those words, and only those words. "Pure" is an adjective describing "words," not "a book."



Here again you make a leap in logic. None of these passages is remotely referring to God's words. You are taking huge liberties with what these unconnected verses are saying. I have no problem understanding the symbolism of leaven in the Bible, when correctly interpreted. Yes, leaven is used in various places as a picture of sin. But there is absolutely no connection in the Bible between the ideas expressed here and the doctrine of preservation. The idea of leaven is, to my knowledge, never used in connection with God's words at all. So, it is a non sequitur to apply "leaven" to "preservation."

My husband once heard a sermon entitled "You Never Know What's in Your Basket." The text? Paul being let down by night in a basket outside the city wall. The main points were something like, "You never know what's in your basket of soulwinning." "You never know what's in your basket of church work." "You never know what's in your basket of tithing." ETC. OK...Yeah, the person who helped Paul to escape probably did not know the impact that action would have in history...but what is the connection between that (not knowing who Paul was) and tithing, soulwinning, and church work? Talk about taking things way out of context and ending up in left field as a result! That's what happens when we do not rightly divide the word of truth...We can make the Bible say anything we want it to say. That's what is going on here with the leaven idea.

[Bro Ed]

I make this reply to a statement that Annie made:

I apologize if I don't know yet how to pull quotes and do all the other cool stuff you guys do in these post. But anyway, Annie, You made the statement that James declares that salvation is by works. I don't know if any one else caught it, but I did, and I hope that it was a misstatement. James does not teach that salvation is by works. He teaches that faith is manifest by works. Two totally different concepts. "Faith without works", is simply saying that your faith in Christ will have a tangible evidence as seen by good works (James 2). Jesus said basically the same thing when he said "They will know you by your works." Salvation is ONLY thru Faith in Christ. (Eph 2:8+9). This is a fundamental issue of doctrine. If salvation were by works. Christianity would be a religion like any other. But as you know, we who are saved by faith have a relationship with the Lord, and not a religion of works.

Thank you and God bless,

[Annie]

I make this reply to a statement that Annie made:

I apologize if I don't know yet how to pull quotes and do all the other cool stuff you guys do in these post. But anyway, Annie, You made the statement that James declares that salvation is by works. I don't know if any one else caught it, but I did, and I hope that it was a misstatement. James does not teach that salvation is by works. He teaches that faith is manifest by works. Two totally different concepts. "Faith without works", is simply saying that your faith in Christ will have a tangible evidence as seen by good works (James 2). Jesus said basically the same thing when he said "They will know you by your works." Salvation is ONLY thru Faith in Christ. (Eph 2:8+9). This is a fundamental issue of doctrine. If salvation were by works. Christianity would be a religion like any other. But as you know, we who are saved by faith have a relationship with the Lord, and not a religion of works.

Thank you and God bless,

Ed, I agree 100% that James is not teaching "salvation by works." If you look back at what I was saying, I think you'll understand. My reference to James' writing was in the context of how we interpret verses/passages that on the surface seem to contradict doctrine that is clearly expressed many other places in the Bible. James 2:24 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about: "Ye see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

Thank you for being concerned enough to speak up for sound doctrine!