Inerrancy of Scripture - Bible believer or bible agnostic?

[Guest Guest]

Jerry,

I believe and agree with that, "The words, as original given, are inspired of God - and they never lost that inspiration; therefore any faithful translations or copies of those same manuscripts are inspired as well." .....verbal, plenary inspiration of the Word of God.

I did not mean to infer (although when I read it back to myself I can understand how it was written in a confusing way) that I believe the men themselves were inspired.

My question is still to KJB_princess......Are you putting forth that you believe that the translators were moved upon by the Holy Spirit of God in the same manner as the men that God used to pen the original Scriptures?

I don't see any good reason NOT to believe it happened that way.

[trc123]

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

TRC

[Guest Guest]

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

TRC

You're welcome. :smile

I know most people on here will disagree with me, but I don't mind. I'm quite used to it. :cool

[Pastorj]

Thank you KJB Princess for clarifying that. I don't usually read posts of that length. I still don't completely agree with the 5 views of innerancy.

Only the original documents can be considered "Inspired". God then promised to faithfully and perfectly preserve God's Word.

It is based on the doctrine of preservation that we can hold up our KJV and say we have the inspired Word of God. It is based on the doctrine of preservation that spaniards can hold up their Spanish Bible and say they have the inspired Word of God. You can say that about any language because God preserved His Word. God is no longer in the business of inspiring translations. He finished that when John finished the Book of Revelation.

[futurehope]

I certainly hope that the intent is being interpreted right here. trc123 Don't you believe that God was still fully capable of inspiring men to take on the incredible task of translating His word then, just as he inspires missionaries around the world today to translate It in tribal and other unreached areas?

[Annie]

Hmmm...Should I? Or shouldn't I?

I probably shouldn't...but then, I might. :saint

But then, where would I start? The possibilities seem endless.

[Jerry]

I certainly hope that the intent is being interpreted right here. trc123 Don't you believe that God was still fully capable of inspiring men to take on the incredible task of translating His word then' date=' just as he inspires missionaries around the world today to translate It in tribal and other unreached areas?[/quote']

Giving someone wisdom is not the same thing as inspiring them.

2 Peter 1:21 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.

The Holy Spirit moved the writers of the Bible to write the words He wanted them to write - it does not say He inspired them.

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

Scripture means "writings" - God inspired the writings, the words, not the writers; therefore those words are still inspired, regardless of whether they are copied or translated into another language.

[Guest Guest]

The Bible does not teach that God inspired any writers or translators. He inspired the words. My KJV is the Word of God' date=' the Scriptures, therefore they are inspired as much as the originals. His Word says, "ALL Scripture (not just ALL the originals) IS (not WAS) given by inspiration of God." The words, as original given, are inspired of God - and they never lost that inspiration; therefore any faithful translations or copies of those same manuscripts are inspired as well.[/quote']

Well said, Jerry. :thumb

[Guest Guest]

It is based on the doctrine of preservation that we can hold up our KJV and say we have the inspired Word of God. It is based on the doctrine of preservation that spaniards can hold up their Spanish Bible and say they have the inspired Word of God. You can say that about any language because God preserved His Word. God is no longer in the business of inspiring translations. He finished that when John finished the Book of Revelation.

Pastorj. :wave:

[Guest Guest]

Hmmm...Should I? Or shouldn't I?

I probably shouldn't...but then, I might.

But then, where would I start? The possibilities seem endless.

Rut-roh. Should we get prepared? :lol:

[Pastorj]

Don't bother Annie, this is another one of those topics that has no hope of changing minds.

[Annie]

Rut-roh. Should we get prepared?

No, not yet, anyway. I'm much too busy right now to get involved in another discussion. Maybe later...I do think that Jerry, Pastorj, and some others on here are doing a good job addressing some of the holes in Mr. Kinney's logic. And there are plenty of them! He assumes a lot, and tends to define his opponents' positions in a way that they themselves would not define them, making all reasonable interaction impossible. In addition, one has only to look at the verbage he uses ("goofy," "silly,"), as well as his sweeping generalizations ("you don't believe the Bible;" "see what I mean? I doubt it") to know that this piece is not to be taken seriously. Condescension and broad-brush assumptions/accusations never help one's cause; in fact, they have the opposite effect. Monologues are different than honest, interactive debates. Pastorj is right that Mr. Kinney's mind is made up; one reason for my getting involved in discussions like this one is to encourage the thousands of other people who read these posts (if the numbers are right) to recognize questionable debate techniques when they see them, and to think for themselves on this issue. If they arrive at the same conclusions as Mr. Kinney(KJVO), then at least they might be able to do it in a reasonable manner.

[Guest Guest]

Don't bother Annie' date=' this is another one of those topics that has no hope of changing minds.[/quote']


I completely agree. :thumb This thing could go "round and round" for a very long time. Mental exhaustion would surely set in---on all sides.

I was just joking with, Annie. :smile

[Guest Guest]

In addition' date=' one has only to look at the verbage he uses ("goofy," "silly,"), as well as his sweeping generalizations ("you don't believe the Bible;" "see what I mean? I doubt it") to know that this piece is not to be taken seriously. Condescension and broad-brush assumptions/accusations never help one's cause; in fact, they have opposite effect. [/quote']

That is what I love about some preachers. I am going to say a word now---get ready, "Ruckman." :lol I guess I am more gravitated towards preaching of this sort. Sometimes I miss my old IFB church for this reason. :smile When you sit under a huge lie and "nauseating" boredom for years in the RCC---this humor is enlightening. My dad and my uncle would have made great Baptists---Ruckman would have been their man (I know it.) :wave:

[brandplucked]

I'm much too busy right now to get involved in another discussion. Maybe later...I do think that Jerry' date=' Pastorj, and some others on here are doing a good job addressing some of the holes in Mr. Kinney's logic. And there are plenty of them! He assumes a lot, and tends to define his opponents' position in a way that they themselves would not define it, making all reasonable interaction impossible. In addition, one has only to look at the verbage he uses ("goofy," "silly,"), as well as his sweeping generalizations ("you don't believe the Bible;" "see what I mean? I doubt it") to know that this piece is not to be taken seriously. Condescension and broad-brush assumptions/accusations never help one's cause; in fact, they have opposite effect. Monologues are different than honest, interactive debates. Pastorj is right that Mr. Kinney's mind is made up; one reason for my getting involved in discussions like this one is to encourage the thousands of other people who read these posts (if the numbers are right) to recognize questionable debate techniques when they see them, and to think for themselves on this issue. If they arrive at the same conclusions as Mr. Kinney(KJVO), then at least they might be able to do it in a reasonable manner.[/quote']

Hi Annie. And what exactly is the problem with my logic in this article? Do you personally believe there exists a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language out there in Bibleland? If so, where can we get a copy of it so we can compare it to our King James Bible?

If you do not believe in an inerrant Bible, then why not just come clean and admit it?

I believe the King James Bible alone is the only pure Bible on earth today. As for foreign languages, I have already addressed this. If you have a problem with my 'logic', then please point it out for me. If I am wrong, I would hope that I would have the humility to admit it and make the appropriate corrections. Thank you.


If the King James Bible in English is the perfect words of God, then What About Other Languages?

I am frequently asked this question by other Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any bible is now the inerrant words of God.

I finally decided to put a concise answer together to respond to this common question. Here it is.

Hi brother and sister......, this is a good question but not at all hard to answer if you think about it. God never promised to give every nation or every individual a perfect Bible. It certainly never turned out this way in history, did it?

In fact, for the first 3000 to 4000 years of recorded history, there was only one nation on earth that had the true words of God. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.

Now that the gospel is going out to the nations, the only promise from God we have is that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 24:14

The gospel of salvation through the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible in any language it has been translated into, no matter how poorly or partially done it may be. God can and does use other bible versions, partial translations, or just simple gospel tracts to bring His people to faith in Christ. I do not deny but strongly affirm this to be true.

But that does not make these other partial translations, bible tracts or versions the perfect words of God. There has to be at least one perfect Bible in this world that serves as the Final Authority and Standard by which all others are measured.

It certainly does not exist in the Hebrew or the Greek. There is no "the Hebrew" and much less is there "the" Greek. Besides, once a complete Bible is put together, there has to be a translation of some kind in order to put both the Old and New Testaments into one language. Since God has promised to preserve His WORDS (not just the general, ballpark approximation) in the book of the LORD, this book must exist somewhere.

All the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that book for the last almost 400 years. It was the KJB that was used by English and American missionaries to carry to gospel to the nations in the greatest missionary movement in history. It was the KJB that was carried out into space and read from.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude. In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened.

Today it is only the King James Bible believer who boldly maintains that there really is an inerrant, complete and 100% true Holy Bible on this earth that a person can actually hold it in his hands and read and believe every word. All modern version proponents deny that any tangible, ?hold it in your hands and read Bible? IS now the inerrant words of God.

God only holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. To whom much is given, from him shall much be required - "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48. God has given to the English speaking people His perfect words in the King James Bible. We will be held far more accountable for what we have done with this Book than any other people.

To the degree that foreign language bible versions follow the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, and to the degree that their individual translations match those found in the King James Bible, to that degree they can be considered to be the true words of God. To the degree that they depart from both the texts and meanings found in the KJB, to that degree they are corrupt and inferiour.

I do not believe that every foreigner in non-English speaking countries needs to learn the English language and read the King James Bible. Salvation through faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not only found the King James Bible. If there are several different versions in their own native language (Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, or whatever), then I would recommend they use the one that most closely follows the same Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. If they only have a translation based on the ever changing, modern Critical Texts, then they should thank God for what they do have and use it.

Regarding the question of ?Well, what about before 1611?? please see my article here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

As for: ?Can a Translation be inspired?? please see:

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

This is how I see it and what I believe. Not a difficult question at all.

In contrast to the KJB believer's views, the multiple choice, contradictory meanings, and "different, omitted, added, or made up underlying texts" proponent has no Final Written Authority or Standard by which all others are to be judged, and he has no inspired, inerrant and 100% true Bible to give or recommend to anyone.

By His grace, accepted in the Beloved,

Will Kinney