Inerrancy of Scripture - Bible believer or bible agnostic?

[Pastorj]

Unfortunately there is no Scriptural basis that translators are inspired when they do their translating. Matter of fact, Scripture speaks clearly to the fact that Inspiration was complete when Revelation was written. God is no longer inspiriring, he is now preserving. Praise the Lord, we have a preserved translation. However, the KJV is out of date and is in need of an upgrade. If this were done by Godly men and a faithful translation to the TR/Masoretic texts, we could hold that up and say we have the Inspired Word of God. The problem with the modern translations is that they come from corrupted greek manuscripts.

I don't believe we will have a modern translation to replace the KJV in my lifetime. The reason is that those who have the ability to do it, will not because of the KJV debate. Those who are making modern translations are of a liberal mindset and use the critical text.

[Jerry]

Jerry, I'm sorry but simple grammar disagrees with you. You're taking the Bible and interpreting it based on your beliefs. Would you agree that inspiration means inspiration? Then let's look at the book of Job, and the word "inspiration" there.

"But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding."

If inspiration means inspiration, then obviously this verse means the same thing as 2 Timothy 3:15. Yes, the context is Scripture. But contrary to what you say, the verse specifically says that the scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and when you compare that scripture with scripture, the inspiration that is being spoken of is the same that is being spoken of in Job, which is not speaking of words or writings in any way.

Context is of utmost importance in Bible study. Both passages use the same word, but the contexts are different. If I write a letter to a friend, telling him that I was running to catch the bus, and in another part of the letter stated that my fridge was running, if you put both words together and arrived at the conclusion that my fridge took the occasional jog down the street, you would be ripping those phrases out of context, and would be proven wrong in your definition of running in the second context. This is what you are doing here with that Bible word. The contexts are not the same, and the word is not referring to the same thing in both instances.

[Jerry]

I used that because Jerry accepts other versions

Bad choice of wording on your part. I support other sound TR-based translations, not other versions.

[futurehope]

I agree. It's not the men that are perfect - it's the Word. As to your last statements, I don't necessarily encourage this, but as long as the approach is made knowing the the KJB is the final authority, I'm not completely against it.

[Pastorj]

I agree Jerry. That is the problem with Ruckmanism. They don't even use the English properly, never mind actually looking back at the Greek/Hebrew.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry if I did misunderstand!!! But your premise that translations into other languages aren't on the same level as the KJB (if translated from the TR) and are not God's Word but acceptable as such is still wrong.

I don't see why not. God has always chosen one language in which to preserve His word to the world, so why would He change now? Hebrew, Greek, and now English. It's really not all that hard to believe.

However' date=' the KJV is out of date and is in need of an upgrade.[/quote']

Seems a rather brash statement to me. What about the KJB is so bad that it needs to be changed? Also, what's used so incorrectly about the English? Last time I read anything from Dr. Ruckman, he had almost impeccable English, though he's sometimes rather rough in the way he comes across.

Jerry, you're making a straw-man argument here. The problem with your approximation is that the passage in 2 Timothy is stating the mode of production of the scriptures, not defining them. Again, the verse says "is given by inspiration," not "is inspired" or "has been inspired." The way you interpret that passage is wrong, scripturally and grammatically.

[Pastorj]

KJB,

The KJV English is 400 years and from another Country. A number of the words have changed their meanings. A 1800's Webster dictionary is necessary to understand the English Words.

An update is needed. As stated though, it will never happen in our lifetime. The MV's are nothing more than perversions of Scripture.

[HappyChristian]

*sigh*

[Guest Guest]

KJB,

The KJV English is 400 years and from another Country. A number of the words have changed their meanings. A 1800's Webster dictionary is necessary to understand the English Words.

An update is needed. As stated though, it will never happen in our lifetime. The MV's are nothing more than perversions of Scripture.

Well, from my experience, there are only a couple dozen words that only appear once in the KJB that aren't understandable when taken in context or studied throughout the Bible. I've grown up on the King James Bible, and I have two sisters-in-law, ages 10 and 12, that memorize the KJB and can understand it very well. I don't see any need to "update" the Bible just because English has become corrupt. It seems like people just don't want to study, and so want other people to give them something "easier to understand."

[Pastorj]

There are many more words than a couple dozen. I agree that study is necessary to understand the Bible and we should do it. A pastor recently said to me, the problem with the KJV is that you have to retranslate it into modern English, which is very true. Most pastors go through a passage and then have to explain to the people what it is saying, because the grammar structure is not the same structure we use in 2008.

[Guest Guest]

My husband has told me that an understanding of King James English is very helpful in understanding other languages, including Spanish and the small amount of Greek that he studied. I just don't think that changing the thing that God used for 400 years to evangelize the world just because our language is corrupt is a good idea.

[trc123]

It seems like people just don't want to study' date=' and so want other people to give them something "easier to understand."[/quote']

Princess,

While you are admittedly very comfortable with the KJV, you've had the blessings of being in an environment from your youth that fostered your knowledge of the "King's English."

Quite frankly, I'm very comfortable with the KJV as I've studied it for almost 30 years (been saved that long) in Bible college and on my own. I'm not really all that concerned about the understandability of the KJV for me, but rather for an entire generation of lost souls that are now 400 years after the translation.

I can't help be reminded of why the KJV was commissioned by the king. So that there would be a reliable faithful translation in the language of the common man of the day, and thus they would no longer have to try to learn Latin and rely on the corrupt church of the day. Sometimes I wonder if that is were we are today..........

[Guest Guest]

I believe that if God wanted an "up to date" version, then He would have provided it before the Laodecian age of apostasy. In fact, the KJB is written on a 6th grade level and in what is etymologically known as Modern English. With a built-in dictionary and reference system, why "update" it? There's no possible way that men could reproduce the same today; it had to be done under the Hand of God Himself.

[futurehope]

Great posting trc


:amen:

[Guest Guest]

My husband has told me that an understanding of King James English is very helpful in understanding other languages' date=' including Spanish and the small amount of Greek that he studied. I just don't think that changing the thing that God used for 400 years to evangelize the world just because our language is corrupt is a good idea.[/quote']


I have been told this as well. :thumb It didn't come from Pete, either.

Pastorj---with all due respect, Ruckman has wonderful English, but his "rough humor" is tough on some people (usually those brought up in Christian homes.) Therefore, the words he uses, aside from the KJB---might be offensive to people. It works for some, and other people get offended---is how I see it. Keep in mind he was born and raised in the RCC. He was saved at the age of 27, after living through some very difficult (to say the least) kind of times. I admire someone like this, personally. The man knows his stuff! I like to call it "heavy conviction." It is hard to explain to someone who has been born into a Christian home--- but "rescued" RCC people can really get going, mainly because of lost ones still trapped in the vicious lie of the RCC. It is the "cult of cults." We were held on a leash for so long in the RCC. When an RCC person gets saved---most of the time, it is like "fireworks." As you know---the IFB is a "hodgepodge" of people from different religions. That is what I LOVE about the Lord's church. Thank the Lord for "true" Christianity. The church that holds true to God's Holy word. :smile Anyone can argue about men of God all day long, but what good does it do any of us?

BTW, Everyone---be happy you are a born-again believer on your way to Heaven. Not, everyone is as blessed as us. :wave: