Textual/version stance

[speerjp1]

Any time in the Bible and in history that there was a famine of the Word of God, it was man's fault, not Gods.

If a group of people had limited or no access to God's word, it was because they did not want it or had abandoned it (normally the latter)-- not because God didn't preserve it.

[JerryNumbers]

Well, I thought it over earlier today...I thought that God may have wanted me to have the NKJV for OB. :lol I dunno? I did order the KJVO, but somehow the order got mixed up. Again, I don't believe in coincidences or accidents...in this respect. I really just wanted a second opinion.

My sister has gone to theology school through the RCC. I thought that these books might open her eyes up a bit to the "truth". She is asking questions, as is my oldest brother. My 2nd oldest brother always brings Baptists vs. Catholics into a discussion. He opens the door for me to witness to him. :smile My mother is in a Brethren nursing care facility in Wooster, OH. They also have Catholic Mass once a month. One of the pastors is a Baptist. He isn't IFB, though. She is getting quite an education.

Thanks, Annie. :thumb

Maybe the old devil has something to do with the mix up. i would not give no one a copy of no Bible except for the KJ.

I might add, I tried to reply to post on this topic last night, but I could not get OB to load, in this browse nor in MY IE7 browser. Today I have not been on much, I've been doing my Sunday sermon and not had time for deep thought for this topic. Now I've got to get to bed shortly.

[Guest Guest]

Maybe the old devil has something to do with the mix up. i would not give no one a copy of no Bible except for the KJ.

Thanks Jerry#'s for your wisdom. I value your opinion very much. :thumb In fact, OB has been the biggest blessing in my life in 2008.

I opened it w/o realizing that it was a NKJV. My hubby said I might be able to return it for the KJVO. How to you feel about the Tim LayHaye books? I am talking about my devout RCC younger sister. She loves picture books as well. :smile I just want to "try" to break her out of the bondage she is in. It is heart wrenching. My whole "first" family situation is like this. My older brother is asking questions about our IFB church, though. He attended a fellowship in January before his car accident. A month ago he went to an AM service at our IFB church. He loved it. My hubby wants to keep the matter in prayer b/c he believes in "baby steps" like his mom. I am the assertive one. LOL. God bless you and your wife, Jerry#'s.

[John81]

Any time in the Bible and in history that there was a famine of the Word of God, it was man's fault, not Gods.

If a group of people had limited or no access to God's word, it was because they did not want it or had abandoned it (normally the latter)-- not because God didn't preserve it.

I read something on this subject earlier this month that pointed out that exact fact.

[Guest Guest]

Right...So Jesus is not talking about "all" of the "words" (or "every word") that God has spoken. Let's look at what Jesus is saying, by examining the Scripture Jesus was quoting: Deuteronomy 8:1-3:
"All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers. And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years...And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." The object was manna. What was the lesson?

But you miss the point, while every word spoken by God is not contained in scripture, all scripture did indeed proceed out of the mouth of God. BTW Christ was the manna, and he is the Word as well, the two are closely connected....

Broken, BTW, has other meanings. I don't understand where your use of the term comes from (in Scripture). Where does Christ say that Scripture "cannot be broken"? It would be interesting to note the context of His statement.

"John 10:30-38 I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."

Christ was quoting this verse:

"Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

This was an inconvenient verse for the Jews, they didn't understand it, so Christ reminded them that the scripture could not be broken(ie. contain errors). This is exactly the same situation we are dealing with now, you don't understand a particular passage, so rather than having faith in God you are assuming there is an error. The scripture cannot be broken.

I've seen you use the word corrupt a few times now. I've meant to ask you what you mean by it, but have forgotten. So, I'll ask you now. IYO, does it mean the same thing as broken (as in, the Scripture cannot be broken)?

Yes.

Are you talking about men like Erasmus, the Roman Catholic?

No, I am speaking of Westcott and Hort. I would be the first to admit Erasmus had doctrinal errors, for example he defended the "perpetual virginity" of Mary, defended the Eucharist, couldn't bring himself to actually leave the catholic church, etc. However, he was by no means a ordinary catholic doctrinally speaking.


For example, he said:

"Christ Jesus?is the true light, alone shattering the night of earthly folly, the Splendor of paternal glory, who as he was made redemption and justification for us reborn in him, so also was made Wisdom (as Paul testifies?We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Gentiles foolishness; but to them that are called, both Jew and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.' "

"I believe there are many not absolved by the priest, not having taken the Eucharist, not having been anointed, not having received Christian burial, who rest in peace. While many who have had all the rites of the Church and have been buried next to the altar, have gone to hell . . . "

"Luther was guilty of two great crimes - he struck the Pope in his crown, and the monks in their belly." (this was said very tongue in cheek BTW)

"The first point of Christianity is to know what Christ hath taught. The next is to do there after and to fulfill it as nigh as God giveth us grace."

He also spoke against the worship of saints, encouraged that the bible be translated into the common language of the people, argued against martin luther that salvation was free will, not predestination, etc. He was rather against a great deal catholicism stands for...

On the other hand, Westcott & hort, the writers of the greek text the MV's are based on, said:

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise."(Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

Denied the deity of Christ:

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

Did not believe in a literal Genesis account:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."(Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191)."

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."(Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

Were very close to believing in Mary worship:

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness."(Westcott, Ibid. )

"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

Didn't believe in a literal torment in hell:

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78)."

"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149)."


There are literally hundreds more highly heretical statements made by this pair of false teachers...

Could you explain the inclusion of this text at this point of the discussion? I'm not making any connections here...Might be that it's too late at night!

The point of those verses was to show God always maintains a remnant.

[Annie]

[quote="Seth Doty"][quote]Right...So Jesus is not talking about "all" of the "words" (or "every word") that God has spoken. Let's look at what Jesus is saying, by examining the Scripture Jesus was quoting: Deuteronomy 8:1-3:
"All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers. And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years...And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." The object was manna. What was the lesson?[/quote]

But you miss the point, while every word spoken by God is not contained in scripture, all scripture did indeed proceed out of the mouth of God. BTW Christ was the manna, and he is the Word as well, the two are closely connected....[/quote]

Seth, maybe I should just copy and paste our discussion about the "Word" from the other thread, so we don't have to go through it again. :wink Suffice it to say that I do not agree with your terms.

[quote]This was an inconvenient verse for the Jews, they didn't understand it, so Christ reminded them that the scripture [i]could not be broken(ie. contain errors[/i]). [/quote]

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

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 [i]every word [/i]of the OT Scripture as rendered in the KJV, even though he clearly was, as you say, [i]quoting [/i]that Scripture: "I said, Ye are gods." You'll note that He left out the [i]have[/i] that was in the original passage...and that's right in the same sentence as "scripture cannot be broken." So, in the immortal words of Inigo Mantoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. :wink )

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 [i]break [/i]my word (my word will not be [i]broken[/i]), 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 [i]broken [/i]than what you have suggested.

[quote]This is exactly the same situation we are dealing with now, you don't understand a particular passage, so rather than having faith in God you are assuming there is an error.[/quote]

Seth, wouldn't you agree that true faith is based on what God has said, not what we have imagined? Where has God said that all Scripture--all of God's words--will be gathered all together in one book, and only in that book? Where has God named a [i]certain collection of writings[/i], calling that collection and only that collection of writings [i]infallible[/i]? The fact of the matter is that He hasn't.

[quote]
No, I am speaking of Westcott and Hort. I would be the first to admit Erasmus had doctrinal errors, for example he defended the "perpetual virginity" of Mary, defended the Eucharist, couldn't bring himself to actually leave the catholic church, etc. However, he was by no means a ordinary catholic doctrinally speaking.[/quote]

Yes, I knew you were talking about W and H. So, Erasmus was wrong, but W and H were "more wrong?" If you applied the same standard to evaluating men that you do Scripture (one error = "corruption"), none of these men would be worthy of translating God's Word. The fact of the matter is that all men are fallible...All men believe incorrectly about something. All men have their prejudices. So, to play the "who is worse" card here is unfair and irrelevant. As KJB_Princess said earlier, God has used all kinds of men throughout history to accomplish his purposes. (I do appreciate your documentation; thanks!)

[quote]The point of those verses was to show God always maintains a remnant.[/quote]

Here are the verses you mentioned:
Romans 11:2-5 "God hath not cast away [b]his people which he foreknew[/b]. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself [b]seven thousand men[/b], who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then [b]at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace[/b]."

I'm still in the dark as to what this has to do with the preservation of Scripture. It is speaking of people, not Scripture. :puzzled:

It is also interesting to note that the "answer of God" in Romans 11:2-5 does not match the "answer of God" in I Kings word for word. I Kings 19:18: "Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal." Did Paul "break Scripture" by claiming that God answered in different words than we read in I Kings? What were God's exact words? How can we know? Were they what I Kings says, or what Paul says in Romans? They can't be both. See how silly this inordinate focus on "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" can get?

[Guest Guest]

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

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?

Sighs... I have said before that individual copies can be corrupted, I have also said that God will keep his Word preserved just like he said he would. I don't know how it can be any clearer than that.

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?"

You are trying to make "the scripture cannot be broken" into a question rather than a statement. It is a statement not a question.

(It is interesting--and detrimental to your position--to note that Christ did not use every word of the OT Scripture, 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's right in the same sentence as "scripture cannot be broken."

Look up the meaning of the words if you like. "said" in John 10:34 is in definite past tense. Which means what? Have said right? "Have" was added to the OT passage by the KJV translators for passage clarity anyway, that is why it is in italics. Languages don't translate smoothly without things like that...

Seth, wouldn't you agree that true faith is based on what God has said, not what we have imagined? Where has God said that all Scripture--all of God's words--will be gathered all together in one book, and only in that book? Where has God named a certain collection of writings, calling that collection and only that collection of writings infallible? The fact of the matter is that He hasn't.

The issue isn't that all of God's Word must be in one book, for years each book was separate from the others, we quote verses not the whole bible at once, the NT is often printed by itself without the OT, that isn't the issue at all. The issue is you are rejecting scriptures as perfect. Do you believe the book of 2 Samuel is Scripture or not?

It is written:

John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

"John 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

"John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."


The bible clearly establishes that scripture will not pass out of a perfect, preserved state. You believe that we cannot know what the Word of God is. You are wrong. Your belief is in many ways just like what an agnostic believes, an agnostic does not say that there is no God, he just says we can't know for sure. You say that God has preserved his scripture, we just can't know for sure what is scripture and what isn't.

As for me, I know that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. By the Word of the Lord: I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

If you believed on God for salvation based on scripture, and yet believe that the scripture contains errors, your being illogical... You simply can't know the truth... Where there is one error you cannot say there is no more, nor can you say where the errors end... If you would be consistent you would be stuck in the position of the agnostic...

God has either preserved his Word for us or he hasn't, and if he hasn't it is a waste of time to read the bible because you can't know for sure where the work of God ends and the work of man begins.


"James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

[speerjp1]

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

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?

Texts, versions, translations, and copies can all be broken/corrupted. God's word cannot. :thumb

[JerryNumbers]

Thanks Jerry#'s for your wisdom. I value your opinion very much. :thumb In fact, OB has been the biggest blessing in my life in 2008.

I opened it w/o realizing that it was a NKJV. My hubby said I might be able to return it for the KJVO. How to you feel about the Tim LayHaye books? I am talking about my devout RCC younger sister. She loves picture books as well. :smile I just want to "try" to break her out of the bondage she is in. It is heart wrenching. My whole "first" family situation is like this. My older brother is asking questions about our IFB church, though. He attended a fellowship in January before his car accident. A month ago he went to an AM service at our IFB church. He loved it. My hubby wants to keep the matter in prayer b/c he believes in "baby steps" like his mom. I am the assertive one. LOL. God bless you and your wife, Jerry#'s.

I read the 1st 2 or 3 of his books in that Left Behind series, someone passed them on to me when they were 1st coming out.

As for Bible doctrine, no. But they are much better fiction reading than other fiction books many Christians read.

[Guest Guest]

My pastor had talked last year about how the "Left Behind" series flopped. I don't know if I would say that, though, because as a former RCC the series (books and movies) did get people thinking about the end times. IMO, at least that was accomplished.

I thought it might stear my little sister away from the false RCC dogma, and give her "somewhat" of an idea about the truth. I know it is a stretch, but a devout RCC needs a little nudge in the right direction, IMO.

Many of them watch Joel Olsteen and read his books :roll I thought this might be a tad better because they get nothing in the RCC that is remotely close to the KJV. :ideas:

[Annie]

Sighs... I have said before that individual copies can be corrupted, I have also said that God will keep his Word preserved just like he said he would. I don't know how it can be any clearer than that.

So...Scripture can be broken? Or Scripture cannot be broken, according to your definition of the term?

You are trying to make "the scripture cannot be broken" into a question rather than a statement. It is a statement not a question.

It is not a statement; neither is it a question. It is part of the dependent clause introduced by the word if. It is in the "if" part of an "if/then" query based on logical reasoning. IF (or SINCE) the scripture in Psalms calls people gods, and scripture cannot be broken, (THEN) why are you accusing me of blasphemy? I understand that the Elizabethan English gives us a run for our money grammatically, but that's what it is saying. Ask any English teacher.

Look up the meaning of the words if you like. "said" in John 10:34 is in definite past tense. Which means what? Have said right? :loll:

"Said" is past tense. "Have said" is present perfect tense. Jesus is quoting the Scripture, but leaving out a word. He says, "Is it not written in your law? I said..." The problem is that that is NOT exactly what was written in their law. What is written in their law, according to the KJV, is, "I have said..." The reason this is important is that it proves that "Scripture not being broken" doesn't mean what you said it does. Otherwise, you'd have to accuse Jesus Himself of breaking the Scripture that He said cannot be broken.

The issue isn't that all of God's Word must be in one book, for years each book was separate from the others, we quote verses not the whole bible at once, the NT is often printed by itself without the OT, that isn't the issue at all. The issue is you are rejecting scriptures as perfect. Do you believe the book of 2 Samuel is Scripture or not?

If the issue isn't that all of God's Word must be in one book (by "one book" I mean "one version), then why do you insist that it is all in one book? On what biblical basis do you insist that it is? Why are things any different today than they were when all those men a few hundred years ago were sorting through various texts and manuscripts (none of which agreed completely) to determine what the Word of God was? Why MUST God's words be preserved in only one book? You say that's not the issue...but it is. (You're KJVO, right? :puzzled: )

Do I believe the book of 2 Samuel is Scripture? Hmm...I guess that depends what you mean by "Scripture." I believe that the book of 2 Samuel was inspired by God. Is that what you mean by "Scripture?" (Scripture is a word that simply means writing.)

John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

O.K...What does this verse have to do with the KJV issue? Moses' writings contain types of and references to the ultimate sacrifice for sin--yes. Copies of copies of Moses' writings were available to the Jews of Christ's day--yes. If the Jews truly believed Moses' writings, recognizing Christ as the ultimate sacrifice and redeemer, then they would also have believed Christ's words--yes. And...?

"John 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

Again, I'm at a loss to understand what this verse has to do with the text issue. Christ is talking to his disciples, telling them that whoever welcomes them (those whom he sends) is actually welcoming Him and His Father.

"John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

At the risk of seeming totally dense, I do not understand what this has to do with the KJV issue either...Whoever rejects Christ and His words will someday be judged by what Christ has said. To my knowledge, I have not rejected Christ's words; I embrace them wholeheartedly, try to live by them, and teach them to my children.

The bible clearly establishes that scripture will not pass out of a perfect, preserved state.

This sentence, coming after the above verses as if they prove this statement, puzzles me.

You believe that we cannot know what the Word of God is. You are wrong. You say that God has preserved his scripture, we just can't know for sure what is scripture and what isn't.

Where have I said that I believe that we cannot know what the Word of God is? Documentation, please.

As for me, I know that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. By the Word of the Lord: I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

If you believed on God for salvation based on scripture, and yet believe that the scripture contains errors, your being illogical... You simply can't know the truth... Where there is one error you cannot say there is no more, nor can you say where the errors end... If you would be consistent you would be stuck in the position of the agnostic...

Here's an interesting quote from a book I read recently: One Bible Only? by Beacham and Bauder. You will notice some information that I alluded to earlier in this thread:

"Some Godly friends believe that to have an inerrant Bible, we need more than perfect original manuscripts. 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 salvation; a flawed salvation gives false hope; and false hope is not hope at all.

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."

And with these words, I end my interaction on this thread. I cannot do this conversation justice while keeping up with my busy everyday life. Thanks, Seth and everyone else, for a great conversation.

:wave:

[Guest Guest]

And with these words, I end my interaction on this thread. I cannot do this conversation justice while keeping up with my busy everyday life. Thanks, Seth and everyone else, for a great conversation.

Ok. Naturally I strongly disagree with much of your last post, but now is as good a time to quit as any. Refuting your most recent post wouldn't do any good anyway. I am beginning to better appreciate the reason and value of speaking I parables... Not making any promises, but maybe I will stick to something like that next time something like this comes up.

Truly a man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven... :Green

[HappyChristian]

A book was recommeded to me: The Book of Bible Problems by Dr. Gerardus Bouw re: supposed contradictions in the KJB.

[Annie]

Seth, just popping back in for a sec to say thanks again for the discussion. You are a great example of a person who can discuss these matters civilly. Maybe when I get a lot of extra time on my hands :roll I'll throw out some other KJV passages for discussion. Until then...see you in the other forums! :smile

LuAnne, sounds like an interesting book!

[Pastor Matt]

Great job on the discussion. :thumb