Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Hopefully this (Divine Origin)  is carried through from the beginning (of the forum) through today:

 

  

On 1/15/2007 at 2:23 PM, Alison said:

I posted this elswhere and thought I'd post it here too.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE?
 

[*]It's one of the few books that makes the claim to be the Word of God. The phrases, "Thus says the Lord," or "the Word of the Lord" are used hundreds of times. It claims to be the uniquely inspired communication from our Creator to us: All Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). [*]The amazing unity of the Bible: it is unique. It was written by forty authors from different backgrounds over 1500 years and yet reads like it was written by one author.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Who was the author of the book of Genesis?

The holy man of God, Moses, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit.

Note: The same goes for Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

I've always been told it was Moses. I full will believe it is the inspired Word of God and preserved for us today in our KJV Bible. My Bible opens to Genesis with this heading, "The First Book Of Moses, Called Genesis." 

10 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The holy man of God, Moses, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit.

Note: The same goes for Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. 

I've always been told the first 5 books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, was written by Moses. Is there literal evidence Moses was the author? I know of no evidence pro or con for Moses having written Genesis. Is there any contrary evidence it was not written by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses under the influence of the Holy Spirit? That is, I see no reason why the entire book of the Genesis was written by Moses alone. Is it possible it was written in parts by the patriarchs mentioned above?

Edited by 1Timothy115
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I've always been told it was Moses. I full will believe it is the inspired Word of God and preserved for us today in our KJV Bible. My Bible opens to Genesis with this heading, "The First Book Of Moses, Called Genesis." 

I've always been told the first 5 books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, was written by Moses. Is there literal evidence Moses was the author? I know of no evidence pro or con for Moses having written Genesis. Is there any contrary evidence it was not written by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses under the influence of the Holy Spirit? That is, I see no reason why the entire book of the Genesis was written by Moses alone. Is it possible it was written in parts by the patriarchs mentioned above?

If I may chime in there's nothing that I know of that states that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch. But remember, holy men of God SPAKE (not wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It's definitely his words yet there are passages that probably weren't written by him like Numbers 12:3 and Joshua 24:26 suggests Joshua may have written down the words of the Pentateuch.

Now in Jeremiah 36  when Jeremiah tells Baruch to write down the words that God gave him and read them to king Jehoiakim who preceded to cut up the leaves and toss them into a fire. Baruch was then commanded by Jeremiah to rewrite the words he was told and Baruch also ADDED more words to the scripture (Jer. 36:32). 

My point is that I don't see much difference, if any at all, between inspiration and preservation. Holy men of God were inspired, spoke the words, and those words were preserved by being written down. The KJV translators ADDED words that were not in the "original manuscripts" yet they are still the inspired words of God.

So, if Moses did or did not actually write the Pentateuch it is still the inspired words of God written down and preserved by perhaps Joshua and passed on to the Levitical priests.

Edited by SureWord
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
12 hours ago, SureWord said:

If I may chime in there's nothing that I know of that states that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch. But remember, holy men of God SPAKE (not wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It's definitely his words yet there are passages that probably weren't written by him like Numbers 12:3 and Joshua 24:26 suggests Joshua may have written down the words of the Pentateuch.

Now in Jeremiah 36  when Jeremiah tells Baruch to write down the words that God gave him and read them to king Jehoiakim who preceded to cut up the leaves and toss them into a fire. Baruch was then commanded by Jeremiah to rewrite the words he was told and Baruch also ADDED more words to the scripture (Jer. 36:32). 

My point is that I don't see much difference, if any at all, between inspiration and preservation. Holy men of God were inspired, spoke the words, and those words were preserved by being written down. The KJV translators ADDED words that were not in the "original manuscripts" yet they are still the inspired words of God.

So, if Moses did or did not actually write the Pentateuch it is still the inspired words of God written down and preserved by perhaps Joshua and passed on to the Levitical priests.

I agree with over 90% of what you've said above. But, inspiration and preservation are different.

Can you further explain how you mean this..."The KJV translators ADDED words that were not in the "original manuscripts" yet they are still the inspired words of God."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I agree with over 90% of what you've said above. But, inspiration and preservation are different.

Can you further explain how you mean this..."The KJV translators ADDED words that were not in the "original manuscripts" yet they are still the inspired words of God."

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. - I John 2:23

Italics. Everything after the colon was ADDED by the KJV translators yet we still consider them the inspired words of God yet then deny the translators were under any kind of inspiration (according to Job 32:8 inspiration gives understanding). Curious. I think we confuse "inspiration" with "revelation" when it comes to the scriptures. 

The workers in Exodus who built the tabernacle we in a sense under the inspiration of God. Exodus 31:1-6

It think we've boxed in what the term "inspiration" means.

Now, the term "revelation" is a whole 'nuther ball game. There are no more revelations, at least, not until the Great Tribulation.

Use whatever terminology we want, inspired or preserved, but those words after that colon were not in the "originals" (that nobody has ever seen or read in nearly two thousand years).

I've seen Christians disfellowship each other over semantics when at the end of the day they both believe the same exact thing, i.e. that the KJV is the inspired/preserved word of God.

Now back to Moses. 

I don't see why the Pentateuch can't be attributed to Moses yet not written by him but by someone else. We have the gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ yet we know he didn't write them but they are still about him and his wondrous works. I don't see why that can't be applied also to the 5 Books of Moses.

Yet, this isn't something I would harp on. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
56 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. - I John 2:23

Italics. Everything after the colon was ADDED by the KJV translators yet we still consider them the inspired words of God yet then deny the translators were under any kind of inspiration (according to Job 32:8 inspiration gives understanding). Curious. I think we confuse "inspiration" with "revelation" when it comes to the scriptures. 

The workers in Exodus who built the tabernacle we in a sense under the inspiration of God. Exodus 31:1-6

It think we've boxed in what the term "inspiration" means.

Now, the term "revelation" is a whole 'nuther ball game. There are no more revelations, at least, not until the Great Tribulation.

Use whatever terminology we want, inspired or preserved, but those words after that colon were not in the "originals" (that nobody has ever seen or read in nearly two thousand years).

I've seen Christians disfellowship each other over semantics when at the end of the day they both believe the same exact thing, i.e. that the KJV is the inspired/preserved word of God.

Now back to Moses. 

I don't see why the Pentateuch can't be attributed to Moses yet not written by him but by someone else. We have the gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ yet we know he didn't write them but they are still about him and his wondrous works. I don't see why that can't be applied also to the 5 Books of Moses.

Yet, this isn't something I would harp on. 

 

The issue with what was "added" in italics, isn't that it wasn't there, it was that the Greek or Hebrew from which it was translated had it, but they didn't translate directly into English, so it was added to show the meaning of the phrase in the Greek and Hebrew. But they placed it into italics to maintain honesty that it had to be added to clear the meaning.

On 3/22/2021 at 6:46 PM, 1Timothy115 said:

Who was the author of the book of Genesis?

I have seen an interesting theory on genesis, that it was actually initially written down by the people it was written about, for instance, Adam wrote part, Seth wrote part, Abraham wrote part, etc, and they compiled the writings at the behest of God, and they were kept until Moses, who compiled them together into one book, both from those writings, as well as, perhaps, the Lord filling in any other information he wanted recorded. Of course, it is just a theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, SureWord said:

I don't see why the Pentateuch can't be attributed to Moses yet not written by him but by someone else. We have the gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ yet we know he didn't write them but they are still about him and his wondrous works. I don't see why that can't be applied also to the 5 Books of Moses.

Yet, this isn't something I would harp on. 

 

I don't see either, that is why it can't be ascribed to Moses or to others and that he compiled it; of course either or both being under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

None of what I've posted is meant to disparage, cause affront, or sew discord [Proverbs 6:19]...just to hear thoughts on the subject and gain understanding. [Proverbs 15:22] Also, to question the comments like a Berean... "in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." [Acts 17:11]

After all brother, we will spend eternity together.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
On 3/24/2021 at 1:12 PM, Ukulelemike said:

The issue with what was "added" in italics, isn't that it wasn't there, it was that the Greek or Hebrew from which it was translated had it, but they didn't translate directly into English, so it was added to show the meaning of the phrase in the Greek and Hebrew. But they placed it into italics to maintain honesty that it had to be added to clear the meaning.

I have seen an interesting theory on genesis, that it was actually initially written down by the people it was written about, for instance, Adam wrote part, Seth wrote part, Abraham wrote part, etc, and they compiled the writings at the behest of God, and they were kept until Moses, who compiled them together into one book, both from those writings, as well as, perhaps, the Lord filling in any other information he wanted recorded. Of course, it is just a theory.

Thanks brother! The latter is exactly what I had been presented with.

Also, I forgot to tell SureWord that even though the words and phrases were added, they agree with other scripture which didn't have to have additions for understanding and they appear to have had the blessing of God since.

I might add that in no way can I agree with anyone who might attempt to say the Pentatruch was written by someone after Moses. That is ludicrous.

Edited by 1Timothy115
added 'they' before agree :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/22/2021 at 8:46 PM, 1Timothy115 said:

Who was the author of the book of Genesis?

Before writing was invented, people greatly respected the integrity of oral history. The narrative would then have been passed down from the various people involved. Adam would have been the author of the beginning of Genesis, various others might have contributed based on relevance and importance of their contribution. But it was Moses who authorized and ordered it being recorded into writing and those he authorized continued to write it to include his death. That would be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Deuteronomy was added later during the reign of Josiah when another written record was found. There's no mention of who authored it, but it matches the first four books enough to verify it's accuracy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
 

Pretty sure Jesus’ OT study included the book of Genesis, as there is much in that book that also teaches about Christ, including some very clear types.

The Bible itself teaches Moses wrote the five books of the Law. Even if there were some remnants of oral or written history prior to the time of Moses, God told Moses what to write (ie. inspired him to write it), and we have no reason or Biblical evidence to conclude that he used any man-made sources to do so - and no NT writers question Moses writing of the books of the Law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There are several places within the book of Deuteronomy itself that relate God directly telling Moses what to write, including the account of his death - that means it was written by him, during his lifetime - not hundreds of years later. That philosophy just creates doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Deuteronomy 31:22
Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

I guess that means Moses wrote at least some of the book of Deuteronomy right then and there. No need for other people to write out the rest hundreds of years later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 3/24/2021 at 1:12 PM, Ukulelemike said:

The issue with what was "added" in italics, isn't that it wasn't there, it was that the Greek or Hebrew from which it was translated had it, but they didn't translate directly into English, so it was added to show the meaning of the phrase in the Greek and Hebrew. But they placed it into italics to maintain honesty that it had to be added to clear the meaning.

I have seen an interesting theory on genesis, that it was actually initially written down by the people it was written about, for instance, Adam wrote part, Seth wrote part, Abraham wrote part, etc, and they compiled the writings at the behest of God, and they were kept until Moses, who compiled them together into one book, both from those writings, as well as, perhaps, the Lord filling in any other information he wanted recorded. Of course, it is just a theory.

No, the italicized words in I John 2:23 were not there. 

Would Moses refers to himself in the third person? Because there's plenty of times he would have if he wrote the books himself.

I don't see the problem with the Pentateuch being written by one of his scribes as Jeremiah had Baruch, Paul had his writers, the four gospels of Jesus Christ not being written by Jesus.

22 hours ago, Jerry said:

Deuteronomy 31:22
Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

I guess that means Moses wrote at least some of the book of Deuteronomy right then and there. No need for other people to write out the rest hundreds of years later.

Yes, but then why not write, "Therefore I wrote this song..." if he wrote Genesis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
14 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed. The very essence and agenda of the liberal belief system.  

No, "the liberal belief system" would say that Genesis was made up of five different textual sources all compiled and edited together as one with some Babylonian mythology thrown in for good measure probably around the time of king Cyrus or the building of the 2nd Temple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Every time Baruch wrote down Jeremiah’s words, God was honest enough to tell us (otherwise you wouldn’t even know he did so!) - so why wouldn’t He do so in an earlier book of the Bible?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

Also, the partial verse in italics in 1 John was not in certain manuscripts at the time that it was translated - but it was in other manuscripts in the family of the textus receptus. It is not like the KJV translators invented that phrase or created it out of thin air. They obviously believed that the phrase belonged in the Bible, but were honest enough to put it in italics to indicate it was not in all the manuscripts. I have various tr-based Greek New Testaments (and access to several in the Swordsearcher Bible program that I no longer have access to due to not having a computer now) that have that phrase as part of the Greek text, and nothing in the footnotes to indicate that it did not belong there. I know one Greek NT was Stephanus’, but at the moment can’t remember the other main one I had.

*Maybe someone with access to pre-KJV English Bible translations, such as Tyndale, etc. can look this verse up in those Bibles, and see how the translators prior to the KJV dealt with that verse.

Years ago, I did study out some of the manuscript evidence for this verse, though I can not remember the specifics now, and I do not even have access to those same materials now. If it really matters to this thread, I am sure some online research will shed more light on the issue.

Edited by Jerry
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/10/2021 at 11:24 PM, Jerry said:

 That philosophy just creates doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God.

On 4/11/2021 at 7:14 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed. The very essence and agenda of the liberal belief system.  

10 hours ago, SureWord said:

No, "the liberal belief system" would say that Genesis was made up of five different textual sources all compiled and edited together as one with some Babylonian mythology thrown in for good measure probably around the time of king Cyrus or the building of the 2nd Temple.

Sorry, Brother SureWord, as per my quotation above of one specific part in Brother Jerry's posting, I was not responding to any of the specifics that the liberal belief system presents concerning any specific book of the Holy Scriptures.  Rather, as per that quotation, I was responding to the general motivation of the liberal belief system.  Brother Jerry stated, "That PHILOSOPHY just creates doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God."  I responded to that statement only by indicating that creating doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God is the VERY ESSENCE and AGENDA of the liberal belief system (as a whole, not just in relation to the books of Moses).  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/10/2021 at 4:55 PM, Danny Carlton said:

Before writing was invented, people greatly respected the integrity of oral history. The narrative would then have been passed down from the various people involved. Adam would have been the author of the beginning of Genesis, various others might have contributed based on relevance and importance of their contribution. But it was Moses who authorized and ordered it being recorded into writing and those he authorized continued to write it to include his death. That would be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Deuteronomy was added later during the reign of Josiah when another written record was found. There's no mention of who authored it, but it matches the first four books enough to verify it's accuracy. 

There is no perfect answer this side of glory, so it may be possible. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/10/2021 at 11:16 PM, Jerry said:

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
 

Pretty sure Jesus’ OT study included the book of Genesis, as there is much in that book that also teaches about Christ, including some very clear types.

The Bible itself teaches Moses wrote the five books of the Law. Even if there were some remnants of oral or written history prior to the time of Moses, God told Moses what to write (ie. inspired him to write it), and we have no reason or Biblical evidence to conclude that he used any man-made sources to do so - and no NT writers question Moses writing of the books of the Law.

Jerry, Genesis pre-dates the law recorded by Moses. Is there a reference scripture for "the Bible itself teaches Moses wrote the five books."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/11/2021 at 7:14 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed. The very essence and agenda of the liberal belief system.  

There is NO doubt in my mind about God being the progenitor of all recorded truth in our KJV Bibles. That is not at question here [2 Peter 1:21]. Who God used as scribe IS in question. I have not seen a scripture yet that ascribes the 'scribe' for Genesis. Some of the early accounts are so much like a first hand account that I can accept the possibility God used someone besides Moses. It also might be possible pre-fallen man (Adam) could have had the ability to speak and write. I refuse to believe the Genesis account came years or centuries after the death of Moses, that is not in question for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm not trying to one better anyone here. I don't know the answer to the OP question. It was just an interesting thought brought on by some things my pastor was teaching during a Sunday evening service. 

There is a lot of thought going into this and none of us may know the answer before we sit at the feet of Jesus Christ, Lord of Glory! I can say this without any doubt... "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him." [1 John 5:1] "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." [1 Peter 1:23] Amen!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 4/11/2021 at 6:59 PM, SureWord said:

No, the italicized words in I John 2:23 were not there. 

 

 

Yes, they weren't there, because they didn't need to be there in the original language-it was added for clarification, because it didn't translate directly into English the way it read in the Greek. So yes, it was added, but the thought was there, it just didn't translate. Some thing. Like Spanish has certain word that are in the female sense, and some in the male sense, Hermano and hermana, both of which translate as friend, but one, we would write as male friend, the other as female friend, because English doesn't have all the words words to specify male and female that way; (those we had, like actress and actor, have been dispensed with, as people think them sexist.) Same idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 3/24/2021 at 11:13 AM, SureWord said:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. - I John 2:23

Italics. Everything after the colon was ADDED by the KJV translators yet we still consider them the inspired words of God yet then deny the translators were under any kind of inspiration (according to Job 32:8 inspiration gives understanding). Curious. I think we confuse "inspiration" with "revelation" when it comes to the scriptures. 

The workers in Exodus who built the tabernacle we in a sense under the inspiration of God. Exodus 31:1-6

It think we've boxed in what the term "inspiration" means.

Now, the term "revelation" is a whole 'nuther ball game. There are no more revelations, at least, not until the Great Tribulation.

Use whatever terminology we want, inspired or preserved, but those words after that colon were not in the "originals" (that nobody has ever seen or read in nearly two thousand years).

I've seen Christians disfellowship each other over semantics when at the end of the day they both believe the same exact thing, i.e. that the KJV is the inspired/preserved word of God.

Now back to Moses. 

I don't see why the Pentateuch can't be attributed to Moses yet not written by him but by someone else. We have the gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ yet we know he didn't write them but they are still about him and his wondrous works. I don't see why that can't be applied also to the 5 Books of Moses.

Yet, this isn't something I would harp on. 

 

On another forum in another place, there was a man who stated that the KJV was "doubly inspired." He was a Ruckmanite and was very adamant about those words in italics. They were supposed to be the inspired Word of God. There was no concession in his mind that God put them there. To me, that was sad. It was hard for me for many years to believe that ANYONE would hold the view of "double inspiration." It's not Scriptural. And, we have to remember that there was another ENGLISH translation available before the KJV. Another sad thing was that this person couldn't agree on which version of the KJV was actually the "inspired" version. I'm not questioning the validity of the KJV. I'm KJV PREFERRED, not KJVO. I do use other versions in Bible study at times for clarity. But, I have to say that when someone puts KJV 1611, and then carries one from the 1870s, it bothers me that they don't want to acknowledge the error in their way of thinking. Those italicized and words put into parenthesis don't make the KJV any less the Word of God or any less reliable, nor do they detract from it being God's inspired Word. I love my KJV. I started as a child with the Schofield Bible. Then I went to the Thompson Chain Reference. I actually need to get another TCR, as the one I've got, I've had for well over 30 years, and it's falling apart. It never ceases to amaze me at how the adversary will try to place doubt in ones mind over something so trivial. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

On another forum in another place, there was a man who stated that the KJV was "doubly inspired." He was a Ruckmanite and was very adamant about those words in italics. They were supposed to be the inspired Word of God. There was no concession in his mind that God put them there. To me, that was sad. It was hard for me for many years to believe that ANYONE would hold the view of "double inspiration." It's not Scriptural. And, we have to remember that there was another ENGLISH translation available before the KJV. Another sad thing was that this person couldn't agree on which version of the KJV was actually the "inspired" version. I'm not questioning the validity of the KJV. I'm KJV PREFERRED, not KJVO. I do use other versions in Bible study at times for clarity. But, I have to say that when someone puts KJV 1611, and then carries one from the 1870s, it bothers me that they don't want to acknowledge the error in their way of thinking. Those italicized and words put into parenthesis don't make the KJV any less the Word of God or any less reliable, nor do they detract from it being God's inspired Word. I love my KJV. I started as a child with the Schofield Bible. Then I went to the Thompson Chain Reference. I actually need to get another TCR, as the one I've got, I've had for well over 30 years, and it's falling apart. It never ceases to amaze me at how the adversary will try to place doubt in ones mind over something so trivial. 

Yes, standard Ruckman error. I mean, his tenacity on the reliability of the KJV is commendable, but his reasons were faulty. I believe the Bible teaches the position of preservation, not a second inspiration. Now, I DO believe the translators were guided in the wording they used, because they all believed they were dealing with the very Word of God, and had the right heart as to what they were doing. They wanted an accurate, as well as beautiful, translation, word for word, yet poetic and magnificent. But they didn't need inspiration, merely guidance and wisdom of God in their work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/20/2021 at 3:45 PM, BrotherTony said:

On another forum in another place, there was a man who stated that the KJV was "doubly inspired." He was a Ruckmanite and was very adamant about those words in italics. They were supposed to be the inspired Word of God. There was no concession in his mind that God put them there. To me, that was sad. It was hard for me for many years to believe that ANYONE would hold the view of "double inspiration." It's not Scriptural. And, we have to remember that there was another ENGLISH translation available before the KJV. Another sad thing was that this person couldn't agree on which version of the KJV was actually the "inspired" version. I'm not questioning the validity of the KJV. I'm KJV PREFERRED, not KJVO. I do use other versions in Bible study at times for clarity. But, I have to say that when someone puts KJV 1611, and then carries one from the 1870s, it bothers me that they don't want to acknowledge the error in their way of thinking. Those italicized and words put into parenthesis don't make the KJV any less the Word of God or any less reliable, nor do they detract from it being God's inspired Word. I love my KJV. I started as a child with the Schofield Bible. Then I went to the Thompson Chain Reference. I actually need to get another TCR, as the one I've got, I've had for well over 30 years, and it's falling apart. It never ceases to amaze me at how the adversary will try to place doubt in ones mind over something so trivial. 

I use the 1769 Cambridge KJV and like you and your TCR I wouldn't have another until my eyesight requires one. I can not and will not support 'double inspiration. I do fully support God preserving HIS Word in my KJV

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 30 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...