Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
         11
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

God preserving his word

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators
14 minutes ago, SureWord said:

If those dead languages are "static" then why a new lexicon with new definitions every year?  

This is what happens when you think God cannot "inspire" a translation, you end up depending on men hopefully getting it right. 

I still haven't found a verse that says God cannot inspire a translation.

You cannot prove a negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
23 minutes ago, SureWord said:

There's no difference. God gives men the inspiration to preserve his word.

Does your bible have errors in it?

 

Yes, there IS a difference. The Holy Spirit didn't "breathe" the words to the translators of the KJV...sorry, but that's just the fact. Does my Bible have errors in it? Maybe man derived errors in spelling or punctuation. Are you a Ruckmanite? Just asking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, SureWord said:

If those dead languages are "static" then why a new lexicon with new definitions every year?  

This is what happens when you think God cannot "inspire" a translation, you end up depending on men hopefully getting it right. 

I still haven't found a verse that says God cannot inspire a translation.

There are new lexicons to back up the modern versions (also, because the Critical Text is being changed every few years); however, the KJV has not changed, the preserved texts have not changed.

Study it out if you are unaware that the underlying Biblical languages are now dead languages. It is pretty common knowledge - and that fact isn't changed just because you are unaware of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
45 minutes ago, Jerry said:

There are new lexicons to back up the modern versions (also, because the Critical Text is being changed every few years); however, the KJV has not changed, the preserved texts have not changed.

Study it out if you are unaware that the underlying Biblical languages are now dead languages. It is pretty common knowledge - and that fact isn't changed just because you are unaware of it.

From your post above...the preserved texts have not changed.   There you have it...PRESERVED, not INSPIRED. The originals were the only thing "inspired."  Once inspired, even when translated it is the preservation of that inspiration...not a continuation of inspiration. This could also be the answer to the other thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Bro. Tony

I agree completely. I haven't been here in a while,  but it sure seems like the Ruckmanites have come in full force to push their heresy.

Time for administrators to get rid of false teachers,  which was the practice when I was an administrator 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastorj said:

Bro. Tony

I agree completely. I haven't been here in a while,  but it sure seems like the Ruckmanites have come in full force to push their heresy.

Time for administrators to get rid of false teachers,  which was the practice when I was an administrator 

I believe that all of us here fall short and that there are ways that seems right to us man. The way that leads us is to destruction. How can they hear if there is no preacher, or if we kick them out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

When someone presents their false teachings every chance they get or they buck and kick at everything being taught from the Bible, then they are not searching for the truth or looking for answers, they are here to push heresy or create division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
44 minutes ago, E Morales said:

I believe that all of us here fall short and that there are ways that seems right to us man. The way that leads us is to destruction. How can they hear if there is no preacher, or if we kick them out?

This isn't a church, but a virtual board for posting,, @E Morales, of which I'm sure you're totally aware. If and when someone is pushing ideas that most would consider heretical here, they should be warned several times about it. If they persist, I believe it's up to the administrators to decide what they want to do. I don't have a problem with someone voicing their opinion on this. Of course, I'm NOT an administrator, nor am I a moderator. So, it wouldn't be up to me. I don't necessarily agree with Jerry on this, but I'm not so over the top that I'd boot him. People have different interpretations of words like inspiration and preservation. There has to be an agreement on what these words mean before there is any agreement on anything else pertaining to the discussion going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Allowing heresy in this board was never an option in the past. It's one thing to disagree on a topic. It's completely different on doctrine. Double inspiration has been infiltrating our churches and is a very dangerous heretical teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastorj said:

Allowing heresy in this board was never an option in the past. It's one thing to disagree on a topic. It's completely different on doctrine. Double inspiration has been infiltrating our churches and is a very dangerous heretical teaching.

How is it dangerous?

You just want enough wiggle room to throw doubt on the KJV with your Texts Receptus Only nonsense which you and a few others have been doing unabated in this forum 

The scripture Paul said was inspired were copies of the originals. Were those who copied the originals inspired? According to Paul they were the inspired scripture. If you say they are at least in the "original languages" then you are diminishing the power of God saying he can only preserve his words in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and his pure words disappeared long ago.

We also know the Textus Receptus is a patchwork of different MSS and readings that was put together AFTER the KJV was translated.

Again, inspiration is God given the spirit of men understanding (Job 32:8). You are conflating inspiration with revelation.

Also, how do you explain the added words, i.e. italics. Please don't give me the old alibi that the Hebrew and Greek MSS "suggested" these words they still had to be added by the translators and this required some kind of inspiration from God. How did the MSS suggest the word  "unknown" as in "unknown tongue"? That word was added by the translators making the English reading superior to the Greek reading.

Do I believe that God gave new revelations to the translators? No. But I do believe the translators were inspired by God to preserve his pure words without errors.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 minutes ago, SureWord said:

You just want enough wiggle room to throw doubt on the KJV with your Texts Receptus Only nonsense which you and a few others have been doing unabated in this forum 

We also know the Textus Receptus is a patchwork of different MSS and readings that was put together AFTER the KJV was translated.

Textus Receptus Only nonsense? If you are knocking the TR manuscripts, then how can you be in support of the KJV? It was faithfully translated from the OT Masoretic Text and the NT Textus Receptus.

Also, your second statement above is less than a half truth. Scrivener's Greek NT is the one that was put together after that translation of the KJV (ie, he put it together in the 19th century to backup the mansucript support of the KJV when Westcott and Hort were pushing their corrupt Greek text); however, he didn't create it but based it upon all the manuscript readings that were in line with the KJV.

There are other editions of the Textus Receptus that were way before the KJV - such as Stephanus'. I don't know all the names, but these manuscripts existed since the first century and weren't just invented in the last four hundred years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Jerry said:

Textus Receptus Only nonsense? If you are knocking the TR manuscripts, then how can you be in support of the KJV?

The way that Brother SureWord can "knock" the Masoretic Text and Received Text manuscripts, but still hold firmly to the King James translation, is because he actually believes that the King James translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, such that they were moved with divine perfection.  

13 hours ago, SureWord said:

Do I believe that God gave new revelations to the translators? No. But I do believe the translators were inspired by God to preserve his pure words without errors. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

However, from my perspective Brother SureWord presented his statement without precision.  He stated his belief that "the translators were inspired by God to PRESERVE His pure words without errors."  Yet he is applying the idea of preservation to a translation.  The doctrine of "jot and tittle" preservation would require the pure words of God in every precise "jot and tittle" to remain exactly the same as previous.  By definition translations CANNOT do this.  By definition translations CHANGE the "jots and tittles" into a different language set of "jots and tittles."  Thus with precision it would have been more accurate for Brother SureWord to present his belief that the translators were inspired by God to TRANSLATE His pure words without errors.

Even so, because of his belief that the translators were directly inspired by God in their translation work, Brother SureWord further holds that the King James English translation is superior to the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts, as per the following:

13 hours ago, SureWord said:

That word was added by the translators making the English reading superior to the Greek reading. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

However, from my perspective Brother SureWord has presented a self-contradiction in his presentation above, with the following statements:

13 hours ago, SureWord said:

Also, how do you explain the added words, i.e. italics. Please don't give me the old alibi that the Hebrew and Greek MSS "suggested" these words they still had to be added by the translators and this required some kind of inspiration from God. How did the MSS suggest the word  "unknown" as in "unknown tongue"? That word was added by the translators making the English reading superior to the Greek reading.

Do I believe that God gave new revelations to the translators? No. But I do believe the translators were inspired by God to preserve his pure words without errors.

 

Herein Brother SureWord made reference to the italicized words in the King James translation, and specifically called them "added words" (which is factually accurate).  He then indicated that when these "added words" were thus added by the King James translators, it required "inspiration from God."  Thus we might conclude that in His work of inspiration God gave ADDED (and superior) words to the original wording, which by definition would be ADDED revelation.  However, Brother SureWord then stated his position that he did not believe "that God gave new [added] revelation to the translators."  This indeed appears to me as a self-contradiction in his position.  If God Himself directly inspired the ADDED words and wording, then by definition it would appear that He Himself DID directly give ADDED revelation to the King James translators.

(Note: I myself most certainly do NOT agree with the position that Brother SureWord has presented above on this matter.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 hours ago, SureWord said:

Also, how do you explain the added words, i.e. italics. Please don't give me the old alibi that the Hebrew and Greek MSS "suggested" these words they still had to be added by the translators and this required some kind of inspiration from God. How did the MSS suggest the word  "unknown" as in "unknown tongue"? That word was added by the translators making the English reading superior to the Greek reading.

Do I believe that God gave new revelations to the translators? No. But I do believe the translators were inspired by God to preserve his pure words without errors.

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

However, from my perspective Brother SureWord has presented a self-contradiction in his presentation above, with the following statements:

Herein Brother SureWord made reference to the italicized words in the King James translation, and specifically called them "added words" (which is factually accurate).  He then indicated that when these "added words" were thus added by the King James translators, it required "inspiration from God."  Thus we might conclude that in His work of inspiration God gave ADDED (and superior) words to the original wording, which by definition would be ADDED revelation.  However, Brother SureWord then stated his position that he did not believe "that God gave new [added] revelation to the translators."  This indeed appears to me as a self-contradiction in his position.  If God Himself directly inspired the ADDED words and wording, then by definition it would appear that He Himself DID directly give ADDED revelation to the King James translators.

(Note: I myself most certainly do NOT agree with the position that Brother SureWord has presented above on this matter.)

With further reflection I wish to add some further thoughts to my comments above.  To claim that the King James translators were directly inspired by God the Holy Spirit, such that every "jot and tittle" of the English King James translation was precisely translated with inerrant perfection, but then to claim that God gave NO new added revelation at that time, seems from my perspective to be a logical inconsistency.  Such is one of the reasons why I myself (and others similar in position to me) oppose that viewpoint so firmly - because it appears to necessitate ADDED revelation.

Furthermore, I would ask of those who hold such a position -

1.  Was William Tyndale inspired by God the Holy Spirit when he produced the Tyndale English translation of the Bible?

2.  Was the 1769 "reviser" of the King James translation inspired by God the Holy Spirit when he revised the King James translation? 

(Note: If the answer is NO, then that "reviser" had no divine authority to change a single "jot or tittle" of the original King James translation, not in a "jot or tittle" of spelling or a "jot or tittle" of punctuation."  On the other hand, if the answer is Yes, then we see a "sequence" of divine inspiration upon the King James English translation.  As such, it would be logically possible for the Lord our God yet to inspire another "reviser" or "revision committee" for yet another revision of the King James translation.)

3.  Were the translators of the New King James translation inspired by God the Holy Spirit when they produced the New King James translation?  

(Note: If the answer is NO, then upon what doctrinal grounds, being logically consistent within your belief system, do you deny this possibility to them?  If the answer is Yes, then we all should have switched to using that which the Lord our God has most lately inspired for us.)

4.  Are there any other translations in any other languages that have also received God's direct hand of inspiration upon them?

(Note: If the answer is NO, then I would ask why the Lord our God singled out the English language translation for His special work of inspiration, but not any other language.  If the answer is Yes, then I would ask whether those Holy Spirit inspired translations agree with the King James English translation in "jot and tittle" agreement.  If they do not agree in "jot and tittle" agreement, then may we conclude that the Lord our God intends his Holy Word to be "jot and tittle" different for different language groups?)

_______________________________________

Note:  The questions above are NOT presented because I stand against the King James translation, for I most certainly do NOT.  In fact, I hold firmly to the King James translation for English speaking peoples.  However, I most certainly do NOT come to that position through any form of "re-inspiration" viewpoint.  Indeed, I stand just as firmly AGAINST a "re-inspiration" viewpoint, as I stand FOR the King James English translation.  Thus the questions above are intended to reveal and confront the consistencies (or inconsistencies) of the "re-inspiration" viewpoint.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 minute ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Extreme.

 

on that note, this entire discussion is just mans babble. It’s up to the Holy Spirit to teach us scripture anyway.

Not at all.  This board was founded by like minded IFB people. There was no place on this board for heretics. Threads were locked and people were banned. That has been the process historically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Actually, this discussion is about the BIBLICAL doctrines of inspiration and preservation - how they are Biblically defined, how they relate Biblically to each other, how they relate Biblically to the matter of translation, and how they provide for a divinely authoritative Scriptures for us today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 5 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...