Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    2,706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    203

Pastor Scott Markle last won the day on October 10

Pastor Scott Markle had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About Pastor Scott Markle

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

16,974 profile views

Pastor Scott Markle's Achievements

  1. A further note - If I do not understand Brother SureWord's position correctly and have misrepresented it in some manner, I would be more than comfortable for Brother SureWord to walk through my earlier presentation of his position and to point out the specific points of my misunderstanding.
  2. Actually, NO Biblical doctrine can "be solved" strictly "through the means of man." Rather, ALL Biblical doctrine requires diligent and careful Bible study (see 2 Timothy 2:15) under the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit (see 1 John 2:27), that can humbly learn from God-given teachers (see Ephesians 4:11-14) and from Spirit-filled edifiers (see Ephesians 4:15-16), and that can graciously, yet earnestly contend for the faith (see Jude 1:3). I have NO doubts that we possess God's true Word for us now, or that the Lord our God will preserve His true Word for each and every future generation. He most certainly will because He has promised that He would. However, this discussion (at least my part in it) is NOT about doubting whether God's Word is available to us now or shall be available for each and every future generation. Rather, this discussion (at least my part in it) is about the Biblical DOCTRINES of INSPRATION and PRESERVATION (which is precisely what I said in my previous posting). Indeed, it is about getting those doctrines Biblically correct, and (in my case) about earnestly contending against those who are getting those doctrines incorrect. For I have been convinced by God the Holy Spirit that these doctrines are quite foundational to our system of belief, and that those who get them incorrect are worthy of ministry separation. Whether or not such is "sufficient" really depends upon the quality of the translation, the accuracy of the translation, and whether a translation from the divinely preserved, original language Hebrew and Greek texts was reasonably possible. So, to answer your question more directly - Not necessarily. That is an interesting thought. However, if doctrinal issues are only ever "for local church bodies," then NO doctrinal discussion should occur outside a given local church body, which means that no doctrinal discussion of any kind should occur within this forum. Yet this idea seems (from my perspective) to be in contradiction with the instruction of Jude 1:3 (and other passages) that we should "earnestly contend for the faith." So then, do you have actual Biblical teaching to support your thought above; for I do not wish to disobey the instruction of my Lord without a balancing truth from His own authoritative Word. Actually, (as per my own part in this thread discussion) there is a bit more than these "two debates taking place." As I have previously presented, I myself am contending specifically about the Biblical doctrines of inspiration and preservation - 1. How they are to be Biblically defined? 2. How they relate Biblically to each other? 3. How they relate Biblically to the matter of translation? 4. How they provide for a divinely authoritative Scriptures for us today? (Which is actually the question that encompasses your "two debate" issues - Is the King James translation wholly sufficient for English speaking people, and can we acceptably "go outside" the King James translation for doctrinal truth? However, I myself would contend that this fourth question cannot be rightly answered until the first three foundational questions are first answered correctly.) Actually, I myself have made no accusation of heresy against anyone in this thread discussion (although I recognize that another has made such an accusation). However, I am willing to acknowledge that I am convinced by God the Holy Spirit that the doctrinal position to which Brother SureWord holds is worthy of my ministry separation. I definitely view BROTHER SureWord as a fellow believer and definitely respect him as such; however, I definitely stand against his doctrinal position on this matter and view it as a significant doctrinal error. Actually, I believe that I DO understand Brother SureWord's doctrinal position upon this matter. Actually, this is inaccurate to my doctrinal position on the matter. My doctrinal position would not accept the Modern English Version as acceptable. Furthermore, I have NOT "jived" or "hoorahed" for "tearing another Brother's head off." However, I HAVE earnestly contended against that which I understand as significant doctrinal error; and I HAVE earnestly contended for that which I understand as important doctrinal truth.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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. 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: 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.)
  6. Well, I have already presented earlier in this thread discussion my position concerning the continuance of "inspirational AUTHORITY" upon preserved copies and accurate translations of the Holy Scriptures (which I can accept as "derived inspiration," depending upon the definition of this phrase). However, when handling the opening line of 2 Timothy 3:16, let us be sure to handle it with grammatical precision -- "All scripture IS GIVEN by inspiration of God." Yes, this statement DOES speak in the present tense. However, this statement ONLY speaks concerning the GIVING of Holy Scripture. The statement is NOT that all Scripture is COPIED BY (by means of) inspiration of God. The statement is NOT that all Scripture is TRANSLATED BY (by means of) inspiration of God. The statement is ONLY that all Scripture is GIVEN BY (by means of) inspiration of God. The Lord our God GAVE His Holy Word by means of inspiration, wherein holy men of God spoke/communicated it specifically as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God (See 2 Peter 1:21). As such, I am not aware of any passage which teaches that the copying or translating of Holy Scripture would be done BY (by means of) inspiration of God. On the other hand, there DOES remain the doctrine of PRESERVATION to be considered.
  7. I can agree with that portion of your post which I have emboldened, as long as we are talking about that which I have presented as "inspirational authority," not "inspirational origin." Thus I can and DO indeed ascribe "inspirational authority" to the King James translation; and I do indeed hold it as the very Word of God in English for me to follow.
  8. When Hezekiah quoted Solomon's writings and put together part of the book of Proverbs - Hezekiah was a holy man of God who was being moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents. Thus Hezekiah was not simply copying Scripture; rather, he himself was being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to arrange Scripture. When any of the Greek-speaking and Greek-writing New Testament writers quoted the Hebrew of the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures - they were holy men of God who were being moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents. Thus they were not simply copying and translating Old Testament Scripture into Greek; rather, they themselves were being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to formulate the New Testament Scriptures. When Luke quoted Paul's Hebrew speeches and testimony in the book of Acts, originally spoken in Hebrew, but quoted in Greek - Luke was a holy man of God who was being moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents. Luke was not simply copying and translating speeches from Hebrew into Greek; rather, Luke himself was being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to formulate a portion of the New Testament Scriptures. Actually, this begs the question (just as I have presented in my earlier posting) - Is it Biblically accurate to claim that the King James translators were moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents? Or to put it another way - Is it Biblically accurate to claim that the King James translators were moved by the Holy Spirit of God to translate the Holy Scriptures into English in precisely the same manner that the various Old Testament penmen and New Testament penmen were moved by the Holy Spirit of God to originally author and arrange the Holy Scriptures as per 2 Peter 1:21? Furthermore, it may be asked - Is it Biblically accurate to claim that this same process of inspiration as per 2 Peter 1:21 has also occurred with other translations into English and/or that this same process of inspiration as per 2 Peter 1:21 has occurred with translations into other languages than English? (Note: If you answer "yes" to these questions, then by definition you DO hold to a "re-inspirational" viewpoint of translation.) The question here is NOT about what the Lord our God, the Almighty God, is able to do; rather, the question is about what the Lord our God has revealed concerning what He HAS done in this matter. If anyone claims a teaching that is not accurate to what God's Word itself reveals as truth, then that teaching is false, even if that teaching sounds really good. Indeed, the Lord our God, the Almighty God, HAS presented such a promise in His Word. For this reason I myself very firmly hold to the Biblical doctrines of both Biblical inspiration and Biblical preservation. Yeah, I hold very firmly to the doctrine of "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation for EVERY generation of God's people on the earth. However, as even you yourself have presented above, "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation means "every word and every punctuation mark IN THE ORIGINAL." By definition, the very moment that an individual translates from the original language to ANY other language, the jots and tittles (the words, letters, and punctuation marks) CHANGE. Thus by definition, NO translation actually fulfills the precise definition of "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation. (Note: If an individual holds only to "CONCEPT" preservation, then that individual might have room to claim that a translation could fulfill the definition of such preservation.) Actually, by definition "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation is all about copying under the providential work of God to preserve every "jot and tittle" of His original Word from generation to generation unto the present and into the future. Thus He most certainly did NOT say that His Word was only preserved until copied, since copying is built into the very definition of Biblical preservation. Yet the Biblical doctrine of "jot and tittle" preservation does NOT indicate that ALL copying and copies would be providentially protected with "jot and tittle" accuracy. This means that deceivers CAN create copies with alterations to teach falsehood, and that there CAN be an accumulation of both truly preserved and falsely altered copies over time in competition with one another (such as exists, I believe, in our present day). On the other hand, as I have presented above, by definition "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation is a matter for the ORIGINAL words, letter, and punctuation. By definition "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation CANNOT carry to a translation, since translation by definition requires changes in the "jots and tittles." For example - (Note: I wanted to use actual Greek letters for this, but could not get them to paste over) "agape" (employing the actual Greek letters) and "love" do NOT have the same "jots and tittles." Nor would this be the case if we employed the English word "charity" in place of the English word "love." Greek letters are NOT the same as English letters. The number of letters in a given Greek word are NOT necessarily the same as the number of letters in the English word to which the Greek word is translated, and the same would hold with Hebrew words. Even so, when the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word with "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation, He by definition did NOT include the work of translation within the doctrine of "jot and tittle" preservation. Now, does this mean that I do not view the King James translation has retaining any aspect of inspiration? No. Rather, I believe that the Biblical doctrine of inspiration is BOTH about "inspirational origin" (given by) and "inspirational authority" (of God). I believe that ONLY the original writings can claim "inspirational origin," but that ANY copy that is providentially preserved and protected ("jot and tittle" preserved) and ANY translation that is accurately translated from that which has been providentially preserved retains "inspirational authority" (is IN TRUTH the very Word OF GOD in whatever language). However, I most certainly do NOT hold that 2 Peter 1:21 (which clearly speaks in the past tense) can be applied to the process of copying and translating, but ONLY can be applied to the original work of the Holy Spirit in the original formulation of the Holy Scriptures (both in its original writing and original arranging).
  9. Two significant New Testament passages concerning inspiration are the following: 2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Peter 1:21 - "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Concerning the application of these passages in relation to the King James translation, we might consider whether the following is Biblically legitimate to claim: 1. All the King James translation is translated (given) by inspiration of God. 2. The King James translation came not in 1611 by the will of man, but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Concerning other English translations, we might consider whether the following is Biblically legitimate to claim: 1. All the Geneva translation is translated (given) by inspiration of God. 2. The Geneva translation came not in past time by the will of man, but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Or, 1. All the New International translation is translated (given) by inspiration of God. 2. The New International translation came not in past time by the will of man, but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (Note: In this posting I am NOT revealing my own position concerning these considerations; rather, I am presenting these considerations in order to challenge precise understanding within doctrinal positioning.)
  10. Indeed, let us claim that EVERYTHING which Christ said matters; but then let us ignore an entire half of the verse. If everything that Christ said really mattered, then it would be necessary to consider the ENTIRE sentence of the verse, and to demonstrate the grammatical and contextual relationship of the second half of the verse to the first half of the verse.
  11. Brother Bruce, As you can see, whatever the problem was now seems to have fixed itself. And thank you for praying for me.
  12. I do apologize. Lately, for a week or more now, I have not been able to access Online Baptist at my home. I am now at someone else's house to read through what I have missed. Hard to stay up to date at the moment because of this, and even harder to engage in a lengthy discussion.
  13. From my personal devotional reading today: Psalm 5:1-12 - "Give ear to my words, O LORD, consider my meditation. Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray. My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O LORD; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up. For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple. Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face. For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue. Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee. But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee. For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield." (Note: The whole issue herein concerns those who have pleasure in wickedness in contrast to those walk in righteousness. Still seems that Mr. Bonhoeffer got it wrong.)
  14. Indeed, I remember; and I take notice that throughout His ministry of healing and helps, one great truth is emphasized - "According to your faith be it unto you." (NOT - according to your suffering be it unto you) Well, this one I cannot remember - because it is not true. Matthew 11:20-24 - "Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." Furthermore, our Lord Jesus Christ did not come down hard on the religious people of his day because they spent "most of their time criticizing others." Rather, he came down hard on them because they were self-righteous hypocrites, who trusted in their own "so-called" righteousness, refused to acknowledge their own sinfulness, and thus rejected their need for Him as their personal Savior from sin.
  15. Indeed, I remember. Mark 12:41-44 - "And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: for all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." Luke 21:1-4 - "And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: for all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had." (Note: This whole account is about what individual's were doing and about the character of what they were doing - casting money into the treasury of the temple. The widow was not distinguished from the others because she had suffered more than they had. Rather, she was distinguished from the others because of the manner of her giving in comparison to their manner of giving (which is something they were all doing). She was distinguished because they were giving out of their abundance, whereas she was giving ALL that she had. By this means our Lord emphasized in the matter of giving, not the greatness of the amount, but the greatness of the percentage. Yet giving itself is something that is done or not done. Certainly the widow had suffered much; but if she had not given anything, her suffering would not have been relevant to this case. It was not how much she gave in relation to how much she suffered that mattered. Rather, it was how much she gave in relation to how much she owned that mattered.)
×
×
  • Create New...