Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Jordan Kurecki

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jordan Kurecki last won the day on January 27

Jordan Kurecki had the most liked content!


About Jordan Kurecki

  • Birthday 03/11/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
  • Denomination

Recent Profile Visitors

10,921 profile views

Jordan Kurecki's Achievements

  1. I think this is getting away from the original topic. If you make another thread I would be willing to engage you on this more.
  2. Also personal revelation would be God in no uncertain way declaring to you infallible truth. Revelation is infalible whereas ones personal convictions can be based on a number of things such as application of scriptural principle, logic, knowledge, etc. Revelation is not fallible while ones convictions certainly are fallible.
  3. There is a big difference between what you personally feel God wants you to do as an individual, and someone claiming an objective fact based on their own “conviction”. I suppose the important question is what is ones “conviction” based on. Ones “convictions” might not necessarily correlate with reality always. Just because someone has a “conviction” does not make something factually true. Often peoples “convictions” are based on the current (and sometimes false or misleading) knowledge that we have. There are many people who have “convictions” that are nothing more than them adopting and following the examples they have seen modeled or taught to them by a respected source. These sources may or may not be correct at times. In other words we ought to be careful what we base our convictions on. I guess my point is personal convictions have no bearing on what is or is not true. I mean you having a conviction about something has zero binding authority on any one else nor does your conviction necessarily determine reality. There is a huge difference between having a conviction that you should personally use the KJV and the KJV is perfect. You feeling like you should exclusively use the KJV is not making a declaration about truth or reality for others. I have zero problems with that. Its quite different to assert that the KJV is perfect based on a conviction and to state that conviction as if it has any kind of authority to declare reality or determine truth.
  4. To be clear, I have no problem with the KJV, and I think it's an excellent translation of what I consider to be the reliable texts of the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. What I am concerned about is what seems to be almost a blind mysticism and adherence to a tradition of men that's devoid of basis in actual promises of God or in actual personal investigatory evaluation by individuals with any sort of training/education in Greek or Hebrew. In theory there are only 3 possible ways in which one could know the KJV is perfect: 1. There would have to be a promise in God's word: Which I demonstrated above why I think that is not the case. 2. God would have to supernaturally reveal that to an individual, There are some Charismatics who claim this about the KJV. But this is impossible for anyone else to confirm or deny as it rests on a supposed personal revelation. 3. Someone would have to have Hebrew and Greek training/education and would have to actually have looked at every word in the KJV and compare it to every word the Hebrew and Greek texts, and even if said person declared that every translation choice was completely accurate, they could still possibly be mistaken or wrong. Therefore even this possibility is rather impossible.
  5. I see many people make claims about the KJV as being perfect because "God promised to preserve his word". The argument seems to go 1. God Promised to Preserve his Word 2. God Promising to Preserve his word means perfect translation in front of me 3. The KJV is that perfect translation. Here is the dilemma that I see that people don't want to seem to acknowledge: To start, I think we need to agree that God's promises do not change. That means God's promises to preserve his word mean the same thing in 2021, as they did when the originally writers under Inspiration wrote them, and this means they meant the same thing in 1610, as they did in 1611, and they still meant the same thing in 1769. So, if in 2020 God's promise to preserve his word=perfect translation in my language in front of me. Then in 1610 God's promise to preserve his word also should= perfect Translation in front of me. Yet no one seems to acknowledge that any of the pre 1611 KJV Bible's are perfect. When I was in Bible College I asked one of the professors how we know the KJV is God's perfect Bible over the Geneva Bible, the answer I got was really non substantial. if I lived in 1599 in Europe and I hold the Geneva Bible 1599 in my hand, I could open it to passages as the following: Matthew 5:18 For truely I say unto you, Til heaven, and earth perish, one jote, or one title of the Law shal not escape, til all things be fulfilled. Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord shal stand for ever, & the thoghts of his heart through out all ages. Is 40:8 The grasse withereth, yͤ floure fadeth: but the worde of our God shal stãd for ever. Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shal passe away, but my wordes shal not passe away. So here's the question I have: What is the difference ,in principle, between holding the Geneva Bible in 1599 and claiming its perfect based on its promises and holding a KJV in 2020 and claiming its perfect based on its promises? Did God's promises of preservation change in meaning in 1611 or 1769? God's promises do not change in their meaning based on time, Therefore God's promise of preservation has to mean the same thing before 1611 as it does in 2020. By nature claiming that the KJV is God's perfect preserved word, you have to also admit that the prior 1611 English Bibles were not perfect, But by also doing that, you have created a contradiction. Remember God's promise to preserve his word has to mean the same thing in 2020 as it does in 1610. It cannot mean perfect bible translation in 2020 but imperfect Bible translations before 1611. So here's my question, is the belief in the KJV as a perfect translation really simply a matter of believing in God's actual promises, especially if we are inconsistent in it's application and in light of historical reality. For example, My Lugbara friends over in Uganda have a critical text dynamic translation of the Bible, they do not have a formal textus receptus translation, yet their bible has many of the same promises as yours do about preservation of the word, What if they held their translation up, and claimed it was perfect based on those promises and told you that your English KJV is corrupt because it differs from their translation. How would their methodology and philosophy be any different than the current view of the KJV amongst many IFB? I will be the first to grant you that I don't think the critical text based Lugbara Bible is a fully accurate Bible, but what about God's promise of preservation? If in 2020 that means we have to have a perfect English Translation, then surely that promise must mean the same thing for the Lugbara person in Uganda? And yet the Lugbara do not have what any TR or KJV Only advocate would argue is a perfect Bible. And there are hundreds of languages that do not have the a translation that is the equivalent of the KJV in their language. Did God's promise of preservation fail all of these people who speak these languages? Or is it more likely that our understanding and application of God's promises of preservation are inconsistent and erroneous? I have to ask, is there any Biblical reason for giving primacy to English? and at that to a particular translation in 1611? [technically 1769 is the edition of the KJV most used] People make arguments about English being a popular language today and that God knew that, But God inspired his word in Hebrew and Hebrew never did become a dominate world language. This is an argument based on opinion and supposition rather than actual promise Good made. People make arguments about the superiority of the KJV translators using the correct text, (Which by the way I happen to agree with) but just because they used the right text, does not necessitate that their translation is perfect. People make arguments about the superior skills of the KJV translators, and while I agree they were great scholars, that still doesn't somehow mean 100% perfect translation. I guess my point is, from my point of view, believing in the KJV as being perfect really does not seem to based on a sound, and consistent application of God's promise to preserve his word, Belief in the KJV has being perfect seems to stem more from a predetermined position and then that presupposition forced back onto God's promises. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that explains how or why God's promise of preservation changed in 1611 and came to mean some different today in 2020 than it would have in 1610. If the KJV was perfect, and I am not saying that it is or isn't, Its impossible to prove that based on what the Bible says alone, because if I can't claim the Geneva Bible is perfect in 1599 based on God's promise of preservation, then I really have no consistency to claim the KJV is perfect in 2020 based on God's promise of preservation. The issue I see is people turn the KJV being perfect into a "faith" issue, but faith is believing what God actually promised, not what we presuppose he promised. unfortunately we have a tendency to misunderstand God's promises and to put words in God's mouth that he did not say. God promise his words would be preserved for all generations, he did NOT promise a perfect translation of that word for every language or for any particular language. There are a little less than 4000 languages without a printed translation of God's word, did God fail here? Or maybe have we misunderstand his promises? An interesting side note and food for thought HERE: When Jesus said his words would not pass away in Luke 21:33, what was he talking about? Was he talking about printed words in a perfect manuscript or translation? As far as I know it would have been around 20-30 years before those words actually would have been written down by any of the Gospel writers? Was the church totally without the words of Jesus for those 20-30 years between when he said that statement and when the Gospel writers wrote them down?
  6. God does not say is word is purified seven times. he says it is like silver purified seven times. The comparison is the to the end product of the purified silver, not the process of getting to the silver. God tells us that Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and that the scriptures are given by inspiration of God. To claim that God's originally inspired word given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek needed any kind of purifying is heretical nonsense. There are no impurities in what God gives by Inspiration and it needs no purifying. Also the purifying verse has nothing to do with translation. When David wrote that Psalm under Inspiration he was just talking about the pureness of God's word, not some need for it to be purified. End product is in mind, not the process of purification of silver.
  7. Some off the chick tracts can get weird and highly conspiratorial. I would avoid chick tracts.
  8. Thank you Bruce, I appreciate the spirit and attitude that you are manifesting in your posts, even though I think we probably would disagree on this subject.
  9. For the reasons on these pages, I reject the teaching that the “fornication” of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 refers to fornication within a betrothal period.
  10. https://www.amazon.com/Divorce-Remarriage-Christian-Spectrum-Multiview/dp/0830812830 I just recently finished reading this, I found it helpful.
  11. With JW's I always ask if they know they have eternal life and then begin a conversation about 1 John 5:11-13. With Mormons I have not really come up with an approach. In my opinion I would rather talk to a JW than a Mormon because with Mormon doctrine there are SOOO many terms and false teaching to unravel.
  12. By definition preservation cannot "take time to get it around", that would not be preservation. Preservation by definition is maintaining the existence of something already in existence. Translation is taking God's word which existed in the source text languages, and then taking it into the new language. It's not preservation if the word of God never existed in that language to begin with. It seems like you are confusing "preservation" of God's word with "propagation" of God's word. Do you think the first TR translation in any language is the "perfect preserved" word of God for that language? If so, why not accept any of the earlier English TR translations and reject the KJV as spurious? If you don't think the first TR language in any translation is the "perfect preserved" word of God in that language, at what point and using what criteria do you determine which translation is the "perfect preserved" word of God for that language?
  13. You can correct me if I am wrong. but It seems that you are making an appeal more on the basis of pragmatic use rather than what God actually promised. It seems that you are implying that people not having a preserved word is of no use to them, therefore God must have preserved his word for all people? To try and draw out and prove a point, allow me to ask some questions. IF, God's promise of preservation somehow means perfect translations in every language, consider the following: There are over 7,000 languages spoken in the world today, many of those languages have no translation of God's word, and many many of them only have Critical Text based translations, many of them even being dynamic equivalent translations. In other words, there are many languages that do not have the equivalent to the KJV in terms of source text and translational methodology. IF God's promise to preserve his word NECESSITATES that every language have a "perfect" translation... then we can ONLY conclude 2 things if we accept that premise: 1. God failed to keep his promise 2. The KJV is not actually the perfect preserved translation God promised. Some questions to ponder in relation to this, for all of those languages that do not have Textus Receptus based translation that reads like the KJV: Why does God's promise of preservation not apply to them, but it does to English? What about pre-1611? Was God's promise of preservation unfilled until 1611? On what basis does one pick one specific language (English) and a specific translation (KJV) and claim that translation in that particular language is the perfect preserved word of God? Are God's promises of preservation different for English speakers than other languages? Do English speaking people have some special elevated status in God's eyes than other language speakers? Alternatively I would like to suggest a 3rd option, which is that we are misunderstanding the promises of preservation that God actually made and reading into his promises our own presuppositions.
  14. This is a worthwhile statement with substance that few seem to interact with or even address.
  15. Happy birthday! May the Lord bless you Jordan. 🍰

  • Create New...