Probably my last one for this thread. Not much that has not been covered that really needs to be covered. Of course, I do realize there may be some who think all my posts should be covered (as in up, over, buried, with dirt)! Unless someone has something new we have not yet touched on.

If you dont think added words, changes in gender, removed words, singular to plural are all that significant, how can you argue that the very words are perfectly preserved?

Psalm 12:7 - “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

First off, from a general reading it does sound like He is speaking of “the words of the Lord” (v. 6). What does it mean? What it says is that God will keep them. Does not say He will preserve them for all generation. Does say He will “preserve them FROM this generation”. From is not for. How can we argue for literal interpretation and then make changes like that in our application. Further, the tense and form of the Hebrew grammar and wording makes it clear that the reference does not look back to verse 6 and the words of the Lord, but it looks back to the godly man, the poor, the needy, who God sets in safety (verses 1 and 5), and keeps and preserves them FROM this generation. God will protect His faithful. That is the meaning of the Psalm and the meaning of verse 7.

Don’t think there is any reason to give the source for the Hebrew lesson here. Prolly doesn’t matter anyway. Those of us who have made up our minds have made up our minds.

Yeah, lets find some things we all agree on for a while and lets comfort one another with those words.

Well,

I don't think we can know precisely how he would preserve his Word. We just have to have faith that he just did. Maybe he intended words to be changed, I do not know. What I DO firmly believe however, is that I do not believe God would have allowed us, according to his preservation, during translation to the KJV, to make a mistake to the written Word. Whatever changes or variations or "mistakes" we have "found" may in fact not be a mistake at all but a preservation for all. I don't believe that the modern day texts are preserved because they(MV) were written by men/women not guided by the Holy Ghost, and they were written for profit. I am not sure about the KJV today, I am sure it is produced by some companies solely for profit, but I also say to that, Render to Caeser...., but I do believe the modern versions had the sole prupose of profit, no other reason.


I think it all boils down to this: Does one have faith that the Holy Bible they read is the preserved Word of God?

If so, read it and grow!

In Christ,

Jim

You know I am going to quote and reprimand myself here.

That is a quote from me on my fundamentalist topic. I am guilty of violating my very statement and want to apologize to everyone. I am sorry.

In Christ,

Jim

One sided or not these men have presented to me an argument that the Westcott and Hort texts were inferior manuscripts and it makes sense to me. Based on the evidence they have presented.

Why should I not trust the conclusions reached by these men? I have studied on my own, but not near the amount of time that these men have put into it.

All anybody really does anyway is read someone elses research and then draw their own conclusion. Even the eggheads in seminary. I would submit to you that all the men you talk about with doctorates and such, only believe that the Westcott And Hort texts are superior because their professors at college told them it was. So because they respect the men they are taught by they just toe the line.

Just because an argument is put forth by people that you might consider to be over the top, like Chick, or Riplinger does not mean that the facts that they put forth are automaticly wrong. I could have posted twenty other websites with the same info as Chicks. But his came up first in the search engine.

If all we did is dismiss an argument on the basis of who people are, nobody would ever learn anything.

But I think you are used to debating with Ruckmanites. Because your posts contain all kinds of presupositions about what we believe. I dont hate anybody for using another version. I personally don't use another version but the KJV. I don't go around investigating every one who does'nt use the KJV and then ram my view down their throats or berate them for not agreeing with me. If Im asked Ill tell them why and show them verses that are in the KJV and have been removed from the NIV. Quite honestly that is usually all it takes to get them to consider using the KJV over their current version. No one wants to read an incomplete bible.

It still seems to me that modern versions remove certain verses out of the scripture that are in the KJV soely based on two manuscripts.

I also dont remember stating that no one had the Bible until 1611. Im sure I did not.

The Pilgrims used the Geneva Bible and were greatly blessed by God.

I find it curious that you wont delve into the occult tendencies of Westcott and Hort(not that I have), but you believe the allegations made by others that question wether or not King James was a sodomite.

Oh OK, Im sure we can find something to agree on.

Ray

Jim,

Debate over issues critical to our faith is never wasted time. I think of it as sharpening an axe. It may take a while to get a good edge on it, but a sharp axe will cut more cleanly and more deeply. Plus, reexamining and writing out our stance on issues will solidify and clarify our beliefs. Writing will eventually force greater precision in our expression.

Hey, believe it or not, every now and then I change on a position to bring myself more into line with the Word of God, whatever that may be?!? Just kidding, but some probably think there is more truth that levity there. I think of it debating critical issues as “theological chess” only it is not a game and it does have practical value in that it can strengthen our understanding of the Word.

Raymond,

Yep, did research the “ghostie guild” and the whole Wescott Hort thing. Even went so far as to find family and personal correspondence and family follow ups to the charges of spiritism. Did not say that I believed the allegations re King James, only that even being aware of them, I did not believe that if they were true they affected the translation. But I did do personal research on that one, too. Never did believe everything my professors told me. I was a troublemaker from way back! On the whole, I think we are not as far apart as I may have made it sound.

Thanks for the forum and the chance to sharpen up a bit.

Ray

Most heartily agreed. This thread has had me studying more than I have in a long time. It has definitely sharpened me! I DO appreciate the talks we have had. I do not regret the result I feel from all of this as I sit and ponder now, I just feel bad that it seems like I did get a little selfish in some of my comments that only glorified me and not God.

You are right, I certainly do not believe we wasted time here.

Jim

Wow, now that was weird. I never logged out and it still posted me as a guest.

Know anything about that Ray?

Jim

It's kinda hard to feel strongly about somthing and then try to discuss it in an emotionally detached manner. No worries mate.

Well put!

Bornbaptist--

Hey there...I think you got lost in the mix. If you are still out there, come on back...we hardly ever argure on here, just discuss. Sometimes the discussion breaks out in a debate, but that's ok, so long as when we are talking about doctrine we use the Bible and not personal opinion. I have a friend who is a free will baptist. How is Detroit these days? I'm originally from MI...but haven't been home in a while.

Good call Sailor, I was wondering the same thing. I hope we didn't turn him off too bad.

In Christ,

Jim

Bornbaptist I kinda like that.

Not me though. I was bornsinner.

But, praise God, by His love and mercy, I was bornagainbygrace.

Someone once asked a pastor friend of mine what he would be if he wasn't a Baptist?

He thought for a moment then replied, "well if I wasn't a Baptist, I would be a shamed."

I have been asked by Sailorjerry, George, and Jim what I believe about inspiration, preservation, and translation. Here is a statement that lines up pretty closely with what I believe.

"A perfect translation of the Bible is humanly impossible. The words in one language do not have exactly the same color and meaning as opposite words in another language, and human frailty and imperfection enter in. So, let us say, there are no perfect translations."

Even as some are screaming “burn the heretic” (some in jest, some not) you should be aware that even though I am in full agreement with this position, the words are not mine. They belong to the late Dr. John R. Rice, Our God Breathed Book, the Bible, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, TN, p. 376.

If I am to be burned, I am in good company. Though I am certainly not worthy to be grouped together with men such as Dr. Rice.

Regarding the KJV being inspired, I thought the issue of secondary inspiration had already been covered and addressed by the site administrator.

THIS STATEMENT IS ALL MINE – I do not believe that ANY translation is the inspired Word of God. Inspiration applies to the original autographs. Rather, we use a translation of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of the inspired Word of God. NOR do I believe that the KJV is the only faithful translation of the Word of God. If it is, then the world did not have a faithful Word of God till 1611. This conclusion is inescapable if the KJV is the perfectly preserved Word of God. If it is, all the others before and since are not. I am absolutely dumbfounded at how this cannot be clear to some!

How about this quote: "We affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poorest or least esteemed] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession... contains the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. Though it be not interpreted by every Translator with like grace, the King's speech is still the King's speech; no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant [used], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth [translating] of it... ...Variety of translations is profitable for finding out of the sense of the scriptures."

Guess who said that. The KING JAMES TRANSLATORS, Translators to the Readers Preface of the King James Version 1611.

Inspiration applies to the original autographs. Preservation applies to the apographs and translations, but God DID NOT guarantee PERFECT preservation and translation in any language. All of the texts cited out of context and imposed onto this discussion may well serve to inflame the passions and draw hearty amens, yet none of them deliver God’s promise of an enduring perfect text in English. To quote the KJV preface “the [poorest] translation... contains the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God... notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted... variety of translations if profitable for finding out the sense of the scriptures [citing Augustine]”.

I hardly know what else to say. NO GENERATION of saints or even a significant group of saints prior to Peter Ruckman has ever held that any translation was perfect and without error. I am certainly not accusing you or anyone else on this site of being a Ruckmanite, but his error is abundantly evident in the writings of ALL KJVO writers even though to a lesser, or maybe even much lesser degree. This whole idea that we must have a perfect translation to know what God says is beyond absurdity. Has no generation prior to 1611 been able to have the Word of God? Who is to say which one (of the KJV’s) is perfect? The Vulgate has been around much longer and was certainly much more widely accepted for many more years than the KJV has been around. The Geneva was the Bible of the Pilgrims. Did they have a “flawed” translation? I don’t think so. Yet I am not offended that the KJV translators sought to improve on it. Nor am I offended that some have sought to improve on the KJV. How could I be, with the full knowledge that the KJV replaced the Geneva as the popular translation of the day and that the KJV translators themselves suggested further revision!

I am GREATLY OFFENDED AT THE COMMENT THAT THE “Holy Spirit chose the KJV” and the analogy between believing the KJV is inspired and believing the doctrine of the Trinity! I can hardly believe such an analogy has been used! If popularity is the issue, what if the NIV or NAS outsells the KJV? Does that prove that they are the preserved Word? We have reached a point where other Bible versions are outselling the KJV. Does that prove the Holy Spirit is now choosing them? What did the HS pick before 1611? (Oh well, it is evident that some of my comments have greatly offended a few others as well.)

If I have sidestepped any questions, that was not my intent. Will post my comments here on why I do not accept that the written Word is the living God and John 1:1-3 later (brought up under James 2 thread, by Jim).

RJP--

First of all, lets get a couple of things cleared up.

You said:

"I am GREATLY OFFENDED AT THE COMMENT THAT THE “Holy Spirit chose the KJV” and the analogy between believing the KJV is inspired and believing the doctrine of the Trinity! I can hardly believe such an analogy has been used!"

How did the KJV come into being then? You seem to believe that God had nothing to do with it...was it just by chance? coincedience? Is the KJV just a compilation of some men wanting notriety? Wanting to change the direction of Christianity?

I have never said the KJV was inspired...I do believe it is the PRESERVED INSPIRED Word of God.

You take great liberty with what others have written on here. What I said was that I didn't understand how God could preserve His inspired Word in another language, that it WAS A MYSTERY TO ME as is Gods infinate love for us and the Trinity. I don't completely understand these two teachings fully, I believe them, but explaination is difficult. The analogy you seen was in your own mind, not in my words.

As for the NIV...the verses and passages the authors left out, were they guided by the Holy Spirit to leave them out? How about in John 3:16 in the NIV changing "only begotten Son of God" to "one and only son of God". Was Jesus Gods only son? If so, then please explain:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Could this be a contradiction in the NIV? Please, by using the NIV, explain this to a young Christian whose faith has been shaken by these two passages. Would you say that Jesus is really no different than us? or that we are the same as Jesus? How could you make the distinction?

I do believe the Holy Spirit chose the KJV to preserve Gods Word. Why did He? I don't know. Is He choosing the NIV and other MV's now over the KJV? He might be if He wants to change Gods message.
because that's what the MV's do, they change the message of the KJV.

Please explain the following verse:

1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

What was Paul waiting for that would be "perfect"? And when it came, what would be "done away"?

This post was last modified: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:38 PM by sailorjerry.