User Tag List

Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 358

Thread: Companion Thread for KJV only debate

  1. #31
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8033
    And the mob says: One on one...one on one...one on one !!!!!!!

  2. #32
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68560

    God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

    Quote Originally Posted by RC_Eagle View Post
    Citation of the Fathers of the Church is precisely among the things that Catholics consider appeals to Tradition. For that matter, the very making of an official translation of the Scriptures, such as the Vulgate, is an act of Tradition. This is how the truth of Jesus Christ is preserved over the course of the ages by the Holy Spirit.


    Hi RC. I was rather thinking of "tradition" in terms of being such things that have absolutely no Scriptural nor historical factual support and yet are taught and believed by certain religious groups. Stuff like the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, a special order of priestcraft under the New Testament covenant, the sacrifice of the mass. Stuff like that.

    Will K

  3. #33
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68560

    God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

    Quote Originally Posted by daveme7 View Post
    Hi Wil,


    What is the resource for these statements? IN other words, where do you find the article and what resources did the author use? It is usually customary when citing a resource which cites a resource-you utilize both resources(unless your name is G.A. Riplinger which often cites other KJVO books to show how someone else is wrong-borrowing, parroting someone else's opinion).
    Hi Dave. May I suggest you go to a good bible version site that has lots of online bible commentaries and see what these men themselves have stated. The sources for my quotes and material is no big secret. Here is a good bible study/commentary site:

    http://www.studylight.org/

    Or just do a Google search. It is amazing what you can find. We live in pretty exciting times.

    You also said:

    "A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

    God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

    If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations."


    Seems like you make a good argument for modern day translations!

    You go around and keep asking what people say what is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God is. Yet, you decline to define what you mean by inerrant, infallible, and inspiration means.
    Dave. First of all, I am by no means defend the modern versions. I believe them all to be perversions of the pure words of God, though they do contain to differing degrees many parts of God's true words. If you had read the parts you quoted from me you should have noticed I said "If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God."

    What we have in the Multiple-choice Bible Babel smorgasbord today is many completely different (usually omitted) or totally different texts and meanings in a multitude of places; sometimes with the opposite meanings in fact.

    You know me from another club. All you have to do is go to my site and look at almost any article there to see the bible version comparisons I have done over the years. The differences are often huge and very significant.

    As for your definitions of inerrant and infallible, I agree with the ones you put up before. I think you got your definitions right. Do you have a Bible that meets these standards? If so, what is it called? It can't be them all, because the modern versions have hundreds of differences among themselves, both textually and in meaning. So which one is it?

    Thanks,

    Will K

  4. #34
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Wil,
    Thanks for that site. I see it as a valusable resource. I would think that perhaps(maybe you did it before-search your other postings here.) Thing is like that is like searching for a needle in the haystack. Irrigaurdless, you gave the guy's name so that should not be to hard to referance. Of course, I did not mention why I ask for resources.
    As you know, I am one who affirms the KJV,TR, and MT as the word of God, yet I do not consider my self as a King James Onlyist(for lack of a better term). The reason why is I see my beleif system as doctrine based on scripture mixed with philosophy. Conclusions are drawn on both sides based on their interpretation of evidance.
    These interpretations are what I consider the "philosophy" part- the use of logic, language, and Theology which all are tied or bisected by Philosophy.

    As you also know me in several Yahoo groups, I am an evidance kind of guy. This is the reason wh I am aspiring to learn Greek(self taught-just started on the alphabet) for my own studies as well as a comparison of the TR(the latest one re-engineered to fit the KJV when there was differances between the various editions of TR's and was not even used at times by the KJV translators), Wescott and Hort Text, and the NA27 derivitive of Wescott and Hort.

    With all this, I figure this is a debate and whatever evidances we use should be documented and mainly(not any time soon but this summer during my school break) would like to read, maybe even do that kind of research on the Johannian Comma. I have used it often. So in other words(yes I know I write alot) it is mainly for my own studying. If I find this particular author to be correct, then that allows me to confidantly speek from knowledge-to be able to give others the oppurtunity to learn as I have.

    As far as using your comments. I know your stand. It just seemed that some of the logical reasoning you used sounds just the same as some modern versions use.

    As far as inerrancy, if you read the other versions and write a summation of what a particular passage teaches then read the KJV, same passage and write a summation of what the same particular passage taught, would they be altogether different? I am with you on chopping off the end of Mark. I am sure some details could be differant comparing the two, but what is one understanding of it using a modern version.
    The point is, going word for word in defineing a translation as inerrant is false. Sometimes there is multiple ways to translate a passage and all could be correct.

    So if the KJV translate something one way and say the NASB translates it slightly differently and both are correct according to let's say Greek construction, though both have a slight differance in English, is the KJV the standard of how to translate correctly just because the translators of the NASB, though technichally correct chose a different translation? Are both translations of a particular passage, different but still correct according to language rules-are both inerrant or just one or the other?
    God bless
    Dave

  5. #35
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8033
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Interesting. Well, the only things I used to defend 1 John 5:7 as being authentic Scripture was not "tradition" but history. Cyprian does quote the Scripture in question way back in 250 A.D. (long before anything we have in the extant Greek copies) and says "it is written" and Athanasius does use it in 350 when disputing against the Arian heresy. These things are not strictly speaking called "tradition" but historical facts.

    Will K


    Good Lord's day Evening to all in the peanut gallery,

    Well Will, you have spent more time in the peanut gallery than you have posting in your one on one battle royale. Hmmm.... Your position is crumbling.
    Round and round and round and round... On to the Coliseum...

    This will make little difference to a hardened heart, so BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN...
    Cyprian quotes Scripture from where? Himself? John 10:30

    Quotation from an anonymous someone knowldegable of such things:
    "Cyprian of Carthage quotes John as saying "these three are one" in
    reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (not Father, Word and
    Spirit). Since he has a habit of quoting Scripture and does not quote
    the Comma here, but must appeal to John 10:30 to make his argument
    for the oneness of the Father and Son, he is likely quoting a
    truncated portion of 1 John 5:8, along with an interpretative spin,
    in an attempt to include the Holy Spirit along with the Father and
    Son. There would be no need to do this if he had known of the Comma.
    He is unaware of the Comma."

    "The actual passage of Cyprian: The Lord says, "I and the Father are
    one;" (Joh_10:30) and again *it is written of the Father, and of the
    Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."* And does any
    one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength
    and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church,
    and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who
    does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the
    faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation."

    "Notice Cyprian wording - "it is written **of** the Father, and of the
    Son, and of the Holy". He is interpolating verse 8."

    Did someone say good commentaries?

    And this: I use this quotation from an anonymous someone knowledgable of
    the original languages & history (oh I'm sure he has scans of these documents):

    "[It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD
    from good Old Latin manuscripts.] It is also in the Clementine Vulgate today."
    "546 AD | : Vulgate Codex Fuldensis. Does not contain the Comma but
    it does contain the Comma phrase "in earth" for 1 John 5:8. It also
    contains a reference to the Comma in the Prologue to the Canonical
    Epistles allegedly written by Jerome. However, this is considered
    spurious by many because the Comma is absent from John's first letter.
    The Catholic church finally realized like the English
    revisers of 1881 that the "comma" was a later addition to the text
    and removed it."

    And this:
    Albert Barnes (1872) Notes on the Bible:
    I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age - one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.
    II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions - one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.
    III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity - a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine - nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor - it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.

    And this:
    Adam Clarke's (1762-1832) Commentary on the Bible
    But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.
    It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.
    The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following: -
    “1Jo_5:6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth.
    1Jo_5:7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.

    And this:
    Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary:
    1Jn 5:7 - three — Two or three witnesses were required by law to constitute adequate testimony. The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth,” are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century.

    And this:
    Robertson's Word Pictures
    1Jn 5:7 -
    For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en tōi ouranōi ho patēr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tēi gēi (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to 1Jo_5:8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.

    And this:
    From the Interpreter's Bible:
    7. This verse in the KJV is to be rejected (with RSV). It appears in no ancient Greek MS nor is it cited by any Greek father; of all the versions only the Latin contained it, and even this in none of it's most ancient sources. The earliest MSS of the Vulgate do not have it. As Dodd (Johannine Epistles, p. 127n) reminds us, "It is first quoted as a part of 1 John by Priscillian, the Spanish heretic, who died in 385, and it gradually made its way into MSS of the Latin Vulgate until it was accepted as part of the authorized Latin text.

    You have not proved much, except to prove a student of God's Word, well a student. A few contradictions I would say you have. What happened to the apocrypha and the cross references of said apocrypha to the Authorized text in this inspired KJV?

    Modern translations are perversions? Oh that's right the NASB is a false bible.

    bereancam

  6. #36
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8033
    Hey Will, guess what else I read....... Luther's Bible doesn't contain the comma.

  7. #37
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68560

    1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

    Hi bc. You can quote three or four scholars to support your view, and yet there are other scholars who state quite emphatically the opposite view.

    By the way, those of us who are familiar with your stuff know that you are not a Trinitarian, so it is of little surprise that you would not want this verse in the Bible. We also know that you do not believe any bible in any language to be the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God.

    This is directly from John Gill's commentary of 1 John 5:7. Looks like a lot of his information is in direct contradiction to what you and others have said.


    "As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius F26, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius F1 about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian F2, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian F3 about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation." - John Gill

  8. #38
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68560

    John Calvin on 1 John 5:7

    John Calvin included the whole verse in his own translation and says this in his online commentary:There are three than bear record in heaven The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that IT IS FOUND IN THE BEST AND MOST APPROVED COPIES (caps are mine), I am inclined to receive it as the true reading."

    John Calvin

  9. #39
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68560

    Matthew Henry on 1 John 5:7

    Matthew Henry also believe the passage was inspired Scripture.

    In part he wrote: "
    1. We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. We shall not here enter into the controversy. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse. Some may be so faulty, as I have an old printed Greek Testament so full of errata, that one would think no critic would establish a various lection thereupon. But let the judicious collators of copies manage that business. There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading. As,

    (1.) If we admit v. 8, in the room of v. 7, it looks too like a tautology and repetition of what was included in v. 6, This is he that came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood; and it is the Spirit that beareth witness. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. This does not assign near so noble an introduction of these three witnesses as our present reading does.



    It is observed that there is a variety of reading even in the Greek text, as in v. 7. Some copies read hen eisi—are one; others (at least the Complutensian) eis to hen eisin—are to one, or agree in one; and in v. 8 (in that part that it is supposed should be admitted), instead of the common en teµ geµ—in earth, the Complutensian reads epi teµs geµs—upon earth, which seems to show that that edition depended upon some Greek authority, and not merely, as some would have us believe, upon the authority either of the vulgar Latin or of Thomas Aquinas, though his testimony may be added thereto.

    The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle; ... Had the text been devised by another, it had been more easy and obvious, from the form of baptism, and the common language of the church, to have used the name Son instead of that of the Word. As it is observed that Tertullian and Cyprian use that name, even when they refer to this verse; or it is made an objection against their referring to this verse, because they speak of the Son, not the Word; and yet Cyprian's expression seems to be very clear by the citation of Facundus himself. Quod Johannis apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus, Carthaginensis antistes et martyr, in epistolâ sive libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto dictum intelligit; ait enim, Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt.—Blessed Cyprian, the Carthaginian bishop and martyr, in the epistle or book he wrote concerning the Trinity, considered the testimony of the apostle John as relating to the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit; for he says, the Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it is written, And these three are one. NOW IT IS NOWHERE WRITTEN THAT THESE THREE ARE ONE, BUT IN V.7 (caps are mine). It is probable than that St. Cyprian, either depending on his memory, or rather intending things more than words, persons more than names, or calling persons by their names more usual in the church (both in popular and polemic discourses), called the second by the name of the Son rather than of the Word. If any man can admit Facundus's fancy, that Cyprian meant that the Spirit, the water, and the blood, were indeed the Father, Word, and Spirit, that John said were one, he may enjoy his opinion to himself.

    ...Thirdly, Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt—and these three are one. Now these are the words, not of v. 8, but of v. 7.


    It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book. And,

    The antitrinitarian opposers of the text will deny that either the Spirit, or the water, or the blood, is God himself; but, upon our present reading, here is a noble enumeration of the several witnesses and testimonies supporting the truth of the Lord Jesus and the divinity of his institution. Here is the most excellent abridgment or breviate of the motives to faith in Christ, of the credentials the Saviour brings with him, and of the evidences of our Christianity, that is to be found, I think, in the book of God, upon which single account, even waiving the doctrine of the divine Trinity, THE TEXT IS WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. (caps are mine)
    Having these rational grounds on out side, we proceed. - Matthew Henry

  10. #40
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8033
    Will,

    Attack me personally all you wish. It won't change the facts 1 bit. Your statements have been refuted and dismissed as spurious and unsubstatiable. Your position is found wanting and not documentable. Desparation is not fruit from the Spirit. Sorry to disappoint.

    bereancam

  11. #41
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68560

    God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam_46151 View Post
    Will,

    Attack me personally all you wish. It won't change the facts 1 bit. Your statements have been refuted and dismissed as spurious and unsubstatiable. Your position is found wanting and not documentable. Desparation is not fruit from the Spirit. Sorry to disappoint.

    bereancam
    Hi bc. Don't start getting fitted for that martyrs crown just yet. I never attacked you personally here at all. All I did was plainly state that you are not a Trinitarian, so it is not hard to understand why you would not want 1 John 5:7 to stand in the Bible.

    I then pointed out what anybody knows who has studied textual issues. Get 10 scholars in a room and you end with with 12 different opinions ;-) I do not rely on scholars for what I believe about the Holy Bible and its inspiration. I, by God's sovereign grace, believe The Book (the King James Bible) IS the preserved and infallible words of God.

    I also pointed out the simple fact that you do not believe any bible in any language is the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God. This is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. If you think I falsely accused you, then all you have to do is tell us all quite plainly where we can get a printed copy of what you think is the perfect Bible so we can see how it differs from the King James Bible or any other version someone might be using at the moment.

    Will K

  12. #42
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8033
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Hi bc. Don't start getting fitted for that martyrs crown just yet. I never attacked you personally here at all. All I did was plainly state that you are not a Trinitarian, so it is not hard to understand why you would not want 1 John 5:7 to stand in the Bible.

    I then pointed out what anybody knows who has studied textual issues. Get 10 scholars in a room and you end with with 12 different opinions ;-) I do not rely on scholars for what I believe about the Holy Bible and its inspiration. I, by God's sovereign grace, believe The Book (the King James Bible) IS the preserved and infallible words of God.

    I also pointed out the simple fact that you do not believe any bible in any language is the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God. This is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. If you think I falsely accused you, then all you have to do is tell us all quite plainly where we can get a printed copy of what you think is the perfect Bible so we can see how it differs from the King James Bible or any other version someone might be using at the moment.

    Will K



    Evening Will,

    Don't worry, I am not concerned about anything you say about me personally. I'll lose no sleep over it. But your "KJVO cultish" tactics have been outlined already for your childish attacks that change the subject at hand. Honestly, it's become quite boring.
    Like your trinity statement. If you knew the meaning of the witnesses of the blood, water and Spirit in context with the whole chapter, you would see that this addition to the verse does not fit. But the first thing that comes to mind for you is to defend the nature of God instead of defending the witness of the Father's Christ. Good one! 1John 5:11 And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. This discourse in 1 John 5 has nothing to do with the trinity.

    As for the next part of the KJVO playbook you ask for the perfectly inpired Word of God. The original autographs in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic contain the inspired Word of God.

    As the rest of the peanut gallery can see you clearly Will, you have changed the subject from supporting your claim to proclaiming something else. Have at it. The controversy you promote is not of Christ. You've clearly placed a limit to how the Lord can communicate to all peoples of all languages in different translations by claiming only the Kings English is perfectly preserved. Doubts and division. How bogus! You can't even accept the NKJV from your viewpoint. That's a shame.


    God bless,
    bereancam

  13. #43
    Journeyman PaulMcNabb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Let's see now. We have a Mormon who tells us his Mormon church uses the King James Bible and it has 1 John 5:7 in it, but of course this particular Mormon doesn't personally believe it is Scripture and he himself has no inerrant Bible to offer to anyone.
    Wrong again, Brandplucked. It IS in my church's official scriptures (KJV), that verse does NOT contradict anything I believe or my church teachers, and I DO believe it is scripture. It just wasn't part of the original Bible and should be excluded from any new translation that is trying to be true to the original text. And anyone that teaches that we have a word-perfect inerrant Bible today is believing something that isn't biblical and is against all evidence.

    And then we have a Catholic who has the bold-face temerity to criticize the use of "tradition" to support our beliefs! That's a good one coming from a Catholic. No "tradition" in that church, right?
    Huh? Are you TRYING to be unreasonable? Of course HE believes in tradition. He was just pointing out that for a Protestant to appeal to tradition to prove something extra-biblical is ironic.

    And no one is denying that the pseudographical Johannine Comma appears in nearly all late texts, including ones used by Catholics.

  14. #44
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68560

    God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam_46151 View Post
    As for the next part of the KJVO playbook you ask for the perfectly inpired Word of God. The original autographs in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic contain the inspired Word of God....You've clearly placed a limit to how the Lord can communicate to all peoples of all languages in different translations by claiming only the Kings English is perfectly preserved. Doubts and division. How bogus! You can't even accept the NKJV from your viewpoint. That's a shame.

    Hi bc. Uh, need I remind you that there is no such animal as "the original autographs in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic"? In other words, you have no complete and inspired Bible NOW. That has been and still is my main point. What happened to all the promises of God and what the Bible says about itself?

    What you are left with is no Final Written Authority, and no Standard by which all others are measured. Instead you have an ever growing multitude of conflicting, contradictory 'ballpark approximations' of what God may or may not have said, and the simple and well documented fact is that fewer and fewer people every day believe the bible is the inerrant words of God, and they read it less and less.

    The Bible predicts a falling away from the faith in the last days, when there will be a one world religion. How does this take place? Well, by fewer and fewer people believing The Book.

    It is not the King James Bible believer that is sowing doubts as to the absolute and perfect truth of the Bible; it is todays seminaries who all teach their future pastors that the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in numerous places and that there is no sure way to find out what the New Testament says for sure in hundreds of readings.

    Most Christians today are far more like Bart Ehrman than they are true Bible believers. At least Bart Ehrman was honest about what he really believed and followed his reasoning to its only logical end.

    "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

    Will K

  15. #45
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68560

    A double-minded man

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb View Post
    Wrong again, Brandplucked. It IS in my church's official scriptures (KJV), that verse does NOT contradict anything I believe or my church teachers, and I DO believe it is scripture. It just wasn't part of the original Bible and should be excluded from any new translation that is trying to be true to the original text. And anyone that teaches that we have a word-perfect inerrant Bible today is believing something that isn't biblical and is against all evidence.
    "I DO believe it is scripture. It just wasn't part of the ... original text."

    Such a statement can only come from a very confused and self-contradictory mind. Things just keep getting weirder and weirder.

    Will K

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us