User Tag List

Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 358

Thread: Companion Thread for KJV only debate

  1. #91
    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
    68558

    1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

    Hi Steven. Very good points about Wallace's slippery methods, and the article about Cyprian's quote is great information to have.

    Thanks,

    Will K




    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
    Since the Daniel Wallace article on the Johannine Comma is full of omissions and assertions that range from slippery to crafty to wrong, may I suggest you study just one element first, the reference from Cyprian.

    Daniel Wallace actually wrote an article on just this quote, which is left totally unmentioned in the article you shared. Unmentioned along with more than a dozen other early church writer citations, including the incredible references from the Council of Carthage in the 5th century and the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. And Daniel Wallace also gives us massive omissions about the Old Latin and Vulgate MSS lines through the early centuries. (His confused take on the Reformers can be discussed separately.)

    So, suggestion .. why not simply read Cyprian for yourself, as this has been the subject of some rather fascinating comments over the years by men like Coxe and Scrivener. Here is a chunk, and you can read more of Cyprian at the URL.

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html
    The Treatises of Cyprian. - Treatise I. - On the Unity of the Church.
    The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” Matt. xii. 30. He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” John x. 30. and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” 1 John v. 7. 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.

  2. #92
    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
    68558

    What about those Printing errors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Has brandplucked stated which version of the King James he believes to be inspired? The 1611 first edition (the "he" version- Ruth 3:15), the 1611 second edition (the "she" version), Blayney's 1769 version, Scrivener's update, the Pure Cambridge version, etc?


    Golly, Mr. R. This is a tough one. I've never heard of this type of argument before. O wait, did you get this from Doug Kutilek, or perhaps James White?

    All you are doing is trying to prove that NO Bible in ANY language IS now the pure and preserved words of God.

    Let's take a closer look and where your 'printing error' leads you.


    Ruth 3:15 he or she?

    Frequently those who claim the King James Bible is riddled with errors and has changed in thousands and thousands of places since it first came out in 1611, bring up Ruth 3:15 as an example of contradiction and confusion. This supposed error is one of Doug Kutilek's favorites. He has no final authority but his own mind and he seems to take great delight in pointing out alleged errors in the KJB.

    Mr. Kutilek says: "It should be unnecessary to say much about variations which have always existed among various printings and editions of the KJV. They do exist, and have from the beginning (the two editions printed in 1611 differ in over 2,000 places, perhaps the most famous being "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15)."


    Ruth 3:15. The Cambridge edition, which I use, says: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city."

    There was a discrepancy between the edition published in 1611 and the one published in 1613. The verse in question was Ruth 3:15. In the 1611 edition, it read, “HE went into the city,” referring to Boaz. In the 1613 edition, it read, “SHE went into the city,” referring to Ruth. These two editions became known as “the Great He Bible” and “the Great She Bible,” respectively. This printing error was soon discovered and changed back to the reading of "she" went into the city.

    In actual fact, they BOTH ended up going back into the city, so there really isn't any significant change in meaning, but let's see what others have done with this verse.

    Mr. Kutilek and those like him have no infallible Bible. They continue to promote the modern versions which differ from one another in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. The NASB, NIV and ESV often reject the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follow the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls or the Vulgate in scores of instances and often not in the same places as the others. Yet this is the confused Bible of the Month club babel that Mr. Kutilek would recommend to overthrow the time tested KJB.

    There still continue to be differences among the many versions even in Ruth 3:15. Those versions that read: "And HE went into the city" are the NIV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Young's, the Jewish 1917 translation, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible translation, the World English Bible, New Century Version 1991, New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, and the 2005 TNIV (Today's NIV).

    The versions that read: "And SHE went into the city" are the KJB, NKJV, NASB, Revised Standard Version, Coverdale, Bishop's, Douay, Bible in Basic English, Geneva bible, 1936 Jewish translation, Holman Standard, New English Bible 1970, Douay 1950, New Jerusalem Bible 1985, and the 2001 English Standard Version. Notice in the case of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV, each of which is a revision of the other, that the RSV went with "he", then the NRSV read "she", and the latest ESV has now gone back to "he" again.

    We even get conflicting footnotes in some of these versions. The NKJV which reads SHE, just as the KJB and NASB, has a footnote which says: "Masoretic text reads HE; some Hebrew manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate read SHE.

    However the NIV, NRSV, both of which still say HE, have footnotes telling us: "Most Hebrew manuscripts read HE, but many Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac read SHE."

    So, the multitude of modern versions not only continue to disagree among themselves in their textual reading, but also in the reasons they give for their differences. Mr. Kutilek wants us to come to the same conclusion he has, that is, "There is no inerrant and inspired Bible on this earth."


    If anyone is interested in seeing more about the "printing errors" issue, here is more info on this, and why those who don't believe any Bible bring it up.

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html

    Will K

  3. #93
    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
    8031
    Muz: Again, if this is your standard, then you've defeated yourself. Remember that the point, here, isn't to compare the KJV to other translations or texts, but for you to prove that the KJV is inerrant.

    The problem you have now is that you've set up a standard that causes the KJV to fail, as I've demonstrated.


  4. #94
    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
    8031
    I see that the position of the only true bible King James only bunch is to not answer the valid substantiated facts, but proclaim either inadequacies and quotations from Cyprian's commentary that aren't in the Inspired Greek Scriptures, oh and aren't translated without bias . Huh... I seriously doubt that anyone in the peanut gallery is going to keep continuing to present facts when they are dismissed as irrevelant. Good luck... You've not even remotely made a case.

    bereancam

  5. #95
    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
    8031
    Muz: How is it that you can claim that the KJV is the inerrant word of God, when the Greek text is is based upon isn't entirely sourced in your vaunted "traditional text"?

    I'd also like to point out that you've yet to actually make a case on its own merits that the KJV is inerrant. You've pointed out where you think the KJV is right and other translations are wrong, but that doesn't establish inerrancy. You claim that the KJV is God's preserved Word, and have yet to provide a single link that uniquely points from Scripture to KJV. You've presented no logic that suggests that the KJV is what you claim it is.

    At best, you've shown that you have a particular view of preservation, one not entirely supported in Scripture, and made claims that the KJV fulfills this view, even though there are a number of ways that it does not.

    Are we coming to a point?



  6. #96
    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
    8031
    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam_46151 View Post
    I see that the position of the only true bible King James only bunch is to not answer the valid substantiated facts, but proclaim either inadequacies and quotations from Cyprian's commentary that aren't in the Inspired Greek Scriptures, oh and aren't translated without bias . Huh... I seriously doubt that anyone in the peanut gallery is going to keep continuing to present facts when they are dismissed as irrevelant. Good luck... You've not even remotely made a case.

    bereancam


    Typo: oh and isn't interpreted without a bias.

    bereancam

  7. #97
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    4,317
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 355 Times in 255 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    219381

    Muz is ahead in the debate.

    So far the one-on-one has been a little disappointing. Muz has been doing a good job of presenting evidence, history and scriptural reference to support his position. Good job Muz.

    Brandplucked's argument has deteriorated into an attempt to get Muz to say specifically that Mus does not believe in a 100% inspired and inerrant translation. Brandplucked has provided a couple of re-posts from articles he has written in the past but has offered no meaningful response to any of the points raised by Muz. Brandplucked has not offered anything other than unsupported assertions that his position is correct.

    Muz, keep up the good work. Brandplucked, please quit trying to get Muz to say something and start offering some support for your assertions.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  8. #98
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    18,198
    Thanks
    2,997
    Thanked 18,840 Times in 11,051 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147794
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    So far the one-on-one has been a little disappointing. Muz has been doing a good job of presenting evidence, history and scriptural reference to support his position. Good job Muz.

    Brandplucked's argument has deteriorated into an attempt to get Muz to say specifically that Mus does not believe in a 100% inspired and inerrant translation. Brandplucked has provided a couple of re-posts from articles he has written in the past but has offered no meaningful response to any of the points raised by Muz. Brandplucked has not offered anything other than unsupported assertions that his position is correct.

    Muz, keep up the good work. Brandplucked, please quit trying to get Muz to say something and start offering some support for your assertions.
    How can someone prove the KJV is the preserved inerrant word of God when the opponent doesn't believe there's a preserved inerrant word of God?

    A bit of a difficult task...
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  9. #99
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    4,317
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 355 Times in 255 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    219381
    Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    How can someone prove the KJV is the preserved inerrant word of God when the opponent doesn't believe there's a preserved inerrant word of God?

    A bit of a difficult task...
    Its difficult, but if the evidence exists to prove that the KJV is The One and Only, then brandplucked should be able to do it. That is the point of a one-on-one discussion, to present the evidence and support for your view point. So far, he has not presented anything that would lead Muz, or anybody else, to conclude that an inerrant translation exists. That be a good place for him to start. What is the evidence and scriptural support for an inerrant translation.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  10. #100
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    18,198
    Thanks
    2,997
    Thanked 18,840 Times in 11,051 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147794
    It's a pretty simple concept.

    Did God promise to preserve his words?
    There are no originals.
    Where is his word?
    Is it scattered bits & pieces between 30 versions?
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  11. #101
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    18,198
    Thanks
    2,997
    Thanked 18,840 Times in 11,051 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147794
    Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    It's a pretty simple concept.

    Did God promise to preserve his words?
    There are no originals.
    Where is his word?
    Is it scattered bits & pieces between 30 versions? Or did God lie?
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  12. #102
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    18,198
    Thanks
    2,997
    Thanked 18,840 Times in 11,051 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147794
    oops.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  13. #103
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    175

    Cyprian and the Johannine Comma

    Hi Folks,

    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam
    I see that the position of the only true bible King James only bunch is to not answer the valid substantiated facts, but proclaim either inadequacies and quotations from Cyprian's commentary that aren't in the Inspired Greek Scriptures, oh and aren't translated without bias
    Greetings, Bereancam. The inability to work with a consistent dynamic is a continual difficulty of those who defend no Bible anywhere in any language as the pure and perfect word of God. Lets look at the above comment as a simple example and dissect it point by point..

    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam
    is to not answer the valid substantiated facts
    You would have to be more specific as to what "v.s.f" are not answered. If they are in fact v.s.f. then we agree on them, and happily continue the discussion.

    And then the issue goes to one of overall viewpoints, understandings, including whether one believes that the word of God is truly inspired and preserved, whether God has given us his pure word for the ploughman and even the seminarian today, or whether we are only in a time of corruption and confusion about his word. And if we do believe in and accept the full purity of God's word, we seek the precise identity thereof.

    Most of the time neither side disagrees about valid substantiated facts (although we may differ as to which facts are the significant evidences) we differ as to the overall understanding of the body of evidence, and the nature of God's promises in regard to his word and its inspiration and preservation.

    Let's continue.

    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam
    proclaim either inadequacies and quotations from Cyprian's commentary that aren't in the Inspired Greek Scriptures
    Now I would call this a beautiful example of reverse dynamics. First throw down the challenge, the gauntlet, and then when the true answer is given loud and clear and strong .. comes forth .. "why are you expressing yourself so forcefully ?".

    Let us remember than the Johannine Comma was raised as a supposed weakness in the pure King James Bible position by the NPB (no pure bible) group here. And it was rather strangely claimed that it only appeared in MSS in the 1500's. A rather gross error that has yet to be acknowledged and corrected, since the Johannine Comma is in many MSS in the first millennium, and the tricky wording can only be applied to "extant Greek MSS", apparently unbeknownst to the original 1500's claimant. And with the incredible MSS distinction still unacknowledged, ignorance has since been coupled with arrogance, working through blindness. Why not simply accept the correction ?

    So in defending God's pure word the wealth of early citations (including the Council of Carthage) were given, actually many were omitted that could be added, essentially proving that the Johannine Comma was at least early, refuting the false 1500's claim (along with the early MSS evidence being a part of a multi-refutation).

    And one fall-back position of the NPB crew, it was given on this forum, has been the claim of a late fourth century interpolation (remember we have no MSS before the 4th century anyway) at times ascribed to the controversial Priscillian. There are many evidences against this, such as the Council of Carthage not long after showing a wide church acceptance that would be well neigh impossible from a recent interpolation, especially in the midst of a doctrinal dispute. Yet the single most powerful and clear refutation being the Cyprian citation. Any unconvoluted reading of Cyprian, as acknowledged historically by men like Coxe and Scrivener, and amply demonstrated by Marty Shue on the net, must see that Cyprian, a writer noted for accurate scripture referencing, had the Johannine Comma in his Bible in the 3rd century, about a century and a half before our earliest extant MSS.

    This if course is very significant in any discussion of the Johannine Comma (interestingly and significantly, Cyprian also clearly references the textual sister verse Acts 8:37, another powerful verse, full of meaning and significance, that the modern versionsists like to (snip) ). Yet when we take the time to correct the errors on the forum about the Johannine Comma history, the response from one like yourself, bereancam, boils down to only a kvetch ! Why are we discussing Cyprian ?

    Why are we demonstrating such historical textual truth ? The answer is simple - we were challenged on this verse, as part of an attack against God's word in our hand being pure and perfect, false history was given to support the challenge, and we felt it was important to answer a false accusation and history against the word of God. Simply a reasonable service, one which some readers on the forum might actually appreciate. Attempted to be done carefully and accurately and gracefully, all of which takes a spot of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam
    oh and aren't translated without bias
    Apparently you feel there is a flaw in the Cyprian translation ? I would be happy to go over this with you, however your accusation would have to be more specific. Marty Shue did give the Latin and English, and he actually used the same English as given by Daniel Wallace.

    Daniel Wallace
    “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father,
    and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”

    Marty Shue, with exposition.
    Since Cyprian wrote the disputed passage in Latin I feel it necessary to list Cyprian’s words in Latin. Cyprian wrote, “Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt.” (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). This Latin reading is important when you compare it to the Old Latin reading of 1 John 5:7; “Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.” Cyprian clearly says that it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--”And the three are One.” His Latin matches the Old Latin reading identically with the exception of ‘hi’. Again, it is important to note that Cyprian said “it is written” when making his remarks. He never indicates, depsite Wallace’s claims, that he is putting some sort of “theological spin” on 1 John 5:7 or 8. There is no other verse that expressly states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ‘three in one’ outside of 1 John 5:7. If Cyprian was not quoting 1 John 5:7 the question must be asked and answered: What was he quoting?

    Marty's discussion is extremely compelling and clear. Please indicate your translation concern. Thanks.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  14. #104
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul
    How can someone prove the KJV is the preserved inerrant word of God when the opponent doesn't believe there's a preserved inerrant word of God? A bit of a difficult task...
    Amen. The analogy is to the skeptic who says ...

    "Prove to me that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the virgin-born son of God, God manifest in the flesh. However I do not accept the Hebrew Bible, I believe in evolution, I believe all the Bible is myth. You must prove Jesus Christ and him crucified anyway, to my satisfaction, else you will have failed."

    The only failure in that scenario is the unbelieving rejectionist. The only failure when men stubbornly refuse to see that God has given us his pure and perfect word, readable by the ploughman and even the seminarian, is with those who disbelieve God and embrace corruption and confusion, and then can remake God's word to each person's individual predilections.

    Men who not only don't know if Mark gave us a resurrection account of the Lord Jesus Christ, or John wrote the Pericope Adultera, or if the swine ran a 35-mile marathon back to the Sea of Galilee, but have convinced themselves that they do not even care. Many do not even know if Peter wrote 2 Peter or Paul wrote the Pastorals, and these unbelievers are telling you what to (snip) out of the Bible.

    Will Kinney is one gentleman, perhaps more than any other I have seen, who has always kept to the majors first. Will understands first and foremost the underlying and fundamental paradigmic issue .. is God's word 100% pure ?

    Then, after we struggle with that question, hopefully with a strong affirmative .. how do we identify his pure word ? Will is happy to demonstrate many compelling strengths for the King James Bible position. (In fact anyone can simply read the D. A. Waite writing on the fourfold superiority to at least get a starting-point, or the Crowned with Glory material of Thomas Holland)

    However, please understand, to the 'true' committed skeptic Jesus Christ can never be proven, to their satisfaction.

    And to those men who are shaky about the authority of God having his pure word tangible, readable, that cannot be remolded to convenience -- to those men the pure Bible in our hands, the authority of the King James Bible, is a true stumbling-block.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  15. #105
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
    to conclude that an inerrant translation exists. That be a good place for him to start. What is the evidence and scriptural support for an inerrant translation.
    Please remember, Cabinetmaker, that you and the other NPB folks here do not simply reject an "inerrant translation". There is no Bible anywhere in the world, in any language, that the NPB folks here are accepting and defending as the pure and perfect word of God. None .. zilch .. nada.

    If you would first acknowledge that, it would be an excellent beginning. Honesty and truth are excellent springboards for understanding. Personally I had a period of time where I believed that the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic underlying texts were the perfect ones with the King James Bible being simply an excellent translation thereof (and before all that I had used the NIV for many years). There was a progression as I began to understand, spiritually, by God's grace and revelation, more and more about the nature of God's promises and his perfect word. Many of us have walked a similar path, and can try to explain how God's truth of his word came forth to us, precept upon precept, line upon line. For those who have ears to hear.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

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