Hosea 13:14 a blessing or a curse? Bible Babble Buffet

[genuineoriginal]

"genuine original". Sir, IF you are not a bible agnostic (and I know that you are), then take The Bible Agnostic Test and let us know if you know what historic facts God recorded in His Book.

I took the test.

Here is the results:

Like all believers, brandplucked does not know exactly what God said (hence he is a Bible agnostic according to his own criteria) because brandplucked was not there to hear God speaking.

However, brandplucked is under the delusion that he, and he alone, knows what God said.

brandplucked often feasts at the Bible Babble Buffet Versions, and this is proven by the many translations he displays on his websites.

However, brandplucked is afraid that he can't be a self-appointed authority on what God said if he doesn't pick a single version and stick with it, even knowing it has errors in translations.

So, brandplucked decided that one version, the KJV, was the one to use by virtue of the KJV having been around the longest and printed the most times.

brandplucked has gone so far in making himself believe that the KJV is the only bible to use that he has become created a shrine to the KJV and invites people to come and worship the KJV at his shrine.

When God Himself says that He did not say what is written in the KJV, brandplucked tells God that the KJV is correct.

_______


As you can clearly see, I passed the test with flying colors.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you or do you not believe there IS (or ever was) a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language that IS the inerrant and infallible words of God?

Here is the answer:

As it is written, let God be true, but every man a liar.

If you can't understand that simple sentence, you have no reason to claim to be an authority on any Bible translation.

 

[brandplucked]

God's inerrant Book - the King James Bible

God's inerrant Book - the King James Bible

I appreciate that you took the time to type all of this out. I have a couple of questions about your inerrant KJV: What did the people of the years previous to 1611 do for inerrant Scripture? How is it that you can make claims of inerrancy in that text, but not in the preceding texts? Or is that your claim? I'm sort of new to this 'KJV only' discussion and haven't actually heard answers to these yet.

Hi Jonah. This question comes up a lot and it is a good question. But I have never found anybody from the modern versionist side who asks this question who has ever really thought through their own position.

I do not believe there was a perfect and inerrant Bible before the King James Bible. There was a purification process going on. The printing press wasn't even invented till around 1450 and the Reformation has not yet taken place.

The previous bibles that were translated from the different Hebrew and Greek texts were the Reformation Bibles like Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible. The 7th one was the KJB. The KJB translators used these 6 previous English bibles in their translation. They come right out and mention them by name. Plus they compared several foreign language bibles - all of the Reformation type.

But I do not believe that any of them were the inerrant words of God. They all have faults, either textually or in translation.

But when I say that I do not believe there was an inerrant Bible before the KJB the bible agnostics raise a big stink about this. What they are totally missing and usually never even stop to think about, is the FACT that not one of them really believes there was such a thing as an inerrant Bible either. Not before and they sure don't believe in one now.

All you have to do is ask them to show you a copy of this inerrant Bible they PROFESS to believe in (and lie about) from either before or after the KJB. Not one of them will do it.

Not Bob Enyart (that is why he continually dodges the question), nor James White, Dan Wallace, Rick Norris, James Price, Doug Kutilek, R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur. Not one of these men will EVER tell you what this inerrant Bible is many of them lie about believing in.

Now, if you know of a provable error, either textually, doctrinally or in meaning, then go ahead and let us know what your Number One All Time Big Hits "error" is and we can take a closer look at it to see if the error is in the Book or in your own understanding.

It is also highly significant that NOBODY seriously defends any version like the ever changing NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman etc. or any specific Hebrew and much less any specific Greek text as being the inerrant words of God.

God bless.

 

[dialm]

"No Religious Right figure, Hagee and DeLay included, has ever explained how the Constitution can be based on biblical principles without so much as mentioning God, Jesus, the Bible, or the Ten Commandments. They have not explained how the Constitution can be based on biblical principles when it in fact enshrines English Common Law, which owes more to Pagan Roman civil law than the Bible." -- http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/31/time-constitution-based-bible.html

If you mean the ancient Roman law that prohibited things like theft and murder then I will give that to you. The Romans didn't need Moses to tell them things like that were wrong. But

Your point is not so great after all. The ancient Roman Empire's laws were completely Christianized by 1776. Those laws were Christianized by the Roman Church. And while I'm not all that happy with the Roman church it does preform an extremely important service for the Body of Christ. It filters out the poison. And the Roman law that you seem so proud of was full of poison until the Roman church eliminated it.

As a matter of fact the Coliseum was protected by Roman law. Would you to have the Christian once again enter the Coliseum?

 

[JonahofAkron]

Hi Jonah. This question comes up a lot and it is a good question. But I have never found anybody from the modern versionist side who asks this question who has ever really thought through their own position.

I do not believe there was a perfect and inerrant Bible before the King James Bible. There was a purification process going on. The printing press wasn't even invented till around 1450 and the Reformation has not yet taken place.

The previous bibles that were translated from the different Hebrew and Greek texts were the Reformation Bibles like Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible. The 7th one was the KJB. The KJB translators used these 6 previous English bibles in their translation. They come right out and mention them by name. Plus they compared several foreign language bibles - all of the Reformation type.

But I do not believe that any of them were the inerrant words of God. They all have faults, either textually or in translation.

But when I say that I do not believe there was an inerrant Bible before the KJB the bible agnostics raise a big stink about this. What they are totally missing and usually never even stop to think about, is the FACT that not one of them really believes there was such a thing as an inerrant Bible either. Not before and they sure don't believe in one now.

All you have to do is ask them to show you a copy of this inerrant Bible they PROFESS to believe in (and lie about) from either before or after the KJB. Not one of them will do it.

Not Bob Enyart (that is why he continually dodges the question), nor James White, Dan Wallace, Rick Norris, James Price, Doug Kutilek, R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur. Not one of these men will EVER tell you what this inerrant Bible is many of them lie about believing in.

Now, if you know of a provable error, either textually, doctrinally or in meaning, then go ahead and let us know what your Number One All Time Big Hits "error" is and we can take a closer look at it to see if the error is in the Book or in your own understanding.

It is also highly significant that NOBODY seriously defends any version like the ever changing NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman etc. or any specific Hebrew and much less any specific Greek text as being the inerrant words of God.

God bless.

Excellent. Thank you for the answer. I think that I see what you're getting at, but if you don't believe that there was inerrancy in original writing or in it's transmission, how did the KJV get the stamp of approval? How is the KJV inerrancy verified by scholarship and how could get to inerrancy without an inerrant predecessor?

 

[dialm]

Inerrancy does not equal superiority.

 

[brandplucked]

Classic Quotes from the Bible Agnostics Crowd

Classic Quotes from the Bible Agnostics Crowd

Inerrancy does not equal superiority.

This is classic, dialm. I can see you have gone a long way in your spiritual journey. But I think you just maybe have been going in the wrong direction for quite some time to reach where it appears you are now.

 

[dialm]

Where I am now? Why I'm in your presence. Is that what you mean?

The prior Reformation bibles are superior in many ways. Just like those Pilgrims were superior to the Christians of today. But it was a different world back then. The Pilgrims were stripped of their earthly possessions for believing in their Bishop. While Christians today are paid a fee to take up for their's.

 

[dialm]

It is unreasonable to think that the KJV is superior to the Others. That would be like stating that King David was superior to Abraham.

Besides, when the Holy Spirit withdraws I'm going with Him. Every physical item is passing away.

(And to you Pate, these Others are my Brothers.)

 

[patrick jane]

It is unreasonable to think that the KJV is superior to the Others. That would be like stating that King David was superior to Abraham.

Besides, when the Holy Spirit withdraws I'm going with Him. Every physical item is passing away.

(And to you Pate, these Others are my Brothers.)

That's pretty goofy, do you say all Bibles are equal ? None is better than the other ? Ridiculous !

 

[JonahofAkron]

Brandplucked , could you hook it up with some answers for post 25? Disregard if you've already go the answers in the works.

 

[dialm]

The enemy has always opposed the Others. And the reason is simple

The others made no bones about Calvinism.