KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant
- Thread starter brandplucked
- Start date
- Status
Rimi said:
Inerrant would also imply the Bible is truth or truthful and accurately recorded as to what God intends to be included. Some parts are merely historical narrative, and not spiritual truths, but they are accurately recorded as to what happened (even if not good or true).
In the King James Bible:
Isaiah 29:13 ¶ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Matthew 15:8-9: 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
This is just one example I found a few moments ago of OT quote in NT in KJ Bible. So (a) either Jesus got it wrong and KJV translateded it inerrantly; or (b) Jesus got it right and KJV recorded it . . . errantly.
Isaiah 29:13 ¶ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Matthew 15:8-9: 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
This is just one example I found a few moments ago of OT quote in NT in KJ Bible. So (a) either Jesus got it wrong and KJV translateded it inerrantly; or (b) Jesus got it right and KJV recorded it . . . errantly.
brandplucked
New member
The inerrant Bible
The inerrant Bible
Hi Key, thanks for your comments. May I point out a couple of things I believe are wrong about your assumptions? First of all, I do not defend the King James translators, though they were heads and shoulders above any group of men that could possibly be assembled today. They were giants in the fields of languages, but they were also fallible and sinful men just like we all are.
Did Peter, John, James, Solomon, Luke, David, Matthew or Mark ever say they knew they were being used to give us the inspired words of God? Did they know God was using them in this way, in spite of all their faults? No. Nothing like this is recorded by these men whom God used to give us His inspired words.
Secondly, the KJB translators did condemn the Catholic translations, and most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV are based on the same Catholic Greek texts - Vaticanus. Guess where Vaticanus gets its name from?
Thirdly, and most importantly, the Bible believer, that is, a Christian who really believes the Bible he holds in his hands is the very inspired, inerrant words of God (this necessarily excludes all those who promote the modern English versions)...the Bible believer does not look for 100% accuracy in anything man has to offer. Instead, we look to the Author of Scripture who cannot lie. God Himself has promised to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth. He just happened to use the earthen vessels of the King James Bible translators to bring forth His perfect words.
Man is imperfect, fallen and sinful. Nothing good comes from our own natures. However, God is always truthful and He uses sinful men to accomplish His purposes. The big question that none of you saints are addressing (except for those who have posted in favor of the King James Bible) is this: Do we have an inerrant Bible today? Has God kept His promises to preserve His pure words anywhere on this earth? If so, where are they to be found?
God's own sovereignty and Providence clearly point to only one Bible that is the pure words of God - the Authorized King James Bible. It used to be called simply The Holy Bible, but when the polluted flood of modern versions came on the scene, then people began to call it the King James Version, or the Authorized Version, to differentiate it from all the others out there.
It seems that most of you here are focused on man instead of God. The idea of humanistic evolution has colored your thinking regarding the Bible version issue.
I hear some of you say: "No translation can be perfect", or "only the originals were inspired". Where did you all get these ideas? They certainly did not come from the Bible.
Then some ask: "Where does the Bible say the KJB is the true word of God?". Well, I would respond that the verse that teaches the KJB is the true words of God is right before the one that says "Only the originals were inspired" and after the one that says "No translation can be perfect" ;-)
I haven't yet finished going through all the pages yet, so it may come up later, but I originally titled this topic "Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is inerrant." The title has now been changed, but the reality is still the same. Brother Bob has no inerrant Bible. He doesn't believe such a thing exists, and can't tell anyone where they can get one.
He then accused me of misrepresenting his position. When I asked him how I misrepresented him, so far, he has not replied. I believe the Bible version issue is a spiritual issue, and not an intellectual issue. Bob is a smart man and I personally like him. But as far as the issue of the inspired and inerrant words of God goes, he doesn't have a clue.
There is still hope that God may yet open his eyes to this most vital and precious truth that God has indeed kept His promises to preserve His pure words, and He has done so in the only Bible that people all over the world still believe is now the inerrant words of God.
In and by His grace alone,
Will Kinney
The inerrant Bible
keypurr said:
Hi Key, thanks for your comments. May I point out a couple of things I believe are wrong about your assumptions? First of all, I do not defend the King James translators, though they were heads and shoulders above any group of men that could possibly be assembled today. They were giants in the fields of languages, but they were also fallible and sinful men just like we all are.
Did Peter, John, James, Solomon, Luke, David, Matthew or Mark ever say they knew they were being used to give us the inspired words of God? Did they know God was using them in this way, in spite of all their faults? No. Nothing like this is recorded by these men whom God used to give us His inspired words.
Secondly, the KJB translators did condemn the Catholic translations, and most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV are based on the same Catholic Greek texts - Vaticanus. Guess where Vaticanus gets its name from?
Thirdly, and most importantly, the Bible believer, that is, a Christian who really believes the Bible he holds in his hands is the very inspired, inerrant words of God (this necessarily excludes all those who promote the modern English versions)...the Bible believer does not look for 100% accuracy in anything man has to offer. Instead, we look to the Author of Scripture who cannot lie. God Himself has promised to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth. He just happened to use the earthen vessels of the King James Bible translators to bring forth His perfect words.
Man is imperfect, fallen and sinful. Nothing good comes from our own natures. However, God is always truthful and He uses sinful men to accomplish His purposes. The big question that none of you saints are addressing (except for those who have posted in favor of the King James Bible) is this: Do we have an inerrant Bible today? Has God kept His promises to preserve His pure words anywhere on this earth? If so, where are they to be found?
God's own sovereignty and Providence clearly point to only one Bible that is the pure words of God - the Authorized King James Bible. It used to be called simply The Holy Bible, but when the polluted flood of modern versions came on the scene, then people began to call it the King James Version, or the Authorized Version, to differentiate it from all the others out there.
It seems that most of you here are focused on man instead of God. The idea of humanistic evolution has colored your thinking regarding the Bible version issue.
I hear some of you say: "No translation can be perfect", or "only the originals were inspired". Where did you all get these ideas? They certainly did not come from the Bible.
Then some ask: "Where does the Bible say the KJB is the true word of God?". Well, I would respond that the verse that teaches the KJB is the true words of God is right before the one that says "Only the originals were inspired" and after the one that says "No translation can be perfect" ;-)
I haven't yet finished going through all the pages yet, so it may come up later, but I originally titled this topic "Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is inerrant." The title has now been changed, but the reality is still the same. Brother Bob has no inerrant Bible. He doesn't believe such a thing exists, and can't tell anyone where they can get one.
He then accused me of misrepresenting his position. When I asked him how I misrepresented him, so far, he has not replied. I believe the Bible version issue is a spiritual issue, and not an intellectual issue. Bob is a smart man and I personally like him. But as far as the issue of the inspired and inerrant words of God goes, he doesn't have a clue.
There is still hope that God may yet open his eyes to this most vital and precious truth that God has indeed kept His promises to preserve His pure words, and He has done so in the only Bible that people all over the world still believe is now the inerrant words of God.
In and by His grace alone,
Will Kinney
brandplucked
New member
TheKing James Bible
TheKing James Bible
Hi gr, Did you know that Tyndale did not have verse numbers and the order of N.T. books was not the same as in the KJB? The Geneva Bible did not have the same verse numbers either. But you know what? Every Bible in every language I have seen around today follows the chapters and verse numbering of the King James Bible. Even when versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV etc. that omit many whole verses, just skip the numbers like they were not even there. For examples, look at the NIV in Matthew 17:21; 18:11 and 23:14. These are just 3 of 17 whole verses missing in the niv. They jump from 17:20 to 17:22. Can't they count right? You see, the King James Bible has become The Standard by which all others are measured.
Again, all the arguments you have presented so far are on the side of bolstering the idea that the Christian has no inspired and inerrant Bible. You're working for the wrong side, guy.
You're on the "Yea, hath God said...?" side right now.
Maybe God will turn you around.
Will
TheKing James Bible
godrulz said:
Hi gr, Did you know that Tyndale did not have verse numbers and the order of N.T. books was not the same as in the KJB? The Geneva Bible did not have the same verse numbers either. But you know what? Every Bible in every language I have seen around today follows the chapters and verse numbering of the King James Bible. Even when versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV etc. that omit many whole verses, just skip the numbers like they were not even there. For examples, look at the NIV in Matthew 17:21; 18:11 and 23:14. These are just 3 of 17 whole verses missing in the niv. They jump from 17:20 to 17:22. Can't they count right? You see, the King James Bible has become The Standard by which all others are measured.
Again, all the arguments you have presented so far are on the side of bolstering the idea that the Christian has no inspired and inerrant Bible. You're working for the wrong side, guy.
You're on the "Yea, hath God said...?" side right now.
Maybe God will turn you around.
Will
brandplucked
New member
No inerrant Bible
No inerrant Bible
Hi lighthouse, No, I don't think it is a question of being daft. It is more a matter of Bob being honest and admitting that I did not misrepresent his views when I said Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is inerrant. I already know you do not believe the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God. This was my original statement. Most Christians today do not believe the Bible is the inerrant and inspired words of God. I still stand by this statement.
"Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
"Let no man decieve you by any means, for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first..." 2 Thes. 2:3
Will K
No inerrant Bible
Lighthouse said:
Hi lighthouse, No, I don't think it is a question of being daft. It is more a matter of Bob being honest and admitting that I did not misrepresent his views when I said Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is inerrant. I already know you do not believe the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God. This was my original statement. Most Christians today do not believe the Bible is the inerrant and inspired words of God. I still stand by this statement.
"Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
"Let no man decieve you by any means, for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first..." 2 Thes. 2:3
Will K
brandplucked
New member
one4christ said:
Hi brother, thanks for the comments. Nowhere in Scripture has God promised to give every nation His perfect words. God has bypassed many nations for centuries before they received any parts of the New Testament. In O.T. times it was only to the nation of Israel that God revealed Himself and His words. He left all the others in darkness.
"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.
God only holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. Those nations that do not have the perfect words of God, but have some portions of God's true words have enough light to believe on Christ for salvation and can grow in many useful ways, but this does not mean they have a perfect and infallible Bible.
I certainly do not consider the NIV or the Message, or the NASB to be God's perfect words, but they all contain the gospel and people can learn a lot that is of value in them. However, they are all tinged with error and the end result for those who begin to study and learn about the Bible version issue is that they will begin to hold to the idea that there is no inspired and inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. This will then greatly affect their faith. Most Christians today do not read or study their bibles. Most do not take them very seriously, at least in this country.
As for a translation into another language, God has no problem doing this type of thing. The Bible itself is full of several examples where God's words were found in the translation into another language, and not in the "originals".
Again, all your arguments are on the side of "There is no inerrant Bible". This is what you believe, so you cannot see anything different.
One other note on the Easter thing which another person brought up. As I pointed out in my article, the word paska does mean Easter today in Greek. That is what the word means. The reason it is only translated as Easter is in the KJB of Acts 12:4 is because this is the only time the word Easter can apply - Post resurrection of the Lamb of God.
You either see it or you don't. Once a person holds to the belief that there is no inerrant Bible, then God will turn him over to his own understanding where he places his own mind as the final authority.
Once a person sees the truth of the King James Bible, then likewise, nothing will change his mind either. It is similar to the teaching of evolution versus creationism. Two people can look at the same evidence, and one sees evolution while the other sees creationism.
Will
Yep, God did choose English.
Yep, God did choose English.
*********
Fables? Genealogies? Context my good(?) man. Context. Am I teaching you Law? That must be your catch-all bible quote for when you have no argument.
I do thank you however for stating your opinion.
Isa:34:16: Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read:
Mark
Yep, God did choose English.
Justin (Wiccan) said:You don't say.
Do we then assume that God has "specially chosen the English-speaking people?" Did the Oracles of God come through Erasmus? Or do we simply make James I a "Second Moses?" [sarcasm]Oh, but that's right ... since the KJV is "better than the original," James would actually take preeminence over Moses. :doh: Of course! I should have seen this myself![/sarcasm]
*************
Duh. Yes, God has always chosen one language at a time. First Hebrew because salvation is from the Jew first, then Greek because salvation is to the Gentile second, third through the English language because that is the language God chose to spread His Word throughout the world. The AV. Not the Hebrew, nor has the Greek language has been used of God throughout the world to bring men to salvation in such great effect.
I just wonder when you're going to declare the Printer's Note "Inspired."
***********
Never. Printer's make mistakes.
So you're telling me that God can guide the translator ... but not the printer?
************
Yep. You find that hard to believe?
I am quite a bit older than twelve. And I know an "ad hominem" when I see it.
*********
Good. Then present arguments as someone a bit older then twelve.
So, then, before 1611 there was no Bible?
**********
Certainly. But no where was the entire "book" together in one, perfect form.
For those who do not speak English--oops, sorry, you must learn English to read a Bible.
*********
That would be ideal. But many bibles have been translated FROM the AV into other languages and have served. You would not seem to have a problem going back to the "originals", why have a problem with having say, a Spaniard learning 1611 English?
*********
Come now! If Logic were a person, she would rise and rebuke you for your foolishness. As it stands, the author of 1 Timothy 1:4-7 has already spoken of you and your ilk, and I find myself content to allow him to speak for me.
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
Justin
*********
Fables? Genealogies? Context my good(?) man. Context. Am I teaching you Law? That must be your catch-all bible quote for when you have no argument.
I do thank you however for stating your opinion.
Isa:34:16: Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read:
Mark
Peter A V
New member
B.E.has no infalible Bible
B.E.has no infalible Bible
.................
Just to let you know,Justin is not a Christian.He said as much.You can find his posts at
http://www.laststophell.com
B.E.has no infalible Bible
AVBunyan said:
.................
Just to let you know,Justin is not a Christian.He said as much.You can find his posts at
http://www.laststophell.com
Last edited by a moderator:
one4christ
New member
brandplucked said:
Your absolutely correct, and that was exactly what I was thinking as I was reading earlier posts. If you believe that the KJV of the bilbe is the true word of God, you will only see the evidence in favor supporting your perspective and vice-versa.
Ultimately, I still believe the consideration is not whether the KJV is the one true version of the bible, but whether one is filled with the Holy Spirit to spiritually discern what is written. For us to belive that the deep things of God can be understood and communicated through human language alone is to believe that God can be contained in the narrow constraints of human language. I again cite I Cor 2
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
[/font]
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
one4christ
New member
Thanks for the kind words. Being new to TOL, it's nice to know that I have something to contribute here!Rimi said:
MartianManhuntr
New member
godrulz said:
In such a case, the phrase "monogenes uios" refers to the "only son who is so both genetically and legitimately."
Heb 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son."
Here, the "monogenes" is Isaac. True, Abraham had another son who was not genetic, but rather adopted, namely Eliezar. Abraham also had another son who was genetically his son, namely Ishmael, but Ishmael was illegitimate being the son of a slave. Isaac was his only son who was both genetic and legitimate.
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
silverkz said:
Mark, according to your assertion, there was no Bible in Europe between about 420 and 1611.
Yes, frankly. If the translators are guided from mistakes, and the printers are not, then God is shown as either inconsistant or lacking in power and authority.
Is it not a "fable" to teach that a 15th century compilation is better than the originals? Is it not a fable to teach that God would guide the translators, but not the printers?
And you chide me about immaturity.
Mark, to be perfectly blunt, you are teaching another Gospel than the one that Paul taught. You have set the AV1611 up as a God, and have made salvation dependant on which version of the Bible is read.
Were I interested in becoming a Christian again, I could not ask you how to do so. I prefer to worship God. Not a book.
Justin
MartianManhuntr
New member
Peter A V said:
I don't know who Hills is. Anyway, to explain further what I meant when I said that I am Received Text only rather than KJV only:
I do believe that the only English Bible to be used is the KJV. I don't believe, however, as so many KJVO's that the Greek and Hebrew are lost and that the KJV is therefore the only place the word of God can be found. I believe that the Hebrew and Greek still exist (Ben Chayyim's and Scrivener's texts) and that the word of God can be found in them as well as in the KJV. I also believe that the KJV is without proven error when correctly understood (note, I say, "when correctly understood"). All of the supposed errors in the KJV are either (1) misunderstandings of Jacobian English (many of which are actually propagated by KJVO's more than MVers) OR are (2) instances where someone is comparing the KJV to modern forgery Greek text rather than the traditional text which it is actually based on OR (3) instances where someone is comparing the KJV to a Hebrew text whose vowel points have been altered by 'scholars' rather than to the Received Hebrew text (with its pure vowels) which it is actually based on OR (4) someone just misunderstands the context of the passage
Having said that, I provide one example of the 1st type of misunderstanding--a misunderstanding of Jacobian English. In Acts 12:4 the KJV has the word "Easter." Many KJVO's are adamant that the word there means something different than the word "Passover," but they are dead wrong. In pre-Tyndale English the word "Passover" did not exist, and therefore "Easter" was used to represent the Jewish feast which in Hebrew is called "Pesach." Tyndale employed the word "Easter" in Exodus 12 and all other passages dealing with the Jewish feast which in Hebrew is called "Pesach." After a while Tyndale decided to translate more literally, and began to revise his translation replacing "Easter" with "Passover." In the year 1611 the English language was switching over from the term "Easter" to the term "Passover." The switchover, however, was not complete. As a result, the then obsolete word "Easter" (which had the EXACT same meaning as "Passover") made its way into the text just one time. So, although the KJV says "Easter" in Acts 12:4 it is not making reference to any sort of Pagan bunny worshipping festival. "Easter" at that time meant the exact same thing as "Passover." Over time, however, the word "Easter" has become disassociated with "Passover" and has come to be thought of as a festival all its own. Therefore, those who are ignorant of this think they have found an error. The error, however, is not in the KJV nor is it the fault of the KJV translators. The error is in the critics' brains and is the fault of their faulty understanding of their own English language.
MartianManhuntr
New member
Yorzhik said:
The two questions are "do you believe God knows the future exhaustively? That God knows every detail of every decision since before time existed?"
That is what He says of Himself in Isaiah 46:9-10 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"
Of course, this highlights the very issue at hand. The KJVO's will believe this verse. So also, Received Text onlies like me will believe this verse. Those who believe in no inerrant and inspired Bible, however, will laugh at it and blaspheme.
MartianManhuntr said:
I believe the verse, but it is not a proof text for exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies (an illogical absurdity). The way God knows some things about the future is that He purposes to bring them to pass by His omnicompetent ability (see also Is. 48:3). It has nothing to do with 'simple foreknowledge'. God does predestine, settle, and know somethings about the future. Free moral agency necessitates that some of the future is open, unsettled, and unknowable except as a possibility before it becomes a certainty/actuality. These two motifs in Scripture are established by two sets of verses. Proof texting the verse that is about a specific prophecy and extrapolating it to a general principle is sloppy exegesis.
keypurr
Well-known member
It's OK to disagree with me, I am not infallable. Neither are the versions of the Bible that are available today. The problem is with human nature. Translators make mistakes, one has to keep an open mind till verses can be proved. I love my KJV it is writen in old English. However it is harder to understand than todays versions. I like the NJKV and the NIV. I have ordered the NASV which should come to me in the next two weeks or so. Before I decide how to accept a verse, I check it out with the other versions. It works for me.brandplucked said:
God Bless
- Status