jmwhalen

I used to have a set of the Bible on tape narrated by Alexander Scorby. I was reading along with it one time, and noticed he made a mistake and left a verse out. I have a newer set now, without that mistake. That doesn't mean I think he did that intentionally, and I haven't turned away from listening to the Bible on tape. Printing errors are possible, but that is not the same as a translation error, so I agree with your point there. __ Brother Botz, Could you explain verse 21 in Matthew chapter 17 in the NIV to me? Thanks/ In Christ, John M. Whalen Here is the NIV version in context... 14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15"Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him." 17"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me." 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment. 19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?" 20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.{"a} 22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief. The {a} refers to a footnote that states.... {a}..Matthew 17:20 Some manuscripts include. 21 'But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.' The KJV says of the appropriate reference... 20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. The lesson both versions/translations teach me is to develop faith, and to expect to see G-d move and act even in encountering a stubborn demonic spirit when and if ones life-style as a Believer is liberally sprinkled with prayer and fasting. Conversely what is being said is that you will encounter the same difficulties that the disciples displayed in this passage if your faith vascillates, and you do not have a constant prayer and fasting life-style. As a matter of note...I do not use the NIV, I find it a rather baffling translation, and I do not like the style of the wording. I think the comparison table you put up with the KJV against the NIV demonstrates this to some extent.... ______________ Brother Botz, "Here is the NIV version in context.." 1. So, where is verse 21 in the NIV? Please provide a "no spin" answer. 2. This is not "rocket science", folks, assuming that we accept logic, i.e., the science of correct reasoning(Is. 1:8). If the NIV is, in fact, the word of God, then the KJB is not, for it adds to the word of God. Likewise, if the KJB is the word of God, then the NIV is not, for it diminishes/takes away from the word of God. If this premise and resulting conclusion is denied, the the following scriptural passages are non-sensical, mean absolutely nothing, and you night as well just rip them out of "whatver 'the' Bible' you "use"(believe?) right now(which is what people do any how-they read, but don't believe a verse, and if they don't understand it, they correct/revise/delete it-my point): "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut.4:2) "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut.12:32) "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."(Prov. 30:6) "Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:.."(Jer. 26:2) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev.22:18-19) 3. Check all the evidence-see my post on KJB vs. NIV passage contradictions. 4. Check all the evidence: I will rephrase the question from "Could you explain verse...in the NIV", to What do the following verses in the NIV say, i.e., I am not asking for an interpretation, I am asking for what are the objective words(see my previous posts-objective words comprise scripture, not "intended thoughts", not "general message".....): Mt: 18:11, 23:14 Mk. 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26,15:28 Luke 17:36, 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29 Romans 16:24 Very subtil(Gen. 3:1-see my previos post), wouldn't you say, from the very first "textual critic." 5. "As a matter of note...I do not use the NIV, I find it a rather baffling translation, and I do not like the style of the wording. I think the comparison table you put up with the KJV against the NIV demonstrates this to some extent...."-Botz Again, you make my point. You say you "use" the NIV. Do you believe it as "the word of truth...the word of God"? I "use" a car manual, I "use" a TV Guide, I "use" a "fill in the blank with any Biblical commentary", I "use" "gospel tracts", I "use" Strong's, I "use".................................................But does that make these things I "use" the word of God? "I find it a rather baffling translation," Again, you make my point. - Since when did "understandability" be the criteria for determining objective truth? I don't understand many parts/verses in the scripture, many of them are, indeed, quite "baffling." So, I should then correct/revise/delete/ignore it? Again, you are submitting the Bible to your fallible "correcting ability" because of your misunderstanding. The solution is not to change/revise/delete/ignore "whatever Bible" you "use" because of your fallible comprehension skills-the solution is to study, meditate, search the objective words of the scripture, and being guided by the Holy Spirit, you may come to a solution. You are not expected to understand every verse, nor have exhaustive understanding of the Holy Bible. But don't change it. You do what most do: I don't understand an objective word/phrase, so I will either change it, revise it, delete it, add to it, or find another "whatever Bible" that confirms my understanding, which leads to doubt, which leads to confusion. This is exactly what the first "textual critic" did in Genesis 3(read my previous post). You are to believe the objective words of the Holy Bible as given, at face value, submit to its authority, don't revise/change.....the objective words; instead, study, admit, that, if their are "baffling" verses, it is you that needs to be set straight, it is you that needs correction, it is you that needs to revise your doctrine, not the objective words of the Holy Bible. Have you read Shakespeare? Pretty baffling, is it not? So, you change it? Ever read a medical book(my brother is a doctor)? Pretty baffling, is it not? So, you change it? Ever read the U S Constitution? Pretty baffling, is it not? So you change it? "I do not like the style of the wording.'-Botz So what? Since when does "likeabilty" determine objective truth? I don't "like" many things about Christianity. So what, John? Have you read Shakespeare? I have, and I do not like the style of the wording. So what, John? "I don't understand the word of God, so I will be the authority and change it to something I 'prefer', 'like', understand....." That is, our understanding/comprehension of the law in no way determines/affects the legitimacy of its authority. Again, if If "understanding" determined legitimacy of authority, perhaps we need to change Shakespear's works, our "medical" books,....... People confuse the objective truth of God's word as given by revelation, and its availibility, with illumination, i. e., understandability. Most consider the "which Bible" issue like the "which religion" issue-they "pick", "prefer".... a "Bible"/a "religion" based on likeabilty/preference/taste....instead of: IS IT TRUE? 6. Consider: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11 A bible corrector(as opposed to a bible believer), in the early 1900's, would say "I find this quite baffling. I have checked with the 'modernists', the 'experts', the 'scholars', the 'intellectuals' , the scientists, and they have said, they 'believe' , that and rains came exclusively "from above." This is(was)was there "FACT." Moses was not a "scholar", nor an oceanographer, but he wrote that fountains, or springs, of the great deep burst forth, at the same time the rains fell from heaven, flooding the earth. And only relatively recently have scientists, the "experts", discovered that yes, there are, great water fountains erupting from the ocean floor. But, of course, according to the "modernists", the "experts", the "scholars", the "textual critics".......(just as "Easter DID NOT EXIST when Acts was written...blah blah blah), "water fountains erupting from the ocean floor did not exist when Genesis was written... Bible believers rejected the "scholars", the "experts", the "modernists", the "intellectuals", and accepted, BY FAITH, what the LORD God said in his inspired, preserved, without error word, and they submit to it. In Christ, John M. Whalen PS(1):If I was not clear in the preceding, I will employ "the" "Modern" English. "Oops, my bad" . But I do feel that what I wrote was "Sweet." And any comments to the contrary will result in dis dude "Snuffing the punk. " Do we all agree? Yes? "That's wack, man." PS(2):If any should not understand this, I will send them my "New and Improved, Unabridged, 89th Edition expanded Revised Combination Lexicon Strong's Interlinear George Foreman Grill Street DictionaryThesaurus of 'the 'Modern English'." PS(3) Well, "Ize gottsta go." My boss at work just called me, and he does not sound happy(or is that "gay"? Oops, I need to "revise" James 2:3 to reflect the "subtil"(Gen. 3:1), everchanging nuances of this "evolutionary""the" English, to reflect what the author really "meant/intended", in this "modern, enlightened,civilized, tolerant" society/world). I "figger" he just did not like me changing/"revising" the Training Manual he gave. I told him I just don't "like"/"prefer" it, as it is too "baffling", and I do not "like" the "style of the wording"-it is not my "favorite", although I do "use" it. Go "figger!" "Whussup with this dude?" "Whussup with that?" As Jed Clampett would say: "It don't rightly seem fair." Where is Jethro when I need him, with that 6th grade "eggeekayshun!?" In Christ, John M. Whalen

That completely evades the question I asked. I have noticed that when you can't answer a question, you dismiss it as almost not worth discussing. Why didn't God presevere the first English translation? Why is it that the 1611 version the first English translation God chose to preserve and why was He unwilling to perserve earlier editions? It speaks to the whole "perserved" fallacy. Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators? ____________- One point at a time(Is. 28:10)- "Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?" To refute an argument, we must "knock down" the premises, the "supporting walls", upon which the "foundation" of the argument rests. "What saith the scriptures" re. "the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired, and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired."? 1. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is, not was, given by inspiration-the scriptures are inspired, not the writers(the subject of another post). 2. "Check it out in the Book-don't take my word on this"-Acts 17:11: I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:. - "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22 Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19). Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word, by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?: "And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy(and notice he wrote a "copy", which he had available all his life-so much for the "originals only" 'were'(past tense) inspired"--copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7) -I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof). "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12 To be consistent with this argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to this argument????!!!!!!? "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17 Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!?? -Simarly, "The Translators to the Reader" "opinion" argument Who said their "opinion" was inspired? -"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51 Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant. The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing. as does the doctrine of preservation. Cannot the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!(rhetorical question) Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it). Wrong premise-wrong conclusion. You presume(your premise) that both the "original" transmission, communication, revealing of the inspired word of God, and its subsequent scriptural promise of preservation, depends on translators(man), i.e., fallible men="experts", instead of the promise and power of God. We call that secular humanism. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 "Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints.."Job 15:15 No, we are all in "the same company: "in good company": The Hebrews Chapter 11 "Hall of Faith": Abraham(verses 8-10, 17):He offered his wife's "services" to save his own hide-twice(Gen. 12,20). And in between, he succumbed to the flesh by falling for Sarah's scheme to go into Hagar the handmaid. After a great victory given to him by the LORD(Gen.14), Abraham shows a faltering faith and doubt(Gen. 15:2). Sarah(vs. 11-12): She laughed at when the LORD told her she would conceive at her old age, and lied about laughing. Her child was named "Isaac", meaning "laughter," to remind Sarah. Isaac(vs. 14-20): He was a liar and a schemer like his "old man"(how is that for "the Modern English"?) Abraham. Joseph(vs. 21-22): Noble as he was, he deceived his brothers. Moses(verses 23-32): He hedged, murdered, smote. Israelites(verse 29): they murmured constantly(complained). Vs. 30-32: Gideon hedged, Barak under women, Samson lusted, Jephthah sacrificed daughter, David committed adultery and murder. _______ Notice builds on ark, and then gets drunk(Gen. 9:21). Lot was considered righteous(2 Peter 2:7)-look at his involvement with Sodom., and look at his daughters.. Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and then cursed and swore he never knew or saw the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was a murderer, John Mark "bolted"/"punted" when the "going got tough". The church at Corinth was filled with drunks, immorality, favoritism. King Saul committed suicide, as did Sampson, and yet scripture testifies they went to be with the LORD. Welcome to the club! As an example, I often hear , the common, supposed "scholarly, expert" objection to the notion of biblical inspiration is that scripture was only written by men, containing human ideas, and all human ideas are fallible/flawed. Therefore, the scripture/Bible is flawed. Pose this statement to the next person who says this(maybe a Jesus Seminar member): If all human ideas are fallible/flawed, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea. This is what is known as a "self destructing" argument, or an argument that "commits suicide". Those who use this argument have "sawn off the branch they are sitting on"! Taking it one step further re. any posts on this board: You are a fallible human being, therefore your post is fallible-it cannot be true since you are "fallible." To those who embrace this mindset, I say: You are calling God a liar-He promised to preserve His Word, which, by definition, is without error. I suppose most miss the fact that even portions of the non-existent inspired "originals", originals that no one living has ever seen or touched, and would not be able to recognize even if they appeared, were written/copied by fallible, uninspired men-even the non-existent "originals" are a work of man; the scribes were fallible men; all the manuscripts we have now were/are written by fallible men (the scholars are continually "revising" manuscripts), and thus, by this "logic", we have no infallible word of God today. This is the inevitiable conclusion of this supposed argument(it really is an assertion, not an argument). None of us are "qualified", or even "worthy" to be used by an omnipotent God to physically write, physically preserve/translate the word of God, nor are any of us "qualified" to preach, teach, and proclaim the word of God. And what possible "credentials" would an all powerful, self-sufficient God really "need"? "Infallibility"? Scripture's testimony is clear: The LORD God needs nothing from me, or any one of us, as all is His, and He needs no service from us. "...as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.." Acts 17:25 " If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?" Job 35:7 "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts." Gee, I guess the LORD God had to "interview" these fallible men in order to ascertain their "credentials"! Yes, God is so impotent! What an impossible task He had in trying to find those who were "qualified", those who had "the credentials", to "help Him out" in preserving His inspired, without error word! Where are the "scholars", LORD God(1 Cor. chapter one)? Help! Gee, I am a sinner, I am not qualified here. God requires perfection, "infallibility", in writing, preserving, and preaching/teaching His Word. I'm outta here........Balaam's ass is more qualified...." The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing, as does the doctrine of preservation. "Why didn't God presevere the first English translation?" By that argument, why did not God preserve the NT in Hebrew? How about Joseph in Genesis 42:23:? "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation. Why did the LORD God not, through Moses as an instrument, write/preserve it in Egyptian? Translation "not inspired"? Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharoah were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-thety were "translations". Why not "the Egyptian"? Translation "not inspired"? Why didn't God preserve "the original" 10 commandments, which Moses broke? In Christ, John M. Whalen You are being deliberately obtuse. The issue under consideration is your claim that the KJV is perfect. When asked for evidence that this so, you cannot or will not do so. Instead, you choose to obscure the discussion with irrelevancies and insult without cause or provocation anyone who disagrees."And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves," 2nd Timothy 2:24,25. You must be a very lonely person. ______ Obtuse? Its called debating. I dismantled your premises, the "supporting walls" of your argument. That is how we come to the truth. "KJV is perfect"? Perfect "what"? Word of God? What is "the KJV.?" Irrelevancies? Asking you by what infallible standard you are judging the KJB is not perfect? How do you know that the KJB is not perfect, if you have no standard, much less an infallible standard, by which to judge it. You, sir, are in a logical fallacy trap, and you know it. This is why you will not identify this infallible standard by which you allegedly judge/assess the KJB is not perfect. You will be forced to name a, by your own presuppostions, fallible standard to infallibly "prove" that the KJB is not perfect. And this you cannot do, nor will you do. And thus, the enigma of your on record statement that you believe the word of God is inerrant, but you/we don't know what this "inerrant word of God" of yours is, continues. Tell everyone on the board how you were able to come to the conclusion that the KJB is not perfect. With what source authority you compare it? Tick, tick, tick,,,,,, The originals? Nahhhhh! As they say in Texas Hold 'Em, you have deuce/seven unsuited-fold-don't go all in. Your volley. In Christ, John M. Whalen You assert the KJV is perfect. The burden of proof is on you. Unfortunately, you cannot. Instead, you resort to insults and obfuscation. In debate, this is known as argumentum ad baculum, the appeal the the club. That's not scholarship- that's bigotry. Present your evidence or withdraw your assertion. ________ Throwing a tantrum? Does the KJB have errors? Yes or no. In Christ, John M,. Whalen You were the one that made the claim the KJV was perfect. How about you prove your claim rather than attacking me? I don't think you can. As a matter of fact, you are wrong. _______ (bold/underline my emphasis) "As a matter of fact, you are wrong."-Rufus Boy, I guess you showed me. "Hint: 'Because I say so' is not evidence."-Rufus Because you say I am wrong, Rufus, is not evidence that I am wrong. 1. Again, he is asked a simple question, "Does KJB have errors?", and he "punts", much like he punts on my continuing questioning him to identify this mystical, enigmatic, "has no name", illusive "word of God" that is "inerrant." And he refuses, and we all know why: He has no final authority-he is it. He is a "free agent." He will not go on record on this board to state the KJB has errors, because he does not have any standard , much less an infallible standard, by which to make this judgment, i.e., to judge the KJB. Remember, after weeks of posting, no one knows what Rufus believes is the "inerrant word of God), by which to judge the KJB. He has never identified it. And if he does identify this standard, He knows I will "pick his argument apart", for he is caught in a logical fallacy trap="game, set, match ".,right Rufus? How does it feel to have your argument systematically dismantled by a "simplistic", "swinheaded" "unlearned and ignorant"(Acts 4:13) man such as myself? "It is simplistic as well as swineheaded to assume that any English translation other than the KJV of 1611 is invalid." -Rufus Is "swineheaded" in "the modern English"? ________________________________________________ 2. "....God's Word (which, by the way, I do believe to be inerrant; don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus Are these your words, Rufus? Or, how about these:? "He who asserts must prove. In this case, the burden of proof is on those who insist the KJV is perfect. Go ahead, prove it."-Rufus "...How about you prove your claim... ?" -Rufus "Answer, if you can."-Rufus Fine. Now, you asserted that "God's Word" you "believe to be inerrant." Therefore, by your own argument(not mine),which is on record for all to see, "the burden of proof is on those who insist that" God's Word "is perfect." Go ahead , prove it, i.e., that "God's Word...is inerrant." After all, "He who asserts must prove." Prove that "God's word is inerrant" - "How about you prove your claim " that "God's word is inerrant."? "Answer, if you can." We will wait. Perhaps you should make a "correction", a "revision", to your "original" post(s)?(play on words) ___________- Rufus is now on record: He agrees that the KJB has no errors. Thank you Rufus! "..don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus Of course, I have no choice but to to presume what you believe, because you have told no one on this board what you believe. Therefore, I presume, since you will not tell us: 1. You have no final authority, and 2. The KJB has no errors(Notice I am waiting for him to either agree or disagree with this "assertion". He knows I have him in a logic/ reasoning trap of his own making, based on his own "argument." He won't answer this) 3. All "versions" are the word of God-he is a subjectivist "..don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus Here is your opportunity:"Tell us plainly"(John 10:24) what you believe? You have told us what you don't believe-how about showing some "spine/backbone/vertabrae", and tell us what you do believe? Seem pretty "simple" to me-after all, I am "simplistic" according to you. Let's listen to Rufus's next post/answer(loosely used here), and get even more confused. I suspect we will receive more of the mantra: "... We cannot tell."(Mark 11:33) _________________________________________________________- Bonus question:Just how do you go about proving to someone that Christ died for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead the third day(1 Cor. 15:1-4)? After all, "He who asserts must prove", and "How about you prove your claim "...that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:..."? Or perhaps you cannot, since it is "according to the scriptures", which you seemingly cannot figure out what the scriptures are? "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8 "...How long halt ye between two opinions?..." 1 Kings 18:21 in Christ, John M. Whalen Bluster and argumentum ad populum aside, I await the proof of your assertion that the KJV is perfect. I look forward to your next diatribe with great eagerness. ____ As I suspected, as I predicted: .. We cannot tell."(Mark 11:33) More temper tantrums, like a child who was "gyped out of his sucker". He is on record: 1. He has no final authority, and 2. The KJB has no errors(Notice I am waiting for him to either agree or disagree with this "assertion". He knows I have him in a logic/ reasoning trap of his own making, based on his own "argument." He won't answer this) 3. All "versions" are the word of God-he is a subjectivist "..don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus Here is your opportunity:"Tell us plainly"(John 10:24) what you believe? You have told us what you don't believe-how about showing some "spine/backbone/vertabrae", and tell us what you do believe? Seem pretty "simple" to me-after all, I am "simplistic" according to you. "I await the proof of your assertion that the KJV is perfect. " -Rufus "....God's Word (which, by the way, I do believe to be inerrant; don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus Are these your words, Rufus? Or, how about these:? "He who asserts must prove. In this case, the burden of proof is on those who insist the KJV is perfect. Go ahead, prove it."-Rufus "...How about you prove your claim... ?" -Rufus "Answer, if you can."-Rufus Fine. Now, you asserted that "God's Word" you "believe to be inerrant." Therefore, by your own argument(not mine),which is on record for all to see, "the burden of proof is on those who insist that" God's Word "is perfect." Go ahead , prove it, i.e., that "God's Word...is inerrant." After all, "He who asserts must prove." Prove that "God's word is inerrant" - "How about you prove your claim " that "God's word is inerrant."? "Answer, if you can." We will wait. Again, I " await the proof of your assertion that God's word is inerrant." As I contended, this proof will not be forthcoming, as he is in a logic trap. " I look forward to your next diatribe with great eagerness."-Rufus Thank you for the invitation? Accordingly: Statement or proposition:a sentence which is either true or false Premise: the statements or propositions which are assumed in an argument in order to prove a conclusion Conclusion: the statement or proposition which is to be proved in an argument Argumentaion: the process of reasoning from premises to conclusion Logic is the science of correct reasoning, teaching the standards for how to discern good reasoning from bad reasoning, to help us to arrive at correct conclusions.The tool we use in our observations of the world that help separate fact from fiction is reason-the ability to use the mind to sort through the observations and draw accurate conclusions about what is true. The ability to argue well is the essence of clear, or logical thinking. Arguing is a virtue. If I said "The earth is square", would you disagree? Sure you would. And why? Because you have a good reason to believe the earth is round, and you do not have a good reason to believe the earth is square. When you have every reason to believe one thing and reject another, it is your rational obligation to accept the belief supported by reason and reject the belief not supported by reason. And such an obligation demands that we disagree with thouse who espouse to the belief not supported by reason. Thus, arguing is a virtue because it facilitates discovering what it is true. An argument is a reasoned and principled disputation about matters of fact-they help us discover the facts and find the truth. You may consider this analogy: an argument is a house, a roof supported by walls. The roof would be the conclusion, and the walls are the supporting ideas. In the science of logic, we would call the walls the premises, and the whole house or structure of the building is called a syllogism(syllogism is an inference in which one proposition (the conclusion) follows of necessity from two others (known as premises);.a sequence of three propositions such that the first two imply the third, the conclusion.). Premises are the statements or propositions which are assumed in an argument in order to prove a conclusion. The conclusion is the statement or proposition which is to be proved in an argument. And argumentaion is the process of reasoning from premises to conclusion. Thus, before you can arrive at logical conclusions using a line of reasoning, there must be a basis for the reasoning called a premise, i.e, a fact, proposition, or assumption that is the foundational basis for the argument. The soundness of the argument depends on the validity of the premises-the soundness of the house depends on the walls. Now there are different forms of syllogisms. For example, when the form is right and the facts are true, we call this a sound argument, or valid(the conclusion must follow of necessity from the premises), that the walls are strong enough to "support" the roof, if you will. The conclusion is thus true, resting soudly or securely on its supporting foundation. The goal of clear thinking, or logical thinking, is to discover if the walls, the support, can be knocked down, or if they are solid. For if the walls go down, the roof is flat on the ground, and become merely assertions, and the argument is defeated. Intellectual honesty means accepting deductive(an argument whose conclusions is purported to follow of necessity from the premises) logic, that is, if one is faced with a logically valid argument, with clear terms and accurate facts, this person has a rational obligation to believe the conclusion, even if he does not like what he finds. Rationality has nothing to do with preference or "what we like"-it has do do with the truth. I thus "knocked down" his premise, his supporting walls, and he has been reduced to merely a couple of lines and opinions, catchy cliches("Bluster and argumentum ad populum ") he most probably obtained from a "Google search", or from a book such as "How to impress everyone with fancy, scholarly one liners, even when your argument has been discounted." I challenge anyone to ask Rufus one simple question, as I have asked: Does the KJB have any errors, and, if it does, what is your "God's word" that does not have errors=his "inerrant Word of God"? Kick back, perhaps have a beer.......that answer from Rufus will not arrive-just like that 'inerrant God's word" he references has not arrived to him. In Christ, John M. Whalen

(bold my emphasis) We do have a LORD God of reason(Is. 1:18). The law of non-contradiction: KJB:

That completely evades the question I asked. I have noticed that when you can't answer a question, you dismiss it as almost not worth discussing. Why didn't God presevere the first English translation? Why is it that the 1611 version the first English translation God chose to preserve and why was He unwilling to perserve earlier editions? It speaks to the whole "perserved" fallacy. Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators? ____________- One point at a time(Is. 28:10)- "Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?" To refute an argument, we must "knock down" the premises, the "supporting walls", upon which the "foundation" of the argument rests. "What saith the scriptures" re. "the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired, and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired."? 1. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is, not was, given by inspiration-the scriptures are inspired, not the writers(the subject of another post). 2. "Check it out in the Book-don't take my word on this"-Acts 17:11: I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:. - "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22 Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19). Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word, by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?: "And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy(and notice he wrote a "copy", which he had available all his life-so much for the "originals only" 'were'(past tense) inspired"--copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7) -I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof). "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12 To be consistent with this argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to this argument????!!!!!!? "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17 Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!?? -Simarly, "The Translators to the Reader" "opinion" argument Who said their "opinion" was inspired? -"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51 Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant. The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing. as does the doctrine of preservation. Cannot the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!(rhetorical question) Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it). Wrong premise-wrong conclusion. You presume(your premise) that both the "original" transmission, communication, revealing of the inspired word of God, and its subsequent scriptural promise of preservation, depends on translators(man), i.e., fallible men="experts", instead of the promise and power of God. We call that secular humanism. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 "Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints.."Job 15:15 No, we are all in "the same company: "in good company": The Hebrews Chapter 11 "Hall of Faith": Abraham(verses 8-10, 17):He offered his wife's "services" to save his own hide-twice(Gen. 12,20). And in between, he succumbed to the flesh by falling for Sarah's scheme to go into Hagar the handmaid. After a great victory given to him by the LORD(Gen.14), Abraham shows a faltering faith and doubt(Gen. 15:2). Sarah(vs. 11-12): She laughed at when the LORD told her she would conceive at her old age, and lied about laughing. Her child was named "Isaac", meaning "laughter," to remind Sarah. Isaac(vs. 14-20): He was a liar and a schemer like his "old man"(how is that for "the Modern English"?) Abraham. Joseph(vs. 21-22): Noble as he was, he deceived his brothers. Moses(verses 23-32): He hedged, murdered, smote. Israelites(verse 29): they murmured constantly(complained). Vs. 30-32: Gideon hedged, Barak under women, Samson lusted, Jephthah sacrificed daughter, David committed adultery and murder. _______ Notice builds on ark, and then gets drunk(Gen. 9:21). Lot was considered righteous(2 Peter 2:7)-look at his involvement with Sodom., and look at his daughters.. Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and then cursed and swore he never knew or saw the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was a murderer, John Mark "bolted"/"punted" when the "going got tough". The church at Corinth was filled with drunks, immorality, favoritism. King Saul committed suicide, as did Sampson, and yet scripture testifies they went to be with the LORD. Welcome to the club! As an example, I often hear , the common, supposed "scholarly, expert" objection to the notion of biblical inspiration is that scripture was only written by men, containing human ideas, and all human ideas are fallible/flawed. Therefore, the scripture/Bible is flawed. Pose this statement to the next person who says this(maybe a Jesus Seminar member): If all human ideas are fallible/flawed, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea. This is what is known as a "self destructing" argument, or an argument that "commits suicide". Those who use this argument have "sawn off the branch they are sitting on"! Taking it one step further re. any posts on this board: You are a fallible human being, therefore your post is fallible-it cannot be true since you are "fallible." To those who embrace this mindset, I say: You are calling God a liar-He promised to preserve His Word, which, by definition, is without error. I suppose most miss the fact that even portions of the non-existent inspired "originals", originals that no one living has ever seen or touched, and would not be able to recognize even if they appeared, were written/copied by fallible, uninspired men-even the non-existent "originals" are a work of man; the scribes were fallible men; all the manuscripts we have now were/are written by fallible men (the scholars are continually "revising" manuscripts), and thus, by this "logic", we have no infallible word of God today. This is the inevitiable conclusion of this supposed argument(it really is an assertion, not an argument). None of us are "qualified", or even "worthy" to be used by an omnipotent God to physically write, physically preserve/translate the word of God, nor are any of us "qualified" to preach, teach, and proclaim the word of God. And what possible "credentials" would an all powerful, self-sufficient God really "need"? "Infallibility"? Scripture's testimony is clear: The LORD God needs nothing from me, or any one of us, as all is His, and He needs no service from us. "...as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.." Acts 17:25 " If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?" Job 35:7 "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts." Gee, I guess the LORD God had to "interview" these fallible men in order to ascertain their "credentials"! Yes, God is so impotent! What an impossible task He had in trying to find those who were "qualified", those who had "the credentials", to "help Him out" in preserving His inspired, without error word! Where are the "scholars", LORD God(1 Cor. chapter one)? Help! Gee, I am a sinner, I am not qualified here. God requires perfection, "infallibility", in writing, preserving, and preaching/teaching His Word. I'm outta here........Balaam's ass is more qualified...." The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing, as does the doctrine of preservation. "Why didn't God presevere the first English translation?" By that argument, why did not God preserve the NT in Hebrew? How about Joseph in Genesis 42:23:? "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation. Why did the LORD God not, through Moses as an instrument, write/preserve it in Egyptian? Translation "not inspired"? Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharoah were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-thety were "translations". Why not "the Egyptian"? Translation "not inspired"? Why didn't God preserve "the original" 10 commandments, which Moses broke? In Christ, John M. Whalen You are being deliberately obtuse. The issue under consideration is your claim that the KJV is perfect. When asked for evidence that this so, you cannot or will not do so. Instead, you choose to obscure the discussion with irrelevancies and insult without cause or provocation anyone who disagrees."And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves," 2nd Timothy 2:24,25. You must be a very lonely person. ______ Obtuse? Its called debating. I dismantled your premises, the "supporting walls" of your argument. That is how we come to the truth. "KJV is perfect"? Perfect "what"? Word of God? What is "the KJV.?" Irrelevancies? Asking you by what infallible standard you are judging the KJB is not perfect? How do you know that the KJB is not perfect, if you have no standard, much less an infallible standard, by which to judge it. You, sir, are in a logical fallacy trap, and you know it. This is why you will not identify this infallible standard by which you allegedly judge/assess the KJB is not perfect. You will be forced to name a, by your own presuppostions, fallible standard to infallibly "prove" that the KJB is not perfect. And this you cannot do, nor will you do. And thus, the enigma of your on record statement that you believe the word of God is inerrant, but you/we don't know what this "inerrant word of God" of yours is, continues. Tell everyone on the board how you were able to come to the conclusion that the KJB is not perfect. With what source authority you compare it? Tick, tick, tick,,,,,, The originals? Nahhhhh! As they say in Texas Hold 'Em, you have deuce/seven unsuited-fold-don't go all in. Your volley. In Christ, John M. Whalen You assert the KJV is perfect. The burden of proof is on you. Unfortunately, you cannot. Instead, you resort to insults and obfuscation. In debate, this is known as argumentum ad baculum, the appeal the the club. That's not scholarship- that's bigotry. Present your evidence or withdraw your assertion. ________ Throwing a tantrum? Does the KJB have errors? Yes or no. In Christ, John M,. Whalen You were the one that made the claim the KJV was perfect. How about you prove your claim rather than attacking me? I don't think you can. As a matter of fact, you are wrong. _______ (bold/underline my emphasis) "As a matter of fact, you are wrong."-Rufus Boy, I guess you showed me. "Hint: 'Because I say so' is not evidence."-Rufus Because you say I am wrong, Rufus, is not evidence that I am wrong. 1. Again, he is asked a simple question, "Does KJB have errors?", and he "punts", much like he punts on my continuing questioning him to identify this mystical, enigmatic, "has no name", illusive "word of God" that is "inerrant." And he refuses, and we all know why: He has no final authority-he is it. He is a "free agent." He will not go on record on this board to state the KJB has errors, because he does not have any standard , much less an infallible standard, by which to make this judgment, i.e., to judge the KJB. Remember, after weeks of posting, no one knows what Rufus believes is the "inerrant word of God), by which to judge the KJB. He has never identified it. And if he does identify this standard, He knows I will "pick his argument apart", for he is caught in a logical fallacy trap="game, set, match ".,right Rufus? How does it feel to have your argument systematically dismantled by a "simplistic", "swinheaded" "unlearned and ignorant"(Acts 4:13) man such as myself? "It is simplistic as well as swineheaded to assume that any English translation other than the KJV of 1611 is invalid." -Rufus Is "swineheaded" in "the modern English"? ________________________________________________ 2. "....God's Word (which, by the way, I do believe to be inerrant; don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus Are these your words, Rufus? Or, how about these:? "He who asserts must prove. In this case, the burden of proof is on those who insist the KJV is perfect. Go ahead, prove it."-Rufus "...How about you prove your claim... ?" -Rufus "Answer, if you can."-Rufus Fine. Now, you asserted that "God's Word" you "believe to be inerrant." Therefore, by your own argument(not mine),which is on record for all to see, "the burden of proof is on those who insist that" God's Word "is perfect." Go ahead , prove it, i.e., that "God's Word...is inerrant." After all, "He who asserts must prove." Prove that "God's word is inerrant" - "How about you prove your claim " that "God's word is inerrant."? "Answer, if you can." We will wait. Perhaps you should make a "correction", a "revision", to your "original" post(s)?(play on words) ___________- Rufus is now on record: He agrees that the KJB has no errors. Thank you Rufus! "..don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus Of course, I have no choice but to to presume what you believe, because you have told no one on this board what you believe. Therefore, I presume, since you will not tell us: 1. You have no final authority, and 2. The KJB has no errors(Notice I am waiting for him to either agree or disagree with this "assertion". He knows I have him in a logic/ reasoning trap of his own making, based on his own "argument." He won't answer this) 3. All "versions" are the word of God-he is a subjectivist "..don't presume to tell me what I believe) ..."-Rufus Here is your opportunity:"Tell us plainly"(John 10:24) what you believe? You have told us what you don't believe-how about showing some "spine/backbone/vertabrae", and tell us what you do believe? Seem pretty "simple" to me-after all, I am "simplistic" according to you. Let's listen to Rufus's next post/answer(loosely used here), and get even more confused. I suspect we will receive more of the mantra: "... We cannot tell."(Mark 11:33) _________________________________________________________- Bonus question:Just how do you go about proving to someone that Christ died for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead the third day(1 Cor. 15:1-4)? After all, "He who asserts must prove", and "How about you prove your claim "...that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:..."? Or perhaps you cannot, since it is "according to the scriptures", which you seemingly cannot figure out what the scriptures are? "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8 "...How long halt ye between two opinions?..." 1 Kings 18:21 in Christ, John M. Whalen

I used to have a set of the Bible on tape narrated by Alexander Scorby. I was reading along with it one time, and noticed he made a mistake and left a verse out. I have a newer set now, without that mistake. That doesn't mean I think he did that intentionally, and I haven't turned away from listening to the Bible on tape. Printing errors are possible, but that is not the same as a translation error, so I agree with your point there. __ Brother Botz, Could you explain verse 21 in Matthew chapter 17 in the NIV to me? Thanks/ In Christ, John M. Whalen

______________ “You seem to deliberately skirt the issue on one point in particular that I make...but in fairness I will answer your questions or your observations.” -Botz My comment(MC): And what issue is that? Please provide specifics that I “deliberately” skipped. “I like (personal preference) the KJV...I believe the KJV...” –Botz MC: 1. This is contradictory. You say you “believe the KJB”, but then when you come across a verse that you do not “prefer”, you correct it, (as opposed to 2 Tim. 3:16). This is redefining “believing.” Correcting any “word of God” presupposes an authority over it. What would you say to one who says John 1:1 is a mis-translation, and “and the word was God” should read(correction) “and the word was a god.” Would you say that this person “believes” in a/the word of God? Who decides whether your assessment/judgment is “correct”, or this person’s? Who judges who is correct? And it will not do to contend that you are right and the other person is wrong, for then you are admitting that you are an "Only-ist", and do, in fact, exclude version(s). If no exclusions are allowed, we might as well all say "I prefer(fill in the blank of any "preferred" version) leave it at that, shut down debating forums, and give anyone who paid money to be on this forum a refund, for "All mushrooms are good", it is just a matter of "preference", not truth and discernment, no one has the right to exclude anything, let's all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya O Lord, kumbaya"....... And what infallible source authority did you “use” to judge any particular verse as being “mis-translated”? If you do not have an infallible source authority upon which to make this assessment/judgment, you cannot prove anything infallibly, including, for eg., the Acts 12:4 alleged “Easter error.” Is the word of God composed of objective words, that we are to submit to, and is to correct us, or are they subjective, and open to our fallible corrective, subjective judgment? If it is the latter, then the only possible conclusion is “everyone has the right to correct ‘whatever version’ they want”=subjectivism. , and this eliminates your right to contend that “and the word was a god”(for eg.) is “mis-translated, If you do “correct” any particular verse, such as “the word was a god”, then you, Botz, are admitting that you are an “ONLY-ist”, and this KJVO issue, and related criticisms of this position/argument is illegimate, and has no merit. 2. Again, so, are only the versions you say are the word of God actually the word of God=”Botz version ONLY-ISM”? If you say yes, then the KJVO issue is bogus, for everyone excludes,everyone is an ONLY-ist(as is Christianity, as I pointed out previously). If you say no, then the only alternative is subjectivism, i.e., “All versions are the word of God”, and we might as all just “pack it in”, go home, for everyone can, and does, make their own “personal preferences”, and belief is redefined as subjective, fallible assessment/judgment by each individual, and no one can correct anyone else’s subjective interpretation of any verse. “where some words could be improved upon” -Botz MC: The word of God can be improved upon? This is what the word of God has been relegated to in this “modern”, “enlightened”, “evolutionary” society? Final authority of the word of God is redefined as “God, we are going to help you out, even though we are fallible, no good, rotten sinners….your word needs a ‘little tweeking’ here and there…..a better ‘rendering’ of (fill in the blank of any passage) would be…….This is my assessment, fallible though it may be/ is, of what you ‘intended’ to say’, a 'more faithful' rendering, that reflects what you 'meant', would be.....You are welcome all powerful Lord God!...I am glad I could help you out after all these years in which you failed to protect and preserve your word....Call me at the seminary(cemetary) the next time you need me on a few 'preferred' corrections....." I thought, after reading and believing the scriptures, and “taking God at His word”(“ya know”, faith) it was to “improve” you?(sanctification). Again, you are judging the word of God. That is you talking, not the word of God. The word of God is to judge you and me. Who judges your assessment that “some words could be improved upon”? “There are no perfect bible translations that I know,…” -Botz MC: .1And just how did you come to this conclusion? What infallible source authority did you use to make this infallible statement? So, where is this pure, sure, certain, true(all words of the LORD God describing His word-His testimony) He promised to preserve forever? Did God lose it? Where is it? What type of God do we serve, and believe in? If The Lord Christ came down from heaven today, tapped you on the shoulder, and pointed to the King James Bible, and said, "This is it", would you then believe it? Or are you believing men who chime “There is no perfect ‘the Bible’…all ‘the’ Bibles have errors………..“There is no perfect ‘the Bible’…all ‘the’ Bibles have errors………..“There is no perfect ‘the Bible’…all ‘the’ Bibles have errors………..“There is no perfect ‘the Bible’…all ‘the’ Bibles have errors………..” Who talked you out of your belief in the perfect word of God? “Experts”? “Scholars”? 2. So, what distinguishes/differentiates your view that “There are no perfect bible translations that I know,…” from a Muslin, Hindu………………………………………………….. That is what they say. That is what agnostics say about "God"/"god". We are expecting to convince, persuade, a lost world about the exclusive truth, the "only-ISM" of Christ/Chritianity, not the "preference" for it/He, and we do not have a credible final authority upon which to proclaim this belief, this conviction? Proclaiming the truth of a LORD God that could not even see to it to deliver this truth in a perfect form? Is this what the LORD God taught us, and expects from us, from his "blood bought" children, whom He "...bought with a price..."(1 Cor. 6:20). Is this "...even what my God saith, that will I speak..."(2 Chr. 18:13)? :"All bibles have errors.... there is no perfect bible.....All bibles have errors.... there is no perfect bible.....All bibles have errors.... there is no perfect bible....."?????? No, He expects everyone of His children to show some "spine/backbone", some conviction upon which our faith stands. This is no small matter-souls are at stake, and we, as His ambassadors(2 Cor. 5:20), are to deliver only that word that the real "Commander-In-Chief" has entrusted to us, with no deviation, without wavering, without compromise, and without apology. A simple concept: If the absolute standard of/in anything is somewhat variable, flexible, or “imperfect”, what comes from it insofar as absoluteness and perfection is concerned is not a secret. (unless they are UNFAITHFULLY TRANSLATED)” -Botz MC: As I asked previously-who decides a “faithful” “version”, “translation.” You? A JW? Your only choice is “Only-ISM”, or subjectivity, i.e., “All versions are the word of God." You cannot correct anyone on their “preference”, for they can argue “I have assessed (fill in the blank of any version), and have determined that it is a ‘faithful’ translation.” And you would have no argument, Botz, would you. “that I know” -Botz MC: I am sorry that you do not have a perfect word of God. I do. Who is being biblical here? The word of God testifies that it is perfect, it is true, it is certain, it is sure, regardless of whether you recognize it, “know” it, or not. Who are we going to believe: you, a fallible person, subject to making “man made errors”, or the word of God? That is biblical agnosticism=cannot be know. “My question to you is...would you believe the KJV if you knew there was an error in the 10 commandments through a simple printing error, and where it said 'Thou shalt commit adultery' you would not believe that would you...rather you would know that it was a man made error...it would not suddenly give you carte blanche to commit adultery...because you know from the rest of the word of G-d that it is not right to do so....you might even ADD to your Bible the word 'NOT'.” -Botz MC: 1. How would I know there was an error in any verse in scripture, if I did not have an infallible source authority upon which to judge it? How would you? Is there an error in any one of the 10 commandments? Identify the infallible source authority upon which you, a fallible human being made this fallible judgment/assessment. Why should we “trust you, and your ability(and not God’s-PRESERVATION)? Are you not a man, who can make “man made” errors? You just proposed a self-defeating argument, a self-defeating argument, one that “commits suicide.” 2. Man made error? So, you don’t believe in the biblical doctrine of preservation? An inspired word w/o this doctrine is worthless. 3”from the rest of the word of G-d that it is not right to do so” What if the rest of the word of God is in error? If there is an error in one of the 10 commandments, why should you/me/anyone believe any of it? Do you see the dilemma doubt causes? In Christ, John M. Whalen

That completely evades the question I asked. I have noticed that when you can't answer a question, you dismiss it as almost not worth discussing. Why didn't God presevere the first English translation? Why is it that the 1611 version the first English translation God chose to preserve and why was He unwilling to perserve earlier editions? It speaks to the whole "perserved" fallacy. Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators? ____________- One point at a time(Is. 28:10)- "Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?" To refute an argument, we must "knock down" the premises, the "supporting walls", upon which the "foundation" of the argument rests. "What saith the scriptures" re. "the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired, and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired."? 1. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is, not was, given by inspiration-the scriptures are inspired, not the writers(the subject of another post). 2. "Check it out in the Book-don't take my word on this"-Acts 17:11: I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:. - "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22 Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19). Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word, by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?: "And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy(and notice he wrote a "copy", which he had available all his life-so much for the "originals only" 'were'(past tense) inspired"--copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7) -I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof). "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12 To be consistent with this argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to this argument????!!!!!!? "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17 Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!?? -Simarly, "The Translators to the Reader" "opinion" argument Who said their "opinion" was inspired? -"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51 Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant. The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing. as does the doctrine of preservation. Cannot the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!(rhetorical question) Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it). Wrong premise-wrong conclusion. You presume(your premise) that both the "original" transmission, communication, revealing of the inspired word of God, and its subsequent scriptural promise of preservation, depends on translators(man), i.e., fallible men="experts", instead of the promise and power of God. We call that secular humanism. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 "Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints.."Job 15:15 No, we are all in "the same company: "in good company": The Hebrews Chapter 11 "Hall of Faith": Abraham(verses 8-10, 17):He offered his wife's "services" to save his own hide-twice(Gen. 12,20). And in between, he succumbed to the flesh by falling for Sarah's scheme to go into Hagar the handmaid. After a great victory given to him by the LORD(Gen.14), Abraham shows a faltering faith and doubt(Gen. 15:2). Sarah(vs. 11-12): She laughed at when the LORD told her she would conceive at her old age, and lied about laughing. Her child was named "Isaac", meaning "laughter," to remind Sarah. Isaac(vs. 14-20): He was a liar and a schemer like his "old man"(how is that for "the Modern English"?) Abraham. Joseph(vs. 21-22): Noble as he was, he deceived his brothers. Moses(verses 23-32): He hedged, murdered, smote. Israelites(verse 29): they murmured constantly(complained). Vs. 30-32: Gideon hedged, Barak under women, Samson lusted, Jephthah sacrificed daughter, David committed adultery and murder. _______ Notice builds on ark, and then gets drunk(Gen. 9:21). Lot was considered righteous(2 Peter 2:7)-look at his involvement with Sodom., and look at his daughters.. Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and then cursed and swore he never knew or saw the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was a murderer, John Mark "bolted"/"punted" when the "going got tough". The church at Corinth was filled with drunks, immorality, favoritism. King Saul committed suicide, as did Sampson, and yet scripture testifies they went to be with the LORD. Welcome to the club! As an example, I often hear , the common, supposed "scholarly, expert" objection to the notion of biblical inspiration is that scripture was only written by men, containing human ideas, and all human ideas are fallible/flawed. Therefore, the scripture/Bible is flawed. Pose this statement to the next person who says this(maybe a Jesus Seminar member): If all human ideas are fallible/flawed, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea. This is what is known as a "self destructing" argument, or an argument that "commits suicide". Those who use this argument have "sawn off the branch they are sitting on"! Taking it one step further re. any posts on this board: You are a fallible human being, therefore your post is fallible-it cannot be true since you are "fallible." To those who embrace this mindset, I say: You are calling God a liar-He promised to preserve His Word, which, by definition, is without error. I suppose most miss the fact that even portions of the non-existent inspired "originals", originals that no one living has ever seen or touched, and would not be able to recognize even if they appeared, were written/copied by fallible, uninspired men-even the non-existent "originals" are a work of man; the scribes were fallible men; all the manuscripts we have now were/are written by fallible men (the scholars are continually "revising" manuscripts), and thus, by this "logic", we have no infallible word of God today. This is the inevitiable conclusion of this supposed argument(it really is an assertion, not an argument). None of us are "qualified", or even "worthy" to be used by an omnipotent God to physically write, physically preserve/translate the word of God, nor are any of us "qualified" to preach, teach, and proclaim the word of God. And what possible "credentials" would an all powerful, self-sufficient God really "need"? "Infallibility"? Scripture's testimony is clear: The LORD God needs nothing from me, or any one of us, as all is His, and He needs no service from us. "...as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.." Acts 17:25 " If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?" Job 35:7 "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts." Gee, I guess the LORD God had to "interview" these fallible men in order to ascertain their "credentials"! Yes, God is so impotent! What an impossible task He had in trying to find those who were "qualified", those who had "the credentials", to "help Him out" in preserving His inspired, without error word! Where are the "scholars", LORD God(1 Cor. chapter one)? Help! Gee, I am a sinner, I am not qualified here. God requires perfection, "infallibility", in writing, preserving, and preaching/teaching His Word. I'm outta here........Balaam's ass is more qualified...." The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing, as does the doctrine of preservation. "Why didn't God presevere the first English translation?" By that argument, why did not God preserve the NT in Hebrew? How about Joseph in Genesis 42:23:? "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation. Why did the LORD God not, through Moses as an instrument, write/preserve it in Egyptian? Translation "not inspired"? Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharoah were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-thety were "translations". Why not "the Egyptian"? Translation "not inspired"? Why didn't God preserve "the original" 10 commandments, which Moses broke? In Christ, John M. Whalen You are being deliberately obtuse. The issue under consideration is your claim that the KJV is perfect. When asked for evidence that this so, you cannot or will not do so. Instead, you choose to obscure the discussion with irrelevancies and insult without cause or provocation anyone who disagrees."And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves," 2nd Timothy 2:24,25. You must be a very lonely person. ______ Obtuse? Its called debating. I dismantled your premises, the "supporting walls" of your argument. That is how we come to the truth. "KJV is perfect"? Perfect "what"? Word of God? What is "the KJV.?" Irrelevancies? Asking you by what infallible standard you are judging the KJB is not perfect? How do you know that the KJB is not perfect, if you have no standard, much less an infallible standard, by which to judge it. You, sir, are in a logical fallacy trap, and you know it. This is why you will not identify this infallible standard by which you allegedly judge/assess the KJB is not perfect. You will be forced to name a, by your own presuppostions, fallible standard to infallibly "prove" that the KJB is not perfect. And this you cannot do, nor will you do. And thus, the enigma of your on record statement that you believe the word of God is inerrant, but you/we don't know what this "inerrant word of God" of yours is, continues. Tell everyone on the board how you were able to come to the conclusion that the KJB is not perfect. With what source authority you compare it? Tick, tick, tick,,,,,, The originals? Nahhhhh! As they say in Texas Hold 'Em, you have deuce/seven unsuited-fold-don't go all in. Your volley. In Christ, John M. Whalen You assert the KJV is perfect. The burden of proof is on you. Unfortunately, you cannot. Instead, you resort to insults and obfuscation. In debate, this is known as argumentum ad baculum, the appeal the the club. That's not scholarship- that's bigotry. Present your evidence or withdraw your assertion. ________ Throwing a tantrum? Does the KJB have errors? Yes or no. In Christ, John M,. Whalen

That completely evades the question I asked. I have noticed that when you can't answer a question, you dismiss it as almost not worth discussing. Why didn't God presevere the first English translation? Why is it that the 1611 version the first English translation God chose to preserve and why was He unwilling to perserve earlier editions? It speaks to the whole "perserved" fallacy. Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators? ____________- One point at a time(Is. 28:10)- "Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?" To refute an argument, we must "knock down" the premises, the "supporting walls", upon which the "foundation" of the argument rests. "What saith the scriptures" re. "the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired, and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired."? 1. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is, not was, given by inspiration-the scriptures are inspired, not the writers(the subject of another post). 2. "Check it out in the Book-don't take my word on this"-Acts 17:11: I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:. - "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22 Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19). Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word, by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?: "And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy(and notice he wrote a "copy", which he had available all his life-so much for the "originals only" 'were'(past tense) inspired"--copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7) -I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof). "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12 To be consistent with this argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to this argument????!!!!!!? "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17 Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!?? -Simarly, "The Translators to the Reader" "opinion" argument Who said their "opinion" was inspired? -"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51 Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant. The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing. as does the doctrine of preservation. Cannot the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!(rhetorical question) Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it). Wrong premise-wrong conclusion. You presume(your premise) that both the "original" transmission, communication, revealing of the inspired word of God, and its subsequent scriptural promise of preservation, depends on translators(man), i.e., fallible men="experts", instead of the promise and power of God. We call that secular humanism. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 "Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints.."Job 15:15 No, we are all in "the same company: "in good company": The Hebrews Chapter 11 "Hall of Faith": Abraham(verses 8-10, 17):He offered his wife's "services" to save his own hide-twice(Gen. 12,20). And in between, he succumbed to the flesh by falling for Sarah's scheme to go into Hagar the handmaid. After a great victory given to him by the LORD(Gen.14), Abraham shows a faltering faith and doubt(Gen. 15:2). Sarah(vs. 11-12): She laughed at when the LORD told her she would conceive at her old age, and lied about laughing. Her child was named "Isaac", meaning "laughter," to remind Sarah. Isaac(vs. 14-20): He was a liar and a schemer like his "old man"(how is that for "the Modern English"?) Abraham. Joseph(vs. 21-22): Noble as he was, he deceived his brothers. Moses(verses 23-32): He hedged, murdered, smote. Israelites(verse 29): they murmured constantly(complained). Vs. 30-32: Gideon hedged, Barak under women, Samson lusted, Jephthah sacrificed daughter, David committed adultery and murder. _______ Notice builds on ark, and then gets drunk(Gen. 9:21). Lot was considered righteous(2 Peter 2:7)-look at his involvement with Sodom., and look at his daughters.. Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and then cursed and swore he never knew or saw the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was a murderer, John Mark "bolted"/"punted" when the "going got tough". The church at Corinth was filled with drunks, immorality, favoritism. King Saul committed suicide, as did Sampson, and yet scripture testifies they went to be with the LORD. Welcome to the club! As an example, I often hear , the common, supposed "scholarly, expert" objection to the notion of biblical inspiration is that scripture was only written by men, containing human ideas, and all human ideas are fallible/flawed. Therefore, the scripture/Bible is flawed. Pose this statement to the next person who says this(maybe a Jesus Seminar member): If all human ideas are fallible/flawed, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea. This is what is known as a "self destructing" argument, or an argument that "commits suicide". Those who use this argument have "sawn off the branch they are sitting on"! Taking it one step further re. any posts on this board: You are a fallible human being, therefore your post is fallible-it cannot be true since you are "fallible." To those who embrace this mindset, I say: You are calling God a liar-He promised to preserve His Word, which, by definition, is without error. I suppose most miss the fact that even portions of the non-existent inspired "originals", originals that no one living has ever seen or touched, and would not be able to recognize even if they appeared, were written/copied by fallible, uninspired men-even the non-existent "originals" are a work of man; the scribes were fallible men; all the manuscripts we have now were/are written by fallible men (the scholars are continually "revising" manuscripts), and thus, by this "logic", we have no infallible word of God today. This is the inevitiable conclusion of this supposed argument(it really is an assertion, not an argument). None of us are "qualified", or even "worthy" to be used by an omnipotent God to physically write, physically preserve/translate the word of God, nor are any of us "qualified" to preach, teach, and proclaim the word of God. And what possible "credentials" would an all powerful, self-sufficient God really "need"? "Infallibility"? Scripture's testimony is clear: The LORD God needs nothing from me, or any one of us, as all is His, and He needs no service from us. "...as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.." Acts 17:25 " If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?" Job 35:7 "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts." Gee, I guess the LORD God had to "interview" these fallible men in order to ascertain their "credentials"! Yes, God is so impotent! What an impossible task He had in trying to find those who were "qualified", those who had "the credentials", to "help Him out" in preserving His inspired, without error word! Where are the "scholars", LORD God(1 Cor. chapter one)? Help! Gee, I am a sinner, I am not qualified here. God requires perfection, "infallibility", in writing, preserving, and preaching/teaching His Word. I'm outta here........Balaam's ass is more qualified...." The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing, as does the doctrine of preservation. "Why didn't God presevere the first English translation?" By that argument, why did not God preserve the NT in Hebrew? How about Joseph in Genesis 42:23:? "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation. Why did the LORD God not, through Moses as an instrument, write/preserve it in Egyptian? Translation "not inspired"? Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharoah were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-thety were "translations". Why not "the Egyptian"? Translation "not inspired"? Why didn't God preserve "the original" 10 commandments, which Moses broke? In Christ, John M. Whalen You are being deliberately obtuse. The issue under consideration is your claim that the KJV is perfect. When asked for evidence that this so, you cannot or will not do so. Instead, you choose to obscure the discussion with irrelevancies and insult without cause or provocation anyone who disagrees."And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves," 2nd Timothy 2:24,25. ______ Obtuse? Its called debating. I dismantled your premises, the "supporting walls" of your argument. That is how we come to the truth. "KJV is perfect"? Perfect "what"? Word of God? What is "the KJV.?" Irrelevancies? Asking you by what infallible standard you are judging the KJB is not perfect? How do you know that the KJB is not perfect, if you have no standard, much less an infallible standard, by which to judge it. You, sir, are in a logical fallacy trap, and you know it. This is why you will not identify this infallible standard by which you allegedly judge/assess the KJB is not perfect. You will be forced to name a, by your own presuppostions, fallible standard to infallibly "prove" that the KJB is not perfect. And this you cannot do, nor will you do. And thus, the enigma of your on record statement that you believe the word of God is inerrant, but you/we don't know what this "inerrant word of God" of yours is, continues. Tell everyone on the board how you were able to come to the conclusion that the KJB is not perfect. With what source authority you compare it? Tick, tick, tick,,,,,, The originals? Nahhhhh! As they say in Texas Hold 'Em, you have deuce/seven unsuited-fold-don't go all in. Your volley. In Christ, John M. Whalen

hmmmm.... that has never occurred to me. ____ Traveller, Also "check it out"(as I know you will-Acts 17:11): "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." Luke 23:38 At least 2 of these were "translations", were they not? Were they not "the actual inerrant, inspired Word of God"? "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,).............................." Acts 21:40-22:1-2............................ Notice Paul's words, spoken in "the Hebrew tongue", were able to be translated into "the" Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Acts 26:14 The Lord Jesus Christ speaks in "the Hebrew tongue", but His words are translated into "the" Greek". In Christ, John M. Whalen

The problem is, you're claiming things for, and teaching as doctrine, something the editors of the KJV never claimed for themselves. Read the preface to the 1611 printing - "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes do goods, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded." You're claiming a double revelation of God's Word. __________ "The problem is, you're claiming things for, and teaching as doctrine, something the editors of the KJV never claimed for themselves. Read the preface to the 1611 printing....." 1.I will repost my answer to this-post #142: Again, who said the preface "is given by inspiration..."?(2 Tim. 3:16) "Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?" To refute an argument, we must "knock down" the premises, the "supporting walls", upon which the "foundation" of the argument rests. "What saith the scriptures" re. "the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired, and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired."? 1. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is, not was, given by inspiration-the scriptures are inspired, not the writers(the subject of another post). 2. "Check it out in the Book-don't take my word on this"-Acts 17:11: I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:. - "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22 Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19). Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word, by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?: "And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy(and notice he wrote a "copy", which he had available all his life-so much for the "originals only" 'were'(past tense) inspired"--copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7) -I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof). "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12 To be consistent with this argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to this argument????!!!!!!? "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17 Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!?? -Simarly, "The Translators to the Reader" "opinion" argument Who said their "opinion" was inspired? -"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51 Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant. The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing. as does the doctrine of preservation. Cannot the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!(rhetorical question) Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it). Wrong premise-wrong conclusion. You presume(your premise) that both the "original" transmission, communication, revealing of the inspired word of God, and its subsequent scriptural promise of preservation, depends on translators(man), i.e., fallible men="experts", instead of the promise and power of God. We call that secular humanism. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 "Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints.."Job 15:15 No, we are all in "the same company: "in good company": The Hebrews Chapter 11 "Hall of Faith": Abraham(verses 8-10, 17):He offered his wife's "services" to save his own hide-twice(Gen. 12,20). And in between, he succumbed to the flesh by falling for Sarah's scheme to go into Hagar the handmaid. After a great victory given to him by the LORD(Gen.14), Abraham shows a faltering faith and doubt(Gen. 15:2). Sarah(vs. 11-12): She laughed at when the LORD told her she would conceive at her old age, and lied about laughing. Her child was named "Isaac", meaning "laughter," to remind Sarah. Isaac(vs. 14-20): He was a liar and a schemer like his "old man"(how is that for "the Modern English"?) Abraham. Joseph(vs. 21-22): Noble as he was, he deceived his brothers. Moses(verses 23-32): He hedged, murdered, smote. Israelites(verse 29): they murmured constantly(complained). Vs. 30-32: Gideon hedged, Barak under women, Samson lusted, Jephthah sacrificed daughter, David committed adultery and murder. _______ Notice builds on ark, and then gets drunk(Gen. 9:21). Lot was considered righteous(2 Peter 2:7)-look at his involvement with Sodom., and look at his daughters.. Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and then cursed and swore he never knew or saw the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was a murderer, John Mark "bolted"/"punted" when the "going got tough". The church at Corinth was filled with drunks, immorality, favoritism. King Saul committed suicide, as did Sampson, and yet scripture testifies they went to be with the LORD. Welcome to the club! As an example, I often hear , the common, supposed "scholarly, expert" objection to the notion of biblical inspiration is that scripture was only written by men, containing human ideas, and all human ideas are fallible/flawed. Therefore, the scripture/Bible is flawed. Pose this statement to the next person who says this(maybe a Jesus Seminar member): If all human ideas are fallible/flawed, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea. This is what is known as a "self destructing" argument, or an argument that "commits suicide". Those who use this argument have "sawn off the branch they are sitting on"! Taking it one step further re. any posts on this board: You are a fallible human being, therefore your post is fallible-it cannot be true since you are "fallible." To those who embrace this mindset, I say: You are calling God a liar-He promised to preserve His Word, which, by definition, is without error. I suppose most miss the fact that even portions of the non-existent inspired "originals", originals that no one living has ever seen or touched, and would not be able to recognize even if they appeared, were written/copied by fallible, uninspired men-even the non-existent "originals" are a work of man; the scribes were fallible men; all the manuscripts we have now were/are written by fallible men (the scholars are continually "revising" manuscripts), and thus, by this "logic", we have no infallible word of God today. This is the inevitiable conclusion of this supposed argument(it really is an assertion, not an argument). None of us are "qualified", or even "worthy" to be used by an omnipotent God to physically write, physically preserve/translate the word of God, nor are any of us "qualified" to preach, teach, and proclaim the word of God. And what possible "credentials" would an all powerful, self-sufficient God really "need"? "Infallibility"? Scripture's testimony is clear: The LORD God needs nothing from me, or any one of us, as all is His, and He needs no service from us. "...as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.." Acts 17:25 " If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?" Job 35:7 "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts." Gee, I guess the LORD God had to "interview" these fallible men in order to ascertain their "credentials"! Yes, God is so impotent! What an impossible task He had in trying to find those who were "qualified", those who had "the credentials", to "help Him out" in preserving His inspired, without error word! Where are the "scholars", LORD God(1 Cor. chapter one)? Help! Gee, I am a sinner, I am not qualified here. God requires perfection, "infallibility", in writing, preserving, and preaching/teaching His Word. I'm outta here........Balaam's ass is more qualified...." The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing, as does the doctrine of preservation. "Why didn't God presevere the first English translation?" By that argument, why did not God preserve the NT in Hebrew? How about Joseph in Genesis 42:23:? "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation. Why did the LORD God not, through Moses as an instrument, write/preserve it in Egyptian? Translation "not inspired"? Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharoah were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-thety were "translations". Why not "the Egyptian"? Translation "not inspired"? Why didn't God preserve "the original" 10 commandments, which Moses broke? In Christ, John M. Whalen _____ 2." Read the preface to the 1611 printing....." By that "argument", if is valid(and it is not), throw your NIV in the trash(if you haven't already): "PREFACE TO THE NIV BIBLE" excerpts: "Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. "Translation": This "version" of the word of God, which, by its own testimony, is "pure, certain, sure, true.........", has fallen short of its goals." There you have it folks!!! Oh where oh where is that all powerful God? Just could not "get it right" all these years! And 200+ bible "versions" in all kinds of flavors over the years, and all this "scholarship" and technology, and "imperfect man" just can't give us a perfect "the" bible. It is time to get out the rubber walls at the insane asylum. That is guess who(Gen. 3:1) talking, and certainly NOT Scripture. "made as they are by imperfect man" Again, assumes that man is responsible for the preservation of the scriptures, and not the LORD God, and it does not dawn on these "scholars", these "experts", that even the non-existent "originals", the 5000+ manuscripts we have.....were "made by imperfect man." I guess that second set of 10 commandments "Moses wrote" need to be trashed also. See my previous post on this lunacy-it is called secular humanism. I also call it unbelief, refusing to "take God at His word." "As in other ancient documents, the precise meaning of the biblical texts is something uncertain." An "uncertain" word of God, from an "uncertain" "god" these "scholars" worship-"...mischievous madness..."(Eccl. 10:13-"Nuts") In Christ, John M. Whalen

_______- By that argument, why is it, if Christianity is true, why every one in the world does not recognize this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?. Yes indeed, "..why...ummm that will do for the moment." The LORD God of the Holy Bible, and His Christ, is rejected by most of the world, and, if the Bible's testimony is to be accepted at face value, He will continue to be rejected. Popularity, nor recognition of it, does not determine truth-never has, never will. The truth goes on eternally, regardless if anyone believes it or not. Belief in objective truth, or lack thereof, in no way determines objective truth. In Christ, JW ...and misdirection doesn't answer the assertion either. Stick to the question at hand. Prove your assertion or withdraw it. You can rant and rave all day long, you can insult me to your heart's content and you still will have not proven a thing. Where is your evidence that the KJV is the only English text acceptable to God? You have none and have not presented any because you cannot. The apostle Paul gave Timothy some good advice in 1st Timothy 6:20,21, "Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith." Seems to me like you've missed the mark, friend. _________-- and where is your evidence that: "Whatever Bible version Rufus identifies", which he has yet to identify,(fill in the blank) is the only English text acceptable to God? ="Rufus version ONLY-ISM" "The original" text is the only scripture acceptable to God? Can you even "prove", from any version, that only the original autographs were "inspired"? No? Prove that any translation, in any language, whether it be Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean.....is the only text acceptable to God. And, while you are at it, prove, from scripture, chapter and verse, that the OT was written in "the Hebrew", and the NT, in "the Greek. Prove, from scripture that only the current, widely accepted 66 books of scripture are the only ones acceptable to God? Can you "prove", from any version, that we have the complete canon of scripture-66 books(39 OT,29 NT). No?. 1st Timothy 6:20,21, "Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith." From what "the" Bible is this? Is it innerant? Prove it. If not, why are you citing a verse from a "the" Bible that has "weaknesses and errors, i/e., a corrupy source"? Tick, tick, tick....... "Seems to me" More "Thus saith man...", eh?-Judges 21:25 Now, we are still waiting for you to identify this "inerrant word of God." Name it. In Christ, John M. Whalen Sarcasm is not evidence. Invective is not evidence. The burden of proof remains with you. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that the KJV is perfect? Or are you merely engaging in wishful thinking? Answer, if you can. ____________- Evidence? Post after post, and Rufus has yet did identify this "inerrant word of God" he "feigns" he believes in.

"I can understand that many people might find the King James 1611 version to be more accurate, and contain less faults and corrections than many/all more modern translations...I certainly would not touch many new versions with a barge pole because they are not faithful translations...they deliberately change, insert or leave out words in an effort to promote their own agenda. (I am not talking about paraphrases which are what they are, and serve their purpose, although I never read any of them)" " more accurate, and contain less faults" This is one of the "cruxes" of the issue: Are we reducing the integrity of the LORD God, the LORD God of truth, who cannot lie, and who told us, in no uncertain terms, that His word is true, perfect, sure, right........................................................................... ..(see my scriptural references), to this mindset: "Revising" "Thy word is true from the beginning....the scripture of truth...thy word is true........................" to:" "Thy word is true from the beginning....the scripture of truth...thy word is true........................, but no translation is true...all 'the' Bibles have 'errors and weakness', although some translations are 'good', and 'more accurate', and 'contain less faults', and need 'less corrections'. they basically say the same thing, but they all have 'shortcomings, some better than others........................" When did the LORD God lose His masterpiece, and when did He "delete", "revise", "correct" His promised doctrine of preservation of His inspired word? And since when did "fallible man" redefine, "correct", "revise" the plain words "pure, , sure, true, certain" to "almost", "less faults".....? Is that like "almost a word of God". or "almost a Christian"(Acts 26:28)? ____ "I can understand that many people might find the King James 1611 version to be more accurate, and contain less faults and corrections than many/all more modern translations...I certainly would not touch many new versions with a barge pole because they are not faithful translations...they deliberately change, insert or leave out words in an effort to promote their own agenda. (I am not talking about paraphrases which are what they are, and serve their purpose, although I never read any of them) What I do find astonishing, is an assertion such as my brother in the L-rd Butero makes about the use of the word Easter (pascha in the greek), when it is completely non-sensical...I would have to suspend my understanding and commit intellectual suicide to step over the line and join his team... I don't believe that G-d requires that of me or anyone else. Surely it is blatantly obvious that 'Easter' is a Christian celebration, derived from a pagan one, and was certainly not inaugurated at the time of the New Testament, and it is distinct from Passover. Not to mention the inconsistency in translating it Easter just once, and then Passover all the other times. Now I understand that there are things we cannot intellectualize about because they are spiritually discerned, but this is not one of them. Easter is but one significant word that is a mistake in the KJV 1611 translation....G-d has not made a mistake, the translator's have...there are quite a few more but I suppose to be consistent those that hold Butero's positions would apply the same blind faith to its accuracy ( I do not use the term, blind faith in a derogatory way...I cannot think of any other way to explain what I see) Here are just three other examples...not to try and knock the KJV, or cast doubt into the heart of those that trust the Bible, but just to show that we can better understand some things through more accurate/honest translation. ...... 1. As stated earlier: The Holy Bible is to correct us, not vica versa. You are taking the following approach: I, a "fallible" human being,have found have found alleged errors in the Bible-it is not consistent with my doctrine.. I have subjectively corrected these errors with my fallible judgment, because I do not understand them. There is no possibility than I could be wrong, nor the "scholars, experts.....", and "the majority is always right", and the Holy Bible true. Therefore, the Holy Bible, which the LORD God provided as objective truth, through objective words, is wrong, so I will correct/revise it with my subjective interpretation. That is, my doctrine determines "what the Holy Bible is", and not vica versa. I will thus find a version, or versions, that fit my doctrine-my "favorite" which I "use", but don't believe. . 2, Given the above, I suggest that it is your misunderstanding of the above verses that need "correction", "revision", not the objective words. But most do not do this-they submit the objective words of the Holy Bible to their fallible assessment/judgment, and they are the final authority. No one believes a bible they can correct, revise, "prefer", for that presupposes an authority over it. 3. "many new versions with a barge pole because they are not faithful translations...they deliberately change, insert or leave out words in an effort to promote their own agenda." "not faithful translations" The word "faithful" is a judgmental/discerning term, and, by its internal definition, "Exlusionary". Discernment, by its very nature, is exlusionary. So, you do EXCLUDE some versions? You agree that "all mushrooms are not good-some will kill you"? Are you a "only the translation I consider faithful are the word of God ONLY-IST? How are you different than a KJVO? In number? Are you not a "Christian ONLY-IST? You make my point-EVERY ONE EXCLUDES. If you do not, then you are a subjectivist: "All Bibles are the word of God."= "all mushrooms are good." Anyone can say "These are faithful translations." A JW can say that re. the NWT, and does. Of course, it does not dawn on bible correctors that the very reason the "authors" of each and every "bible translation" have issued their "respective" versions, is because they consider their version "faithful." This has been my point all along. If you are not a subjectivist, you EXCLUDE, and this is a biblical command: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Is. 5:20 And thus, the hypocrisy: If you do exclude versions, then you are playing a shell game by accusing KJVO proponents of EXCLUSION, when you, and EVERYONE, except subjectivists, in fact, do the same. "Thy word is true from the beginning...thy word is truth....the scripture of truth...but, in all probability, thy word is not infallible.... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ....... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ....... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ....... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ......". "Thus saith my opinion." In Christ, John M. Whalen

That completely evades the question I asked. I have noticed that when you can't answer a question, you dismiss it as almost not worth discussing. Why didn't God presevere the first English translation? Why is it that the 1611 version the first English translation God chose to preserve and why was He unwilling to perserve earlier editions? It speaks to the whole "perserved" fallacy. Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators? ____________- One point at a time(Is. 28:10)- "Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?" To refute an argument, we must "knock down" the premises, the "supporting walls", upon which the "foundation" of the argument rests. "What saith the scriptures" re. "the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired, and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired."? 1. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is, not was, given by inspiration-the scriptures are inspired, not the writers(the subject of another post). 2. "Check it out in the Book-don't take my word on this"-Acts 17:11: I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:. - "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22 Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19). Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word, by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?: "And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy(and notice he wrote a "copy", which he had available all his life-so much for the "originals only" 'were'(past tense) inspired"--copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7) -I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof). "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12 To be consistent with this argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to this argument????!!!!!!? "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17 Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!?? -Simarly, "The Translators to the Reader" "opinion" argument Who said their "opinion" was inspired? -"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51 Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant. The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing. as does the doctrine of preservation. Cannot the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!(rhetorical question) Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it). Wrong premise-wrong conclusion. You presume(your premise) that both the "original" transmission, communication, revealing of the inspired word of God, and its subsequent scriptural promise of preservation, depends on translators(man), i.e., fallible men="experts", instead of the promise and power of God. We call that secular humanism. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 "Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints.."Job 15:15 No, we are all in "the same company: "in good company": The Hebrews Chapter 11 "Hall of Faith": Abraham(verses 8-10, 17):He offered his wife's "services" to save his own hide-twice(Gen. 12,20). And in between, he succumbed to the flesh by falling for Sarah's scheme to go into Hagar the handmaid. After a great victory given to him by the LORD(Gen.14), Abraham shows a faltering faith and doubt(Gen. 15:2). Sarah(vs. 11-12): She laughed at when the LORD told her she would conceive at her old age, and lied about laughing. Her child was named "Isaac", meaning "laughter," to remind Sarah. Isaac(vs. 14-20): He was a liar and a schemer like his "old man"(how is that for "the Modern English"?) Abraham. Joseph(vs. 21-22): Noble as he was, he deceived his brothers. Moses(verses 23-32): He hedged, murdered, smote. Israelites(verse 29): they murmured constantly(complained). Vs. 30-32: Gideon hedged, Barak under women, Samson lusted, Jephthah sacrificed daughter, David committed adultery and murder. _______ Notice builds on ark, and then gets drunk(Gen. 9:21). Lot was considered righteous(2 Peter 2:7)-look at his involvement with Sodom., and look at his daughters.. Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and then cursed and swore he never knew or saw the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was a murderer, John Mark "bolted"/"punted" when the "going got tough". The church at Corinth was filled with drunks, immorality, favoritism. King Saul committed suicide, as did Sampson, and yet scripture testifies they went to be with the LORD. Welcome to the club! As an example, I often hear , the common, supposed "scholarly, expert" objection to the notion of biblical inspiration is that scripture was only written by men, containing human ideas, and all human ideas are fallible/flawed. Therefore, the scripture/Bible is flawed. Pose this statement to the next person who says this(maybe a Jesus Seminar member): If all human ideas are fallible/flawed, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea. This is what is known as a "self destructing" argument, or an argument that "commits suicide". Those who use this argument have "sawn off the branch they are sitting on"! Taking it one step further re. any posts on this board: You are a fallible human being, therefore your post is fallible-it cannot be true since you are "fallible." To those who embrace this mindset, I say: You are calling God a liar-He promised to preserve His Word, which, by definition, is without error. I suppose most miss the fact that even portions of the non-existent inspired "originals", originals that no one living has ever seen or touched, and would not be able to recognize even if they appeared, were written/copied by fallible, uninspired men-even the non-existent "originals" are a work of man; the scribes were fallible men; all the manuscripts we have now were/are written by fallible men (the scholars are continually "revising" manuscripts), and thus, by this "logic", we have no infallible word of God today. This is the inevitiable conclusion of this supposed argument(it really is an assertion, not an argument). None of us are "qualified", or even "worthy" to be used by an omnipotent God to physically write, physically preserve/translate the word of God, nor are any of us "qualified" to preach, teach, and proclaim the word of God. And what possible "credentials" would an all powerful, self-sufficient God really "need"? "Infallibility"? Scripture's testimony is clear: The LORD God needs nothing from me, or any one of us, as all is His, and He needs no service from us. "...as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.." Acts 17:25 " If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?" Job 35:7 "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts." Gee, I guess the LORD God had to "interview" these fallible men in order to ascertain their "credentials"! Yes, God is so impotent! What an impossible task He had in trying to find those who were "qualified", those who had "the credentials", to "help Him out" in preserving His inspired, without error word! Where are the "scholars", LORD God(1 Cor. chapter one)? Help! Gee, I am a sinner, I am not qualified here. God requires perfection, "infallibility", in writing, preserving, and preaching/teaching His Word. I'm outta here........Balaam's ass is more qualified...." The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God. The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God. So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing, as does the doctrine of preservation. "Why didn't God presevere the first English translation?" By that argument, why did not God preserve the NT in Hebrew? How about Joseph in Genesis 42:23:? "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation. Why did the LORD God not, through Moses as an instrument, write/preserve it in Egyptian? Translation "not inspired"? Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharoah were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-thety were "translations". Why not "the Egyptian"? Translation "not inspired"? Why didn't God preserve "the original" 10 commandments, which Moses broke? In Christ, John M. Whalen

_______- By that argument, why is it, if Christianity is true, why every one in the world does not recognize this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?. Yes indeed, "..why...ummm that will do for the moment." The LORD God of the Holy Bible, and His Christ, is rejected by most of the world, and, if the Bible's testimony is to be accepted at face value, He will continue to be rejected. Popularity, nor recognition of it, does not determine truth-never has, never will. The truth goes on eternally, regardless if anyone believes it or not. Belief in objective truth, or lack thereof, in no way determines objective truth. In Christ, JW ...and misdirection doesn't answer the assertion either. Stick to the question at hand. Prove your assertion or withdraw it. You can rant and rave all day long, you can insult me to your heart's content and you still will have not proven a thing. Where is your evidence that the KJV is the only English text acceptable to God? You have none and have not presented any because you cannot. The apostle Paul gave Timothy some good advice in 1st Timothy 6:20,21, "Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith." Seems to me like you've missed the mark, friend. _________-- and where is your evidence that: "Whatever Bible version Rufus identifies", which he has yet to identify,(fill in the blank) is the only English text acceptable to God? ="Rufus version ONLY-ISM" "The original" text is the only scripture acceptable to God? Can you even "prove", from any version, that only the original autographs were "inspired"? No? Prove that any translation, in any language, whether it be Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean.....is the only text acceptable to God. And, while you are at it, prove, from scripture, chapter and verse, that the OT was written in "the Hebrew", and the NT, in "the Greek. Prove, from scripture that only the current, widely accepted 66 books of scripture are the only ones acceptable to God? Can you "prove", from any version, that we have the complete canon of scripture-66 books(39 OT,29 NT). No?. 1st Timothy 6:20,21, "Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith." From what "the" Bible is this? Is it innerant? Prove it. If not, why are you citing a verse from a "the" Bible that has "weaknesses and errors, i/e., a corrupy source"? Tick, tick, tick....... "Seems to me" More "Thus saith man...", eh?-Judges 21:25 Now, we are still waiting for you to identify this "inerrant word of God." Name it. In Christ, John M. Whalen Sarcasm is not evidence. Invective is not evidence. The burden of proof remains with you. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that the KJV is perfect? Or are you merely engaging in wishful thinking? Answer, if you can. ____________- Evidence? Post after post, and Rufus has yet did identify this "inerrant word of God" he "feigns" he believes in.

The problem is that I am talking about cultural thought. There are a lot of cultural distinctives in ancient Israel and ways of thinking that fly under our radar in modern times . There is a natural gap in matters within a historical-cultural context. That is why we employ hermeneutics. I'm sorry but you are simply mistaken. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, the fact is that "Son of God" expresses equality with God and this supported by the fact that Jesus enemies wanted to kill Him on the ground that His assertion that God was His Father and that He was one with the Father was an attempt His part to declare Divinity eqaul to God. You are still not getting it. Let me break this down: "Only begotten Son" refers to rank in Creation. It does not mean that Jesus as God was born. It does not mean that Jesus became "a" god. It is a rank of preminence. Jesus was preexistent with the Father in eternity past. He is given the rank as "Son" but keep in mind that "Son" in reference to Jesus does not mean "offspring." Jesus is not the "offspring" of God. It is a term that denotes rank in the Godhead. The person of the Father is greater than the person of the Son, but both are equally God. You are failing to draw a distinction between WHAT God is and WHO God is. "God" (Elohim) is a reference God's being, not His personage. Jesus and the Father ARE separate personages, but that does mean they are separate Gods. God is one, singular being, but three distinct personages. God is what He is. Father, Son and Holy Spirit is what He is. He is all three disinct personages at once. That is impossible in our pale of reality, but God operates on a level that transcends what is possible or conceivable in our realm of existance. Okay this is where your synopsis is mistaken: 1. In the beginning was there was God who is the Father, Son and Holy Spiirt. The Son, Jesus, was eternally existant as God from the indeterminate eternal past. Jesus did first exist when He was born physically. Jesus came flesh, He did not become God. He always was God. 2. I did not say that the Son is also the Father. I said that the Son and the Father are both equally God, but they are distinct persons. There is no earthly frame of reference adequate to communicate God's existence, which, in part is why this is difficult to conceive of. 3 What I am saying is that you are confusing WHAT God with WHO God is. In our modern parlance, we treat the word "God" as if it was His Name. "God" is not His Name, nor is it His person. "God" is an expression of His being. Just like "human" describes your being, but human is not your name. "Man is not your name either." That is another term that denotes species or being, but you have a name and a definable, knowable personage that expresses WHO you are, whereas "human" or "man" describes what you are. The Holy Spirit is omnipotent: Luke 1:35 The Holy Spirit is omniscient: 1 Cor. 2:10, 11 The Holy Spirit is omnipresent: Psalms. 139: 7-10 The Holy Spirit is Eternal Hebrews: 9:14 He is called "God": Acts 5:3-4 Those are just a few, there is quite a bit more than I can go with, but time does not allow at the moment. __________ "...re there any passages that you believe includes the Holy Spirit as part of the same God?" "Those are just a few, there is quite a bit more than I can go with, but time does not allow at the moment." _____ (bold/underline my emphasis) The Holy Spirit is delared by the scriptures to be God, as He has the attributes of God- omniscient , eternal, all powerful, holy, gives life, creates, has glory, is to be worshipped, and on and on and……. The direct declaration of the scriptures that He is God: “And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,” Ex. 31:3 “And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.’ 2 Chron. 24:20 “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:” Matthew 3:16 “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” Matthew 12:28 “But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God….Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.” Acts 5:3,4, 9 “And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.” Acts 8:39 “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.” Acts 10:38 “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his…For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Romans 8:9,14 “...or 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…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.” 1 Cor. 2:11, 14 “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 1 Cor. 3:16 “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” 2 Cor. 3:3 “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Cor. 3:16 “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” Eph. 4:30 In Christ, John M. Whalen

There is no inability to answer that at all. The Hebrew is "avi ad" and does not mean "everlasting Father." It means "father of eternity." It is not using the term "father" in a paternal sense. It uses it in the sense that the ages have Jesus as their originator or author. It is the same sense in which we say that Alexander Graham Bell is the "father" of modern telecomunications. Jesus is not referred to as the Father anywhere in Scripture. So there is no conundrum. The Bible never refers to the Father and Son as one and the same. It is always careful keep the persons of the Godhead separate. ___ "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Is. 9:6 "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Psalms 2:12 "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" Proverbs 30:4 The child was born, the Son given; thus the Holy Spirit would declare the humanity and deity of the Messiah, the Christ. The Son was not born, He was given, for, as God, He was from Everlasting("Everlasting Father"=father of eternity=possessor of it), but, as Man, He was born. In Christ, John M. Whalen

Maybe everyone needs to cool off a bit and not get angry at eachother so that these debates can still have this value he spoke of. "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Eph. 4:2-6 I know I've been guilty of not follwing that scripture myself...but can we just try keeping with it this once? It doesn't matter who said what to whom if everyone tries to forgive and show love. You can't reason with JW. He knows everything and he will write 20 pages to prove it. He ruins every thread he sets his sights on. He is almost as hardheaded as my wife and nearly as wordy. Anyway I'm not mad, I'm just concise and truthful. The bolded parts are exactly the kinds of things I was hoping to forestall. And if I were your wife, I really would not appreciate being talked about like that on message boards. ______- But I would suggest that I'm the type of person want on your side if any "lost" person, such as a Muslim, were to dispute with you on the truth, and necessary purity, of the word of God, and one who would defend, as I understand the doctrine of exclusiveness- "ONLY-ISM", as in: "One God ONLY-ISM", "One Lamb ONLY-ISM", "One Way ONLY-ISM", "One Saviour ONLY-ISM", "Jesus Christ ONLY-ISM", "Chritianity-ONLY-ISM", "ONE BOOK ONLY-ISM", "The Perfect Word of God ONLY-ISM", "One Faith ONLY-ISM", One Lord ONLY-ISM", "One Baptism ONLY-ISM"............. In Christ, John W PS: I had to add this to be consistent with my "long-winded" expository style( Job 12:2,6, Amos 4:4, Is. 17:3, Malachi 3:15, nahum 2:8, 1 Cor. 4:8-10......).

_______- By that argument, why is it, if Christianity is true, why every one in the world does not recognize this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?. Yes indeed, "..why...ummm that will do for the moment." The LORD God of the Holy Bible, and His Christ, is rejected by most of the world, and, if the Bible's testimony is to be accepted at face value, He will continue to be rejected. Popularity, nor recognition of it, does not determine truth-never has, never will. The truth goes on eternally, regardless if anyone believes it or not. Belief in objective truth, or lack thereof, in no way determines objective truth. In Christ, JW Ok...I will rework my question, and leave out the relaxed style. Godly biblical scholars from all over the world would not fail to recognise the alleged 'perfection' of the 1611 King James version of the Bible if such a phenomenon existed. So why has this revelation fallen on the shoulders or entered the hearts of so few apparently chosen/enlightened ones? It would also indicate, that G-d spoke once again through the assembled 54 scholars who worked on the translation, and actually dictated by the Holy Ghost, just as He did when He spoke to those who penned His words in both Testaments...which would presuppose that there is no reason this could not happen again. If indeed G-d did cause the 1611 KJV to be written word perfectly, how is it that obvious errors in printing and translation are seen by everyone except those that cling to its perfection? ___ A few points addressed: 1. You assume that there has not been a concerted effort to corrupt the word of God-and by guess who? Read Gen 3 carefully. "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: " Gen. 3:1-3 "Yea, hath God said....?"-Did God really say_____? Did God really mean____Can you trust God?=aim is to cast doubt into the heart about the objective truth of the word of God.=denial of the divine authority of the scriptures, and to set aside their sole, absolute authority to create confusion and deception_______________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. “ Gen. 2:16-17 "And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. “ Gen. 3:2-6 " Notice the LORD God said "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat"(Gen 2:16). Eve deleted "freely." Notice the LORD God said "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"(Gen.2:17). Eve deleted "surely", adding doubt to the word of God, i.e., “lest ye die” vs. “thou shalt surely die.” Notice the LORD God said they can eat “Of every tree of the garden.” Eve misquotes the LORD God, saying “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.” Eve added "which is in the midst of the garden", and "neither shall ye touch it"-the LORD God said no such thing. Satan substitutes his own word for the LORD God’s(corruption), and contradicts God, substituting “Ye shall not surely die:” in place of “thou shalt surely die” "subtil"-add a few words here and there, delete a few words here and there. And we wonder the reason for 200 + “the” Bible versions in the last 100 years; one out on average every 6 months)? No corruption, they "basically" all say the same thing? They don’t differ! Are we making "too big a deal" of this issue? Words are not that important-it is "God's intent" that is important.="Thus saith the LORD's intent."? The battle line was drawn in Genesis(The "Seed Plot" of the Holy Bible) chapter three, and continues to this day. The enemy will always first attempt to "cut off" communication with the "soldiers"(2 Timothy 2:3,4) ) through the "the cares of this world"(Genesis 3:6 , Mark 4:19 ), and then "subtlety"(Gen. 3:1)corrupt the communication through sowing doubt and confusion, , "...Yea, hath God said.....?"(Gen. 3:1), which inevitably leads to changing/altering/misquoting/ deleting that communication(Gen. 3:2-5) And thus Ecclesiastes 1:9 comes full circle.. And thus, what worked quite well for Satan in Genesis, still works today. Attack the word of God through doubt, add, delete, replace, misquote. We call that corruption, as it is written(scripture's testimony, its "witness"): "And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God." Jeremiah 23:36 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." 2 Cor. 2:17 'Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.' 1 Peter 1:23 "Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? " 1 Cor. 5:6 "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Galatians 5:9 "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." 2 Cor. 6:17 "Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?" James 3:11 I live in Texas. My preacher friend Mike Arnold provided me the below prize winning Chili recipe(ingredients). It is an 94.73% accurate "copy". 2 1/2 lb. lean ground chuck/ 1 lb. lean ground pork/1 c finely chopped onion/4 garlic cloves finely chopped/1 cn Budweiser beer(12 oz)/8 oz Hunt's tomato sauce/1 cn water/3 tb chili powder/3 tb ground cumin/2 tb Wyler's beef-flavored instant bouillon(or 6 cubes)/2 ts Oregano leaves/2 ts paprika/2 ts sugar/1 ts unsweetened cocoa/1/2 ts ground coriander/1/2 ts Louisiana hot sauce, to taste/1 ts flour, 1 ts cornmeal/1 tb warm water/2 ts ARSENIC Pastor Jerry Lockhart of Berean Bible Church in New Braunfels, Texas points out that rat poison is 99.05% cornmeal, and .05% strychnine(a poisonous alkaloid). The .05% “gets the rat”. Satan’s deception is to “mix a little lie in with a whole lotta’ truth”, and the Body of Christ has bought into this deception. Again, in a war, the enemy attempts to either cutoff communication , or intercept it and alter it. Satan attempt to prevent man from reading the Holy Bible, through doubt and the "cares of the world"(diversion), or, if this does not succeed, change/alter the communication. “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” John 8:44 2. You assume the promise of preservation is based man's abilty and power, not God's. Scripture says otherwise. 3. "how is it that obvious errors in printing and translation are seen by everyone except those that cling to its perfection?" You assume that it error on the part of objective words, and not your error. Explain the passages in scripture that say, in no uncertain terms, that the word of God is perfect. Who should people believe(rhetorical q). You are a fallible person, and you are going to infallibly correct any "the word of God"? Understand the doctrine of preservation? "Godly biblical scholars" Again, you assume "Godly"-read Gen. 3. You would think that with all this "expert scholars" around, with all their titles before and after their names, they would eventually "get it right" and give us a "the" Bible after all these years. If they are "smart enough" to correct it, "revise", where is that perfect "the" Holy Bible? 250+ "new and improved" versions the last 100 years, and a "Bible Flavor of the Month Club" in every neighborhood. and a new version about to be issued as I type this! More importantly, what does the LORD God say about "scholars"; "What saith the LORD"?: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?...how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise...." 1 Cor. 1:19,20,26,27 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise..." Genesis 3:6 "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness..." Job 5:13 "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." 1 Cor. 3:19,20 "Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:21 "The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts." Malachi 2:12 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,..." Romans 1:22 ".....that they may have glory of men...... that they may be seen of men..." Matthew 6:2,5 vs. "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Isaiah 29:12 "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." Acts 4:13 "And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass.....And the ass said unto Balaam..." Numbers 22:28,30, "...thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Matthew 11:25/Luke 10:21 In Christ, John M. Whalen

I would also like ask why if the 1611 is the only true Bible and the only Word of God, why did God wait all the way until 1611 to provide the perfect Bible? Why did He allow the church operate from inferior texts of Scripture until 1611? And if the previous texts were not inferior, then what need did the 1611 fill that other previous texts equally valid, did not fill? Well, to be fair to the KJV only folks... Their assertion is that the KJV is the word of God to the English speaking people. Most KJV onlyists I have met do not oppose translations in other languages so long as they are from the exact same manuscripts as the KJV is taken from. The problem is that the KJV is not the first English translation. So it it bears asking: Why didn't the Lord preserve His word in Englsh until 1611? And if the other previous English translations were as accurate as the KJV, what need is the KJV filling that other equally valid prior English translations were not meeting? ________________ It was all over nothing. Defending the purity of the word of God is not nothing, according to scriptures testimony, which I have cited previously. The surety of our faith, the faith, depends on the surety of the word upon which it is established: "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Psalms 11:3 'That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. ' Luke 1:4 I honor, praise, glorify, what the LORD God praises, honors, and glorifies, according to the scriptures. And that same scripture testifies that it is w/o error, or it is not the word of God, and that there has been a concerted effort, since Gen. 3, to corrupt that same word of God, which I also documented.. And guess who is behind that? Very "subtil" They were good people, but didn't understand the differences in the old and newer translations. I have reviewed other "newer translations", and this much is certain, if the principle of reason(Is. 1:18) is an accepted biblical principle: the law of contradiction states, for example, that the NIV and the KJB(just one example) cannot both be, at the same time, the word of God. One or the other could be the word of God, but not both, at the same time. Tradition is a biggee. The 1611 has been good for 400 years and that is what we will use. The KVJ is still my favorite, but switching around has helped me understand the Bible much better. Newer translations should be used as a study tool, if nothing else, by the KJV only folks. "the KVJ is still my favorite" So, we choose what we are to believe based on "preference", "likeability", and not on truth? I think that I will choose "a little of Muslim", and "a little of Judaism", "a little of Christianity". Although Christianity is my "favorite", I still "use" Muslim. Judiasm, Hinduism.......="one big, pious religious smorgusborg/buffet." And this is how we discuss the "which bible version" issue-based on preference and "usability", not truth. Not me-I believe in Christianity because I found it to be true, not because I "like it" or "prefer it". As a matter of fact, there are many things I just don't like about Christianity, and would "prefer" to "use" another "religion", which is less demanding. And there are many demands placed upon me by this great Saviour of ours, the Lord Jesus Christ, which I just don't like, or "prefer." In many instances, He is not my "favorite."But I believe on Him, because I am convinced that He is the truth, and the book He is revealed in is the truth. "Preference" is quite irrelevant. I employ the same conviction(not preference) to the "which bible" issue, for I, nor anyone else, believes/is convinced of a bible they "prefer", for that presupposes an authority over it, and the bible is submitted to their approval/"preference. The infallible Holy Bible corrects me; I do not submit it to my fallible correction.. The Holy Bible establishes doctrine; my doctrine does not establish "what the Holy Bible is." If I do not "like", "prefer" a particular doctrine, I do not search for another "version" that fits my doctrine. It is me that needs correction, not the Holy Bible, and I need to "revise"(play on words)/submit my doctrine to the correction of the Holy Bible. I , John Whalen is the one that needs a "Revision", and not the objective words of scripture. It is my "understanding" of these objective words that need a "revision", not the objective words themselves. I am to leave the words alone, and believe them. Of course, that is what faith is -"taking God at His word." Could anyone help me with verses Matthew 17:21 and 18:11 in the NIV? In Christ, John M. Whalen

I would also like ask why if the 1611 is the only true Bible and the only Word of God, why did God wait all the way until 1611 to provide the perfect Bible? Why did He allow the church operate from inferior texts of Scripture until 1611? And if the previous texts were not inferior, then what need did the 1611 fill that other previous texts equally valid, did not fill? ___ "I guess that makes the original manuscripts NOT THE WORD OF GOD. And translations more accurate than the source material. " 1. There is only one "original" of anything. Look at the book of Jeremiah, for example. His "originals" were burned(Jer. 36:23). He had to rewrite them, and when he did, he added to them(Jer. 36:28,32)! The "original" stone tablets(10 commandments) were broken and had to be rewritten-Exodus 34. Shall we go on? Hence, the biblical promise of preservation. 2. God had no use for "the originals", as He let them crumple into dust years ago-nor should we. Scripture always refers to copies-not originals. The Lord Jesus Christ did not read from any "originals"-He read from copies. "Check it out"(Acts 17:11) "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Luke 4:16-21 Timothy did not have any "the originals"-he had copies, "from a child": "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim. 3:15 "And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19 ( the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error-see also Deut.-notice he had them "all the days of his life"=preservation) 31:9-13) "And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel." Joshua 8:32 "These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out." Proverbs 25:1 So much for the "scholarly" premise that "only the originals" 'were'(past tense) inspired"-copies, which he "read....all the days of his life". This tells us how God "did do things"-COPIES. The doctrine of the divine preservation of the scriptures applies to more than the "original" manuscripts/autographs. Inspiration applies to the copies of the scriptures. As another example(among many), in Daniel 10:20-21 , Gabriel is giving information to Daniel that will prepare him for the upcoming events of chapters 11 and 12, respectively. Verse 21 says "the scripture of truth"-these are copies of the Law and Prophets. Hence, Gabriel calls copies of the Bible "the scripture of truth", and Daniel is to understand them as such. And no "scholar" could ever make this statement, for they believe that only the autographs is "the scripture of truth." This contradicts testimony after testimony of the Bible itself. In Christ. John M. Whalen

_______- By that argument, why is it, if Christianity is true, why every one in the world does not recognize this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?. Yes indeed, "..why...ummm that will do for the moment." The LORD God of the Holy Bible, and His Christ, is rejected by most of the world, and, if the Bible's testimony is to be accepted at face value, He will continue to be rejected. Popularity, nor recognition of it, does not determine truth-never has, never will. The truth goes on eternally, regardless if anyone believes it or not. Belief in objective truth, or lack thereof, in no way determines objective truth. In Christ, JW ...and misdirection doesn't answer the assertion either. Stick to the question at hand. Prove your assertion or withdraw it. You can rant and rave all day long, you can insult me to your heart's content and you still will have not proven a thing. Where is your evidence that the KJV is the only English text acceptable to God? You have none and have not presented any because you cannot. The apostle Paul gave Timothy some good advice in 1st Timothy 6:20,21, "Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith." Seems to me like you've missed the mark, friend. _________-- and where is your evidence that: "Whatever Bible version Rufus identifies", which he has yet to identify,(fill in the blank) is the only English text acceptable to God? ="Rufus version ONLY-ISM" "The original" text is the only scripture acceptable to God? Can you even "prove", from any version, that only the original autographs were "inspired"? No? Prove that any translation, in any language, whether it be Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean.....is the only text acceptable to God. And, while you are at it, prove, from scripture, chapter and verse, that the OT was written in "the Hebrew", and the NT, in "the Greek. Prove, from scripture that only the current, widely accepted 66 books of scripture are the only ones acceptable to God? Can you "prove", from any version, that we have the complete canon of scripture-66 books(39 OT,29 NT). No?. 1st Timothy 6:20,21, "Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith." From what "the" Bible is this? Is it innerant? Prove it. If not, why are you citing a verse from a "the" Bible that has "weaknesses and errors, i/e., a corrupy source"? Tick, tick, tick....... "Seems to me" More "Thus saith man...", eh?-Judges 21:25 Now, we are still waiting for you to identify this "inerrant word of God." Name it. In Christ, John M. Whalen

Sorry, but there no verses that deny Jesus Deity. Jesus' Deity is well attested in both Old and New Testaments. The problem is that you don't want to be convinced. It is hardness of heart, not a lack of evidence that is at the root of your unbelief. Jesus is divine, yes. But he is not God. He is God's Son. They are separate. One cannot be Divine and not be God. Divinity speaks to essence. God is Divine. That is His essence. To say Jesus is Divine but not God is like saying "John is a man, but not Human." It is a logical impossibility. This is something I have cited in the past concering the phrase "son of..." In Jewish usage, the term

_______- By that argument, why is it, if Christianity is true, why every one in the world does not recognize this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?. Yes indeed, "..why...ummm that will do for the moment." The LORD God of the Holy Bible, and His Christ, is rejected by most of the world, and, if the Bible's testimony is to be accepted at face value, He will continue to be rejected. Popularity, nor recognition of it, does not determine truth-never has, never will. The truth goes on eternally, regardless if anyone believes it or not. Belief in objective truth, or lack thereof, in no way determines objective truth. In Christ, JW