Would you burn your Bible?

[Kabowd]

Oh yay, another KJV only thread....

[Guest shiloh357]

Oh yay, another KJV only thread.... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah... KJV Only Thread #7897654321890

[Kabowd]

I'll tell you what I'd like to burn...everything written by Terry Watkins. Now that stuff is burn worthy.

[Ovedya]

In my experience the Abingdon Bible Commentary is a little "off" with respect to some observations, and exptremely dogmatic in some areas where interpretation can safely vary.

[irishcowboy]

I was thinking I had better hide my

[PeterAV]

I believe that God's Word is infallible.

*******

And what is God's word?

w as in the words of God.

Not W as in the Word of God who is Jesus.

PeterAV

Edited October 5, 2005 by PeterAV

[RGR]

Trinitarian theology is totally disbelieved by the Gnostics and many cult groups including the Jews.

So the Jews are a cult now? Just in case you weren't aware of this, I'll give you a news flash-Jesus was a Jew!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I posted this one in your thread that got deleted-would you care to answer?

and typographical errors

BUT the KJV is perfect, now isn't it? How could there be typo's in the version to end all versions? If God corrected the Hebrew and Greek via the KJV and made it the only version to read, you are saying God made a mistake!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

PeterAV (if you aren't Brandplucked under another ID, btw), why don't you try answering my question? How could there be typographical errors in the the inerrant KJV?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This one I've asked 3 or 4 times in 2 different threads and you seem to be ignoring it. Do you not have an answer for the watching world to see?

[Ovedya]

I believe that God's Word is infallible.

*******

And what is God's word?

w as in the words of God.

Not W as in the Word of God who is Jesus.

PeterAV

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Word of God is Jesus Christ, who is God's expression, explanation, and definition (John 1:1; 14; 18). Jesus' speaking is the speaking of God, His words are spirit and are life (John 6:63).

In His incarnation Jesus's speaking was God's speaking in the Son and by the Spirit. In His resurrection and ascension Jesus' speaking is by God as the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Cor. 3:6; Rom. 8:2, 11).

The Scriptures are the testimony of Jesus Christ (John 3:31-34; 5:39), and they are the testimony of the ones who have seen the resurrected Christ (John 21:24; 1 John 1:2; Rev. 1:2; Acts 26:19).

The Scriptures are many things, but essentially they amount to one essential and most profound revelation. That is, they are God's speaking to man through the prophets and apostles, and more importantly in the Son, by the Son, and through the Son as the Spirit (Heb. 1:1-2; Matt. 17:5). If you do not have this revelation of the Scriptures then you are lacking in the necessary vision that God has given the church through His Son. Through the resurrected Christ the Scriptures have been opened up to us (Luke 24:27, 32, 45; Matt 7:7).

Were it so that God was primarily concerned with the accuracy and originality of His holy writ, then certainly He would have preserved the originally letters penned by the apostles. Likewise He would have retained the original instructions given to to Moses and all the prophets. However, this is not the case. We do not have those letters (And the fact that it is most probable that these Scriptures were written on velum, which is animal skin, and therefore their preservation would have been a natural potential anyway). What we do have is the most accurate representation of the written revelation of God's speaking to men.

To argue that a certain translation, using a certain type of language, written at a certain time, from a particular manuscript, translated by certain persons, and authorized by a certain person, is simply ridiculous. Since there is no possible way to compare the original penned manuscripts by the original authors with the later manuscripts copied by others, and since God apparently did not deem it of great importance to preserve the original documents, you have absolutely no way of knowing for certain whether or not the manuscripts used to translate a certain version is actually the original "word" of God. You simply have to take it on faith.

I would suggest to you, however, that this type of argument is not only ridiculous, petty, and pointless (It serves more to divide believers than united them, and therefore, it must not be truly of God) it more importantly falls woefully short of God's intended purpose of the Scriptures!

[yomotalking]

It does divide believers.

Look at the view I used to hold against Baptists!!!!

[RGR]

I believe that God's Word is infallible.

*******

And what is God's word?

w as in the words of God.

Not W as in the Word of God who is Jesus.

PeterAV

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Word of God is Jesus Christ, who is God's expression, explanation, and definition (John 1:1; 14; 18). Jesus' speaking is the speaking of God, His words are spirit and are life (John 6:63).

In His incarnation Jesus's speaking was God's speaking in the Son and by the Spirit. In His resurrection and ascension Jesus' speaking is by God as the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Cor. 3:6; Rom. 8:2, 11).

The Scriptures are the testimony of Jesus Christ (John 3:31-34; 5:39), and they are the testimony of the ones who have seen the resurrected Christ (John 21:24; 1 John 1:2; Rev. 1:2; Acts 26:19).

The Scriptures are many things, but essentially they amount to one essential and most profound revelation. That is, they are God's speaking to man through the prophets and apostles, and more importantly in the Son, by the Son, and through the Son as the Spirit (Heb. 1:1-2; Matt. 17:5). If you do not have this revelation of the Scriptures then you are lacking in the necessary vision that God has given the church through His Son. Through the resurrected Christ the Scriptures have been opened up to us (Luke 24:27, 32, 45; Matt 7:7).

Were it so that God was primarily concerned with the accuracy and originality of His holy writ, then certainly He would have preserved the originally letters penned by the apostles. Likewise He would have retained the original instructions given to to Moses and all the prophets. However, this is not the case. We do not have those letters (And the fact that it is most probable that these Scriptures were written on velum, which is animal skin, and therefore their preservation would have been a natural potential anyway). What we do have is the most accurate representation of the written revelation of God's speaking to men.

To argue that a certain translation, using a certain type of language, written at a certain time, from a particular manuscript, translated by certain persons, and authorized by a certain person, is simply ridiculous. Since there is no possible way to compare the original penned manuscripts by the original authors with the later manuscripts copied by others, and since God apparently did not deem it of great importance to preserve the original documents, you have absolutely no way of knowing for certain whether or not the manuscripts used to translate a certain version is actually the original "word" of God. You simply have to take it on faith.

I would suggest to you, however, that this type of argument is not only ridiculous, petty, and pointless (It serves more to divide believers than united them, and therefore, it must not be truly of God) it more importantly falls woefully short of God's intended purpose of the Scriptures!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed and given this line of thought, is it maybe time that this be shut down as well? There are most likely quite a few topics on this very subject buried around here that one can go look at if so inclined.