OneLight Posted March 3, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.21 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 3, 2008 Then he wasn't really Elijah, nor was he Elijah reincarnated? He was John the Baptist, a completely different person. He just came for the same purpose. Is that correct? It is a good question Biblicist. One that has a lot of depth of it own. I have thought about this in the past. To this point I have never delved in deep to come to a place in which I felt I could say anything one way or the other. As it is, I will simply accept the text according to the pshat [plain/simple/face value] reading of it. Beyond that, hopefully I am wise enough not to speculate at this time, if ever. I have always believed that John the Baptist had the same spirit as Elijah, the same convictions which led John to speak out so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie d Posted March 3, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 25 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,081 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/29/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/08/1967 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Did the KJV translators claim divine inspiration? Yet, in spite of their outstanding character, they never claimed divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would overjoy their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.) They never even claimed perfection for their finished work. What they believed about their writings is irrelivant. John the Baptist didn't realize he was the one refered to as Elijah, but he was. John the Baptist being refered to as Elijah didn't make him Elijah. actually Bibs it did make him Elijah.. Matthew 11 (KJV) 13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. 15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Matthew 11 (NKJV) 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 and if you are willing to receive it, he IS Elijah who is to come 15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear! This is curious. So there were two Elijah's? OR was John the Baptist Elijah reincarnated? Maybe this proves reincarnation... Sorry I know this is off topic. I believe that Elijah was John/John was Elijah...even the unborn John/Elijah in Elizabeth's womb leapt, when Mary entered the room carrying the unborn Jesus.... Matthew 11:14 and if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come... I firmly believe the John the Baptiste was Elijah because Jesus said it was so...the concept of reincarnation?? Elijah did not taste death remember...so how could that be really considered reincarnation??? I don't know but I believe that the Lord God Almighty made it so in this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_yaash Posted March 3, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 940 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/10/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 3, 2008 I believe that Elijah was John/John was Elijah...even the unborn John/Elijah in Elizabeth's womb leapt, when Mary entered the room carrying the unborn Jesus.... Matthew 11:14 and if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come... I firmly believe the John the Baptiste was Elijah because Jesus said it was so...the concept of reincarnation?? Elijah did not taste death remember...so how could that be really considered reincarnation??? I don't know but I believe that the Lord God Almighty made it so in this case I have always believed that John the Baptist had the same spirit as Elijah, the same convictions which led John to speak out so. Thank you both for sharing. Of all the views I am aware of, have heard over the years, and have considered myself. These two are the most viable IMO. Beyond that, I shall reserve comment at this time. Perhaps one day I shall prayerfully and deeply look into it. Until then: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biblicist Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 bibs... I was just gonna call you babs. I agree with you... Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biblicist Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 If I may ask, Shiloh, what are the criteria for inspiration? Thank you. Well, very simply, the only people who can rightly claim to have been inspired are the original human authors to whom the relevation of the Scriptures came. No one else can rightly claim that, and that includes translators of any age sense the originals were written. God breathed (inspired) the revelation that came to the OT prophets, Paul, Peter, and others. Translators are not "inspired" on the grounds that they are not receiving additional revelvation. The cannon is closed, and God is not adding to His word. Translators are simply conveying the information already extant in the Bible which was inspired by God thousands of years of ago upon his prophets and apostles. So, unless the translators can claim divine revelation of new spiritual truth, they do not fit the criteria as being "inspired" with regard to their handling of the Scriptures. That is not to say that God does not lead them, or has not led them, but that is different than being "inspired." Thank you for clairifying that. Much appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted March 3, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.21 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 3, 2008 Well, very simply, the only people who can rightly claim to have been inspired are the original human authors to whom the revelation of the Scriptures came. No one else can rightly claim that, and that includes translators of any age sense the originals were written. God breathed (inspired) the revelation that came to the OT prophets, Paul, Peter, and others. Translators are not "inspired" on the grounds that they are not receiving additional revelation. The cannon is closed, and God is not adding to His word. Translators are simply conveying the information already extant in the Bible which was inspired by God thousands of years of ago upon his prophets and apostles. So, unless the translators can claim divine revelation of new spiritual truth, they do not fit the criteria as being "inspired" with regard to their handling of the Scriptures. That is not to say that God does not lead them, or has not led them, but that is different than being "inspired." Very well put, Brother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Here is what I would ask you Shiloh. How do you know that any of the 66 books that make up the cannon are God-breathed and God-inspired? Can you provide proof they are the only books that belong in the cannon, or that there are not books that are included that shouldn't have been? I continue to listen to people belittle those who believe that God could give divine inspiration to the King James translators to provide for us a perfect translation, yet you have no problem believing the original manuscripts were divinely inspired. In both cases, it comes down to a matter of faith. Actually, it comes down to having a proper understanding what it means when we say the originals were "inspired." Here is your problem... You want to believe that the KJV translators were inspired. Okay, but based on what?? What objective evidence? They did not claim that God inspired them to write it. It was commissioned by King James, himself. What evidence do you have that King James was inspired by God to commission the 1611 KJV? I would also argue that your "faith" in the inspiration of the KJV translators is not really faith at all, AND that you cannot possibly compare that to having faith in the fact that original authors were inspired. I say that because our faith in the inspired nature of the originals is evidentiary. All true, biblical faith has objective, observable evidence. The Christian faith is not a blind faith. However, any faith placed in the notion the KJV translators were inspired is not based upon any evidence, much less any testimony from them. It is based on wishful thinking and conjecture. You have absolutely NO divine testimony that the KJV translation is the version that chose to be the only version for the English speaking people. Then we come to the question of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. How does anyone know which copies we have today are perfect, or that any of them are? Also, why would God give one man a divinely inspired manuscript, and allow that perfect manuscript to become extinct down the line, and leave the rest of us with a text we cannot fully trust? Again, this stems from not understanding how we arrive at the textual integrity of Scripture. For just the New Testament alone we have 25,000 Greek manuscripts going back to at 125 A.D. Included in that number are extrabiblical Greek manuscripts that quote directly from the biblical texts being ciruclated in the first and second centuries. In fact, the quotes from extra-biblical Greek manuscripts is so vast, scholars have been able to reproduce the ENTIRE New Testament from the extra-biblical quotations and then compare those quotations to the actually text and we have found them to be in complete agreement. you use whatever you for the most part trust. I say for the most part since none of those on the other side see any as innerant. Well, this also highlights your misunderstanding of inerrancy. The fact is that none of the modern translations detract in any fashion to the inerrancy of Scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 I really didn't want to get back into this, but since it is apparent nobody wants to let the matter die, I will, but I am going to be as brief as possible. There is no way anyone can prove the original manuscripts were divinely inspired. No one claims to be able to prove that. What we do claim is that we have enough evidence for insperation to show that our faith is not blind but has a rational basis to exist. There is no place in scripture that indicates the Apostle Paul knew his writings would be part of holy scripture. Yes, but we do know that by the time Peter was very old, Paul's letters were already considered part of Scripture. Observe: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16) So, we have at least the testimony of Peter, Paul's contemporary who died close to the same time Paul did, who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit indicated that Paul's letters were considered Scripture even before Paul died. It is therefore logical to assume that it this recognition of his writings may have made its way to Paul's ears before He died. The fact the translators didn't know their work was divinely inspired means nothing. it means everything. Once again, you have no basis for calling their work inspired. You have no Divine testimony and no testimony from them. God testified of the inspriation of the original author. No public testimony from the Almighty exists for any copy or translation since the originals were first penned. Your belief that they were inspired is nothing but conjecture on your part and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 The problem with all of your arguments is that the testimony you speak of comes from the book. In other words, the book testifies to the validity of itself. That is not very good evidence. but if the book is both Divinely inspired and inerrant, then it is the best possible source you could have. Biblical faith has always been evdentiary. God has never asked anyone to live in blind faith. He always gives reasons to believe. Then there is the book of Peter. You mention how he testified about Paul's writings? Where does anyone testify that Peter's writings are inspired, or James, or John? My point is that we believe by faith. Paul testifies that all Scripture is inspired. As such we know that the Holy Spirit intended for that to include the New Testament. We know this because of the process of progressive revelation in the Bible. The Bible is itself, the best testimony of itself due to its complete reliability in every area. The type of arguments you are making would be laughable to the skeptic. They haven't been so far. I have had a great deal of success in defending the Bible's accuracy, and reliability. The fact is that you are simply trying to downplay what we know about the inspired nature of the Bible to deflect attention from the fact that you cannot provide anwhere near the volume of evidence we possess for the inspiration of Scripture, to support your view that the KJV translators were inspired, and that amounts to nothing but intellectual suicide. In desparation, you have decided to pretend that we don't know anything about the Bible and cannot demonstrate its inspiration anymore that you demonstrate the inspiration of the KJV people and such is just a lot of nonsense. I believe the 66 books that make up the cannon are the Word of God, but not because of the reasons you gave. I believe it by faith. The evidence I give demonstrate my faith to have a substantial basis in fact. All biblical faith does. You are trying to muddy the waters with regard to what faith is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_yaash Posted March 4, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 940 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/10/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 4, 2008 Here is your problem... You want to believe that the KJV translators were inspired. Okay, but based on what?? What objective evidence? They did not claim that God inspired them to write it. It was commissioned by King James, himself. What evidence do you have that King James was inspired by God to commission the 1611 KJV? If I may play the 'devil's advocate here for a moment. No offense intended Shiloh, nor to anyone else, just play along with me for a moment, it is just something that struck me as I was reading down the latest posts in this thread: Let's assume for a moment that KJ was inspired by 'God' to do so. Is there a possible Biblical basis for such? 2 Chr 36:23 This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts