John Owen Quote
 

“Let it be remembered, that the vulgar copy we use, was the public possession of many generations; that upon the invention of printing, it was in actual authority throughout the world, with them that used and understood that language….men may, if they please, take pains to inform the world, wherein such and such copies are corrupted or mistaken, but to impose their known failings on us as various lections, is of course not to be approved….[t]he generality of learned men among Protestants are not yet infected with this leaven…And if this change of judgment which hath been long insinuating itself, by the curiosity and boldness of critics, should break in also on the Protestant world, and be avowed in public works, it is easy to conjecture what the end will be. We went from Rome under the conduct of the purity of the originals, I wish none have a mind to return thither again, under the pretence of their corruption.” John Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, pg 473 to 477

Another quote from Owen
 

Larry

do you believe the King James Bible is a pure preserved inspired word of God?

without error?

I believe that the texts underlying the KJV are pure, preserved, and infallible.

Further, i believe that the KJV is a faithful translation of those underlying texts, and is therefore also pure, preserved (for the English speaking peoples), and infallible.

The Word of God has been pure, preserved and infallible in Hebrew and Greek. But plenty of Protestants, Puritans and us today have not seen or used the Hebrew and Greek.

The problem is that there is no Hebrew text which is in one volume somewhere on earth right now which is perfect. The same for the New Testament in Greek.

Now, if you will receive it, the Scripture says:

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith

Do you realise that NATIONS are supposed to be obedient to the very words of God? How can that be, if there are differences in Textus Receptus editions? Surely, the solution must be that in the latter days glory of the Church, there would be one Bible made common for believers.

And you will find that English Puritans believed that they were directly part of this providential working of God.

Again, why turn back to Hebrew, when it is the Protestant Christians of the latter days who have the highest truth. Even Puritans like Joseph Mede recognised this, when he spoke of the witnessing to the Jews in the latter days.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Therefore, the Scripture is not locked in or limited to or authoritative only merely in the original languages, but that the Church, particularly that which is of the Anglo-Protestant tradition, and the King James Bible best fits, that it should be the way by which the furtherest inroads into the world should be made by the Gospel in the latter days, as has already been seen since the Reformation.

Since the King James Bible is an independent text, it can only be said to be faithful to the autographs, for that there are variations among the original language copies which exist. Therefore, the authority of Scripture cannot be merely based on its faithfulness to the past, but that it also is presently shown by signal providences to be the Word of God. No one is saved by believing in the Autographs. If you look at 1 Peter 1:23, 25, people are saved by believing the Word right now.

By examining the KJB on its own terms you will see that it is self-validating, self-authenticating. Yes, many have said it is a good Bible, and the best translation, but we should see that it is the very Word of God today, and that if the original languages were no longer understood (as they increasingly are MISunderstood the more modernists work with them), we can be certain that God has not failed to deliver His Word to the end of the world, and to the ends of the earth, that is, by the King James Bible itself.

It is possible for us to show the purity of the King James Bible by studying the King James Bible right now.

I'm sorry but this is one of the reasons why I absolutely reject and detest Calvinism...They hold the writings of the reformers as inspired and infallible and also...they exalt these men to the point of worship...Augustine, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, RC Sproul, James White and on and on it goes.

No offense Larry but you obviously have an agenda here and that's to spread your reformed theology...but I call it a doctrine of devils, I'm not buying what you're selling, thanks anyways, I'll stick with the word of God and not man's opinion and interpretation.

It's quite scary. :eek:

Larry B
 

Hi Larry, Thanks for your post.

As I see it, history plays a major part in the way we come to our conclusions, but we can’t form those conclusions at the expense of what was destined to follow (the history that followed afterwards). Whether it be the past, the present or the future they are all sections of God’s eternal plan to speak to the hearts of common day folk. The Waldensians, Tyndale and onwards fought for and preserved the sacred text which finally found its universal form in the KJB (after which was nothing).

If we don’t have the perfectly preserved word of God today in 2009 then no one at any time has ever had them, but if we do have them (as we KJB believers affirm) then we’ve always had them. Only the KJB camp uphold this belief, every other camp has to find a compromise at some point in their profession. The truth of the matter is that God has kept His promise and this forum testifies to the reality of that. It isn’t about underlying manuscripts (i.e. museum preservation) but the word of God in the hands of those who believe it to be what it claims to be.

God bless

PaulB

I don't know of any who hold to the Reformed doctrines of the Bible who believe the Reformers were inspired, infallible, etc.
You clearly misunderstand Reformed theology if you have this view.

The Lord has blessed His Church with teachers throughout the years, and there is nothing wrong with learning from those God has blessed the Church with.

I'm quite surprised that you would say this is the "doctrine of devils" as the quotes that i provided put forth the error of modern textual criticism.

Respectfully, I disagree.

I have known countless of reformers who instead of quoting me Scripture in the past, they will give me some John Owen quote...or Aurthur Pink or Charles Spurgeon or RC Sproul or....I think you get the point, I hope you do.

It's time to put away MAN'S philosophy and opinion's and stick to what God has said.

The Holy Ghost interprets Scripture...not John Calvin or Augustine.

Oh, sorry for the harsh words of doctrine of devils...but after a brief study of Calvinism {and that's all it took, a brief study} there is no doubt in my mind. To say that God would choose some to the flames of fire and clearly He said it was PREPARED for Satan and his fallen angels is INSANE and blasphemy...if anyone goes to damnation, it will be from the free will that God has given them and nothing else...God is no Tyrant that reformed theology has turned Him into, no sir.

Think about it, if God has decreed some to damnation...HOW CAN HE JUDGE THEM???

LOL, it's ridiculous and unbelievable!

[Emphasis above mine...]
Amen brother PaulB! :amen:I agree with you. We HAVE the TRUE Word of God, infallable, and in our hands, here in 2009. I believe that with all of my heart, because I believe in God, and He does what He says He will do!! And, OH!! How BLESSED we are to have God's Word. I will always praise Him and give GLORY to Him for inspiring and preserving His Word for us. What a JOY it is to read the beautiful KJ Bible!

Jassy

Jassy
 

Thanks for your comments Jassy

There is nothing that brings me greater pleasure than for someone to glorify God for what He has said and done. If I write an article or a response to another article and that ends up with God being praised for His wonders and His goodness then I feel like jumping over the moon!

At times the virtual memory on my pc runs too low and when I’m typing out something for the forum a letter or sometimes a word goes missing (which makes my English look poor). But the responses that I get give me the confidence that the general gist of what I am saying is coming across.
I have downloaded something called “Memstat” that seems to be helping a little.

The way I see it is just like I said on the previous post and history bears witness to the fact that the word of God has always been in existence or that it never was in existence at all.
Only God’s enemies are the ones who have argued against this up until the birth of the “science” of textual criticism came along in the 1800s. And as a result of this newly developed “science” (the product and trophy of unsaved philosophers), a believer is reckoned to be an unlearned fool voicing from ignorance if they adhere to the doctrine that the body of Christ has always held to (i.e. the preservation of sacred Scripture).

If we don’t have the preserved words of God today then my question is – at what point in history did the church surrender such a fundamental element to its existence? – how did the entire church (that was spreading around the earth manage to lose them all at once in such a collective way?)
I can understand that the enemies of the gospel may have burned some of them (like they did in the reformation) – but why even do that if they had already gone missing before the dark ages?

Now, if they hadn’t gone missing before that time then the people who died for them must have possessed them otherwise they wouldn’t have laid down their lives so that we could possess what they knew to be corrupt! And if the church (not only had them) but lived by them for guidance (and to put their enemies to flight) during the reformation then there is no argument that those Scriptures are still in our hands today which is exactly what we believe is present in the KJB.

The only thing that has happened is that an unholy counterpart has been developed and established to oppose the position of those whose foundation is contrary to those who wish to rule the hearts and minds of the populous. This is not just a 21st century battle it is a war that has been going on since Adam and Eve were given the first words that God voiced to humanity – the only difference is that the voices are now coming from the ones who claim to believe the words of God.

God bless

PaulB

Larry's quote by John Owen
 

Excellent point, Paul.

Larry, let's look at the quote from John Owen and your own remarks.

"Of all the inventions of Satan to draw off the minds of men from the Word of God, this of decrying the authority of the originals seems to me the most pernicious."

Larry, to "decry" means to denounce, to condemn or to censure. John Owen was undoubtedly a mighty Christian man and he wrote a lot of good things. He also believe that the apostles and Christ Himself did not use some fictitious LXX, but rather the Hebrew Scriptures. Great.

Perhaps his quote here about the "originals" can be tempered by the fact that he undoubtedly used the King James Bible in his teaching and preaching. He lived from 1616 to 1683, so the KJB was his Bible.

However it seems that by his statement both you and he are setting TWO Standards as your final authority, and appealing to "originals" is a very poorly thought out position to hold and in fact contradicts your statement about the King James Bible being the infallible words of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chette777
Larry

do you believe the King James Bible is a pure preserved inspired word of God? without error?

[/quote]I believe that the texts underlying the KJV are pure, preserved, and infallible.

Further, i believe that the KJV is a faithful translation of those underlying texts, and is therefore also pure, preserved (for the English speaking peoples), and infallible.

I'm quite surprised that you would say this is the "doctrine of devils" as the quotes that i provided put forth the error of modern textual criticism.[/quote]

Actually Larry, you have tossed us right back into the error of modern textual criticism and so has John Owen by his quote.

Why? Simply because THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS. You are referring us to a Standard that SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST. You have never seen a single word of "the originals" and day in your life and neither did John Owen.

You are placing your faith in something thatyou know does not exist. You have absolutely no possible way of proving or demonstrating to anyone that the texts that underly the King James Bible "match" the originals, and you know it.

So why bring up two standards, the King James Bible and your non-existent, never seen, invisible and hypothetical "originals"? Don't be a double minded man. Go one way or the other, but don't pretend for a moment that by appealing to your long lost and never seen by you or anyone else "originals" you are somehow setting up the Standard for anything. They are not the final authority and never have been.

Think about it.

Will K

Brother PaulB
 

I recall reading that theological academia invented the "science" of textual criticism, in a feeble attempt to discredit true believers, who often didn't have a doctorate or any formal education in "religion." I thank God that He didn't see the need for me to have such education - He knows that His true Word is ALL I NEED!!

It's such a disgrace how so many mislead Christians or deceptive UNbelievers, placed by the devil in high academic places, purposefully go about trying to SHAME the uneducated loyal Christians who remain faithful to the TRUTH - that we have the PURE, INFALLIBLE Word of God in the KJB1611.

It's been my JOY to discover other true Christians here on this board. Glad that you're here, brother, to join with us in uplifting God's inspired and preserved Bible!

That same source of deception that said to Adam and Eve in the Garden -"Yea, hath God said..." (Gen. 3:1) is still the same source that is gleefully causing division, doubt and heresay today! Satan, whether present in the serpent, or as a wolf in sheep's clothing amongst believers, uses the same age-old tactics that always worked for him. Cast and sow doubts... he's an expert at that. I'm happy that I see him for what he is: the father of LIES!"

Jassy

What I am saying is that it cannot be certainly proved that there is one single volume on earth which right now is perfect of either testament in its respective original language. In fact, it appears that every edition we know of does differ to the King James Bible.

By perfect, I mean "exemplar" perfect, in that there are prefectly adequet and sufficent copies of Scripture in the original languages, but beyond that, we cannot say certainly that one edition is "the standard".

This means that other translations and so on are the Word of God, even though they might not match the King James Bible fully. The point is that while they might be sufficient, it is better and right to rely upon that which we know is "exemplar" perfect. The KJB is it.

On the lack of citation of Joseph Mede, this is because I have a text file from Clovis Apocyl. which has no page numbers.

There are several quotes from several authors which indicate that the Christian evangelisation of the Jews would take place in the latter days glory of the Church, of which I have some quotes at hand, but there are more:

Here is a quote from Oliver Cromwell, Speech the First, 1653, "This being so, truly it puts me in mind of another Scripture, that famous Psalm, sixty-eighth Psalm ; l which indeed is a glorious prophecy, I am persuaded, of the Gospel churches, it may be, of the Jews also. There it prophesies that He will bring His people again from the depths of the sea, as once He led " Israel through the Red Sea." And it may be, as some think, God will bring the Jews home to their station from the isles of the sea, and answer their expectations as from the depths of the sea. But, at all events, sure I am, when the Lord shall set up the glory of the Gospel Church, it shall be a gathering of people as out of deep waters, out of the multitude of waters t such are His people, drawn out of the multitudes of the nations and people of this world. And truly that Psalm is very glorious in many other parts of it : when He gave the word, great was the company of them that published it. Kings of armies did flee apace, and she that tarried at home divided the spoil; and " Although ye have lain among the pots, yet shall ye " be as the wings of a dove, covered with silver, and her feathers " with yellow gold." And indeed the triumph of that Psalm is exceeding high and great ; and God is accomplishing it."

I found another Mede quote:

"That testimony of Amos, quoted by James in the Council of the Apostles, Acts, c. xv. (not to notice this likewise), seems to have been intended of the anticipated of the anticipated conversion of the Gentiles, i. e. of that which would precede the restoration of the Jews; and on that account... the same inference may he collected of the anticipated adoption of the Gentiles among the people of God, namely, in this sense, that the Jews being brought back, when the tabernacle of David, which had fallen down, should at last be restored"