AV1611 Bible Forum Archive
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Why I am no longer KJVO (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=371)

cookiemonster 07-14-2008 04:16 PM
Why I am no longer KJVO
 
Hi all:

I used to be KJVO for the last couple of years ... I'm not here to make trouble, just to share with you some thoughts that I've had which has moved me from KJVO to KJVE (KJV-excellent) ...

If I'm not mistaken, God created earthly representations of heavenly/spiritual realities - e.g. carrying the Ark through the desert represents Christ's in the desert, animal sacrifices for Christ's sacrifice, the tabernacle as a model of heaven, etc. I have probably crossed over into some eisegesis below, but if there are clear earthly/spiritual metaphors in Scripture, could not the metaphor possibly be extended to the Scripture itself?

First; We are told in John that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." As I'm sure we would all agree here, Christ Jesus is the Word, and He is God. Jesus Christ is Perfection. God, through the indwelling of His Holy Ghost in a human host, Mary, gave birth to the Living Word, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

In the same manner, the Scriptures in the Original Manuscripts, as penned by the prophets, apostles, etc. "which the Holy Ghost" (1Cr 2:13) taught, were "given by inspiration of God" (2Ti 3:16) as they were "moved by the Holy Ghost" (2Pe 1:21). God, through the indwelling of His Holy Ghost in human hosts, gave birth to the written Word, the Scriptures in the Original Manuscripts.

Second; The Lord appointed 12 men to be his closest disciples, the apostles. Eleven were faithful witnesses. One, Judas Iscariot, was not.

Similarly, the Original Manuscripts were copied, and most have been identified as belonging in two textual families. First is the Byzantine Text, loosely synonymous with the Majority Text. Second is the Alexandrian Text, itself loosely synonymous with the Minority, or Critical Text. This latter Text is also associated with Egypt, which, in my understanding, is a model for the Earth as a whole (as opposed to Israel, a model for Heaven). Is the Majority Text a representation for the faithful majority of the apostles, and the Minority Text for the unfaithful Judas (who may have appeared to be faithful, on the surface)? Wescott and Hort, the "fathers" of the Minority/Critical Text, insisted on treating Scripture like any other ancient (human) text, and in the process denied recognition of the supernatural in the Written Word. So did Judas when he denied recognition of the supernatural in the Living Word.

Third; Taking a grand view of Christian history, and based on a Dispensational view of the Seven Church Ages in Revelation, the Ephesus age would be the early church/Apostolic age wherein most were faithful. The Smyrnan age was where Christians were being persecuted. The Pergamos Age represents the rise of the Roman Catholic Church where paganism and idolatry were commingled with the truth. Thyatira represents the Dark Ages, Sardis the Reformation, Philadelphia the rise of (conservative & faithful) Evangelical Christianity, and Laodicea the modern age where ecumenism (commingling of falsehood with truth) reigns. "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2Pet)

Now we see a similar development of Scriptural/Textual transmission throughout history; In the early church era (Ephesus/Smyrnan), the Byzantine/Majority text was generally used throughout the Christian World at the time. With the growth and establishment of the Roman Catholic Church (Pergamos/Thyatira), we see truth mixed with apostasy in the predominant translation at the time: The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome from false books from the Old Latin (e.g. Manasses, etc.), from the Aramaic, Septuagint, and a mix of Byzantine (Majority) and Alexandrian (Minority) text types. During the Reformation (Philadelphia), generally the Byzantine/Majority Texts, and the Textus Receptus (as a representative) were used in most translations during that time, until Westcott and Hort. Thence onwards (Laodicea), we have Bible Societies attempting a form of ecumenism with textual criticism, yet generally upholding the Minority/Alexandrian Text. False prophets, and false teachers, anyone?

What does this all mean to me?

Just as Jesus is the only perfect Living Word of God, it is now my thought that the Original Scriptures are the only perfect Written Word of God. Jesus appointed twelve apostles, of whom one was apostate; in a similar sense, we have direct and faithful copies of the Original Scriptures in the form of the Majority/Byzantine Text, and unfaithful ones in the Minority Text. The unfaithful apostle, and the unfaithful Text, may appear on some level to be faithful on the surface, but in the details are apostate. The faithful apostles transmitted their faith to their disciples, and to their disciples after that, and so forth, to the modern age. In the same vein, we have copies of the Original and copies of the copies, etc. today. All mankind, even true disciples, are fallible; yet at the same time, in God's grace we are still counted to be among the adopted in Christ. So too are the copies of the Scriptures; each may vary slightly in difference, yet all may be counted to be the Word of God. How are we to distinguish between a true Christian and a false prophet? "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:16), and so, the Written Word and copies as well. We witness the bold and faithful men of God in the Sardis and Philadelphian ages overflowing with fruit while they utilized the Majority/Byzantine Text and their translations. Shouldn't we do the same?

Should I prefer the Textus Receptus over the Byzantine/Majority Text? If the metaphors and representations I've outlined above holds true, then wouldn't it be like saying "I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos", that is, following one apostle and diminishing the others? Note that at the Council at Jerusalem, we see that a decision was made, not between one apostle and the Holy Spirit, but by the collective agreement and judgment of all of the apostles as they were led by God. Continuing the metaphor, should we not consider the collective agreement reading between the Majority/Byzantine text types (including the Textus Receptus)?

Should I elevate and enthrone the KJV above other translations and original language manuscripts and yes, even the Original themselves? Not if I wouldn't elevate a Gentile human (Pope?) over the Jewish King and God.

What about the fact that the Lord states that "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Ps 12:7). Well, it's not clear from the verse as to where God will preserve His Word. In Psa 119:89 the Lord says that "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Perhaps, just as the Living Word is settled in heaven right now, His perfect, preserved Original is also in heaven?

I believe that the KJV is a faithful and true translation, by faithful and wise men of God, of a faithful and true representative (Textus Receptus) of the Majority/Byzantine Text, which, itself is a faithful witness to the Original. This is why I will continue to use the KJV as my primary translation. However, I will not diminish other faithful Byzantine/Majority Text translations, as, it seems to me, that they should also be faithful branches growing from the common Root."we shall be like him" 1 John 3:2

Post Script:
What I have written above is the products of my own thoughts and in prayer with God, and is currently a rough draft. I apologize in advance for any errors; they are wholly mine, and I encourage you to reveal and deconstruct them.

Blessings in Christ Jesus,
Jonathan (jondarien@hotmail.com)

Brother Tim 07-14-2008 04:39 PM
Much to comment on later, but for now:

Jonathan said:
Quote:
However, I will not diminish other faithful Byzantine/Majority Text translations, as, it seems to me, that they should also be faithful branches growing from the common Root.
Could you identify those translations, so that we might have a better handle on your discernment?

Secondly, if a translation uses the minority/critical/Alexandrian texts, then do you consider it corrupt, using your metaphor for Judas?

George 07-14-2008 06:01 PM
Re: Why I am no longer KJVO
 
Quote:
Third; Taking a grand view of Christian history, and based on a Dispensational view of the Seven Church Ages in Revelation, the Ephesus age would be the early church/Apostolic age wherein most were faithful. The Smyrnan age was where Christians were being persecuted. The Pergamos Age represents the rise of the Roman Catholic Church where paganism and idolatry were commingled with the truth. Thyatira represents the Dark Ages, Sardis the Reformation, Philadelphia the rise of (conservative & faithful) Evangelical Christianity, and Laodicea the modern age where ecumenism (commingling of falsehood with truth) reigns.
Aloha Jonathan,

Instead of answering each and every one of your points, I will just take your "Philadelphia" analogy:

Revelation 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Revelation 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

The Philidelphia church is the only church (of the seven) about which the Lord has nothing negative to say. It was known for:

#1. thou hast a little strength
#2. hast kept my word (small "w")
#3. hast not denied my name
#4. thou hast kept the word of my patience (small "w")

Your description of that church is not the Holy Bible's description. Your description is as follows:

#1. conservative (whatever that means)
#2. faithful (we know what that means)
#3. Evangelical (whatever that means)

The main thing that distinguished the Philadelphia church from all of the previous churches was their love of and appreciation of God's words and that the "kept" them (NOT because they were "conservative" or "Evangelical"). And by the way - they couldn't have "kept" His word unless they had it. Even if they didn't have a complete understanding of God's word - they revered it and many of them suffered persecution (or death) because of their love for it. (And by the way - The WORD cannot be separated from His written word! The two are inseparable!)

The Philadelphia church is said to have kept God's word - just exactly what Bible were they using? Although God delivered His words (mostly from Greek & Hebrew manuscripts - but not "tried in the furnace of fire" i.e. not "pure") to the Reformers and they in turn translated those words into their native languages; and although God blessed and honored them and their Translations, the Bible that God blessed the use of throughout the whole world; the Bible that was used to evangelize the world; was not the German, French, Spanish, Dutch, or Scandinavian Bibles.

No other Bible in any other language had been subjected to the "refining" furnace of fire like the English Bible (A.V.). And the fact that from 1611 up until 1881 no other bible met with such universal approval by the entire body of Christ is indicative of God's stamp of "approval" on the Authorized Version (King James Bible).

When the Canon of the Bible was being decided in the 2nd., 3rd, and 4th. centuries A.D., the saints (believers) CHOSE the true Canon and rejected the false. Today we trust them (and God) that the Holy Spirit led them in choosing the correct Books and rejecting the false books. We have no "scientific" way of knowing this - we trust that God led His people in this matter.

Think about that for a minute. God does live within believers - and the vast majority of believers (from 1611 - 1970's) used, approved of, and recognized the A.V. as THE HOLY BIBLE (without question & without doubt). What happened? The "Scribes"; the "Pharisees"; and the "Sadducee's" of the 19th. and 20th. centuries got their dirty grubby fingers on The Holy Bible and have been trying to supplant it with their own ever since the English Revised Version hit the "market".

I would like to know - when "push comes to shove"; when you have to make a decision as to what is true and what is false; which Bible (if any) is your - "FINAL AUTHORITY"?

Steven Avery 07-14-2008 08:47 PM
Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonste
Similarly, the Original Manuscripts were copied, and most have been identified as belonging in two textual families. First is the Byzantine Text, loosely synonymous with the Majority Text. Second is the Alexandrian Text, itself loosely synonymous with the Minority, or Critical Text.
Greetings Jonathan,

This plays into a paradigmic fantasy of the alexandrian cult. How can 99% of the MSS, largely homogeneous, be equated with 1% of the MS, that are wildly disagreeing within the 1%, as two equivalent 'families' ? That is all part of the charade. The Vulgate and the Old Latin line and the Peshitta line are much more legitimate 'families' than the alexandrian text. Similarly the smallish differences within the Majority Byzantine Text could be family divided, e.g those that have any of these verses.. Acts 8:37, Luke 17:36 Acts 9:5-6 Col. 1:14, 1 John 5:7 could be combined with early church testimony witnesses and made into a 'family' with more legitimacy than the abject alexandrian corruptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonste
Wescott and Hort, the "fathers" of the Minority/Critical Text, insisted on treating Scripture like any other ancient (human) text
Except that they custom-tailored their analysis to meet a pre-defined goal, substitution for the 'vile' Textus Receptus. There would be no logical reason for the double Lucian Recension theory in a study of a secular writing, an example where the idea that they followed some secular principles properly is exposed as simply one of the alexandrian cult deceptions. (The Lucian idea was ably disassembled by Dean Burgon, who showed that even, in the highly unlikely and ahistorical idea that it were true, it would defeat their text :).) W&H moved the bulls-eye of their target to match the arrows they threw willy-nilly in the air; trying vainly to wound the historic Bible, the TR and the King James Bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonste
During the Reformation (Philadelphia), generally the Byzantine/Majority Texts, and the Textus Receptus (as a representative) were used in most translations during that time,
Actually the Reformation scholars were well aware of the value of the Latin lines. Most especially in omission/addition verses. There is a tendency to downplay their excellence in scholarship and understanding because of a modernist oversimplification that anything associated with the RCC is ipso facto totally false and that God had no hand in any way on the Latin texts. In fact the Latin Vulgate line (not just the Old Latin, although that was superior to the Vulgate) was one vehicle through which many readings in the true Bible were preserved, while the Byzantine faltered on the preservation of some verses for a variety of reasons. This goes hand-in-hand with what Matthew has described as the "scattering and gathering" principle that gave us the Reformation Bible and the totally pure King James Bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonste
we have direct and faithful copies of the Original scriptures in the form of the Majority/Byzantine Text,
Not quite. Two of the most important verses in the Bible (1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37) were largely missing, and a few others were generally out as well. The Greek Byzantine text was a vehicle of preservation, not the vehicle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonste
and unfaithful ones in the Minority Text.
Sometimes called the NU-text, but is really the NO-text.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonste
Should I prefer the Textus Receptus over the Byzantine/Majority Text? .
Absolutely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonste
Continuing the metaphor, should we not consider the collective agreement reading between the Majority/Byzantine text types (including the Textus Receptus)?
Does his collective agreement reading include Acts 8:37 ?
How about the Johannine Comma ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonste
Should I elevate and enthrone the KJV above other translations and original language manuscripts and yes, even the Original themselves?
An irrelevant & diversionary question, unless you have the "Original" to compare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonste
I will not diminish other faithful Byzantine/Majority Text translations
They are far superior to the alexandrian gang of corrupt modern versions, the thugs of the Version Industry Complex, however the Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text attempts simply lead to deficient Bibles, and are of no real import except theoretical, and reflect closely no actual historic MSS or tradition. They simply represent Greek nose-counting, allowing for all sorts of corruptions to enter the text (sometimes I make note of these, however I rarely meet anyone who really 'believes' that the Majority Text is superior).

And many verses of the vibrant and powerful words of God are omitted.

Shalom,
Steven

bibleprotector 07-14-2008 10:24 PM
Just as there were 120 faithful deciples versus 1 Judas and a great body of religiously corrupt Jewish leaders, so we should expect that God is able to faithfully preserve His Word fully and utterly for the "Laodicean Age", despite antichrists, ecumenists, papists, semi-Romanists, etc. Since God did not fail to preserve and build his Church in reality, so likewise God would not fail to preserve His Word in practice. The Greek Textus Receptus in practice is not the Word of God to some family in India. The Greek Textus Receptus in practice is not the Word of God here on this website. The truth is that the King James Bible is the way by which God communicates to people His perfect truth today.

Has God failed to preserve the Church of the Laodiceans? Is it hopelessly corrupt? No, Christ will expel all things which offend. In like manner, the Word of God in the world's language is not lost, despite famine, modernist darkness, etc.

Not all Laodiceans are sinners. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:21).

Not all the Laodiceans are rejecting Christ and His true provision, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:20).

Not all the Laodiceans are unrepentant and unzealous, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." (Revelation 3:19).

Not all the Laodiceans are poor and without the knowledge of the true Scripture, "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich" (Revelation 3:18a).

Since Christ has instructed us to be rich, to obtain from Him the blessing, should we find that the true Word of God is absent? Should we find that God has failed to supply His full and utter truth to this generation? Should we find that the real meaning of the Scripture is yet locked in the original languages etc., and even perhaps in some places lost? Being rich means being certain, possessing the very fullness of God, the whole abundant truth.

Where exactly is the Word of God in Greek? Yet, we can say, here is the Word of God exactly gathered from Greek, vindicated through the ages, and set forth here in this langauge by this book which you know.

bibleprotector 07-14-2008 10:45 PM
CM:
Quote:
Should I elevate and enthrone the KJV above other translations and original language manuscripts and yes, even the Original themselves? Not if I wouldn't elevate a Gentile human (Pope?) over the Jewish King and God.
"That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." (Isaiah 44:28).

CM:
Quote:
Perhaps, just as the Living Word is settled in heaven right now, His perfect, preserved Original is also in heaven?
"It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?" (Deut. 30:12).

Brother Tim 07-14-2008 11:05 PM
Now guys, that's what I'm talkin' about! A ONE-TWO punch! Down for the count!

cookiemonster 07-15-2008 08:29 AM
Translations in the majority text line would be the YLT, ALT, etc. I would consider translations in the minority line corrupt, yet at the same time I would not say that a person using them were not Christian. Take God's admonition in Rev 18:4, for example: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." This implies that God's children are present even in a corrupt system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 6184)
Much to comment on later, but for now:

Jonathan said:

Could you identify those translations, so that we might have a better handle on your discernment?

Secondly, if a translation uses the minority/critical/Alexandrian texts, then do you consider it corrupt, using your metaphor for Judas?

cookiemonster 07-15-2008 08:54 AM
George:

My goal in describing the seven churches was to generalized their condition concisely. From my (modern-day) perspective, "kept my word" = conservative, "not denied my name" = faithful. Evangelical is just that - the literal meaning - prone to evangelism, which they were. Just because I didn't use the exact words in Scriptures does not mean that I wasn't trying to communicate their meaning - I wouldn't hesitate to use the word "Trinity" even though it is not found in the KJV, for example.

It's my impression that the Philadelphian church used the KJV most often, but there have been exceptions. Off the top of my head for examples: If I remember correctly, Spurgeon was known to have used the KJV and other translations newly made during his time. Andrew Murray read and studied from a Dutch translation with much fruit.

When "push comes to shove" I have and will follow the KJV, as the Holy Ghost guides me: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." With that said, in line with my metaphors, I believe the KJV is like an excellent and faithful Pastor/Under-Shepherd, just as the Original Manuscript is like the Great Shepherd/Jesus Himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by George (Post 6187)
Instead of answering each and every one of your points, I will just take your "Philadelphia" analogy ... Your description of that church is not the Holy Bible's description. Your description is as follows:
... Philadelphia church [/COLOR]is said to have kept God's word - just exactly what Bible were they using? ... I would like to know - when "push comes to shove"; when you have to make a decision as to what is true and what is false; which Bible (if any) is your - "FINAL AUTHORITY"?
[/SIZE][/FONT]
(I'll have to answer the remaining comments later, I have to get to work right now! :))

bibleprotector 07-15-2008 10:19 PM
This is a point in passing while you continue to answer and think about the responses.

Quote:
I believe the KJV is like an excellent and faithful Pastor/Under-Shepherd, just as the Original Manuscript is like the Great Shepherd/Jesus Himself.
Jesus said, in Matthew 28:20, that he would be with us alway. Therefore, we should have the exact Word of God as was present in the original in one form today.

stephanos 07-15-2008 10:59 PM
Haha, awesome.

Brother Tim 07-16-2008 12:41 PM
Nice touch!
 
Matthew, well put. Such is the way when we create a metaphor in Scripture where there was none intended.

cookiemonster 07-18-2008 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6201)
This is a point in passing while you continue to answer and think about the responses.

Jesus said, in Matthew 28:20, that he would be with us alway. Therefore, we should have the exact Word of God as was present in the original in one form today.
Bibleprotector/Matthew: Jesus did promise to be with us alway. However, in John 14, He also states that He will not be with us in bodily/physical/earthly form that our physical eyes can see, but in the form of his Holy Ghost, that is, in Spirit form. I believe we have God's Word perfectly today in Spirit: He "made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2Cr 3:6). The Lord Jesus is not with us physically, and neither are His Original Writings.

cookiemonster 07-18-2008 03:02 PM
Steven, et al: Obviously I am not as well-read in the area of textual criticism as you are apparently. Perhaps some (or all!) of my metaphors and selections for comparisons are deficient; that doesn't discount the fact that there are, at least in my opinion, clear parallels between many earthly/ritualistic practices and spiritual fulfillments. In this case, I intend to explore more fully:

Code:
        God the Father
                    |
      God the Holy Ghost/Spirit
          /      \
Human (Mary)        Human (Book writers)
    |                        |
Jesus, the Living  The Holy Scriptures
  Word                    The Written Word
  |                          |
Apostles (Copies    First Copies to
of the Original:      the Churches        - Conjecture
Jesus)                    (Copies of the Original)
  |                        |
Disciples          Copies of the Copies  - Conjectures
  |                        |
Gentile Disciples    Translations?        -  Conjectures


There is clearly a parallel in the root, and I don't believe this to be an accident, but of design, by our infinitely creative Lord and God Himself. As for the other conjectures, or expansions, of the metaphor, they are just that: conjectures on my part, based on what appears to be truth in the parallels above. What I have noticed is that nobody has successfully attacked the basis for the parallel/metaphor itself, but only my conjectures.

PeterAV 07-18-2008 07:39 PM
Getting to the Point
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6201)
This is a point in passing while you continue to answer and think about the responses.



Jesus said, in Matthew 28:20, that he would be with us alway. Therefore, we should have the exact Word of God as was present in the original in one form today.
*******
Absolutely correct.

bibleprotector 07-19-2008 12:03 AM
CM:
Quote:
neither are His Original Writings
So you deny that God has been able to keep His Word via copies through history, and deny that it can be gathered, and that it can be ascertained today... moreover, you deny that we can know/read/hear His exact Word (because, after all, who can see or feel Jesus today?).

In your connection of Bible history with Church history, you have a view that people are less like Christ than ever, because you indicate that today's Bibles are not like the Original. In other words, you have a weak God who cannot preserve His Word, and cannot save people properly. Thus, instead of believing that Christ builds His Church, you have a decaying Church along with His incorrupt Word suffering from entropy.

cookiemonster 07-25-2008 10:19 AM
BP: I do not deny that God can keep His exact Word; I suggest that God has not kept His Word on earth, Just as God has not kept Jesus on earth - not that He could not do it, but just that He didn't.

Your conclusion is based on your assumption that I deny that God keeps His Word - I do not and have not denied that. But yes, people are less like Christ than ever, as many scriptures read that near the end, weakness will reign in the church, and yes, we have a decaying Church in the sense that most Christians today as very weak, spiritually. Yes, Christ is building His church - in numbers, from what I see, but not in spiritual strength. "In other words", I have an infinitely strong God who Has preserved His Word, living and written, in Heaven, and saves people properly, even though we see through a "glass darkly".

(I wish I could go more into this right now, and reply faster, but I'm on my honeymoon!!)

God bless,
Jon

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6242)
CM:

So you deny that God has been able to keep His Word via copies through history, and deny that it can be gathered, and that it can be ascertained today... moreover, you deny that we can know/read/hear His exact Word (because, after all, who can see or feel Jesus today?).

In your connection of Bible history with Church history, you have a view that people are less like Christ than ever, because you indicate that today's Bibles are not like the Original. In other words, you have a weak God who cannot preserve His Word, and cannot save people properly. Thus, instead of believing that Christ builds His Church, you have a decaying Church along with His incorrupt Word suffering from entropy.

bibleprotector 07-25-2008 07:38 PM
Quote:
But yes, people are less like Christ than ever, as many scriptures read that near the end, weakness will reign in the church, and yes, we have a decaying Church in the sense that most Christians today as very weak, spiritually. Yes, Christ is building His church - in numbers, from what I see, but not in spiritual strength.
Like having "no pure Bible today", you also have a weakening Church before the return of Christ. I disagree on both views (which are related).

I already quoted concerning the Laodicean prophecy, that there are true believers at that time. Just because there may be large numbers of weak, compromised, apostate and rejected-by-Christ "Christians" does not reflect truly upon the work of God.

My view of Ephesians 4:13 must be opposite to yours, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

And when it comes to the Scripture perfection, and the claim that "God has not kept His Word on earth", it appears that you do not believe 1 Peter 1:21, 23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. ... But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." The Bible right now that gets people born again upon Earth is supposed to be incorruptible. You are arguing for only corrupt manifestations of His Word today upon the Earth.

Quote:
I suggest that God has not kept His Word on earth
What an unjust and weak God would not keep His Word, and would fail to provide it for His people at the end! This would be saying that antichrist and error are greater than the work of God in history. The Pagan Roman Empire didn’t stop Him, but end time apostasy did?!

Jesus said, “and they have kept thy word.” (John 17:6b). How can we obey the Word if it is not fully present? James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” If we do not have the whole law, then how can we be sure that anyone can be saved?

God puts the Word into the hearts of people, but that internal spiritual form must also exist in external form: “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” (Heb. 8:10). “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them” (Heb. 10:16). Where are the exact laws that a person might read them? where is the writing of the covenant in physical form?

Brother Tim 07-26-2008 07:29 AM
Jon, if your analogy is correct, then there is a diminishing effect as the line moves away from Jesus, to His disciples, to us, the same happening with the text. What then do you do with this verse?

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Hmmm?

cookiemonster 07-28-2008 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6378)
My view of Ephesians 4:13 must be opposite to yours, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".


Our views on that verse must be opposite: as the verse says, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith" - when will all Christians come in true unity of the faith? When we are in Heaven with the "fulness of Christ". As Matthew Henry puts it, "Now we shall never come to the perfect man, till we come to the perfect world ... we never come to that measure till we come to heaven."

(Paul wrote: "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus" (Phil 3:2). Paul did not attain perfection on earth, as he wrote in his epistle, and should we assume that we would if the Apostle didn't?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6378)
And when it comes to the Scripture perfection, and the claim that "God has not kept His Word on earth", it appears that you do not believe 1 Peter 1:21, 23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. ... But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."


I do believe 1 Peter. If you read closely, however, the verses you quoted does not state where the word of God "liveth and abideth" or "endureth for ever".

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6378)
What an unjust and weak God would not keep His Word, and would fail to provide it for His people at the end! This would be saying that antichrist and error are greater than the work of God in history. The Pagan Roman Empire didn’t stop Him, but end time apostasy did?!


I have stated before that I agree with Scripture, as I'm sure you do too, when it says that God has kept His Word. What we do disagree on is where God kept His Word perfectly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6378)
Jesus said, “and they have kept thy word.” (John 17:6b). How can we obey the Word if it is not fully present? James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” If we do not have the whole law, then how can we be sure that anyone can be saved? ... Where are the exact laws that a person might read them? where is the writing of the covenant in physical form?


Let's put it another way: how are the old testament saints saved if they did not have the "whole law"? That is, they presumably had no knowledge of the new testament. And, Moses, for example, would not have had knowledge of future old testament writings, yet Moses was considered a "man of God" (Deu 33:1)? Or, David, who was considered a "man after mine [God's] own heart" (Acts 13:22)? They did not have the whole canon of Scripture, did they?

I remember an illustration that Chuck Missler gave on the similarities between Scripture and holograms. When you shine a laser through a holographic plate, it produces a holographic image. Cut the holographic plate in half, and shine the laser through it, and what do you have? It still produces the same holographic image, though degraded in quality. Cut the plate into an eighth of the size of the original, and it will still produce the same image, though even more degraded. In the same way, I believe a man like Job, or Moses, or David, etc. with the small amount of Scripture that they had, would still find the message of the Gospel, though not as clearly as we see it. Alternatively, add erroneous information into the holographic plate; the resulting image will still be visible, but degraded as well. Even if our faithful copies and translations of Scripture may contain errors, the Gospel message is not totally hidden, and God's Word will always be discernable through the guidance and teaching of His Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

cookiemonster 07-28-2008 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 6383)
Jon, if your analogy is correct, then there is a diminishing effect as the line moves away from Jesus, to His disciples, to us, the same happening with the text. What then do you do with this verse?

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Hmmm?
Brother Tim: I don't do anything with that verse: I believe it. The works and power of God has nothing to do with the strength of faith of the believer.

bibleprotector 07-28-2008 05:47 PM
Quote:
I do believe 1 Peter. If you read closely, however, the verses you quoted does not state where the word of God "liveth and abideth" or "endureth for ever".
He said, in 1 Peter 1:21, 23:

"Being born again ... by the word of God"

That means that we are actually born again right here on Earth by a Word we hear and believe right here on Earth. Unless the Word is on Earth perfectly, then it would be a lie to say in that verse "incorruptible". "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

"the word of the Lord ... And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

The Word of God which is incorrupt, which endures, is the same Word which is preached by the Gospel. Regardless of whether manuscripts and copies have slight mistakes or whatever in them, the Word of God must fully exist on Earth right now. Otherwise how can there be a link between the "Word of God" and "you"?

Quote:
Even if our faithful copies and translations of Scripture may contain errors, the Gospel message is not totally hidden, and God's Word will always be discernable through the guidance and teaching of His Holy Ghost (John 14:26).
While it is true that various copies and versions have contained errors, it is both logical and of God's providence and power that there should manifested a Bible without textual and translation error. We can believe this because it is line with what 1 Peter 1:23, 25 says, see above.

Biblestudent 07-29-2008 07:46 AM
Yes, the Word of God is not only forever settled where the roses never fade (Ps. 119:89) but also endures forever where the flower falls away (1 Pet. 1:24,25)!

bibleprotector 07-29-2008 08:12 AM
That is a good point.

cookiemonster 07-31-2008 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6414)
He said, in 1 Peter 1:21, 23:

"Being born again ... by the word of God"

That means that we are actually born again right here on Earth by a Word we hear and believe right here on Earth. Unless the Word is on Earth perfectly, then it would be a lie to say in that verse "incorruptible". "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
In the verse before, Peter writes about purifying our "souls" "through the Spirit", "with a pure heart". Obviously he is referring to our spiritual rebirth, and I contend that the following verse (which you quoted above) can be read to mean "being born again" (spiritually, not bodily yet) by the living ("which liveth") "word of God", that is, Jesus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6414)
"the word of the Lord ... And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

The Word of God which is incorrupt, which endures, is the same Word which is preached by the Gospel. Regardless of whether manuscripts and copies have slight mistakes or whatever in them, the Word of God must fully exist on Earth right now. Otherwise how can there be a link between the "Word of God" and "you"?
Maybe I'm reading it differently, but I see that the verse...

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Pet 1:23)

... implies that we are born of incorruptible seed (Jesus), not an incorruptible (written) word on earth. This verse does not support an idea of an incorruptible written word on earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6414)
While it is true that various copies and versions have contained errors, it is both logical and of God's providence and power that there should manifested a Bible without textual and translation error. We can believe this because it is line with what 1 Peter 1:23, 25 says, see above.
I disagree, since the verses do not say that, from what I see ... it is very logical, to my human mind, that God's Providence could preserve His written Word on earth perfectly. Logic aside, I don't believe Scripture supports the idea that God did that.

cookiemonster 07-31-2008 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblestudent (Post 6424)
Yes, the Word of God is not only forever settled where the roses never fade (Ps. 119:89) but also endures forever where the flower falls away (1 Pet. 1:24,25)!
Catchy phrase, and nice try, but 1 Pet 1:24,25 does not support your thought that the Word of God endures forever where the flower falls away. Nowhere in the verse does it say where the Word of God endures forever.

Biblestudent 07-31-2008 05:36 PM
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

When Adam, Noah, and Abarahm heard the Word of God, they were on earth. The Spoken Word of God came to people on earth and was heard on earth.

When Moses received, broke, and rewrote the Word of God, Moses was one earth, he wrote it on earth, with the material from the earth. All the prophets and apostles spoke and wrote the Word of God on earth. The Copies and translations of the Written Word of God was done on earth.

The Incarnate Word of God came on earth and will come again on earth.

I can see that the Word of God has more relevance and importance on earth. The incorruptible and eternal Word of God is more needed where the flowers fall away, not where the roses never fade. There's no use of preserving a perfect Word in heaven and losing it on earth. I see no point in the Bible's emphasis on the eternality of the Word of God when it is lost in this planet.

The fact that it's called the "Word of God" is to serve its purpose on earth -- the God of heaven to reveal Himself to all flesh. That the word of the Lord endureth forever makes sense on earth where corruption exists.

Biblestudent 07-31-2008 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonster (Post 6440)
Maybe I'm reading it differently, but I see that the verse...

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Pet 1:23)

... implies that we are born of incorruptible seed (Jesus), not an incorruptible (written) word on earth. This verse does not support an idea of an incorruptible written word on earth.

I disagree, since the verses do not say that, from what I see ... it is very logical, to my human mind, that God's Providence could preserve His written Word on earth perfectly. Logic aside, I don't believe Scripture supports the idea that God did that.
The nearest context (four verses away) would be:
1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

The written word is in view. I observe that when the Incarnate Word is referred to, the word "Word" is capitalized. (John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13)

cookiemonster 07-31-2008 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblestudent (Post 6449)
[B]The Incarnate Word of God came on earth and will come again on earth. ... I see no point in the Bible's emphasis on the eternality of the Word of God when it is lost in this planet ... That the word of the Lord endureth forever makes sense on earth where corruption exists.
There seems to be a disconnect between your first two statements - you seem to acknowledge that the Incarnate, Living Word - Jesus Christ - was on earth, and is no longer on earth, but will come again; why not the Written Word?

Is it pointless for God to emphasize that Jesus Christ is eternal, but that He is no longer physically here on earth? If it isn't pointless, then why not also the Written Word?

Yes, there is corruption on earth - why did God take Jesus Christ back to heaven when it seems like He is more needed here on earth, right now, and in the past 2000 years? Wouldn't it make more sense that God would keep Him here? Why can't this argument be made also for the written Word of God?

cookiemonster 07-31-2008 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblestudent (Post 6450)
The written word is in view. I observe that when the Incarnate Word is referred to, the word "Word" is capitalized. (John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13)
Capitalizations in English were the interpretation of the KJV translators; the "word" or "Word" is the same "logos" in the Greek.

Biblestudent 07-31-2008 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonster (Post 6453)
Capitalizations in English were the interpretation of the KJV translators; the "word" or "Word" is the same "logos" in the Greek.
At least they got the right interpretation. Or, do you imply you are a better translator than them?

Biblestudent 07-31-2008 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonster (Post 6452)
There seems to be a disconnect between your first two statements - you seem to acknowledge that the Incarnate, Living Word - Jesus Christ - was on earth, and is no longer on earth, but will come again; why not the Written Word?
You mean, a Second Coming for the Written Word?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonster (Post 6452)
Is it pointless for God to emphasize that Jesus Christ is eternal, but that He is no longer physically here on earth? If it isn't pointless, then why not also the Written Word?
God was right. The Eternal, Incarnate Word was in heaven, came down to earth, went up back to heaven, and will come again on earth.
Therefore, the Eternal Written Word can also be on this earth as the Incarnate Word stepped foot on this earth. It was in heaven, was copied on earth, and will be here as long as the world is here, and will continue to be here even if heaven and earth pass away.

In other words, if the Incarnate Word came to earth, how can anyone say the Written Word has never been on earth??

Do they have to be in the same place all the time? God the Father was in heaven when God the Son was on earth and God the Spirit descended. Why can't God the Son leave His written Word to us on earth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonster (Post 6452)
Yes, there is corruption on earth - why did God take Jesus Christ back to heaven when it seems like He is more needed here on earth, right now, and in the past 2000 years? Wouldn't it make more sense that God would keep Him here? Why can't this argument be made also for the written Word of God?
We need God's Written Word on earth TODAY more than ever because it tells about the Incarnate Word Who is now in heaven.

cookiemonster 08-01-2008 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblestudent (Post 6458)
At least they got the right interpretation. Or, do you imply you are a better translator than them?
I am not implying that I am a better translator than they were - what I am saying is that there exists a possibility of multiple translations and interpretations.

cookiemonster 08-01-2008 09:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblestudent (Post 6459)
In other words, if the Incarnate Word came to earth, how can anyone say the Written Word has never been on earth??
I'm not saying that the perfect Written Word was never on earth - obviously it was, in the form of the originals as penned by the prophets, apostles, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblestudent (Post 6459)
Do they have to be in the same place all the time? God the Father was in heaven when God the Son was on earth and God the Spirit descended. Why can't God the Son leave His written Word to us on earth?
God did leave His written Word on earth, in the form of copies and translations. And in those copies and translations, there exists variations, to a smaller or lesser degree. As I wrote earlier, the parallels I see is this:

The living Word, Jesus, was taken up into heaven; He left copies of Himself, imperfect Christians, or "little Christs," here on earth to speak His Word and Gospel. Though imperfect, faithful Christians are still the adopted in God's family and are considered God's children.

In the same way, the written Word was/could have been taken up into heaven: "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." (Ps 119:89); copies were left from which translations were made. Though imperfect, faithful copies and translations are still considered to be the word of God, and can communicate God's Gospel, though through a "glass darkly" and not perfectly.

What I challenge you, and others here, is this: show me clear, Scriptural proof that the written Word is currently and has been on earth perfectly. Not logic, not desire, not common sense to infer that - just pure Scripture; this is what I have not seen to date.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblestudent (Post 6459)
We need God's Written Word on earth TODAY more than ever because it tells about the Incarnate Word Who is now in heaven.
Yes, I agree - we do need God's Written Word on earth, and we have it. Even not 100% perfect on earth, it still communicates God's message. In the same way, just as you and I are neither 100% perfect copies of Christ, we can still communicate God's message.

Biblestudent 08-01-2008 07:56 PM
As living epistles of Christ, we are "PERFECT in Christ".

On the other hand, John 17:17 says God's Word is TRUTH as God's Son is the TRUTH (John 14:6). "Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", according to Jesus Christ, "IT IS WRITTEN." (Matthew 4:4). All SCRIPTURE (written) is given by INSPIRATION OF GOD (2Timothy 3:16), and Timothy didn't have the originals, but he knew the SCRIPTURE (2 Timtohy 3:15) from childhood.

Furthermore, this SCRIPTURE will make the "man of God" PERFECT (2 Timothy 3:17). If we have men of God today, than we have inspired Scripture today, or else 2 Timothy 3:15-17 has no application whatsoever today.

Finally, we are not THE TRUTH.
Jesus Christ is THE TRUTH.
His Word, called "SCRIPTURE" (written), is THE TRUTH.
We are to preach Scripture. Where is it?

bibleprotector 08-01-2008 08:03 PM
Quote:
He left copies of Himself, imperfect Christians, or "little Christs," here on earth to speak His Word and Gospel.
Was Christ imperfect? Christ is present today, first by proxy, the Holy Ghost, who is perfect, and secondly, by His body the Church, which is to be perfect. Even if you said that people were manifesting "imperfection" today, this doctrine still requires the perfecting of the saints before the return of Christ (see Ephesians 4:12, etc.). After all, that is what "little Christs" should be: "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). (You can never be a "little Christ" if you do not have the Word of God.) "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48). This is a commandment you cannot obey if you deny that the fullness of the Scripture is available to know. I believe perfect Christians (i.e. the true believers who are ready when Christ returns) must have believed and promote a perfect Bible (i.e. one ONLY that has come out of history).

Steven Avery 08-02-2008 04:59 AM
show me written proof
 
Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonster
show me clear, Scriptural proof that the written Word is currently and has been on earth perfectly. Not logic, not desire, not common sense to infer that - just pure Scripture; this is what I have not seen to date.
If the written Word is not on earth perfectly I can not show you any perfect written proof of anything at all.

And an imperfect proof is no proof at all.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery 08-02-2008 09:50 AM
reductio ad absurdum
 
Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiemonster
show me clear, Scriptural proof that the written Word is currently and has been on earth perfectly. Not logic, not desire, not common sense to infer that - just pure Scripture
And the irony is also that you are asking us to use the very tool, 'pure Scripture', that you claim we do not have available.

This may be your logical conundrum.

Reductio ad absurdum => false proposition/premise

Your premise is that pure, tangible Scripture exists, yet that this Scripture supports the non-existence of pure, tangible Scripture.

It is true that you can argue quite effectively from the modern versions that their words support the premise (and truth) that they are not pure Scripture. The skeptics and liberals do that quite well. However you cannot reach that point by considering them pure Scripture.

Shalom,
Steven

cookiemonster 08-02-2008 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblestudent (Post 6476)
If we have men of God today, than we have inspired Scripture today, or else 2 Timothy 3:15-17 has no application whatsoever today.
"if ... then" - that is human logic, not clear Scriptural proof of perfect Scripture on earth today. 2 Tim 3:15-17 doesn't say that we need perfect Scripture to be a "man of God".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biblestudent (Post 6476)
We are to preach Scripture. Where is it?
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Psa 119:89. For me, this clearly says that God's Word is settled (total, perfect) in heaven. And as my many previous posts show, I believe we have faithful, though not necessarily perfect, copies and translations today. How could Moses be a "man of God" if he didn't have the perfect/whole canon in his time? By your logic, he couldn't have been a man of God.

cookiemonster 08-02-2008 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6477)
Was Christ imperfect? Christ is present today, first by proxy, the Holy Ghost, who is perfect, and secondly, by His body the Church, which is to be perfect. Even if you said that people were manifesting "imperfection" today, this doctrine still requires the perfecting of the saints before the return of Christ (see Ephesians 4:12, etc.). After all, that is what "little Christs" should be: "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). (You can never be a "little Christ" if you do not have the Word of God.) "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48). This is a commandment you cannot obey if you deny that the fullness of the Scripture is available to know. I believe perfect Christians (i.e. the true believers who are ready when Christ returns) must have believed and promote a perfect Bible (i.e. one ONLY that has come out of history).
Eph 4:12 - "perfecting of the saints", imply a constant development towards perfection, though not having reached perfection itself.

Again, I understand Matthew 5:48 in the light of Phl 3:12 where the Apostle Paul states "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." Paul clarifies Christ's statement; to be perfect means we are to strive towards perfection.

Did Job have the KJV? He was "perfect and upright" (Jb 1:1).


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:27 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study