[bibleprotector]

In March 2009 there will be another edition of James R. White’s anti-King James Bible only book, “The King James Only Controversy”.

I want to deal with some of the ideas which this book brings up.

KING JAMES ONLYISM IS DIVISIVE

James White makes early reference to the divisive nature of King James onlyism, attributing it as a root of Church splits and other schismatic activities.

However, as White himself argues against Romanish errors, and is himself a reactionary against King James Onlyism, he himself must be just as guilty of “division”, since he has dedicated a whole book and numerous blogs and video clips against the KJBO doctrine.

Division between those who tend toward false doctrine and those who tend towards true doctrine is entirely correct. We cannot pretend that all people who call upon “Christ” are of Christ. In fact, believers are commanded to come out from among them, and be separate.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34).

To be fair, anti-KJBOism must be equally or just as divisive, since they are claiming to be “right”, and are expending their efforts to “expose” KJBO.

SELECTIVE REPORTING

James White has concentrated (it seems) on what achieves the most shock value for the audience, rather than a fair representation of King James Onlyism. In fact, the King James Onlyism that James White describes is quite unlike the beliefs, attitudes and actions of most people who hold to a KJBO view.

The problem is that James White has selectively taken a few individuals, and has highlighted particularities of these individuals which represent an extreme rather than a broad view. If someone read the book, they would come away thinking that King James Bible only people have all kinds of strange ideas. There is very little to temper accusations such as that some KJBOs believe that Paul used the King James Bible or that the translators were inspired in 1604–1611, etc. If James White was really analysing or reporting on KJBO belief, he would have to show just how few KJBOs really hold these extravagant views.

WRONG CATEGORISATION

James White has attempted to group KJBOs into five categories. They are:
1. I like the KJV best
2. The textual argument
3. Received Text only
4. The inspired KJV group
5. The KJV as new revelation

Notice how James White wrongly jumps from King James Bible preferred and/or Textus Receptus onlyists (his groups 1–3, which are not really “King James Bible only”) to the extreme KJV inspired group and beyond.

What James White has ignored, or deliberately omitted, is that there is the large grouping which believe the King James Bible to be the only Bible used today (at least in English), and who are not merely “Received Text only”, nor have they gone as far as to claim that the KJB was made by inspiration in 1604–1611.

FALSE LOGIC

James White points out how Catholics had the Vulgate as a standard version. Therefore, those who have the King James Bible as their standard must be as erroneous as Catholics... This syllogism is as faulty as claiming that all four-legged beasts are dogs because dogs have four legs.

Also, we find that the modern version people have their own standards of authorities, such as particular editions of the Critical Greek Text, etc.

As for the issue of infallibility, James White champions the view of natural humanism (“to err is human”), that is, that no work of man can be perfect. Therefore, according to him, no version or translation can be perfect. This defies the Scriptural view of God, namely that, God is all-powerful, therefore God is able to manifest His perfect Word wholly gathered in history.

Given time, all modernists can see is multiplying variants, and despite the best efforts of scholars, they will never have a perfect Bible. Notice that this view has no Scriptural support. No verse of Scripture says or implies that God cannot do it. What they have done is look at the temporal, and built up a man-made doctrine that God cannot do it, or that God is subject to the error, sin and devils of this world.

SMEARS ON THE TRANSLATORS

James White asserts that the translators of the King James Bible would not have always caught the different and inconsistent translations of the same original words. However, as the translators themselves said, and as Burgon also wrote, “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists or Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English”.

James White also impugns evil motives onto the translators, such as pride, power, love of money, etc. However, this is only rhetoric, and is the product of anti-prelacy writers. There is no general moderate Puritan witness against the King James Bible or its translators which would suggest the unfitness of the translators in any capacity, either in religion or learning.

James White also points out that the translators held to non-Baptist doctrines. However, since the translators were making an honest translation, what stands is not biased, as James White falsely impugns. Otherwise, the King James Bible would have words like “sprinkling” or “immersion”, but rather it translates honestly and truly, and is the basis of true doctrine, not the daughter of the translators’ doctrines.

James White also asks “the KJV advocate, ‘When the KJV gives a reading that is identical to the Bishop’s [sic] Bible, was the Bishop’s [sic] Bible inspired and inerrant in that place, even before 1611?’”. Consider a moment that he has just implied that the “KJV advocate” believes in the inspiration of the KJB and that basically there was no Bible before 1611. However, James White does not deal fairly here. The answer is that God’s Word existed in truth since its original inspiration, as most KJBOs and non-KJBO fundamentalists believe. Clearly, the text has existed scattered, and only imperfectly in single manuscripts or impressions before 1611. Moreover, there was a purification with all Protestant English Bibles leading to 1611. The reality is that the King James Bible translators were NOT inspired, but that the words which were good, pure and right in 1602 or 1610 must have only been gathered and their rendering into one particular version the finalisation of the purification.

James White also points out that the translators found some words or passages obscure. But this does not mean “impossible to be rendered”. What it means is that providentially, and through the study and cross examination of learned men (i.e. the 1611 translators) the right words were selected, and were rightly translated into English. Thus, we observe God’s providence in godly men’s work.

THE TRANSLATORS SPEAK

James White misreads the translators’ own words, claiming that they speak against King James Bible onlyism. However, the opposite is the case.

The translators said, “For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”. This shows that they viewed the King James Bible as one final exact English Bible. This is a statement against modern versions.

The fourteenth section of The Translators to the Reader is entitled, “Reasons moving us to set diversity of senses in the margin, where there is great probability for each.” Where the heading speaks of a probability of a reading, it does not mean as though there is an equal or fifty-fifty chance at God’s Word being one thing or another thing. What happened was that the translators came to certain places where there were two or more possible interpretations, either by textual differences in the originals, or by translation differences. They said, “It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.” (TTR, Section 14). Thus, they highlighted places where there were multiple possible renderings. This was the honest course.

But rather than keep things in a state of doubt, the translators weighed each alternative, to discern which was variant. As a certain amount of weight might have been behind one rendering, even more weight was behind another. And so faith in God, the opinion of learned men, and many other things show that God’s Word does not fall to probability, but that the translators’ approach of using their judgment and understanding showed what was the sense of the Scripture, that is, what was the accepted text and what was the variant, as placed in the margin.

When it came to translating difficult words, these cases were resolved, as the translators explained: “There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as St Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.” (TTR, Section 14). Rather interestingly, many of these rare words are not annotated with marginal references, while on the other hand, other words which do not seem to be rare at all have another sense supplied in the margin. This indicates that the margins were not designed to be a critical apparatus nor to bring out the fuller understanding of the sense of the Scripture.

“Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as St Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” (TTR, Section 14). If indeed what was in the text was only a guess, then the reading in the margin would be of comparatively equal weight to the text, and that the more variety in guesses and senses and translations, the better. However, this is not the correct understanding of the matter. The variety of translations being referred to were those translations which came before, and not applying to the renderings in the margin as such. The variety of translations was certainly not applying to new translations made afterwards, such as modern versions. The translators chose the correct sense of the originals, and this expressly disallows a person in the present to pick and choose his own version. The margins were supplied so that a reader may check what was rejected and put into the margin. But in reality, either the entire King James Bible must be accepted, or it must be entirely rejected.

REVISIONS AND EDITIONS

James White goes on to say that since the King James Bible today is different to that of 1611, how can a difference be resolved? For example, he says of the KJBO, “there is simply no way of determining the correct text of Jeremiah 34:16.”

Well, I am happy to say that there is an answer. There are two areas to see.

First, the nature of changes in the King James Bible. In the proper revisions, that is, the editions in a line including 1611, 1629, 1769 we observe in the tradition, proper King James Bible differences not in the underlying text, nor in the translation, but,
1. in correction of typographical errors,
2. in standardisation of the language, and
3. in other regularisation (e.g. consistent use of italics, etc.).

Second, that there is a line of proper historical editions from 1611 to 1769, and particularly from the Cambridge University Press’ guardianship, which resulted with the Pure Cambridge Edition of the twentieth century. This edition has resolved correctly any differences which might appear among various editions, providing a basis for rejecting new modernisations, while also rightly portraying places where common variations exist, e.g. at Jeremiah 34:16.

I acknowledge that this was not fully understood until after James White wrote his book. See www.bibleprotector.com

STRAW MEN

James White concentrates his attack on a few individuals, or minority beliefs, tending to broad brush these beliefs to most or many KJBOs. However, this is a deceitful practise, in that most KJBOs do not 100% agree with the KJBO individuals he highlights. The implication is that if a KJBO teacher holds to a particular doctrine which is somehow offensive, that this has somehow automatically disqualified any belief or teaching that this individual brings.

WRONG BATTLEGROUND

James White argues that the real Bible studies or debate should rest in the issues to do with the original languages, and with particular methods of using the context and hermeneutics on that basis.

The point is that if the KJBO argues on the basis of what the Hebrew or Greek says, or doesn’t say, or what the originals really meant to the original audience, etc., they have surrendered the very position of the Scripture, which is, that the Word of God is present.

“For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth” (Col. 1:5, 6).

“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 Pet. 1:25).

There clearly is no final perfect Testament in the Hebrew or in the Greek, so to argue where there is no final authority or particular perfection is to argue nothing at all. But as soon as we show that the King James Bible translators got it right, and that God has got His Word to us today in English, we are on a solid, logical, Scriptural and godly foundation.

NO FIXED ENGLISH

According to modernists, the English language is always changing, therefore it is impossible to have one fixed English Bible. However, it is something beyond their belief and understanding if there is a Bible which exhibits God’s use of English, which is relevant to the people living in 1611 as much as in, say, 2011.

Since the Spirit of Truth is present in the Earth today, He is able to bring people to understand God’s Word in the King James Bible. In fact, it is only hard to the natural man, but it becomes open to the spiritual.

Whatever accusations are levelled against the seeming peculiar words of the King James Bible are unfounded, because they happen to be the very exact English words to convey the very sense of the originals. In reality, there is no Bible like it.

CONCLUSION

James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” is a largely misleading, unfair misrepresentation of the King James Only movement. What White utterly fails to accomplish is to give any consolation to his readers/viewers that God’s words exist certainly and utterly today in English. It is as if he holds to a naive faith in modernism (that error prevails), which leads him to defend the existence imperfect Bibles and various individuals who held to heresies or gross sins.

However, if we take the King James Bible as true, and what it says about Scripture as truly applying to itself, we find that the King James Bible is both internally and externally (e.g. historically, textually, etc.) consistent. To accept or admit even one error in the King James Bible is the first step of the path to complete apostasy, this is also internally and externally evident with modern versions.

[PB1789]

[QUOTE=bibleprotector;15026]In March 2009 there will be another edition of James R. White’s anti-King James Bible only book, “The King James Only Controversy”.

I want to deal with some of the ideas which this book brings up.

SELECTIVE REPORTING

James White has concentrated (it seems) on what achieves the most shock value for the audience, rather than a fair representation of King James Onlyism. In fact, the King James Onlyism that James White describes is quite unlike the beliefs, attitudes and actions of most people who hold to a KJBO view.

The problem is that James White has selectively taken a few individuals, and has highlighted particularities of these individuals which represent an extreme rather than a broad view. If someone read the book, they would come away thinking that King James Bible only people have all kinds of strange ideas. There is very little to temper accusations such as that some KJBOs believe that Paul used the King James Bible or that the translators were inspired in 1604–1611, etc. If James White was really analysing or reporting on KJBO belief, he would have to show just how few KJBOs really hold these extravagant views.

---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The first time I tried to read that book I had to put it back on the rack....{gotta watch the Blood Pressure }. As the "Injuns" used to say about the Government Indian Agents ..."White man speak with forked tongue."

He (and people that believe like he does) never seem to address things like the Nestle-Aland Greek Text is now in it's 27th revision/edition... the Greek Text used by most all modern New Testaments has been changed several times in less than a hundred years, yet White is trying to insult AV/KJ folks who want to use a Bible that has not changed with the wind.

---- ----- ------ ------- ------ ------ ----- ------ ---

FALSE LOGIC

James White points out how Catholics had the Vulgate as a standard version. Therefore, those who have the King James Bible as their standard must be as erroneous as Catholics... This syllogism is as faulty as claiming that all four-legged beasts are dogs because dogs have four legs.

---- ---- ------ -------- ------ ------ ------ ----- -----

Good points Bible Protector.

[stephanos]

Thank you brother Matthew. I like PB1789 have a difficult time with White. I've always said that if I never hear his name again, it will be too soon. Nevertheless, I wasn't aware that he was publishing another edition of this book. Did he send you a copy to review?

Now I want to comment on inspiration. I don't think the translators of the KJB were inspired in the way that, say, Paul was. But I don't see how they could have produced a flawless rendition of God's Word without the Spirit guiding their hearts and minds. So, if God was guiding the hearts and minds of these fallible men to produce an infallible Book, what does it say about the process? I know that many moderate KJBO folks want to stay clear of those that believe the KJB translators were inspired, but what I keep being lead to think upon is that I don't see how uninspired men could have produced an inerrant and infallible Book without some mode of inspiration. What say ye?


Peace and Love,
Stephen

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by stephanos

Thank you brother Matthew. I like PB1789 have a difficult time with White. I've always said that if I never hear his name again, it will be too soon. Nevertheless, I wasn't aware that he was publishing another edition of this book. Did he send you a copy to review?

Now I want to comment on inspiration. I don't think the translators of the KJB were inspired in the way that, say, Paul was. But I don't see how they could have produced a flawless rendition of God's Word without the Spirit guiding their hearts and minds. So, if God was guiding the hearts and minds of these fallible men to produce an infallible Book, what does it say about the process? I know that many moderate KJBO folks want to stay clear of those that believe the KJB translators were inspired, but what I keep being lead to think upon is that I don't see how uninspired men could have produced an inerrant and infallible Book without some mode of inspiration. What say ye?


Peace and Love,
Stephen

Amen, brother. I've hit that before (though most disagree with me...that's ok ) and I've come to realize that inspiration is simply the Holy Spirit moving or directing a person to do something. If He could have given Paul the exact words to write down in Greek, what's to say that He didn't give the translators the exact words to write down in English?

[Winman]

Thanks for the post. I have to admit, I am not a scholar at all, a lot of this kind of information is very new to me, I have been spending time reading some of these studies here.

I personally think that God himself moved imperfect men to come up with the infallible KJB. It was God himself who promised to preserve His words, not man.

And even the prophets were normal men.

James 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

One of the things I love about the Bible, and why I knew it was true when I read it as a boy, is because it tells the truth about man, and how we really are. We know that Noah got drunk, we know David commited adultery with Bathsheba, we know of Samson and Delilah, how Peter denied the Lord three times...

This gave me hope, because I knew I was a terrible sinner with many faults. But God used these men, and he can use someone like me too.

So, I think God could easily have moved the translators to compile the KJB. And this is just my personal opinion, but I think God chose England to spread the Word of God throughout the world. This was when England became a real superpower with colonies throughout the world. They used to say, "the sun never sets on the English empire". And it was so, England was everywhere, in America, in Asia, Africa, all across the globe. So I think God used the KJB to spread the gospel to the entire world.

[JOHN G]

Those that ascribe to TULIP theology claim a high view of God's sovereignty (though evidently not sovereign enough to preserve His Word). My God is SO soveriegn He can preserve His Word through falliable men!

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


P.S. I have never met a Calvinist who wasn't in the elect!

[kittn1]

Originally Posted by stephanos

Now I want to comment on inspiration. I don't think the translators of the KJB were inspired in the way that, say, Paul was. But I don't see how they could have produced a flawless rendition of God's Word without the Spirit guiding their hearts and minds. So, if God was guiding the hearts and minds of these fallible men to produce an infallible Book, what does it say about the process? I know that many moderate KJBO folks want to stay clear of those that believe the KJB translators were inspired, but what I keep being lead to think upon is that I don't see how uninspired men could have produced an inerrant and infallible Book without some mode of inspiration. What say ye?


Peace and Love,
Stephen

I say , brother Stephen; in the same way I believe the Spirit guided the placement of chapter and verse divisions.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by stephanos View Post
Now I want to comment on inspiration. I don't think the translators of the KJB were inspired in the way that, say, Paul was. But I don't see how they could have produced a flawless rendition of God's Word without the Spirit guiding their hearts and minds. So, if God was guiding the hearts and minds of these fallible men to produce an infallible Book, what does it say about the process? I know that many moderate KJBO folks want to stay clear of those that believe the KJB translators were inspired, but what I keep being lead to think upon is that I don't see how uninspired men could have produced an inerrant and infallible Book without some mode of inspiration. What say ye?


Peace and Love,
Stephen
I say , brother Stephen; in the same way I believe the Spirit guided the placement of chapter and verse divisions.
__________________
The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. Psalm 119:130

In Him, Laura
================================================== =======

Although many Charismatics follow the original manuscript fraud, many fundamentalist Christians try and define "inspiration" as a Pentecostal-like Magic Trance you go into and write or speak via automatic writing, which is occultic and the belief of the Greeks, their "Muse" or "daemons" speaking to and through them. We need to abandon this pagan magic trance view of inspiration and define the word Biblically.

Square one is the oracles of God are given unto the Jews. God will speak through no one but of His chosen people for initial revelation. Now, what about the king's decree in Daniel? Well, the Gentile king wrote it but God works effectually in those who read the decree and believe God, so Daniel(a Jew)recorded it in his book.

Square two is words are inspired, men are not. Nowhere did Peter claim to be inspired. The OT prophets all exclaimed, thus saith the Lord, but not my words, not my opinions, but HIS words. God's words are ALIVE, as uranium is radioactive, sodium is not. When Jesus raised Lazarus, He did not snap His fingers, he SAID, Lazarus, come forth. No electrodes plugged into his neck like Frankenstein, God SPOKE him to life. Peter said, I am not in a trance, I am a holy man of God speaking God's words as moved by the Holy Ghost for this scribe to record. Paul can be said to be the closest to declaring he was "inspired", yet he said the THINGS I WRITE UNTO YOU, are THE commandments of THE LORD, NOT ME.

Let me give an example of inspiration:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I just wrote those words. I am not in a trance. The Holy Ghost moved me to check the copy I read them from as Job 32:8 and II Timothy 3:16 commands to write them accurately with nothing added or left out. This passage in John is ALL Scripture, it is INSPIRED Scripture, it is God's living words that give life to a lost soul, that works effectually in those who believe it after reading it. It is GOD who does all that, not ME. I was MOVED of the Holy Ghost to give whoever is reading this a living copy of His living word. It's not ME who is inspired, it is the WORDS I WROTE that are inspired.

Now the question is asked, who decided the canon? The oracles of God, Jews. Deut.17 says the Levites were given custody of the OT writings. The Apostles were given custody of the NT. I believe John decided the canon of the NT, that may be conjecture but he was the apostle "who Jesus loved" and who He gave the Revelation through. Whoever decided the canon did it under God's inspiration and was a Jew, not a Gentile.

Is it outrageous to say that God collected an inspired copy of ALL the original manuscripts together in one volume for the first time in history in a common language worldwide(KJV)?
Is it outrageous that there is a resurrection of the dead, a flood of water covered the earth, a sea parted to the dry bottom for a nation to walk through, ot that a God would take the form of His creatures and die for them becasue they could not satisfy His Justice?

I'm still the new guy, one of them "dry cleaners" and I hope you all pardon me being so dogmatic. I believe we need to be dogmatic about the truth. This is my best description of inspiration. God is inspiration(noun), men are not inspired(verb), Gods words ARE.

Grace and peace to all

Tony

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Originally Posted by stephanos View Post
Now I want to comment on inspiration. I don't think the translators of the KJB were inspired in the way that, say, Paul was. But I don't see how they could have produced a flawless rendition of God's Word without the Spirit guiding their hearts and minds. So, if God was guiding the hearts and minds of these fallible men to produce an infallible Book, what does it say about the process? I know that many moderate KJBO folks want to stay clear of those that believe the KJB translators were inspired, but what I keep being lead to think upon is that I don't see how uninspired men could have produced an inerrant and infallible Book without some mode of inspiration. What say ye?


Peace and Love,
Stephen
I say , brother Stephen; in the same way I believe the Spirit guided the placement of chapter and verse divisions.
__________________
The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. Psalm 119:130

In Him, Laura
================================================== =======

Although many Charismatics follow the original manuscript fraud, many fundamentalist Christians try and define "inspiration" as a Pentecostal-like Magic Trance you go into and write or speak via automatic writing, which is occultic and the belief of the Greeks, their "Muse" or "daemons" speaking to and through them. We need to abandon this pagan magic trance view of inspiration and define the word Biblically.

Square one is the oracles of God are given unto the Jews. God will speak through no one but of His chosen people for initial revelation. Now, what about the king's decree in Daniel? Well, the Gentile king wrote it but God works effectually in those who read the decree and believe God, so Daniel(a Jew)recorded it in his book.

Square two is words are inspired, men are not. Nowhere did Peter claim to be inspired. The OT prophets all exclaimed, thus saith the Lord, but not my words, not my opinions, but HIS words. God's words are ALIVE, as uranium is radioactive, sodium is not. When Jesus raised Lazarus, He did not snap His fingers, he SAID, Lazarus, come forth. No electrodes plugged into his neck like Frankenstein, God SPOKE him to life. Peter said, I am not in a trance, I am a holy man of God speaking God's words as moved by the Holy Ghost for this scribe to record. Paul can be said to be the closest to declaring he was "inspired", yet he said the THINGS I WRITE UNTO YOU, are THE commandments of THE LORD, NOT ME.

Let me give an example of inspiration:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I just wrote those words. I am not in a trance. The Holy Ghost moved me to check the copy I read them from as Job 32:8 and II Timothy 3:16 commands to write them accurately with nothing added or left out. This passage in John is ALL Scripture, it is INSPIRED Scripture, it is God's living words that give life to a lost soul, that works effectually in those who believe it after reading it. It is GOD who does all that, not ME. I was MOVED of the Holy Ghost to give whoever is reading this a living copy of His living word. It's not ME who is inspired, it is the WORDS I WROTE that are inspired.

Now the question is asked, who decided the canon? The oracles of God, Jews. Deut.17 says the Levites were given custody of the OT writings. The Apostles were given custody of the NT. I believe John decided the canon of the NT, that may be conjecture but he was the apostle "who Jesus loved" and who He gave the Revelation through. Whoever decided the canon did it under God's inspiration and was a Jew, not a Gentile.

Is it outrageous to say that God collected an inspired copy of ALL the original manuscripts together in one volume for the first time in history in a common language worldwide(KJV)?
Is it outrageous that there is a resurrection of the dead, a flood of water covered the earth, a sea parted to the dry bottom for a nation to walk through, ot that a God would take the form of His creatures and die for them becasue they could not satisfy His Justice?

I'm still the new guy, one of them "dry cleaners" and I hope you all pardon me being so dogmatic. I believe we need to be dogmatic about the truth. This is my best description of inspiration. God is inspiration(noun), men are not inspired(verb), Gods words ARE.

Grace and peace to all

Tony

Why is it that you keep trying to remind us that you're a hyper-dispensationalist? Is this a fact, or is this what some call you?

Concerning inspiration, the Scriptures tell us that:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

If what you're saying is the case (and I think of a truth it is) then that would say that "all Scripture is inspired of God" but it doesn't. It says that it is "given" by inspiration. Here is the mode:

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21 KJV)

So you're going to have to shew that these words are alive as you described them to be. I agree that they are, but when dealing with the doctrine of inspiration you need to get your mode right.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

[cliffordsndrs451]

Stephanos, I am unfortunately in the camp with those that believe that the men of God were clearly inspired in formulating the KJB (although not of course like Paul). Further, I also feel that desires and attitudes have certainly changed over the last nearly 400 years. I feel that in the 1600's people of God looked at their life and attempted to conform more closely to the image of God and monitored their behavior while the majority of people today have a strong desire to match what they think God should be to their life today this can only seriously delute our connections with sovereign Holiness.