[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Maverick

Again,I could claim the same for ANY translation of God's word

Oh really? Who would say such a thing about the NIV? NASB?

That's one of the things I find so telling about this whole issue. No other Bible in history has ever been held to by so many as being pure and authoritative. But nobody who actively promotes modern translations would dare say any of them are absolutely authoritative.

[Will Kinney]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick
Again,I could claim the same for ANY translation of God's word

Originally Posted by Diligent

Oh really? Who would say such a thing about the NIV? NASB?

That's one of the things I find so telling about this whole issue. No other Bible in history has ever been held to by so many as being pure and authoritative. But nobody who actively promotes modern translations would dare say any of them are absolutely authoritative.

Very true. Maverick shows the typical mindset of today's Bible Agnostics. They don't take a stand on anything regarding the Bible issue. In his thinking, all truth is relative, undefined and unknowable. If he were to actually take a stand on any particular Bible or complete set of Scripture as being the very words of God in contrast to those that are not, then he would offend all his cronies and fellow 'scholars', and he doesn't want to do THAT.

In reality his statement is on the same spiritual level as saying: "I could claim the same for ANY way of salvation. Absolute truth does not exist. All is relative and we don't want to offend the Hindus, Buddists, New Agers, Muslims or atheists, now do we?"

"Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

Will K

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by Maverick

Again,I could claim the same for ANY translation of God's word

Sure you could, but you'd be lying to yourself.

Here we have another member of the "What Is Truth?" (Jn. 18:38) Club.

If you're going to say something, input something intelligent. Or at least try.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by BrianT

by definition, any list is extra-Biblical. I accept the 66-book canon, but to claim "66-books" is doctrinally authoritative is contradictory.

And when I asked Brian whether there is any problem with alternate canon lists, Brian simply changed the topic. Clearly since it is all only a matter to Brian of "personal conviction" the inclusion of Tobit, the exclusion of the first two chapters of Matthew (ebionites), the addition of Doctrine & Covenants, are all on a level playing field, simply personal conviction, whim, preferance or brainwashing. There is no absolute truth in regard to the identity of Scripture, no authority is possible, only personal preference. We see that Brian declares that he has no substantive argument with views that offer alternate Scriptures, to Brian they are conceptually just as sound as his own preference.

Originally Posted by BrianT

Similarly, I deny the claim the KJV is the textually inerrant word of God for the same reason I deny the Geneva, or the Vulgate,

Brian's personal conviction (we are aksing him if he calls it is a doctrine) and claim (is it really a conviction, only God knows, personally I think not) is that NO tangible Bible can be the pure and perfect word of God. (This view is only exercised against the King James Bible since that is the only Bible actively proclaimed and defended as pure and perfect.) That was the purpose of his cumbersome and convoluted and faulty A-L, where Brian could not even understand the deficiences in "A" !

What Will and I are asking him is if this claim of his (that no Bible text in any language can be proclaimed as pure and perfect) is itself Bible-based or not. Simple question. I have seen no answer, although Brian claims that he has answeed. Brian you can start simply -- is this view of yours of the impossibility of a pure Bible received and recognized by man a personal conviction or do you claim that this non-pure-Bible-view is itself Bible-based with authority ?

ie. Does the Bible itself claim, according to Brian, an offshoot of the Liar's Paradox:

"There is no such thing as a tangible pure and perfect, preserved Bible text".

Does the Bible proclaim, as Brian asserts, that every Bible extant today must be errant? And if so, can the claim within the Bible that no Bible is pure, when found and proclaimed by Brian, itself able to be errant ?? Or is that the one truly absolute truth in Brian's Bible ?

And how could any claim at all be truly "Bible-based" since you allow each individual to define the Bible and its translations to fit their personal convictions ? (Snip) this verse, this chapter, this book, add this ... it is all only personal whim, like your preference for 66-books based on no authority.

All this appears to be a windy, vaporish "personal conviction" of Brians that he tries to weakly formalize by a very faulty negation logic. Just like the skeptic who declares that the Bible cannot be true because of the reference in Jeremiah 8:8 to "lying scribes" (in the modern versions). Actually the skeptic logic is far sounder than Brians -- except that they are using faulty English translations to make their point . However according to Brian they can surely do that and call it "Bible".

Shalom,
Steven

Thanks all for the discussion. This is my last post in this thread. I feel I have answered everyone that wants responses, and that further responses are just repeats of what has already been said. If anyone wants to continue the discussion with me, or feels I have not sufficiently answered any questions, feel free to send me a private message or email (my email is in my profile).

God bless,
Brian

Originally Posted by BrianT

it is because I accept Biblical authority that I reject new man-made doctrines about the Bible.

LOL, Sir,
since you have not even figured out what Biblical authority IS,
I would hate to see what you do with any serious doctrines.

Thanks all for the discussion. This is my last post in this thread. I feel I have answered everyone that wants responses, and that further responses are just repeats of what has already been said. If anyone wants to continue the discussion with me, or feels I have not sufficiently answered any questions, feel free to send me a private message or email (my email is in my profile).

Translation: Your concept of the Bible has been filleted like a fish my friend, and your old musty argument still rings as hollow as it did on post no. 9. The strings on your puppet show have been revealed. I warned you that nonsense won't fly on this forum. I would normally say "best wishes" at this point, but when I meet people who go out of their way to spread the teaching that there is no inerrant Bible available for today's God-thirsty souls, I am forced to hope others simply avoid you and thereby avoid your confusion, which God is clearly not in the habit of authoring.

My advice: Go in peace, learn more about the Bible and praise God for His inerrant KJV...
and please take your sidekick Maverick with you.

[pbiwolski]

Brian's after "proof" - proof of a new doctrine (the authority of the King James Bible) that so many on this site uphold and believe.

Is this really a new doctrine? Have not the saints of years past stood on the same foundation of believing the words of God?

The issue that has risen to the surface has never been so elevated as it is today. The old serpent has quietly slithered into this issue forcing the undeceived believers to take a stand - a stand that was really common, yet perhaps unannounced in the past.

Still, the proof of this doctrine is the existence of the very Book itself. While BrianT considers this to be "circular reasoning," he is, in fact, missing the point.

Allow me to briefly illustrate the point.

The water found in certain rivers or creeks (cricks, to some of you !) in my area is considered by many to be undrinkable. Yet if one should claim that a local stream is pure and clean no one would believe them until the water was thoroughly tested. The proof comes not from any claim, but from the ability to pass the test.

That Book's been tested inside and out. My, how so many would love nothing more than to PROVE the King James Bible errant. Yet, it stands true, unaffected by the assults.

If the King James Bible were NOT perfect, we would never make the claim that it is.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

since you have not even figured out what Biblical authority IS, I would hate to see what you do with any serious doctrines....Translation: Your concept of the Bible has been filleted like a fish my friend, and your old musty argument still rings as hollow as it did on post no. 9. The strings on your puppet show have been revealed.

Well spoken, brother Parrish. I actually enjoyed the visit by Brian, sometimes even rust and tin can sharpen iron .. a little, metaphorically. His attempt to try to place a logical construct of negation to underlie unbelief was fascinating .. and his inability to see the contradiction in "proving" unbelief and errancy in the tangible Bible from the same "Bible" he claims is malleable and errant (with a text and books that are decided by personal 'conviction', whim, preference, brainwashing) was itself fascinating There is a spiritual principality that blocks such a Bible skeptic from even dealing with the fundamentals of logic.

Here is a three-line summary that condenses everything Brian wrote :

" 'The Bible' is absolute truth - the source of doctrine and wisdom, inerrant."

"I 'prove' from 'the Bible' that every tangible Bible is untrue, errant, faulty."

"Nonetheless, despite the fact that every Bible we can read is errant, I use the erroneous and faulty 'Bible', somehow, as the base of my proof."

We cannot be too suprised at exiting rather than trying to come to grips.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[KJBPrincess]

Originally Posted by Maverick

Again,I could claim the same for ANY translation of God's word

Yeah, that would only work if any other translation had the same evidence of God's power on it.

Oh, and don't try to tell me that there's no way to know which translation God had His hand on. If you have any understanding of who God is, and how He works, you can tell which translation is His.

[MC1171611]

It reminds me of Doc's picture in one of his books: there's a young soldier, girded in armor, holding a Sword that's emblazoned with "AV 1611." Walking up behind him is a dorky-looking "scholar" with a beanbag in his hands with "NASB" on it: he's holding it toward the soldier and saying "Here sonny, take this; it's so much more accurate!"

Nah, I'll keep my Sword. (Heb. 4:12; Rev. 19:15, 21)