Hi PB1789,

Will K. made a good Post above (#122) and made a valid point---turn about is far play---in that you don't seem ( at least my eyeballs haven't seen it) to have a Solid Base. This is why I titled my Post (#98) "What do you do when you see a red Traffic Light ?" { Don't know-I assume Canada is like our road rules... in the States we have Green=Go, Yellow= Caution, Red= Stop.} If you don't stop at a red Traffic Light,,, then you will never understand what Will K. or anyone else has been trying to convey to you

Yes, turn about is fair play. However, I've already responded to Will's points in #122, several times in fact. Your traffic light analogy (I missed it in the title earlier) is an excellent way to explain it again. Red traffic lights have authority. If I run an official red light, I am subject to fine for breaking the law. However, that does not mean anybody can put up their own red lights whereever they want and expect them to have the same authoritative binding. I you put up your own red light on a road, which is not backed by the authority of the local government, I am not subject to fine if I run it. I am not required to stop at "personal" stop lights, and you are not authorized to put them up nor hold anyone subject to them. This is perfectly analogous to KJV-onlyism. The real authority does not say teach what KJV-only supporters hold about the KJV. KJV-only supporters have put up their own red traffic lights, of their own authority, and expect everyone else to be bound by that authority. Not me, for I recognize that these personal red lights are unauthoritative. If you claim a doctrine not taught in scripture, I question the authority behind such a claim just as I would question the authority behind my next door neighbor putting up his own red traffic light in the middle of our street. If my neighbor did such a thing, and if I did question his authority, would it not be foolish for him to reply to me (as Will has done) by saying "where is your authority for not stopping at my red light?" I do not need an official authoritative law passed to excuse me from not being bound to my neighbor's personal red traffic light. I do not need a scripture to challenge someone else's unbiblical doctrinal claim, just as I don't need a scripture to challenge someone's claim that the tooth fairy exists. The one making the doctrinal claim in the first place, like the neighbor who puts up his own red traffic light, needs to demonstrate he has the authority to do so.

I've been reading this Thread and posting on it since early-on, and I still don't know IF you have a favorite English Translation that you can point to and turn to and say "Thus saith the Lord!"
If you are an NIV guy, then just say so. RSV ? NLT ? New Jerusalem ? Something ? A ship must have an anchor or it will drift,,, and very often will hit the rocks and shatter and sink...!

My anchor is the same anchor that existed for the first 80% of church history. I use the range of available and reliable manuscripts and translations. I see no authoritative reason to believe the good old anchor isn't good enough anymore.

Hi Diligent,

I was wondering if you had read Thou Shalt Keep Them. It may not change your mind on anything, but it does address many of the issues you have posted questions about. In the end, what we believe about the preservation of God's word is a matter of faith, but Thou Shalt Keep Them may provide you with a more thorough understanding of the theological basis for what we believe than forum threads can.

No, I have not read it. Thank you, I will put it on my list of books to read.

Hi Forrest,

You completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I wrote

I apologize for the misunderstanding. It was not intentional.

You cannot make an assumption that just because there are 2 different views on any given doctrine, by fallible man, that the specific doctrine has no authority.

Now it seems you are misunderstanding me.

True doctrine that comes from the King James Bible is always absolute and final authority.

By what authority do you claim that, since the KJV itself doesn't say that? You followed that by saying "We may not always get it right" - well how do you authoritatively know you got it right about the KJV being the absolute and final authority? Do you not see the circular argument?

Hi Bro. Parrish,

Brian, with all due respect, you pulled down your pants and spanked yourself in front of the entire forum with that one comment back in post no. 9.

The only difference between what I said and what others have said is that I see no authoritative reason for things to have changed in 1611.

we reject "your" authority

I hope so! I am not authoritative! I would rebuke anyone who tried to put my personal convictions on things that scripture doesn't explicitly say into a doctrinal statement. What I can't figure out is why you and others don't mind extra-Biblical opinion added to doctrinal statements, or why you oppose those who point out this contradictory practice.

God bless,
Brian

Originally Posted by BrianT

Hi Bro. Parrish,
The only difference between what I said and what others have said is that I see no authoritative reason for things to have changed in 1611.

Nonsense.
Can you show me another person on this thread who said an inerrant Bible does not exist right now in 2008? Please don't try to project your delusion on others. What you wrote in post no. 9 is still there, and plain to see:

Originally Posted by BrianT
So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now"

That is your "authority" and your "doctrine."
It's as plain as a dead blowfish on the beach.
You are teaching others that the KJV contains errors, so I see a VAST difference between you and the others who are honoring God's Word on this forum, please don't make this worse than it has to be.

[MC1171611]

"...who changed the truth of God into a lie..."

"...ye have perverted the words of the living God..."

Regardless, Brian does not have an authority other than his own opinions. I'd rather take a PERFECT (prove it's not, bud) Book that has borne witness with my spirit for my entire Christian life and elevate it as my authority than potentially SUBVERT the perfect word of God by my own self-righteous opinions.

My authority = a Book without error or fault

Your authority = your own opinions

Thanks but no thanks. Don't let the door hit you on the way out; I'm tired of listening to the inane babble of self-important individuals.

[Here Am I]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Yes, you are right, this has gone on too long. 10 pages without an answer to my fundamental question is enough. The only person who tried to answer my question of authority didn't even really understand it and simply posted a contradiction in response.

Brian:

You remind me of someone I used to debate/discuss 'God' topics with, on a secular message board. No matter what Scripture I used, no matter what information I posted, no matter what expert sources I quoted, it was never enough. It was never enough to 'prove' anything. He was convinced of his own righteousness, and nothing was going to change his mind.

He said to me something like "If God wrote in the sky that he existed, I'd believe", but I told him he was not telling the truth: the Pharisees of Jesus' time on earth did not deny His miracles, but rejected Him as Messiah, because He did not fit their preconceived notions of what their Messiah should be.

They had proof, right there, in front of them, but they did not believe.

You reject God's word, most likely, because it doesn't conform to what YOU want it to say, what YOU want it to be.

So be it. "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3:9)

Hi Bro. Parrish,

Nonsense.
Can you show me another person on this thread who said an inerrant Bible does not exist right now in 2008? Please don't try to project your delusion on others. What you wrote in post no. 9 is still there, and plain to see.

You misunderstood. Let me try again - The only difference between what I said and what (some) others have said is: (some) others believe there was no "complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language" prior to 1611 but that there was after 1611, while I agree with them about prior to 1611 and see no authoritative reason to believe them about things doctrinally changing in 1611.

That is your "authority" and your "doctrine."

No, that is my opinion. I do not claim it is authoritative.

You are teaching others that the KJV contains errors

Why should I authoritatively believe any different? Why make a new doctrine about the KJV that didn't exist for the first 80% of church history? What other new, unauthoritative doctrines should we open ourselves up to believing?

MC1171611 said:

prove it's not, bud

It's not my job to prove a negative. Those proclaiming a new doctrine must prove it, and the authority behind it. Otherwise, anything goes.

Anyone else want a last kick at the can before I leave this thread permanently? Vendetta Ride? stephanos?

God bless,
Brian

Originally Posted by BrianT

Hi Bro. Parrish,

You misunderstood...

Ahh no. I didn't misunderstand at all, and I have you pinned to the door on this. You think the AV text contains errors. That makes your view quite different from those who honor God's Word on this forum. You can squirm like an eel if you want, but clearly you are in denial of the very essence of Biblical authority.

Throughout this thread, you have been shown the errors in other translations, you have been challenged to find errors in ours, but you have avoided all of this like any "con man" and in the end you have managed nothing other than to spin around asking rhetorical questions like a catfish in a bucket.

Originally Posted by BrianT
So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now"

This is ALWAYS what happens to a man without an inerrant Bible; they have no real authority, and they instead end up projecting themselves and their opinions above God's Inerrant Word, in an attempt to make THEMSELVES the authority. This way, those who wish to understand God's Word will have to come to THEM for the answers. It's an old, old shell game and we have seen it many, many times. You can dress it up and put new paint on it, but it still won't fly here.

Hi Bro. Parrish,

I have you pinned to the door on this. You think the AV text contains errors.

Wow, thanks for the detective work.

you are in denial of the very essence of Biblical authority

No, actually it is because I accept Biblical authority that I reject new man-made doctrines about the Bible.

you have been challenged to find errors in ours, but you have avoided all of this

I have repeatedly asked for what would constitute proof, and if that proof would be consistently applied. I've played your game many times in the past, and know that if we don't establish the rules up front, you'll change the rules as we go.

Do you really understand why I "deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now"? For the exact same reason I "'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 77 books as having ever existed and certainly not now" and I "deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 111 books as having ever existed and certainly not now", or any other number you want to put in there. The Bible doesn't name the books it should contain, therefore, by definition, any list is extra-Biblical. I accept the 66-book canon, but to claim "66-books" is doctrinally authoritative is contradictory. 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, or (insert any specific translation here) is the textually inerrant word of God. The Bible doesn't name the KJV as being textually inerrant, therefore, by definition, the claim is extra-Biblical. I accept the KJV as authoritative, but to claim "KJV-onlyism" is doctrinally authoritative is contradictory. Insult me all you want, but these facts still remains no matter how much you ignore it.

[KJBPrincess]

BrianT, you should study the history of the King James Bible, and do a little research on the work that went into it. You know how the translators knew what was Scripture and what wasn't? They compared manuscripts with other manuscripts. If you compare diamonds with cubic zirconium, it's not impossible to figure out which ones are real diamonds.

The King James Bible is a compilation of the purest manuscripts that were available to the translators, and I believe God's hand was on the translators as they were doing their work. The Holy Spirit was guiding them and showing them which manuscripts were accurate and which ones weren't, and because these men were fluent in several different languages, they knew how to accurately translate a manuscript from the original language into English.

I just thought I'd jump in here and say something real quick.... I'll let the guys take it from here.

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by KJBPrincess

BrianT, you should study the history of the King James Bible, and do a little research on the work that went into it. You know how the translators knew what was Scripture and what wasn't? They compared manuscripts with other manuscripts. If you compare diamonds with cubic zirconium, it's not impossible to figure out which ones are real diamonds.

The King James Bible is a compilation of the purest manuscripts that were available to the translators, and I believe God's hand was on the translators as they were doing their work. The Holy Spirit was guiding them and showing them which manuscripts were accurate and which ones weren't, and because these men were fluent in several different languages, they knew how to accurately translate a manuscript from the original language into English.

I just thought I'd jump in here and say something real quick.... I'll let the guys take it from here.

[insert clapping hands "smiley" icon here]

Just about the Best Post on this website young lady! You hit "The-Nail-On-The-Head ".

Originally Posted by KJBPrincess

BrianT, you should study the history of the King James Bible, and do a little research on the work that went into it. You know how the translators knew what was Scripture and what wasn't? They compared manuscripts with other manuscripts. If you compare diamonds with cubic zirconium, it's not impossible to figure out which ones are real diamonds.

The King James Bible is a compilation of the purest manuscripts that were available to the translators, and I believe God's hand was on the translators as they were doing their work. The Holy Spirit was guiding them and showing them which manuscripts were accurate and which ones weren't, and because these men were fluent in several different languages, they knew how to accurately translate a manuscript from the original language into English.

I just thought I'd jump in here and say something real quick.... I'll let the guys take it from here.

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