[Will Kinney]

Hi Brian. Thank you for at least being up front about the fact that you do not believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Bible.

Quote:"So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now'". I deny that doctrine, because that doctrine is not found in the Bible."

Originally Posted by BrianT

However, I see that Brandplucked said of Gen 41:56 "Well the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV, NIV, 1917, 1936 all translated it the same way as the KJB." He says similar about Jeremiah 50:11. I will try to provide more legitimate ones at a future date, but his comment indicates that he agrees that the KJV does follow the LXX over the Masoretic in at least these two instances - which was what he asked for."

Brian, this is absurd. Here you have listed even a couple of JEWISH translations (the JEWISH Publication Society's 1917, and the HEBREW Publishing Company's 1936, and the previously not mentioned Judaica Press Tanach) all of which translated this phrase as "storehouses". This is not a matter of "following the LXX" at all, but rather is a legitimate translation from the Hebrew. By the way, your LXX does NOT say "storehouses" but rather "granaries" - sitoboloonas. Look it up for yourself.

Now, if you think you have a legitimate argument here it only shows that you are blind and already have your mind made up to see what you want to see.

I then started asking (for 3.5 pages worth of replies) for you to explain WHY you believe it - WHY you believe an extra-Biblical doctrine while claiming the Bible is the only source of doctrine. I asked you WHY it's a problem for me to believe this when you believe the exact same thing about the first 80% of church history. You talked about a "prophecy" about the KJV, but you never explained how that answers my question, nor answered my follow up questions and points about that either. You kept saying "Good questions", but you didn't answer the heart of the matter. Are you willing to answer the questions here, or am I wasting my time?

Brian, I gave you what I think is a pretty good answer to your questions. You just didn't like it. God's words were preserved in the book of the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures, which all your modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, etc. OFTEN reject. The New Testament book was most likely in the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and the Waldensian New Testaments till the time of the Reformation. Then is passed over into the English via a process of purification till it reached its final stage in the Authorized King James Bible, then simply known as the Holy Bible.

Here is the full article again for those who have not seen it.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

Like I said, I gave you an answer. Just because you don't like it or agree with it, does not mean that I didn't give you an answer.

All of grace - believing The Book.

Will Kinney

Hi PB1789,

If you don't believe that The One Who said: "Let There Be light! And there was light." --- Can preserve His Written Word over the many centuries, and that we humans can believe in His inerrant/true/faithful/ Matthew 5:18 kinda Bible... Then,,,

I do believe he can (and did) preserve his written word over the many centuries. My point is that if the form of that preservation was not a single, exclusive, textually-inerrant book for the first 80% of church history, and scripture does not say anything about this changing in 1611, by what authority should anyone believe it changed? Why should those scriptures that talk of preservation change meaning just because someone hand-cranked a printing press? Why claim the Bible is the only source of doctrine, but then hold to a new doctrine that is not in the Bible?

A Christian would not go around trying to pick apart/sow seeds of doubt concerning the contents of our Bible on an internet site where any heathen/pagan/atheist/agnostic/communist/sex-perve can get ideas to bolster their UNbelief.

A Christian should be defending the truth regardless of how that truth may be abused by others.

Don't know why some folks come over to a website titled "AV 1611.com," if they don't hold to the AV/KJ...

First, I came because I was having this discussion on another board with Kinney but he brought his response to this board (and others) and abandoned the original board, and when I found it here he invited me to continue the discussion here. Second, I do hold to the AV/KJ, just not to the AV/KJ-only because that is a doctrine I do not find in the Bible. It it is a new doctrine, a doctrine not possible for the first 80% of church history. Only scripture is the authoritative source of doctrine, right? So by what authority should we accept this new doctrine?

Brian

Hi Will,

No way Brian. I gave up on you guys over there.

But you just posted there on that board after making this posting here. So why are you requiring this discussion carry on here, when you're still willing to post there?

Here you have listed even a couple of JEWISH translations

Technically, you listed them, I was just quoting you. But I don't see your point, for the LXX is also a Jewish translation.

This is not a matter of "following the LXX" at all, but rather is a legitimate translation from the Hebrew. By the way, your LXX does NOT say "storehouses" but rather "granaries" - sitoboloonas. Look it up for yourself.

I will when I get back home from traveling. However, the online tool I use indicates that the Hebrew doesn't have a word here at all. Again, I will look into this in more detail when I again have access to my library.

Thank you for at least being up front about the fact that you do not believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Bible.

Thank you for saying thank about this for the second time. As I also said previously, my view of "errancy" is limited to the ink-on-paper. I do not believe that mistakes in ink equals mistakes in God's message. In other words, I agree with what the KJV translators said about the "King's speech". Correct understanding can come from incorrect text, and incorrect understanding can come from correct text. My view is consistent doctrinally and logically across church history, consistent with scripture, and does not require extra-Biblical sources of doctrine and advanced revelation.

Brian, I gave you what I think is a pretty good answer to your questions. You just didn't like it.

You answered questions I didn't ask. Your answers dealt with how you think God's word was preserved. I already know how you think it is preserved. My question deals with why. Here are my WHY questions I have not yet seen an answer for yet:

- If Isa 34:16 is about "most likely just the book of Isaiah though it may have included other parts of the Old Testament", why are you using it as a proof text in your articles that "He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth"???
- Why do you believe an extra-Biblical doctrine (re:1611) while claiming the Bible is the only source of doctrine?
- Why should we accept your idea of secondary fulfillment of Psa 12:6-7, when scripture itself doesn't explain or indicate this secondary fulfillment, like it does with other passages that have secondary meaning?
- Why does "purified seven times" have this mystical secondary meaning, but "in a furnace of earth" does not?
- Why do you think Psa 12:6-7 is about preservation of his "word" (singular), when it clearly says "words" (plural)? Do you think God's "words" were ever unpure, needing purification?
- WHY is my position a problem, when it is the same as what you already believe happened for 80% of church history? WHY was this fine for the first 80% of the the church, but not fine for us? Since you said there was no complete and inerrant words of God in Book for the first 80% of church history, then what you are really opposing is not my position on no complete and inerrant translation, but rather my reluctance to accept the extra-Biblical unauthoritative idea that things changed doctrinally in 1611. I have explained why I don't accept this (or any extra-Biblical doctrine), and you have yet to explain why I should (or why you do). This is the fundamental problem with the KJV-only position, and the problem you are avoiding.

Brian

A moment of your time, please, gentlemen.

I am new to this particular thread, but certainly not to this subject. Much as I appreciate Brian T's gracious invitation to join yet another forum, I would very much prefer to participate in the discussion here: which, God willing, I will do as soon as the grousing and finger-pointing abates somewhat.

I am familiar with Bro. Kenney's excellent contributions to another website (the name of which shall not pass my lips, for I am disinclined to publicize its creator), and, although I have not encountered Bro. T before, I look forward to his remarks.

So, as soon as the sniping has been reduced a bit, I will stick my head back into this thread, to see whether or not I have any small contribution to make.

My name is Vendetta Ride, and I approve of this post.

Feel free to jump in, Vendetta Ride. I apologize if my posts sound like sniping. I have been trying to get Brandplucked to answer these questions for quite some time now, and that combined with what I felt was an annoying game (abandoning our original discussion, posting his response to me here, and not telling me about it) aggravated me a little and I let it show through in my comments. That's not an excuse, just an explanation. I will endeavor to keep 2 Timothy 2:24-25 and Galatians 5:22-23 in mind in future replies.

although I have not encountered Bro. T before

If you want any background info on me or links to my websites, just ask.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Hi Will,


You answered questions I didn't ask. Your answers dealt with how you think God's word was preserved. I already know how you think it is preserved.

Hi Brian. You told us that there never was a perfect Book of the Lord and is not one now. I affirmed that there both was and is now. That was the reason for the "how" I think God preserved it.

My question deals with why. Here are my WHY questions I have not yet seen an answer for yet:

- If Isa 34:16 is about "most likely just the book of Isaiah though it may have included other parts of the Old Testament", why are you using it as a proof text in your articles that "He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth"???

Because that is what the verse says. "Seek ye out of THE BOOK OF THE LORD and read". There is such a book. In fact, that BOOK that eventually became the complete Bible including both Old and New Testaments was a WORK IN PROGRESS.

Where in the Bible is it ever taught that there would NOT be such a thing as a perfect, inspired and inerrant Bible? Do you have any verses that teach what YOU believe?

Why do you believe an extra-Biblical doctrine (re:1611) while claiming the Bible is the only source of doctrine?

See above.

[QUOTE]- Why should we accept your idea of secondary fulfillment of Psa 12:6-7, when scripture itself doesn't explain or indicate this secondary fulfillment, like it does with other passages that have secondary meaning?

Looking back on history and what actually happened in the English language and how God has used the King James Bible, I can now see that in those verses. So do other Bible believers.

Why do you have a problem with the phrase "as silver tried in a furnace of earth"? Silver had to be progressively heated and purified of impurities. I do not at all see why you have a problem with this verse. Perhaps you could explain why you don't think it fits.


-

I do believe it is talking about His wordS because that is what it says.
Yes, Absolutely - God's words did become unpure as scribes and Satan corrupted the texts. God's words are very definitely corrupted in all modern versions. They are getting worse and worse. Thousands of inspired words missing. False doctrine, contradictions and foolish statements abound in them, and fewer and fewer people actually believe them every day.

All English Bibles beginning with Tyndale and going through Coverdale, Great bible, Geneva bible and Bishops' bible were basically the same with all the main contended verses today in them all, and was gradually being purified and refined till the final product of the King James Bible was produced.

- WHY is my position a problem, when it is the same as what you already believe happened for 80% of church history? WHY was this fine for the first 80% of the the church, but not fine for us? Since you said there was no complete and inerrant words of God in Book for the first 80% of church history, then what you are really opposing is not my position on no complete and inerrant translation, but rather my reluctance to accept the extra-Biblical unauthoritative idea that things changed doctrinally in 1611. I have explained why I don't accept this (or any extra-Biblical doctrine), and you have yet to explain why I should (or why you do). This is the fundamental problem with the KJV-only position, and the problem you are avoiding.Brian

No, our positions are quite different. I said I believe the Book of the Lord for the Old Testament was the Hebrew Scriptures. All your modern versions like the niv, nasb, rsv, nrsv, esv, net, Holman and even the NKJV often reject these very same Hebrew texts. This is proof that they are not from God.

As for the New Testament Book, I said it was most likely preserved in the Old Latin copies and among the Waldensian believers till the time of the Reformation. Then I believe God began the process of combining both Books into the singular Bible we now have today. Did most of the "church" not have an inerrant Bible? Sure. Most of them did not, and most of them do not even today. But they can still get saved and believe in the only Lord and Saviour using what they do have. The gospel of salvation through the Lamb of God is still found even in the most corrupt of bible versions out there. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there exists today what can honestly and truthfully be called the perfect, complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. I believe there is one and it is called the King James Bible.

You do not believe one exists nor ever did. This is where we radically differ one from another.

Will K

[MC1171611]

Eccl. 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Gen. 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Job 34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.

Psa. 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

(emphasis mine)

Is not "earth" also "dust"? How about the hundreds of years of trials and persecution by the Roman Catholic Whore? Is that not Fire? If you insist on making every shred of the verse symbolic, then perhaps this will go far in satisfying your demands.

Hi Brandplucked,

You told us that there never was a perfect Book of the Lord and is not one now. I affirmed that there both was and is now.

Whoa, back up a minute. Previously in our discussion, I specifically asked you if you believed: "God's "words" were always pure, but prior to 1611 they were scattered into various manuscripts, i.e. there was no single "hold in your hand" complete inerrant perfect scripture prior to 1611." You responded "You basically have it right." I also noted where, in Lacy Evan's article (which you linked to from your article), Lacy says that prior to the KJV "there was not one copy inspired to absolute perfection on the planet. The only source of truth was the 'witness of the multitude of copies'" and how you called that article "excellent". For two solid weeks our discussion has been based on this, but now it sounds like you are saying something else. Please clarify this before we continue.

Brian

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Hi Brandplucked,



Whoa, back up a minute. Previously in our discussion, I specifically asked you if you believed: "God's "words" were always pure, but prior to 1611 they were scattered into various manuscripts, i.e. there was no single "hold in your hand" complete inerrant perfect scripture prior to 1611." You responded "You basically have it right." I also noted where, in Lacy Evan's article (which you linked to from your article), Lacy says that prior to the KJV "there was not one copy inspired to absolute perfection on the planet. The only source of truth was the 'witness of the multitude of copies'" and how you called that article "excellent". For two solid weeks our discussion has been based on this, but now it sounds like you are saying something else. Please clarify this before we continue.

Brian

Brian. May I suggest you go back and read the whole article I wrote on this long ago. Part that you apparently missed is this: "Those who promote today's multiple, conflicting versions of God's words think they finally have the question that will stump the Bible believer and finally rob him of his faith in God's inerrant word. They ask us, "Well, where was the pure word of God BEFORE 1611?"

It will greatly enlighten your mind if you ask them the same question. They don't know where it was before 1611 either, or more importantly, where it is now. God's words from the Old Testament were most likely preserved in the Hebrew texts. A good educated guess for the New Testament words would be that God preserved them in the Old Latin Bibles, and then in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation. Theodore Beza, whose Greek text was used by the KJB translators, traces the Waldensian believers from around 120 A.D. to the Reformation. They were killed off by the thousands and their Bibles were burned by the Catholic persecutors. The Waldensians believed in the priesthood of every believer and the doctrines of grace. Then God's perfect words for both the Old Testament and the New Testament passed over to what would become the end times universal language - English - , and was simply titled "The Holy Bible", later to be known as the King James Version. That is where they remain today in all their purity.

THEN I mention Lacy Evan's article and recommend it as showing the resurrection of God's words. Do I agree with everything he says or believes? No. But basically he has a good idea about the resurrection of God's words in the King James Bible. That is all I was getting at in his article.

And then I go into the idea of the purification process in the English language. I have always argued for the preservation of the wordS of God, not just the nebulous and never defined "message".

I suggest you re-read the article and see more clearly how I understand how God's words came to be in the King James Bible.

Here is the link again:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

Will K

Brandplucked, I'm sorry but it still feels like you are evading the heart of my question, and still not being clear. Let me be blunt and direct: Do you, or do you not, believe that there was a single "hold in your hand" complete inerrant perfect Bible in the year 1600 A.D.? Yes or no?