[Billie]

[QUOTE=George;9820]
We believe that the WORDS ARE INSPIRED and that GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORDS - just exactly as He promised in Psalm 12:6-7.

This issue is about "FINAL AUTHORITY"! It is now, and has always been about "FINAL AUTHORITY"!

Amen! Brother George. I believe this.

Over in Jeremiah 1: v. 12..Than said the Lord unto me.Thou hast well seen:for I will hasten my word to perform it.) I did a study on the word,: 'perform'...I found it ment.."I will watch over MY WORD and I AM able to perform it (bring forth,have the charge of,execute,finish,fulfil,bring to pass,) these are a few...

I was young in the LORD when I did the study, it has stayed with me all these years...since than I've found other scriptures reaffirming HIS promise
that HE has and will keep and preserve HIS words...forever.

Blessings,

Billie

Point of order, brethren: I've raised this matter before, but it bears repeating. The Bible isn't "inspired." It is "given by inspiration". It may sound like nitpicking, but when we're dealing with the way God described His own revelation, it's not.

I believe that the original manuscripts were "given by inspiration," and perfectly preserved, as promised, over the centuries, resulting in the KJB, which is the only English version that is God's word. (I'm not talking about Valera or other foreign language versions.) I'll go even farther: I believe the KJB, regardless of the translators' humility, was also "given by inspiration." Even the paragraph divisions and punctuation were, as a certain teacher says, "providentially guided."

But "inspired" is simply the wrong term, and gives enemies of the KJB a weapon with which to attack us. In discussing God's written word, let's be careful to use God's terminology.

[JMWHALEN]

Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride

Point of order, brethren: I've raised this matter before, but it bears repeating. The Bible isn't "inspired." It is "given by inspiration". It may sound like nitpicking, but when we're dealing with the way God described His own revelation, it's not.

I believe that the original manuscripts were "given by inspiration," and perfectly preserved, as promised, over the centuries, resulting in the KJB, which is the only English version that is God's word. (I'm not talking about Valera or other foreign language versions.) I'll go even farther: I believe the KJB, regardless of the translators' humility, was also "given by inspiration." Even the paragraph divisions and punctuation were, as a certain teacher says, "providentially guided."

But "inspired" is simply the wrong term, and gives enemies of the KJB a weapon with which to attack us. In discussing God's written word, let's be careful to use God's terminology.

___
"Yes...Yes...You are correct sir!"(Phil Hartman as Ed McMahon to Johnny Carson). You are not nitpicking. The word of God doesn't say: "was given by inspiration" but rather "IS given by inspiration", as you stated. Yet the "modernists" seems to believe that inspiration was a one time event which took place during the scatching out on various types of papyrus of the "original" autograph. There is no SCRIPTURE anywhere that says: "The original(s) WAS given by inspiration."

"My bad?" translation?: My fault, dude.

I am currently revising "the" Bible to be "marketed" to the sports world! This "version" "recognizes the need" to "translate" the now outdated, "archaic" wording of the obviously outdated, KJB to our "sports idols." Here is a sample:

"Ya, know, that Jesus DUDE really stepped up. He really gave 110 percent."

Any suggestions from the board would be appreciated. I have not obtained copyright on this version as of yet, but I would appreciate if you would cite my name if you cite the above "revised" verse. After all, I am an "expert" in "the Sports English", and "any transmission, rebroadcast, or copyright of this verse without the expressed permission of the 'John M. Expert In Making A Killing By Revising And Writing A New 'the Bible' Version Every Year 2 months Corinthians 2:17 Bible Factory, Incorporated' is prohibited."

Hurry and order now, and I will include "The Readers Digest Condensed Version of the Bible" with you ordering my new and improved "the" Bible!! This order will expire by midnight tonight, or whenever the next "new and improved" version of "the Bible"(or is that "the Bibles"?) is released, whichever comes first! Oh, too late. Another "the Bible" version was just released as I was writing this post.

I am glad sarcasm is a biblical principle.

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

Okay, let's just get this straight. You believe that the KJV translators were inspired and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated from (at least this is what Peter Ruckman believes and from what I can tell you are ardent supporters of him and his doctrine). I believe, on the other hand, that while the KJV translators did an excellent job, to say that they could actually correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts is akin to saying what the pope says is the infallible Word of God. I believe that if any of the translators were to hear that they would greatly disagree. That said, neither of us are going to be convinced that the other is right so I am just going to stop wasting my time with this foolishness. I have much better things to do with my time than to spend it aruing with people that are never going to admit wrong even when it is extremely obvious.

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by tlewis3348

Okay, let's just get this straight. You believe that the KJV translators were inspired and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated from (at least this is what Peter Ruckman believes and from what I can tell you are ardent supporters of him and his doctrine).

Brother, I do not really know what is in the mind of the others who post on this Forum. And my explanations are not "intellectual" or "scholarly." So I simply say that I believe:

"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).

"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).

I do not believe as you said, "the KJV translators were inspired and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated from." Please take the time to read this post.

Personally, I believe God inspired [free from error] His infallible [incapable of error] word by using "holy men of God" that "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," and that throughout the course of time, He has preserved that word by using fallible human beings.

I believe the preservation of His word is not dependent on man's perfection or inspiration, but rather God's. I believe, with simple childlike faith, without requiring any historical or tangible evidence, that God has preserved His word for us through the King James version of the Bible.

As I've said on other threads in this Forum, my "inner man" which is born again and indwelt with the Holy Spirit of promise, bears witness with the words which are contained in the KJB. That's it. That's my shallow, meaningless, puny explanation of "why the King James."

Even as a young Christian, when attempting to read from other versions with a "friendlier" English and more "modern" language, the words, to me, had no power or depth and richness to them. Nobody instructed me that we should read the KJB only. Nobody condemned me for reading another version. It is a choice I made based solely on the leading and direction of the Holy Spirit, operating through the written word of God. That is not based on my carnal feelings or emotions, and it's not spiritual arrogance, or a claim to be better, but rather, it is spiritual discernment, perception, and enlightenment. It is God bearing witness with my spirit. I don't argue, but I do attempt to reason with others.

So come now, let us reason together. Do you believe God is able and has preserved His word the way He intended? If so, which Bible do we have in our possession that is His preserved word?

That's not argumentative. Those are simple and honest questions.

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by tlewis3348

Okay, let's just get this straight. You believe that the KJV translators were inspired and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated from...

I get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you study around the campus and see if you can find out what it really means to "correct the Greek." The idea you're promoting as fact is hardly the case. (You can find the correct view in some threads on this site if you look hard enough!)

[JMWHALEN]

Originally Posted by tlewis3348

Okay, let's just get this straight. You believe that the KJV translators were inspired and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated from (at least this is what Peter Ruckman believes and from what I can tell you are ardent supporters of him and his doctrine). I believe, on the other hand, that while the KJV translators did an excellent job, to say that they could actually correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts is akin to saying what the pope says is the infallible Word of God. I believe that if any of the translators were to hear that they would greatly disagree. That said, neither of us are going to be convinced that the other is right so I am just going to stop wasting my time with this foolishness. I have much better things to do with my time than to spend it aruing with people that are never going to admit wrong even when it is extremely obvious.

____________-
(bold/underline my emphasis)

"You believe that the KJV translators were inspired...."

My comment: I did not say that.



"... and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated :..."


My comment: Again, wrong premise, wrong conclusion.


Your premise, your "supporting walls:
Preservation of God's inspired, infallible word, is dependent on man's ability.



vs.

One of the premises of the bible believers' argument is that the Holy Bible has as its source the LORD God-He wrote it, and is responsible for its preservation(not you, not me, not "scholars/experts with 45 titles before and after their name", not the KJB Translators...................) You/I/we are not to trust other men, including me,and their judgments/ability/power-you will be disappointed time after time. I gave up a long time ago trusting in my heart(it is deceitful and desperately wicked-(Jer. 17:9) and my ability. You are to trust Him, and His ability/power/promise in His word, and this same word, if it is to be believed, and not corrected/doubted, promises preservation without error, and this is dependent on God's ability, God's faithfulness, not man's.




Again, your premise is that the Holy Bible is a work of men. And this faulty, unscriptural premise is how you build your argument/conclusion.



"wasting my time with this foolishness."


My comment:

What is more foolish? Believing on the Holy Bible's own testimony, its witness,the scriptural principle that biblical preservation rests on God's promise and associated power to accomplish it,

or

instead listening to/believing the "lords" that convinced you that the Holy Bible has not been/is not/cannot be preserved without errors-the same ones that talked you out of your faith in the Holy Bible, and convinced you that the LORD God needs mankind's "help"?



"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." Luke 1:1-4



You still seem "uncertain."

Alas-the never ending "Paper Chase"(with a "mind full of mush"-Prof. Kingsfield) for that illusive "the" Bible!

"so I am just going to stop wasting my time"

My comment:


The Lord Jesus Christ many times "walked away" from unbelief, "...Let them alone..."(Mt. 15:14), as it is written

"Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:29-31

"....Neither do I tell..."(Mark 11:33).

"...What I have written I have written."(John 19:22 spiritual application).

In Christ,

John M. whalen

[George]

Originally Posted by tlewis3348

"Okay, let's just get this straight. You believe that the KJV translators were inspired and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated from (at least this is what Peter Ruckman believes and from what I can tell you are ardent supporters of him and his doctrine). I believe, on the other hand, that while the KJV translators did an excellent job, to say that they could actually correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts is akin to saying what the pope says is the infallible Word of God. I believe that if any of the translators were to hear that they would greatly disagree. That said, neither of us are going to be convinced that the other is right so I am just going to stop wasting my time with this foolishness. I have much better things to do with my time than to spend it aruing with people that are never going to admit wrong even when it is extremely obvious."

Aloha tlewis3348,

Here is the "original question" posted by brother Atlas:

"Do we need Greek and Hebrew?

I'll say no, we never need Greek or Hebrew.

I hold to the belief that the KJV is the 100% perfect preserved Word of God, therefore I never need Greek or Hebrew.

If you believe that the KJV is God's preserved Word why do you even need Greek or Hebrew? "

Atlas

What I want to know is - WHO (on this Forum) are you addressing when you say:

"You believe that the KJV translators were inspired and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated from (at least this is what Peter Ruckman believes and from what I can tell you are ardent supporters of him and his doctrine)".

???
WHO is (or are) the "YOU"??? When dealing with an issue it is necessary to identify WHO you are addressing.

I have been on this Forum for nearly 8 months. And in all of that time I have yet to read any Bible believer on this Forum who "believes" what you say we "believe". If you are going to make accusations, you should at least cite the person (or persons) by name and their Post Number (quote them!) so that your accusation can be "verified". Be "specific" - "generalities" are meaningless when it comes to accusing the brethren [Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1] or elders [1 Timothy 5:1, 5:19].

"You believe that the KJV translators were inspired and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated from (at least this is what Peter Ruckman believes and from what I can tell you are ardent supporters of him and his doctrine)".

Tell me - where does Dr. Peter Ruckman state what you claim he believes? Hmmm? We need "documentation" - not unfounded "accusations". {Brother Ruckman is a fellow brother in Christ (and an elder) and as such, should be treated that way. Oh, and by the way, he did earn his doctorate from BJU.}

It never ceases to amaze me, the way that so many American Christians (especially from the "academic" community) have such malice, hatred, and contempt for a fellow Christian who has been of the forefront of defending God's word for nearly 60 years. [1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.] I wonder if there might be just a little bit of "jealousy" and "envy" involved? {Of Course - Only God knows our hearts [1Kings 8:39; 1Chronicles 28:9, 2 Chronicles 6:30]}

I have a suggestion for you: If you are going to engage in a meaningful debate - get your facts straight (cite sources). If you continue to insist in engaging in unsubstantiated hyperbole - don't expect many of us to answer your unfounded accusations.

Relegating all of us as "ardent supporters of him {brother Ruckman} and his doctrine", is a child's game, played around the playground of a "school". Dealing with facts (that can be substantiated) is another matter and is within the purview of men, I mean learned men - not a bunch of novices who are "puffed up" with knowledge and have so little "discernment", "understanding", and "wisdom" that they cannot see the difference between unfounded accusations and facts.

You have stated in previous Posts:

"I believe that a much more logical thing to say is that God's Word has been preserved in the existing manuscripts of the Majority Text."

A review of your Posts reveal that you are not only unfamiliar with the issue of Which Bible; The Internal Evidence; Old Testament History of The Text; New Testament History of The Text; The History of the Transmission of The Text Of The Bible In The Church Age; The Manuscript Evidence; and a Comparison of Versions, but your "preference" for the so-called "Majority Text" (the Hodges-Farstad Text) reveals that you simply don't know what you are talking about. {There is no-such thing as a "Majority Text" since ALL of the manuscripts: GREEK (Papyrus, Uncials, Cursives, & Lectionaries); EARLY TRANSLATIONS (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Georgian, Armenian, Gothic, etc., etc.); and the CHURCH "FATHERS" haven't even been collated (there are 86,000 quotations of the church "fathers" in 16 portfolio volumes {handwritten} put together by Dean John William Burgon that have never even been published - yet!)

How can you have any confidence in a "Text" that has misrepresented itself as the "Majority Text", when the MAJORITY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS have yet to be collated? Hmmm? Clear thinking and a "sound" mind is what is needed in determining this issue - NOT blind adherence to some college professors' theories and private interpretation of the facts.

You have said:

"Therefore, I believe that it can be helpful at times to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to discover different shades of meaning to the words used (many times the English does not have an exact word or phrase to fully describe the Greek or Hebrew word)."

WHICH "Hebrew" or "Greek"? There are several Hebrew "texts" out there - which do you "prefer"? And what about "The Greek"? Which of the 27 "Greek texts" of Nestles do you "prefer"? Or which of the various United Bible Society's (UBS) texts do you "like"? Or have you decided that those "texts" are corrupt and you reject them all? And WHY do you "prefer" the so-called "Majority Text" over the Traditional "Received Text" (the "Textus Receptus")?

You see the mess you can get in when you rely on "scholarship" to decide this issue for you? The question is: WHAT IS YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY? In the end you are going to have to "choose" (at some point) - just exactly what you are going to "rely" on when it comes to living and obeying "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God".

"God's Word has been preserved in the existing manuscripts of the Majority Text."

Sure you can find the word of God (God's words) in and amongst the thousands of manuscripts in existence (most of which are unavailable to you), but Does our God expect us to go rummaging around all of those manuscripts housed in various cities through out the world? Or has He provided us with His Holy word {in a Book that you can hold in your hands} - just exactly as He has Preserved it for us in the King James Bible?

If you continue on the course that you are on, you will never have a "FINAL AUTHORITY", other than your own preferences and private opinions (or those preferences and opinions of your professors).

I have a Book (The King James Bible) that is my FINAL AUTHORITY in ALL matters of faith and practice. This Book has been my guide and comfort for over 50 years. I refuse to trade it in for the opinions and preferences of the scholars. I refuse to substitute "The Greek" (take your pick!) for the English words within my Book. I refuse to use Strong's or Kittel's or any other Concordance or Lexicon to "correct" or "improve" my understanding.

I am endeavoring to live my Christian life according to God's Holy word {The King James Bible -not a bunch of unavailable manuscripts} and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How can you possibly do the same, when you don't know where His Holy word is, or, if it is impossible for you to access it since it is unavailable to you?

Here is the original question that Atlas posed:

"Do we need Greek and Hebrew?"

And the answer is: We did (at one time) along with all of the other materials necessary to produce a Bible Translation.

Do we need the Hebrew and Greek today? NO! God does not require that all believers become scholars, linguists, and translators. God provided the right men at the right time to produce His perfect word - Holy and without error. You couldn't find 50 men throughout the whole of "Christendom" today that could come even close to those learned and pious men {my apologies to brother John Hinton, who I believe is the only man alive who would fill the bill}.

Brother, you're young and you have a lot to learn. You can get a whole lot of knowledge in college (some good - some bad). But spiritual "discernment", "understanding", and "wisdom" come from God - NOT college, books, or men (no matter how much you might admire them). Study the Holy word of God (The King James Bible); seek God's will for your life; and follow:

Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

When you come on to a Forum (any Forum) don't go accusing the brethren (or a brother) and make statements that you cannot back up with verifiable facts - it doesn't reflect well on you, or the school that you're from.

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

I get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you study around the campus and see if you can find out what it really means to "correct the Greek." The idea you're promoting as fact is hardly the case. (You can find the correct view in some threads on this site if you look hard enough!)

Absolutely right! Ruckman has explained this so many times that it's almost monotonous.

He has reasons for what he says, and they make sense. But people simply gasp at the concept - - - "How dare he! Surely he doesn't mean that!" - - - without ever investigating why he says it.

Hint: How many souls have been saved by the preaching of "the originals?"

Another hint: How many of us have "the originals?"

Yet another hint: Are "the originals" arranged in premillenial order?

And, yes, one more hint: Isn't it nice that there are spaces between the letters, words, and sentences of the King James Bible?

By the way, pbiwolski, I'm PBI '89. Nice to meet you!

[bibleprotector]

You believe that the KJV translators were inspired and actually had the ability to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they translated from

The enemies of the King James Bible believers keep accusing us of "KJB inspiration", but it is a false accusation.

Also, the KJB translators were ensuring a correct English Bible, which has nothing to do with "correcting the Hebrew and Greek", they were correcting the English. Of course, the KJB is superior to any of the many editions, manuscripts, portions and quotations of the Hebrew or Greek. This is obvious because there is no single final authority in the originals perfect and set that can be observed today, whereas the King James Bible is indeed fixed, "that it should not be moved".