Inspiration of Scriptures

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,760
113
Before you will care about words or verses in the NT, you should care why you have Jewish OT used neither by Christ, nor by apostles, nor by the first church.
If you are claiming that Christ, His apostles, and the early Church were using the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Tanakh, THAT IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE. The Letter of Aristeas (which explains the origin of the Septuagint) has been recognized by all scholars as a hoax, a fraud, and a fabrication.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
If you are claiming that Christ, His apostles, and the early Church were using the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Tanakh, THAT IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE. The Letter of Aristeas (which explains the origin of the Septuagint) has been recognized by all scholars as a hoax, a fraud, and a fabrication.
Just check the quotations of the OT by Christ and apostles with your OT and then with the Septuagint.

It cannot be more simple than that.

----

Jewish Tanakh diverted in so many places it cannot be even listed, almost every sentence is different somehow.

So, when you use so inconsistent Bible print, its quite strange that you attack some versions of NT and call them "corrupted" just because it has some words different, not changing any key meaning.
 
Last edited:

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,537
3,502
113
Perhaps you appeal to the "common sense" that leads Americans to support abortion, reject prayer, and throw God out of every federal institution except coinage? That common sense?
This didn't start happening until the KJV starting to be rejected and "new and up to date" versions starting popping out. Just saying...
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,537
3,502
113
I don't know of any Bible version that claims to be the standard version.
Why don't pastors all over tell their congregations this? "The bible I'm using this morning is not the word of God. It does contains errors and cannot completely be trusted. That being said, I'm going to preach from it anyway and see if we can find some sort of truth for us this morning"
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113


Fair point; I pay so little attention to the words in the various version titles that this did not occur to me. I just refer to them by their initials most of the time. Still, I don't think any of the publishers honestly believes that their work is a "standard" in the sense that you try to claim for the KJV.


There is no need to continue with wilful ignorance about this matter. There have been dozens of posts showing how and why the critical texts OMIT (1) whole passages, (2) whole verses, (3) phrases, and (4) words. And if you still have not read and studied The Revision Revised then that would indeed be wilful ignorance. There are literally THOUSANDS of omissions in the critical text merely based on primarily two corrupt manuscripts, but generally a handful of corrupt manuscripts -- Aleph A B C D.
This line of reasoning has been refuted almost as many times as you've claimed it. You simply cannot make the case that words, etc. have been "omitted" simply because they appear in the KJV but not in certain newer translations. The logic is flawed. Repeating it doesn't make it sound. You must compare both to an objective standard, which is the body of available manuscripts.

Have you read and studied The King James Only Controversy? I suspect not, given the response you posted the last time I suggested it. I wonder why you think your recommendation carries more weight than mine.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
This didn't start happening until the KJV starting to be rejected and "new and up to date" versions starting popping out. Just saying...
Correlation does not equal causation.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,760
113
I wonder why you think your recommendation carries more weight than mine.
Here's the reason why my recommendation carries more weight. James White has been a professor of Greek systematic theology but he is NOT a textual scholar who has spent his life examining the Greek manuscripts and collating them to determine their worth.

On the other hand both John W. Burgon and Frederick H. A. Scrivener were actual textual scholars, wrote prolifically on textual issues, published several books on textual issues, and were recognized as textual scholars equal to (if not more than equal to) Westcott & Hort. Scrivener wrote the text book on textual criticism, and if he categorically rejected the Greek text of W&H, that should tell you something.

Furthermore all the critical texts since 1881 are simply reproductions of that published by W&H (perhaps with slight changes), and all modern versions (bar none) base their translations on these critical texts. So if James White is promoting modern versions while scoffing at the Received Text and the King James Bible, why should any Christian even listen to him? He does not know the actual manuscripts first-hand, but slavishly follows the modern textual critics, who slavishly follow Westcott & Hort.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
Here's the reason why my recommendation carries more weight. James White has been a professor of Greek systematic theology but he is NOT a textual scholar who has spent his life examining the Greek manuscripts and collating them to determine their worth.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I am under no obligation to accept it. White is presently working on his second Ph.D. focusing on one of the important manuscripts. If you took the time, you would learn that he has done extensive work in this area.

So if James White is promoting modern versions while scoffing at the Received Text and the King James Bible, why should any Christian even listen to him? He does not know the actual manuscripts first-hand, but slavishly follows the modern textual critics, who slavishly follow Westcott & Hort.
"IF"... well, since you have thus far refused to read his book, how would you know? As long as you base your opinion of him on the criticisms written by other people, how do your comments have any merit at all? Kindly obtain some intellectual integrity and read his book for yourself.

How about this: you read White (2nd edition), I'll read Burgon. In a few months, once we've both had time to read and digest, we'll discuss this again. Until then, we don't repeat the recommendations in response to each other's posts, and we don't denigrate each other's positions on this matter. Agreed?
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,992
927
113
How about this: you read White (2nd edition), I'll read Burgon. In a few months, once we've both had time to read and digest, we'll discuss this again. Until then, we don't repeat the recommendations in response to each other's posts, and we don't denigrate each other's positions on this matter. Agreed?
Are there available book online of White's edition? The e-book is just an introductory...

Thanks
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,760
113
"IF"... well, since you have thus far refused to read his book, how would you know? As long as you base your opinion of him on the criticisms written by other people, how do your comments have any merit at all? Kindly obtain some intellectual integrity and read his book for yourself.
Why would anyone waste their time on James White's book when there are numerous critiques available and they all show that his book is seriously defective? Here are some quotation from one of the most detailed critiques.

Quotations from The Whitewash Conspiracy by Alan James O’Reilly

James White’s book The King James Only Controversy, Bethany House Publishers, 1995, ISBN 1-55661-575-2 has been available for over a decade. It was introduced to this author as ‘proof’ that ‘the KJV adds to the word of God.’ I have since carried out a detailed review of James White’s book and this work is the result of that study. The length of the study, threefold that of White’s book, would probably strike the reader first.

· I have sought to provide a specific answer to every criticism that White makes of the 1611 Authorized King James English Holy Bible, AV1611.

· I have sought to bring to bear in summary form as many resources as possible with respect to authors who have already addressed White’s criticisms of the 1611 English Bible. (p iv)

James White is his own final authority. Nowhere in his book does James White specify what is the word of God, consisting of the words of God, and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, between two covers and where the members of the Body of Christ can find it. It is abundantly clear from his book that he doesn’t believe the AV1611 to be such. However, he betrays his own selfmade approach to final authority in such statements as these, my underlinings. (p vi)

James White has played down evidence, e.g. that of Rev J. A. Moorman – see above, that conflicts with or refutes White’s notion of what is or is not scripture, e.g. with respect to John 7:53-8:11. (p viii)

James White has ignored the works of genuine textual scholars such as Dr Hills and Dean Burgon, because their conclusions based on exceptionally thorough, indeed exhaustive studies of textual evidence disagreed with his own opinion about what is or is not scripture, even though White had access to their works and even listed some of them in his bibliography. (p viii)

Summary


This book by James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Phoenix, Arizona, attempts to show that believing the Authorised 1611 King James Bible to be the pure words of God and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, is wrong, because:

· There is no ‘conspiracy’ behind the modern versions against the AV1611

· The Greek texts underlying the modern translations have not been corrupted

· Modern scholarship that compiled these texts is entirely trustworthy

· The AV1611 is the result of human effort and contains errors

· The modern translations often yield superior readings to the AV1611

· The modern translations do not attack the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This review will show that White is wrong in all six of the above respects and that his book is an exercise in dissimulation from start to finish. (p. 1)
 
Last edited:

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Generally, if you are interested in some topic, its never good to listen only to one side.

You should watch some debates about the kjv only, at least. There is a huge one on John Ackenberg youtube channel.

Or James White vs Steve Anderson and many others.

----

But in the end of the day, you should read the NT yourself.

a) There is nothing against deity or lordship of Christ in critical version of the New Testament. The simple fact that there is not as many full titles as in the Textus Receptus is not "against" anything.

b) Even though the Textus Receptus is not the best text available and is full of various scribal additions, it will not lead you astray and you can be a full Christian while reading it.


The main problem is with the Old Testament. There are changes that are really huge.
 

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
David said in Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. It is reasonable to suppose that since God wants us to be saved that one of the most important things he would do is preserve His word as an authority and a guide to those that want to discover the ways of salvation. It doesn't matter so much what anyone's opinions are the bottom line is what does the word of God say. Rom 10 says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If there was no inspired word of God then there would be no faith.
Psalm 12:1. Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4. Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5. For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. (KJV)

In vv. 3-4, the LORD promises to “cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things….” In v. 5, the LORD promises to arise for the poor and needy, and to set them in safety. In v. 6., the truth and reliability of the promise is guaranteed by the fact that the “words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” In verse 7, the LORD promises to preserve the poor and needy from the perverse generation described in vv. 3-4.” This verse says absolutely nothing about the Bible and the preservation of it.

The antecedent of the pronoun “them” in v. 7 is NOT “the words of the Lord,” but the oppressed “poor” in verse 5. That the oppressed “poor” in verse 5 is the correct antecedent of the pronoun “them” in v. 7 is proven by the last part of v. 7, “shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Psalm 12 is a Hebrew poem, and the technical structure of it has been explained in several technical commentaries on the Hebrew text of the Psalms—and there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that v. 7 promises the preservation of the afflicted poor and needy. The NRSV translates the last part of the poem as a promise to us:

Psalms 12:7 You, O Lord, will protect us;
you will guard us from this generation forever.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,992
927
113
Why would anyone waste their time on James White's book when there are numerous critiques available and they all show that his book is seriously defective? Here are some quotation from one of the most detailed critiques.

Quotations from The Whitewash Conspiracy by Alan James O’Reilly

James White’s book The King James Only Controversy, Bethany House Publishers, 1995, ISBN 1-55661-575-2 has been available for over a decade. It was introduced to this author as ‘proof’ that ‘the KJV adds to the word of God.’ I have since carried out a detailed review of James White’s book and this work is the result of that study. The length of the study, threefold that of White’s book, would probably strike the reader first.

· I have sought to provide a specific answer to every criticism that White makes of the 1611 Authorized King James English Holy Bible, AV1611.

· I have sought to bring to bear in summary form as many resources as possible with respect to authors who have already addressed White’s criticisms of the 1611 English Bible. (p iv)

James White is his own final authority. Nowhere in his book does James White specify what is the word of God, consisting of the words of God, and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, between two covers and where the members of the Body of Christ can find it. It is abundantly clear from his book that he doesn’t believe the AV1611 to be such. However, he betrays his own selfmade approach to final authority in such statements as these, my underlinings. (p vi)

James White has played down evidence, e.g. that of Rev J. A. Moorman – see above, that conflicts with or refutes White’s notion of what is or is not scripture, e.g. with respect to John 7:53-8:11. (p viii)

James White has ignored the works of genuine textual scholars such as Dr Hills and Dean Burgon, because their conclusions based on exceptionally thorough, indeed exhaustive studies of textual evidence disagreed with his own opinion about what is or is not scripture, even though White had access to their works and even listed some of them in his bibliography. (p viii)

Summary


This book by James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Phoenix, Arizona, attempts to show that believing the Authorised 1611 King James Bible to be the pure words of God and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, is wrong, because:

· There is no ‘conspiracy’ behind the modern versions against the AV1611

· The Greek texts underlying the modern translations have not been corrupted

· Modern scholarship that compiled these texts is entirely trustworthy

· The AV1611 is the result of human effort and contains errors

· The modern translations often yield superior readings to the AV1611

· The modern translations do not attack the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This review will show that White is wrong in all six of the above respects and that his book is an exercise in dissimulation from start to finish. (p. 1)
O i like reading Allan James O Reilly "O Biblios" they are more of the refutation of many todays questions on the KJV issue. Thumbs up for this one. Yep on Dr. Hills and JA Moorman and Floyd Nolen Jones. The lists are many...

God bless
 
Oct 6, 2017
104
12
18
Well I guess if what all you guys are saying and My KJV isn't inspired, preserved, and without error, I should forsake my Christianity, because without the preserved word of God its all vanity!
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Well I guess if what all you guys are saying and My KJV isn't inspired, preserved, and without error, I should forsake my Christianity, because without the preserved word of God its all vanity!
If you have a relationship with your Savior, there is no need for such idolatry about the Bible.

Our faith is based in God and Christ, not in a book. Bible is only a help for us.
 

Joseppi

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2018
887
7
18
Psalm 12:1. Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4. Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5. For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. (KJV)
In v. 5, the LORD promises to arise for the poor and needy, and to set them in safety.
You changed what is written to "them."
It is "him" that is saved from "him that puffeth at him."

In v. 6., the truth and reliability of the promise is guaranteed by the fact that the “words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”
The words of the Lord" are pure, as compared to the vain and flattering words of the puffer that speaks out of a double heart.
The double hearted is the double minded puffer who's eye is not single.


the antecedent of the pronoun "them" in v.7 is NOT "the words of the Lord," but the oppressed "poor" in verse 5
Note: Your conckusion is proven false by noting that the "puffer," the "flatterer," the "poor" and "needy" are all SINGULAR and NOT PLURAL as you so conveniently disregsrded and changed to "them" to suit your spin.
What is plural that "them" refers to is "the words of the Lord."

You probably have no clue that the words of the Lord were literally tried in a furnace of earth seven times when the Holy Bible was translated according to the dictates of King James, the first king of all english speaking people at the time.
For behold, the furnace of earth the Lord is referring to is the heart of man. And there were six committees, each of the members of which read all the words of all other members.
And then the seventh committee read and judged all the words judged of the others, thus all the words of the Holy Bible passed seven judgments obtained in the firey hearts of the Holy Ghost filled members.
 
Oct 6, 2017
104
12
18
If you have a relationship with your Savior, there is no need for such idolatry about the Bible.

Our faith is based in God and Christ, not in a book. Bible is only a help for us.
WOW !!!
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Sir, you could not be more wrong! Jesus Christ is equated to the Word, it is far more than just a book, until you come to understand the relationship between God's Holy Word, Jesus Christ, and man you will never understand this debate or why satin continues to corrupt God's Word. It began in the garden(Gen.3:1), and is continuing today 2018 as we have seen here.
 

Joseppi

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2018
887
7
18
If you have a relationship with your Savior, there is no need for such idolatry about the Bible.

Our faith is based in God and Christ, not in a book. Bible is only a help for us.
Without faith in the words of God no man can know the Lord Jesus Christ as you pretense they can.

The scripture teaches us that...
Man shall live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Without the pure words of Jesus, therefore, there is no eternal life in any man.

And Jesus said, my words ate spirit and they are life.

The scriptures can't be broken and therefore your implication of not needing the words of God is a lie.

And your accusation of idolatry, as though men worship the pure words of God apart from having a true relationship with God, is false.

You also notably fail to identify where the pure words of the Lord are to be found.

Keep in mind that the pure words of Lord are preserved and kept for the "poor" and "needy" on the earth for ever.

On earth the Holy Bible is that repository of the Lord's words.

Apparently the believers in many bible versions are doubleminded thinkers seeking hither and yon for the written words of God.

They think that the words of the Lord existed once upon a time. And their only hope is in the unauthorized translation work of other men who doubt as they do.
Strangely, they don't expect God to help them even now.