-
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.
J
As soon as you look at the binding of an NASB, you lose 30 IQ points. Open it, you're on the road to perdition. Caught with a Good News Bible? Already stuck in Satan's throat. This is not to say I don't also prefer the KJV, but I'm just hoping that, 44 pages into this thread, after a few hundred more pages, some people may tire of bickering and scholarly pretenses, and start to apply some of that scripture. Hope springs eternal.
If your bible has a triquetra on the front cover and you believe that's a symbol for the Holy Spirit... then your just plain biblically illiterate. When you read your bible and it say's a son of the gods was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and you keep reading that bible... then you have proven that you are biblically illiterate and you really have no clue what life in this world is all about.
I've dealt with these points earlier on - here, particularly in regards to whether the church fathers were worried about having to deal with multiple manuscripts and your specific and highly idiosyncratic exegesis of passages about the word of the Lord
here for a similar discussion about the use of the word 'perfect', and the difference between infallible inspiration and infallible transmission, and why taking this position is not a case of Bible agnosticism.
here for a discussion of the state of the Greek MSS in particular, and why your particular position of of infallible transmission does not account for the state of the Greek MSS
You haven't really engaged with any of those three posts as yet, yet you keep repeating essentially the same point - people who don't believe in the KJV don't really believe in the Bible (not true), that somehow the Bible's statements about the word of God being perfect and eternal must apply to the specific manuscript copies of the autograph writings of the apostles and prophets recorded under inspiration (not true), and that if you don't have a 100% verbatim trust in a particular edition of the Scriptures (in this case, the KJV), then one's faith in general is completely untenable (not true).
I don't understand why you keep posting the same things and expect something different from us. We've given you replies, go ahead and read them, and then actually engage with the points therein, instead of recycling the same old empty rhetoric.
here for a similar discussion about the use of the word 'perfect', and the difference between infallible inspiration and infallible transmission, and why taking this position is not a case of Bible agnosticism.
here for a discussion of the state of the Greek MSS in particular, and why your particular position of of infallible transmission does not account for the state of the Greek MSS
You haven't really engaged with any of those three posts as yet, yet you keep repeating essentially the same point - people who don't believe in the KJV don't really believe in the Bible (not true), that somehow the Bible's statements about the word of God being perfect and eternal must apply to the specific manuscript copies of the autograph writings of the apostles and prophets recorded under inspiration (not true), and that if you don't have a 100% verbatim trust in a particular edition of the Scriptures (in this case, the KJV), then one's faith in general is completely untenable (not true).
I don't understand why you keep posting the same things and expect something different from us. We've given you replies, go ahead and read them, and then actually engage with the points therein, instead of recycling the same old empty rhetoric.
K
No. I threw my NIV away cause it had flaws- but so does every translation. I knew where everything was in there because of highlights, drawings, stickers, and side notes. Reading many translations helps me understand the mind frame of those who don't understand it quite right- which represents millions out there thinking the same way, and unless I understand where they are how can I lead them back to truth? And some people only use a certain translation, and I was still able to prove in their own translation how they were in a false religion. If you are a deep studier and/or evangelize I would keep all the translations.
First, I have no interest in debating manuscripts. It is a childish excercise in my opinion because you could be arguing over manuscripts that could have been corrupted. Unless of course you can prove they are divine. For all real debates should use Scripture to back up their position (like I have done). Second, changing the details in God's instruction manual makes it a completely different instruction manual or written agreement between God and His people. How would you like it if someone kept changing the details on your mortage or rental agreement for the worse and not for the better? Third, you have no nailed down Word of God. It is like this floating whatever you want it to be type of Word of God. It is fuzzy. Confusing. No final word of authority but what you make it out to be with a choose your own definition in the Hebrew and the Greek within a Lexicon type Bible. That's the problem. No real nailed down agreement that is obvious to everyone. It's muddy. A mess. All over the place. Not sure. Not solid. Not perfect. Not divine in it's creation. Not all Scripture is under inspiration in this case.
Last edited:
Then read the exegetical parts of my posting. In particular, that in virtually every case the Bible talks about the Word of God, it is talking about his precepts, his commands, his Word as an expression of his will. Very few are talking about the written Word/the Scriptures, and even then it is never making a statement to the effect your argument requires, vis 'God has guaranteed a copy of the original inspired writings that is accessible and 100% accurate for all time'.
Even if he did, you still need to respond to this question that I added in one of my posts, which I will post again here:
But you ARE debating manuscripts. You're just debating a single one (the English KJV 1611 version). I'm interested in the other 1600 odd years of the NT.
And it is not a question of IF the manuscripts have been corrupted. They ALL have - no two manuscripts of the NT are 100% identical. Now, most of the differences are non translatable, but that still doesn't meet your criteria. This is precisely why the TR (and for that matter, every critical text) exists - otherwise they would have just found the one inerrant manuscript and copied that verbatim.
It is not a matter of changing God's word. It is discerning what the correct instruction manual is. If I gave you two manuals (or, for that matter, over 5000), you would want to know which one was from the original manufacturer, correct? The problem is not changing the manual, it is changing what your IDEA of the correct manual is.
For that matter, I personally think your analogy would work better if it also added that most of the different manuals are only different in whether they punctuate correctly, and the most distinctive changes are about whether you should call the international or local line for warranty inquiries. You still have the exact same bookshelf at the end of it all.
It's only confusing for people like you, who dissemble at the mere thought that the KJV is not the verbatim and only standard for the Scriptures. Most people don't have a problem, and doctrinally, the most 'bewildering' part is based on whether or not we're allowed to handle snakes or not (which is exegetically wrong anyway, but I digress). For that matter, can I just say now - looking up a lexicon as the sole way to understand Greek is just as bad as only using a dictionary to understand an encyclopedia. We can agree on that. The context of the language is important. At this point, you're simply arguing a straw man.
But, finally, if your standard really is a SINGLE, and VERBATIM, and 100% for all time NAILED DOWN version of the Scriptures, I can't understand why you are anti-textual criticism. The whole point of the exercise is to find the correct authoritative text, from the earliest possible time. Your approach essentially argues that it's better to give SOMETHING, ANYTHING a 100% exclusive and authoritative status than to actually discern the original text. Theoretical certainty is better than actual truth, is what you're arguing, and so anything else is inferior because it is less certain (on whatever minuscule grounds), not because it is less true. I couldn't disagree more.
Even if he did, you still need to respond to this question that I added in one of my posts, which I will post again here:
But you ARE debating manuscripts. You're just debating a single one (the English KJV 1611 version). I'm interested in the other 1600 odd years of the NT.
And it is not a question of IF the manuscripts have been corrupted. They ALL have - no two manuscripts of the NT are 100% identical. Now, most of the differences are non translatable, but that still doesn't meet your criteria. This is precisely why the TR (and for that matter, every critical text) exists - otherwise they would have just found the one inerrant manuscript and copied that verbatim.
It is not a matter of changing God's word. It is discerning what the correct instruction manual is. If I gave you two manuals (or, for that matter, over 5000), you would want to know which one was from the original manufacturer, correct? The problem is not changing the manual, it is changing what your IDEA of the correct manual is.
For that matter, I personally think your analogy would work better if it also added that most of the different manuals are only different in whether they punctuate correctly, and the most distinctive changes are about whether you should call the international or local line for warranty inquiries. You still have the exact same bookshelf at the end of it all.
It's only confusing for people like you, who dissemble at the mere thought that the KJV is not the verbatim and only standard for the Scriptures. Most people don't have a problem, and doctrinally, the most 'bewildering' part is based on whether or not we're allowed to handle snakes or not (which is exegetically wrong anyway, but I digress). For that matter, can I just say now - looking up a lexicon as the sole way to understand Greek is just as bad as only using a dictionary to understand an encyclopedia. We can agree on that. The context of the language is important. At this point, you're simply arguing a straw man.
But, finally, if your standard really is a SINGLE, and VERBATIM, and 100% for all time NAILED DOWN version of the Scriptures, I can't understand why you are anti-textual criticism. The whole point of the exercise is to find the correct authoritative text, from the earliest possible time. Your approach essentially argues that it's better to give SOMETHING, ANYTHING a 100% exclusive and authoritative status than to actually discern the original text. Theoretical certainty is better than actual truth, is what you're arguing, and so anything else is inferior because it is less certain (on whatever minuscule grounds), not because it is less true. I couldn't disagree more.
Last edited:
You do not have a perfect Word of God (As the Scriptures state). I do. Therein lies the difference. The disciples received the Word not as the words of men but as the very words of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13). You don't believe that truth applies to us today. However, God does not change. He is not respector of persons. He provided His Word back then, and He provides His Word for us today. Not as the words of men but as the very words of God. You don't believe that.
Last edited:
I don't read the entirety of a person's post if they are talking gibberish or none sense (That can't be backed up by God's Word). I will only read a person's post if they are using Scripture to back up what they are saying. You are not doing that. Show me where you believe God's Word is perfect. Am I wrong? I don't think you believe that. But the Bible does say it is perfect, though.
From your limited carnal view it is not perfect. You don't want there to be a true Word of God and so you see what you want to see. I believe God's Word is perfect because that is what it says. I take that by faith and I am awarded with the spiritual understanding by the Spirit. So I see no contradiction whatsoever in the passages you have brought up. The Bible explains itself with cross referennces very clearly.
What errors? Don't see any errors in it. You are seeing things from a natural man's perspective like the aheist or agnostic who is in doubt of God's Word. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. The Bible is not a "Choose Your Own Adventure Type Book." It is either the perfect Word of God whereby you believe all of it, or you don't believe it. There is no grey area. God is good. God is faithful to His promises in keeping His Word for us today.
if a person wants to use the Daniel 3:25 test, that's fine with me... I say have a blessed day, and may we meet up again... if a person says the kjv is clearly the best translation, then we have something to talk about... the lxx doesn't pass the test, from what i can find online... the nt writers use the lxx a lot... and it seems to be what was handed to Jesus at Nazareth...
you may be interested in checking out the Luke 4 / Isaiah 61 situation i was talking to Jason about... the short version is luke says something is in Isaiah that isn't there...
you may be interested in checking out the Luke 4 / Isaiah 61 situation i was talking to Jason about... the short version is luke says something is in Isaiah that isn't there...
if you're saying that you've simply chosen to believe that KJV is God's perfect bible, then I say blessings upon you... if you want to talk about reasons for that choice, someone else may well say they have better reasons for a different choice... then there is usually a comparing of reasons... but really, if you just want to make a statement of faith, then I say may the Lord be with you!