In the form He wishes us to have

KJV-Only Archive from Jan. 1/2000 to June 30/2000.
Mitex
Registered User
Joined: 22 Dec 1999, 04:10

26 Jun 2000, 05:15 #1

Bro. Steelmaker wrote:
That means,among other things,that he TRUSTS GOD(as do I) to bring us HIS WORD in the form HE wishes us to have.
Would you please expound on this from Scripture? How does one conclude that "God has brought us His word in the form He wishes us to have?" What criteria do we use? Are their Scriptures to support this criteria?
Who makes the determination?
Is it possible for the word of God to be corrupted? If so how do we know? If not, why not?
In other posts you seem to imply that one criteria is readability. Would this exclude Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek for English speakers? Why not?
Your straightforward answers from Scriptures would be greatly appreciated.
In Jesus' Name,
Brent Riggs
[email protected]
http://members.xoom.com/mitexas1/defense.htm
Do you have eternal life? Have you been born again? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so
for whatever reason, I will have no reason or need to respond.






In Jesus' Name,






Brent Riggs




www.preachinginpoland.com




www.preachinginpoland.com/defense.htm


For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13
Reply

Kristi
Registered User
Joined: 23 Apr 1999, 07:38

26 Jun 2000, 12:35 #2

Bro. Steelmaker wrote:
That means,among other things,that he TRUSTS GOD(as do I) to bring us HIS WORD in the form HE wishes us to have.
Would you please expound on this from Scripture? How does one conclude that "God has brought us His word in the form He wishes us to have?" What criteria do we use? Are their Scriptures to support this criteria? Who makes the determination?
Do you disagree that the Scriptures teach that God is sovereign?
s it possible for the word of God to be corrupted? If so how do we know? If not, why not?
Yes, it is possible for God's Word to be corrupted-- mainly by individuals who wrote copies of it who may have either added to or taken away from the manuscripts, or by people who intentionally skewer the translation of the Bible to fit their theological whims. How do we know, you ask-- by the study of textual criticism; in the second case, by comparing the translations to the original langauges.
But please explain to us why you believe the KJV to be immune from any and all errors and how that feat was accomplished-- you would be of the party that claims that the KJV is totally perfect, thus straying from the mainstream, widely accepted Christian position that only the Autographs were compeletey free of error of any sort... so the burden of proof would be upon you.

In other posts you seem to imply that one criteria is readability. Would this exclude Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek for English speakers? Why not?
The way you present this would be applicable to our situation here only if we were all Greek and Hebrew readers. We are talking about English readers and English versions, which have been based upon Hebrew and Greek.
Your straightforward answers from Scriptures would be greatly appreciated.
And I'm still waiting for the day that KJOs (or "Biblical preservationists" --which is nothing more but another term for King James Onlyist) provide the rest of us with straightforward answers and backing from the Scriptures for their view...
~ Kristi.
Response to Southern Baptist Convention Regarding Roles of Women
A Sad Day For Campus Ministry
INQUISITION Discussion Board: Where the Burden of Proof is on the Roman Catholic
Bible Versions Discussion Board
Reply


Mitex
Registered User
Joined: 22 Dec 1999, 04:10

26 Jun 2000, 18:38 #4

Bro. Will Pratt wrote:
Here's a question for you. What would be your reaction to a translation that simply renders the KJV text in modern English, following the TR exactly? Yes, I know that no such translation exists, this is a hypothetical question. What would be your response to such a project?

Brother Will, I have no problem with "updating" the AV, for it has already been "updated" several times in its 350+ year history. In fact, had the committee in 1881 UPDATED the AV instead of "shafting" us with a NEW VERSION we wouldn't be in this great debate today.
Judging by the present situation of the translation debate I see no other recourse but to stick with the "old standard" until Jesus comes. There is just too much "unbelief" for any legitimate updating to take place today. This brought about becase of the dishonesty that took place back in 1881.
Of course any updating that is rejected by the church of God such as the RV 1881 and the ASV 1901 could never be truly seen as "final authority" for the church of the living God. For the word of God is RECEIVED by true believers every where, not just in a corner.
See
http://members.xoom.com/mitexas1/recognize.htm

Hope this helps.
In Jesus' name,
Brent Riggs
[email protected]
Do you have eternal life? Have you been born again? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so
for whatever reason, I will have no reason or need to respond.






In Jesus' Name,






Brent Riggs




www.preachinginpoland.com




www.preachinginpoland.com/defense.htm


For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13
Reply

steelmaker
Registered User
Joined: 16 Jun 2000, 09:14

27 Jun 2000, 02:57 #5

Bro. Steelmaker wrote:
>That means,among other things,that he TRUSTS GOD(as do I) to bring us HIS WORD in the form HE wishes us to have.<
>>Would you please expound on this from Scripture? How does one conclude that "God has brought us His word in the form He wishes us to have?" What criteria do we use? Are their Scriptures to support this criteria?
Who makes the determination?>In other posts you seem to imply that one criteria is readability. Would this exclude Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek for English speakers? Why not?>Your straightforward answers from Scriptures would be greatly appreciated.
"robycop3 - The avowed enemy of ALL man-made doctrines of worship!"
Reply

Mitex
Registered User
Joined: 22 Dec 1999, 04:10

27 Jun 2000, 05:26 #6

D oes the King James Bible do a POLISH-ONLY-speaking audience any good,without an interpreter such as yourself? You said you read the KJB to your Polish congregation,translating it into Polish as you read. Why not read it to them in the language it is written in,same as you hint at my needing Scripture read to me in Greek. Does your reading an English Bible in Polish to a Polish audience have anything to do with "readability"?
Please check your facts. I never said, "I read the KJV to my Polish congregation, translating it into Polish as I read." I have stated repeatedly that I RARELY even preach from the AV any more for the past 15 years I have been in Mexico (10)and Poland (5) preaching in SPANISH and POLISH. When in Mexico I preached from the word of God in Spanish, the Reina Valera 1909, and in Polish the Gdansk 1632.
On of my major contentions against "modern missions" is that amount of "missionaries" that refuse to learn the language of country they are ministering to. It is a crying shame that they speak "English only".
English is not the official language of God any more than Hebrew, Greek or Latin. God did not inspire "original languages" inspite of what some Textual Critics say on this board. God inspired SCRIPTURE!!! Get the difference.
If I have time I'll comment on the rest of your post later. For now this will have to clear up your "facts".
In Jesus' Name,
[email protected]
P.S. Did you read "Recognizing the word of God in any language"?
Do you have eternal life? Have you been born again? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so
for whatever reason, I will have no reason or need to respond.






In Jesus' Name,






Brent Riggs




www.preachinginpoland.com




www.preachinginpoland.com/defense.htm


For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13
Reply

Kristi
Registered User
Joined: 23 Apr 1999, 07:38

27 Jun 2000, 13:14 #7

God did not inspire "original languages" inspite of what some Textual Critics say on this board. God inspired SCRIPTURE!!! Get the difference.
You have twisted our beliefs-- nobody here believes that Hebrew and Greek are "inspired languages," only that those happened to be the languages in which God wrote the Autographs, which were directly inspired by Him-- there is a difference.
(If any non-KJOs or non-"biblical preservationists" have in fact told you that the "original languages were inspired," that is probably not what they meant; they were probably trying to tell you that it was God's Word, (the Scriptures), that was inspired, but that the first time around the languages in which it was done were Hebrew and Greek, not that those languages in and of themselves are 'inspired').

~ Kristi.
Response to Southern Baptist Convention Regarding Roles of Women
A Sad Day For Campus Ministry
INQUISITION Discussion Board: Where the Burden of Proof is on the Roman Catholic
Bible Versions Discussion Board
Reply

steelmaker
Registered User
Joined: 16 Jun 2000, 09:14

27 Jun 2000, 14:06 #8

Like Barry Sanders eluding a tackler,you sidestepped the answer to the "readability" question you asked me. I'll now expound a little further on it.
I stated that having the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures read to me or presented in written form would do me no good,as I don't know those languages.But,as Jesus gave His word to His penmen over the years,they were in the language of those penmen,weren't they? Otherwise,how could they have known them and written them?
Neither I nor anyone else here ever proclaimed any language as the "official" language of Scripture. But for man to communicate to man,it must be in the form of language.Jesus,being God,can communicate by telepathy or in any form He chooses. But mere man must use language.Jesus communicated His word to man,and man passed it on to man through man,s only means of communication-the language or languages those particular men used. All this is under the auspices of Jesus,Who created all languages,and Who sees to it that His word is preserved forever as He said,and is made readily available for man's perusal,not hidden away in a corner,as He said. And that word is not confined in English to just the one archaic-language 400-year-old version any more than it is confined to just the Greek,Hebrew,and Aramaic manuscripts.
To finalize the answer to your question-No,it would not do me nor any other English-only user any good to have the original manuscripts,or even the Autographs if they were found,before us,as we can't read them. Paul stated it did no good for the congregation if someone was speaking in a strange tongue in church if no one was present to INTERPRET that tongue.
"robycop3 - The avowed enemy of ALL man-made doctrines of worship!"
Reply

steelmaker
Registered User
Joined: 16 Jun 2000, 09:14

27 Jun 2000, 14:40 #9

Bro. Brent would do well to remember that Scripture usually speaks for itself without giving direct answers to pointed,narrow-field questions. Jesus said through Paul that His word is not hidden away in a corner. One of the themes found in all Scripture is that it is to be read and obeyed. Jesus showed the POWER of Scripture when He resisted the devil's tempting Him by answering,"It is written...It is written,...It is written..." when He easily could have said,"I an God-I created you. How dare you tempt me? Begone,father of evil!" He finally DID order Satan to leave-but only after countering him with the WRITTEN WORD.
On that explanation alone,one should trust Jesus not to allow His word to be corrupted to where His written messages to man are changed. Having that word in MY language is CERTAINLY not corrupting it.
"robycop3 - The avowed enemy of ALL man-made doctrines of worship!"
Reply

Kristi
Registered User
Joined: 23 Apr 1999, 07:38

27 Jun 2000, 15:54 #10

I certainly agree that KJOism cannot be found in the Scriptures-- it can be found only in the minds of some Independent Baptists and their KJO tracts and webpages.
Re: corruption.
I was thinking in terms of texts and manuscripts... If one regards variants and misspellings in them as being "corruptions," I am willing to conceed that yes, the Scriptures in that sense do contian "corruption," but these corruptions are weeded out in the final form of our Scriptures by way of textual criticism.
If, however, Brent was trying to say (as some KJOs do) that individuals willingly inserted or removed words/phrases with the intent of distorting the Written Word, that is altogether another matter-- but I believe that those sorts of "corruptions" can be weeded out thru text crit as well.
Don't let Brent shove the burden of proof on to you, which is precisely what he is doing.
In other words, it is he who would claim that the KJV is God's Only Perfectly Preserved Word in English, so he should be willing to provide us with a.) Scripture
b.) proof and/or
c.) reasons
as to why we should accept that premise, not that we should have to sit here and provide him with Scripture, proof, and /or reasons as to where, how, and why God's Word was preserved. (He wants to believe in a fantasy that is was preserved in this one book --one that did not come into existence until 1611, and KJOs such as him use the 1769 --or is it 1789 version, I always forget that which digit, 6 or 8-- but snicker at our view that God's Word can be found in other versions as well.)
--I sometimes toss out this information anyway, but KJOs and BPers ("biblical preservationists") such as him are never happy with it and proceed to refer to the Alexandrian mss as being "trash" or they imply that I am not a "real" Christian, etc. etc.
He and some other KJOs appeal to verses such as the one in Pslams 12: 3-7...
For a rebuttal to the reasoning and use of this passage by KJOers in arguments about preservation, take a look at this article by James White about Thomas Holland's review of his book:
White's Response to Holland. The specific part about Psalms 12:3-7 is about half way down the page and is under the sub heading "False Information".
Reply