Why this confusion over doctrine?

[stranger]

Actually, that is not what I had in mind. Some KJV onlyists, not you, believe that it was written in English. My point is that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, so to disregard those manuscripts in favor of any one English translation is just foolhardy.

Free,

Try the not often talked about doctrine that the KJV /AV translation was inspired afresh - hence it is the pure word of God. Can anyone verify that such a belief circulates amongst KJ advocates?

I too believe that the Greek and Hebrew (autograph) manuscripts were inspired.

 

[AVBunyan]

Try the not often talked about doctrine that the KJV /AV translation was inspired afresh - hence it is the pure word of God. Can anyone verify that such a belief circulates amongst KJ advocates?

Again - I believe the King James Bible is scripture and thus according to II Tim. 3:16, 17 I believe the King James Bible I hold in my hands to be inspired scripture without error (Yes, I understand typos, publishers taking liberties, etc.).

I do not believe the KJV transtranslators were inspired men but what God had them put down in 1611 was inspired and I have it in my hands right now in an AV that can be had for o$5.95 from Wal-Mart.

God bless

 

[stranger]

Again - I believe the King James Bible is scripture and thus according to II Tim. 3:16, 17 I believe the King James Bible I hold in my hands to be inspired scripture without error (Yes, I understand typos, publishers taking liberties, etc.).

I do not believe the KJV transtranslators were inspired men but what God had them put down in 1611 was inspired and I have it in my hands right now in an AV that can be had for o$5.95 from Wal-Mart.

God bless

Hi AVBunyan,

If you said you believed that the KJV /AV was a better translation than eg the NASB or NIV or RSV it would not bother me. Advocates of each translation could conceivably say the same thing. Furthermore, while translations have their weaknesses and strengths some are better than others. Even if on this scale the KJV was the best that would not be a point of contention with me.

But the existence of an 'extra' doctrine - call it double inspiration or corrected manuscript (?) - found it seems amongst some KJV /AV advocates states that the English translation writing was inspired (not that the writers were inspired?!). Transparency not secrecy is always preferable in doctrinal matters - at least then doctrine can be tested.

 

[AVBunyan]

But the existence of an 'extra' doctrine - call it double inspiration

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Food for thought..

1. Where does it say anywhere that only the originals are inspired?
2. Did Timothy have the scriptures in vs. 15?
3. Were they the originals or copies?
4. Were they inspired according to vs. 16?
5. When Jesus read from the scriptures were they the originals?
6. Were they inspired?
7. Regarding double inspiration - How do you explain the "added" words in Jer. 36?

God bless

 

[stranger]

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Food for thought..

1. Where does it say anywhere that only the originals are inspired?
2. Did Timothy have the scriptures in vs. 15?
3. Were they the originals or copies?
4. Were they inspired according to vs. 16?
5. When Jesus read from the scriptures were they the originals?
6. Were they inspired?
7. Regarding double inspiration - How do you explain the "added" words in Jer. 36?

God bless

Hi AV,

I'm not disputing the inspiration nor preservation of scripture, nor the fact that copies are inspired, nor that God gave Jeremiah the words that were distroyed when a scroll was burnt - or that Jeremiah knew them by heart.(?).

My concerns are doctrines that only apply to the KJ/A versions.

I have heard claims by some about eg 'corrected manuscript' where the English KJV is the restored word of God and is better than the manuscripts (NT from Erasmus' complied text) from which they were translated. The more I look into this the more cultic it seems. Please don't take offence at that - thats how I see it. Keep well.

 

[protos]

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Food for thought..

1. Where does it say anywhere that only the originals are inspired?
2. Did Timothy have the scriptures in vs. 15?
3. Were they the originals or copies?
4. Were they inspired according to vs. 16?
5. When Jesus read from the scriptures were they the originals?
6. Were they inspired?
7. Regarding double inspiration - How do you explain the "added" words in Jer. 36?

God bless

1. Well, due to 2 Timothy 3:16 we would have to have at least the originals inspired. Regarding inspired translations, this has yet to be shown as so. The KJV has numerous errors not only typos, but additions, and possibly omissions from the original text. Mark 16:9-20 is nowhere to be found in the earliest, most reliable manuscripts. Acts 8:37 is also an addition by a later author, so until a translation/copy with no errors is found, the conclusion is that only the originals were.

2. 2 Timothy 3:16 is not a direct reference to the Scriptures that were read in infancy in 2 Timothy 3:15. It's simply the statement that the copies read were reliable, and since the originals were inspired, they were true.

3. Copies
4. Not according to 16, but it doesn't deny it, yet this in no way implies that copies are inspired.
5. Same for #2
6. No, yet even if they were the shoddiest copies He wouldn't have needed them
7. Double inspiration is in no way illogical, especially when it is of purely historical value. Theological insight would be nice as well, especially if the Bible had eliminated the need for applying systematic theology to biblical by shedding light on some subjects.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Well, due to 2 Timothy 3:16 we would have to have at least the originals inspired.
2. Regarding inspired translations, this has yet to be shown as so.
3. The KJV has numerous errors not only typos, but additions, and possibly omissions from the original text. Mark 16:9-20 is nowhere to be found in the earliest, most reliable manuscripts. Acts 8:37 is also an addition by a later author,
4. So until a translation/copy with no errors is found, the conclusion is that only the originals were.

Greetings Protos – Due to time constraints and other circumstances I will not be able to carry on a lengthy “chat†regarding this issue. You may want to search out my threads/posts regarding the KJV issue so as not to go over ground already covered. Though I do not know your complete stand on this issue it “appears†you are in agreement with the majority of “Christianity†(lost, saved, and apostate) and the world here in that you believe the KJV may be reliable but full of errors and inconsistencies. Now regarding your points above:

1. You still never should me where inspiration being applied to copies is unscriptural. Jesus read from a copy of the scriptures (He called them scripture) - were they inspired scripture or not?
Timothy had the scriptures – they were called scriptures (vs. 16) – were they inspired or not?

2. Again – you and many others have to show that inspired copies are contrary to scripture so…I am safe in this stand.

3. Here we go again – The information you have been given here is in error – you are being loyal to the “party lineâ€Â. You are following the Origen/Wescott/Hort line of thinking. Please review the works of Dean Burgon, Dr. Edward F. Hills, and yes, Dr. Ruckman, for starters – for they have covered these wore out arguments years ago – as far back as 1881.

4. I have one in my hands – and yes I understand about “typos, printing errors, and liberties taken by publishers†but that is where study comes in – If one knows the real thing then when the “goofs†(“typos, printing errors, and liberties taken by publishersâ€Â) show up they can be worked out by studying.

By the way – did you come up with these errors on your own or were you taught by other “enlightened nes†that the King James Bible had errors in it?

Again – who taught you there were errors in a King James Bible - the Lord or the devil?

Nice chatting with you... 8-)

God bless

 

[stranger]

Hi AVBunyan,

My testimony is that I was saved reading 'the living bible' - while reading the book of Leviticus. I had forgotten my humble origins. Keep well.

 

[AVBunyan]

Hi AVBunyan,
My testimony is that I was saved reading 'the living bible' - while reading the book of Leviticus. I had forgotten my humble origins. Keep well.

Thanks stranger -

I believe folks can be saved reading newer versions - the gospel message is there in many of the modern versions.

I also believe a man can survive on fast food. There is some nourishment in fast food but he will not be very healthy

God bless

 

[Bick]

It is a shame that so many split hairs over "doctrines" that are, IMO, side issues.

As I see it, most all Christian churches, denominations, etc, are united in the basics: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; that he was buried, resurrected and ascended to heaven according to the Scriptures; and that by faith in His sacrifice is our Salvation.

 

[AVBunyan]

As I see it, most all Christian churches, denominations, etc, are united in the basics: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; that he was buried, resurrected and ascended to heaven according to the Scriptures; and that by faith in His sacrifice is our Salvation.

You had better look more closely at what they really believe - talk to their leaders, read their books, and observe their members.

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;

God bless

 

[Scotth1960]

After looking over the topics I believe it may be time to re-post a “summer rerunâ€Â.

Look around you and see the great confusion over doctrinal issues – just look at this forum and others. There are many reasons why we get confused. Some of us are lazy in our Bible studies; little Bible reading, poor church attendance, hearts of unbelief, bad hearts, sin, etc. These are some of the reasons why we just don’t get what God has for us but I’ve narrowed it down to three basics – without these three there will be areas of doctrinal truths lacking.

1. The person may be lost (talked about this before) so he cannot understand spiritual things. No further explanation needed.
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2. The person may have conflicting authorities such as multiple versions of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, his church, pastor, or priest, or his commentaries, etc. All of the above will disagree so what is he or she to do? I just happen to believe that the final authority is God’s word and that is found in a King James Bible.

3. The person doesn’t know what portions of the scriptures first and foremost apply doctrinally to him. He tries to go to the OT, Gospels, Acts, Paul, Tribulation truths, etc. When the passages contradict he doesn’t know how to straighten them out. He thinks the whole Bible is just lumped together and he is to apply it all to him doctrinally forgetting that all the scriptures were written for him but not all to him. He won’t sacrifice a lamb for he knows some of the law is gone but other than that he just tries to reconcile the whole Bible doctrinally to himself today and gets in a mess. The Lord gave the apostle Paul the latest instructions for us today and when one starts there first then the rest starts to make sense:
2 Tim 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

I believe a lot of saved people today are wrestling with #2 and #3 and this is why so many saints today are confused over the major doctrines.

God bless

Dear friend, I do not believe the KJV is the inspired word of God. It is the Word of God. But it is not the only word of God. The KJV translators stated that their translation is not inspired or perfect; it can make errors, they can make errors. The KJV translators advised its readers to seek out other English versions of the Scriptures, to compare these with the KJV. We should read different Bible to learn the truth of God from the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). Amen. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Alabaster]

Dear friend, I do not believe the KJV is the inspired word of God. It is the Word of God. But it is not the only word of God. The KJV translators stated that their translation is not inspired or perfect; it can make errors, they can make errors. The KJV translators advised its readers to seek out other English versions of the Scriptures, to compare these with the KJV. We should read different Bible to learn the truth of God from the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). Amen. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

There were no other English versions to consult when the KJV was translated!

 

[francisdesales]

There were no other English versions to consult when the KJV was translated!

What are you laughing about?

The Douay Rheims was, Alabaster...

Regards

 

[Alabaster]

What are you laughing about?

The Douay Rheims was, Alabaster...

Regards

Oh yeah, you are right.

Of course it was the Catholic bible translated from Latin, and hard to read, but it was in existence.

 

[Scotth1960]

What would happen if one were to deny Church doctrine and just accept the Word of God?
I see a vast difference at times between what the Church says and what the Bible says. There are times when one reads one verse from a Bible and fails to read the ones that come before it and after it and without those the verse has a totally different meaning. Church denominations were started by men, Christianity was started by Jesus. Are you following men or Jesus; that is the question to ask.

Dear ChristineES, Part of the problem is what is the Church. Some people say, "We are the Church" and contradict another group of people who say "We are the Church". Different doctrines in different churches, that is for sure. Somebody must be telling the truth, and others being mistaken about what is correct doctrine. I can't believe I once believed in the pre-tribulation rapture myth. I did not believe without doubt, fortunately. Doubt can be a doorway to discovering truth. A doctrine that cannot be doubted should be believed. We need to have faith, not doubt. But we can pray, "Lord I believe; help Thou mine unbelief". In Erie PA Scott Harrington
PS Some people are following men, like Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Benedict XIV. Actually, it is impossible not to have men as teachers, it is only a question as to what is the tradition of God, which needs to be taught by men, after all. Which men have the traditions of God, and which men teach the traditions of men, is the question that needs a truthful answer.

 

[Alabaster]

Dear ChristineES, Part of the problem is what is the Church. Some people say, "We are the Church" and contradict another group of people who say "We are the Church". Different doctrines in different churches, that is for sure. Somebody must be telling the truth, and others being mistaken about what is correct doctrine. I can't believe I once believed in the pre-tribulation rapture myth. I did not believe without doubt, fortunately. Doubt can be a doorway to discovering truth. A doctrine that cannot be doubted should be believed. We need to have faith, not doubt. But we can pray, "Lord I believe; help Thou mine unbelief". In Erie PA Scott Harrington
PS Some people are following men, like Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Benedict XIV. Actually, it is impossible not to have men as teachers, it is only a question as to what is the tradition of God, which needs to be taught by men, after all. Which men have the traditions of God, and which men teach the traditions of men, is the question that needs a truthful answer.

Men. Yes, that is a problem.

 

[Scotth1960]

There were no other English versions to consult when the KJV was translated!

Dear Alabaster, This is completely false. There were other English versions of the Bible when the KJV was translated; there was William Tyndale's version of the 1520s, there was Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible. The KJV is based largely on William Tyndale's work and the other English revisers of Tyndale. Your lack of familiarity with basic facts of history just shows you do not study history as much as you should. If you did, you would not believe in your unbiblical rationalism of "the age of reason" and your a-historic rejection of infant baptism. You read a modern doctrine that was not taught back in early church history 2000 years back in history, when denial of infant baptism didn't come after 1000 years after Christ, especially in the 1400s and 1500s and 1600s. In Czech lands, Germany, Holland and England, not in Orthodox Russia Greece, Romania, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Alabaster]

Dear Alabaster, This is completely false. There were other English versions of the Bible when the KJV was translated; there was William Tyndale's version of the 1520s, there was Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible. The KJV is based largely on William Tyndale's work and the other English revisers of Tyndale. Your lack of familiarity with basic facts of history just shows you do not study history as much as you should. If you did, you would not believe in your unbiblical rationalism of "the age of reason" and your a-historic rejection of infant baptism. You read a modern doctrine that was not taught back in early church history 2000 years back in history, when denial of infant baptism didn't come after 1000 years after Christ, especially in the 1400s and 1500s and 1600s. In Czech lands, Germany, Holland and England, not in Orthodox Russia Greece, Romania, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Oh well!

History was never my strong point. Knowing Jesus and His word is. That is most important. We can't take our church affiliation with us, can we?

 

[Scotth1960]

Oh well!

History was never my strong point. Knowing Jesus and His word is. That is most important. We can't take our church affiliation with us, can we?

Dear Alabaster, I am sure you know Jesus and His word. It's just that knowing the word of God in the Bible comes through interpretation of words. And you seem to know only one particular shall I say Baptist interpretation of the Bible. But there are other interpretations, which was all I was trying to say. We should study different teachings of Christian groups before making a decision of what we will believe that the Bible means. Whoever has the best words should be believed. Whoever shows to be faithful to those words will do better than those who just preach. There is a danger in any Christian life. "Faith without works is dead". With grace from above, and the power of God's love, we must put our faith in Christ in action. That is what needs to be besides only sound doctrine. Sound living is important too. Of course we will all always need forgiveness. It is not easy to live a Christian life. Our lives will at times be less than perfect.
So our Bible interpretations will be less than perfect at times. Even if we use only a KJV Bible! In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington