Does God need a human to protect his Word?

[bgwilkinson]

Is it so weak that it needs human protection?

It would be a mighty small god who could not protect his word.

 

[FSSL]

“The seven particular variations in the Pure Cambridge Edition were examined, judged and resolved by the Elders of Victory Faith Centre, operating under a divine ordination and apostolic ministry as guardians of the pure Word.”

This is from Bibleprotector's statement regarding their unique KJV edition.

They have places themselves as judges of the word of God and resolved, by their own self-authenticating authority.

It seems to me that their claim to protecting the Scripture is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This is from Bibleprotector's statement regarding their unique KJV edition

Sounds just like another "faith healer" changing their focus to find a unique position in Christendom.

Is it so weak that it needs human protection?

God has never left Eternal things in the hands of ephemeral man.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The one that praises fools who burn Bibles

I have been over this with you before Scott.
When are you going to get through your thick head that the NIV is not a real bible.

It is one of Satan's bibles.

We have BB and BP, both KJVOs.

In this instance BB blasphemes the Holy Spirit.

In others we have BP setting himself as a self authenticating authority, a god.

Both of these harm the cause of Christ and turn people to other gods.

 

[bibleprotector]

Is it so weak that it needs human protection?

It would be a mighty small god who could not protect his word.

Yet, your side, which holds a deistic view, has God inspiring and then failing to keep, preserve or recover the words in and through history.

God is strong, and yet, He has chosen instruments of His work in the earth. Your point seems to nullify all the stories in the Bible about people whom God used to do exploits. Is God therefore not outworking on Earth, not using human instruments? No, men are raised up by Him, and are abased by Him.

Seeing then that God has this great power, He has chosen whom He will use as vessels unto honour.

The Scripture says, Ps 147:2 The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel.

Did God do that alone, or did He use men in His work?

Ps 147:6 The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground.

Obviously, He lifted up men for His purpose.

Ps 147:13 For he hath strengthened the bars of thy gates; he hath blessed thy children within thee.

If the children be blessed, would not they be doing God's works?

Ps 147:14 He maketh peace in thy borders, and filleth thee with the finest of the wheat.

Who harvested that wheat? Did God come down and sow and reap the wheat? Angels? Or did man do it?

 

[bibleprotector]

This is from Bibleprotector's statement regarding their unique KJV edition.

The PCE has been made long before my birth, and in millions of copies, so it is not "their" edition, but a common heritage to Christians.

They have places themselves as judges of the word of God and resolved, by their own self-authenticating authority.

This would then condemn all folks who made critical editions and Bible textual criticism as a whole. The Word of God itself is not unresolved. Resolution among men under God has been in regards to resolving readings, translation and editorial exactness. But then, you don't believe that we can have perfect knowledge about something or a perfect Bible. Does this mean that you are only 94% born again?

By the way, I have expressly said that the Scripture is a self-authenticating authority, as you probably know, but willingly suppress, in pursuit of your rhetoric against what you misrepresent as my view.

It seems to me that their claim to protecting the Scripture is just the tip of the iceberg.

The conflict is between a Word and Spirit view of Christianity versus Infidelity-influenced Christianity. It is not just a Bible version/translation debate, but also an issue to do with interpretation, and ultimately, a doctrinal battle. The battle lines are, in this instance, between a Faith Pentecostal-King James Bible position versus the MacArthurist position. The conflict runs down the line, on a whole list of doctrines, because two very different viewpoints, both of which are fundamentalistic, are in such vast opposition.

 

[bibleprotector]

In others we have BP setting himself as a self authenticating authority, a god.

Actually, the Scripture itself is a self-authenticating authority. That is one of the points I make quite clearly.

 

[rsc2a]

But then, you don't believe that we can have perfect knowledge about something or a perfect Bible. Does this mean that you are only 94% born again?

My knowledge didn't save me and a Bible didn't save me. Jesus saved/saves me.

 

[logos1560]

In others we have BP setting himself as a self authenticating authority, a god.

Actually, the Scripture itself is a self-authenticating authority.

The KJV is a translation and is not the Scriptures given directly by a miracle of inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Translations of the Scriptures are not self-authenticating since their dependent or acquired authority is dependent and derived from their textual sources.

The very term "translation" by definition, when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language, requires its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is dependent.  By reason of its exact definition concerning what constitutes it being a translation, it is unequivocally and univocally termed a “translation.“  Of what is it a translation?  A translation is a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language.  What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived?  By definition, a translation is in a different state, classification, or order of being than untranslated texts. 

 

[bibleprotector]

The KJV is a translation and is not the Scriptures given directly by a miracle of inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

It is nice to read you admit your unbelief.

So, basically, when the KJB translators or anyone calls the KJB "Scriptures", you do not agree.

You think only the original copies be true.

You realise that is Deism, right?

Translations of the Scriptures are not self-authenticating since their dependent or acquired authority is dependent and derived from their textual sources.

But according to you, even textual sources may likewise be questioned, until we arrive back to the autograph, something which we do not have. Therefore, according to your logic, there is no authority.

Your Deistic approach has led you to a place where now you do not have Scriptures, or certain knowledge of what is Scriptures.

 

[rsc2a]

It's almost amusing.  You not only use your own private definition for modernism, but also for deism.

And you call yourself an authority on translations?