Scriptures

[Bruh]

I do. For myself. If you don't want to accept it. Then don't. I will answer to God for what I believe. I will not answer to you. You will answer to God what you believe. I will not answer for you.

Get it?
Sure I get.   

By the way. I have studied the Scriptures for many many years. I am qualified to make a judgement for my own use. EVERY PERSON should know enough to be comfortable with what they believe. Its my responsibility. Its your responsibility to determine such for yourself. Don't be lazy and accept what some else says as being the Truth. I even question the Apostles. It really doesn't matter to me if you believe this is good or bad. Its my choice. Just like its your choice. Ultimately I believe everyone should be informed so they can make an accurate choice.

I understand, I guess my take is this.  Whatever book you read will be bias to what that author believes.   

I do not take the production of the "Bible" as a whole in such a manner. I look at each individual book. I even break it down it down precept by precept. Comment by comment. You go ahead and compare it trusting your wife. I wouldn't make the same comparison. I would probably compare it to blindly and without question following the words of someone you don't know. Which in many sense is the actual truth.

And you find peace in this?

Why? I can witness to someone tell them exactly what I believe to be the truth. I'm not going to tell them something I do not trust. For example, I wouldn't use Acts 8:37 to tell someone about the Ethiopian eunuch. There is nothing meaning full to disclose about it. I can get the same things from a different area.

Now you can take such an issue and discard the entirety of the Bible if you want. I don't. I think its silly to do such. In fact, if your wife every lies to you one time about having passed gas or picking her nose.... are you going to divorce her?
[/quote]

Well, I wouldn't make the same comparison.  As trusting Scripture to IF my wife lied about farting.  If my wife is lying about cheating on me and if I can trust her and to compare that to, if I can trust Scripture as a whole, yes I take it that serious. 

At the end of the day, I guess I find it difficult (no matter the translation) to find peace in trusting something that has error. 

 

[Bruh]

Preserve I am referring to here is from Psalms 12:6-7.  Now you may think that the verses listed have error, I don't know?  But if they do not then, is God not doing as He has stated in the bible?  Whether it be the KJV or the translations you deem acceptable. 

Psalm 12:6-7 has nothing to do with God's Word.

God has never promised to endlessly preserve His word on this earth for endless generations of mankind. Vast swaths of humankind have reject what God gave for thousands of years. Yet, man demands God keep on giving and giving and giving and keeping and keeping and keeping. God hasn't promised such and he's not obligated to do such. He has always done more than we ever desire and not near as much as we demand.

God's Word is eternal and never changing. That has nothing to do with the language of men and its transition throughout time. God knows what He said. God isn't going to crack open a KJV or any collection of man's writings at the Judgement and quote to you what it says.

We agree.

 

[Bruh]

Preserve I am referring to here is from Psalms 12:6-7.  Now you may think that the verses listed have error, I don't know?  But if they do not then, is God not doing as He has stated in the bible?  Whether it be the KJV or the translations you deem acceptable. 

Psalm 12:6-7 has nothing to do with God's Word.

God has never promised to endlessly preserve His word on this earth for endless generations of mankind. Vast swaths of humankind have reject what God gave for thousands of years. Yet, man demands God keep on giving and giving and giving and keeping and keeping and keeping. God hasn't promised such and he's not obligated to do such. He has always done more than we ever desire and not near as much as we demand.

God's Word is eternal and never changing. That has nothing to do with the language of men and its transition throughout time. God knows what He said. God isn't going to crack open a KJV or any collection of man's writings at the Judgement and quote to you what it says.

Care to educate the uneducated?

 

[Bruh]

Thanks, but of course I have more questions.  How do you know these are simplistic and lack accuracy?  Who determines this?

We compare them to the writings of KJV-onlyists. If they seem eerily similar, then the Bible version is simplistic and lacks accuracy.

If I am witnessing to someone I would feel obligated to inform them that there is error in the book from which I get the message I am telling them. 

Wouldn't you feel the same obligation?

These questions would be impossible to answer adequately without first discussing the purpose of Scripture, how it is authoritative in regards to these purposes, proper hermeneutical methodologies given the authoritative nature of Scripture, and what criteria would make Scripture "perfect" or less than so in light of these considerations. - rsc2a

I agree, but how can Scripture be authoritative if it has error?

 

[Bruh]

Preserve = to guard, watch, watch over, keep
to watch, guard, keep, to preserve, guard from danger, to keep, observe, guard with fidelity, to be kept close, be blockaded. 

Preserve = To keep or save from injury or destruction; to guard or defend from evil, harm, danger, etc.; to protect.

The first definition is from the Strong's, you may not trust that either, I don't know?
The second is from Webster's 1913, you may not trust that either? 

Preserve I am referring to here is from Psalms 12:6-7.  Now you may think that the verses listed have error, I don't know?  But if they do not then, is God not doing as He has stated in the bible?  Whether it be the KJV or the translations you deem acceptable.

... or, as in this case, there is no error in that passage. The error is in your interpretation. Godly people are given a promise that they will be preserved.

I see what you are saying.  Good point.  Thanks

 

[christundivided]

And you find peace in this?

Sure.

Well, I wouldn't make the same comparison.  As trusting Scripture to IF my wife lied about farting.  If my wife is lying about cheating on me and if I can trust her and to compare that to, if I can trust Scripture as a whole, yes I take it that serious. 

Scripture as a whole as collected... is different than the actual "Scripture as a whole".

At the end of the day, I guess I find it difficult (no matter the translation) to find peace in trusting something that has error.

Don't trust the error. Yet, don't throw everything out because the bath water was a little dirty.

 

[christundivided]

Preserve I am referring to here is from Psalms 12:6-7.  Now you may think that the verses listed have error, I don't know?  But if they do not then, is God not doing as He has stated in the bible?  Whether it be the KJV or the translations you deem acceptable. 

Psalm 12:6-7 has nothing to do with God's Word.

God has never promised to endlessly preserve His word on this earth for endless generations of mankind. Vast swaths of humankind have reject what God gave for thousands of years. Yet, man demands God keep on giving and giving and giving and keeping and keeping and keeping. God hasn't promised such and he's not obligated to do such. He has always done more than we ever desire and not near as much as we demand.

God's Word is eternal and never changing. That has nothing to do with the language of men and its transition throughout time. God knows what He said. God isn't going to crack open a KJV or any collection of man's writings at the Judgement and quote to you what it says.

Care to educate the uneducated?

Sure. It has to do with the poor. Do you remember the words of our Lord when he said..

Joh 12:8  For the poor you always have with you,

or maybe when the writer of "James" wrote

Jas 2:5  Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?


Re read Psalm 12 again.

 

[Bruh]

I see what you are saying.  Good point.  Thanks

You are welcome!

Not bad for who Mitex calls a "skeptic, critic, purveyor of doubt, self-contradicting, silly, weak-minded, ridiculous, inconsistent, superstitious zealot, deceptive equivocator, hell-bent, disbeliever, contemptuous, doubter, hypocrite" Huh?!

Not bad.  If I'm wrong then I am wrong. 

I think where we disagree is that, I believe that God has given infallible Scripture in the orginal Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized
Version. 

 

[christundivided]

I see what you are saying.  Good point.  Thanks

You are welcome!

Not bad for who Mitex calls a "skeptic, critic, purveyor of doubt, self-contradicting, silly, weak-minded, ridiculous, inconsistent, superstitious zealot, deceptive equivocator, hell-bent, disbeliever, contemptuous, doubter, hypocrite" Huh?!

Not bad.  If I'm wrong then I am wrong. 

I think where we disagree is that, I believe that God has given infallible Scripture in the orginal Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized
Version.

The MT? Really?

A 9th century work? Timothy didn't read the MT. He read the Old Greek texts of the OT. That's what's so funny about what Mitex was saying earlier. If he had any clue... he'd never said half of what he wrote.

 

[Bruh]

Preserve I am referring to here is from Psalms 12:6-7.  Now you may think that the verses listed have error, I don't know?  But if they do not then, is God not doing as He has stated in the bible?  Whether it be the KJV or the translations you deem acceptable. 

Psalm 12:6-7 has nothing to do with God's Word.

God has never promised to endlessly preserve His word on this earth for endless generations of mankind. Vast swaths of humankind have reject what God gave for thousands of years. Yet, man demands God keep on giving and giving and giving and keeping and keeping and keeping. God hasn't promised such and he's not obligated to do such. He has always done more than we ever desire and not near as much as we demand.

God's Word is eternal and never changing. That has nothing to do with the language of men and its transition throughout time. God knows what He said. God isn't going to crack open a KJV or any collection of man's writings at the Judgement and quote to you what it says.

Care to educate the uneducated?

Sure. It has to do with the poor. Do you remember the words of our Lord when he said..

Joh 12:8  For the poor you always have with you,

or maybe when the writer of "James" wrote

Jas 2:5  Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?


Re read Psalm 12 again.

I like Admin interpretation better. 

 

[christundivided]

Preserve I am referring to here is from Psalms 12:6-7.  Now you may think that the verses listed have error, I don't know?  But if they do not then, is God not doing as He has stated in the bible?  Whether it be the KJV or the translations you deem acceptable. 

Psalm 12:6-7 has nothing to do with God's Word.

God has never promised to endlessly preserve His word on this earth for endless generations of mankind. Vast swaths of humankind have reject what God gave for thousands of years. Yet, man demands God keep on giving and giving and giving and keeping and keeping and keeping. God hasn't promised such and he's not obligated to do such. He has always done more than we ever desire and not near as much as we demand.

God's Word is eternal and never changing. That has nothing to do with the language of men and its transition throughout time. God knows what He said. God isn't going to crack open a KJV or any collection of man's writings at the Judgement and quote to you what it says.

Care to educate the uneducated?

Sure. It has to do with the poor. Do you remember the words of our Lord when he said..

Joh 12:8  For the poor you always have with you,

or maybe when the writer of "James" wrote

Jas 2:5  Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?


Re read Psalm 12 again.

I like Admin interpretation better. 

Admin meant the same thing. He just said it differently. I don't think Barry would say Psalm 12:6-7 is talking about the Scriptures in any form. Its pretty obvious its a statement concerning the poor. The poor are what is preserved. At least as referenced in Psalm 12:6-7.

 

[Bruh]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.  Therefore the most trusted.  I am KJVO.  Just putting it out there.     

 

[rsc2a]

Thanks, but of course I have more questions.  How do you know these are simplistic and lack accuracy?  Who determines this?

We compare them to the writings of KJV-onlyists. If they seem eerily similar, then the Bible version is simplistic and lacks accuracy.

If I am witnessing to someone I would feel obligated to inform them that there is error in the book from which I get the message I am telling them. 

Wouldn't you feel the same obligation?

These questions would be impossible to answer adequately without first discussing the purpose of Scripture, how it is authoritative in regards to these purposes, proper hermeneutical methodologies given the authoritative nature of Scripture, and what criteria would make Scripture "perfect" or less than so in light of these considerations. - rsc2a

I agree, but how can Scripture be authoritative if it has error?

First question would be "What is the purpose of Scripture?"

 

[christundivided]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

 

[Bruh]

Thanks, but of course I have more questions.  How do you know these are simplistic and lack accuracy?  Who determines this?

We compare them to the writings of KJV-onlyists. If they seem eerily similar, then the Bible version is simplistic and lacks accuracy.

If I am witnessing to someone I would feel obligated to inform them that there is error in the book from which I get the message I am telling them. 

Wouldn't you feel the same obligation?

These questions would be impossible to answer adequately without first discussing the purpose of Scripture, how it is authoritative in regards to these purposes, proper hermeneutical methodologies given the authoritative nature of Scripture, and what criteria would make Scripture "perfect" or less than so in light of these considerations. - rsc2a

I agree, but how can Scripture be authoritative if it has error?

First question would be "What is the purpose of Scripture?"

The Bible enables us to know God. 

 

[Bruh]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Hebrews 4:8 - For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 

That's directly from my KJ bible. 

 

[christundivided]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Hebrews 4:8 - For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 

That's directly from my KJ bible.

Funny....

So you really believe Hebrews 4:8 is talking about your Master Jesus?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]First question would be "What is the purpose of Scripture?"

The Bible enables us to know God. [/quote]

So does a sunrise.

How is the Bible unique in this regard?

 

[Bruh]

[quote author=rsc2a]First question would be "What is the purpose of Scripture?"

The Bible enables us to know God.

So does a sunrise.

How is the Bible unique in this regard?
[/quote]

It is a divine book.  In that if read and meditated on will transform a person. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]First question would be "What is the purpose of Scripture?"

The Bible enables us to know God.

So does a sunrise.

How is the Bible unique in this regard?

It is a divine book.  In that if read and meditated on will transform a person.
[/quote]

Sure. Now how is the Bible any different than a sunrise in this regard?