Thoughts to ponder

[Mitex]

Please remember that Textual Critic is not a Scriptural gift given unto the Church of God nor is textual criticism a  doctrine that born again believers are required to master.

Anyone who says that "This translation is Gods's word and that translation is not God's word" is, by definition a textual critic. Onlies are the worst of the higher textual critics.

Not true. You didn't answer the questions presented to you nor did you present your definition of what is and what is not Scripture since you poo-poo my definition.

 

[FSSL]

Not true. You didn't answer the questions presented to your nor present your definition of what is and what is not Scripture since you poo-poo my definition.

First, it is not your definition, it is Bill Kincaid's. He framed a unique idea of authority based on consensus because THAT is exactly what the KJVO needs... He says, "THE AUTHORITY OF CONSENSUS (of spirit-filled, born-again, blood-bought saints), binding on dependents, is THE scriptural concept that kindles KJVO, and that burns your conscience, if not the seat of your pants. Feigning surprise is DENIAL, and frankly, it is your best strategy. The question, ?how is CANON relevant? is your ONLY answer. Whatever you do, DON?T WALK TOWARD THE LIGHT."

He is right. A consensus of people is necessary to uphold the doctrines of the KJVO. You claim not to be KJVO, but you have swallowed a theology designed to uphold it.

See point 10: https://brentandjaniceriggs.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/relvance-of-the-canon/

 

[Mitex]

Authority is derived from God's breath (inspiration), only and thoroughly.

Since I view all translations of God's Word as God's Word, I don't understand why my verse does not fit.

If I recall correctly, your view doesn't allow for any translation to be God-breathed. You hold that only the autograph was God-breathed and that no translation is pure, perfect, infallible, true in all its parts, etc. Furthermore, you don't hold that the New World Translation is the word of God or God-breathed, you limit "all translations" to "valid translations" translated by conservatives.

As for "your verse", I stated previously that both sides of the debate agree that whatever the Scriptures are they are indeed given by inspiration of God. The question is how do you and I know what is and what is not Scripture? Is Scripture all things written? It did say "All Scripture". Is Scripture any writing or book? Any religious writing or book? "No," you say. Good for you, but did God call you up and tell you personally this and not that writing or book? How did you come to the conclusion that Scripture is the Sacred writings of the Old and New Testament without the faith of God's elect guiding you? If you insist that through personal prayer and moving or guiding of the Holy Spirit in your life you have determined that "all translations are God-breathed or the word of God". Then what happens when a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians every wit as diligent, sincere, honest, etc. disagree with your conclusions? Please explain. 

 

[FSSL]

See, Mitex... you have to switch the subject and misstate my beliefs.

What is helpful is to see where you got your idea of authority. You have replaced inspiration with consensus. As the person you continue to quote says, "That is why the word ?consensus? has developed in common usage. It indicates practical unanimity, a general agreement reached without force. This should be the goal of ALL Bible texts, and all Bible translations. When it is achieved, real practical authority ensues. Bill Kincaid"

God's word is authoritative and has been authoritative before anyone accepted it. Before the letter of Revelation made its completion to the 7 churches, it was authoritative as it was breathed-out by God.

Orthodox theology always holds authority comes from God.. not a consensus.

 

[Mitex]

ESTABLISHING THE MATTER

Establish (verb)
? to show to be valid or true; prove:
? to cause to be accepted or recognized

The testimony of a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers (God's elect) cannot make something that is untrue to become true, but their testimony can establish the facts. This consensus of belief has been fallaciously labeled argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people) which means: "it is true because most people believe it." When the truth-value of the proposition is really a function of the popularity it is not ad populum. In other words, the appeal to consensus, as I've stated it, is not irrelevant when what the consensus of God's elect believe does in fact establish what is true. A consensus of God's elect agreeing is in fact relevant evidence for the truth. Note the following truth from Scripture.

Deut 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, SHALL THE MATTER BE ESTABLISHED.

2Cor 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses SHALL EVERY WORD BE ESTABLISHED.

Mt 18:15-17 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY WORD MAY BE ESTABLISHED.

An individual witness does not take precedent over a consensus of witnesses. A consensus of honest witnesses (God's elect in my example) establish the matter. Surely, one can understand this. If you think you are right and another thinks you are wrong, the truth cannot be established. If you think you are right and two or three testify that you are wrong, then the testimony of two or more people take precedent over one individual witness. When that testimony reaches consensus, near unanimity, then the truth is established - caused to be accepted and recognized as the Scriptures.

 

[Mitex]

See, Mitex... you have to switch the subject and misstate my beliefs.

What is helpful is to see where you got your idea of authority. You have replaced inspiration with consensus. As the person you continue to quote says, "That is why the word ?consensus? has developed in common usage. It indicates practical unanimity, a general agreement reached without force. This should be the goal of ALL Bible texts, and all Bible translations. When it is achieved, real practical authority ensues. Bill Kincaid"

God's word is authoritative and has been authoritative before anyone accepted it. Before the letter of Revelation made its completion to the 7 churches, it was authoritative as it was breathed-out by God.

Orthodox theology always holds authority comes from God.. not a consensus.

Barry, please feel free to correct any statement I made that does not accurately define what you believe. Here is my definition of Scripture:

The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers in any language or generation as the very word of God in written form - given by inspiration of God, true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The Scriptures are preserved in the form that God wants every generation and language group to have.

Please explain where and why my definition is wrong. Then give the Reader your definition so that they can diligently compare them and come to their own conclusions.

I'm pretty well convinced by past experience that none of this is going to persuade you to take up my position, but at least it gives you a glimpse into my perspective. That I have indeed carefully weighed the arguments on both sides and reached what I believe is a reasonable conclusion. What does this mean practically? It means that where your preferred edition of the Bible differs (really differs, not in the petty "jot & tittle" differences pounced upon by wild-eyed KJVO) from our Standardized Version we are at an impasse: I'll say, "Thus saith the Lord", and you'll respond, "No He didn't." And around and around we'll go. So, like I have to do with the JW's (no innuendo or poisoning the well-intended) I'll quote the verse, allow them to deny it, which they always do with similar arguments against the AV made by those on this board, and then move unto other verses found in their Bible to prove my point. That is where their Bible contains the same text (consensus) authority is established.

 

[FSSL]

You are confusing eyewitness testimony of an event (where witnesses establish facts). Those passages are not talking about the authority of Scripture.

God's word is God's word even if no one accepts it. Even if heaven and earth were to pass away, God's word is our authority. It remains standing.

It is that simple. Your concept of consensus is a fabricated theology from a person trying to give KJVOs something to grasp.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Mitex, I believe that history conclusively proves that the AV1611 did not get its place in the way you imagine, but rather through the heavy hand of the British government. It may give you warm fuzzies when you say your little blurb about Spirit filled Christians coming to a consensus on the AV1611 but you are not just wrong, you are dead wrong. History and the truth is against you. It would seem Spirit filled people had a rather low view of the AV1611 at time it was written and for much of the 17th century.

Had it not been for the heavy hand of a government religious organization, the Church of England, the Genevan Version would have been the English Bible of the Spirit filled.

Here is an excerpt from a real Anglican with close proximity to that which he covers in his book "In the Beginning" by  Alister McGrath.

THE BATTLE OF THE BIBLES: CHARLES I AND THE WAR AGAINST THE GENEVA BIBLE

As a result of pressure from the authorities, after 1616 the printing of the Geneva Bible ceased in England. The work now had to be imported from the Netherlands. This, however, did nothing to stem its sales. James I seems to have been relatively unconcerned over this matter, and did not consider the suppression of the importation of this rival to his own translation to be a matter of pressing importance. He cordially disliked the Geneva Bible, but believed that his own new translation would eventually displace it without any need for special action on his part. However, the death of James I and the accession of his son, Charles I, in 1625 saw a change in the religious climate within England. Charles's marriage to the French princess Henrietta Maria had caused considerable popular resentment, partly on account of her being a foreigner, and partly because she was a Roman Catholic. Radical Protestants were alarmed at the prospect of a monarch who would be openly sympathetic to the Roman Catholic cause throughout Europe. Charles appointed the high churchman William Laud as archbishop of Canterbury in 1633. Archbishop Laud was clearly troubled by the continuing popularity?and correspondingly high sales?of the Geneva Bible. Under Charles I, religious tensions had worsened, with overt opposition between Puritans and Anglicans emerging at point after point. England was divided into the factions that would shortly take opposing sides in the civil war, pitching Puritan against Anglican, Parliamentarian against Royalist. The Geneva Bible, with its notes, was seen as the Bible of the Puritans, and the King James Bible as the Bible of the establishment. For Laud, the continuing circulation of the Geneva Bible was, therefore, a significant contributing cause to the religious tensions of his day, which threatened to tear England apart.

Yet it was not the Genevan translation as such that caused Laud and his supporters such headaches. The real problem lay with the extensive marginal notes, which offered guidance to the reader as to how the text was to be interpreted and applied. Although the Geneva Bible dated from two generations earlier, its critique of the abuse of monarchical powers might have been written with Charles I's reign in mind. We have already noted some of these comments (see page 141), which caused such offense to James I, and thus were partly responsible for his desire for a new English translation. James's son, Charles I, felt similarly threatened by the Genevan challenge to the doctrine of the divine right of kings. Charles had absorbed much of his father's belief in this doctrine, and saw it as essential to the religious and political well-being of his kingdom. William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, had a strong personal vested interest in maintaining both the monarchy and the established Church of England, and rightly saw the doctrines of the Geneva Bible's marginal notes as a serious threat to the situation. It was thus natural for Laud to want to minimize the influence of the Geneva Bible at this point. But what could he do? One option might have been to mount a major theological critique of the Geneva Bible, by publishing immense numbers of learned treatises countering its criticisms of the doctrine of the divine right of kings. But this would take time, and would have little impact at the popular level. Laud was aware that there was a much simpler solution. All that was needed was an order banning the Geneva Bible from England. But what reason could be given? In the end, Laud hit on an ingenious solution. To support the Geneva Bible, he argued, was unpatriotic. Laud suggested that the Geneva Bible posed a threat to the livelihood of patriotic English printers, whose livelihoods were being threatened by the importation of cheap and well-produced Geneva Bibles. The commercial success of the Geneva Bible seemed to Laud to offer an entirely reasonable excuse to suppress it. As the work was printed abroad, Laud argued, would not permitting its continued import threaten the English printing industry as a whole? The Geneva Bibles printed in Amsterdam were better in every respect than the early printings of the King James Bible. If market forces alone were allowed to dictate the outcome of this economic battle of the Bibles, the Geneva Bible would dominate the English market. It may be added that the costliness of the King James Bible was the direct result of Robert Barker's monopoly on the text, which allowed him to profit extensively from the work. Laud, however, passed over this awkward point, and summed up his objections to the  Genevan text as follows:

"By the numerous coming over to the [Geneva Bible] from Amsterdam, there was a great and a just fear conceived that by little and little printing would quite be carried out of the Kingdom. For the books which came thence were better print, better bound, better paper, and for all the charges of bringing, sold better cheap. And would any man buy a worse Bible dearer, that might have a better more cheap?"

Laud thus had a simple economic and patriotic reason for wishing to block the importation of Geneva Bibles. Although Laud was careful to present his reasons for wishing to limit, and even terminate, the circulation of these Bibles in England as fundamentally patriotic and economic in motivation, many realized that this was merely a convenient excuse for suppressing a work that he disliked for religious reasons. The Geneva Bible had its origins within Calvinist circles, and was seen as being overtly supportive of a Puritan agenda. A simple answer to Laud's concerns about the future of the English printing industry lay to hand: permit production of the Geneva Bible in England. But this option does not appear to have been given serious consideration. Samuel Johnson once remarked that ?patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.? Perhaps it is unfair to suggest that Laud was scurrilous in what he did. But whatever its morality, Laud's action proved highly effective. The flow of the subversive text into England was staunched. The final known edition of the Geneva Bible was published in 1644. As a result, the King James Bible enjoyed a new commercial success?the word ?popularity? is not yet apposite. However, it was not long before a compromise was developed that allowed the Genevan notes a new lease on life in England. The popularity of the Geneva Bible rested not so much on the translation itself, as on the explanatory material appended to the translation. So why, some reasoned, should not the Geneva translation be replaced with the King James Bible, while retaining the Genevan notes? Between 1642 and 1715, at least nine editions?eight of which originated in Amsterdam?are known of the King James Bible with the Geneva notes. But many Puritans regarded this as an unsatisfactory compromise, and pressed for the replacement of the King James Bible. With the outbreak of the English civil war in 1642, an opportunity to challenge the authority of the King James Bible arose.

AMBIVALENCE: THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTH

In the closing years of the reign of Charles I, the growing political influence of Puritanism began to become of importance to the reception of the King James Bible. The new emphasis upon the authority of Parliament?as opposed to that of the king?within Puritan circles led to demands for revision of the translation to be undertaken by the state. Parliament, it was argued, should commission a new translation, which would eliminate the errors and ecclesiastical bias of the King James Bible. William Laud had been one of the most formidable opponents of the Geneva Bible, and a staunch defender of the King James Bible. However, Laud found himself outmaneuvered by an increasingly confident Puritan Parliament. In 1641, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London; in 1645, he was executed. With Laud out of the way, serious opposition to the King James Bible gathered momentum. Calls for the revision of the translation became increasingly frequent and strident. In a sermon delivered before the House of Commons, assembled at the church of St. Margaret's, Westminster, on August 26, 1645, John Lightfoot (1602?75) argued the case for a revised translation, which would be both accurate and lively: It was the course of Nehemiah when he was reforming that he caused not the law only to be read and the sense given, but also caused the people to ?understand the reading? And certainly it would not be the least advantage that you might do to the three nations, if not the greatest, if they by your care and means might come to understand the proper and genuine reading of the Scripture by an exact, vigorous and lively translation. The Parliamentary Grand Committee for Religion eventually agreed to order a subcommittee to look into this matter. It was clear that the complaints against the King James Bible could be broadly divided into two categories: the many misprints in the printed versions of the text, which caused confusion to readers; and, perhaps more seriously, questions concerning the accuracy of the translation itself. A Parliamentary group that crystallized around Henry Jessey (1601?63), noted for his competence in sacred languages, concluded that the literary style of the King James Bible left something to be desired; ?many places which are not falsely may be yet better rendered.? Similar comments can be found in Robert Gell's An Essay Towards the Amendment of the Last English Translation of the Bible (1659). Yet perhaps one may conjecture that a political issue colored this discussion, in that hostility to the King James Bible reflected a perception that it was hostile to Puritanism?or at least that it lacked the Puritan emphasis that made the Geneva Bible so satisfying to its readers. One Parliamentary group, meeting in 1652?53, argued that the King James Bible used ?prelatical language??in other words, the traditional church terminology, such as ?bishop.? This practice, which was specifically laid down in Richard Bancroft's rules for the translators, was offensive to many Puritans. It reminded them of the religious establishment that they had worked hard to overthrow. There was also new and increased resistance from many Puritans to the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible. The Westminster Confession of Faith would reject the inclusion of this group of works in Bibles; some Puritans wanted immediate action on this matter. It might be thought that the period of the Puritan Commonwealth would have seen a new lease on life for the Geneva Bible. In fact, this was not the case. Perhaps there was a realization that the Geneva translation was not as good as might be hoped. In any case, the marginal notes could be had by other means. In the first year of the Commonwealth, an edition of the King James Bible with the Genevan notes was published, with official backing, in London. The Soldier's Pocket Bible, issued in 1643, consisted of selections from the Geneva Bible. The following year saw the final reprint of the Geneva Bible, which henceforth virtually disappeared from the radar screens of English religious controversy.

McGrath, Alister. In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture (pp. 286-287). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. 

 

[Ransom]

Only Scott would imagine a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians jumping off bridges. Spirit filled indicates being led by the Holy Spirit. I can't imagine a scenario where any Spirit filled Christian would jump off a bridge, but then my imagination isn't as wild as Scott's.

And yet, this is where you are ultimately led because you present a version of truth that is not determined by what is objectively true, but by what most people agree is true.  You confuse fact with opinion. Even an opinion held by millions is still only an opinion, not a fact.

The church has received the Scriptures because they are God-breathed. You want us to believe they are God-breathed because the church has received them. If I believed that, I'd be a Roman Catholic.

 

[Mitex]

Only Scott would imagine a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians jumping off bridges. Spirit filled indicates being led by the Holy Spirit. I can't imagine a scenario where any Spirit filled Christian would jump off a bridge, but then my imagination isn't as wild as Scott's.

And yet, this is where you are ultimately led because you present a version of truth that is not determined by what is objectively true, but by what most people agree is true.  You confuse fact with opinion. Even an opinion held by millions is still only an opinion, not a fact.

The church has received the Scriptures because they are God-breathed. You want us to believe they are God-breathed because the church has received them. If I believed that, I'd be a Roman Catholic.

No Scott, you are mistaken once again. I don't believe that the Scriptures are God-breathed because the Church of God has received them, I believe that a consensus of born again Spirit filled members of the Church of God have received them as the very written word of God because they have recognized them as God-breathed Scriptures (there's no other kind by the way). Their collective witness takes precedence over your preference when identifying authoritative Scriptures.

I clearly stated previously:

* The testimony of a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers (God's elect) cannot make something that is untrue to become true, but their testimony can establish the facts.

* The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers in any language or generation as the very word of God in written form - given by inspiration of God, true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

I noticed that you stated, "The church  has received the Scriptures because they are God-breathed." The group that you label "the church" is not your individual preference, sectarian recognition, peculiar recognition, etc., but a consensus of born again members of the Church of Christ who all come to the same conclusion when recognizing what is and what is not Scripture. Their collective testimony takes precedence over sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred testimony.

When our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his listeners to "Search the Scriptures", he was not commanding his listeners to search the autographs (impossible), the English AV (impossible) or your preferred version (impossible). In fact, he didn't specify exactly which writings or books he was referencing, because he didn't have to, it was already clearly understood by a consensus of God's elect what the Canon of Scriptures were - these and no others.

Who determines what is "objectively true"? You alone? What happens when a consensus of born again Spirit filled members of the Church of God every wit as diligent, God seeking, God loving, lovers of truth, etc. as you disagree with your determination?  Their collective conclusion takes precedent over your individual determination of objective truth. The same goes for sectarian, peculiar and private determinations. The Canon will serve as an example: An occasional Luther may have sincere doubts about the authenticity of the book of James, yet even he submitted to the Canon recognized by the Church of God. Would you care to enlighten the readers on how YOU came to the conclusion that the Canon is limited to 66 books?

 

[FSSL]

Yes, Scott... Soul Liberty and Priesthood of the Believer get tossed whenever an argument for KJVOism is made. It takes a village!

Mitex is just parroting Bill Kincaid who believes this consensus-think is what gives passion to the KJVO movement because a consensus makes REAL PRACTICAL AUTHORITY possible.

It is all double talk, Mitex. Kincaid designed this theology to uphold KJVOism and it undermines your own updating of the Old Gdansk.

 

[Mitex]

Yes, Scott... Soul Liberty gets tossed whenever an argument for KJVOism is made. It takes a village!

Mitex is just parroting Bill Kincaid who believes this consensus-think is what gives passion to the KJVO movement because a consensus makes REAL PRACTICAL AUTHORITY possible.

It is all double talk, Mitex. Kincaid designed this theology to uphold KJVOism and it undermines your own updating of the Old Gdansk.

Barry you are wrong on all counts.

Soul liberty is not thrown out the window as you falsely accused. On the contrary, if your opinion (soul liberty) as a born again Spirit filled Christian has merit, then the opinion of a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians has even more merit (individual soul liberty coming to the same conclusion). The likelihood that an individual being wrong on a given point is higher than the likelihood that the consensus of Church of God would be wrong on any given point and especially the identity of the Scriptures.

I'm pretty well convinced by past experience that none of this is going to persuade you (no intrusion on your soul liberty) to take up my position, but at least it gives you a glimpse into my perspective. That I have indeed carefully weighed the arguments on both sides and reached what I believe is a reasonable conclusion. What does this mean practically? It means that where your preferred edition of the Bible differs (really differs, not in the petty "jot & tittle" differences pounced upon by wild-eyed KJVO) from our Standardized Version we are at an impasse: I'll say, "Thus saith the Lord", and you'll respond, "No He didn't." And around and around we'll go. So, like I have to do with the JW's (no innuendo or poisoning the well-intended) I'll quote the verse, allow them to deny it, which they always do with similar arguments against the AV made by those on this board, and then move unto other verses found in their Bible to prove my point. That is where their Bible contains the same text (consensus) authority is established.

You appealed to "orthodox theology" when you stated: "Orthodox theology always holds authority comes from God.. not a consensus." Orthodox by definition is the adherence to commonly excepted standards or a view held as correct by a consensus of people. Scott stated, "The church has received the Scriptures because they are God-breathed." The church receiving the Scriptures is not a private individual, but rather a collective group of individuals. A consensus of born again Spirit filled members of the Church of God recognize that the Canon of Scriptures is limited to 66 books. This is not to say that no peculiar individual or sect within the Church might disagree with the Canon and want to reject the book of James, add the book of Jasper and include the Gospel of Thomas. Their peculiar soul liberty is not binding on the consensus opinion (recognition) of the Church of God.

Now, since you gentlemen poo-poo my definition of Scripture, would you please explain to the reader in detail why you disagree with my definition and then give your definition so that the Reader can diligently compare the differences and make their own conclusions?

 

[Ransom]

Their collective witness takes precedence over your preference when identifying authoritative Scriptures.

Says who?

The group that you label "the church" is not your individual preference, sectarian recognition, peculiar recognition, etc., but a consensus of born again members of the Church of Christ who all come to the same conclusion when recognizing what is and what is not Scripture.

The church is not a "consensus."

Their collective testimony takes precedence over sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred testimony.

Says who? I guess Athanasius should have just gone along with the consensus and become an Arian.

Who determines what is "objectively true"? You alone?

Well, that wouldn't be objective, now, would it? Duh!

Of course, your much-idolized "consensus" isn't objective, either.

What happens when a consensus of born again Spirit filled members of the Church of God every wit as diligent, God seeking, God loving, lovers of truth, etc. as you disagree with your determination?

They may very well be wrong, and if they are, "though none go with me, still I will follow."

 

[FSSL]

Barry you are wrong on all counts.

Again, from your website,

"THE AUTHORITY OF CONSENSUS (of spirit-filled, born-again, blood-bought saints), binding on dependents, is THE scriptural concept that kindles KJVO, and that burns your conscience.....

You have undermined the authority of God's word and moved that authority to a so-called "consensus." Why? Because it is necessary for KJVOs to bind the conscience of the collective.

See point 10: https://brentandjaniceriggs.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/relvance-of-the-canon/

 

[Ransom]

You have undermined the authority of God's word and moved that authority to a so-called "consensus." Why? Because it is necessary for KJVOs to bind the conscience of the collective.

Proof by peer pressure.

 

[Mitex]

The group that you label "the church" is not your individual preference, sectarian recognition, peculiar recognition, etc., but a consensus of born again members of the Church of Christ who all come to the same conclusion when recognizing what is and what is not Scripture.

The church is not a "consensus."

It is when used in your sentence: "The church has received the Scriptures because they are God-breathed."
You weren't referring to what only one member received, or what a sect within the church received, or what a peculiar member received, but rather what the consensus opinion of the church received.

Would you like to explain to the Reader the difference between your definition (please state clearly) and mine so that the Reader can diligently compare the two and come to his own conclusion? I'll repeat my definition:

The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers in any language or generation as the very word of God in written form given by inspiration of God ? true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

 

[Ransom]

It is when used in your sentence: "The church has received the Scriptures because they are God-breathed."

A consensus is an abstract. It cannot "receive." You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Mitex]

It is when used in your sentence: "The church has received the Scriptures because they are God-breathed."

A consensus is an abstract. It cannot "receive." You have no idea what you are talking about.

You can redirect and fallaciously (you fallacy-meister) construct a straw man all you want, but the fact remains you yourself appealed to "the church" (a collective body) when you stated: "The church  has received the Scriptures because they are God-breathed." The church in your sentence was the consensus opinion of that collective body as a whole and not particular individual members or a sect within the church. I'll reword my statement using your terminology:

The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized by THE CHURCH in any language or generation as the very word of God in written form given by inspiration of God ? true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

And once again, would you like to explain to the Reader the difference between your definition (please state clearly) and mine so that the Reader can diligently compare the two and come to his own conclusion?

 

[FSSL]

I translated NT and OT books... Those translations are God's word.

They remain on my computer. I only shared my translation of Amos with one other person. They are God's word and no one else ever gave their opinion (except one of my professors) on the translation.

No consensus. People don't even know they exist (until now)... YET, it is God's word with full authority.

 

[Ransom]

You can redirect and fallaciously (you fallacy-meister) construct a straw man all you want, but the fact remains you yourself appealed to "the church" (a collective body) when you stated: "The church  has received the Scriptures because they are God-breathed." The church in your sentence was the consensus opinion of that collective body as a whole and not particular individual members or a sect within the church.

Speaking of straw men, kindly stop creating them by (incorrectly) explaining to me what I meant. I never claimed that the church was a "consensus opinion."