KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant
- Thread starter brandplucked
- Start date
- Status
better
better
Excuse me for barging in... but PeterAV I think would be okay with it ... I know him from another forum. What he is saying is that the AV is better than the originals because it is 1) in English!, 2) complete and entire Word of God in One Book, 3) Proven to be without error.
And Justin, please... typos are not errors in God's Word...they are errors in the printer's shop. Seriously, are you like 12? I've found many of those who post on net boards are pre-teens, teens, or just immature.
And I must note, Will's original argument has not been answered. I will restate it in my own way....Show forth THE BIBLE you use that is without error....just give us the name of the book, that is: which version? If it is any other than the AV , we can show you the errors. And since you cannot show a bible other than the AV that is without error, then you have no bible lest you use the AV. You have no final authority and are your own judge of right and wrong...or put another way...you are your own final authority....as it was in the days of Noah....
better
Turbo said:
Excuse me for barging in... but PeterAV I think would be okay with it ... I know him from another forum. What he is saying is that the AV is better than the originals because it is 1) in English!, 2) complete and entire Word of God in One Book, 3) Proven to be without error.
And Justin, please... typos are not errors in God's Word...they are errors in the printer's shop. Seriously, are you like 12? I've found many of those who post on net boards are pre-teens, teens, or just immature.
And I must note, Will's original argument has not been answered. I will restate it in my own way....Show forth THE BIBLE you use that is without error....just give us the name of the book, that is: which version? If it is any other than the AV , we can show you the errors. And since you cannot show a bible other than the AV that is without error, then you have no bible lest you use the AV. You have no final authority and are your own judge of right and wrong...or put another way...you are your own final authority....as it was in the days of Noah....
MartianManhuntr
New member
godrulz said:
You are wrong. "monogenes uios" literally means "only-begotten son" but the idea being represented is "only son who is so by nature." Christians are all sons of God, but Jesus is the only son of God who is so by nature. To say "one and only" is insufficient because the Scripture indicates that there are other sons of God who are so by adoption. To say "unique" is also insufficient because it does not specify in what way he is unique, whereas the term "monogenes" carries with it in Greek a very specific meaning as far as the uniqueness that it indicates. It indicates that he is the only son of God who is so in the strictest since, by nature. All others are sons merely by adoption. You could not say you have a "monogenes" car to mean you have a "unique" car, etc. The "uniqueness" indicated by the word has to do with fathership and is not generic uniqueness. In short, it is you who have "made a rookie exegetical error that a first year Greek student would know."
AVBunyan
New member
Inspired scripture
Inspired scripture
Nowhere in any bible does it say the "King James" only is inspired - last time I checked my concordance I just couldn't find those two words together.
But...when I open up my King James Bible I believe by faith plus the internal evidence of what I read that what I have in my hands is inspired according to II Tim. 3:15,16.
Can you say the same when you open up what you read?
God bless
Inspired scripture
Turbo said:
Nowhere in any bible does it say the "King James" only is inspired - last time I checked my concordance I just couldn't find those two words together.
But...when I open up my King James Bible I believe by faith plus the internal evidence of what I read that what I have in my hands is inspired according to II Tim. 3:15,16.
Can you say the same when you open up what you read?
God bless
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
AVBunyan said:
The technical term for that is a "Personal Gnostic Revelation."
Justin
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
silverkz said:
You don't say.
Do we then assume that God has "specially chosen the English-speaking people?" Did the Oracles of God come through Erasmus? Or do we simply make James I a "Second Moses?" [sarcasm]Oh, but that's right ... since the KJV is "better than the original," James would actually take preeminence over Moses. :doh: Of course! I should have seen this myself![/sarcasm]
I just wonder when you're going to declare the Printer's Note "Inspired."
So you're telling me that God can guide the translator ... but not the printer?
I am quite a bit older than twelve. And I know an "ad hominem" when I see it.
So, then, before 1611 there was no Bible? For those who do not speak English--oops, sorry, you must learn English to read a Bible.
Come now! If Logic were a person, she would rise and rebuke you for your foolishness. As it stands, the author of 1 Timothy 1:4-7 has already spoken of you and your ilk, and I find myself content to allow him to speak for me.
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
Justin
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
AVBunyan said:
"Knowledge falsely so called."
Justin
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
AVBunyan said:
Try again, AVBunyan. You said "faith plus the internal evidence of what I read..." (emphasis mine) That "internal evidence" is a PGR--the Mormons call it a "Burning in the Bosom," and it's exactly the same phenomenon when it happens to you.
Have a nice day. :wave:
Justin
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Justin (Wiccan) said:
Can you believe it?!?! I got bad-repped on the above post ... for "contradicting myself!" :darwinsm:
MartianManhuntr, if you're going to make up reasons to bad-rep people you disagree with, at least have the sense to make up a reason that remotely resemble the truth. :chuckle:
Justin
:chuckle:Justin (Wiccan) said:
MartianManhuntr
New member
Justin (Wiccan) said:
It wasn't a made up reason. You claim to be against "Personal Gnostic Revelation" and yet your entire religion is based on the same. That's certainly contradicting yourself.
MartianManhuntr
New member
BTW, this is for everyone:
I am not KJV only. I am Received Text only. That means that I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek autographs were inspired and that the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are perfectly preserved copies of the original autographs and therefore inspired as well. As a sidenote, the KJV is the best widely available English translation of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text, and is without proven error when correctly understood.
I am not KJV only. I am Received Text only. That means that I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek autographs were inspired and that the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are perfectly preserved copies of the original autographs and therefore inspired as well. As a sidenote, the KJV is the best widely available English translation of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text, and is without proven error when correctly understood.
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
MartianManhuntr said:
You're quite incorrect. I am not against Personal Gnostic Revelations. I am against those PGRs that contradict fact. Faith and fact cannot contradict each other.
Justin
- Status