Question about Fundamentalist statement of faith

MatthewDiscipleofGod · #11 13th April 2012, 09:58 PM

I believe we have an error free Bible in English and that is the KJV. There may be some spelling corrections and different font sets for the printing but the actual text of the KJV has not changed. I can be confident that the true story of the woman being caught in adultery belongs in the Bible and that Acts 8:37 also belongs in the Bible.

Faith.Man · #12 13th April 2012, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Thy WORD is TRUTH

The Greek text (Now known as the Textus Receptus) which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these were Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure. It is based on over 95% of 5300+ Greek texts in existence.

What would that be?

Which one of the versions you listed is inerrant and infallible as per the statement of faith? Which would you hand me? Or all?

So because there's been seperate editions you choose the 5% minority Alexandrian and Vatican text instead?

I'm surprised to see his name mentioned on a fundamentalist forum. His book, strawman arguments and attacks on the Word of God have been exposed long ago. I won't even go into that.

Anyways back on topic, waiting for someone to define what is meant in the statement of faith. Several don't seem to hold to biblical inerrancy here.

If you want to have a dialog, have the decency to quote my name, direct your questions to me and do not pull a word or sentence out of context. Most everybody else here follows these rules. I'm not going to give you special treatment.

Faith.Man · #13 13th April 2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by MatthewDiscipleofGod

I believe we have an error free Bible in English and that is the KJV. There may be some spelling corrections and different font sets for the printing but the actual text of the KJV has not changed. I can be confident that the true story of the woman being caught in adultery belongs in the Bible and that Acts 8:37 also belongs in the Bible.

Here's a passage I picked at random, Matthew 18.

Mat 18:1 At the same time came the Disciples vnto Iesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the Kingdome of heauen?
Mat 18:2 And Iesus called a little child vnto him, and set him in the midst of them,
Mat 18:3 And said, Uerily I say vnto you, Except yee be conuerted, and become as little children, yee shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen.
Mat 18:4 Whosoeuer therefore shall humble himselfe as this little childe, the same is greatest in the Kingdome of heauen.
Mat 18:5 And who so shall receiue one such little child in my name, receiueth me.
Mat 18:6 But who so shall offend one of these little ones which beleeue in me, it were better for him that a milstone were hanged about his necke, and that hee were drowned in the depth of the Sea.
Mat 18:7 Woe vnto the world because of offences: for it must needs be that offences come: but wo to that man by whom the offence commeth.
Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foote offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather then hauing two hands or two feete, to be cast into euerlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if thine eie offend thee, plucke it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eie, rather then hauing two eies, to be cast into hell fire.
Mat 18:10 Take heed that yee despise not one of these little ones: for I say vnto you, that in heauen their Angels do alwaies behold the face of my father which is in heauen.
Mat 18:11 For the sonne of man is come to saue that which was lost.
Mat 18:12 How thinke yee? If a man haue an hundred sheepe, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leaue the ninetie and nine, and goeth into the mountaines, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
Mat 18:13 And if so be that he find it, Uerily I say vnto you, hee reioyceth more of that sheepe, then of the ninetie and nine which went not astray.
Mat 18:14 Euen so, it is not the will of your father which is in heauen, that one of these little ones should perish.
Mat 18:15 Moreouer, if thy brother shall trespasse against thee, goe and tell him his fault betweene thee and him alone: if he shall heare thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not heare thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, euery word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if hee shall neglect to heare them, tell it vnto the Church: But if he neglect to heare the Church, let him be vnto thee as an heathen man, and a Publicane.
Mat 18:18 Uerily I say vnto you, Whatsoeuer ye shall binde on earth, shall bee bound in heauen: and whatsoeuer yee shall loose on earth, shall bee loosed in heauen.
Mat 18:19 Againe I say vnto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall aske, it shall bee done for them of my father which is in heauen.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them.
Mat 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sinne against mee, and I forgiue him? till seuen times?
Mat 18:22 Iesus saith vnto him, I say not vnto thee, Untill seuen times: but, Untill seuentie times seuen.
Mat 18:23 Therefore is the kingdome of heauen likened vnto a certaine king, which would take accompt of his seruants.
Mat 18:24 And when hee had begun to reckon, one was brought vnto him which ought him ten thousand talents.
Mat 18:25 But forasmuch as hee had not to pay, his lord commanded him to bee sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
Mat 18:26 The seruant therfore fell downe, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, haue patience with mee, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:27 Then the Lord of that seruant was moued with compassion, and loosed him, and forgaue him the debt.
Mat 18:28 But the same seruant went out, and found one of his fellow-seruants, which ought him an hundred pence: and hee layd handes on him, and tooke him by the throte, saying, Pay mee that thou owest.
Mat 18:29 And his fellow seruant fell downe at his feete, and besought him, saying, Haue patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till hee should pay the debt.
Mat 18:31 So when his fellow-seruants saw what was done, they were very sorie, and came, and told vnto their lord all that was done.
Mat 18:32 Then his lord, after that hee had called him, said vnto him, O thou wicked seruant, I forgaue thee all that debt because thou desiredst me:
Mat 18:33 Shouldest not thou also haue had compassion on thy fellow-seruant, euen as I had pitie on thee?
Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and deliuered him to the tormentors, till hee should pay all that was due vnto him.
Mat 18:35 So likewise shall my heauenly Father doe also vnto you, if yee from your hearts forgiue not euery one his brother their trespasses. [KJV-1611 courtesy of e-Sword]

Is this the KJV you are reading? What about people in Brazil? Do they need to wait for the KJV translation to be translated from English to Portuguese? Basically a translation of a translation, something would undoubtedly be lost in that case. The Bible is meant to be read by the common people in the common tongue. You shouldn't have to be a cloistered monk or a doctor in ancient and dead languages to understand it. Clinging to the KJV-1611 is clinging to the tradition of the Reformation Movement. I do not believe the reformers had that in mind.

VCViking · #14 14th April 2012, 02:19 AM

MatthewDiscipleofGod · #15 14th April 2012, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Faith.Man

Is this the KJV you are reading? What about people in Brazil? Do they need to wait for the KJV translation to be translated from English to Portuguese? Basically a translation of a translation, something would undoubtedly be lost in that case. The Bible is meant to be read by the common people in the common tongue. You shouldn't have to be a cloistered monk or a doctor in ancient and dead languages to understand it. Clinging to the KJV-1611 is clinging to the tradition of the Reformation Movement. I do not believe the reformers had that in mind.
[/color]

I have that 1611 version both in E-sword and hardcover. I use the one with the updated spelling and in soft leather. It still has the same words and none of the verses are missing from it like they are with modern versions as mentioned in my post. Also mentioned in my post was that the KJV is the perfect Bible in English. I believe there is a perfect Bible in Spanish but I would need to research that further before giving my opinion. I don't believe Baptists are part of the reformation but that is another discussion all together.

ptomwebster · #16 15th April 2012, 12:18 AM

You lose a lot when you can't read Scriptures in the original languages. There are words that do not translate well; he grammar, the idioms, the figures of speech.

357magnum · #17 15th April 2012, 01:27 AM

The Holy Bible was NOT written in English, so all we're talking about is a translation - nothing more. We have many excellent English Translations, and I give thanks for that. In fact, I give thanks that there are excellent translations in just about every known language to mankind.

357magnum · #18 15th April 2012, 01:41 AM

Wow! - Another one of those silly KJV Only threads.

I use the KJV and think that it's a good translation, but I use several others also, including at least one that is more accurate than the KJV.

The 1611 KJV was published with the Apocrypha. At one time there were so many different versions of the KJV in use that they formed a committee to standardize it. What most people today consider as the KJV is a 1769 version of the KJV. The KJV Onlyists need to become educated. One of the easiest ways is to read the preface and notes of the original translators and note thousands of alternate readings in the margins. The translators were honest and told the truth about their TRANSLATION. The KJV Only position is silly and impossible to defend. There's much more to the story that anyone can easily find if they want the whole truth about the KJV - just a good translation and certainly not the best.

Faith.Man · #19 15th April 2012, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by MatthewDiscipleofGod

I have that 1611 version both in E-sword and hardcover. I use the one with the updated spelling and in soft leather. It still has the same words and none of the verses are missing from it like they are with modern versions as mentioned in my post. Also mentioned in my post was that the KJV is the perfect Bible in English. I believe there is a perfect Bible in Spanish but I would need to research that further before giving my opinion. I don't believe Baptists are part of the reformation but that is another discussion all together.

The KJV (Dake) was the first Bible I ever read all the way through, and the Bible I read before and after my Salvation. It is a fine translation, poetically it flows beautifully, but it is not perfect. I have a number of KJV Bibles, both electronically and in hard copy. I'm glad you like reading and studying based on the KJV. There are too many Christians out there who don't read the Bible at all because they find the language too difficult. I'm not talking about people of low intelligence, but very smart people I've worked with who cannot make sense of verses because of the language. Would you keep these people from understanding the Word because of the archaic language used?

I maybe in the minority here, but I don't read the Bible now without supporting and/or complimentary information of one sort or another within fingers reach. I read the NIV for pleasure, but mostly study using the NASB, ESV, HCSB and a few others. We now have manuscript fragments that are older than those used to produce the KJV. What's to say that the older fragments are not correct? These fragments were not available when the KJV was produced.

God Bless
Bob

thesunisout · #20 15th April 2012, 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by Thy WORD is TRUTH

I am of the KJV/Textus Receptus only position. I've noticed there are those in this section who disagree with this position and use modern versions. With that in mind I saw this in the statement of faith:

Could someone clarify which Bible this is referring to? If someone asked me to hand this to them, I would hand them a KJV. If I ask that to those in this forum, what would I get handed to me? Bear in mind the words inerrant and infallible are used.

In Christ,

Brother L

Personally, I study with the KJV. I teach bible study with the NKJV (with KJV mixed in), simply because the archaic language creates issues, especially for new Christians. I don't really see a problem with someone learning on something like an ESV for ease of reading and then coming to the KJV later. I understand all of the issues of the ESV and the like..and I wouldn't use a NIV except for kindling..but I have found that some Christians just struggle with it, and that creates a barrier to learning anything.