|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 12:23 am
Garland-Green SARL0 Garland-Green SARL0  i just believe that God preserved His word perfectly and that it's been preserved for the English speaking ppl in the KJV bible. like i said, i've compared other versionis, read other versions and it bothers me that entire verses are omitted and then referenced in foot notes, i dont like the changes of the NIV and i certainly do not feel spiritually nourished or edified from other translations. It is the KJV that speaks to my spirit, so it's the KJV that i read, use and reference when discussing the things of the bible. i wouldn't join or faithfully attend a church that didnt use the KJV. my relationship with God is personal through Christ Jesus, therefore it makes perfect sense to me that my bible version of choice is also personal, and i personally choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word. you can think of me as illogical and point out how i'm missing blahblahblah... all i'm doing is choosing to believe that God kept his promise to preserve His word perfectly and refusing to fully rely on other versions as accurate. do you believe that you have Gods perfect word in any one translation? Does anyone in this guild believe that they can hold in their hands Gods perfect word? when i claim that by faith i have accepted the KJV as Gods perfect word, what is your response? accuse me of being illogical and satanic? you have your reasons for not believing that you have Gods perfect word or at least not believing that Gods perfect word is the KJV , i have my reasons for believing that it is. i find it extremely suspicious when ppl try to cause believers like me to doubt that i have Gods perfect word. why would another professed Christian want another Christian to doubt that they have the perfect word of God? to me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. i can understand atheists wanting to cause someone to doubt that they can have Gods perfect word, i can understand ppl who hate God, Christians and the bible accusing then of being illogical and satanic for holding the stance of accepting the KJV as Gods perfect preserved word, but i cannot understand Christians doing that to other Christians. No one is going to lynch you for holding that position, but no one is going to force me to say that it is right or logical. I used to hold that position myself, but after examining it further I saw that it doesn't match up with what I saw in other translations. You have the same doctrines and the Gospel present in newer translations. If God's word is limited to one English translation from 1611, then what about Christians before this year? What about Christians who can't read English? I come from a country where English is a second language. It would means that many people are not reading the word of God in their own tongue, because only the only perfect translation available is in English according to those who hold a KJV only position. The dangers of a KJV only position is that it could cause people to think that people for example are not saved because they are not saved with a verse from the KJV but from a newer translation, or that people isolate themselves with other KJV only Christians thinking they are the only ones being true (obedient) to God, or the only ones who have His word accurately. The question we have to ask ourselves is what constitutes the word of God? Is it possible that we can have translations where the translators have done minor mistakes in copying, and we still have the word of God? I belive this. As long as the Bible convey the Gospel accurately, as long as it is striving to present itself as close to the original manuscripts in its wording and its content then I believe we can trust it. If the truth is that there is no translation that doesn't have a copying-mistakes or translation mistakes, then that is the truth - and as Christians we should be about the truth, even though it sometimes makes us uncomfortable. We don't want to misrepresent the truth to anyone we speak to about this - people are capable of doing research. Finding out that they have been lied to can be devastating to someones faith. It doesn't mean we can not reconcile this with inerrancy. Inerrancy as I understand it is that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. From what I have seen this is also true of most newer translations where it doesn't deviate from the original manuscripts, and perhaps this is the extent to which God goes about in preserving His word. Not that He holds the pen of every copyist, but that He preserves the truth and doctrines even in translations even though they do not have the same verses due to variances in the original manuscripts. What do you put in the word perfect? I believe I can pick up any translation of the Bible, as far as they are not a translation done by a cult or someone who has succumbed to the popular opinions of the time e.g. The Queen James Bible, and find the same doctrines, teachings and that they are historically accurate as far as they are in line with the original manuscripts. It is a great blessing, not an obstacle that we have as many translations as we have. Some translations catch, or translate better things that other translator missed. Having so many translations and being able to compare them gives us a unique opportunity to study the word in a way that for example is impossible for a Muslim or even a Buddhist (Buddhist documents concerning the Buddha and Buddhist doctrines date hundreds of years after his death, compared to the synoptic gospels that date back to maybe a couple of decades after Jesus' Resurrection at the most). They have only one translation. Old manuscripts were burned, and they believe that God's word is only truly available in Arab. It shuts down any debate with someone who is an English speaker and want to debate the Koran. How can they really know what God wants if they only read English? Their understanding will be limited at best, corrupted at worst. Logically that would mean that if they proselyte from an English translation to someone not speaking Arab that they are not conveying the word of God. If it was the word of God, and it is to go out to all the world then why would he limit his word to one singular language? Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Quote: all i'm doing is choosing to believe that God kept his promise to preserve His word perfectly and refusing to fully rely on other versions as accurate. It is not all you are doing. You are making also an indirect statement about brothers and sisters reading other translations and who are reading the Bible in a different language believing that they are also reading God's word. Could God have meant that He would preserve His word in such a way that it would go out and accomplish what He intended no matter what kind of language it was uttered or written in? That we don't feel something spiritual about a particular translation doesn't mean that we can rely on feelings in informing other people that it is not a good translation for them to read. Feelings are subjective. What you feel about the NIV, someone could say about the KJV. They can take by faith that the NIV is the only accurate perfect word of God. An argument in favor of this could be that English is a language that was not done developing in 1611, and so it was not perfect... I don't believe that the NIV is the only perfect word of God, but I am using it to illustrate a point. well here's the thing. i'm NOT saying any of those things that you're saying. i'm not even addressing the issue of translations in other languages. i am saying that i believe and have faith that i have Gods perfect word for me to read in english. whatever anyone else feels or thinks based on my personal stance is their own thoughts that they can work out for themselves. i just want to let ppl know that my reasons for choosing the KJV to grow spiritually and to use when discussing and trying to understand what God says is based in research, comparison, logic and what i believe to be a reasonable choice. i dont think i'm relying solely on feelings for my choice, but so what if i was? so what if i only used the KJV because my greatgrandmother used it? Does that mean other Christians need to insult me or accuse me of doing something that would please satan? i would never make the bible version that someone chooses to use a salvation issue, but since you brought it up, if someone should question if they're saved or not because i and others choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word, that isnt something i feel i'm responsible for. and Btw.... questioning ones own salvation, imo, is healthy.. Gods word tells us to examine ourselves if we be in the faith and there's nothing wrong with it, imo. I examine myself often. i look back on the time that i trusted Christ and go over what i was feeling and thinking and remember what the preacher was talking about from Gods word. i remember how i repented of what i used to believe and chose to accept and believe Gods word to be true with child like faith and simply take the bible's word for it. i remember the immediate change that came over me. examining whether we're in the faith or not is, imo, something that we're instructed to do and should do. i think it's really sad and creepy for other Christians to accuse me of being illogical and doing something that would please satan. you and all believers have every right to like reading and feel spiritually nourished by whatever translation you choose, and i have every right to believe that other translations, especially the NIV, (cutting out 64,000 words and 17 whole verses are omitted from it) are corrupt , therefore i'm going to stick to the KJV as my weapon of choice (double edged sword) against the devil, as i believe it is powerful and cuts precise and accurate. 3nodding the picture depicts the words that ppl say and how they treat ppl like me who have faith that the KJV is Gods perfect word. their words are their weapons, their teeth are swords and knives. have you ever looked in to this: (its all about the KJV only stance) The Answer Bookim not trying to force you or anyone to say or believe anything. believe what you want to believe about me and ppl who have faith that the KJV is Gods word. i prefer the KJV and have faith that it's Gods perfect and holy word w/out error. and my emotions are a God given sense that He allows me to experience and i'm very grateful to be not only a logical creature, but an emotional one too. The words of God are spirit. and the KJV bears witness with my spirit that it is Gods words speaking directly to my heart. and i indeed experience this on an emotional level, a spiritual level and in my mind. I love the word of God, i love God with all my heart (emotional) mind, and spirit. the KJV allows the growth of this love and nourishment from His word. No other version does this for me. if you wish to come against that, i think it's sad, strange and weird for you, or any other professed Christian to do so. Reading that book that you suggested, and I am finding it to be very dishonest and slanderous... It says that " Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild." concerning Westcott and Hort. I am going to quote what they themselves said; Many years ago I had occasion to investigate “spiritualistic” phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope. ~ B.F. Westcott B.F. Westcott in “The Response to the Appeal”, Borderland, Vol. I, No. 1 (July 1893) p. 11. Writing more on this later. Need it to be more quiet around me to be able to focus. smile just going off that one quote of Westcott's own words on the matter, it does look like he attempted to or at least became familiar w/ communication w/ the dead and had enough dealings in such investigations that he was able to arrive at that conclusion.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 2:41 am
SARL0 Garland-Green SARL0 Garland-Green SARL0 i just believe that God preserved His word perfectly and that it's been preserved for the English speaking ppl in the KJV bible. like i said, i've compared other versionis, read other versions and it bothers me that entire verses are omitted and then referenced in foot notes, i dont like the changes of the NIV and i certainly do not feel spiritually nourished or edified from other translations. It is the KJV that speaks to my spirit, so it's the KJV that i read, use and reference when discussing the things of the bible. i wouldn't join or faithfully attend a church that didnt use the KJV. my relationship with God is personal through Christ Jesus, therefore it makes perfect sense to me that my bible version of choice is also personal, and i personally choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word. you can think of me as illogical and point out how i'm missing blahblahblah... all i'm doing is choosing to believe that God kept his promise to preserve His word perfectly and refusing to fully rely on other versions as accurate. do you believe that you have Gods perfect word in any one translation? Does anyone in this guild believe that they can hold in their hands Gods perfect word? when i claim that by faith i have accepted the KJV as Gods perfect word, what is your response? accuse me of being illogical and satanic? you have your reasons for not believing that you have Gods perfect word or at least not believing that Gods perfect word is the KJV , i have my reasons for believing that it is. i find it extremely suspicious when ppl try to cause believers like me to doubt that i have Gods perfect word. why would another professed Christian want another Christian to doubt that they have the perfect word of God? to me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. i can understand atheists wanting to cause someone to doubt that they can have Gods perfect word, i can understand ppl who hate God, Christians and the bible accusing then of being illogical and satanic for holding the stance of accepting the KJV as Gods perfect preserved word, but i cannot understand Christians doing that to other Christians. No one is going to lynch you for holding that position, but no one is going to force me to say that it is right or logical. I used to hold that position myself, but after examining it further I saw that it doesn't match up with what I saw in other translations. You have the same doctrines and the Gospel present in newer translations. If God's word is limited to one English translation from 1611, then what about Christians before this year? What about Christians who can't read English? I come from a country where English is a second language. It would means that many people are not reading the word of God in their own tongue, because only the only perfect translation available is in English according to those who hold a KJV only position. The dangers of a KJV only position is that it could cause people to think that people for example are not saved because they are not saved with a verse from the KJV but from a newer translation, or that people isolate themselves with other KJV only Christians thinking they are the only ones being true (obedient) to God, or the only ones who have His word accurately. The question we have to ask ourselves is what constitutes the word of God? Is it possible that we can have translations where the translators have done minor mistakes in copying, and we still have the word of God? I belive this. As long as the Bible convey the Gospel accurately, as long as it is striving to present itself as close to the original manuscripts in its wording and its content then I believe we can trust it. If the truth is that there is no translation that doesn't have a copying-mistakes or translation mistakes, then that is the truth - and as Christians we should be about the truth, even though it sometimes makes us uncomfortable. We don't want to misrepresent the truth to anyone we speak to about this - people are capable of doing research. Finding out that they have been lied to can be devastating to someones faith. It doesn't mean we can not reconcile this with inerrancy. Inerrancy as I understand it is that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. From what I have seen this is also true of most newer translations where it doesn't deviate from the original manuscripts, and perhaps this is the extent to which God goes about in preserving His word. Not that He holds the pen of every copyist, but that He preserves the truth and doctrines even in translations even though they do not have the same verses due to variances in the original manuscripts. What do you put in the word perfect? I believe I can pick up any translation of the Bible, as far as they are not a translation done by a cult or someone who has succumbed to the popular opinions of the time e.g. The Queen James Bible, and find the same doctrines, teachings and that they are historically accurate as far as they are in line with the original manuscripts. It is a great blessing, not an obstacle that we have as many translations as we have. Some translations catch, or translate better things that other translator missed. Having so many translations and being able to compare them gives us a unique opportunity to study the word in a way that for example is impossible for a Muslim or even a Buddhist (Buddhist documents concerning the Buddha and Buddhist doctrines date hundreds of years after his death, compared to the synoptic gospels that date back to maybe a couple of decades after Jesus' Resurrection at the most). They have only one translation. Old manuscripts were burned, and they believe that God's word is only truly available in Arab. It shuts down any debate with someone who is an English speaker and want to debate the Koran. How can they really know what God wants if they only read English? Their understanding will be limited at best, corrupted at worst. Logically that would mean that if they proselyte from an English translation to someone not speaking Arab that they are not conveying the word of God. If it was the word of God, and it is to go out to all the world then why would he limit his word to one singular language? Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Quote: all i'm doing is choosing to believe that God kept his promise to preserve His word perfectly and refusing to fully rely on other versions as accurate. It is not all you are doing. You are making also an indirect statement about brothers and sisters reading other translations and who are reading the Bible in a different language believing that they are also reading God's word. Could God have meant that He would preserve His word in such a way that it would go out and accomplish what He intended no matter what kind of language it was uttered or written in? That we don't feel something spiritual about a particular translation doesn't mean that we can rely on feelings in informing other people that it is not a good translation for them to read. Feelings are subjective. What you feel about the NIV, someone could say about the KJV. They can take by faith that the NIV is the only accurate perfect word of God. An argument in favor of this could be that English is a language that was not done developing in 1611, and so it was not perfect... I don't believe that the NIV is the only perfect word of God, but I am using it to illustrate a point. well here's the thing. i'm NOT saying any of those things that you're saying. i'm not even addressing the issue of translations in other languages. i am saying that i believe and have faith that i have Gods perfect word for me to read in english. whatever anyone else feels or thinks based on my personal stance is their own thoughts that they can work out for themselves. i just want to let ppl know that my reasons for choosing the KJV to grow spiritually and to use when discussing and trying to understand what God says is based in research, comparison, logic and what i believe to be a reasonable choice. i dont think i'm relying solely on feelings for my choice, but so what if i was? so what if i only used the KJV because my greatgrandmother used it? Does that mean other Christians need to insult me or accuse me of doing something that would please satan? i would never make the bible version that someone chooses to use a salvation issue, but since you brought it up, if someone should question if they're saved or not because i and others choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word, that isnt something i feel i'm responsible for. and Btw.... questioning ones own salvation, imo, is healthy.. Gods word tells us to examine ourselves if we be in the faith and there's nothing wrong with it, imo. I examine myself often. i look back on the time that i trusted Christ and go over what i was feeling and thinking and remember what the preacher was talking about from Gods word. i remember how i repented of what i used to believe and chose to accept and believe Gods word to be true with child like faith and simply take the bible's word for it. i remember the immediate change that came over me. examining whether we're in the faith or not is, imo, something that we're instructed to do and should do. i think it's really sad and creepy for other Christians to accuse me of being illogical and doing something that would please satan. you and all believers have every right to like reading and feel spiritually nourished by whatever translation you choose, and i have every right to believe that other translations, especially the NIV, (cutting out 64,000 words and 17 whole verses are omitted from it) are corrupt , therefore i'm going to stick to the KJV as my weapon of choice (double edged sword) against the devil, as i believe it is powerful and cuts precise and accurate. 3nodding the picture depicts the words that ppl say and how they treat ppl like me who have faith that the KJV is Gods perfect word. their words are their weapons, their teeth are swords and knives. have you ever looked in to this: (its all about the KJV only stance) The Answer Bookim not trying to force you or anyone to say or believe anything. believe what you want to believe about me and ppl who have faith that the KJV is Gods word. i prefer the KJV and have faith that it's Gods perfect and holy word w/out error. and my emotions are a God given sense that He allows me to experience and i'm very grateful to be not only a logical creature, but an emotional one too. The words of God are spirit. and the KJV bears witness with my spirit that it is Gods words speaking directly to my heart. and i indeed experience this on an emotional level, a spiritual level and in my mind. I love the word of God, i love God with all my heart (emotional) mind, and spirit. the KJV allows the growth of this love and nourishment from His word. No other version does this for me. if you wish to come against that, i think it's sad, strange and weird for you, or any other professed Christian to do so. Reading that book that you suggested, and I am finding it to be very dishonest and slanderous... It says that " Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild." concerning Westcott and Hort. I am going to quote what they themselves said; Many years ago I had occasion to investigate “spiritualistic” phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope. ~ B.F. Westcott B.F. Westcott in “The Response to the Appeal”, Borderland, Vol. I, No. 1 (July 1893) p. 11. Writing more on this later. Need it to be more quiet around me to be able to focus. smile just going off that one quote of Westcott's own words on the matter, it does look like he attempted to or at least became familiar w/ communication w/ the dead and had enough dealings in such investigations that he was able to arrive at that conclusion. But he did not base it on experience. He says; " Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them"His son in the biography about Westcott said; What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good. (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (London: Macmillan and Co., 1903), Vol. I, p. 119.) It seems to me like this is one of the issues that Gipp would have us disregard Westcott for, but his involvement in Spiritualism was very limited and with his rejection of it I don't see why we should make a big deal about it. What he says about it is a very orthodox and Biblical. Gipp is very unclear in what he is basing his statements on, and expects us to take his word for it. I find it telling when someone doesn't offer quotes or references. It becomes virtually impossible for a person to make any counterclaims because we don't know what exactly he is basing his belief on. Another quote from Gipp; Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", "a belief in the authority of the books of the New Testament so widely spread throughout the Christian body, so deeply rooted in the inmost consciousness of the Christian Church, so perfectly accordant with all the facts which we do know, can only be explained by admitteing that they are genuine and Apostolic, a written Rule of Christian Faith and Life." (History of the Canon of the New Testament, Westcott, p.14) "We have a Bible competent to calm our doubts, and able to speak to our weakness. It then becomes not an utterance in strange tongues, but in the words of wisdom and knowledge. It is authoritative, for it is the voice of GOD; it is intelligible, for it is in the language of men." (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Westcott, p.8.) "the Bible contains in itself the fullest witness to its Divine authority....legibly stamped with the Divine seal as 'inspired by God' in a sense in which no other writings are." (The Bible In The Church, Westcott, p.14-15) Quote from 'The Answer Book'; "Two unsaved Bible critics." What is Gipp basing this assertion on? Why are they unsaved? We very soon find ourselves lost in mysteries here; but remembering St John’s emphatic “I” as including both the divine and human natures of the Incarnate Lord, I always prefer to speak of “the two aspects of the Lord’s divine-human Person,” or to use some such phrase. By this mode of expression the most precious fact of the unity of the Lord’s Person is guarded, and yet we are enabled to regard Him as truly man and truly God. ~ B.F. Westcott The mode of the Lord’s existence on earth was truly human, and subject to all the conditions of human existence; but He never ceased to be God. ~ B.F. Westcott But the assumption of humanity, not for a time, but for ever, by the Word, who is God, was a truth undreamt of till it was realized. ~ B.F. Westcott Christ the Incarnate Word is the perfect revelation of the Father: as God, He reveals God. ~ B.F. Westcott Read the quotes in context; Google books. From the book 'Anglican Identities'. I feel as if what Gipp is doing is trying to smear someones reputation in order to disqualify them in order for him to promote the King James Bible only. "Everyone else follow two corrupt bible translators who were into spiritualism and necromancy."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 7:59 pm
Garland-Green SARL0 Garland-Green SARL0 Garland-Green No one is going to lynch you for holding that position, but no one is going to force me to say that it is right or logical. I used to hold that position myself, but after examining it further I saw that it doesn't match up with what I saw in other translations. You have the same doctrines and the Gospel present in newer translations. If God's word is limited to one English translation from 1611, then what about Christians before this year? What about Christians who can't read English? I come from a country where English is a second language. It would means that many people are not reading the word of God in their own tongue, because only the only perfect translation available is in English according to those who hold a KJV only position. The dangers of a KJV only position is that it could cause people to think that people for example are not saved because they are not saved with a verse from the KJV but from a newer translation, or that people isolate themselves with other KJV only Christians thinking they are the only ones being true (obedient) to God, or the only ones who have His word accurately. The question we have to ask ourselves is what constitutes the word of God? Is it possible that we can have translations where the translators have done minor mistakes in copying, and we still have the word of God? I belive this. As long as the Bible convey the Gospel accurately, as long as it is striving to present itself as close to the original manuscripts in its wording and its content then I believe we can trust it. If the truth is that there is no translation that doesn't have a copying-mistakes or translation mistakes, then that is the truth - and as Christians we should be about the truth, even though it sometimes makes us uncomfortable. We don't want to misrepresent the truth to anyone we speak to about this - people are capable of doing research. Finding out that they have been lied to can be devastating to someones faith. It doesn't mean we can not reconcile this with inerrancy. Inerrancy as I understand it is that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. From what I have seen this is also true of most newer translations where it doesn't deviate from the original manuscripts, and perhaps this is the extent to which God goes about in preserving His word. Not that He holds the pen of every copyist, but that He preserves the truth and doctrines even in translations even though they do not have the same verses due to variances in the original manuscripts. What do you put in the word perfect? I believe I can pick up any translation of the Bible, as far as they are not a translation done by a cult or someone who has succumbed to the popular opinions of the time e.g. The Queen James Bible, and find the same doctrines, teachings and that they are historically accurate as far as they are in line with the original manuscripts. It is a great blessing, not an obstacle that we have as many translations as we have. Some translations catch, or translate better things that other translator missed. Having so many translations and being able to compare them gives us a unique opportunity to study the word in a way that for example is impossible for a Muslim or even a Buddhist (Buddhist documents concerning the Buddha and Buddhist doctrines date hundreds of years after his death, compared to the synoptic gospels that date back to maybe a couple of decades after Jesus' Resurrection at the most). They have only one translation. Old manuscripts were burned, and they believe that God's word is only truly available in Arab. It shuts down any debate with someone who is an English speaker and want to debate the Koran. How can they really know what God wants if they only read English? Their understanding will be limited at best, corrupted at worst. Logically that would mean that if they proselyte from an English translation to someone not speaking Arab that they are not conveying the word of God. If it was the word of God, and it is to go out to all the world then why would he limit his word to one singular language? Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. It is not all you are doing. You are making also an indirect statement about brothers and sisters reading other translations and who are reading the Bible in a different language believing that they are also reading God's word. Could God have meant that He would preserve His word in such a way that it would go out and accomplish what He intended no matter what kind of language it was uttered or written in? That we don't feel something spiritual about a particular translation doesn't mean that we can rely on feelings in informing other people that it is not a good translation for them to read. Feelings are subjective. What you feel about the NIV, someone could say about the KJV. They can take by faith that the NIV is the only accurate perfect word of God. An argument in favor of this could be that English is a language that was not done developing in 1611, and so it was not perfect... I don't believe that the NIV is the only perfect word of God, but I am using it to illustrate a point. well here's the thing. i'm NOT saying any of those things that you're saying. i'm not even addressing the issue of translations in other languages. i am saying that i believe and have faith that i have Gods perfect word for me to read in english. whatever anyone else feels or thinks based on my personal stance is their own thoughts that they can work out for themselves. i just want to let ppl know that my reasons for choosing the KJV to grow spiritually and to use when discussing and trying to understand what God says is based in research, comparison, logic and what i believe to be a reasonable choice. i dont think i'm relying solely on feelings for my choice, but so what if i was? so what if i only used the KJV because my greatgrandmother used it? Does that mean other Christians need to insult me or accuse me of doing something that would please satan? i would never make the bible version that someone chooses to use a salvation issue, but since you brought it up, if someone should question if they're saved or not because i and others choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word, that isnt something i feel i'm responsible for. and Btw.... questioning ones own salvation, imo, is healthy.. Gods word tells us to examine ourselves if we be in the faith and there's nothing wrong with it, imo. I examine myself often. i look back on the time that i trusted Christ and go over what i was feeling and thinking and remember what the preacher was talking about from Gods word. i remember how i repented of what i used to believe and chose to accept and believe Gods word to be true with child like faith and simply take the bible's word for it. i remember the immediate change that came over me. examining whether we're in the faith or not is, imo, something that we're instructed to do and should do. i think it's really sad and creepy for other Christians to accuse me of being illogical and doing something that would please satan. you and all believers have every right to like reading and feel spiritually nourished by whatever translation you choose, and i have every right to believe that other translations, especially the NIV, (cutting out 64,000 words and 17 whole verses are omitted from it) are corrupt , therefore i'm going to stick to the KJV as my weapon of choice (double edged sword) against the devil, as i believe it is powerful and cuts precise and accurate. 3nodding the picture depicts the words that ppl say and how they treat ppl like me who have faith that the KJV is Gods perfect word. their words are their weapons, their teeth are swords and knives. have you ever looked in to this: (its all about the KJV only stance) The Answer Bookim not trying to force you or anyone to say or believe anything. believe what you want to believe about me and ppl who have faith that the KJV is Gods word. i prefer the KJV and have faith that it's Gods perfect and holy word w/out error. and my emotions are a God given sense that He allows me to experience and i'm very grateful to be not only a logical creature, but an emotional one too. The words of God are spirit. and the KJV bears witness with my spirit that it is Gods words speaking directly to my heart. and i indeed experience this on an emotional level, a spiritual level and in my mind. I love the word of God, i love God with all my heart (emotional) mind, and spirit. the KJV allows the growth of this love and nourishment from His word. No other version does this for me. if you wish to come against that, i think it's sad, strange and weird for you, or any other professed Christian to do so. Reading that book that you suggested, and I am finding it to be very dishonest and slanderous... It says that " Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild." concerning Westcott and Hort. I am going to quote what they themselves said; Many years ago I had occasion to investigate “spiritualistic” phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope. ~ B.F. Westcott B.F. Westcott in “The Response to the Appeal”, Borderland, Vol. I, No. 1 (July 1893) p. 11. Writing more on this later. Need it to be more quiet around me to be able to focus. smile just going off that one quote of Westcott's own words on the matter, it does look like he attempted to or at least became familiar w/ communication w/ the dead and had enough dealings in such investigations that he was able to arrive at that conclusion. But he did not base it on experience. He says; " Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them"His son in the biography about Westcott said; What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good. (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (London: Macmillan and Co., 1903), Vol. I, p. 119.) It seems to me like this is one of the issues that Gipp would have us disregard Westcott for, but his involvement in Spiritualism was very limited and with his rejection of it I don't see why we should make a big deal about it. What he says about it is a very orthodox and Biblical. Gipp is very unclear in what he is basing his statements on, and expects us to take his word for it. I find it telling when someone doesn't offer quotes or references. It becomes virtually impossible for a person to make any counterclaims because we don't know what exactly he is basing his belief on. Another quote from Gipp; Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", "a belief in the authority of the books of the New Testament so widely spread throughout the Christian body, so deeply rooted in the inmost consciousness of the Christian Church, so perfectly accordant with all the facts which we do know, can only be explained by admitteing that they are genuine and Apostolic, a written Rule of Christian Faith and Life." (History of the Canon of the New Testament, Westcott, p.14) "We have a Bible competent to calm our doubts, and able to speak to our weakness. It then becomes not an utterance in strange tongues, but in the words of wisdom and knowledge. It is authoritative, for it is the voice of GOD; it is intelligible, for it is in the language of men." (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Westcott, p.8.) "the Bible contains in itself the fullest witness to its Divine authority....legibly stamped with the Divine seal as 'inspired by God' in a sense in which no other writings are." (The Bible In The Church, Westcott, p.14-15) Quote from 'The Answer Book'; "Two unsaved Bible critics." What is Gipp basing this assertion on? Why are they unsaved? We very soon find ourselves lost in mysteries here; but remembering St John’s emphatic “I” as including both the divine and human natures of the Incarnate Lord, I always prefer to speak of “the two aspects of the Lord’s divine-human Person,” or to use some such phrase. By this mode of expression the most precious fact of the unity of the Lord’s Person is guarded, and yet we are enabled to regard Him as truly man and truly God. ~ B.F. Westcott The mode of the Lord’s existence on earth was truly human, and subject to all the conditions of human existence; but He never ceased to be God. ~ B.F. Westcott But the assumption of humanity, not for a time, but for ever, by the Word, who is God, was a truth undreamt of till it was realized. ~ B.F. Westcott Christ the Incarnate Word is the perfect revelation of the Father: as God, He reveals God. ~ B.F. Westcott Read the quotes in context; Google books. From the book 'Anglican Identities'. I feel as if what Gipp is doing is trying to smear someones reputation in order to disqualify them in order for him to promote the King James Bible only. "Everyone else follow two corrupt bible translators who were into spiritualism and necromancy." and imo, Gipp doesn't even need to discredit them in the way he is doing. because to me, for ppl to do what Westcott and Hort did, sufficiently discredits them w/out needing any further help. it would be like Gipp or someone who has studied the bible, giving themselves the authority to interpret and decide what the bible says and means , writing it, and then selling it under the title of "holy bible" . the NIV is not the holy bible, it's what westcott and hort thinks the bible says. that's just my opinion. i think Gipp wastes his efforts trying to smear them. someone who is going to choose the KJV over the NIV probably isn't going to choose it based on any evidence that Gipp presents about the writers character. from my experience, KJV-only's choose the KJV because of the words and differences in meaning, not because the writers had or didnt have squeaky clean pasts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 14, 2016 3:23 am
SARL0 Garland-Green SARL0 Garland-Green SARL0 Garland-Green No one is going to lynch you for holding that position, but no one is going to force me to say that it is right or logical. I used to hold that position myself, but after examining it further I saw that it doesn't match up with what I saw in other translations. You have the same doctrines and the Gospel present in newer translations. If God's word is limited to one English translation from 1611, then what about Christians before this year? What about Christians who can't read English? I come from a country where English is a second language. It would means that many people are not reading the word of God in their own tongue, because only the only perfect translation available is in English according to those who hold a KJV only position. The dangers of a KJV only position is that it could cause people to think that people for example are not saved because they are not saved with a verse from the KJV but from a newer translation, or that people isolate themselves with other KJV only Christians thinking they are the only ones being true (obedient) to God, or the only ones who have His word accurately. The question we have to ask ourselves is what constitutes the word of God? Is it possible that we can have translations where the translators have done minor mistakes in copying, and we still have the word of God? I belive this. As long as the Bible convey the Gospel accurately, as long as it is striving to present itself as close to the original manuscripts in its wording and its content then I believe we can trust it. If the truth is that there is no translation that doesn't have a copying-mistakes or translation mistakes, then that is the truth - and as Christians we should be about the truth, even though it sometimes makes us uncomfortable. We don't want to misrepresent the truth to anyone we speak to about this - people are capable of doing research. Finding out that they have been lied to can be devastating to someones faith. It doesn't mean we can not reconcile this with inerrancy. Inerrancy as I understand it is that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. From what I have seen this is also true of most newer translations where it doesn't deviate from the original manuscripts, and perhaps this is the extent to which God goes about in preserving His word. Not that He holds the pen of every copyist, but that He preserves the truth and doctrines even in translations even though they do not have the same verses due to variances in the original manuscripts. What do you put in the word perfect? I believe I can pick up any translation of the Bible, as far as they are not a translation done by a cult or someone who has succumbed to the popular opinions of the time e.g. The Queen James Bible, and find the same doctrines, teachings and that they are historically accurate as far as they are in line with the original manuscripts. It is a great blessing, not an obstacle that we have as many translations as we have. Some translations catch, or translate better things that other translator missed. Having so many translations and being able to compare them gives us a unique opportunity to study the word in a way that for example is impossible for a Muslim or even a Buddhist (Buddhist documents concerning the Buddha and Buddhist doctrines date hundreds of years after his death, compared to the synoptic gospels that date back to maybe a couple of decades after Jesus' Resurrection at the most). They have only one translation. Old manuscripts were burned, and they believe that God's word is only truly available in Arab. It shuts down any debate with someone who is an English speaker and want to debate the Koran. How can they really know what God wants if they only read English? Their understanding will be limited at best, corrupted at worst. Logically that would mean that if they proselyte from an English translation to someone not speaking Arab that they are not conveying the word of God. If it was the word of God, and it is to go out to all the world then why would he limit his word to one singular language? Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. It is not all you are doing. You are making also an indirect statement about brothers and sisters reading other translations and who are reading the Bible in a different language believing that they are also reading God's word. Could God have meant that He would preserve His word in such a way that it would go out and accomplish what He intended no matter what kind of language it was uttered or written in? That we don't feel something spiritual about a particular translation doesn't mean that we can rely on feelings in informing other people that it is not a good translation for them to read. Feelings are subjective. What you feel about the NIV, someone could say about the KJV. They can take by faith that the NIV is the only accurate perfect word of God. An argument in favor of this could be that English is a language that was not done developing in 1611, and so it was not perfect... I don't believe that the NIV is the only perfect word of God, but I am using it to illustrate a point. well here's the thing. i'm NOT saying any of those things that you're saying. i'm not even addressing the issue of translations in other languages. i am saying that i believe and have faith that i have Gods perfect word for me to read in english. whatever anyone else feels or thinks based on my personal stance is their own thoughts that they can work out for themselves. i just want to let ppl know that my reasons for choosing the KJV to grow spiritually and to use when discussing and trying to understand what God says is based in research, comparison, logic and what i believe to be a reasonable choice. i dont think i'm relying solely on feelings for my choice, but so what if i was? so what if i only used the KJV because my greatgrandmother used it? Does that mean other Christians need to insult me or accuse me of doing something that would please satan? i would never make the bible version that someone chooses to use a salvation issue, but since you brought it up, if someone should question if they're saved or not because i and others choose to believe that the KJV is Gods word, that isnt something i feel i'm responsible for. and Btw.... questioning ones own salvation, imo, is healthy.. Gods word tells us to examine ourselves if we be in the faith and there's nothing wrong with it, imo. I examine myself often. i look back on the time that i trusted Christ and go over what i was feeling and thinking and remember what the preacher was talking about from Gods word. i remember how i repented of what i used to believe and chose to accept and believe Gods word to be true with child like faith and simply take the bible's word for it. i remember the immediate change that came over me. examining whether we're in the faith or not is, imo, something that we're instructed to do and should do. i think it's really sad and creepy for other Christians to accuse me of being illogical and doing something that would please satan. you and all believers have every right to like reading and feel spiritually nourished by whatever translation you choose, and i have every right to believe that other translations, especially the NIV, (cutting out 64,000 words and 17 whole verses are omitted from it) are corrupt , therefore i'm going to stick to the KJV as my weapon of choice (double edged sword) against the devil, as i believe it is powerful and cuts precise and accurate. 3nodding the picture depicts the words that ppl say and how they treat ppl like me who have faith that the KJV is Gods perfect word. their words are their weapons, their teeth are swords and knives. have you ever looked in to this: (its all about the KJV only stance) The Answer Bookim not trying to force you or anyone to say or believe anything. believe what you want to believe about me and ppl who have faith that the KJV is Gods word. i prefer the KJV and have faith that it's Gods perfect and holy word w/out error. and my emotions are a God given sense that He allows me to experience and i'm very grateful to be not only a logical creature, but an emotional one too. The words of God are spirit. and the KJV bears witness with my spirit that it is Gods words speaking directly to my heart. and i indeed experience this on an emotional level, a spiritual level and in my mind. I love the word of God, i love God with all my heart (emotional) mind, and spirit. the KJV allows the growth of this love and nourishment from His word. No other version does this for me. if you wish to come against that, i think it's sad, strange and weird for you, or any other professed Christian to do so. Reading that book that you suggested, and I am finding it to be very dishonest and slanderous... It says that " Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild." concerning Westcott and Hort. I am going to quote what they themselves said; Many years ago I had occasion to investigate “spiritualistic” phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope. ~ B.F. Westcott B.F. Westcott in “The Response to the Appeal”, Borderland, Vol. I, No. 1 (July 1893) p. 11. Writing more on this later. Need it to be more quiet around me to be able to focus. smile just going off that one quote of Westcott's own words on the matter, it does look like he attempted to or at least became familiar w/ communication w/ the dead and had enough dealings in such investigations that he was able to arrive at that conclusion. But he did not base it on experience. He says; " Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them"His son in the biography about Westcott said; What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good. (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (London: Macmillan and Co., 1903), Vol. I, p. 119.) It seems to me like this is one of the issues that Gipp would have us disregard Westcott for, but his involvement in Spiritualism was very limited and with his rejection of it I don't see why we should make a big deal about it. What he says about it is a very orthodox and Biblical. Gipp is very unclear in what he is basing his statements on, and expects us to take his word for it. I find it telling when someone doesn't offer quotes or references. It becomes virtually impossible for a person to make any counterclaims because we don't know what exactly he is basing his belief on. Another quote from Gipp; Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", "a belief in the authority of the books of the New Testament so widely spread throughout the Christian body, so deeply rooted in the inmost consciousness of the Christian Church, so perfectly accordant with all the facts which we do know, can only be explained by admitteing that they are genuine and Apostolic, a written Rule of Christian Faith and Life." (History of the Canon of the New Testament, Westcott, p.14) "We have a Bible competent to calm our doubts, and able to speak to our weakness. It then becomes not an utterance in strange tongues, but in the words of wisdom and knowledge. It is authoritative, for it is the voice of GOD; it is intelligible, for it is in the language of men." (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Westcott, p.8.) "the Bible contains in itself the fullest witness to its Divine authority....legibly stamped with the Divine seal as 'inspired by God' in a sense in which no other writings are." (The Bible In The Church, Westcott, p.14-15) Quote from 'The Answer Book'; "Two unsaved Bible critics." What is Gipp basing this assertion on? Why are they unsaved? We very soon find ourselves lost in mysteries here; but remembering St John’s emphatic “I” as including both the divine and human natures of the Incarnate Lord, I always prefer to speak of “the two aspects of the Lord’s divine-human Person,” or to use some such phrase. By this mode of expression the most precious fact of the unity of the Lord’s Person is guarded, and yet we are enabled to regard Him as truly man and truly God. ~ B.F. Westcott The mode of the Lord’s existence on earth was truly human, and subject to all the conditions of human existence; but He never ceased to be God. ~ B.F. Westcott But the assumption of humanity, not for a time, but for ever, by the Word, who is God, was a truth undreamt of till it was realized. ~ B.F. Westcott Christ the Incarnate Word is the perfect revelation of the Father: as God, He reveals God. ~ B.F. Westcott Read the quotes in context; Google books. From the book 'Anglican Identities'. I feel as if what Gipp is doing is trying to smear someones reputation in order to disqualify them in order for him to promote the King James Bible only. "Everyone else follow two corrupt bible translators who were into spiritualism and necromancy." and imo, Gipp doesn't even need to discredit them in the way he is doing. because to me, for ppl to do what Westcott and Hort did, sufficiently discredits them w/out needing any further help. it would be like Gipp or someone who has studied the bible, giving themselves the authority to interpret and decide what the bible says and means , writing it, and then selling it under the title of "holy bible" . the NIV is not the holy bible, it's what westcott and hort thinks the bible says. that's just my opinion. i think Gipp wastes his efforts trying to smear them. someone who is going to choose the KJV over the NIV probably isn't going to choose it based on any evidence that Gipp presents about the writers character. from my experience, KJV-only's choose the KJV because of the words and differences in meaning, not because the writers had or didnt have squeaky clean pasts. Gipp is dishonest, and he oversimplifies, if not twist things - to favor his view. Any Bible we have that is not the original manuscripts, translated into another language - which the English Bible translations are, will be somewhat a subject to the translators interpretation. The translation process isn't just a matter of translating word for word, but also doing research on how the word was use, and how the author intended it to be understood. When translating something from one language to another you have to use approximation (some things translate badly from one language to another) and even change sentence structure for it to make any sense. I know because I speak and write both Norwegian and English. That is as true of the NIV as of the KJV. Differences between the KJV and the NIV can be attributed to the differences between the Masoretic text and the LXX. Variant readings doesn't have to be an issue unless we decide to make it an issue. It doesn't mean that we have to denounce either the Masoretic text or the LXX because there are some differences... I don't understand why people don't try to reconcile the differences instead of attacking one of the texts... I feel it unfair and defamatory to the Alexandrian Christians and Origen to be portrayed in this fashion. I was debating with myself if we should have taken this debate somewhere else but I read up on Ruckman and he held to some of the same ideas that Gipp does, so it seems fair to discuss it here. Wikipedia; Ruckman distinguished between the Textus Receptus of the KJV, and the numerically fewer manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type underlying most modern New Testament versions. Ruckman characterized those who endorse the latter as members of the "Alexandrian Cult" who believe that while the autographs were God-inspired, they have been lost, and that therefore his opponents believe there to be "no final, absolute written authority of God anywhere on this earth." [10] Ruckman also believed that the Septuagint was a hoax perpetrated by the "Alexandrian cult" under the leadership of the Church Father Origen Adamantius (as part of his Hexapla) in the 3rd century A.D. in order to subvert belief in the integrity of the Bible.[11] 10. The "Creed of the Alexandrian Cult". 11. "The LXX is nothing more than a figment of someone’s imagination. The Septuagint represents PERFECTION in FRAUD, obviously intended to deceive, and cause doubt regarding the INTEGRITY of the Word of God." Perhaps we can think of a Bible critic not always as of a person who sets out to find fault with the Bible, but one who examine it, and study meaning? I am talking about Gipp's usage of the word 'Unsaved bible critic'. The way we phrase things color how people understand a word... A critic isn't always someone who is opposed. His (Gipp's) usage of the terms Alexandrian (those who read other Bibles than the KJV) and Antiochian (Those who only read the KJV), Alexandrians being those who according to him who do not hold to innerrancy of Scripture and, and I am going to quote him have fallen for: " Satan's Alexandrian philosophy which rejects the premise of a perfect Bible" the Antiochians being those who do makes a forced division and paints those who read Bible's translated using the LXX in a light that isn't true. It is a strawman argument. Even those that think there are some translation errors in the Bible we have today (a few words being mistranslated or added where they should not), due to copyist errors think that we can trust it concerning doctrine. Believing there are some mistakes concerning the way a word is translated doesn't equal believing the Bible is not to be trusted. It is black and white thinking that does nothing but alienate and cause division. Another quote to show that he is the one who is causing division; THIS then was Satan's battle in print, BUT by no means was it his exclusive onslaught. He used a standard military "two-pronged" attack. While popularizing his Alexandrian manuscripts via the press, he began to promote his Alexandrian philosophy in and through Christian Bible colleges. Soon sincere, naive, young, Bible students attending FUNDAMENTAL Bible colleges began to hear the infallibility of the Bible challenged in their classrooms. In chapel services the Bible's perfection was much touted. But then, the very same speakers, would debase, degrade, and even mock the English Bible, always assuring their students that they were not a "liberal" or "modernist" because they believed that the Bible was infallible in "the originals". That non-existent, unobtainable, mystical entity which ALL apostates shield their unbelief behind. Found here. So now everyone who doesn't belive that the King James Bible is perfect, or that there is a perfect translation of the Bible today are an apostate. Apostate means fallen from the faith. Harsh and condemning words from someone who a few chapters earlier said; "Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the grossest perversions of Scripture." SourceWhat he wrote in one chapter he denies in the other, and makes the trust in the KJV the mode of salvation. According to him the perfect Bibel is only The Antiochian Bible - and more specifically an English translation, The King James from 1611. The foreign Christians with their horribly corrupt Satanic Alexandrian translations, 'grossest perversions of Scripture', in a different language are left in with nothing much to rely on. If you don't know English, or don't have the ability or opportunity to learn it - tough luck. He doesn't seem to offer them (foreign Christians. Who are as important to God I believe as any English speaking Christian) much thought with what he is saying, if any thought at all. Sure you can read a Satanic Alexandrian version and find the Gospel, but that is about it. You can't trust if for doctrine or anything else that is has to say, if we follow Gipp's logic. Note also how he uses capitals to underline ALL to bring about his point. It is the same as saying that; EVERYONE who doesn't believe that we currently have a perfect Bible in print is an apostate. Making this the central point of salvation instead of the cross whether he intended to or not. According to him anything that doesn't agree with his understanding is Satanic. Satan is behind all Christian Schools that teach anything but King James only. It is basically what he is saying even if he is not phrasing it this clearly. Satan is behind Alexandrian manuscripts. Satan wants the world to read the Alexandrian manuscripts and not the Antiochian. He is drawing up some battle lines and using (dangerous) rhetoric here that is very similar to those King James people on those youtube videos that I showed you, who you did not want to be compared to. Are these things that Gipp and Ruckman believe and write intrinsic to Kings James Only? Can you hold to KJV only without defamation/slandering of perceived opponents? You have to forgive me, but I don't want to read any more of the book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 14, 2016 5:36 pm
Garland-Green SARL0 Garland-Green SARL0 Garland-Green Reading that book that you suggested, and I am finding it to be very dishonest and slanderous... It says that " Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild." concerning Westcott and Hort. I am going to quote what they themselves said; Many years ago I had occasion to investigate “spiritualistic” phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope. ~ B.F. Westcott B.F. Westcott in “The Response to the Appeal”, Borderland, Vol. I, No. 1 (July 1893) p. 11. Writing more on this later. Need it to be more quiet around me to be able to focus. smile just going off that one quote of Westcott's own words on the matter, it does look like he attempted to or at least became familiar w/ communication w/ the dead and had enough dealings in such investigations that he was able to arrive at that conclusion. But he did not base it on experience. He says; " Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them"His son in the biography about Westcott said; What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good. (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (London: Macmillan and Co., 1903), Vol. I, p. 119.) It seems to me like this is one of the issues that Gipp would have us disregard Westcott for, but his involvement in Spiritualism was very limited and with his rejection of it I don't see why we should make a big deal about it. What he says about it is a very orthodox and Biblical. Gipp is very unclear in what he is basing his statements on, and expects us to take his word for it. I find it telling when someone doesn't offer quotes or references. It becomes virtually impossible for a person to make any counterclaims because we don't know what exactly he is basing his belief on. Another quote from Gipp; Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", "a belief in the authority of the books of the New Testament so widely spread throughout the Christian body, so deeply rooted in the inmost consciousness of the Christian Church, so perfectly accordant with all the facts which we do know, can only be explained by admitteing that they are genuine and Apostolic, a written Rule of Christian Faith and Life." (History of the Canon of the New Testament, Westcott, p.14) "We have a Bible competent to calm our doubts, and able to speak to our weakness. It then becomes not an utterance in strange tongues, but in the words of wisdom and knowledge. It is authoritative, for it is the voice of GOD; it is intelligible, for it is in the language of men." (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Westcott, p.8.) "the Bible contains in itself the fullest witness to its Divine authority....legibly stamped with the Divine seal as 'inspired by God' in a sense in which no other writings are." (The Bible In The Church, Westcott, p.14-15) Quote from 'The Answer Book'; "Two unsaved Bible critics." What is Gipp basing this assertion on? Why are they unsaved? We very soon find ourselves lost in mysteries here; but remembering St John’s emphatic “I” as including both the divine and human natures of the Incarnate Lord, I always prefer to speak of “the two aspects of the Lord’s divine-human Person,” or to use some such phrase. By this mode of expression the most precious fact of the unity of the Lord’s Person is guarded, and yet we are enabled to regard Him as truly man and truly God. ~ B.F. Westcott The mode of the Lord’s existence on earth was truly human, and subject to all the conditions of human existence; but He never ceased to be God. ~ B.F. Westcott But the assumption of humanity, not for a time, but for ever, by the Word, who is God, was a truth undreamt of till it was realized. ~ B.F. Westcott Christ the Incarnate Word is the perfect revelation of the Father: as God, He reveals God. ~ B.F. Westcott Read the quotes in context; Google books. From the book 'Anglican Identities'. I feel as if what Gipp is doing is trying to smear someones reputation in order to disqualify them in order for him to promote the King James Bible only. "Everyone else follow two corrupt bible translators who were into spiritualism and necromancy." and imo, Gipp doesn't even need to discredit them in the way he is doing. because to me, for ppl to do what Westcott and Hort did, sufficiently discredits them w/out needing any further help. it would be like Gipp or someone who has studied the bible, giving themselves the authority to interpret and decide what the bible says and means , writing it, and then selling it under the title of "holy bible" . the NIV is not the holy bible, it's what westcott and hort thinks the bible says. that's just my opinion. i think Gipp wastes his efforts trying to smear them. someone who is going to choose the KJV over the NIV probably isn't going to choose it based on any evidence that Gipp presents about the writers character. from my experience, KJV-only's choose the KJV because of the words and differences in meaning, not because the writers had or didnt have squeaky clean pasts. Gipp is dishonest, and he oversimplifies, if not twist things - to favor his view. Any Bible we have that is not the original manuscripts, translated into another language - which the English Bible translations are, will be somewhat a subject to the translators interpretation. The translation process isn't just a matter of translating word for word, but also doing research on how the word was use, and how the author intended it to be understood. When translating something from one language to another you have to use approximation (some things translate badly from one language to another) and even change sentence structure for it to make any sense. I know because I speak and write both Norwegian and English. That is as true of the NIV as of the KJV. Differences between the KJV and the NIV can be attributed to the differences between the Masoretic text and the LXX. Variant readings doesn't have to be an issue unless we decide to make it an issue. It doesn't mean that we have to denounce either the Masoretic text or the LXX because there are some differences... I don't understand why people don't try to reconcile the differences instead of attacking one of the texts... I feel it unfair and defamatory to the Alexandrian Christians and Origen to be portrayed in this fashion. I was debating with myself if we should have taken this debate somewhere else but I read up on Ruckman and he held to some of the same ideas that Gipp does, so it seems fair to discuss it here. Wikipedia; Ruckman distinguished between the Textus Receptus of the KJV, and the numerically fewer manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type underlying most modern New Testament versions. Ruckman characterized those who endorse the latter as members of the "Alexandrian Cult" who believe that while the autographs were God-inspired, they have been lost, and that therefore his opponents believe there to be "no final, absolute written authority of God anywhere on this earth." [10] Ruckman also believed that the Septuagint was a hoax perpetrated by the "Alexandrian cult" under the leadership of the Church Father Origen Adamantius (as part of his Hexapla) in the 3rd century A.D. in order to subvert belief in the integrity of the Bible.[11] 10. The "Creed of the Alexandrian Cult". 11. "The LXX is nothing more than a figment of someone’s imagination. The Septuagint represents PERFECTION in FRAUD, obviously intended to deceive, and cause doubt regarding the INTEGRITY of the Word of God." Perhaps we can think of a Bible critic not always as of a person who sets out to find fault with the Bible, but one who examine it, and study meaning? I am talking about Gipp's usage of the word 'Unsaved bible critic'. The way we phrase things color how people understand a word... A critic isn't always someone who is opposed. His (Gipp's) usage of the terms Alexandrian (those who read other Bibles than the KJV) and Antiochian (Those who only read the KJV), Alexandrians being those who according to him who do not hold to innerrancy of Scripture and, and I am going to quote him have fallen for: " Satan's Alexandrian philosophy which rejects the premise of a perfect Bible" the Antiochians being those who do makes a forced division and paints those who read Bible's translated using the LXX in a light that isn't true. It is a strawman argument. Even those that think there are some translation errors in the Bible we have today (a few words being mistranslated or added where they should not), due to copyist errors think that we can trust it concerning doctrine. Believing there are some mistakes concerning the way a word is translated doesn't equal believing the Bible is not to be trusted. It is black and white thinking that does nothing but alienate and cause division. Another quote to show that he is the one who is causing division; THIS then was Satan's battle in print, BUT by no means was it his exclusive onslaught. He used a standard military "two-pronged" attack. While popularizing his Alexandrian manuscripts via the press, he began to promote his Alexandrian philosophy in and through Christian Bible colleges. Soon sincere, naive, young, Bible students attending FUNDAMENTAL Bible colleges began to hear the infallibility of the Bible challenged in their classrooms. In chapel services the Bible's perfection was much touted. But then, the very same speakers, would debase, degrade, and even mock the English Bible, always assuring their students that they were not a "liberal" or "modernist" because they believed that the Bible was infallible in "the originals". That non-existent, unobtainable, mystical entity which ALL apostates shield their unbelief behind. Found here. So now everyone who doesn't belive that the King James Bible is perfect, or that there is a perfect translation of the Bible today are an apostate. Apostate means fallen from the faith. Harsh and condemning words from someone who a few chapters earlier said; "Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the grossest perversions of Scripture." SourceWhat he wrote in one chapter he denies in the other, and makes the trust in the KJV the mode of salvation. According to him the perfect Bibel is only The Antiochian Bible - and more specifically an English translation, The King James from 1611. The foreign Christians with their horribly corrupt Satanic Alexandrian translations, 'grossest perversions of Scripture', in a different language are left in with nothing much to rely on. If you don't know English, or don't have the ability or opportunity to learn it - tough luck. He doesn't seem to offer them (foreign Christians. Who are as important to God I believe as any English speaking Christian) much thought with what he is saying, if any thought at all. Sure you can read a Satanic Alexandrian version and find the Gospel, but that is about it. You can't trust if for doctrine or anything else that is has to say, if we follow Gipp's logic. Note also how he uses capitals to underline ALL to bring about his point. It is the same as saying that; EVERYONE who doesn't believe that we currently have a perfect Bible in print is an apostate. Making this the central point of salvation instead of the cross whether he intended to or not. According to him anything that doesn't agree with his understanding is Satanic. Satan is behind all Christian Schools that teach anything but King James only. It is basically what he is saying even if he is not phrasing it this clearly. Satan is behind Alexandrian manuscripts. Satan wants the world to read the Alexandrian manuscripts and not the Antiochian. He is drawing up some battle lines and using (dangerous) rhetoric here that is very similar to those King James people on those youtube videos that I showed you, who you did not want to be compared to. Are these things that Gipp and Ruckman believe and write intrinsic to Kings James Only? Can you hold to KJV only without defamation/slandering of perceived opponents? You have to forgive me, but I don't want to read any more of the book. i find it odd that he would say salvation comes only through the KJV because in Sam Gipps video serious on youtube "what the big deal about the kjv" he states the very opposite. he says he believes salvation can come by hearing and believing the gospel and that he believes the gospel can be found in other versions, not just the KJV. Its actually clearly stated in question #35 how Sam feels about the Gospel in other versions and if someone can get saved through reading other versions Question 35i think it's good that we can have slightly different opinions and different beliefs on things but not have to be divided. there are some who preach that we need to be divided on doctrine, and while i agree that is true, i also believe there's some who take the dividing to an extreme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 15, 2016 4:36 am
SARL0 Garland-Green SARL0 Garland-Green SARL0 Garland-Green Reading that book that you suggested, and I am finding it to be very dishonest and slanderous... It says that " Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild." concerning Westcott and Hort. I am going to quote what they themselves said; Many years ago I had occasion to investigate “spiritualistic” phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope. ~ B.F. Westcott B.F. Westcott in “The Response to the Appeal”, Borderland, Vol. I, No. 1 (July 1893) p. 11. Writing more on this later. Need it to be more quiet around me to be able to focus. smile just going off that one quote of Westcott's own words on the matter, it does look like he attempted to or at least became familiar w/ communication w/ the dead and had enough dealings in such investigations that he was able to arrive at that conclusion. But he did not base it on experience. He says; " Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them"His son in the biography about Westcott said; What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good. (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (London: Macmillan and Co., 1903), Vol. I, p. 119.) It seems to me like this is one of the issues that Gipp would have us disregard Westcott for, but his involvement in Spiritualism was very limited and with his rejection of it I don't see why we should make a big deal about it. What he says about it is a very orthodox and Biblical. Gipp is very unclear in what he is basing his statements on, and expects us to take his word for it. I find it telling when someone doesn't offer quotes or references. It becomes virtually impossible for a person to make any counterclaims because we don't know what exactly he is basing his belief on. Another quote from Gipp; Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", "a belief in the authority of the books of the New Testament so widely spread throughout the Christian body, so deeply rooted in the inmost consciousness of the Christian Church, so perfectly accordant with all the facts which we do know, can only be explained by admitteing that they are genuine and Apostolic, a written Rule of Christian Faith and Life." (History of the Canon of the New Testament, Westcott, p.14) "We have a Bible competent to calm our doubts, and able to speak to our weakness. It then becomes not an utterance in strange tongues, but in the words of wisdom and knowledge. It is authoritative, for it is the voice of GOD; it is intelligible, for it is in the language of men." (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Westcott, p.8.) "the Bible contains in itself the fullest witness to its Divine authority....legibly stamped with the Divine seal as 'inspired by God' in a sense in which no other writings are." (The Bible In The Church, Westcott, p.14-15) Quote from 'The Answer Book'; "Two unsaved Bible critics." What is Gipp basing this assertion on? Why are they unsaved? We very soon find ourselves lost in mysteries here; but remembering St John’s emphatic “I” as including both the divine and human natures of the Incarnate Lord, I always prefer to speak of “the two aspects of the Lord’s divine-human Person,” or to use some such phrase. By this mode of expression the most precious fact of the unity of the Lord’s Person is guarded, and yet we are enabled to regard Him as truly man and truly God. ~ B.F. Westcott The mode of the Lord’s existence on earth was truly human, and subject to all the conditions of human existence; but He never ceased to be God. ~ B.F. Westcott But the assumption of humanity, not for a time, but for ever, by the Word, who is God, was a truth undreamt of till it was realized. ~ B.F. Westcott Christ the Incarnate Word is the perfect revelation of the Father: as God, He reveals God. ~ B.F. Westcott Read the quotes in context; Google books. From the book 'Anglican Identities'. I feel as if what Gipp is doing is trying to smear someones reputation in order to disqualify them in order for him to promote the King James Bible only. "Everyone else follow two corrupt bible translators who were into spiritualism and necromancy." and imo, Gipp doesn't even need to discredit them in the way he is doing. because to me, for ppl to do what Westcott and Hort did, sufficiently discredits them w/out needing any further help. it would be like Gipp or someone who has studied the bible, giving themselves the authority to interpret and decide what the bible says and means , writing it, and then selling it under the title of "holy bible" . the NIV is not the holy bible, it's what westcott and hort thinks the bible says. that's just my opinion. i think Gipp wastes his efforts trying to smear them. someone who is going to choose the KJV over the NIV probably isn't going to choose it based on any evidence that Gipp presents about the writers character. from my experience, KJV-only's choose the KJV because of the words and differences in meaning, not because the writers had or didnt have squeaky clean pasts. Gipp is dishonest, and he oversimplifies, if not twist things - to favor his view. Any Bible we have that is not the original manuscripts, translated into another language - which the English Bible translations are, will be somewhat a subject to the translators interpretation. The translation process isn't just a matter of translating word for word, but also doing research on how the word was use, and how the author intended it to be understood. When translating something from one language to another you have to use approximation (some things translate badly from one language to another) and even change sentence structure for it to make any sense. I know because I speak and write both Norwegian and English. That is as true of the NIV as of the KJV. Differences between the KJV and the NIV can be attributed to the differences between the Masoretic text and the LXX. Variant readings doesn't have to be an issue unless we decide to make it an issue. It doesn't mean that we have to denounce either the Masoretic text or the LXX because there are some differences... I don't understand why people don't try to reconcile the differences instead of attacking one of the texts... I feel it unfair and defamatory to the Alexandrian Christians and Origen to be portrayed in this fashion. I was debating with myself if we should have taken this debate somewhere else but I read up on Ruckman and he held to some of the same ideas that Gipp does, so it seems fair to discuss it here. Wikipedia; Ruckman distinguished between the Textus Receptus of the KJV, and the numerically fewer manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type underlying most modern New Testament versions. Ruckman characterized those who endorse the latter as members of the "Alexandrian Cult" who believe that while the autographs were God-inspired, they have been lost, and that therefore his opponents believe there to be "no final, absolute written authority of God anywhere on this earth." [10] Ruckman also believed that the Septuagint was a hoax perpetrated by the "Alexandrian cult" under the leadership of the Church Father Origen Adamantius (as part of his Hexapla) in the 3rd century A.D. in order to subvert belief in the integrity of the Bible.[11] 10. The "Creed of the Alexandrian Cult". 11. "The LXX is nothing more than a figment of someone’s imagination. The Septuagint represents PERFECTION in FRAUD, obviously intended to deceive, and cause doubt regarding the INTEGRITY of the Word of God." Perhaps we can think of a Bible critic not always as of a person who sets out to find fault with the Bible, but one who examine it, and study meaning? I am talking about Gipp's usage of the word 'Unsaved bible critic'. The way we phrase things color how people understand a word... A critic isn't always someone who is opposed. His (Gipp's) usage of the terms Alexandrian (those who read other Bibles than the KJV) and Antiochian (Those who only read the KJV), Alexandrians being those who according to him who do not hold to innerrancy of Scripture and, and I am going to quote him have fallen for: " Satan's Alexandrian philosophy which rejects the premise of a perfect Bible" the Antiochians being those who do makes a forced division and paints those who read Bible's translated using the LXX in a light that isn't true. It is a strawman argument. Even those that think there are some translation errors in the Bible we have today (a few words being mistranslated or added where they should not), due to copyist errors think that we can trust it concerning doctrine. Believing there are some mistakes concerning the way a word is translated doesn't equal believing the Bible is not to be trusted. It is black and white thinking that does nothing but alienate and cause division. Another quote to show that he is the one who is causing division; THIS then was Satan's battle in print, BUT by no means was it his exclusive onslaught. He used a standard military "two-pronged" attack. While popularizing his Alexandrian manuscripts via the press, he began to promote his Alexandrian philosophy in and through Christian Bible colleges. Soon sincere, naive, young, Bible students attending FUNDAMENTAL Bible colleges began to hear the infallibility of the Bible challenged in their classrooms. In chapel services the Bible's perfection was much touted. But then, the very same speakers, would debase, degrade, and even mock the English Bible, always assuring their students that they were not a "liberal" or "modernist" because they believed that the Bible was infallible in "the originals". That non-existent, unobtainable, mystical entity which ALL apostates shield their unbelief behind. Found here. So now everyone who doesn't belive that the King James Bible is perfect, or that there is a perfect translation of the Bible today are an apostate. Apostate means fallen from the faith. Harsh and condemning words from someone who a few chapters earlier said; "Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the grossest perversions of Scripture." SourceWhat he wrote in one chapter he denies in the other, and makes the trust in the KJV the mode of salvation. According to him the perfect Bibel is only The Antiochian Bible - and more specifically an English translation, The King James from 1611. The foreign Christians with their horribly corrupt Satanic Alexandrian translations, 'grossest perversions of Scripture', in a different language are left in with nothing much to rely on. If you don't know English, or don't have the ability or opportunity to learn it - tough luck. He doesn't seem to offer them (foreign Christians. Who are as important to God I believe as any English speaking Christian) much thought with what he is saying, if any thought at all. Sure you can read a Satanic Alexandrian version and find the Gospel, but that is about it. You can't trust if for doctrine or anything else that is has to say, if we follow Gipp's logic. Note also how he uses capitals to underline ALL to bring about his point. It is the same as saying that; EVERYONE who doesn't believe that we currently have a perfect Bible in print is an apostate. Making this the central point of salvation instead of the cross whether he intended to or not. According to him anything that doesn't agree with his understanding is Satanic. Satan is behind all Christian Schools that teach anything but King James only. It is basically what he is saying even if he is not phrasing it this clearly. Satan is behind Alexandrian manuscripts. Satan wants the world to read the Alexandrian manuscripts and not the Antiochian. He is drawing up some battle lines and using (dangerous) rhetoric here that is very similar to those King James people on those youtube videos that I showed you, who you did not want to be compared to. Are these things that Gipp and Ruckman believe and write intrinsic to Kings James Only? Can you hold to KJV only without defamation/slandering of perceived opponents? You have to forgive me, but I don't want to read any more of the book. i find it odd that he would say salvation comes only through the KJV because in Sam Gipps video serious on youtube "what the big deal about the kjv" he states the very opposite. he says he believes salvation can come by hearing and believing the gospel and that he believes the gospel can be found in other versions, not just the KJV. i think it's good that we can have slightly different opinions and different beliefs on things but not have to be divided. there are some who preach that we need to be divided on doctrine, and while i agree that is true, i also believe there's some who take the dividing to an extreme. I agree with that, and I think that stems from thinking that everything is a central doctrine. That every doctrine needs to be right. Personally I think there are doctrines that matters more than others, like the deity of Christ and His death for our sins on the cross and His Resurrection. I think if we get those wrong then it doesn't really matter what peripheral doctrines we get right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
