Don't Confuse "the Word of God" with "the word of God" *

brandplucked

New member
Don't Confuse "the Word of God" with "the word of God" *

Bible agnostics ( a = not + gnostic = to know) who do not know for sure what God may or may not have said in literally hundreds of different places in the same verses of todays Bible Babble Buffet versions on the market often confuse these two Biblical terms - "the Word of God" and "the word of God". *

I have seen this so many times that I finally decided to write an article about it so I can repost it instead of having to type out the same response again and again.

Note - If you think you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and are not a bible agnostic, then take The Bible Agnostic Test and see if you know for sure what God wrote in His Book.

See "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy = just more Evangelical mumbo jumbo signifying nothing"

http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm*

And if you think (as many affirm) that no doctrines are changed, then see Fake Bible Versions DO teach false doctrines - Links to examples

http://brandplucked.webs.com/fakebiblesdoctrine.htm*

*One such bible agnostic and unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language recently posted the following:*

*"Where do you get the thought that the Word of God is a "real, tangible, in print, hold it in your hands and read, Book"? This is why KJV Only people can not have a logical discussion on the matter.* For you it must be a single hard copy book. The reality is that God gave us His very Word in other languages than English, this necessitates either learning Greek and Hebrew (I have studied Hebrew myself for 10 years and hope to start Greek soon) OR translating the original languages into our language." [End of comments]

*

There is so much muddle headed thinking in this man's statement that it is tough to know where to begin addressing his points.* First of all "the Word of God" is NOT the same as "the word of God".* The title "the Word" is found in the King James Bible 7 times; only 6 times in most modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc.


*It is found in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..."

1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life."

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Revelation 19:13 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

The term "the Word" with a capital W refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the blessed Trinity. The Word existed from eternity, was incarnated as the Son of man/Son of God, lived a perfect life for 33 years on this earth, He gave us the words His Father had given him, was crucified on a cross at Calvary where He bore the sins of His people and paid for them with His own shed blood, rose from the dead three days later and ascended into heaven where He now sits at the right hand of God the Father. And He is coming again in power and glory to raise His redeemed saints from the dead and to set up His kingdom on this earth.

*
But "the word of God" did none of these things and is not a Person.* The "word of God" is His inspired, written revelation of both Who this Word of God is and what He did to redeem His people. And contrary to what our Bible critic said, it IS a real, tangible, hard copy Book you can actually hold in your hands, read and believe is the very words of the living God.

The written words of God tell us of our desperate need for a Saviour from sin, hell and damnation.* They also record Gods' dealings with His people and the surrounding nations during their long history and it tells us many things about future events. We know NOTHING about Who the Word of God is or what He did for us, apart from the written word of God; nothing.

Now, let's address a couple of other things this shallow thinking bible agnostic said in his post.* He stated "The reality is that God gave us His very Word in other languages than English, this necessitates either learning Greek and Hebrew."*

*
This man is a very confused individual. First of all, the Word is the Lord Jesus Christ and He is not a language like English or any other language. He is a Person revealed to us by means of God's written words in many languages.* I agree that the gospel (the written revelation of the saving grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ) is found in ANY bible version out there, no matter how corrupt it may be in many other ways. *

God can and does use any bible version to bring His people to faith in the Saviour - the Word of God.* But nobody seriously believes that versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Holman Standard etc. are the complete and inerrant words of God. Nobody, not even the people who keep churning them out one after another.

Secondly, this man who has NO complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language (and he knows he doesn't) now tells us that we need to learn Greek and Hebrew.* It seems that "The Blatantly Obvious" needs to be pointed out to these people over and over again, and hopefully, it will finally get through to them.*
*
THERE ARE NO "original autographs”. They do not exist and everybody knows that.* When Bible agnostics refer to "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, they always fail to mention WHICH "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek they are referring to.

The Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. often reject the clear Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places. If you look at the footnotes in versions like the NIV or ESV you will see note after note telling us things like "Some Hebrew mss. read...." or "One Hebrew mss. reads...." or "Most Hebrew mss. read...." or "The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain."*

And when we come to "the Greek" their case really begins to fall apart.* There are at least 30 different "the" Greek texts out there like those of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Westcott-Hort, the ever changing UBS/Nestle-Aland (now in its 28th edition and working on their 29th), Tischendorf, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover or the Hodges - Farstad or perhaps the Robinson - Pierpoint Majority Texts - take your pick.* And none of them agree with each other, and several of them disagree by literally THOUSANDS OF WORDS.
*
It should also be pointed out that both the ancient biblical Hebrew and the biblical Greek are themselves archaic languages written in a form that is NOT spoken today in either Israel or Greece; the Hebrew speaking Jews and the native Greek speakers can understand them, but they do not speak or write that way today.

You will have to learn an entire new alphabet and language just to get half way proficient. They are also A LOT harder to understand that anything you are going to find in the English text of the Authorized King James Bible, and you are STILL going to end up with NO complete and inerrant Bible to believe in!

Do these bible agnostics ever bother to think their position through and follow the logic of where there arguments will lead them?* It seems they do not.

Only God knows for sure which readings, names, numbers, phrases and entire verses are the ones He originally inspired to be in His Book and only God can work in history to bring about the publication and printing of His written words in this book we call the Bible. *

We believe He has done this and can tell anyone where to get a copy of it for themselves. The bible agnostics and the "we need to learn Hebrew and Greek" promoters do not believe such a Book exists and certainly cannot tell you where to get one.

My advice, along with thousands of other born again, blood bought saints of God, is this - Get yourself a copy of the King James Holy Bible. It is the only one that has stood the test of time and that God has clearly set His marks of approval on as being His complete, inspired and inerrant "word of God" which tells us the whole truth about "the Word of God." *

All of grace, believing the Book - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.* Don't settle for an inferior substitute. *

Will Kinney *

For further thoughts on this topic, may I recommend the article showing many "coincidences" of history where God clearly sets His mark of approval on the King James Bible. It is called "God's Persistent Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth = the King James Holy Bible."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm*

*

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

*
 

chair

Well-known member
Welcome back! I see you're still wasting time on this nonsense. But nice to see you around.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Since the uncial manuscripts were written in all capital letters, then using small letters and leaving some capitalized is private interpretation.

II Peter 1:20 tells us that no prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation, thus we should not be using small letters at all, except that our language allows it.

By whose authority is word capitalized in some passages and in other passages it is not?
 

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
I agree that Jesus is the word of God.

The Bible is the word of God only in a secondary sense. It is a witness to the true word of God.

I also agree that the KJV is the only Bible that anyone should read.

Good post.
 

brandplucked

New member
a real Bible believer

a real Bible believer

I agree that Jesus is the word of God.

The Bible is the word of God only in a secondary sense. It is a witness to the true word of God.

I also agree that the KJV is the only Bible that anyone should read.

Good post.

Thank you, Robert.

God bless,
 

brandplucked

New member
Silly reasonings of the bible agnostics

Silly reasonings of the bible agnostics

Since the uncial manuscripts were written in all capital letters, then using small letters and leaving some capitalized is private interpretation.

II Peter 1:20 tells us that no prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation, thus we should not be using small letters at all, except that our language allows it.

By whose authority is word capitalized in some passages and in other passages it is not?

Oatmeal, you do not use or read either the uncials or the cursives. You certainly do not use them to preach or teach with, and you didn't post them here.

The fact remains that you (like most Christians today) do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God. And like most, you are probably too dishonest to admit it.

May God graciously open your eyes to the absolute truth of the English text of the King James Bible.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Oatmeal, you do not use or read either the uncials or the cursives. You certainly do not use them to preach or teach with, and you didn't post them here.

The fact remains that you (like most Christians today) do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God. And like most, you are probably too dishonest to admit it.

May God graciously open your eyes to the absolute truth of the English text of the King James Bible.

It is astounding that you know almost nothing about me, yet you accuse me of

you (like most Christians today) do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God.

When was Jesus buried? when did God raise him from the dead?

How many wise men visited the newborn Jesus in the manger in the stable?

How many of each kind of animal was Noah told to gather up?

Who made Jesus both Lord and Christ?

Who is the one mediator between God and men?
 

brandplucked

New member
Do you have an inerrant Bible? Yes or No?

Do you have an inerrant Bible? Yes or No?

Quote:
you (like most Christians today) do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God.



It is astounding that you know almost nothing about me, yet you accuse me of

Oatmeal, I did not say you are not a Christian. I said you do not believe in an inerrant Bible. Now, if you think I am wrong about this (and I could be), then tell us exactly which one it is.

And if you say it is the KJB, then are versions like the ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NET, etc. also the inerrant words of God? Yes or No?

Please answer the question. Most bible agnostics like Bob Enyart and Will Duffy just dodge the question, or give us some big song and dance routine without ever answering the question.

God bless.
 

Danoh

New member
Thank you, Robert.

God bless,

At the same time, brother; you let him to "get away with" saying that "Jesus is the word" lower case w) of God."

Too many from one side of any fence on TOL do that kind of a thing; they allow their own the leeway they refuse anyone they disagree with.

By the way, the phrase "the word of God" often refers to the preaching, as in the Apostle Paul's case; who was laying out new, not yet written down, ground.

Where, for example, is "the word of God" as to the Pre-Trib Rapture we hold to (if you do also, that is, as I don't know all your beliefs) he relates having taught the Thessalonians of Acts 17 - where is it in the OT?

Its not - it was new ground, and yet he writes, in 1 Thessalonians 2:

13. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Thus, the preaching before the writing, was also "the word of God," as one aspect of the effectual working he is referring to is our Blessed Hope, 1 Thess. 4.

For what its worth; I do appreciate your passion for the cause more than might appear the case.
 

daqq

Well-known member
May God graciously open your eyes to the absolute truth of the English text of the King James Bible.

Which one is correct and why?

Matthew 26:28 KJV
28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 26:28 ASV
28. for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.


Which one is correct and why?

Mark 14:24 KJV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Mark 14:24 ASV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.


Why does the Textus Receptus, (which the AV-KJV and Young's-YLT follow) have the word "new", (kainos) before the word for testament or covenant, (diatheke) when the GNT Morph texts do not contain the word "new", (kainos)? What is the impact to our doctrine depending on which one is correct? How do you know for sure that the KJV is correct? Please provide scripture evidence to support your conclusions if you decide to answer. :)
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Which one is correct and why?

Matthew 26:28 KJV
28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 26:28 ASV
28. for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.


Which one is correct and why?

Mark 14:24 KJV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Mark 14:24 ASV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.


Why does the Textus Receptus, (which the AV-KJV and Young's-YLT follow) have the word "new", (kainos) before the word for testament or covenant, (diatheke) when the GNT Morph texts do not contain the word "new", (kainos)? What is the impact to our doctrine depending on which one is correct? How do you know for sure that the KJV is correct? Please provide scripture evidence to support your conclusions if you decide to answer. :)

The covenant and testament spoken of WAS new, with or without the word new. I say why trip over words that do not change the meaning of text. Do you really think it's not new ?
 

Danoh

New member

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
I maintain as previously stated that what makes the KJV/Tynedale so very much superior to all others is the THEOLOGY held by the translators, they held rigidly to the reformed theology.
 

brandplucked

New member
Matthew 26:28 the blood of the NEW covenant

Matthew 26:28 the blood of the NEW covenant

Which one is correct and why?

Matthew 26:28 KJV
28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 26:28 ASV
28. for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.


Which one is correct and why?

Mark 14:24 KJV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Mark 14:24 ASV
24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.


Why does the Textus Receptus, (which the AV-KJV and Young's-YLT follow) have the word "new", (kainos) before the word for testament or covenant, (diatheke) when the GNT Morph texts do not contain the word "new", (kainos)? What is the impact to our doctrine depending on which one is correct? How do you know for sure that the KJV is correct? Please provide scripture evidence to support your conclusions if you decide to answer. :)

Hi dagg. Since you have no inerrant Bible to believe in you will be asking yourself this type of question until the Lord comes back or you die, which ever comes first.

Your Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, Jehovah Witness NWT, and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem all omit that word "new".

But your fake Vatican Versions also omit ALL of Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11 and the whole of Matthew 23:14 along with hundreds of other words just in the gospel of Matthew.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the word "new" here in Matthew 26:28.

But it is found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, W, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic, Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions as well as the Diatessaron 185 A.D.

It is so quoted by many early church writers like Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Basil, Chrysostom, Theophilius of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine and Theodoret.

It is in the text of the Reformation bibles in all languages including the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, Luther's German bible 1545, German Schlachter Bible 2000, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, French Louis Second 2007, Portuguese Almeida 1671 and the Almeida Corrigida 2009, Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991, Italian Riveduta 2006.

It was in the earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay 1950. It wasn't till the Vatican made a formal agreement with the UBS/Nestle-Aland people that the modern Catholic versions began to omit the word "new"


"the NEW testament" is the reading of Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible,the Geneva Bible, the NKJV and LOTS of other English bibles.

It is your Vatican versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB that omit this word as well as the entire verses of Matthew 17:21; 18:11 and 23:14.

You can play this "scholars game" forever and remain an unbeliever in the existence of an inerrant Bible all your life if you want to and you will always remain the bible agnostic that your are today.

Or God can have mercy on you and reveal to you that the KJB is His perfect Bible.
 
Top