The Bible Agnostic Test - Are you a Bible believer or a Bible Agnostic?

[quip]

That which you state as a parenthetical is really the entire point. The question "whichever that is" cannot be answered except arbitrarily which is no real answer.

So, everybody is a defacto Bible Agnostic ....whether they know it or not?

 

[User Name]

Question:-
Could you show a couple of examples to demonstrate how the Geneva Bible differs from the KJ bible?

Here are a few examples:

Matthew 5:47
Geneva: "And if ye be friendly to your brethren only..."
KJV: "And if ye salute your brethren only..."

Romans 13:13
Geneva: "so that we walk honestly (as in the day), not in gluttony..."
KJV: "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting..."

I Corinthians 13:1
Geneva: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels, and have not love..."
KJV: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity..."

 

[George Affleck]

What I'd like to see is for someone in the KJV Only camp ( @brandplucked or @George Affleck or whomever) to make an argument that ignores the existence of every other English translation and makes an attempt to prove that the King James Bible is the "complete and inerrant words of God".

I am not a member of the KJV Only movement. I have tried to make that plain, but you guys don't read with cognition at the best of times. It is also best, for Mr. Kinney's sake, that you do not ally me with him in your thinking. He is a conscientious scholar and I am simply a lay person. I hold him in high regard but respectfully disagree in certain areas.

I do not believe that there can be a version that is inspired because inspiration applied only to the authors and did not transfer to the originals, copies, or translations because it is not an attribute, but an action. This is the meaning of "...given by inspiration...". What resulted was that the original autographs, by nature of the process of the authors being divinely inspired, was rendered inerrant. This is in sharp contrast to the generally accepted view of inspiration in the Church today.

I do, however, believe that the King James Bible is the first and best, scholarly, faithful, and error free reproduction of the originals in English and as such is the Word of God to English speaking people. This is the meaning we should attach to the word "authorized".

In short, the 40 authors were, at various times in history, moved (inspired) by the Holy Ghost and the result was inerrancy. The doctrine of the Divine Preservation of Scripture then kicks in and God protects the good in thousands of copies and hides (or destroys) the bad. Enter a new language - Modern English, the vehicle which will take the pure gospel around the world. None of the aberrant mss were uncovered until roughly 250 years later when God had proved His point. After the mid 19th century the rise in the number of cults and sects was directly paralleled by the rise in number of versions of the Bible. It was as if a Pandora's box had been opened.

 

[eider]

That which you state as a parenthetical is really the entire point. The question "whichever that is" cannot be answered except arbitrarily which is no real answer.

This is why no one in the KJV only camp every makes any affirmative arguments to support the claim that the KJV is only "complete and inerrant words of God" not only that exists today but that has ever existed. Instead they basically make two types of arguments...

I acknowledge all of your post, although I only copied a small part.

It is reasonable to think that Jesus spoke Eastern Aramaic ..... the woman who confronted Cephas after the arrest mentioned that Jesus's group had all spoken that language (or dialect) and not the Western Aramaic Hebrew that the Jerusalem folks spoke.

Ergo, non of the gospels are written in Jesus's own language, although I've heard some Christians say that Jesus, being God, knows every language from the past, in the present, and on into the unwritten future.

The KJV has mistakes, like John's gospel reporting the arrest on Nisan 5 rather than the synoptic Gospel's Nisan 4, etc etc.... the same conundrum (there) as the JW bible, I believe...... and these mistakes need explaining if a particular bible is to be described as perfect.

I do refer to the KJV for most of my studies, simply because I am used to it, but where folks tell me about variations from other bibles I try to take these in to careful consideration.

 

[eider]

So, everybody is a defacto Bible Agnostic ....whether they know it or not?

Hi....
Well, No..... it seems not to be.
Nearly every bible reader has a 'BELIEF' in chosen bibles.
Only those who are not sure what they believe in could be described as bible-agnostics.
But I am a bible-agnostic because I do not firmly believe in one translation over any other...

 

[eider]

Here are a few examples:

Thank you....

Matthew 5:47
Geneva: "And if ye be friendly to your brethren only..."
KJV: "And if ye salute your brethren only..."

OK...... but no real problem there, because salutations were for friends.

Romans 13:13
Geneva: "so that we walk honestly (as in the day), not in gluttony..."
KJV: "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting..."

I wonder which translation here is right?
What is the original (if held) Epistle to the Romans written in?

I Corinthians 13:1
Geneva: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels, and have not love..."
KJV: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity..."

Surely KJV might be more accurate here?
Can you offer any advice about the above?

 

[User Name]

Thank you....

Yw.

Surely KJV might be more accurate here?
Can you offer any advice about the above?

No. I say the Geneva Bible is infallible for the same reason that "brandplucked" says the KJB is infallible--because I say it is.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Most Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language they can show us is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. But I do

- the King James Holy Bible.

If your Bible does not look like this, then it is not the King James Holy Bible, but is an incomplete and errant copy.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Judges 18:30

KJB - "And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."

You are using a false copy of the KJV with many errors.

Here is the correct text:

Judges 18:30 ¶ And the children of Dan set vp the grauen image: and Ionathan the sonne of Gershom, the sonne of Manasseh, hee and his sonnes, were Priests to the tribe of Dan, vntill the day of the captiuitie of the land.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here are a few examples:

Matthew 5:47
Geneva: "And if ye be friendly to your brethren only..."
KJV: "And if ye salute your brethren only..."

Romans 13:13
Geneva: "so that we walk honestly (as in the day), not in gluttony..."
KJV: "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting..."

I Corinthians 13:1
Geneva: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels, and have not love..."
KJV: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity..."

Your KJV has a bunch of errors.
Here are the correct verses.

Matthew 5:47 And if yee salute your brethren only, what do you more then others? Doe not euen the Publicanes so?​

Romans 13:13 Let vs walke honestly as in the day, not in rioting and drunkennesse, not in chambring and wantonnes, not in strife and enuying.​

I Corinthians 13:1 Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal.​

 

[quip]

Hi....
Well, No..... it seems not to be.
Nearly every bible reader has a 'BELIEF' in chosen bibles.
Only those who are not sure what they believe in could be described as bible-agnostics.
But I am a bible-agnostic because I do not firmly believe in one translation over any other...

I thought agnosticism concerned itself with 'knowledge'....specifically, an avowed lack thereof?

To the point: Nobody knows which Bible translation is 100% accurate...belief notwithstanding.

 

[eider]

Yw.



No. I say the Geneva Bible is infallible for the same reason that "brandplucked" says the KJB is infallible--because I say it is.

I can acknowledge your belief.

 

[eider]

I thought agnosticism concerned itself with 'knowledge'....specifically, an avowed lack thereof?

To the point: Nobody knows which Bible translation is 100% accurate...belief notwithstanding.

I have always interpreted the word 'agnostic' as 'not knowing what to believe'.

 

[George Affleck]

The KJV has mistakes, like John's gospel reporting the arrest on Nisan 5 rather than the synoptic Gospel's Nisan 4, etc etc.... the same conundrum (there) as the JW bible, I believe...... and these mistakes need explaining if a particular bible is to be described as perfect.

I have not heard of this alleged discrepancy. Can you give me more info. on it?
Thanks

 

[Clete]

So, everybody is a defacto Bible Agnostic ....whether they know it or not?

By there standard, no, but by the standard of rational thought, absolutely!

In other words, it's a belief. They don't KNOW that the KJV in the "only complete and inerrant word's of God", and in that sense they are agnostic about it but they do simply believe it and so in that sense that aren't agnostic about it.

So if blind, causeless beleif is one's standard then I guess you can believe whatever you want and call everyone else names and feel superior.

 

[Clete]

I am not a member of the KJV Only movement. I have tried to make that plain, but you guys don't read with cognition at the best of times. It is also best, for Mr. Kinney's sake, that you do not ally me with him in your thinking. He is a conscientious scholar and I am simply a lay person. I hold him in high regard but respectfully disagree in certain areas.

I do not believe that there can be a version that is inspired because inspiration applied only to the authors and did not transfer to the originals, copies, or translations because it is not an attribute, but an action. This is the meaning of "...given by inspiration...". What resulted was that the original autographs, by nature of the process of the authors being divinely inspired, was rendered inerrant. This is in sharp contrast to the generally accepted view of inspiration in the Church today.

I do, however, believe that the King James Bible is the first and best, scholarly, faithful, and error free reproduction of the originals in English and as such is the Word of God to English speaking people. This is the meaning we should attach to the word "authorized".

In short, the 40 authors were, at various times in history, moved (inspired) by the Holy Ghost and the result was inerrancy. The doctrine of the Divine Preservation of Scripture then kicks in and God protects the good in thousands of copies and hides (or destroys) the bad. Enter a new language - Modern English, the vehicle which will take the pure gospel around the world. None of the aberrant mss were uncovered until roughly 250 years later when God had proved His point. After the mid 19th century the rise in the number of cults and sects was directly paralleled by the rise in number of versions of the Bible. It was as if a Pandora's box had been opened.

Anyone who tries to ride the fense in this manner, regardless of the issue, I always push off the fense.

Bottom line is that you cannot make any argument to RATIONALLY support even the claim that "King James Bible is the first and best, scholarly, faithful, and error free reproduction of the originals in English".

Further, you go on to basically make the case that there are no other English translation that make the cut and declare that English is "the vehicle which will take the pure gospel around the world" and so that makes you a defacto KJV only believer. What other option is there?

Clete

 

[Clete]

I acknowledge all of your post, although I only copied a small part.

It is reasonable to think that Jesus spoke Eastern Aramaic ..... the woman who confronted Cephas after the arrest mentioned that Jesus's group had all spoken that language (or dialect) and not the Western Aramaic Hebrew that the Jerusalem folks spoke.

Ergo, non of the gospels are written in Jesus's own language, although I've heard some Christians say that Jesus, being God, knows every language from the past, in the present, and on into the unwritten future.

The KJV has mistakes, like John's gospel reporting the arrest on Nisan 5 rather than the synoptic Gospel's Nisan 4, etc etc.... the same conundrum (there) as the JW bible, I believe...... and these mistakes need explaining if a particular bible is to be described as perfect.

I do refer to the KJV for most of my studies, simply because I am used to it, but where folks tell me about variations from other bibles I try to take these in to careful consideration.

Absolutely!

All English bible's are translations and as such are inherently imperfect reproductions of the original. And even if that weren't the case, there is always the potential for human error in the translation process and one should be careful to acknowledge and examine such errors as one becomes aware of them.

That's just simple common sense, open minded rationality. :up:

Clete

 

[Clete]

I have always interpreted the word 'agnostic' as 'not knowing what to believe'.

In brandplunked's case it isn't being used in any technical sense at all. Instead, it's just a pajorative.

It's a form of emotional argument called an Appeal to Shame Fallacy. It's designed to illicit the emotional reaction equivalent to, "Agnostic! Oh my goodness! I can't let myself be thought of as agnostic!"

The only cure, however, is for you to agree with brandplunked's bibliology, otherwise you just have to live with it. If brandplunked was intellectually honest, he'd not even feel the need to resort to such tactics. Instead, he'd simply make the argument for his case. The problem for him though is that there is no argument to make. His bibliology is not based on anything rational and so it is fundamentally impossible to rationally defend. All that's left then is for him to either drop it or resort to the irrational and fallacious. Obviousely, he chooses the later and, as fallacious arguments go, calling Christians "agnostic" is a pretty clever one.

Clete

 

[George Affleck]

Anyone who tries to ride the fense in this manner, regardless of the issue, I always push off the fense.

Bottom line is that you cannot make any argument to RATIONALLY support even the claim that "King James Bible is the first and best, scholarly, faithful, and error free reproduction of the originals in English".

Further, you go on to basically make the case that there are no other English translation that make the cut and declare that English is "the vehicle which will take the pure gospel around the world" and so that makes you a defacto KJV only believer. What other option is there?

Clete

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Clete]

You are entitled to your opinion.

I didn't express an opinion, I made an argument.

An argument you have no answer for or else you'd have jumped at the chance to prove Clete wrong about something.