jakejonesiv

Most people are the same religion as their parents, not all but most.

It is common to see people go in a different direction in their youth, but return to their parents' nominal beliefs in their late twenties and thirties.

The belief comes first, and the supporting evidence is filtered to bolster the familiar belief system.

Jake

mdarus

Robert made some good points.
I can't relate to coming to a belief in God because the Bible says so. However, there is much reliance on the Bible to determine what God is like. This can look very similar.

It initiates with faith in God. When exposed to the message of Jesus in the Bible, this belief would be reshaped and redefined. This new insight could feel like a new belief that God exists. The strengthened faith could be intepreted as new faith in God. In this way a faith in God could seem to come from a belief in an inerrant Bible.

However, I don't see how you get an inerrant Bible without a precursory belief in God who reveals truth about himself.

Jack the Bodiless

praxeus:
The IIDB search facility isn't throwing up any instances where you have actually explained this. So we're none the wiser about what you're talking about here.

Here is the ErrancyWiki page on Matthew 1:23 where an inerrantist attempts to argue against the standard interpretations of "almah" and "betulah", and gets slapped down hard by Ichabod Crane (himself a Christian IIRC). Where's the "indoctrination" or "insincerity" here?
Um, where to start? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, special creation is bunk, there was no global Flood, there was no "Babel incident", the land promise to Joshua failed, the Tyre prophecy failed, etc etc... how many of these can really be explained away as "Alexandrian corruption" of selected verses (and how?), and how much is just reflex rejection?

mdarus

We all hope that each would lead an examined life but I agree many do not seem to do the required work. We cannot assume that if a person's beliefs match their parents that they have not examined the alternatives. We also cannot assume that if someone moves away from their parent's beliefs that they are doing so for sound reasons.

jakejonesiv

Pullease, there are 613 mitzvot (commandments) in the Old Testament and Mark pulled out this odd ball from the list as one of the six to inherit eternal life?

No, Mark forgot about false testimony (Exodus 20:12-16; Deuteronomy 5:16-20) and put in do not defraud by mistake. :rolling: What an idiot, this is a mistake no real Jew would make.

Jake Jones IV

Steven Avery

Most emphatically.

#2. The KJB is better than any Greek version.
I don't read Greek versions, however from what I have studied, seen and heard, if there was a question about some ambiguous spot, I trust the translation of the KJB more than any Greek text. Such questions are few and far between between the Textus Receptus and the KJB. Or Textus Recepti if that is a good plural

#3. The KJB was inspired (or reinspired if you prefer) at the time of translation under King James by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Well, I tend to avoid that language, since it isolates the KJB from a whole historical process that involved usage and preservation of the Byzantine Text and even the Old Latin and Vulgate, followed by great scholarship and labors on many texts (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzivir, Tyndale, Geneva, etal). With that caveat, I would say that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit put together the inspired and preserved scripture that has been the base of faith and evangelism ever since

#4. The King James Bible is inspired in a manner as good or better than the original manuscripts. God guided the translation.
Or equal to (yes, that's like as good). And since I don't have any original manuscripts, the King James Bible is the word of God today. When you find me the originals, signed, sealed and delivered, I'll review the issue again

#5. It doesn't matter what manuscripts the KJ translators worked with. The Holy Spirit in effect guided the translators to produce an inerrant version.
The first no. It made all the difference what manuscripts they worked with were. See #3. You can't isolate out the KJB from the historical processes that brought it to be. Even issues like the birth of the Christian Hebraist movement, and the studies of classical languages emphasizing Greek as well as Latin in 16th century England. Even the tensions between the Puritans and Anglicans helped bring forth a Bible using great scholarship and men dedicated to the purpose of accurately translating the word of God. The earlier work of Tyndale and the Bishop's Bible and Geneva also set the stage, since the KJB was in a sense simply an update within an excellent textual line.

#6. Would the KJB be the same if the translators had no source documents to work with? The Holy spirits guidance was entirely sufficient for producing the KJB.
I tend to avoid "what if" questions unless they are really germane. Again, see #3. If the KJB was not the KJB it wouldn't be the KJB

#7. The KJB is the result of a miraculous intervention by God. (If the answer to this is yes, how do you know?).
All of God's inspiration is miraculous

#8. The King James Bible is the Word of God, the scriptures.
100% yes.

#9. there is no advantage in knowing Greek or Hebrew, because the KJB is more accurate than any text (extant or recreated by textual criticism) in those languages.
There can be apologetic and evangelistic advantages. There might be professional advantages too From what I have seen time and again the supposed comprehension advantages have been dust in the wind (carefully watching claim after claim), while the pitfalls of correcting the Bible falsely with hidden wisdom by "going to the Greek" has snared many. There may be an esthetic pleasure in catching the Hebrew cadence or the Greek language precision, and how it interplays with the English translation, so that might be an advantage (if you have the time). So my answer here is mixed. However the short answer is yes, we have no advantages, we have no advantages today. ie. The Bible is for the ploughman, as clear and as powerful as to the scholastic, often more so. Tyndale and Erasmus both, if I recall, have powerful quotes in this regard.

#10. There is absolutely no error in the KJB. No contradicitions, no interpolations, no grammatical or scientific errors. It is completely and absolutely 100% perfect.
Well, I haven't seen any And I've become confident that this is because it is the true word of God.

The list was well thought out. Probably the first time I got a bunch of those types of questions put in a sensible manner.

Hope my answers were reasonably straightforward and clear. My position changed radically over the last 3-5 years so I basically just go day-by-day in the conceptual constuct, although a couple of the KJB afficiondos (aka crazies) have really helped crystallize the issues, much in the way that questions like above can help.

Please realize that usually such questions are just to try to find a cause of offense, I do think you are really trying to understand my view, not asking just to find what you might consider "the weakest link"

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jakejonesiv

Yes, we agree. That is why I qualified my statement with "not all but most".

Thanks,

Jake Jones

mdarus

Please read the passage before you respond.

jakejonesiv

Steven,

Thanks for the answers. I find them very helpful in understanding your statements.

Thanks again.

Jake

jakejonesiv

errr.. would you believe I meant to do that to make a point? .. I didn't think so...

:rolling:
What an idiot=me!
I don't have any more sense than Mark. Trying to multitask. :boohoo:

Ah, but I never claimed to be inerrant or whatever we were discussing.

Thanks for the correction!

Jake