|
This post is not to be construed as the defence that I am supposed to give Rob the Bible Corrcetor. But something that Rob gainsayed regarding Ben's experiential history with the KJB caught my attention and reminded me of an old article of mine. -- Herb Evans
THE PROOF OF THE PUDDING
Bible correctors have many challenges, questions, objections, and demands for KJO’s in regard to the KJB’s validity, its translators, history, texts, manuscripts, and the supposed KJB errors in words, wording, spelling, verses, grammar, and punctuation. Of course, they demand 100 % proof and will not accept the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen from that which throughly furnishes the man of God in all areas of faith and practice. Let us stop messing around with all their demands and ask Bible Correctors some questions in regard to the Bible that they imagine:
1. How do Bible Correctors know of what the present canon of scripture is and whether God had anything to do with its formulation? The number of its Books? Is it 66 or more or less? Can they prove or demonstrate it to a challenger, gainsayer, or denier? With 100% proof?
2. How do Bible Correctors know that the original scriptures were pure, perfect, given by inspiration, and infallible? Can they prove or demonstrate it to a challenger, gainsayer, or denier? With 100% proof?
3. How do Bible correctors know that the scriptures in any form were preserved through the centuries until now as a perfect and pure Bible has existed and exists out there somewhere in any form? Can they prove or demonstrate it to a challenger, gainsayer, or denier? With 100% proof?
4. How do Bible Correctors know that the entire scriptures were initially written in Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic? Can they prove or demonstrate it to a challenger, gainsayer, or denier? With 100% proof?
5. How do Bible Correctors know that a compilation, by men, from the 5,000 plus Greek manuscripts, which includes the Greek of the Bishop of Hermes and the Epistle to the Laodicians that this compilation resulted in a perfect and complete New Testament Greek Text? Can they prove or demonstrate it to a challenger, gainsayer, or denier? With 100% proof?
If the Bible corrector responds to these questions without proof and retreats to a faith argument, on what basis do they scold KJO’s and demand from them 100 % proof on what Bible believers believe in regard to these things, using only that which thoroughly furnishes the man of God? Obviously Bible Correctors do not like a level playing field and find themselves in the same or in a smaller boat than KJO's.
Assuming Bible Correctors Do Not have the Original Autographs:
Is the assumption that there are only 66 legitimate books in the Bible without 100 % proof any better or worse than KJO teaching?
Is the assumption that God authored the Bible “originally” in Hebrew and Greek without 100 % proof any better or worse than KJO teaching?
Is the assumption that only the Hebrew and Greek reflect the correct words of the original scriptures without 100 % proof any better or worse than KJO teaching?
Is the assumption that Professor Whatchamahamaczysz is correct in his charge that the English Bible has errors and/or contradictions without 100 % proof any better or worse than KJO teaching?
Is the assumption that the extant Hebrew and Greek match the Autographs without 100 % proof better or worse than KJO teaching?
Are KJO’s to be faulted for believing that the proof of the pudding is in the eating?
– by Herb Evans
|
