The Cambridge Declaration

[John146]

He was more than likely 'afraid of the up-roar' of the people and what it would mean
to his 'political position'=future - simple...
compare it to Pilot, he had no love for Jesus, but he did have concern for his well-being=his future,
if his wife was telling him about her 'dream', he would have been very nervous indeed,.
human-nature is very clear...

Only afraid of Jew and Gentile converts who were there to celebrate the risen Savior.

 

[presidente]

I doubt the writers of this declaration would deny revelation in other ways besides the written word of God..

However, like myself, they would be skeptical of the claims of many. People claim all kinds of things. I don't believe anyone except for individuals who have a solid understanding of Scripture and are not known for making fantastic claims on a regular basis.

That leaves out any charismatic I've met.

If you dig through Barna survey information, there is evidence that Charismatics show more evidence of knowing scripture than other evangelicals. Pentecostals top the list on adherents actually believing evangelical doctrines.

I had an interesting conversation with a house church planter about CPMS, church planting movements, which the IMB of the Southern Baptists once supported. Basically, they would start or train and promote the start of small house churches where members of the church taught and discipled new members who went out and started new churches. These movements relied really heavily on the authority of scripture. But within a few 'generations' of churches, they started to look kind of charismatic. They were so into authority of scripture that they believed its teachings on spiritual gifts.

 

[DB7]

Where are you receiving your information? Have you personally seen the manuscripts used by the KJV translators? Are you banking on what someone else has said?

Modern translations more accurate? Can you give some examples?

Have I seen the manuscripts, not physically, but their history is well documented. I'm sorry J146, but it's so well documented that you sound rather oblivious to that fact? Do we need to talk about the whole Alexandrain text-type families, how early they are and when they were discovered, compared to the sources for Erasmus' textus receptus and Tyndale's translation, of which both the KJV & Geneva derive most of their influence?
Even Stephanus' Greek NT, or Bezae's do not have the earliest traditions as the WH, NA or UBS. Vaticanus, Siniaticus, Alexandrinus were either not discovered or not available to the authors of either the KJV or GB, let alone countless other fragmentary and substantial papyri that are available today. Erasmus had only a handful of manuscripts to use from, today we're pushing 6,000 just in greek.
No comparison on any level J146, you're sounding a little naive or ignorant on the topic if your are unaware of the facts that i just stated?

But, besides all this, I personally think that N6 probably should not have mentioned any Bible due to the unresolved controversy as to which is better or not between the whole slew of them. But defining canon was a prudent point that he brought up. 66 books or 80, deuterocanonical or pseudipigrapha, etc.. This was something very important to define.

J146, please don't tell me that you're a KJV Onlyist? If so, then I with the utmost concern would say rethink your position. Be practical, reasonable and refrain from superstitions!
If your not a KJV Onlyist, cool, ...but you still need to brush up on the Christian manuscript heritage!

 

[John146]

Have I seen the manuscripts, not physically, but their history is well documented. I'm sorry J146, but it's so well documented that you sound rather oblivious to that fact? Do we need to talk about the whole Alexandrain text-type families, how early they are and when they were discovered, compared to the sources for Erasmus' textus receptus and Tyndale's translation, of which both the KJV & Geneva derive most of their influence?
Even Stephanus' Greek NT, or Bezae's do not have the earliest traditions as the WH, NA or UBS. Vaticanus, Siniaticus, Alexandrinus were either not discovered or not available to the authors of either the KJV or GB, let alone countless other fragmentary and substantial papyri that are available today. Erasmus had only a handful of manuscripts to use from, today we're pushing 6,000 just in greek.
No comparison on any level J146, you're sounding a little naive or ignorant on the topic if your are unaware of the facts that i just stated?

But, besides all this, I personally think that N6 probably should not have mentioned any Bible due to the unresolved controversy as to which is better or not between the whole slew of them. But defining canon was a prudent point that he brought up. 66 books or 80, deuterocanonical or pseudipigrapha, etc.. This was something very important to define.

J146, please don't tell me that you're a KJV Onlyist? If so, then I with the utmost concern would say rethink your position. Be practical, reasonable and refrain from superstitions!
If your not a KJV Onlyist, cool, ...but you still need to brush up on the Christian manuscript heritage!

You’re getting you information from biased websites.

Rethink my position? The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on. God has richly blessed the ministries of such men as these because they stayed busy OBEYING His word rather than questioning its authority.

What fruit does the new versions have? Nothing but being the leading cause of the Laodicean Age.

 

[John146]

Have I seen the manuscripts, not physically, but their history is well documented. I'm sorry J146, but it's so well documented that you sound rather oblivious to that fact? Do we need to talk about the whole Alexandrain text-type families, how early they are and when they were discovered, compared to the sources for Erasmus' textus receptus and Tyndale's translation, of which both the KJV & Geneva derive most of their influence?
Even Stephanus' Greek NT, or Bezae's do not have the earliest traditions as the WH, NA or UBS. Vaticanus, Siniaticus, Alexandrinus were either not discovered or not available to the authors of either the KJV or GB, let alone countless other fragmentary and substantial papyri that are available today. Erasmus had only a handful of manuscripts to use from, today we're pushing 6,000 just in greek.
No comparison on any level J146, you're sounding a little naive or ignorant on the topic if your are unaware of the facts that i just stated?

But, besides all this, I personally think that N6 probably should not have mentioned any Bible due to the unresolved controversy as to which is better or not between the whole slew of them. But defining canon was a prudent point that he brought up. 66 books or 80, deuterocanonical or pseudipigrapha, etc.. This was something very important to define.

J146, please don't tell me that you're a KJV Onlyist? If so, then I with the utmost concern would say rethink your position. Be practical, reasonable and refrain from superstitions!
If your not a KJV Onlyist, cool, ...but you still need to brush up on the Christian manuscript heritage!

I could post information contrary to what you just posted, but it would be from a website.

My proof is the infallibility of the KJV in my personal study. It’s never been proven in error.

 

[TooFastTurtle]

My proof is the infallibility of the KJV in my personal study. It’s never been proven in error.

Have other versions been proven in error?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

If you dig through Barna survey information, there is evidence that Charismatics show more evidence of knowing scripture than other evangelicals. Pentecostals top the list on adherents actually believing evangelical doctrines.

I had an interesting conversation with a house church planter about CPMS, church planting movements, which the IMB of the Southern Baptists once supported. Basically, they would start or train and promote the start of small house churches where members of the church taught and discipled new members who went out and started new churches. These movements relied really heavily on the authority of scripture. But within a few 'generations' of churches, they started to look kind of charismatic. They were so into authority of scripture that they believed its teachings on spiritual gifts.

I don't doubt that Pentecostals possess a high view of Scripture, despite their misunderstandings, and are certainly better educated than liberals in the Bible.

However, I would propose that surveys are incapable of parsing out different sectors very well. For instance, I believe Reformed individuals are the most adept at understanding Scripture, but there are tons of Reformed individuals who are very liberal.

Same thing with the Lutherans..there are very liberal Lutherans (ELCA) and very conservative ones (LCMS). I doubt surveys parse out these differences well...and Southern Baptists have a group associated with Founders Ministries that are very well-informed, while others within the Southern Baptists are not.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Let’s begin with a question. Why would Herod put off killing Peter after Passover?

Festivals were times where the Roman authorities were watching the Jews for any type of riotous behavior, in order to clamp down on them, and they did not want to bring down Rome's wrath upon themselves (Matt 26:4-5). Romans were on alert during festival seasons as it was a time when lots of Jews were in the city. One death (James) was already pushing it.

By the way, the whole period is called Passover by the time of Jesus, because it was associated with the Passover of Nisan 14. Check out Luke 22:1.

 

[DB7]

I could post information contrary to what you just posted, but it would be from a website.

My proof is the infallibility of the KJV in my personal study. It’s never been proven in error.

It's called idolatry when you hold a created thing in such regard.
The KJV has been proven to be in error, it has gone through several revisions, it included the apocrypha at one point, and to this day contains texts that are disputed by the most eminent textual critics of our day, namely
Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14 - Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28
Luke 17:36 - John 5:3–4 - Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:6–8, 28:29
Romans 16:24 - 1 John 5:7–8

J146, words can't express how unreasonable you sound right now, i personally do not hold any Bible, version, translation or manuscript as perfect, inerrant, and especially infallible. For simply put, unless you understood God's word perfectly and it made you perfect, you would have no idea if it was infallible or not.
My basis for claiming its imperfection is because i understand its history, and that of all bibles enough to know that there is not one, perfect or infallible Bible or manuscript out there. Reason and soundness elucidates this to me.

J146, you have indisputably discredited yourself right now i.e. not to be taken seriously on this matter!

 

[John146]

It's called idolatry when you hold a created thing in such regard.

The old idolatry blame. Because I believe God has preserved His word for us today as He promised, I’m considered an idolator?

 

[John146]

the most eminent textual critics of our day

Ha, textual critics of the Laodicean Age? That’s a joke.

 

[John146]

It's called idolatry when you hold a created thing in such regard.
The KJV has been proven to be in error, it has gone through several revisions, it included the apocrypha at one point, and to this day contains texts that are disputed by the most eminent textual critics of our day, namely
Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14 - Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28
Luke 17:36 - John 5:3–4 - Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:6–8, 28:29
Romans 16:24 - 1 John 5:7–8

J146, words can't express how unreasonable you sound right now, i personally do not hold any Bible, version, translation or manuscript as perfect, inerrant, and especially infallible. For simply put, unless you understood God's word perfectly and it made you perfect, you would have no idea if it was infallible or not.
My basis for claiming its imperfection is because i understand its history, and that of all bibles enough to know that there is not one, perfect or infallible Bible or manuscript out there. Reason and soundness elucidates this to me.

J146, you have indisputably discredited yourself right now i.e. not to be taken seriously on this matter!

I’m sorry you have nothing you can trust as the word of God.

 

[presidente]

I’m sorry you have nothing you can trust as the word of God.

Do you think Christians had nothing they could trust 'as the word of God' until 1611.

What a strange and bizarre doctrine KJV-onlyism is. The apostles did not have the KJV, and KJV-onlyism is not part of the 'faith once delivered to the saints' that believers should contend for.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It's called idolatry when you hold a created thing in such regard.
The KJV has been proven to be in error, it has gone through several revisions, it included the apocrypha at one point, and to this day contains texts that are disputed by the most eminent textual critics of our day, namely
Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14 - Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28
Luke 17:36 - John 5:3–4 - Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:6–8, 28:29
Romans 16:24 - 1 John 5:7–8

J146, words can't express how unreasonable you sound right now, i personally do not hold any Bible, version, translation or manuscript as perfect, inerrant, and especially infallible. For simply put, unless you understood God's word perfectly and it made you perfect, you would have no idea if it was infallible or not.
My basis for claiming its imperfection is because i understand its history, and that of all bibles enough to know that there is not one, perfect or infallible Bible or manuscript out there. Reason and soundness elucidates this to me.

J146, you have indisputably discredited yourself right now i.e. not to be taken seriously on this matter!

Since I am trained in accounting, I look at materiality, and I think we materially have the word of God..if there are minor scribal errors it is of no real consequence.

Additionally, the Bible has a coherent storyline. I can see the logic of God's mind and plan expressed in it. If there are minor scribal errors, it is pretty much meaningless.

 

[John146]

Do you think Christians had nothing they could trust 'as the word of God' until 1611.

What a strange and bizarre doctrine KJV-onlyism is. The apostles did not have the KJV, and KJV-onlyism is not part of the 'faith once delivered to the saints' that believers should contend for.

Do you have anything to contend for? Do you have the word of God? It’s bizarre that Christians don’t believe God preserved His words as promised.

 

[John146]

Since I am trained in accounting, I look at materiality, and I think we materially have the word of God..if there are minor scribal errors it is of no real consequence.

Additionally, the Bible has a coherent storyline. I can see the logic of God's mind and plan expressed in it. If there are minor scribal errors, it is pretty much meaningless.

If there’s errors, even one, it ain’t the word of God (even “scribal errors.”)

 

[Dino246]

Ha, textual critics of the Laodicean Age? That’s a joke.

Better than the "deadness" of Sardis. Your position is untenable.

 

[Dino246]

Do you have anything to contend for? Do you have the word of God? It’s bizarre that Christians don’t believe God preserved His words as promised.

We do believe that God has preserved His words... just that He didn't do so in the KJV.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

If there’s errors, even one, it ain’t the word of God (even “scribal errors.”)

What do you do with the fact that the KJV uses the Masoretic text for the OT, yet the apostles quoted from the Septuagint in the NT, and the verses they quoted are significantly different between the two testaments?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

If there’s errors, even one, it ain’t the word of God (even “scribal errors.”)

I believe God is purifying the source documents over time, through additional manuscript evidence.