Questions we’re not suppose to ask

I would suggest to you that many are tired of beating the same old dead horse over and over again. Plus, how can anyone carry on a reasonable conversation with someone who thinks they have all the right answers to begin with? It's like trying to have a conversation with a narcissistic brick wall.

 

un-numbered question (blue) gets a question in return: Why would anyone think a particular translation would have to be the
sole" respository for God's word?


1. Why should I believe it? Just because it was done 4 centuries ago?

2. Yeah, considering that Bibles often equalled power over the common people, yeah. They most certainly SHOULD have questioned not only whether it was complete, but also the motives of those doing the translating. Lets remember that English kings reigned by "Divine Right". Don't you think they would have wanted a translation that backed up their power?

3. Not so much anymore as we are no longer ruled by the "church" whether it be the Catholic Church or the Church of England. And as time has passed there are more than enough with the knowledge and expertise to translate and by now someone would most certainly have "spilled the beans" had something been incorrectly translated.

4. At ALL points in time. But guess what? He has done so in many different ways, from stone tablets, to scrolls, from the Hebrew language to the Greek and from there to all other language, all the way to creation itself being a testament to Him. But to say He ONLY preserved His words in one particular English translation, considering all the various ways He has preserved it though the years, is well, silly.

1. Why were they limited in what they had? Power. Plain and simple. He who "controlled" God, controlled the people. On top of that were the obvious limitations of communication between scholars because of the lack of technology. Men, even smart powerful men, had all sorts of limitations on them.

2. Not God, but the various churches had a vested interest in what the Bible had to say. So did those in power. It wasn't God who put up the stumbling blocks, but man. Those who tranlated the KJV were no more "inspired by God" than those who translated our more modern versions. They were simply men. They are probably turning over in their graves at the thought that we spend hours arguing over whether or not God gave them a special authorization to translate His word into English beyond that of "Go ye into all the world and spread the gospel".

3. This is a non-issue as it never happened. See above answers.



Good thing a dead horse can't feel anything.

 

I am not sag38, but I slept in a Holiday In Express last night, so...

I have no idea how old you are, what your background is or anything, but in my short 53 years on this globe, I have had almost as many opinions as I have hairs that fell off my head.

 

I'll bite...but I've only got a free minute here...

I don't disagree with Trotter's statement will attempt, hopefully, to clarify my position and present a distinguishable different point.

No English translation is the sole repository (strange word) for the Bible. They are all translations of the original text. The original text is the revelation of God to mankind. We only have translations of that in English.

Ironically we've only had translations of the original text for around 500 years that have been available to many people. Before that, the other 1500 years Christians had to receive the Scriptures from a variety of means.

We can have confidence that our contemporary translations are reliable and faithful to the original text. The science of textual criticism is a messy and long process. There have been many points at which the recollection of the documents of the Scriptures have been held in deep suspicion. But now we can look across what we have and see that it is very accurately reflecting the original texts.

God has and is preserving His Scriptures for us.

Translators have always been limited by access to historical texts. As we, the Church, have persevered through the past several hundred years there is a more accurate reflection of the original text now than say 400 years ago. The limitation is due to history, the process of transmission, and other external (and internal) factors that limited the focus of translators to see the original text with clarity. For instance, the TR isn't a focused document, it is a decent document but has visible flaws. It is part of the process. I am thankful for it.

Maybe God doesn't have anything to do with it. Seriously, why do we have to believe God was hiding something when we have the freewill issue at play. Maybe there is a greater purpose about faith here.

I don't think God cares for us to divinize His Scriptures. The Bible isn't God. It isn't to be worshiped. I don't know God's motivation here...though I deeply suspect it has something to do with His glory. The whole textual critical discussion is one that while probing manuscript evidences also has a lot to do with the nature of God's interaction with the world. Seems to me that God uses people to accomplish His will in many ways. I don't see using inanimate objects for His glory, but I see Him using flawed humanity. There is a messy component to using mankind.

 

I guess the following is a question we are not supposed to ask of KJVO folks:

What was the "repository of God's Word in the English" prior to AD 1611?

 

Why? Why do you think every Christain MUST have a complete set of scriptures?

Do you not know that millions of Christains get by just fine with a New Testament. Some even are lucky if they have one book of the Bible to call their own. We have the Holy Spirit! He is perfectly capable of teaching us God's way without having an entire Bible.

Don't get me wrong, its still a fine translation. But language is 4 centuries old. I understand it. I was raised with it. But many, many of our public educated English speaking peers don't have the first clue how to read it or how to interpret the nuances of meaning of words that are no longer common in our language or which have changed in meaning over the years. I posted a question not long back on the usage of the word lusteth in a passage in Dueteronomy because we use the word lust to mean sexual sin, but the context didn't quite support that meaning but it could have if read by someone not familair with the language of that period.

People often don't appreciate Shakespeare for the same reason. The language of the period is very different and it takes a certain amount of effort to read and enjoy. Just as most people don't have the time or energy to read Shakespeare, they also balk at reading the Word of God for those same reasons.

Let me explain it a little differently. Its like watching a show filmed in black and white, when there is a color version available. You are going to get a few folks who appreciate it for its art. You'll get a few that are just curious, but mostly it will get ignored. We do not want the Word of God to be ignored by those who need it, simply because we refuse to update the language.

No and as a matter of fact, the very corruption that seeks to keep God out of our lives, defeats it own purpose because it is ever ready to find something mistranslated so it can denigrate God and laugh at the Christians as fools. You just let an athiest come across something that has been tranlated incorrectly and see the hue and cry that results. They already go through the Book with a fine tooth comb looking for anything that might be used to prove it all a lie.

Perhaps not a better job, but a complete job. We have better communications, better access and many, many more people who are educated in translation. And the end product will be in a dialect that the majority of English speakers can understand.

I wasn't accusing you in particular of having said such, but others have in many different discussions on the BB and you used the words "sole repository", which led me to believe that you were leaning in that direction.

I too believe that we have a complete complilation of God's Words. I just believe that we also have many good translations of those words and not just one.

No actually, I don't assume that the Catholic Church was the ONLY representation of God's people in the world at that time. I'd have to be totally uneducated to think that. There were other Christians in the world even at the time the Bible was being translated for the first time into English. Simply put, the Catholic church was the controlling religion for English speaking people and all others were persecuted into hiding. Same result. The Catholic church controlled access to God for centuries (or rather thought they did) for the majority of the common people.

What the majority of the orthodox community was against was allowing the common people to read the scriptures for themselves. Prior to this the CC didn't have to control the who read the scriptures because a) not many could read and b) there weren't many copies available because they all had to be copied by hand. Scripture was expensive! But allowing the common people to read for themselves might give them ideas about how God really expected His people to act. (and let me just tell you, there was little of compassion and mercy in those days)

it was a comment, not an insult. Why are you hurt?

A better question might be:

What was the repository of God's Word before the Bible was gathered together into one Book? What did those people do?

 

Agreed on both counts.

In many threads I've stated that I am not anti-KJV. As MK said in the above quote, its still a fine translation. I use the KJV (My signature below is a quotation from it.), but I also use other translations as well.

My points in asking the question I did about English Bibles prior to AD 1611 are simply:

1) If the KJV is "sole repository of God's Word in English," what did English-speaking people consider to be God's Word before there was a KJV?

2) If there was the Word of God in English before the KJV, why wasn't that Bible sufficient. IOW, Why did God have to wait until the early 1600's to have His Word published in English? After all, if there was not a Word of God in English before the KJV, how did the English know (among other things) how to be saved? [See Rom. 1:17 & 10:17]

I've never heard any KJVO advocate give a logical answer either of these questions.

 

Seems I completely missed this, as well as any unanswered questions. The other thread had degenerated to the point of making no sense, so I do hope this is not a continuation of the same. Those above have answered quite well (from what I skimmed over), but I will post my own, too.

You're opening question makes no sense, especially in the context of my comment that it is based upon. I never said the KJV wasn't God's word... in fact, I declared it to be God's word. My statement was that it is not the sole repository of God's word. In other words, the KJV is on equal footing with all other valid translations of God's word, no matter what the language or when it was translated. In no way is it not God's word.

As for the numbered questions...

(1) Why should you think that the KJV IS the sole repository of God's word in the English language? To do so would be to create a doctrine that has absolutely no basis in God's word and would be tantamount to idolatry. The bible is silent regarding translations for a reason... it doesn't matter. People in Jesus' day had scriptures written in Hebrew and Greek, as well as other languages... and yet no one was trying to say that the Hebrew version alone was God's word, or the Greek, or whatever. This one version heresy is a new invention and is less than one hundred years old, originating here in the US from a cult (SDA).

(2) No. They had all that they had. The manuscripts that have been discovered since does not disqualify what earlier people had, though the newer finds may correct additions that crept in over the centuries.

(3) Again, no. Why should we? We have much more to work with now that was available a hundred years ago. All these finds have solidified God's word, not detracted from it.

(4) God has ALWAYS fulfilled that promise. Even where Jeremiah's scroll was cut up and burned God preserved His word by having Jeremiah rewrite it. God continues to fulfill His promise through the many archaeological finds and through continued efforts to keep the bible updated in to the modern vernacular.

(1) There were limited just as I said... they only had the resources available at the time, and only had access to what was at hand of those. There have been some incredible minds in the faith throughout the centuries, and each one has contributed in various ways. However, each one could only use the literary and scriptural resources they had available at the time, thus limiting them in their knowledge.

(2) Only if you count geographical distance and undiscovered manuscriptual evidence. God was there with them just as He is with us, and just as He is with modern Christian scholars and translators. God did not hide any of Himself, nor was any of the discoveries that came about later hidden from them. To make that leap of logic requires something much less than logic.

(3) Again, a leap of illogic. God revealed His word to all. While some of it has been tainted by copyist additions, deletions, and mistakes over the centuries, these have had no effect on the word of God. Through modern literary criticism and new manuscriptural discoveries we have been able to find these changes. While none of them affected any prime doctrines, they were nevertheless additions put in by man and not by God.

No, I was not stumped. I grew weary of trying to wade through all the dogma and nonsense. I have no problem discussing or debating this topic, or any of a similar nature, but my patience does grow thin when illogic replaces logic and correct doctrine. I have no tolerance for such antics (this is a shortcoming of mine and the Lord is working on me to adjust that, but for now that's how I am). If my responses are less than cordial I do apologize. I do not apologize for my responses themselves, but for the choice of wording and the tone.

If a doctrine is biblical I will back it 200%. If it is not, such as KJVOnlyism, I will fight it just as hard.

 

Actually it does your case no good to lift the Bible out of context here- the Bible is NOT the record here. The record is found in verses 6,7 and 9-

6,7- This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

9- If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

"The record" is of course recorded in the Bible, but v. 10 is NOT referring to that. It is referring to the witness that God gave at the baptism and at the cross (at least that is my interpretation of what "water and blood" is.)

 

Still Learning: // (4)At what point in time, should we expect the LORD to fulfil His promise, to preserve His Word for us? //

From the time it was written until now, every year, God's Perfect Written Word existed in various languages, dialects, versions, editions, etc.

 

Still Learning: // (3)Should Christians today, be doubting that we have God’s completed Word? \\

No. The complete God's Written Word is available for the English readers in numerous Bibles, Versions, and Editions.


I can PROVE my signature block is correct. But nobody has ever seen it

 

Still Learning: // (2)Should Christians of the past, have doubted that the Bible was complete? //

No. The Bible was complete about 150AD [in the second century = 0101 to 0200]. The Bible was complete AND in one binder in several languages and locations. The oft damned Origen of Alexandria, Egypt, lead the collection of the O.T. parallel in six langauges before he died about 254AD [in the third century = 0201-0300].

 

(1)Why should you doubt that the KJV, is“the sole repository for God’s Word in the English language”?

Why should I think that God is limited to one phase of the English language? Why would you doubt that my translation fulfills the same purpose? AS a Bible student I try to base my doctrine on the Scriptures. I have no evidence from His word that God has limited Himself to one English translations or it's variations over a 158 period (1611-1769)


(2)Should Christians of the past, have doubted that the Bible was complete?

No, why should they?

(3)Should Christians today, be doubting that we have God’s completed Word?

No, I have it on my desk, my laptop, and my phone in a couple of trustworthy translations including the KJV.

(4)At what point in time, should we expect the LORD to fulfil His promise, to preserve His Word for us?

He always does, even in the 21st century. He is not limited to one particular time period any language. He is a mighty God. His preservation is far beyond my ken.


(1)Why were they limited?

Because they were imperfect men, just like the translators of today.

(2)Was God hiding something from them?

No, any more or less than He does for 21st century translators

(3)Was God’s motivation, somehow to not reveal all of His Word to us or to them?

See number 2

So the question everyone here should be asking themsleves, is why there is more than one English Bible?

Because we don't all live in 1611 England or speak the same language they did. God wants me to have His word in my language.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

By far the most important work of Origen on textual criticism was the
Hexapla, a comparative study of various translations of the Old Testament.
The full text of the Hexapla is no longer extant. Some portions were discovered in Milan indicating that at least some individual parts existed much longer than was previously thought. The Hexapla has been referred to by later manuscripts and authors, and represented the precursor to the parallel bible

Here the prefex 'hex' means 'eight'. Enphasis has been added by Ed. We know of the scrolls from other authors and partial copies of some of the work. Evidently the Hexapla is NOT the Written Word of God because the Hexapla has NOT been Divinely Preserved.

 

Still Learning: // The sources that I am talking about, are the manuscripts that were used to translate your Bible.
For the New Testament, it would be Textus Receptus, and for the Old Testament it is the Masoretic Text. \\

The Septuagint is a perfectly good Ancient Greek source of the Old Testament (OT). It was so good many of the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament (NT) are from the Septuagint. There is also an Ancient Syric translation of the Old Testament, which is also a good source.