Jesus used a “version” of the Bible

How does this in any way prove that a version is the word of God? So what if he quoted from it?
What is your point?
Jesus could have quoted Aristotle if he so chose but it would not make the words of Aristotle inspired.

The Word of God is inspired. The Word of God is the original autographs. The Word of God has been preserved in the superabundance of manuscripts.

Scholars, like the King James translators who were perhaps the greatest band of translators of all time, go to those manuscripts and locate the Word of God. They then translate it to the best of their ability.

But THEIR TRANSLATION IS NOT THE INERRANT, INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD!!

You will never find a single translator of any decent rep who claims that his own translation is the infallible, inerrant word of God. Not one!

Translators would tremble at such a claim. They would consider such a claim to be the height of arrogance and presumption. The King James Translators knew better. They would die before they would dare say that their words were the infallible words of God!

You ought to approach this subject with same reverence and fear.

The King James Bible is a great translation! Especially considering the that it came forth in the era it did.
But it is a VERSION of the Word of God. It is a TRANSLATION of the Word of God.

Translations are fallible because they are the works of men.
Translation have errors because they are the works of men.

Jesus quoting a version only proves that a version can be trusted to accurately depict the truth of the Word of God.

This KJVO is heresy. It is a NEW doctrine introduced by what nearly amounts to cults. I do not think it is in and of itself damnable but it is dangerous.

 

Yes, any valid version can be God's preserved word. But one cannot just pick one up and claim it to be the one and only as it will vary from the original languages as this is the nature of translation.

Nor can one point to any particular source text in the original languages and claim it to be the one and only because we simply cannot know that for certain. One can have faith in whatever (some have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster after all), but that faith is personal and can be as wrong as anything under the sun. Believing in something does not make it so.

Once one takes that faith and tries to teach it as doctrine they have crossed the line into extra-biblical, man-made heresy. That goes for anything, be it a specific version/translation/edition of the bible, a particular set of source texts, hair length, women wearing dresses, playing cards, whatever.

I can completely agree with this, but that is not what stilllearning said. His words were"a “version”(translation), of the Bible, can not be God’s preserved Word". That is a far cry from "inerrant" and "infallible".

 

He or someone did claim that the KJV is the inerrant, infallible Word of God in the thread to which he is referring. I think it is his position that the KJV is the infallible, inerrant Word of God.

The problem is this.

If it is infallible and inerrant then it is the Word of God.

If it is errant and fallible even ever so slightly then it cannot be the Word of God.

When we say a version which is prone to error and fallibility being the work of men is the Word of God we purport a logical fallacy. The law of noncontradiction is brought to bear.

If the whole book has some errors in it, then I cannot hold the whole book up and say the whole book is the Word of God because God cannot make mistakes.

The version CONTAINS the Word of God. It communicates the truth of the Word of God. This is all we can honestly and consistently say.

 

I can concur completely with all of that, but there are many whose faith is too weak to handle it said like that (sad but true).

 

Now we have an accord. I do not preach that to my people because they are not able yet to bear it.

But someone who gets on a baptist debate site and pushes doctrine SHOULD be mature enough spiritually and mentally to bear it.

The problem is that these KJVO'ers [personal attack snipped] They have not thought through the implications of this new doctrine they push.

 

You realize that your points above destroy the main foundation of the KJVO argument, don't you? After all, if Jesus approved of a version which has significantly different wording then the KJVO can't fault other versions for the same. This destroys the whole KJVO position on what it means for God to preserve His Word.

 

Meanwhile, C4K and myself still await the answer to this question:

So did the 1611 edition of the KJV take away from 1 John 5:12 or did the 1769 edition add to it?

Nothing but crickets...

 

We are all "Bible believers", SL, unless you are implying that those who do not worship the KJV are not true believers. We just happen to use a different translation that you worship.

 

I think its out of line to call all KJVO folk immature Christians. Just because they hold the belief doesn't make them immature. How they proselytize that belief is another story...specifically after being presented with reasonable arguments.

That said, the use of the Septuagint within 2nd Temple Judaism and the resulting translations of the Hebrew is a pretty fascinating topic. Given than Jesus was (except for the Temple scenes) speaking in Aramaic some kind of translation had to take place between the Hebrew and Aramaic. Just saying...

 

That's strange. Your posts seem to show that you do.

 

I seriously doubt Jesus preached to Jews in Greek.

 

I'm still waiting for an answer. The silence speaks volumes.

 

No I don't preach it to them because they are not educated enough to handle it. The same reason, I suspect, you are not able to handle it. So with folks like that I give them the milk of the word rather than strong meat. In time they will be able to understand it. You would too if you would use your brain and think through the implications of this new doctrine you proclaim.

 

Why? Greek was widely used by the Jews of that time/place.

 

Here is an interesting article along those lines:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdrobe...guage-did-jesus-speak-why-does-it-matter.html

 

False, it refutes your position. First, it shows a translation can be without error.

Second, the issue is not translation. Those who are KJB only like me do not say the MVs are necessarily a poor translation. Some like the NASB are an excellent translation. The problem is that it is an excellent translation of a corrupt text.

That is the issue between the KJB and the MVs, they come from a different source text. This translation argument is simply a distraction from the real issue.

As far as the text Jesus reading being different from the Hebrew text, the Holy Spirit has complete freedom to restate himself anytime he chooses.

We do not have this right.

 

I've read many posts here on this board about KJVO.

The one thing I can say with surety is that the KJVO position is akin to the position of Islam concerning the Koran and Latter Day Saints concerning the Book of Mormon.

Both insist that the text of their scriptures came down from heaven intact and preserved perfectly, needing no further correction as THE word of the god that send it to them. Both resist any efforts to further translate their texts.

The similarities in position are astounding...

The KJV is a good text. It has a beautiful expression of the English language. I prefer it sometimes for weddings and funerals when a very formal and flowery tone is required. But for everyday teaching? No way. I have to translate before I can teach! It has its own peculiarities and flaws as does every text. It is not horrid or a text to be avoided, but neither is it THE text. To say so is to take the same position outlined above. It is A text among many that exist in our world.

I'll add this loaded statement (as if the stuff above is not enough)... Every instance that I've seen of a cultish sect off of orthodox Christianity stems from a misinterpretation of KJV English. I've not seen the same thing from modern translations. People can take terms like "peculiar" and run with them!