A complete Bible is NOT necessary to trust God, nor for preservation!

This is key. I, for the life of me, cannot understand the concept that we can pick one translation out of the many works done and then insist that this translation, and this translation alone, is the perfect translation. I can't even see how someone can hold to that view.

And yet, that does not mean that those who think that way are dishonest or piglike in their ignorance.

It simply means that my brother and I see things differently. The scriptures say nothing about translations. We don't know which body of manuscripts is best. Therefore neither of us can claim some kind of higher ground and condemn the other.

We will know the truth one day. In the meantime would we not be best to allow each other the liberty to hold their own view without questioning their motivation, honesty, or integrity?

 

Fallacies often seem like common sense, but they remain fallacies nonetheless. For one, it is possible that *none* are the true version as you understand it.

When we lack the original copies, and especially when we are dealing with translations, any argument which insists that one and one version only can hold the position of God's true word is begging the question.

 

Exactly what I was trying to say, only you said it better! :thumbsup:

 

B4L basically labeled that those who did see the situation as he did as not having common sense. In another thread he called a lot of posters "ridiculous. I was simply trying to mirror the sentiment projected by B4L in an attempt to point out a double standard.

As a pastor, if a church wanted me to preach and teach exclusively from the KJV I would with the understanding that I would not promote the KJV as being the only legitimate Bible. Nor, would I tolerate that kind of teaching in the church. When a church or individual becomes KJVO, putting a translation on a pedestal, it can quickly become divisive.

 

If one needed a complete Bible to be saved then why do we print NT only Bibles or print individual books of the Bible to give away on street corners or on evangelistic visits? Why would we lift individual verses out of the Bible and and use them to witness to a lost person? Did Phillip have a NT Bible when he witnessed to the Ethiopian? The verses from Isaiah served the purpose.

 

Well said!

No doctrine of Christianity is in doubt or in contention because of one of the disputed passages, and every translation makes note (as do the Greek and Hebrew texts underlying those translations) of the textual issues at hand.

Anyone actually pick up a Nestle/Aland Greek NT and read those textual comments? I have... Most informative, and we should be thanking and praising God for faithful scholars who work hard to learn the nuances of the text, in context, so that they can strive under God's leadership to give us the most accurate Word possible.

Instead, we become "accusers of the brethren" -- a tool of the enemy of God -- to beat up our brothers and sisters over some issue that is not an issue at all.

About evangelism and having a "complete" Bible... Paul did not seem to think so. His followers were probably more evangelistic than any of us, and they may (may!) have had a copy of the OT Scriptures, and a letter or two from Paul in hand. Peter saw 3000 saved on Pentecost and none of them had a complete Bible. As has already been said above, we hand out tracts with Paul's letter to the Romans, or the Gospel of John, and more so, we evangelize with individual verses...

Once a person is saved, should they have the entire Bible to learn, love, and follow? Of course! If, that is, they can. We often take that for granted in America. I have an entire book case filled with various translations and paraphrase versions of the Bible. I also have computer software that combined offers me almost 100 different variations, translations, language editions, etc. I take for granted that I will always have a Bible at hand. I even have an app on my Blackberry. But I also know missionaries who have trekked through China who handed out PAGES from their own Bible and watched as the Christians wept over actually having in their hands just one page to memorize, study, and live.

 

I see people saying the disputed passages are not crucial for doctrine. Every scripture in the bible is important and helps frame the entirety of truth concerning God. It amazes me that people think that you could do away with verses and it is no big deal. Regardless of which translation you prefer, we should all agree that every word in the bible is important and that every section of scripture is vital to help us understand more about God.

 

Yes, it is amazing how easily people dismiss the differences between those versions derived from the CT and those derived from the RT seeing we have very stern warnings from God not to add or diminish from his word.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I take God's warnings seriously. He said if you add to his word he will add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, and if you diminish from his word he will take away his part out of the book of life.

And yet, it doesn't bother folks that the CT is missing nearly 3000 words in the original Greek, dozens of verses, and even entire passages.

That bothers me a great deal. Either the CT diminished from God's word, or the RT added to it. Anybody who argues they are the same is simply deceiving themselves, even a little child would know better.

And how can you hold an honest debate with someone who insists an illogical impossibility is true? You can't.

You cannot reason with unreasonable people.

 

So did the 1611 edition of the KJT take away from 1 John 5v12 or did the 1769 edition add to it?

Either somebody in 1611 had their name taken out of the book of life or someone in 1769 had all the plagues of the Bible.

Which was it?

 

Where do you get this information? I have searched and all sources I have found shows the comma Johanneum appeared in the original 1611 AV.

 

Wrong verse. Compare 1 John 5v12 in the two editions.

 

Even though I ask Rippon this question, I know there are others here that believe as he does, so would someone please answer this for me?

 

Its his opinion - which is no more or less valid that those who say that the KJT is closer to the originals than the others.

On the OP - of course we do not need every single word of the Bible to trust God - most people who put their faith in Him know very little if any Bible.

 

There are around 400 minor textual changes made in the KJB from 1611 to 1769. I have to leave for work in a few minutes, so I will copy and paste from a good article on this, that explains it much better than I could anyway.

 

In other words mistakes are okay if they are not too bad.

Which edition is perfect? Your lengthy copy and paste did not answer the question. I notice they skipped 1 John 5v12.

 

Those who say the KJT is closer to the originals are just as bad. Nobody has ever seen the originals, thus nobody has a clue what the originals said.

 

Excellent point!