Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Sep 27, 2012.
Did that group of scholars see their work as being the final and only English version for God?
Well it wasn't...correct? Not with the modifications done in the 1689 Version. Have you read the 1611 or at least reviewed it yet Yeshua? Its the favorite of New Covenant Theology fans. Probably because its very general so much more margin for maneuverability & free interpretation.
Truthfully prefer 1689.
do you mean the 1769 edition?
Tried to read a 1611 version in a bookstore, but was extremely hard to follow!
interestingf that even the scholars in their preface in 1611 edition believed that their work was not perfect, nor the only/last version to come!
I'm A KJVO but.....
It's no secret I am a KJV guy but my answer to this question is a definite NO...of course not. I do believe the KJV translators were an honest and reverent bunch who knew they were handling the living word(s) of the Living God and as such were dedicated to the careful work that they performed. But did they know or even suggest that they thought their work was the "be all,end all" in translations? No. Had they known or believed such a thing it is more than likely that they would have succumbed to pride in their work and that would have had a negative effect. However, just because they did not know that about their work DOES NOT mean that God didn't have "other plans" in relation to the preservation of His holy Word. History has proven how God has blessed this precious old Book (and continues to do so). I praise God for His providence and guidance for this unique group of men He used to perform His ongoing work of "preservation" in bringing us the KJV....just as I also thank Him for those dear men whom He used to originally pen His Word(s) in His Original work of Inspiration. Thank God For His Word. We'd be lost and without hope apart from it!
They all had the common sense to realise that their version was really good, buit that it would get improved upon later on!
And some of them pronbably thought that maybe the Geneva Bible was better than theirs!
You're getting confused with the Baptist Confession of faith sometimes nicknamed the 1689. But what you meant was the 1769 revision by Benjamin Blayney.
Miles Smith who wrote the famous Preface quoted from the Geneva in that Preface. A lot of the revisers for decades used the Geneva and did not quote the KJV in their written works and sermons.
And by the way, nobody in the 17th century thought that it was a literary masterpiece. All the glowing praise came after the mid-18th century.
Thank the Lord also for the folks who translated the NIV,HCSB,NLT and countless other Bible versions. God has no monopoly invested in the KJV...and neither should you.
A Matter Of Faith...
Bro.Rippon (interesting name by the way...)...It all boils down to a simple matter of faith (the truth is...even evolutionists have to operate on faith...but I digress...) I have FAITH that I have a perfect and error-free Bible based on the version of the manuscript evidence that I embraced over 30 years ago and faith that God gave me to trust Him and His Word. Because of that I have no need for any other "versions" or translations. God has shown Himself faithful in that which I have. Now that is my position.
As I understand your position (correct me if I'm wrong) you do not believe that we have any Bible in existence that is error free and worthy of your complete confidence and trust as THE perfect and error-free Word of God by reason of the version of manuscript evidence and the influence of the "scholarship" that you have chosen to accept. You probably accept many, if not all of the MV's and translations as the "Word of God" even though you believe NONE of them are perfect or without some errors or flaws.
I believe God taught me what I believe....and I'm sure you would say the same about that which you believe.
I like my position better. You are welcome to yours though.
Mine says I have a perfect Bible authored and providentially protected and preserved by God down through the ages. I hold that believe by faith.
Yours says that while God did (as I would agree) perfectly Inspire the original autographs, He then left it to man to transmit and copy it down through the ages and because of that,errors and impurities crept into and accumulated in the text. How unfortunate.
I believe God teaches me and gives me faith to believe I have a perfect Bible. I also believe that any understanding of it that I have is by the illumination of the Holy Spirit within me. I thank Him for that. God is good!
If I understand what I have seen you and others in here say, you obviously must believe that God teaches you and gives you faith to believe that NONE of the versions and translations are perfect, that they do contain errors that need correcting...and that the only way you can know and discern the mind of God is by either having a working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew...OR... spending countless hours comparing the readings of numerous and multiple versions and translations.
Again, like I said before...I like my position better. I'm actually not trying to change your mind or anybody elses. I'm just exercising my liberty and freedom to praise my God and give Him glory and praise for His great love and His precious Word.
How about this....I'll give God praise and glory for giving me what I believe is a perfect Bible, the Word of God in the form of the KJV....and you can give God praise and glory for giving you what you believe is the Word of God in the form of whatever imperfect versions and translations you normally use. Hummmm...now that does make an interesting comparison when you put'em side by side.
May God give us all godly wisdom and humility. I stand in need of that moment by moment....not just day by day.raying:
Biblical faith should concern accepting what is actually taught in the Scriptures. A KJV-only theory has not been demonstrated to be taught in the Scriptures so it would involve non-scriptural "faith" in something the Bible does not teach.
How is accepting the KJV-only opinions and assumptions of men better than accepting what the Scriptures actually teach [that inspiration and preservation directly concerned the Scriptures in the original languages given to the prophets and apostles]?
The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were not in English.
Are you advocating "meaning" preservation instead of "word" preservation since different words in a different language [English] cannot be "word" preservation of the exact, specific original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?
English-speaking believers before 1611 had the word of God in English in the same sense or in the same way that English-speaking believers today have it.
The pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God in English in the same way and in the same sense that the KJV and the NKJV are.
I have seen no consistent, sound scriptural case for asserting that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different way than other English translations and other translations in other languages are.
There are serious scriptural problems with KJV-only reasoning, the same problems there was with the Latin Vulgate-only theory. The KJV does not match 100% any original language manuscripts, any Bible translations in other languages such as the earlier Luther's German Bible, the 1602 Spanish Valera, the 1637 Dutch Bible, etc. The KJV-only view in effect has to advocate an inconsistent theory of the preservation of the Scriptures.
Logos...if that is what you believe then it is just that....what YOU believe...just as what I believe is what I believe. I'm an honest KJVO guy...I'll tell you UP FRONT that I know there is NO "chapter and verse" to justify (precisely) what I believe about the KJV...! What I believe in that regard is by the faith I previously stated and I won't worry about debating it. I don't believe that faith to be "non-scriptural" regardless of your opinion (or anyone elses).
Now..That said, I'd just add this....inspite of what you assert, you have no scriptural (chapter and verse) support for your position either. (justification for the plethora of MV's we have today with MORE on the way all the time) So... by your standard, you can't say that your position is "by faith" either. (in my opinion) Additionally, the "originals" that so many make such a big thing about don't even exist anymore. I believe God knew that if He left them laying around then fallen man would probably find them and make them an object of worship! (great shades of the RCC and the "shroud of Turin",etc.,etc.)
We are both dealing with "extra-biblical evidence" to support what we believe about Bible versions. You like yours and respect it as true...and I would say the same about mine. I will concede that you probably have a better mind as far as retention of "facts" and the ability to be an effective "apologist" for your position than I do. I think I know what I believe and am both confident and comfortable with it....but I am nowhere near as good at postulating my position as you probably are at yours. I maintain my position...I believe I have the Word of God, perfect and without proven error in my hand when I hold my KJV. I will continue to believe that while thanking God for giving me His Word in my language.:thumbsup:
The Lord did not teach you that your favorite Bible version is perfect and in no need of improvement;having no errors. You have believed that because of what some men have are are still teaching i.e. KJV Onlyism.
The KJV is certainly not perfect and is not to be confused with the original autographs. You apparently conflate the two.
The Lord is not the Author of your error-filled notion.
That's a long way from saying that the Lord imparted this special confidence to you.
You know,repeating a grieveous error untold times does not make your declaration true.
Simply put...and for the sake of not continuing a pointless argument with you or anyone else....I disagree with you and those who believe as you do....and I always will...at least on this particular subject. I believe I have a perfect Bible.....you don't. I'll continue to place my confidence in the Book I hold in my hand and you will continue to put yours in whatever it is you place yours in. That's it. I will continue to point people I meet to reading and studying the one Book I have confidence in....PERIOD!
I always thought that a book with errors canot possibly be perfect. That applies only to the original autographs and Christ Himself who is the word.
The 'one book' is not the sole providence of the KJV. He has blessed us with many Bible versions. That's not a curse.Iit's a blessing. You are at odds with the Lord.
One day you may be in a real world situation where your convoluted KJVO views come into direct conflict with the nitty-gritty aspects of life. Try ministering to prisoners,the mentally ill and ESL folks and see how far your KJVO dogmatic opinions will fade into the sunset if you are really serious about actually ministering.
When did English come into existence, and why did God wait so long to give us the English "word of God?"
Why have thegreek/hebrew texts since we have the "word of God" to us today?
How come the reformers actually usd the geneva and others the bishop, instead of KJV?
My Quick Answer...
I would say (an admitted assumption) that English came into existence in some rudimentary form in Genesis Chapter 11 at Babel when God confounded the languages of man at that time. It obviously didn't come into more prolific and widespread usage until much later. I admittedly don't know that much about the linguistic history of early civilizations so I can't comment past that. If there is anyone here who has that kind of knowledge or expertise it might be interesting to know. To frame the question more precisely...at what point in our approximately 6000 year human history (I am unashamedly a Young Earth Creationist...without apology)did the English language really come to the forefront as a (or the) default world language (or if you don't accept that..at least into widespread acceptance and usage)? Anybody know?
LOL! Boy are you ever out on the proverbial limb again.
Usage?It wasn't in any recognizable form until just a few centuries before Chaucer.
It started to come into its own around 1450. A century later it began its dominance.
Strange that God either didn't bring it to life in Apostolic days, or else failed to use the languages extant before English in the bible!