God's preserved, inerrant and inspired Word.

I believe each version is perfect, inerrant, and inspired for its target readership/audience. We have discussed this in a previous topic, and I see no reason to believe otherwise. I don't believe there's any "one size fits all" BV.

 

Friend you need to read the thread on the ridiculous bible in this forum and then say that "each version" is perfect and inerrant.

 

Jim I'm sorry but you are not going to get a decent answer to this question. I know because I haven't. It sort of weakens the faith doesn't it. The KJV is the perfect Word of God, it has stood the test of time, brought sinners to repentance, and the liberals have tried to say that it's obsolete but it just keeps on selling. God has his hand upon the precious KJV.

 

I hope assaulting a deceased equine with a baton isn't a crime, but here goes:

• So is "length of use" a determinate for "inspiration?" If so, the KJV ain't tops...
• Are "sales" a sign of inspiration? Isn't God bigger than the marketplace?
• How does using a different version than yourself weaken my faith? The fact that God is able to speak to any man in any language (or dialect) actually strengthens mine.
• Once again...where's your scriptural support for 17th-century English being God's preferred mode of communication?

 

1. Did I say it was
2. Did I say it was
3. If using contradicting bibles strengthens your faith then more power to you.
4. Wheres your scriptural support that it isn't.

 

1. You implied it...by listing it behind the statement "the KJV is the perfect word of God" (which I agree with BTW...along with all other valid translations).
2. Ditto.
3. Show me one major doctrinal difference between versions such as KJV, NKJV, NAS, NIV and I'll switch sides...but you won't do that.
4. Burden of proof's on you, bud. You made the assertion. You've taken the position. If it's such a strongly held position, then prove your scriptural support for 17th-century English being God's preferred mode of communication.

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it! :thumbs:


Rbell: //Once again...where's your scriptural support
for 17th-century English being God's preferred
mode of communication?//

Thou wist not, doth thee???

 

Jim, many folks base their errant beliefs on the reading of Psalm 12:6-7, believing that these verses are talking about preserving the individuel wors of a particular translation. There could be nothing farther from the truth. If folks would take the time to read the entire 12th Psalm, it should appear to them that the preservation is of the poor and needy.

 

Only if your faith in your wife's fidelity is weakened because she isn't morally "perfect" by the absolute standard of scripture without any deviation or flaw. Your wife may be the "model" and be "perfect" as in mature, possessing the character necessary to be considered of that "kind".

Nature provides a relevant parallel to biblical preservation. Both special and general revelation were created by a direct act of God rendering them flawless. The specifics of both have been effected by man's imperfections. Both perfectly declare the revelation God purposed to declare through them.

Neither copyists, collators, nor translators could have been "perfect" without divine imposition and there is nothing in the Bible or history to suggest that they were... just like nature reflects what God created accurately without being precisely what God created.

Complete and an accurate reflection? Yes. Verbally inspired therefore perfectly worded? No.

The Alexandrian mss have been around for 1000 years longer than the KJV... If antiquity is the standard, you should trust them.

More people are being saved in China than anywhere else... they don't use a TR based Bible. Therefore, God favors non-TR Bibles, right?

No. Liberals try to say the Bible in any translation is both obsolete and unreliable. If you indeed know the real definition of "liberal" or "modernists" as the great fundamentalists like Torrey and Rice faithfully opposed, you are guilty of bearing false witness against brothers by painting with too broad of a brush.

The objection that "Bible believers" have concerning the KJV is that it IS difficult for many modern English readers to comprehend for themselves. KJVO beliefs also risks giving rise to false doctrines based on reading the KJV without the perspective of alternative translations or original language authority.

Isn't one of the key indictments of MV's thrown out by KJVO's that MV's are corrupt because they sell and make their publishers money? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That is a subjective claim. God had His hand on the Geneva until quite wicked men such as Archbishop Laud used the power of the state to deny it to the people... who had rejected the state-church's official "Authorized Version".

 

Questions regarding Scriptural Authority

Keep hearing about, “Where’s your scriptural authority?”, so…. Here we go…

This “show me scripture to support your view” can get ridiculous.

1. “There is no scriptural authority for the “KJV only” position.
Then I’m assuming this means that the “KJV only” position is unscriptural?
OK then – where is the scripture does it say that “KJV only” is unscriptural?

2. Then I’m assuming (according to many) the multi-conflicting modern version view is scriptural.
OK then – show me where multi-conflicting authorities are scriptural.

3. “The KJV is not inspired because no translation can be inspired.”
OK then – where is the scripture to show that a translation cannot be inspired?

4. “Only the originals are inspired.”
OK then - show me one verse from any version where only the originals are inspired. One will do thank you.

5. “The originals are inspired.”
OK then – show me one verse from any version that says the actual originals are inspired. (Of course I, by faith, believe theya re.)

One will do thank you.

6. Show me scriptural authority for having bathrooms or light bulbs in your churches.
One will do thank you.

You see how ridiculous this gets?

You know why you can’t find scriptural authority for light bulbs and bathrooms? Real simple – there are none. Does this make bathrooms and light bulbs in churches unscriptural? Of course not. The same goes from most of the points above. I thought the rule was if it doesn’t violate scripture you are safe.

Myself and others cannot prove to you by facts our position on the KJV but….but we can tell you why we believe what we believe.

Speaking for myself here now:
1. I (by faith, by the internal evidence of what the book says about itself, and by historical fruit) believe the King James Bible in my hands to be the perfect, inspired word of God without error word down to the italicized words and punctuation marks.

2. I believe KJV because I believe the modern versions come from a completely different set of manuscripts and contain errors whereas the AV does not (except for the occasional publishers who slip in their stuff thinking we will not notice it).

Now – many of you here do not have to believe the above and I’ll defend your right to believe whatever you believe and will not attack you personally over it. But when the occasion arises myself and others will defend our position when appropriate and will not cease to warn unsuspecting saints regarding the issue of the modern versions.

God bless

 

avb,

The burden of proof is higher if you are stating de facto "all versions but X are wrong" than if you state "all valid versions are correct."

Once again, you have ignored a challenge: show me one significant donctrinal difference between the KJV and the NASV, NIV, HCSV, and other valid translations.

You claim one bible to the exclusion of all others. Certainly you wouldn't make that step without Scriptural support. That's not the same as a light bulb in church, now is it?

you said,

And I believe it is the inspired word of God as well. But the italicized words and punctuation marks?

So which is the perfectest (sorry, Ed, for the plagiarism):
the 1611? the 1769? Which one? 'cause their punctuation and spelling/wording is different.

 

let me add...an admirable position. Would that everyone would take this attitude toward this subject.

 

I agree with you that neither side will find a specific verse that perfectly clarifies their position.
(My Logos software must be on the blink, I can't seem to find the exact verse, it must be somewhere -- "Thus sayeth the LORD, 'Eighty score and eleven will reign triumphant and be blessed over all.") :smilewinkgrin:

But versional re-inspiration (KJV onlyism) does has doctrinal repercussions: if one believes that the Authorized Version has been re-inspired it opens the door for further extra-biblical revelation, (e.g. tongues).

Personally I have rarely seen charasmatic KJVonly proponents.

And what are the exact signs we can look for when God moves to re-inspire another version, be it in English or another language?

Rob

 

I've brought this up before but has been set aside as my being wrong - So...once again I'll provide one example and this should be sufficient.

Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22 - KJV says "faith of" which clearly states a man is jusified and gets righteousness by Chris'ts faith - only God can justifiy - this supports scriptural justification and eternal security.

Every new verssion says "faith in" thus making it man's faith that justifies - wrong doctrine - man's faith cannot justify.

Now folks have sought to run from this but the fact remains - Only God can justify - Man's faith "in" cannot do the justifying.

This simple two letter word makes all the difference in the world. Thre are others but this would be enough for me to lay down any version that says "faith in".

Many do not notice this but remember (I believe this) that the average saint today has little understanding of the doctrine of justification. Today's salvation experience is say a prayer, ask Chrsit into life, etc. No clue or very little knowledge as to what took place at Calvary.

God bless

 

AVBunyan: // 1. I (by faith, by the internal evidence of what the book
says about itself, and by historical fruit) believe the King James Bible
in my hands to be the perfect, inspired word of God
without error word down to the italicized words and punctuation marks.//

I find this very satisfactory for you, but unsatisfactory for me.
Can you remind us which of several contradictory (different
words, different punctuation marks) books called
King James Version (KJV) is your KJB? I personally use the
following on a daily basis:

KJV1611 Edition - The Nelson reprint of one of the 1611 Editions
(Henderson company also has a reprint). E-sword has an
electronic copy

KJV1769 Edition - most of these don't even say what they are,
but they are more like the KJV1769 Edition than the KJV1762 Edition.

KJV1873 Edition, or so it claims. It seems very much like
the American Bible Society KJV1850 Edition.

So here is my statement:
1. By Faith, I believe that the faithful King James Versions (KJVs)
in my computer to be the perfect, inspired word of God
without error: word for word down to the italicized words and punctuation marks.

Furthermore, I believe that my statement makes me so much
better than any of the other posters here ... well, maybe not, eh???

Deacon: //And what are the exact signs we can look for when God moves to re-inspire another version, be it in English or another language?//

I'd say the miracle change of all the old versions into the new versions.
BTW, the Latin Vulgate N.T. of 488AD was good enough for Paul & Silas
and it's good enough for me.

 

AVBunyan: //Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22 - KJV says "faith of" which clearly states a man is jusified and gets righteousness by Chris'ts faith - only God can justifiy - this supports scriptural justification and eternal security.

AVBunyan: //Every new verssion says "faith in" thus making it man's faith that justifies - wrong doctrine - man's faith cannot justify.//


Galations 2:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
Knowing that a man is not iustified by the works of the Law,
but [/b]by the faith of Iesus Christ[/b], euen we haue beleeued in Iesus Christ,
that we might be iustified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the workes of the Law:
for by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified.

Galations 2:16 (KJV1769 Edition):
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law:
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

I notice that the KJV1611 had enough respect for the perfect Law
of God to do a capital 'L'; the KJV1769 does not.

Uh, er, is this then BAD THEOLOGY?
Col 1:4 (KJV1611 Edition):
Since we heard of your faith in Christ Iesus,
and of the loue which yee haue to all the Saints,

Was Timothy a 2ed rate Christian with his faith
'in Christ Jesus'?

2 Ti 3:15 (KJV1611 Edition):
And that from a childe thou hast knowen the holy Scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise vnto saluation
through faith which is in Christ Iesus.

It appears to me that the KJVs do the same thing
for which you DAMN the MVs. This smacks of
DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

Col. 1:4 - After they were justified they had faith in Christ - two different subject matters here. Col. is not discussing how one is justified but after they are then they do have a practical faith. A saved person has faith in Christ after he is saved but his faith did not justify him - God justified him.

Regarding 2 Tim - a bit trickier but it is not clear whose faith it is - looks like the faith (Christ's) is in Christ. Or...or... - Timothy is already justified but now the scriptures make him wise unto what he already has in Christ and salvation.

Bottom line Ed - if "faith in" is right then what happens when you lose "your" faith "in" Christ? The KKJV says in Gal. 2:16 and ROm. 3:22 that it is Christ's faith - is this wrong or right?

Again, with feeling - can your faith justify? If you stick with modern versions then yes. I'll stick with the KJV and God doing the justifying - a lot safer.

Summary - until anyone can show me that KJV only is unscriptural then myself and others will stick with a King James Bible.

BTW Ed - you are more than welcome to keep quoting the different 1611's, 1612's, 1769's, etc but I go by the one in my hands that I can get at Walmart for $5.95.

God bless

 

After thought

People often confuse the different faiths. There is the faith that justifies (Christ's) and then the practical faith of the saint after they have been justified. One must distinguish between the two - the KJV has - the other versions have not -they want to place the emphasis on man here and not Christ.

Plus - let's go a step further - not only am I justfied by Christ's faith but I live by his faith also - see Gal. 2:20. And yes, the new versions change Gal. 2:20 also to make it your faith you live by.

My Christian life is based upon Christ not me. When I try to make it me I fall flat on my face :BangHead:. And I'm tired of a flattened nose! :laugh:

God bless