King James Bible Inspired

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by TheOliveBranch, Sep 19, 2003.

  1. TheOliveBranch

    TheOliveBranch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could someone please tell me what is the "inspired" part of the KJB?

    I had someone point something out to me, as I was taught that the KJB was inspired. What I was taught originally was it was a good translation. I used it in preference to other Bibles. But when I changed churches, I was told of its inspiration. Proof of this was presented, but recently I was told to look at the introduction in the front of the KJB, "The Translators to the Reader", found in the front of the AV1611.

    "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered; but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see." It states: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered; but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."
    "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. ... Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, ... and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, ... that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, .... There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, ... so that we cannot be helped by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. ... Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? ... Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must need do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

    Seems to me that the translators were humble enough to admit the possibility of error, and that they never claimed inspiration.
     
  2. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's right -- no translation is inspiried or breathed out by God. Inspiration only refers to the original autographs. Translations derive the benefits of inspiration if they are faithful translations of the originals but the Bible says nothing about God-breathed translation choices or translators being moved or born along by the Holy Spirit.

    Andy
     
  3. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's right -- no translation is inspiried or breathed out by God. Inspiration only refers to the original autographs.

    What a bush of hogwash. I believe that the King James Bible is inspired, infallible, perfect word of God. If you don't, then it is up to you to find God's preserved word. Why would God inspire only the originals and then allow them to be destroyed?
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have found it. Your side seems to be the only one struggling with it.

    You would have to ask him ... But the reality is that this is exactly what he did. Your view of inspiration means that God is not perfect. Your view of inspiration has God unable to get it right the first time; he had to keep changing it to correct it all the time. And after all this time, he still didn't get it right because there are still conflicting King James Versions. Your view of inspiration is simply inadequate to deal with Scripture and theology.
     
  5. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Found what, corrupt versions of the Bible? I think if the God of the universe can hold the stars and the planets in the sky, I think he can preserve His word.
    You know Pastor Larry, I don't know what went on with God's word in the past as much as you do, but I will never believe that God cannot inspire and preserve his word forever.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Homebound - Answer five simple questions:

    Did God preserve His Word in English?

    When did He do that?

    What was "God's Word" before then?

    Why isn't that still "God's Word" today?

    Which version, which edition, which specific set of words are perfect, without error, etc etc?

    Thank you.
     
  7. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you believe, since the originals were lost roughly sometime around the first or second century, that the church was without an inspired, infallible, perfect Word of God for 1400 to 1500 years? The fact of the unprecedented preservation of 5400+ Greek manuscripts doesn't sway you? Perhaps it shouldn't, since each KJV edition differs in thousands of places from the other KJV editions, and all KJVs differ in thousands of places from the Greek (an inevitability whenever two languages are translated, because the semantic ranges of the words only overlap, but don't entirely coincide). Every time a document is translated from one language to another, significant information, especially subtle nuances, is lost in translation. The translation always conveys less information than the original did and than the author intended.

    Out of curiosity, two serious questions, both of which are completely pertinent:

    (1) Which of the KJVs is The One, the 1611, 1762, 1769, 1873, 1982, or another?

    (2) How many (and which) foreign languages have you studied and for how long? French? German? Spanish? Greek? Hebrew? Russian? Latin? Or what?

    The second question is especially important to this issue.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    We all believe he can preserve his word. In fact, he did preserve it. But not in the manner in which you think he did. There is not one bit of evidence that he did. All of the evidence (both scriptural and historical) points to our belief. In other words, Scripture teaches what we teach, not what you teach.

    Neither will I. But you have been here long enough to know that that is not the discussion. You should have learned quite a bit by now about "what went on with God's word in the past." You have had plenty of opportunities but you do not seem to be taking advantage of them. No one is asking you to believe God didn't inspire and preserve his word. We all believe that he did. We are simply asking you to believe the truth about how God inspired and preserved his word.
     
  9. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    TRANSLATION:


    1 . There is no final authority but God.

    2. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.

    3. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.

    4. There WAS a series of writings one time which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.

    5. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God Who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52) and where the word "Christian" originated (Acts 1l:26).

    6. So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).

    7. So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate--though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference''-are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.

    8. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehler, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Wesley, and Chapman used.

    9. But we can "tolerate" these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all, since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach, or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRlTTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.

    This is the Creed of the Alexandrian [sect].

    [ September 21, 2003, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    [/b]You certainly need some work on your translation skills. This pathetic and shows that you are committed to a wrong position and a wrong method of thinking.

    You are wrong. We believe there is a final authority of God in his Word. You don't believe this becuase if you did, you would abandon your man made doctrine of KJVOnlyism and believe what the final authority teaches.

    Wrong. Jesus Christ could be all of those things (1 John 1). His word has been preserved for us to be our final authority.

    This is wrong and you know it.

    There was and there is.

    Not only bad theology, it is also bad history. The series of writings is not lost. We have it today. What we do not have is the original autographs. Your attempt to connect it to Antioch is simply foolish. It is bad exegesis. It is making stuff up.

    Here, your unthinking appraoch glares brightly. You say that God sent his Son, Jacob, Israel, and Joseph's bones into Egypt to protect them from destruction. You are certainly right. You fail to realize that God also could have sent his word to Egypt to preserve it from destruction. This argument works against you. But you are too unthinking to realize that. You simply parrot other people's bad information.

    There are not two streams of Bibles. That is simple misinformation that you are not diligent enough to study for yourself. There are four basic types of manuscript evidence, as well as church fathers, and early versions. They all differ from each other, even if you get inside a stream.

    Even in your "antiochan" tradition, there is no final authority, in your way of thinking. All of those manuscripts differ from one another.

    They are not the most inaccurate translations. To say that is a bald-faced lie. We have never said that. There are far more inaccurate translations. And those translations are different. The translations that brought the Reformation and the missionary movement are not the KJV and indeed are different than the KJV. Even you, with your limited knowledge, should be able to figure this out.

    Untrue.

    It is a pack of lies that you have copied from someone else while failing to give them credit. You have stolen copyrighted material, at least in the concept if not the word. Not only is your list dishonest, it is unethical to use it because 1) it steals someone else's (very poor) work; 2) it makes up lies and misrepresents the truth of God's word; 3) it sows false teaching among the brethren by teaching stuff God has not taught; and 4) it divides the body of Christ over something God has not revealed.

    You should know better. You need to repent and turn from your wickedness. You need to cease maligning and twisting the precious word of God. You need to cease your attacks on teh Holy Scriptures. You need to stop listening to liars.
     
  11. Dallasdid

    Dallasdid
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob that is one of the best post I have ever seen and will use it for KJV only people. KJV only is rediclous i have used the KJV since i was a child but as paul said "when i was a child i spoke as a child but i grew up and put away childish things" im kidding but no i still use it but in no way is it the best Bible are God favored that is silly and inane.
     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean like he did in 1605? ;) [​IMG]
     
  13. TheOliveBranch

    TheOliveBranch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    0
    I found the quote from the Translators in the front of the KJB 1611 that states, from the translators, that they were not without possibility of error. This is an admission of the possibility of the KJB having errors. Therefore it cannot be infallible, unless someone has proven it to be.

    I have been in a church teaching me what you believe. What can you say to show me what you believe is true?
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shame on you, OliveBranch! You're not supposed to believe what the translators say, you're supposed to believe the KJV is perfect in spite of their statements to the contrary.
     
  15. TheOliveBranch

    TheOliveBranch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry to be offensive, Ransom. I can see something here, and truly want someone who believes in the inspiration of the KJB to show me. So, I will be patient and wait for someone to show me what made them believe this, examine and study their backing of it, then decide what is truth and what isn't.

    :( Patiently...waiting.
     
  16. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes
    From then till forever.
    Here is a list that Anti-Alexandrian put together:

    According to Psalm 12:6-7,it was purified seven times.

    1.Hebrew.

    2.Aramaic.

    3.Greek.

    4.Old Syriac.

    5.Old Latin.

    6.German.

    7.English(translated in the Church age that "kept God's word).


    And on the same token:

    1.Tyndale's English Bible-1525 A.D.

    2.Coverdale's English Bible-1535 A.D.

    3.Matthew's English Bible-1537-1549 A.D.

    4.Great Bible-1542 A.D.

    5.Geneva Bible-1560 A.D.

    6.Bishops Bible-1568 A.D.

    7.Authorized version-1611 A.D.

    All of the English Bibles listed were translated in the Church age that "kept God's word."All of the 1881 on "bibles" were not.There is your "direct answer";believe it or not;take it or leave it;the ball is in your court.
    The King James Bible is around today, purified seven times.
    Not a version, just the Bible, the King James.
    The date of the one I have is 1769, which matches the 1611 except for typo, grammar, spelling corrections.
    The scripture is perfect. The footnotes, sidenotes, notes, notes, notes, maps, are not perfect. Heck, I even believe the verse and chapter numbers are perfect.

    One question for you, what is your perfect Bible?
     
  17. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don’t know why the translators thought that what they were doing would not be without error. Maybe because they are humans and they didn’t quite understand that what they were doing was from God, not just King James. I don’t know what really to say to convince you that the King James Bible is God’s perfect word, the Holy Spirit will have to convince you. I do pray though that I might say something from the Holy Spirit that might get you to think about it. They say that we don’t have prove, but I say that they don’t either. Here is what makes since to me, one sin, one God, one Saviour, one Bible.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    HomeBound: "Here is what makes since to me, one sin, one God, one Saviour, one Bible."

    You loose [​IMG]
    since = stuff that happens after
    sense = stuff you understand

    You should have said:
    Here is what makes sense to me, one sin, one God, one Saviour, one Bible.

    I hate it when i loose an argument
    on a technical (spelling) foul [​IMG]
     
  19. Dallasdid

    Dallasdid
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    HomeBound: "Here is what makes since to me, one sin, one God, one Saviour, one Bible."

    Bible before 1611 + Bible after 1611 = 2 Bibles.
     

Share This Page

Loading...