KJVO Authority

The KJV did not make a perfect translation. "Providential" is the key word. IT was providential, not miraculous. A perfect translation would require a miraculous intervention by God. The point is that a perfect translation is just as possible today as it was then.

 

The KJV did not make a perfect translation.

did to! nyah!

"Providential" is the key word. IT was providential, not miraculous.

hmm, ok.

A perfect translation would require a miraculous intervention by God.

why is that?

The point is that a perfect translation is just as possible today as it was then.

i agree. but i'd say it wasn't merely a possibility then, after all , it happened. and i'd say that god can do it again any time he likes.

 

This distinction refers to God's working through secondary causation or natural order and God's direct intervention. It is a common theological distinction.

Because man is fallible. The 5000+ differing manuscripts testify to that. This has been the orthodox position for centuries.

My point is that it wans't a possibility then, just like it isn't a possiblity now. The age of miracles has passed. God is not operating that way today. I believe God could do it. But he has chosen not to.

However if you believe he did it then, and agree that he could do it again, but what authority do you say that the NIV or NASB or ESV or NKJV isn't that second "perfect translation"? You cannot argue that they are not perfect because they differ beecause that argument would prove the KJV to be imperfect since it differs from all that came before it. The bottom line, is that you cannot offer any proof that any of these versions are not the perfect translation. Just as you can offer no proof that the KJV is the perfect translation.

 

This distinction refers to God's working through secondary causation or natural order and God's direct intervention. It is a common theological distinction.

i'm well aware of what the terms mean, pastor.

pastor: A perfect translation would require a miraculous intervention by God.

tim: why is that?

pastor: Because man is fallible.

that doesn't hold water, imo. god can achieve his perfect ends through sinful flawed human beings without his miraculous involvment. witness joseph in egypt, the salvation of the jews in shushan, you probably know more examples than i do. also:

romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

do all things work together kinda/sorta for our good? or perfectly? also:

hebrews 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

is god's chastening, largely through providential means, perfect, or merely more or less what we need?

god can perfectly achieve his aims without miracles.

My point is that it wans't a possibility then, just like it isn't a possiblity now. The age of miracles has passed. God is not operating that way today. I believe God could do it. But he has chosen not to.

i maintain god can, and does, achieve any result he desires without the necessity of miraculous involvment.

in any event, can you prove the "age of miracles" has passed? where has god promised to stop performing miracles? in a literal sense every regeneration is a miracle, imo.

However if you believe he did it then, and agree that he could do it again, but what authority do you say that the NIV or NASB or ESV or NKJV isn't that second "perfect translation"?

they don't agree with the kjv.

[ March 26, 2003, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

I agree but that is not the point. All of those examples involved the overriding of sinful man and do not involve special revelation. God's preserving his word through human copying is a prime example of this. IT was providential, overriding the tendencies of sinful man while preserving for us his word. Yet it is clear that the preservation was not perfect. There are not manuscripts that match. They are all different. Thus, there is no way to know which one was perfect. The KJV cannot help us here because the KJV was translated from a compilation of a dozen or so of these manuscripts which Erasmus put together, making choices about what the most likely original words were ... or in the words of the KJOnlies, Erasmus decided what the words of God were.

Yes they work together for our good but it does not say that they are all good, nor does it say that they are perfect. Nor does this verse have any relevance for translations.

I don't see any relevance here to perfection or to translations. God's chastening is what it is. A man who has an affair might be chastened through the disruption of his marriage, the loss of his marriage, the contraction of a disease, the fathering of a child out of wedlock, none of which are perfect, but all of which may be the chastening of God. But this topic has absolutely nothing to do with special revelation.

Sure ... but again, this has nothing to do with special revelation and the copying/translating of manuscripts.

Virgin birth? Resurrection from teh dead? Feeding 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish??

The age of miracles passed with the completion of the canon (Heb 2:2) and the lack of need for confirming authority. Regeneration is a miracle but you konw that is not what we were talking about.

If you read above, you would see the fallacy with this. You claim nothing now is perfect because it doesn't match the KJV. Yet the KJV matches nothing before it. So did God leave the vast majority of church history without his perfect word? Hardly. This argument can carry no weight because it is based on a faulty and unsustainable premise.

 

I agree but that is not the point. All of those examples involved the overriding of sinful man and do not involve special revelation.

i don't think that the men were overridden in these examples, everyone was acting freely, but our almighty soveriegn god through his providence still achieved his own perfect ends! what an awesome god we worship!

God's preserving his word through human copying is a prime example of this. IT was providential, overriding the tendencies of sinful man while preserving for us his word. Yet it is clear that the preservation was not perfect. There are not manuscripts that match. They are all different.

i have no opinion about where god preserved his word before the kjv. off in one of the TR variants, i suppose. who knows?

Yes they work together for our good but it does not say that they are all good, nor does it say that they are perfect. Nor does this verse have any relevance for translations.

it shows the perfection of god's good for us through his providential care. the verse says ALL things work together for our good - and i assume for our perfect good. do you really think otherwise? this verse shows god can achieve his will perfectly through providence.

tim: is god's chastening, largely through providential means, perfect, or merely more or less what we need?
pastor: I don't see any relevance here to perfection or to translations. God's chastening is what it is.

perfect? or not?

A man who has an affair might be chastened through the disruption of his marriage, the loss of his marriage, the contraction of a disease, the fathering of a child out of wedlock, none of which are perfect, but all of which may be the chastening of God.

so does god chasten imperfectly?

But this topic has absolutely nothing to do with special revelation.

yes, it does. god through providence can achieve his aims perfectly. therefore, god could have made the kjv a perfect translation only through his providence, without the need for miracles or special revelation.

tim:i maintain god can, and does, achieve any result he desires without the necessity of miraculous involvment.
pastor: Virgin birth? Resurrection from teh dead? Feeding 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish??

good point. but identify god's aims here, and yes i believe our all powerful god could have achieved the same without miracles. obviously it's not my place to judge how god does things, but neither is it my place to try and limit his power.

The age of miracles passed with the completion of the canon (Heb 2:2) and the lack of need for confirming authority.

those verses do not state the ONLY purpose of miracles is confirmation. i see nothing limiting god in his use of miracles, in fact i read there he does so "according to his own will".

Yet the KJV matches nothing before it.

impossible to prove, that statement is.

So did God leave the vast majority of church history without his perfect word? Hardly.

we agree!

[ March 26, 2003, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

I think perhaps you should give this some thought. It is a destructive cannon against the KJVO argument, using the arguments of the KJVOs themselves.

No doubt, but to apply that to translations is completely out of place. It has nothing to do with translations.

already answered.

I am not sure that a adjective like "perfect" can be attached to something like that. Is is perfect that a home was destroyed, that a man got sick, that a child comes into the world without a family?? I hardly think so.

Virtually no one in orthodox theology, especially in fundamentalism, agrees with you. Again you are trying to associate this with translations improperly.

YOu have just judged how God does things but saying that he has given only the KJV. YOu have judged him not to have given us the other versions.

Where he does what according to his will?? That doesn't refer to miracles. Heb refers to the purpose of miracles and that purpose has passed.

No it's not ... this statement is one of the most obvious things that can be researched.

[quiote]So did God leave the vast majority of church history without his perfect word? Hardly.

we agree! [/QUOTE]But how can you agree? The KJV was different than all before it and therefore either what was before or the KJV was imperfect, by your definition.

 

tim: it shows the perfection of god's good for us through his providential care. the verse says ALL things work together for our good - and i assume for our perfect good. do you really think otherwise? this verse shows god can achieve his will perfectly through providence.

pastor: No doubt, but to apply that to translations is completely out of place. It has nothing to do with translations.

my point is this - if god has no problem providentially insuring all events work to the good of his elect at all times, preserving his word providentially in the kjv seems like child's play by comparison, no miracles or special revelation required. so i think your miracle/special revelation requirement is false.

I am not sure that a adjective like "perfect" can be attached to something like that. Is is perfect that a home was destroyed, that a man got sick, that a child comes into the world without a family?? I hardly think so.

my bible says:

romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

and i believe it 100%.

concerning apparently senseless troubles in our lives, i think job learned the proper attitude:

job 40:1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said, 2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it. 3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said, 4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. 5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.

tim: yes, it does. god through providence can achieve his aims perfectly. therefore, god could have made the kjv a perfect translation ONLY through his providence, without the need for miracles or special revelation.

pastor: Virtually no one in orthodox theology, especially in fundamentalism, agrees with you. Again you are trying to associate this with translations improperly.

all i'm doing is disproving your contention that a miracle was required for the kjv to be a perfect translation. god, working through providence alone, is more than capable of it. besides, when has truth ever been established by taking a vote?

tim: good point. but identify god's aims here, and yes i believe our all powerful god could have achieved the same without miracles. obviously it's not my place to judge how god does things, but neither is it my place to try and limit his power.

pastor: YOu have just judged how God does things but saying that he has given only the KJV. YOu have judged him not to have given us the other versions.

how do you feel about the new world translation

tim: those verses do not state the ONLY purpose of miracles is confirmation. i see nothing limiting god in his use of miracles, in fact i read there he does so "according to his own will".

pastor: Where he does what according to his will?? That doesn't refer to miracles.

Heb 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Heb refers to the purpose of miracles and that purpose has passed.

where does it say that's the ONLY purpose? please quote scripture.

pastor: Yet the KJV matches nothing before it.

tim: impossible to prove, that statement is.

pastor: No it's not ... this statement is one of the most obvious things that can be researched.

i don't think you can prove a negative like that. think about it - i could have the autographs in my desk drawer whose greek/hebrew line up perfectly with my kjv. prove i don't

[ March 26, 2003, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

Several posts back, to the comment: everyone here can understand the kjv with minimal effort, I replied:

Several days pass, and still no response from the KJVO crowd.....

 

Several days pass, and still no response from the KJVO crowd.....

ok, here goes: yes, minimal effort will allow one to understand such things.

 

Then you already knew these things before I posted them, right?

 

Then you already knew these things before I posted them, right?

you got with me advertise, but with minimal effort i confirmed your definition

 

Then the KJV is using outdated language?

 

yes

[ March 27, 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

Then the KJV contains imperfect text?

 

say i produced the autographs. if you can't read all the hebrew, aramaic, and greek they contain does that mean they're not perfect? i smell heresy...

 

So, you're saying that the texts which the KJV translators used are imperfect in the same manner the KJV is imperfect?

 

nope.