The Original Manuscripts

Jonathan01,

I will answer all your questions if you will show me where anyone on BB said the Bible is not inspired. Otherwise you are proceeding from a false premise.

Point me to a post where someone says the Bible is not inspired.

 

Thank God for the King of England who made a common bible so readily available to the common man. The KJV has served Christendom very well for many years. So have the many versions published in recent years. It is not any version that counts. The point is, we HAVE the word of God available to all who will read, seeking Him.

Cheers,

Jim

We are not even sure we have valid Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic versions at hand.

 

not EXACT copies of the originals, but "near 100%" though, and do allow us to trust the best modern versions as being infallible Word of God for us today!

 

Many on here seem to promote any bible version. When a new one gets published you all rush out and buy it and say its the word of God. Bible versions are of men, not of God. God gave and preserved His word, yet we have christians on here saying there is no 100" inspired bible. Yes this IS saying God was UNABLE to keep His word from getting tampered with. So what are you guys reading? If I believed there was no 100% inspired Bible, it would crush my faith. I wouldn't care what version I read, since all are so imperfect. Wouldn't matter if I endorse the Message bible which homosexuals love because it says certain sex acts are wrong but it does NOT say gay sex is. I would endorse the gender neutral bible. I would endorse a bible that insinuates that Christ is merely a Son and NOT GOD. A bible that says salvation is a process.

So we don't really need a bible do we? It would be worshiping a Book, right?. Jesus said: You search the scriptures thinking in them you will find life, but you don't do what it says!" How can we do what it says if we don't know what God said in His word??

I find it interesting that on another thread you said we need to be thick skinned because these same people on here will not listen, they change the rules and only care about being right. Then when one person stands alone in his belief that we do have a preserved text, you go the way of all the others.

When I joined this site I thought I would find like mined baptist brothers and sisters. What I found is a different spirit. A lot of bible agnostics. People who keep silent when men dilute God's word, copyright God's word, add and subtract that we no longer know what belongs and what doesn't. None of you have the courage to say God preserved his word and its not in all these myriad versions. Its the texts of Antiochan where men were first called Christian.

Then you got some on here that claim they don't disrespect God when they say any version will do. How we treat God's word is how we treat God. Standing by and allowing more and more versions is being a coward Christian.

The Bible says that in the last days men will no longer listen to sound doctrine and preachers will give them what their itchy ears want to hear. This is why any bible version will do in many churches today. Give the people what they want. Where is the loyalty to God?

If you guys truly believe God is ABLE, then where is the preserved text?

 

But you are talking about a "version", a translation. There had been several translation into English before 1611, so why not complain that the 1611 translators tampered with the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, Coverdale's translation etc. Please can you explain why you seem to think that the KJV is the Word of God, but no other translation into English is?
(In asking that question, I am not attacking you or the KJV).

Have you really looked at any of the other translations? I use the NKJV, and in it, I read about God, sin, why Christ came. And when you say "a version that has made changes," what do you mean? Changes from what? Another English translation?

 

Do you know if the RAV is still available? I use the NKJV but always have to adapt the spellings so they are right here.

 

What about the KJV? V = Version.

 

Please point out where someone has said this. I really want to see this.

 

If you guys truly believe God is ABLE, then where is the preserved text?
---------------------------------------------------

The "preserved text" is in the essence of the various versions of scripture passed down through the ages. Not word for word.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Brother,

Please slow down for a minute here. You're maligning me, and you don't even know me. I don't think that's of Gods Spirit. Listen to your words friend "all of us rush out to buy a new version?" Not so.

You're tying your verse from 2 Timothy 4 to the KJB, what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't use the KJB is basically in apostasy, correct? That is not why this passage was written.

Let's look at that verse this way. Preaching about a Bible version "The 1611 AV" at a fundamental KJVO group of preachers, and stompin' and snortin' about it is scratching ears. And it is not sound doctrine. It's the traditions of men and a group of self-righteous, hate-filled, anger-mongering, need something to fight about nonsense. Most every one of these types preach traditionalist things they have been taught. It's not sound doctrine. Again, it is the traditions of men only.

And yes, I told you you need to be thick skinned. If you would've looked at my signature and noticed in caps and bold NASB perhaps you would've have counted me not a brother, and instead an enemy then, instead of assuming my encouragment to you meant I am a KJVO?

Also, I told this brother if he wants to stand as a KJVO, then go for it. I just happen to know that this KJVO thing is schismatic, devisive, and is not an apologetic for Holy God. It's only fightin' words, argument fodder, traditions of men rhetoric, and hate mongering towards other believers.

By the way, I don't think any version will do. Neither do any of these on here.

Not being KJVO does not believe we think God is unable. That's putting words in others mouths.

Friend, the reason your faith would be crushed, is because it is in a bible version. That, and your faith is very weak. It would be much more secure if it were only in God alone, and not based upon accuracy of a version, that, by the way has many variances and problems within its text.

You really need to take some months and years and pray about this my friend. God bless you and increase your faith in Him and who He is, not in what is on the spine of your Bible.

I'm not keen at all on The Message, but you really got to get rid of that 100" Bible and get a more compact version.

 

He will probably point out my posts. In order to proclaim any translation as "inspired"one must first either:

1- Redefine 'inspiration'; or

2- Actually mean "derivative inspiration", which ALL translations which are diligently translated from the original manuscripts (or copies thereof) have; or

3- Claim "Double inspiration" for the KJV.

To claim apostolic and prophetic inspiration for any Bible translation is heresy- well, perhaps that is too strong a word. At any rate it is just wrong.

 

Good post. :thumbsup: I like the last sentence best- :laugh:

 

Yes.


When Jaocb77 got saved, well, what happened? Well, He saved him by His grace, and justified him. The blood of Jesus forgives him of his sins, he was translated into Gods kingdom. He trusted Jesus alone. He professed his faith in Him.

Then what followed after? Well, indoctrination about the KJV of course. They do this while they are young (in the faith) and impressionable. The KJV began to, and still does transcend and has transcended faith in God to faith in a version through their teaching to these proselytes afterward. Again, all of this happened after he got saved, as to others. He and they have been hoodwinked. It's really sad if you think about it.

These preachers will not typically like to go out and say it in public, (but there are a few to prove me wrong that come out brazen and tactless and go ahead and say it, and think it makes them a big man in an ear scratching sermon) but, they don't think it is possible to get saved hearing any other version because they indoctrinate themselves to believe that the kjv is the word of God alone. Each of them came to this conclusion after salvation via indoctrination. Some of them get their G. A. Riplinger kit and now they are ready to argue.

Now I dare say there is also most likely some false Gospel here too among them, as I am aware that when one makes their profession of faith (that they've come to saving knowledge) in Jesus alone, they also make them qualify it to, and couple it with the KJV only, to this end; that the congregation is more glad about the latter than the former. After all, they've gained a proselyte.

And the hotbed continues to grow. It is traditions of men as you say annsni.

It was either Jesus only period, or Him and something else. If it is Him and ANYTHING else, it is a false gospel.

 

That, and I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!!!

And I love this:

:tongue3:

 

Really, name one. Name one person that will promote "any" Bible version.

Not hardly, again prove it with an example.

True

Who says that? Please name one person that says the Bible isn't 100% inspired.

Nobody denies that God preserved his word.

Are you saying the Bible 100% inspired, or the translation? You already said that translations come from men?

Well, none of the main versions promoted on here would teach any of those things.

and your proof of this would be? Again, nobody is a Bible agnostic here.

Nobody says "any version will do."

like the KJVO doctrine

HUH?

All over the world.

Are you trying to advocate that the KJV(assuming that's the version you would choose) is translated by God? Or that the KJV translators were guided by the Spirit to be kept from error. If so(which is the ONLY way to have a perfect translation) this would teach double inspiration.

What's worse is your comments about my brothers and sisters in Christ here on this board by saying they don't believe in a 100% inspired Bible. This reminds me of the statements that the SOTL made when they claimed that if you didn't believe in a perfect translation, you didn't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

 

I certainly don't and all my friends on the BB know it, so you can ask them. But I do use 3 versions.

KJV
NKJV
NASB

If that makes me a hairy tic....well...so be it. :tongue3:

 

We have the same problem (though of course this is nothing new; if we used the KJV it has: musick, publick, heretick, chesnut, caterpiller, etc. )

As far as I know, Roger, the Revised Authorised Version ("British English" edition, published by Samuel Bagster in 1982, of the NKJV) has not been in print for many years. You may be able to get a copy second-hand, but I think you probably meant that you wanted enough copies to use as a "pew bible".

 

Just curious...

never heard of the RAV...

is it same as the RV of 1881? One that became ASV 1901?

 

No, neither of those. It is the Revised Authorised Version, which was published in 1982, and was the "British English" version of the NKJV. Although the term "King Kames Versions" is becoming more popular than it used to be here in the UK, we still tend to refer to the 1611 translation as "The Authorised Version", or AV for short. So I suppose "Revised Authorised Version" seemed better for the British edition.

Apart from the British spellings (Saviour, colour, counsellor, etc.) there are only a few differences compared to the NKJV. I think it says "cockerel" where the NKJV has the American "rooster", for instance.