The Perfect Inerrant Bible

Well, then, the AV translators are guilty of writing their own version. And i can point out many occasions where they added words not found in the literal translation.

Are ya gonna answer my request for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT of what you're trying to tell us?

 

If we interpret this as you seem to be suggesting then it cannot be the KJV since Jesus never spoke English during His earthly ministry.

"Words" can mean individual units of speech or it can be the meaning of those words... in this case, context demands that it means meanings.

"Word" means "thought/message" and in particular "sayings". This is the definition that applies to preservation.

We know what was said originally. We have mountains of evidence to confirm it. We don't know precisely how it was said in every instance. God chose not to do something that KJVO's arbitrarily demand that He should have done. He didn't preserve a word for word facsimile of the originals. Their faith in what He actually did is so weak that they demand that He had to have done something more.

To ensure that His Word (Revelation, inspired message) was preserved "perfectly", it pleased God to be redundant.

Perhaps it would be more productive if you presented one iota of evidence that God inspired the specific words of any translation and moreover gave any text that said He would preserve a facsimile of the originals... or that He would grant certain 20th century men the power, wisdom, and authority to decide which English version was perfect to the exclusion of all others.

 

Wrong in what? How do Bible translations alter the Gospel, ( for non-christians ) and how does it alter God's command to us ( who have recieved Grace ) to be Holy as He Is!

Please tell me how people are being lost through Bible translation. In the light of Scripture.

God draws us to Christ, it is a seperate thing.

Long live Bible translation.

"Go into ALL the world"...

 

Well, of course not I'm going to write my own version. But, do you really think Paul was referring only to food?

 

Amen, Sister Amy.G, 'bible translations' are a spiritual food.

FOUL!

 

Thanks Brother Ed! Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in awhile! (little mountain humor there) :laugh:

 

Doc, you oughta' put your above post on "Speed-dial". Considering how often it seems to be needed , it would save you some time and aggravation! :BangHead:

I wanna' :laugh:, but really we should all :tear: over this.
And I'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit is grieved. (Heb. 10: 28-31)

Ed

 

I'd say there is a reason the Holy Spirit did not have Isaiah 'clarify' this, and that this prophecy has reference to two different things, one is Isaiah's day, as well as the future Messiah. To have 'clarified' this, would have rendered one or the other non-existent. And that was not the intent of the Holy Spirit through Isaiah. And as it stands, with 'almah', it is perfectly clear to both.

Ed

 

We should keep in mind what the translators of the KJV 1611 version had to say themselves.

It should also make us take time to stop and think about needing a modern translation when we find out that the KJV Dictionary now contains 820 words which need to be defined from the old terms which were common into new terms which we can now understand.

I also keep in mind that no person in the old or new testament spoke English in any of it's forms.:BangHead:

 

In the Word of God we find that the scriptures refers to itself at times in terms of being a tool, like a lamp (unto my feet) and sword (of the Spirit), etc.

I would have been proud to take my KJV into spiritual battle 400, 300, or maybe even 200 years ago; but today I'd be foolish not to fight "the good fight" with a Halogen spotlight and an Uzi available to me!

If butter churns and sickles are the tools you like to use, then the AV is the Bible for you! However, if you find automobiles and computers beneficial tools, then perhaps you will also find benefits in a modern translation.

 

I agree completely with you, here, but for some, this apparently only applies to certain 'selected' versions, depending on where you stand. Somehow I fail to see how some are "protected species" while some are in "open season", from the same individual. I know I'm actually merely a 'dumb farmer' and sometimes 'taxi driver', but still, what am I missing here??

Ed

 

There is no need for you to be 'afraid' for me. The Lord knows my heart. But I'll try to interpret for you, since you didn't seem to receive my meaning initially.

Certainly, the accusation of 'belittling' doesn't apply here: the Scriptures refers to itself as a tool (I'm pretty sure we'll agree that lamps and swords are tools). I think you'll also concur that the Bible is a book, and a book is a communication tool. There is no other way to categorize it: the Bible is not a mineral, its not an animal, its not a place, its not a idea, its not a dream, etc. Its a miraculous, glorious book. Its The Book of books (literally)! Historically speaking, tools always progress.

As stated, I am honored to have had the precious KJV, and I use it when its appropriate. The KJV hasn't changed, the English language has changed. Our society has changed (and not wholly for the better, in my opinion). However, I cannot conceive of a situation today that the power and might of a 'modern' version is not better suited to defend the Gospel.

I hope you know that we are at war. The enemy is bringing their modern 'weapons' to bear against us. There is no shame for the KJV, which has served admirably. Just has 17th century canons had served proudly, but do not have the firepower of a modern cruise missile. I just think that the KJV should be decommissioned. And again, there was no 'belittling' of any Bible written before.

And finally, I conceded that some folks prefer the tools of the past; its not entirely a bad thing. However, those that cling to the Bibles of the past ought not belittle those that also utilize and benefit from modern Bibles.

 

Scott,

I don't believe i mentioned the KJV at all.

When Jesus talks about jots and tittles that is clearly not just "meanings" but the very particulars of the words themselves, so the point still stands.

So you don't believe in plenary and verbal preservation, only in the preservation of meaning and message? Do you believe that inspiration is plenary and verbal? And, how can you separate meaning from the words themselves? The meaning and message is a direct result of the actual individual words.

I didn't say that i believe anything in the quote above that you are implying i believe. I just find it interesting that instead of answering a question about preservation folks basically start denying the historic Christian doctrine of preservation.

My answer to where is the preserved word of God...
The preserved word of God is found perfectly in the multiplicity of extant original language manuscripts. Though the word has been preserved perfectly, that does not imply that we can perfectly ascertain it our extract it. We still have some questions about original readings, but those readings are there.

 

Oops, duplicate post :-(

 

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- You are so RIGHT ON!

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- You are so RIGHT ON!

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- You are so RIGHT ON!

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs: