The Perfect Inerrant Bible

Of course He can, and praise God He has the power to do so for every generation of English speaking peoples.

What a mighty, powerful, loving God we have to allow a way to provide His word for Christians in 17th century Elizebethan English and in 21st century English as well!

 

==No offense but your entire position, and your assurance, is way too subjective for me. There is no historical or textual reason to believe that the 1611 English King James Bible is the only accurate English translation. In fact there are plenty of historical and textual reasons to believe it is not. In my experience most KJV-Only Christians "want" to believe the King James Bible is the only accurate English translation. As for God being able to provide a perfect english translation, of course He could. However saying that God "could" is not the same as saying "God did". God "can" do anything, but it does not mean that God "will do" everything. Before we claim that the KJV is the only accurate English translation we have to find "solid", "objective" evidence that such is the case. Simply comparing translations, as is usually done by KJV-Only believers will not do as evidence since the very comparison is based on an assumption of KJV-Onlyism.

==Is your loyality to a translation or to God's Word? As history and textual studies easily show translations can, and do, have errors. While we are sure that 98% of the modern text, in our translations, is correct we cannot claim that our translations are 100% perfect copies/translations of the original autographs. Again saying that God "could" provide a perfect English translation is not proof that God "did". Of course God could, but the question is did He? The answer can only be found in looking at the history of translations and the textual evidence.

 

Deacon jd: //Not one of you have answered the question yet.//

Here is one question and the answer (from page 1):

Larryjf: //Does the word of God live and abide forever? If so, where is it today?//

Rbell: //In all valid translations.//

Which part of "In all valid translations" are you having
problems with?

Deacon jd: //I have absolute total confidence that I have the perfect,
innerant Word of God in my possesion in the form of a KJV bible//

This actually gives you no moral high-ground. I also
"have absolute total confidence that I have the perfect,
innerant Word of God in my possesion". In fact, I
also say one of the forms is all three of my different KJV Bibles:

KJV1611 Edition
KJV1769 Edition
KJV1873 Edition

In fact, i use the first two on a daily basis.

Which part of "In all valid translations" are you having
problems with?

You assume that "the KJV contains the written word of God".
I believe that, three time over.
I assume that: "all valid translations", collectively and
individually contain the written word of God.

I've proved the following statement at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34374&page=5
which is a poll nearby.

----------------------------------------------------
With 38 votes in, those 'translations' that are invalid
(with 70%+ of the votes) are:

NWT = New World Translation
Reader's Digest Bible
The Message by Peterson

With 38 votes in, those Translations that are valid
(with under 25% of the vote) are:

Geneva Bible of 1587
KJV1611 Edition
KJV1762 Edition
KJV1873 Edition
NASB = New American Standard Bible
NIV = New International Version
ESV = English Standard Version

Humm, hasn't changed a bit.
My poll is spoiler proof and even oops proof

This is exactly what I set out to prove:
Any group of Christians can agree what is a valid
translation and/or what is an invalid translation.
----------------------------------------------------

Any group of Baptists could probably agree on some
valid translations; if they could agree on anything.

 

deacon jd:Not one of you have answered the question yet. You all seem to be making excuse for why God can't provide us with a perfect English translation.

Actually, Sir, YOU are making excuses...excuses why God is limited to only one version in English. In other words, you're GUESSING.


Some of you have even went as far as to say that God couldn't even provide a perfect Hebrew text.

Then please tell us...Was Jehoiachin eight(2 Chronicles) or eighteen(2 kings) when he began to reign? Only one can be right.

And please quit trying to blame GOD for MAN'S mistakes. The ONLY Scripture God actually wrote was the Decalogue, for Moses to show the people.

I have realized something very important in each thread that I have started on this subject.

I hope you've realized that the KJVO myth is man-made hooey since there's not one peep of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it. But sadly it appears that just hasn't sunk in.


I have absolute total confidence that I have the perfect, innerant Word of God in my possesion in the form of a KJV bible,

I have that same confidence, but it's not limited to the KJV alone. There's simply no defending the KJVO myth, as it's not from GOD, and you're being less-than-truthful in supporting this myth. However, you CAN be free of the myth and use the KJV alone outta PERSONAL PREFERENCE. Again, there's simply NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth.


and that I have something that all of you do not have and that is assurance that God has provided me and all other English speaking people with his perfect Word in a perfect translation.

BUT OF COURSE we have that same assurance. Knowing that with GOD, all things are possible, we have full assurance that He keeps His word current withthe language. After all, WHO MADE ALL LANGUAGES? Is He or is He not in control of all languages? How do changes come about in English? Man's will...or GOD'S will?

Every valid version is perfect and inerrant for the group God has targeted with it. Is the Geneva Bible perfect and inerrant? If not, why not? Just saying "It aint the KJV" won't do.

I wouldn't trade places with ya'll any day for any price.

What makes ya think any of US would wanna trade?


Thank God for providing all of us with such a priceless gift as the King James Bible. My hope and trust rests in an all sufficient and all providing Saviour.

Thank GOD for providing us with His way of salvation through His Son Jesus & for providing us with His Instruction Book for the last 2000 years, keeping it current for the languages He's given us during those years, reflecting the changes He's allowed/caused to happen. Thank God for keeping both the old versions & the new versions before us!

Shame on you, Deacon JD, for dissing something GOD has provided for us.

 

Agree? You gotta be kidding, Ed!

:thumbsup: :tongue3: :tonofbricks:

 

Because we can recognize that God has preserved what He intended to transmit while accepting that men have not been "perfect" in transmitting or translating the exact words.

As I am fairly sure you have been told, you can express the same thing but use different wording. God was redundant. The essentials of the faith are repeated over and over so that if 50% of the readings were in question you could take the other 50% and be saved. But we aren't talking about 50%. We are talking about less than 1% with none of those scriptures being critical to any legitimate Christian doctrine.

So if two editions of the KJV contradicted each other in any point of the text that would disqualify one or both? I don't think so since I know that the KJV is the honest product of the honest efforts of flawed men.

God "could" have done anything. As it is, He gave us qualifications in the Bible for being a recipient of inspiration. To receive inspiration one had to be a prophet or Apostle. The last qualified individual died about 1900 years ago.

Specifically though, the KJV translators more than likely included men that weren't saved. Some denied salvation by grace alone, taught baptismal regeneration, and persecuted those who rejected it. They were first rate scholars but if Baptist doctrine is right then the official theology of the KJV translators was wrong on many critical points.

"Could", though, isn't a legitimate approach to that question. It is too easy to answer and does absolutely nothing toward resolving this controversy. Of course God "could". He "could" do a great number of things He didn't do.

BTW, if you want to claim that "could" means "did" then please tell us why God "could" not inspire the MV translators. Exactly what qualification are you claiming the KJV translators passed that other committees/individuals since would not pass.

And that is before you even start to get into the Erasmus questions. If he was ever saved, it would seem difficult to argue that he was saved when he created the text that serves as a basis for the KJV. Is there any evidence God ever inspired someone who wasn't a saint?

If you want to discuss "coulds", here's a list of "coulds" that God might have chosen but quite apparently didn't. He could have:
-had the original words preserved on metal or stone
-had someone invent the printing press 2000 years earlier
-given an identifiable line of perfect textual transmission
-given qualifications for identifying inspired copyists and/or translators
-qualified prophets/Apostles in every generation to tell people which translation was correct (KJVO's self-declare this but they have no mandate from God)
-given a reason, any at all, for believing that KJVO claims are anything more than an arbitrary personal choice.

You are making demands of what God "could" do. You want/need Him to have done something so you are claiming that since He could, He did. The evidence says that you are wrong. The scripture gives no support to you.

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kjvonly.htm
Republished November 29, 2005 (Updated and enlarged March 2, 2005; first published January 20, 1996) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, [email protected]; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –
There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Onlyism." This term has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about an alleged dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define this term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are lumped together and labeled with a term the meaning of which is nebulous.
The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of the extremism.
I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions and my defense of the King James Bible. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.
I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” I have spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. Most of them are unbelievers, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense, and if that is “King James Only,” count me in.
Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes it is important to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God in this century, call me “King James Only.”
I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not “King James Only. The King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English Authorized Version is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek text that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew if possible and use (with much caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. I encouraged my youngest son to begin studying Greek in high school, and he is scheduled to have four years of Greek and two of Hebrew when he graduates from Bible College. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the Received Text.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali. There is a list of Received-text based translations in the “Directory of Foreign Language Literature” at the Way of Life web site. (See the Apostasy Database.)
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.” (I also believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in the use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat antiquated language of the KJV properly.)
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the Gospel.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my estimation. Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as a 2nd or 3rd language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were the scum of the earth because they refuse to follow his peculiar views, I am not “King James Only.”

 

This is starting to get serious, folks! I find I actually agree with this Cloud guy on two or three things. :saint:
Maybe not too many, but still some.

Ed

 

Yeah, Cloud is right on some things, wrong on others, as we all are. I thank GOD for having people to tell me when I'm wrong, and why. He's right on in his criticism of Riplinger and her books. But he shells Ruckman on one page and supports him on another. A close reading of his stuff shows that he holds many legalisms and waffles in his stated opinions of more than one seminary or church.

How can one prove that his pet BV is perfect and inerrant? Technically, he can't. But at times we all forget that GOD CAN DO ANYTHING, and that there's no "One Size Fits All" BV. The same GOD who created all the different languages, cultures, & nationalities can tailor His word to be meaningful to each of them. Remember the story about the tribe in which knocking on the door is a gesture of evil, and coughing as a request for admission to a dwelling, equivalent to our door-knocking? Their bible trasllates as reading, "Behold, I stand at the door and COUGH." Now, while it isn't TECHNICALLY correct, it DOES convey the meaning of Jesus' statement correctly to its target audience. For THOSE people, those words are perfect and inerrant, but to US, they'd seem to be a gross error.

Is that Bible a "per"version because it renders the Greek 'krouo'(knock) as 'cough'? Not hardly!

The perfect, inerrant Bible version(s) for YOU is/are the one(s) you are comfortable using for any situation that calls for a Bible...witnessing, personal study, worship, praise, encouragement, etc. Never mind that the critics say...mosta them are as TV/movie critics, hoping to be paid for their opinion and guesswork. (Hey, Hedda Hopper and Walter Winchell were well-paid for their opinions & guesswork!) Pray to the AUTHOR...He will advise you in His own way about YOUR perfect, inerrant Bible version(s).

 

David Cloud wrote as above::

The Biblical reason is: John 5:45-47 (King James Version)

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

This is Jesus' warning!

 

Too bad Jesus' warning was in spoken in Aramaic, and written in Greek. That kind of screws up the 1611 vernacular, don't you think?

The KJVO crowd sure does have to verse-pluck pretty hard to support the position...

 

==Ok, let's bring some context to the above statement. Was Jesus talking to men who did not believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch? No. Jesus was talking to men who "did" believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. The men Jesus was talking to believed Moses wrote it, but they did not believe what Moses wrote about Him (ie...Jesus). Jesus point is simply that if they did not believe what Moses wrote about Him how would they believe what He was saying to them.

My point? To apply that verse to Metzger's position is taking it out of context.

Btw you do not have to be a believer in, so called, "modern textual criticism" to reject KJVO. KJVO's main premise is a subjective claim. There is no Biblical or historical reason to accept the idea of KJVO.

I do not believe "modern textual criticism" is itself heresy. Sure textual study can be mis-used to promote dangerous and even heretical ideas, however textual study alone will not lead to heresy. Heresy usually comes from a person's bias (etc). Point of fact: the translators of the KJV used textual criticism, the translators of every single translation in history have used textual criticism. The fact is that textual criticism has been used of God to give us english translations that are accurate. Through the science of textual criticism scholars have been able to "weed out" various changes (etc) that occured to the text over the years. This is why our translations are probably about 98% faithful to the original autographs. That is really good. In fact it is better than any other ancient writing that has been translated. What about the other 2% or so? Those are mainly minor textual issues that do not affect the meaning of the text.

 

I took a quick look at the page that was linked (above). Seems like the major problem that guy has with textual criticism is that it does not promote the King James Version (only?) position.

Note: "Most of the men who developed the theories of textual criticism in an attempt to overthrew that “tyrannous” Received Text (as some of them called it), were rationalists who denied the supernatural inspiration of Holy Scripture."

He is critical of the entire method simply because some of the people who helped develop it were unbelievers. That is a clear case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. If the scientific method of textual study helps us get better translations (ie..closer to the wording of the original autographs) then that is not a bad thing. Just because some who developed it, and some who use it today, are unbelievers does not mean that the study itself is bad. Sure, it can be used for evil but it also can be used for good. Also keep in mind that many conservative textual scholars do not accept all of the points, or bias, of textual criticism. I think the author of the above article needs to take time to look at what exactly textual study can do (that is good). However I think he would probably resist that since it would take him away from what appears to be a clear King James Only position.


From the article:
"He will use books by Bruce Metzger, Frederic Kenyon, Kurt Aland, F.F. Bruce, etc. I have visited Bible colleges and seminaries all over the country and these are the books that are commonly sold in the bookstores. All of these men, and the overwhelming majority of the other men who have developed the theories of modern textual criticism, are rationalists who deny the infallibility of the Scriptures, who hold the heretical documentary views of the Old Testament, etc."

FF Bruce was a rationalist who denied the infallibility of Scripture? I think that would be news to FF Bruce and to anyone who is familiar with his writings. I am sure this guy would say that Bock and Blomberg are also rationalists.

Seems like everyone who does not believe in KJVO is labeled a rationalist who denies infallibility. It is a pure strawman argument.

My thinking confirmed...

"Sadly, most men, even preachers, do not carefully and prayerfully analyze what they are taught in a Bible institution. And most theologically educated men today would prefer to remain ignorant of the Received Text-KJV position than bear the reproach of being in that “obscurantist” camp."

This man's allegiance is to a english translation and not to the Word of God.

How dare I say that? Because it is true. Someone who loves God's Word wants the best translation they can possibly get. If that means changing to a better translation then that is what they do. Why? Because they love God's Word and want the best possible translation. The above quoted gentlement seems more interested in preserving a particular english translation then in getting the best possible english translation.

 

In my humble opinion, I believe the best translation is the one that gets read and studied. None of them go that far astray that one cannot find the Lord Jesus Christ in all His glory, including Moffat's and Phillips' New Testament despite both men being somewhat liberal in theology.

Cheers,

Jim

 

And in this way the perfect, inerrant Bible exists in all legitimate English Bible versions from the earliest renderings to the most modern translations. Praise God!

 

Amen deacon, that would be a wise choice for you.

May God bless your study of His word, and all of our studies, no matter which version we use.

 

If you cited one of those errors/contradictions and one of us cited a similar thing in the KJV would you be willing to allow the same latitude for resolving the problem in the MV as you would use for resolve the issue in the KJV? Wouldn't it prove dishonesty if you were not?

Are you willing to give it a shot? Present one problem and perhaps Roby or Ed could provide a KJV problem text. You can resolve the problem first then allow us to use the same or similar methods to resolve the MV problem.

There are literally millions being saved and sanctified using only MV's and perhaps never opening a KJV. No country is more front line than China and they don't use a TR based version.

And not a single person here would deny you that rightful choice. I use the KJV as do several others here.

The problem develops when the modern versions of God's Word are blasphemed, called corruptions, etc. You DON'T have that right without providing a scriptural or factual basis.