What Happend to Faith and Trust in the Bible?

I do have absolute faith in God and His Word.

(Welcome to the BB)

 

Talk about a loaded question ...

If we (and the translators, and scholars) could all agree on "true form", as you put it, then maybe we could. Until that happens, we don't know which translation is more accurate than another unless we have the original manuscripts. Thankfully, most of the translations are very similar in most aspects, meaning God told the truth when he said he would preserve His Word.

So a few minor differences in different translations completely invalidate them? Can the NIV not be considered God's Word at all, but simply a book that happens to have the word "Bible" written on it, and is completely uninspired?

Also note that any of your arguments would apply to any version of the Bible, not just the KJV. Why, I could become the world's first NIVO!

 

I don't believe anyone is questioning the validity of the Word of God. I believe everyone believes the Word of God here. The point is that there are certain versions being attacked by people who have a bibliolatric view of the kjVERSION without proof of their claims. They continue to use circular reasoning posting long stretches of scripture instead of posting proof to back up their point. In their mind the MV's don't preach the same thing, so they misrepresent what the MV's say, quoting "it is self evident"...when they haven't posted anything to make it "self evident" the MV's aren't the Word of God.

AVL1984

 

mjweg42,

"God has promised he would preserve his word. Why do we/you limit him?"

I wouldn't say I limit God. But are YOU not limiting Him by deciding which bible is His word?

The KJV came about in 1611 - before that there was the Vulgate and various Greek texts of the Byzantine variety. Before that there were primitive manuscripts which we no longer have. Why do you get to say where inspiration stops?

The last time I checked "king james bible", 1611, AV - none of these terms appear in scripture. There is no statement from God NOT to further translate (because without translation we wouldn't even have a KJV). While I love the KJB and use it exclusively I find no proof anywhere (other than in the minds of some humans) that the KJB alone is God's word.

 

No one is limiting God. Rather, we limit ourselves to believe what God has said and not more than what He had said.

Because God did not preserve His word in a single manuscript. He preserved His word within thousands of extant manuscripts, none of which are exactly the same. Every translation under discussion, including the KJV, relies upon more than one extant manuscript. Consequently, no one believes in one true form of God's preserved word.

All men who do translation work are fallible. It is often helpful to compare how different men translate the same underlying passage so that we can better understand God's Word. Translation work has nothing to do with preservation; it has everything to do with giving readers understanding of God's preserved word in a language that they can read.

Andy

 

Hiya Mike!

I am from Rochester N.Y also! I grew up there, and moved when I went away to college. I know this is off topic, but just wanted to say hello to a another fellow from Rochester. I am jealous, as I surely do miss the Schaler burgers there!

On to your question, I believe God has preserved his word of truth, just as He promised, and provided and has made evident to us all. I believe in my heart that God desires us to know his word of truth, every single word of it, and hide it away in our hearts and minds, so as to not only learn of Him, His will for us, but also to keep us in His safety. What a wonderful Lord we serve. Praise His Holy name, as He has so wonderfully given us not only salvation and eternal life, but His words of truth so that we may be spiritually healthy in our walk in this life until He comes for us.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I don't know anyone here who doesn't believe that God has preserved His word. We differ on exactly how we think he has preserved it: in a multitude of manuscripts, none exactly the same, and in a variety of faithful translations of various compilations of those manuscripts; or in one English translation of one particular compilation of several differing manuscripts.

I'm sure that every single person here would accept one true form of God's preserved word if there were real scriptural support (And scripture ought to be our source for everything we believe, right?) for the notion that there is one true form of God's preserved word. But there isn't, and the scriptural evidence actually points to there being more than one true form of God's preserved word: Jesus himself, for instance, reading from a different form of God's preserved word than the form of God's preserved word that our Old Testament is built on.

Because I think that all faithful versions are good gifts (and we have Christ's acceptance of a different version to support that idea) from a good heavenly Father, and because I have faith, I won't snub my nose at any of God's good gifts, but rather accept them gratefully.

Oh no! It means that I accept by faith what God has given us, even if I don't understand exactly why He chose to preserve His word in this way, and even though I might have done it differently. It means that by faith I accept God's wisdom in these things above my own.

Great questions, BTW, and thanks for the opportunity to answer them.

 

Question 1. God is God and cannot be limited no matter how hard anybody tries.
Question 2. Who says we can't?Then whay limit ourselves. We have 4 Gospels which are God's Word.They tell the same Gospel from different points of view yet each one perfectly and fully God's Word.
3.I use more than one version to flesh things out .Get a fuller understanding of God's Word. I also go to Greek and Hebrew helps when I feel the need.In addition I read commentaries and other books.I want all of the understanding,knowledge,& insight I can get.I also study Bible doctrine and Theology.Does this mean I don't trust God, of course not.I also go to church,Sunday School,I pray,does this mean I do not trust God's Word of course not, it means I am drawing myself nearer to my Lord And Savior.

 

"I am wondering where your Faith is?"
''
I keep it on my coffeetable.

What?

 

What is the point of this thread?

 

C4K,

You know. It is one more attack on the Word of God, because it is not in the KJV variety. These threads go no where, because there is no real answer desired.

Bro Tony

 

--------------------------------------------------
What is the point of this thread?
--------------------------------------------------


In case you missed it, here is your answer:

--------------------------------------------------
I am wondering where your Faith is? I am not here to dispute the text, or your knowledge on where it came from. I am more conducting a survey of your heart. Here are the questions.
--------------------------------------------------


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

While I'm not from NY like michelle, I ditto & amen the rest of her post. Only one Bible, pure and straight. Isaiah 59:21

 

Agreed, Bro Tony. Many here start these threads hoping to insight some kind of "warrior like" reactions! I say we should all go out and play cowboys and indians instead! LOL


AVL1984

 

MJWEGS42:1. God has promised he would preserve his word. Why do we/you limit him?

I don't, because I'm not One-Version-Only.

2. Why can we not accept one true form of Gods preserved word?

Because there is more than one, and GOD doesn't limit us to one..

3. Why, if you have Faith in God (which means in everything) do you use multiple versions of Gods word. Would this not mean you are Faithless in his preservation?

Newp! It means we're using more of what God has provided for us to use.

Now, a question for YOU, if you please: WHERE IS THERE ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR ONE-VERSIONISM?

 

I don’t.

I do, the Traditional Texts in the original languages of the Old and New Testaments. This is the only place where one can find the "jots" and "tittles" which Jesus said would not pass away.

No, I agree with the KJV translators who said:
”Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures”.

HankD

 

Hi Mike,

1. God has promised he would preserve his word. Why do we/you limit him?

I don't limit him. I believe he has preserved his word, both before and after 1611. I believe his word would be preserved even if the KJV did not exist. I believe that what is limiting is saying only one version is the preserved word of God.

2. Why can we not accept one true form of Gods preserved word?

We can. That "form" includes the range of translations and manuscripts. To limit it to one particular manuscript or translation is to say that God's word did not exist before that translation's publication.

3. Why, if you have Faith in God (which means in everything) do you use multiple versions of Gods word. Would this not mean you are Faithless in his preservation?

No, that would not mean we are faithless in his preservation. First, Consider: "faith" is the evidence of things not seen. KJVO requires evidence seen, held-in-the-hand, like Thomas required before he would believe in the resurrection. That is not faith. Second, consider the time period prior to and spanning 1611. Were not "multiple versions" the way the faithful had God's word for over 80% of church history? What reason should we believe this has changed? By what authority? Who or what exhorts us to have "faith" that this has happened?

 

Actually, English translations say that God promised to preserve his "words". But in actuality, God promised to preserve his "commands" (translated in many English translations as "words").

There's no scriptural support for a single translation of scripture having scriptural authority over any other. It is actually the single-translation-onlyist that limits Him. Additionally, the doctrinal single-translation-only stance is false doctrine, since it adds to scripture.

There is no scriptural requirement for such.

Since there's no scriptural requirement for textual preservation, that arguement is completely moot. Since you did not point out a specific translation, I want to make it clear that any translation-onlyist view is scriptrally false, whether it's KJV-O, NIV-O, NASB-O, Tyndale-O, Darby-O, Gutenberg-O, Geneva-O, or Speghetti-O.

 

Now I understand - the reason for the post was to question the faith of anyone who disagrees with the author. If that is the case than this thread borders on a violation of the rules against starting a thread which is designed to inflame.