Where is the Perfect Bible?

From the preface. I never said it was scripture, I said it was an analogy. In other words, even the translators of the KJV disagree with you. And I personally think they know a lot more about the issue than you do.

 

mjwegs42 said "So the preface is now part of Gods word?"

No. Never said it was, never implied it was. Stop the games. I am simply demonstrating that even the KJV translators are in total disagreement with you, and they are MUCH more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.

 

No. You have not proven the analogy wrong.

I could have used my own direct experience in manufacturing just as easily.

Someone's "word" is the meaning they intended to transmit. It is not dependent on a single set of words in any language.

The reason we can hold the KJV in our hands and say we have God's "perfect" Word is not because the words themselves are perfect but because they sufficiently express the sum of the intended message in the originals.

How do we know? Because all faithful versions from the 1st century until now, over 5300 mss, and numerous patristic quotes validate that message although they don't lend overwhelming support to every word used in the KJV.

The same claim applies to the NKJV, WEB, NASB, etc. Far from being contradictory, the complete agreement of the revelation found in all faithful versions stands as a testimony to each one.

 

Exactly!!! This verse does not say that scripture came through 17th century Anglicans. The qualifications for being a writer of scripture include being an Apostle, Prophet, or "holy men" of the OT.

The KJV translators were not inspired but rather acknowledged that there were flaws in their work while still affirming that it was the Word of God.

 

Thing is, MJ, God gave His words to those whom He'd chosen as His writers, in THEIR respective languages. Almost every Bible used worldwide is a translation made from ancient Greek and Hebrew mss. We have NO idea as to what power of copying any given ms is. However, we DO believe that GOD has preserved His word as He said, and that what we have is by His will.

Has anyone considered the possibility that GOD CAUSED Tischendorf to find the Sinaiticus ms before it could be destroyed? If it's so corrupt, why wasn't it destroyed some 1400 years ago? And how about Vaticanus? Why wasn't IT destroyed long ago by the RCC? Could GOD have preserved it?

These are just questions and not even my opinions. It's just another possibility that cannot be ignored.

 

Not only that but why did the RCC hide Vaticanus for so long? Were they afraid that Latin Vulgate-onlyism would be undermined by this ancient Greek witness?

 

Don't let him turn the tables on you, natter. That's the oldest trick in the book, which I know you already know. Funny how they always try this tactic. It truly is a shame.

AVL1984

 

Exactly!!! This verse does not say that scripture came through 17th century Anglicans. The qualifications for being a writer of scripture include being an Apostle, Prophet, or "holy men" of the OT.

The KJV translators were not inspired but rather acknowledged that there were flaws in their work while still affirming that it was the Word of God. </font>[/QUOTE]Try to get a KJVO to acknowledge that fact! Ain't gonna happen!

AVL1984

 

A very valid question...I've heard it asked by others, and believe it is one of the possibilities.

AVL1984

 

Only if the question is valid and purposed to lead a person to a fact they already know.

Your question was simply a rhetorical effort to avoid answering a question that you are uncomfortable with.

Nope. Jesus' questions weren't evasions. They led the antagonist back to real errors in their thinking. No one here has ever suggested that the KJV preface was scripture. This was a straw man set up by you to avoid the real issues.

 

It IS a shame if you are a KJVO and have no leg to stand on and try to turn the tables. You're just playing games, and that's childish. You had some perfectly good answers given to you and blew them off and tried to turn the tables. This is typical behaviour of someone who has no answers. The first analogy was very well representative of the truth. Also, let me state that you are in no wise Jesus (and I'm not implying you stated you were, so don't have a cow!) I know well what Jesus did and did not do from many years of ministerial service.

AVL1984

 

Vain jangling? What a joke! My stance is well known. I think my posts have spoken for themselves here and in other threads. I've answered the question. So, it's back in YOUR court. I will not play your games, and that is a fact, so don't even try.

AVL1984

 

Dear mjwegs42

The original writings of the Old Testament and New Teatament manuscripts were with out error.The copies we have today of the manuscripts have minute variations. there are minute copist errors in them. but through textual criticism of comparing the various manuscripts we can get back to the original word or phrase in a particular part of Scripture. God has preserved His Word.

When you refers to the Scriptures being inerrant liberals will say many times, " what Bible are you talking about? The answer is the original manuscripts written by the authors.

What This is saying is that the Bible as orginally given was without error. If the source of a stream is pure it is more likely to be good further down stream. The purity of the orginals were necessary for God to preserve His Word. If you do not believe the original writings were without error what basis do you have for the assurity of what you read being the Word of God?

Inerrancy does not refer to translatons. Good translations are accurate and trustworthy. Including the KJV.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

God Bless
John

Hello! everybody glad to be aboard!

 

MJ, I answered your initial header in this post on page 2:

AVL1984

Active Member
Member # 3118

posted September 08, 2004 11:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry, I am a KJV preferred myself. I am not an apologist for the MV's. I try to defend both sides. But, when one side is attacked over and over and over again, I will defend that side if they are being misrepresented, and that is exactly what many KJVO's do. They haven't researched the matter, nor do they intend to. So they say it is based on "faith" or "other things". Usually the "other things" or "faith" is actually what their pastor has told them. This is a "check your brain at the door" mentality and isn't scriptural. The Bible tells us to study things out and even gives an example of those who studied to see if the things being said were so. So, how does this give people a right to discern what is going on, or "judge" if you prefer? If they haven't studied the matter out, then they have not obeyed scriptures and their fruit will show forth in their circular reasoning, usually taught and engrained in them by a KJVO pastor who himself may or may not have studied the matter.
I can agree to disagree with anyone. At least you were honest in your post stating you had other reasons and that you didn't get involved with manuscript evidence, etc. Some here will not show that degree of honesty. Thank you for your truthfulness. I would not try to dissuade you from using the KJV.

AVL1984

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

I also answered the same header question in a post that was totally blank on page 2, after which Dr. Bob tells me "that was very astute"...LOL

Hope that helps.

My "attack"was not directed at you, but it was a direct statement to someone else. That situation was resolved, so it is dead and gone as far as I'm concerned.

Though I did not answer each of your individual questions, I did answer your initial header question, which I felt was sufficient.

AVL1984