A Biblical attitude about the Bible

I cannot speak for winman, but I do not believe that I have tried to elevate a translation to perfection, rather God's Word. I have said on here before what other people choose to read and accept as God's Word is their own decision. What I choose to read and accept as God's Word is the KJV, but for some reason, and I still do not know why, this annoys people. They go of on a tangent about which KJV, what about the misspelled words, and so on and so on...

 

Count me naive then. I believe God's Word still is true and still stands, regardless of what the enemies of God's Word say.

No one hates the KJV, Winman. That's a bromide of your own making. It is the KJVOs who choose to hate what God has preserved and inspired.

 

Glad we agree. Only one minor correction,
(God’s message to man was in “Words”, not just ideas or messages!)
I would say that the ideas and messages are inspired too along with the words. Words by them selves are meaningless. Words put together in sentences and paragraphs contain messages and ideas.

My statement isn't misleading at all.

I said "The Bible never promises to keep the copyist from errors in copying the Scriptures. We are never promised to keep the translators free from translator or textual errors.”

That statement is true. Yes, it is true that the word of the Lord will endure forever. I Peter was one of the passage I posted as a proof for the preservation of the Scripture. However, we are not told that copyist would be kept from making errors. No copy is alike. ALL contain some type of error in them.

I'm assuming you are refering to the Alexandrian manuscripts as the "very bad" ones. Of course there is no evidence that these are "very bad" nor is there any evidence of any purposeful changes made to the text. Those that try to say that heretics were in Alexandria don't mention the many heretics that were in Antioch too. There were also very good men in Alexandria. Usually besides this example, it is just because it is different from the KJV they say it is wrong, which is circular reasoning.

I like how you said family because that is true. There are different families of manuscripts. A family will be close alike.

Not true at all and absolutely no evidence to support this.

Facts must be supported by evidence. God has preserved His word in the manuscripts and that would include both the Byzantine manuscripts and the Alexandrian manuscripts. The TR isn't a family of manuscripts, it is from a very small number of manuscripts that are from the byzantine family.

I believe God has preserved His words, so it isn't a faith issue. Saying it will be perfectly preserved in one copy or translation is contrary to facts.

 

You say you do not hate the KJV but you could certainly fool me. This post reeks of anger and almost hatred for those who believe the KJV the inerrant word of God. Up until this response this thread was very civil.

Why so angry? Why does this stir you up so?

 

There is a big difference on believe the KJV is the best English translation verse believing the KJV is perfect and all others are bad. I have no problem with somebody that believes the former and know many people that do believe that.

 

Let me get this straight, if an MV says the KJV is full of error and was written to please a corrupt church by persons holding a particular doctrine that is perfectly fine, but if a KJV says that an MV is error and written in the same way by persons holding a particular view that is attacking God's word?

So comments like this by Trotter;

are perfectly acceptable (and you have also made several comments like this), but anything negative against the MVs is an attack on God's word?

So, I guess what you are saying is that there is a double standard here, and if I don't like it I can lump it.

 

That about sums it up. :tonofbricks:

 

Pointing out the KJVs shortcomings is not hating the KJV. Pointing out the agenda behind the writing of the KJV is not hating the KJV. Pointing out how some idolize the KJV, claiming it to be "perfect" and bordering on worshiping the book instead of the Author is not hating the KJV.

You are confusing my remarks about the heresy of worshiping a translation with attacking the translation itself. The KJV is just a translation, one that is 400 years old and well over 200 years out of date, one that was translated from incomplete source texts (the TR of the time was compiled from limited sources and parts were back-translated from the Vulgate), one that was translated by a group of pseudo-Catholics (the only difference being that the King wanted a divorce) who were given an agenda. Even with all that the KJV is a good translation... but it ain't perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually, I am not angry. But I am very, very tired of the bullcrap.

 

Back to the OP and a question for SL.

You contend that every attempt to improve the Bible is bad. In that case you must surely condemn all attempts to improve the KJV after its original 1611 printing?

 

This "hate the KJV" garbage is absolute idiocy.

It is false, and you know it.

People who LOVE AND USE the KJV are pointing out the fallacy of KJVO-ism.

That is NOT hating the KJV. Quit being dishonest.

 

Well then, you sure are fooled easily.

I just left your quote as-is. It was pretty funny to see your accusation, next to the characterization of this thread as "civil." If this thread is civil, it's likely because some of the more inflammatory KJVO posts have been edited out.

Because lies are offensive to us. Good enough reason for you?

 

Pretty obvious, isn't it? I've been saying that for quite awhile.

 

The double standard is in the minds of the KJVO group and their selective treatment of their humanistic thoughts, not on the part of Bible believers they oppose.

 

Onlyism loves to use certain methods to evaluate MV's. And, that is perfectly acceptable to them. But, when the same methods are applied to the KJV (as a way to fight KJVOnlyism and not the KJV itself) it becomes an attack on God's word. Tom is right. It's a glaring double standard.

 

So...your God is powerful enough to preserve His word, but not powerful enough to preserve its spelling? Riiiiight.

And so your response, then, is anti-intellectualism? Hmmm...

 

I'm NOT KJVO, and I can see it, as well as others.