Are we limiting God?

Clever James, but this proves that you really don't know.

No translation is "perfect".

If ever there was a "perfect" translation which God superintended then it would have 0 (zero) errors and 0 (zero) revisions/editions because God cannot/will not make even the smallest mistake.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]What makes you think that? What constitutes a mistake? The problem with this idea is that it presumes to know what is a mistake, what is true, what is the mind of God... Truly, we can't know anything that is not revealed to us through the word.

Ge 6:9
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Does this mean that Noah never made any mistakes or errors? I would ask the same of Job. God said these men were perfect.

What if God decided to deliberately put a mistake in the Bible, can He do this? I'm not saying He did, I'm asking could He. Could He perhaps have reasons for doing things that do not seem right to us?

 

Maybe you should tell me my definition of perfect so I know what I'm talking about.

 

I wouldn't trust a God Who knowingly put mistakes in the Bible.

 

I guess I should clarify 'mistake'. God obviously doesn't make mistakes. But something that we could not resolve in our mind as anything other than a mistake, or a paradox.

How do we explain the trinity? We say that there is one God. He is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And we see Him pray to Himself, and even answer Himself in the bible. We don't call this a mistake, we just accept it as the word of God that it is true.

 

James Newman:Maybe you should tell me my definition of perfect so I know what I'm talking about.

Why would MY definition matter? YOU said you had a perfect Bible in the KJV. Therefore, YOUR definition is needed to coincide with YOUR statement. I assume you made your statement based upon your own definition?

Again, I ask...What is YOUR perfect edition, and why?

Are you gonna expound, or follow the example of a certain former frequent flyer here who told us we'd understand if we understood?

 

I'm confused. So you guys are saying there is no perfect 100% accurate word of God in the translation only or does that also include the manuscript?

 

Amen:I'm confused. So you guys are saying there is no perfect 100% accurate word of God in the translation only or does that also include the manuscript?

We have more than one KJVO, not just Mr. Newman, telling us they have a PERFECT BIBLE in the KJV. Aside from the PROVEN GOOFS, we'd like to know WHICH EDITION these ladies & gents condidre perfect and why.

We weren't there when the mss were written, so we must TRUST GOD on that one. We have no authority to declare any group of mss bogus because we don't know who wrote them and what their sources were.

 

I'm not asking about the KJVO, robycop. I'm asking if we can hold up the Bible today,and say this is exactly what God inspired, what the prophets and apostles wrote? Can I tell my muslim friend that my NIV (since many are KJV sensitive) is the perfect word of God?

 

I will start with this:

Perfect in all doctrinal matters, you can rely on it 100% for reproof, It is an infallible tool for rebuke and makes for inspired exhortation. What you call proven goofs are assumed errors.

James says the bible is like a perfect mirror

Jam 1:23-25
(23) For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
(24) For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
(25) But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

What happens to people who try to wash the mirror?

Rev 22:18-20
(18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
(19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(20) He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Thats quite a testimony, are you sure?

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Sounds conclusive to me. Maybe the simple man who just believes his bible is wiser than the man who knows what it should really say?

1Co 1:25-28
(25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(26) For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
(27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
(28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

 

But James, your EXACT same argument could have been applied in 1612 with reference to the Geneva Bible being a mirror which should not be washed.

 

Amen:I'm not asking about the KJVO, robycop. I'm asking if we can hold up the Bible today,and say this is exactly what God inspired, what the prophets and apostles wrote?

No, you can't say this is EXACTLY what the prophets wrote, because they didn't write in ENGLISH.But you can hold up any valid version and say, "This is a reliable translation of what the prophets wrote in their languages".


[/i]Can I tell my muslim friend that my NIV (since many are KJV sensitive) is the perfect word of God?[/i]

If you so believe, yes you can. We simply do NOT have a worf-for-word English Bible translation because of the differences in languages. But I believe the various valid translations have come out according to God's will.

Many Muslims are translation-sensitive, believing the only "official" Q'ran is an Arabic version.(BTW, did you know there are almost as many Arabic Q'ran versions as there are English Bible versions?)

 

I think I should rephrase that, can I say the manuscripts used to translate my NIV is the perfect word of God? Or is the Hebrew/Aramiac, Greek MSS that we currently have, the perfect word of God?

 

Oh NO! Not the ole "MVs omitted Scripture " myth again!

Logos 1560 posted this from the KJV, the "Lord's prayer":
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11Give us this day our daily bread. 12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Luke 11: 2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.3Give us day by day our daily bread.4And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

WHICH ONE IS RIGHT? Did Luke OMIT Scripture? Did Matthew ADD to Scripture? Are BOTH accounts Scripture?

See how silly the whole "MVs Omit Scripture" myth is?

 

Some believe it to be so and call it "advanced revelation". I suppose this can be dismissed by using the standard "double-think" statements that the "errors" were "inspired" and therefore not really mistakes.

The only way that the KJV can be inspired (apart from derived inspiration) is if God granted inspiration to the KJV translators as He did to the prophets and apostles.

Personally, I simply cannot accept this premise considering the requirements for either of these offices. Now God does as He pleases and indeed is capable of waving any of His standard rules as He pleases. However it is not His norm.

If the KJVO are correct then this gives credence to the claim for themselves that the Church of England is The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and that the Bishops are the recipients of this apostolic authority.

After all if we claim King James as the "king" through whom God gave His word then one has to accept the whole package. If the KJ Bible is perfect then that the bishops who led the translation had apostolic power.

If this be so then the Church of England must be the true Church of Jesus Christ since it possesses the power given only to the prophets and apostles.

Why then does not every KJVO join this apostolic Church.

IMO, the theory of "advanced revelation" was brought forth to back track and/or explain the obvious inconsistancies and "mistakes" made by the KJ translators which they attempted to correct in a series of revisions/editions.

This thinking also leads to view of a moveable date of the fixing of the canon of Scripture from 90AD to 1611AD when new "advanced revelation" hitherto unrevealed was brought forth by the KJV translators through their "mistakes", the final revelation in the 20/21st century when Ruckman expounded upon them (well 200 of them) in a book.

He further makes claim, that God "slammed the door" of revelation in 1611AD. A clear denial of orthodox theology.

One cannot accept selected parts of the Ruckman theology without the fabric of the whole theory unraveling.

The more back-tracking, double-think/double-speak and bizzare explanations that are brought forth to make sense of the logical holes in the KJVO position (while seemingly pious on the surface), the more clear it becomes that it is, well, a bunch of pious hokum (money-making hokum at that). IMO of course.

HankD

[ December 30, 2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Ermm....maybe I'm a little thick, can someone give me a straight answer to my question? Its rather important to me because you guys seems to be saying that God did not leave us with a uncorrupted manuscript (NOT translation) that I can say without shame that that is exactly what the prophets wrote....can I?

 

No two of the manuscripts are exactly the same. Every single one is different from every other one.

What those who compile texts--like the Textus Receptus, for instance--do, is take manuscripts (all different) and try to determine which is the correct (uncorrupted) reading in the places where the manuscripts are different. They then compile a text made up of all those readings that they have decided are best. So their text will not match any one of the manuscripts, but instead reflect various readings from different manuscripts.

Does this explanation help?

 

Amen: "you guys seems to be saying that God did not leave us with a uncorrupted manuscript (NOT translation) that I can say without shame that that is exactly what the prophets wrote....can I?"

It's always unfortunate when *facts* get in the way of idealized theology. Russell55 is absolutely correct, and her statement can be verified quite easily by simple comparison of MSS: "No two of the manuscripts are exactly the same. Every single one is different from every other one."

Given the existing *facts*, it is then time to revise any errant theological claims so as to accord with the *actual* data.

Thus, the answer is that God *chose* to permit human transmission of his inspired word and equally *chose* to permit minor scribal errors and alterations to occur in each and every manuscript -- yet *without* thereby destroying or altering *any* doctrine whatsoever within His word as preserved within the transmissional process.

As for Muslim apologetics, our claim (based on *verifiable* fact) is far *stronger* than the absurd claim that the Qur'an was dictated directly to Mohammed from heaven and was preserved with no alteration whatever since the day of its original "revelation" (especially when it is known that Caliph Omar "solved" the problem of variant readings by selecting one MS as the "true text" and destroying all the others -- you wouldn't want us Christians to do *that*, would you? I didn't think so).