Authority to call one version superior?

That is why we stick with the KJB.

 

H-a-r-m-o-n-y

 

Been there, seen it, done that.

In effect, you're telling us God's word was impure & man hadta purify it. Even if that were so, (which it isn't) there's nothing to say the process culminated in the KJV. If it was going on then, it's still going on today.

 

That's prolly why He keeps causing new versions to be made.

 

DOUBLE kewl! In that case ya should reject the KJVO myth completely, as all it is, is OPINION & GUESSWORK.

There's no "superiority factor" in KJVO. It really boils down to PREFERENCE, but the myth-huggers just won't admit it. Far as superiority goes, I can declare any modern valid version superior cuz it's in MY language insteada the language of some long-dead brilliant people who cured headaches by chiseling the skull open to let the "evil humours" out.

 

Lacy Evans:I feel the exact same way (howbeit to comparatively lesser degrees) about the NIV, NAS, et al. They are only as acurate as they agree with the KJV. When they disagree with the KJV, I believe they are wrong.

But you have no valid basis for such a belief. You have no basis to assume the KJV is "superior". With all due respect, Sir, you're only GUESSING, OR BELIEVING ONE OR MORE OF THOSE GRODDY kjvo AUTHORS.

This is based on hundreds of years of fruit produced by God's people when there was basically one dominant version. It was at the same general time that the canon was finally completely cleared up. It is a matter of faith with me. I believe God closed the canon and the words in the canon.

The Latin Vulgate was the dominant version longer than any other. And more 'fruit' was gathered by use of Luther's Bible & other non-English versions.

When God closed the canon & its word, He didn't close the words used to make translations.

There are no direct scriptures for either belief, I'll readily admit. Yet, those who demand a verse that says "Thou shalt only use the KJV!" seldom demand a verse that says "Thou shalt only use 66 books!"

Then actually, you're KJV-PREFERRED, since you admot you cannot sustain the KJVO myth.

I don't think I am audacious. Others can believe what they want. I don't care. I have sweet fellowship with many who are not KJVO. (As a matter of fact, few of my friends are KJVO.) Those are just my convictions, but they are deeply held convictions.

Lacy

Then ya should never attempt to defend KJVO in any shape, form, or fashion. And I reckon you're admitting there's NO authority to call any one English version "superior" to all others.

 

Lacy Evans:It is absolutely not blind faith.

Sorry, Sir...it IS. There's neither any substance nor evidence to sustain it. Another name for such "faith" is GUESSWORK.

It is backed up by the same type of evidence that supports the "66 book only" position concerning the closed canon.

As I've said before, if you feel something should or shouldn't be in the canon, please clus us in.

In other words, if the OP had asked "Who has the authority to pick which books are to be included/accepted as scripture and which are not?" the answer would have been of the same type and verified by the same type of evidence.

Lacy

Actually, NOT. The standards for the canon were clearly spelt out and rigidly adhered to in the various meetings where men solemnly declared a writing to be Scripture or not scripture. I DO have faith that GOD made the actual decisions, the evidence being the finished product as compared with the hundreds of other religious writings that are NOT now considered Scripture.

There were NO such processes used to determine any "official" Bible version. The closest there was to that was when Henry VIII authorized the "Great Bible" to be read in churches.

Did Henry's decree make this version superior?

 

Sorry, Jim, but BIBLICAL faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.(Heb.11:1) The KJVO doctrine has neither, so it's not BIBLICAL faith to believe it.

The KJV has come around rather recently in the history of the Bible. It was the best English version of its day, and was thus superior for its day. But that day is long past, and newer versions reflecting the changes in the language & the availability of many more mss than earlier translators have become superior for NOW. However, the validity of the older versions is NOT cancelled by the newer ones, and God has chosen to keep the older versions before us as well as causing up-to-date versions to be made.

"Superiority" changes over time. The battleship was once the superior capital ship of the world, but has since been supplanted by the aircraft carrier. But the battleship is still a potent factor that no opposing navy can ignore. Thus the older valid versions, especially the KJV, are still very important to us believers; they are still tools to use in spreading the Gospel & steering people to CHRIST.

 

OK Roby, what's the difference between saying that, (It was impure) and saying that there has never been a pure word and never will be? It's just up to us to rummage around in all the versions, languages, texts, etc to get an aproximation of the truth? And before you say that is not your position you have to first tell us where this "pure word" is.

Also by implication I assume that might consider the canon to be still open to debate. (If you apply your beliefs about fluidity of the particular words of the Bible to the particular books of the Bible.) After all the 66-book battleship is only a few hundred years old in it's current form. Surely there are some aircraft carrier books that await deployment into a 21st century canon!


Deploy the carriers now! Imagine what it would do for Strong's Concordance sales!

lacy

 

Baby sprinklers? Anglican Baptist Killers? What could they possibly know?:tonofbricks:

Now you're talking!!! I just happen to believe that God could make the same final decisions about his words.

Psalms 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

lacy

 

No, even the Anglicans who translated the 1611 KJV were not perfect. Nor were those responsible for the revisions found in later KJVs. Just goes to show God can take imperfect men and use them to make something good that will withstand the test of time - like the KJVs. And God is still using imperfect men to make translations of His word for later generations.

Amen! David took a moment to add that line of praise for God's words to the 12th Psalm before returning to the subject of the Psalm in V. 7. God's words are pure as David said! Praise God! What is imperfect is human translations of God's words. No human copy or translation is perfect, even though the originals were perfect.

 

At least you admit your position. For this I admire and respect you.

Now how about a verse or two of scripture, (perhaps a promise that we would never have a perfect copy or translation, or some indication that the originals were "perfect" but the first time a second person touched it it was forever corrupted) to back up this position.

The Bible never says the "autographs" were given by inspiration. It says "Scripture" was given. "Scripture" is always human copies and translations, in every Biblical context.

Lacy

 

Amen, Amen, Amen, and AMEN!
Course they/ he will never be able to provide that which you request because his position is guesswork, opinion, and preference.

 

On the contrary! YOU should reject that spirit you have which makes you such a trouble maker.

KJVo is no myth pal. It has NOTHING to do with preference and EVERYTHING to do with conviction and faith. But you would not know about those two things would you?

Evidently you have quite inadvertantly answered the OP. It is obvious that you set YOURSELF up as the judge of Scripture and what is 'superior' and what is not. You said it yourself. Case you missed it, here it is again in your OWN words.

"I can declare any modern valid version superior ..."

Everything else you have to say is just so much hot air seeking to stir up strife. You have declared YOURSELF as the "authority" as to what is superior and what is not.

I think I will stick with my Bible for authority in my life. In EVERY area of my life.

 

By the way Roby;
You really should understand a word before using it. The word, "myth" was not part of the American language as late as 1828. You will not find it in the dictionary of that time. So trying to apply a word which did not exist until recently to something which has existed since its inception is inane.

FYI; here is the closest you will come to your mantra.

mythology
MYTHOL'OGY,n. Gr. a fable, and discourse. A system of fables or fabulous opinions and doctrines respecting the deities which heathen nations have supposed to preside over the world or to influence the affairs of it.

KJVo is not myth. Yer busted.

 

Lacy Evans: //The Bible never says the "autographs" were
given by inspiration. It says "Scripture" was given. "Scripture"
is always human copies and translations, in every Biblical context.//

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable
for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction,
for instrution in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

(I hope you don't have version that says
" ... God, and is profitable ... "
instead of the original " ... God, & is profitable"
tee hee )

My Bible says ALL SCRIPTURE not just "Scripture".
'All scripture' must mean each and every valid Bible
-- well, I accept that statement by faith.

 

Does the Bible say that translations are given by inspiration of God? In every Biblical context, is it actually stated that a translation is being referred to? What if the claimed translating was actually being given as part of the revelation or words being given the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God? Even if the prophets or apostles were doing the translating of an O. T. portion, it was still part of the giving of the New Testament.

If you are claiming that "Scripture" at 2 Timothy 3:16 must or does include translations, then are you not saying that "all" translations must be given by inspiration of God?

Are you claiming or implying that Church of England scholars in 1611 are prophets or apostles receiving revelation from God by direct inspiration of God?

After the completion of the New Testament, do the Scriptures suggest or imply that there will be any more giving of direct revelation from God or any more direct inspiration of God?

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:15, KJV defender Thomas Strouse observed: “The words ’holy scriptures’ translate hiera grammata, literally ’sacred’ or ’temple writings’” (The Lord God, p. 42). Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, Strouse noted: “But the word ’scripture’ translates graphe, which means ’scripture’ and refers to the autographa.” Strouse added: “Paul obviously used a different word to differentiate between the apographa [copies] and the autographa [original autographs], especially with regard to the scope of inspiration” (Ibid.).

KJV defender Ian Paisley noted: "And let me emphasize that inspiration has only to do with the writing of the original Scripture and is divinely limited to that. Inspiration has not to do with the translation of the Bible into English or any other language" (Fundamentalist Digest, January/February, 1995, p. 15). KJV defender Thomas Strouse wrote: “The word behind ‘is given by inspiration of God’ is theopneustos, meaning literally ‘is God-breathed.’ Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa [original autographs] is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (The Lord God, pp. 42-43). KJV-only author David Cloud indicated that inspiration concerned “the divinely-guided writing of the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21) (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 45). Concerning 2 Timothy 3:14-17, Cloud wrote: “The term ‘given by inspiration’ applies directly only to the original process of the giving of Scripture. The same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Faith, p. 54). He added: “No translation can lay claim to this process. No translation is ‘given by inspiration’” (p. 55).

 

What if we compare the versions or translations per verse?
Let's say we should conclude in a certain sense for the controversial verses, but we can start from some verses where we can easily or quickly conclude.

1. JOhn 8:1-11 ( Pericope Adultrae)
Which versions are HOly Spirit inspired translations?
Does Holy Spirit say that the story was written in the Autograph or not written in there? or Both are correct?
If the story was a hoax or added later on, then why don't any modern versions delete it out ? Why do they behave against their belief?
I understand 20 manuscripts don't have the story, but 900 have it.

2. Mark 16:9-20
Does Holy Spirit say that the longer ending is the addition in later times?
Then some people must have added to the Bible and those verstions are wrong. If they believe, then they must cut it out. Why does nobody among who believe that the longer ending is not the part of Bible keep their faith and behave according to their belief? Should we trust them ?
Can we not judge according to the revelation given by the Holy Spirit in our mind?
Among 620 manuscripts for Mark, 617 have the longer ending of Mark 16, while only B and א(Aleph) do not have it. If the verses are not the part of the Bible, why don't they who believe so) do not delete out so that the Bible should be pure and correct?

3. Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
If there was no verse 8:37,
What was the answer to the following question ?

8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
NO Answer, but Philip showed his answer by ACTION?

Please note the people who claim Infant Baptsim hate this verse, and evade the debate based on this verse, saying that the controversial verse cannot be used in the argument.

4. Ephesians 3:9
God who created all things thru Jesus Christ.
Did the absolute majority add the thru Jesus Christ?

5. Daniel 9:26
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself.
Messiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing.
the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing (NIV)


Which translation is correct? ( I already dealt with this on the other thread)
Does Messiah have nothing?

6 Isaiah 53:10
When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, ( KJV)

though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days ( NIV)

Where is the word for Lord in the sentence of the original Hebrew Text?

Can we not make this type of approach for each verse and then reach a certain conclusion?

If you make search and comparison for thousands of verses, you can find a translation which out performs absolutely all the other translations in thousands of verses, even though that version is not perfect.
In order to be absolutely superior to all other translations, one specific version doesn't need to be perfect.
Translations are the area where Holy Spirit is still working and revealing to the believers even today. God is still correcting our understandings. While we can believe that the Autographs are inspired and written by Holy Spirit, can we believe that the translation is done absolutely by human thinking? If so, don't you think that the whole things done by Holy Spirit can be contaminated with human thoughts and ideas?
The main problem with this limitation of thinking is this.
One cannot believe that Holy Spirit can assist the translators while some portion of human errors and human thinking can penetrate in the translation process. In other words, even though the translation was done very well according to the guidance of Holy Spirit, there can be a certain contamnintion by human thoughts. But we can judge the whole things and reach a certain conclusion about which one is guided by Holy Spirit purely.

If there existed Autographs even today, Satan would have done everything to eliminate it, even thru the wars.

Roman Catholic prohibited Bible reading since 1229 and they did many things to eradicate Bible. They may have thought they rooted out Bibles completely except their own Bible like Vatican text. But God preserved Bible in His own way. Today we have 5,366 manuscripts for NT, among them 5,321 are called Majority texts.

If we are reasonalbe and rational, can we not reach a certain conclusion that one translation is absolutely superior to all the others? Would you reject such guidance just because it is not perfect?

 

Does the Westminster Confession, or any Confession, or any historic Creed, name the specific Bible version to be followed?

 

There's strike one, Lacy! There is nothing to "admit" about believing the truth! You, on the other hand, refuse to admit that your errant position is not the truth.

Strike two, Lacy! There is no such Scripture, as you know very well. By the same token there is no Scripture to support your own errant opinion of perfection. If there is please share it with us, by all means! (Clue - you will be wasting your time to try to come up with any biblical support for your errant position, Lacy.)

And that's strike three, Lacy! There you went and struck out once again. Your batting average is a whopping zero as it always is. True, we are told that Scripture was given by inspiration. However, being given by inspiration and being perfect in any copy are two totally different things. Can you provide a single verse from anywhere in any Bible version that says that any copies are perfect and without the flaw of human error? (Clue - the answer, of course, is a resounding "No!")

And that's strike one for the next batter! Apparently this one is no better at hitting than the first. Jim, you should know there is no Scripture that says there are no perfect copies. By the same token, there is no Scripture that supports the errant theory of perfection you guys hold. Once again you are confused between inspiration and perfection - they're two different things. You guys attach a false importance on the individual words, not admitting the truth that God's word has been handed down to us inerrantly in various English translations available to us today. Please show us any lrgitimate MV which does not perfectly present the virgin birth of Christ, His sinless life, His death, burial and resurrection, His atoning blood and the plan of salvation as a whole. (Another clue - don't waste your time because you cannot find any of the legitimate MVs that teach something to the contrary.) Once again your errant position is based on "guesswork, opinion and preference." Your position is based on untruth and there is no Bible verse from any translation that supports it.