Changing The Word of God.

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.

 

sorry - duplicated post

 

First, welcome to the BB, Thorwald!

Now regarding your original post on this thread, you seem (to me, and of course I could be wrong ) to be confusing two things. In the bible, we are told, as you say, not to add (or take away from) the Word of God. But the bible, as I am sure you know, was not originally written in English, but in Hebrew and Greek. During the years that the bible was being written, there was no such language as English. That means that every English bible, whether old or modern, is a translation. So if we want to know whether any particular English translation of the bible is a good one, we must compare it to the original languages, not to another English translation, however good.

You wrote:

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that King James I was anointed by God in the same way that the prophets, priests, apostles and kings who wrote the bible were. If that is what you meant, how do you know it to be true? Your words about "the decree of King James" give the impression that the king decided that a new translation of the bible into English was needed, and decreed that one should be made. I'm no a historian, but as far as I know, it was the Puritans within the Church of England who petitioned the king for a new translation (and several other things as well, but the translation was the only one the king granted).

I am sorry, but I don't understand your comment about what you call "The Common Book of Prayer." If you mean, as I think you probably do, "The Book of Common Prayer", then as far as I know, it has nothing to do with King James I. I came across the following at this site which marks next year's 350th Anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

The first book, published in 1549, in the reign of Edward VI, was a product of the English Reformation following the break with Rome. Prayer books, unlike books of prayers, contain the words of structured (or liturgical) services of worship. The work of 1549 was the first prayer book to contain the forms of service for daily and Sunday worship in English and to do so within a single volume; it included morning prayer, evening prayer, the Litany, and Holy Communion. The book included the other occasional services in full: the orders for baptism, confirmation, marriage, 'prayers to be said with the sick' and a funeral service. It set out in full the Epistle and Gospel readings for the Sunday Communion Service. Set Old Testament and New Testament readings for daily prayer were specified in tabular format as were the set Psalms; and canticles, mostly biblical, that were provided to be sung between the readings.
The 1549 book was rapidly succeeded by a reformed revision in 1552 under the same editorial hand, that of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. It never came into use because, on the death of Edward VI, his half-sister Mary I restored Roman Catholic worship. On her death, a compromise version, largely 1552 with a few amendments from 1549, was published in 1559. Following the tumultuous events leading to and including the English Civil War, another major revision was published in 1662 (Church of England 1662). That edition has remained the official prayer book of the Church of England and its 350th anniversary is now being celebrated.
​

As you see, there is nothing there about King James I.

Your idea that the Book of Common Prayer is inspired by God is a new one to me (except of course those parts of the prayer book where Scripture is quoted).

Remember, also, that there were good English translations of the biblebefore 1611.

 

William Carey went to India and translated the Bible (or portions thereof) into 44 different languages. Was Carey "anointed" to do so, anointed to give India the Word of God in their language so they could understand it, even though it was not the KJV.

What about the other translations of the world?
90% of the translations in the world today come as a result of the work of the British Bible Society and what it has become today, and then the vast amount of translational work that the Wycliffe Bible Translators. Both of these groups use the Critical Text as a basis for their translations, and the resulting Bibles look more like a modern version in most of the foreign nations. How do you account for that?

If God were to call you to a nation that has only one Bible, and that Bible were similar to the ASV but in an African language, would you be willing to proclaim to those people that they don't have the Word of God? Would you be willing to use that Bible because it is the only one they have in their language. Are you skilled enough in Greek and Hebrew and would you be skilled enough in their African language to immediately make a translation from the TR and Masoretic Text so that they would have a Bible acceptable to you?

 

The Maori and the Cree. :laugh:

 

We see the New Testament writers quoting the Septuagint, shall we condemn them for that?

 

Nice opinions which i accept as yours.
I have opinions also which i accept as good for me.

Cool trailer/signature block, eh?

-

 

You are on dangerous ground here, in that these bibles you condemn Teach the gospel, which is "the power of God unto salvation".

Also, why would a bible baed on human vanity speak so much of our sin, and our need for a savior?

 

Good. Now, which of your beliefs are you willing to give up in the name of Christian unity?

And which ones to you want me to give up?

 

Tom, if you were asking me, you might have a problem. I have no written set of doctrinal statments I require out of another to be my brother or sister in the Lord. Such lack of doctrinal statements worked for Wesley as I read him.

 

You examples have been ignored because you have simply compared 2 TRANSLATIONS of a foreign text and made the claim that one of them is wrong, based SOLELY on the fact that it is different than the other one. It is no different than me comparing the NIV with the ESV and stating the ESV is wrong because it is different than the NIV, which came earlier. You have made no argument as to why one is better than the other.

1. Again, you are basing you "changed the wording" on differences with the KJV, not on accurate translation of the original languages, which should be the priority. There are places where some of the modern translations have more accurate translations than the KJV...not many, because the KJV is good, but some.

2. I have heard a man quote the entire book of John verbatim from a modern version. Does this verify that God has brought it to rememberance? (I also heard someone quote an Edgar Allen Poe poem...what does that mean?)

3. So based on your last sentances, you are basically saying that not even the KJV is God's perfect word, but we just need to pick one translation, and since you have picked KJV we must all pick that one as well? It is picked over and above all english translations that have come BEFORE AND AFTER? Based on what criteria?

 

Amos 8:11-12 KJV
11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

First, I'm not a "scholar". I'm not an expert on the Bible or anything else. Must admit that I'm a novice, perhaps not even that, when compared to most who post in forums dedicated to following Jesus Christ.

Next, I believe heaven is filled with people who came to Christ without reading a single word of scripture from any source. My father couldn't sign his own name. Yet, I have absolutely no doubt we'll meet again when the Lord calls me home.

One more thing before proceeding. Part of my testimony to anyone who will listen is that the Holy Spirit is active in my life. Awareness of His presence is overwhelming at times.

About a year ago, during a Wed morning Bible study, Proverbs 2:3-6 had a direct impact on my life. Can't explain it, other than to say the Holy Spirit shouted at me that morning.

As a result of my cry for knowledge and understanding, began a study of the history of the Bible. At the time, I barely knew which books were in the OT and which were in the New. Had never heard of the KJVO controversy. Didn't know a thing about "originals", "manuscripts", "inspired" vs "preserved" and most of the other things brought into discussions surrounding His word.

Fast forward to today and the verse quoted above. Are we, as professing Christians doing satan's work to fulfill that prophesy? I know a Jehovah's Witness who's an expert at using an on-line Greek translation program to refute any beliefs that are contrary to hers. Never acknowledging that *somebody's* version of a Greek dictionary may have little relationship to spoken Greek, when Jesus taught. Is she helping to foster the coming famine?

Are we fostering that famine, when we resort to calling others idiots for questioning the content of some modern versions? Does the Holy Spirit prompt sarcastic remarks about other's beliefs? Who wins when two Baptist pastor's have to resort to name calling to try to make their points?

Sometimes a mental image comes to mind. A disappointed parent watching two sons fight over which TV program to watch. Neither one seeking their father's guidance while hurling insults at each other. Sometimes I want to cry when I see the Holy word (Word) treated like a television program. When is God going to hit the off button on the remote?

Baptists, regardless of your viewpoint on versions, have you looked into the merging of many of them into agreement with the Bible of the Catholic church? During the dark ages there was a famine of God's word in the land. When people could be burned at the stake for owning a portion of a Bible, regardless of the "translation". If they heard the scriptures they were in a language they didn't speak.

How close are we to Amos 8:11-12 with God's word today?

 

What did the people do before 1611 if there can only be one Bible. Wycliffe's Bible was translated between 1382 and 1395. You will note that is well before the KJV appeared on the scene. Here is a sample for you from John chapter oine:

14 And the word was maad man, and dwellyde among vs, and we han seyn the glorie of hym, as the glorie of the `oon bigetun sone of the fadir, ful of grace and of treuthe. 15 Joon berith witnessyng of hym, and crieth, and seith, This is, whom Y seide, He that schal come aftir me, is maad bifore me, for he was tofor me; 16 and of the plente of hym we alle han takun, and grace for grace. 17 For the lawe was youun bi Moises; but grace and treuthe `is maad bi Jhesu Crist. 18 No man sai euer God, no but the `oon bigetun sone, that is in the bosum of the fadir, he hath teld out.

 

Oh, I don't disagree. I was responding to Thorwald's diatribe against denominations. Actually, I think we can all agree that the ideal for believers is that we should be one.

I was asking how that could be achieved unless we set aside our differences. So for true unity, all of us will have to give up some of our beliefs.

Oh, we can have some kind of unity, I suppose, if we simply ignore those differences. And, we can declare some differences as not being tests of fellowship, such as eschatology.

Here's the basic problem with becoming one in Christ: I believe I'm right. If you differ, you are wrong. To achieve true unity, you must come over to my side.

If you believe in baptismal regeneration, you very well may be saved, but we're not going to be one, and we'll not have Christian fellowship. You'll have to give up that belief first, because I'm not giving up mine.

See what I mean?