Do we have a perfect Bible?

BUUZZZ!

Sorry, MR.A.A. but none of these verses in any BV I own even HINTS at KJVOism, even in the renderings in the AV 1611.

I'll answer your question when you TRUTHFULLY answer mine-BY WHOSE AUTHORITY are you KJVO, and BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you tell me I should be?

 

I very good question. I will truthfully say, I don't know why God allowed printing errors, but those errors did not affect the meaning of God's word.

Maybe he did it to give you something to talk about.

 

Homebound, the point is: if he allowed printing errors, if he allowed no word-perfect English Bible to exist in 1605, then obviously God does not do things they way you require him to. If that's how God's promise of preservation was fulfilled *then*, then nothing requires that form of preservation be different *now* - unless you are of the opinion that scriptures that promise preservation have changed meaning.

 

HB, What "DeafPostTrib" prob means is that he cannot "confess with his mouth" but instead used sign language.

 

Pastor Kevin,

Yes, you are right. I am deaf. I cannot speak well, but use sign language, because Jesus knows every languages in the world!

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

That's an incredible story, DeafPostTrib. It's a beautiful picture (in my head at least), confessing to Christ in sign!

 

BrianT, I think you should stop presenting as fact something you cannot prove.

A perfectly preserved Bible could have existed in 1605, there's no way to prove otherwise. And I think the burden of proof rests squarely with those who would doubt or weaken God's promises.

But as far as I'm concerned it's academic as there's no amount of evidence that will make me believe God didn't mean or is incapable of accomplishing what he said.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

 

Yes, I see, sorry for my confusion. I guess if I had paid attention to your member name I would have figured it out.

 

Oh, A-A, this is a double edged sword question.
The KJV translators used all of the above tools and methods when they translated the Scripture AND the Apocrypha into ONE bound volume (with marginal variants, kethiv/qere selections and alternative variant suggestions) calling it The Holy Bible.

The truth is that they (as well as W/H) did not maliciously give their opinion "over what God says" but gave their educated opinion as to what God MIGHT have meant by what He said (including the KJV translators)or word choices in the cases where there is/was a scribal or textual question (in the 1611 First Edition).

HankD

 

Timothy, if a perfect Bible existed in 1605, the KJV was not only unneeded, but was wrong to deviate from it.

 

During First Century, all Christians do NOT have the New Testament books, because these were not yet cannon together. N.T. books were finally cannon about 300 years later after Pentacost day.

How do the early Christians read God's Word? Old Testament books, in what language? Hebrews.

But, I believe the Old Testament books were cannon during 400 years silence between the last prophet Jeremiah and Christ's birth, these were in Greek & Latin. Because, first, Greek Empire takeover Middle East around 300 B.C. In Jerusalem, many were read Hebrew and Greek.

Then later, Roman Empire take over Middle East around 125 B.C. People in Jerusalem read three major languages - Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

Notice during, Christ's crucify, the sign was posted on the cross above Christ's head. There were three languages wrote on the sign - Hebrew, Greek and Latin - Luke 23:38; and John 19:19-20.

Hebrews - religion
Greek - culture
Latin- government

Early Christians do not read English Bible or KJV, they read Latin & Greek- Word of God.

Does that mean Greek and Hebrew Bible is no longer inspired to us, and not word of God?

Dr. Peter Ruckman said, King James Version corrected Greek.

Wrong.

1611 A.V. translated English from Greek & Hebrew, so, the people in England can read their own language - English and understand what God's Word says.

I thank God for 1611 A.V. so, I am able to read in my own language is English!

Can I read classical or original Greek/Hebrew Bible?

No. I can't read it.

That why, that is what the translation is all about!!!

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

BrianT,

Why? perhaps it wasn't in English. In any event it may have been wrong for men to have produced the 1611 translation but that's irrelevant today. God can providentially accomplish his perfect aims even through the evil actions of men, recall Genesis chapters 37-50, the Book of Esther.

 

Because nothing prior to 1611 is a perfect match of the KJV.

Nothing in any other language prior to 1611 is a perfect match to the KJV.

The KJV has a few readings that have little or no Greek or Hebrew support. The KJV has dynamic equivalence sprinkled throughout it in unique ways. The KJV often translates from the qere (the marginal note in the Masoretic) than from the main text itself. All these things, and others, result in a unique translation that is different than anything that existed previously. The former translations (of multiple languages) were "diligently compared and *revised*" in the KJV. The KJV is a *revision* of all past Bibles.

I agree. But "can" and "did" are two different things.

 

"tim: Why?

Brian: Because nothing prior to 1611 is a perfect match of the KJV."

tim: You can't prove a negative, as you well know. Personally I'm sure something existed that when compared with the KJV would not diminish the force of God's promises or leave us doubting where God had been during the whole process.

"tim: perhaps it wasn't in English.

Brian: Nothing in any other language prior to 1611 is a perfect match to the KJV."

tim: Perfect enough for God, certainly. Which I assume is as perfect as can be done, given the tranlational barrier, or even beyond what I can imagine. After all, we're talking about God here! Assuming the opposite is dishonoring to God.

"BrianT: The KJV has a few readings that have little or no Greek or Hebrew support. The KJV has dynamic equivalence sprinkled throughout it in unique ways. The KJV often translates from the qere (the marginal note in the Masoretic) than from the main text itself."

tim: So far so good...

"brian: All these things, and others, result in a unique translation that is different than anything that existed previously."

tim: That's your assumption, which cannot be proved. I'll go with God's promises.

"Brian: The former translations (of multiple languages) were "diligently compared and *revised*" in the KJV. The KJV is a *revision* of all past Bibles."

tim: It sure was, but I think you have a too limited view of what God can accomplish in His providence.

"tim: God can providentially accomplish his perfect aims even through the evil actions of men

Brian: I agree. But "can" and "did" are two different things."

tim: God promising it is enough.

Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

---

Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

"not diminish the force of God's promises" is NOT the same as KJV-only "perfect preservation" of words.

I agree, perfect enough for God! Yet *different* in words - which is *against* KJV-onlyism. No other language uses the same English idioms as the KJV, no other language uses old British cliches, currency, etc.

Tim, after all this time, do you not get it?!? I *ALSO* am going with God's promises. I don't disagree God promised to preserve his word, I disagree *in what form* that took place.

Too limited???? YOU guys are the ones limiting God's accomplishment to a single, 17th century translation. I believe his accomplishment is MUCH bigger than that.

Where did God promise to providencially accomplish his perfect aims at a perfectly preserved translaction of scripture through the actions of a group of 17th century high-church Anglican scholars, and no one else? Come on Tim, God did NOT promise any such thing.

These verses were true, *in English* and other languages, BEFORE the KJV was produced. They were *true* in 1605 in the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible and others. They do NOT promise the KJV-only type of preservation, plain and simple.

Context, my friend. This passage is not about faith in the KJV-only understanding of preservation of scripture.

 

On Bible Versions/Translations, they discussed concerning the Bible History, manuscripts and evidences because they helped them understand the difference between TR men and CT men altercation.

 

That's Ruckmanites's favorite quotation.

 

He means sign language, "ASL" (American Sign Language). Keep in mind that most Deaf in the USA used the ASL as their native language because ASL is not English itself. This ASL is short and syntax grammar.

 

The clear evidence shows that God did NOT preserve His word in just one version in English. Every English BV both before and after 1611 is different from any other. Since examples of every one of these versions exist, there can be no argument against this fact unless one wants to say God DIDN'T preserve His word. All of us here believe God DID preserve his word as he said, so this is one more piece of evidence that KJVO is a false doctrine. The KJVO should take time to see just HOW God has preserved His word, & then maybe he/she will quit trying to tell God how to provide His word.

 

In ASL, The hands function as the mouth.

HankD