Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation?

Doug Kutilek! You refer him to be wise, however you forget that he is fool. </font>[/QUOTE] Prove it.

Mt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (KJV)

I have seen many KJVO's professing themselves to be wise- all the while putting words into God's mouth, equating their assumptions with scripture, and avoiding all requests for proof.

 

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.</font>[/QUOTE] Askjo, What language was this spoken in by Jesus? (hint: It wasn't 17th century English therefore the words He was given were not in English)

There is no evidence that the TR existed before Erasmus collated it in the early 1500's and also no evidence that this term was used before a became a marketing ploy for a printer in 1624.

BTW, where does this scripture say anything about the TR? ...or you filling in the blanks in God's Word for Him?

Look at Erasmus who didn't leave us with a public testimony that he ever believed in salvation by grace alone. He appears to have died trusting in RCC doctrine and rites to save him.

 

Doug Kutilek! You refer him to be wise, however you forget that he is fool.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, </font>[/QUOTE]Context is everything! Try reading Romans one again. Read your Bible and in it tells who a fool is. It is quite clear in Ps. 53:1 and 14:1, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God ," They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good."

 

Seems like I read that somewhere before on the board before but the poster was unable to give any documentation to support that point. Have you been reading David Cloud’s opinion? Could you document your support of the statement you made? How did you learn what you claim?

Not everyone agrees with everything about the way Genesis was written. But that does not make them an unbeliever. Some see Genesis as part history and part story but the point is that it was God who created. Others see every point as literal. Others see it as a story with the point that God created. I don’t know of anyone that would dispute God created. But I am sure if you asked enough questions about Genesis you would get as many different opinions as there are people in the room.

I have met some who believe that the day was shorter before the flood due to the shifting of the mass and thereby changing the time of each day. I am not sure anyone understands all of Genesis. I personally Henry Morris has done a great job but even he admits that possibly the earth is the center of the universe. He really doesn’t know either. The point of Genesis is that God did create the heavens and the earth. How he did it and exactly how Genesis is arranged your guess is as good as mine. For example what is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In Eccl. quite a number of people say that Solomon wrote it but there are a number of Persian lone words in it. That would give it a little later date and it could have been written by Solomon and compiled by someone else

 

"Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation? "
I'd say it only proves that some translators are incompetent.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
TinyTim quoted:

The same thing, only the word "them" is referring to people not words. It is all about context, and to take a passage out of context to prove a myth is ethically dishonest at best.
--------------------------------------------------

"them" is not refering to the people in this context but the pure words of God which are able to protect the people from the wicked.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation?

No. God promised to preserve his perfect and infallible MESSAGE, not text.

It does, however, challenge our belief (or often, misbelief) about so-called preservation.

 

"we would then have to trust, and be at the mercy of the scholars of the day," the day being 1603-1611, right? Why do you prefer to "be at the mercy" of 'scholars' who christened infants and imprisoned Baptists?

 

Nope, "them" refers to people. Even the 1611 notes this. The whole chapter is talking about how God loves and preserves His people.
If you really want to search this out, compare all the other places in Psalms that uses the word "preserve"

When David used the Hebrew word for preserve, he always used it in accordance with Humans.
Why would he change his writing style here.

We can believe in the preservation of scripture without using this verse.
Why are KJVOs so adamant in proclaiming a false interpretation to uphold their views?

For once, come down off your pedestal of "know- it-all-ism, and admit you could be wrong on one issue. (Not just Michelle, but all KJVOs that hold to this interpretation)

holding a false interpretation, does not do anything for your side. It just shows that once someone shows you the truth, you decide to remain "unenlightened"

This is the one verse that brought me aout of the darkness of KJVOism, and showed me true light.
All (or at least most) KJVO websites use this verse to prove their point. Once I actually read a 1611, and saw that "them" does point to the people in all the other verses, I contacted a few, and they said I was off my rocker, (They were a lot meaner, but I won't go there.)

But again you didn't answer my question, why would all the preservation scriptures not apply to my NIV.
After all the KJV does have added words.
And That is just as bad as taking words out.

 

Originally posted by Askjo:
quote:
Where in scripture does it say the KJV is the one and only perfect Bible?
John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

I don't see the words "King James Version" or the acronym "KJV" anywhere in this verse. And I doubt if Jesus gave His disciples His Father's words in English. As usual, Askjo, your "evidence" for the KJVO myth is zero.

There is the Textus Receptus. The text where God inspired and preserved His Words, is how these believers received the Words from Jesus Christ Himself.

What VERSION of the TR? It was revised umpteen times before the AV was made, & several more times afterwards.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Tinytim quoted:

holding a false interpretation, does not do anything for your side. It just shows that once someone shows you the truth, you decide to remain "unenlightened"
--------------------------------------------------


Tinytim, with all due respect, you might want to take your own advice here. You are the one misinterpreting the scripture.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Tinytim quoted:

After all the KJV does have added words.
--------------------------------------------------


Prove it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:"them" is not refering to the people in this context but the pure words of God which are able to protect the people from the wicked.

BUUZZZZ!

The Geneva Bible has "him" rather than "them". Is the Geneva Bible the word of God? If not, where was God's word in English in 1610?

For the sake of discussion, let's say your above statement is right. That's the end of Onlyism, then, since no two English BVs before 1611 are alike, and all were God's word preserved for their respective generations.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

What VERSION of the TR?
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

All of them. The TR is the preserved words of God used by the churches from the beginning of the church unto this very day. The W/H text, Nestles/Aland text has been a modern invention, NEVER USED in the history of the church prior to this invention.

I also wanted to thank you very much for sharing that wonderful testimony. I always enjoy hearing and learning what God is doing and has done in others lives.

The issue here, however, is not whether one can be saved by the modern versions, or whether God could use a modern version. The issue here is would God desire us to rely upon these versions for our daily walk and study. Not so much even that, but what our desire is. What is better for us, to rely upon and trust all of God's word that he has preserved for us and gives us the strongest testimony of who he is, and what he has done? Or would we rather rely upon and support those things that have weakened the strong testimony of Jesus Christ and who he is and what he has done? This has weakened our immune system that God has provided for us. Our daily diet of nutritional food, has been deleted, and might cause us to become weak and sick.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:All of them. The TR is the preserved words of God used by the churches from the beginning of the church unto this very day. The W/H text, Nestles/Aland text has been a modern invention, NEVER USED in the history of the church prior to this invention.

The different editions of the TR say somewhat different things in certain places. For example, the first edition did not include 1 John 5:7. It was not added until Erasmus made the third edition. That's why I asked "Which edition?" I wasn't trying to be smart-alec, it's a serious question.

And you say the NU text was never used until its "invention"? Well, neither was the Textus Receptus. Parts of what were collated into the TR were used in earlier churches, as were parts of all the manuscript "families".

I also wanted to thank you very much for sharing that wonderful testimony. I always enjoy hearing and learning what God is doing and has done in others lives.

You're most welcome. In that testimony, we see God's power at work as He chose. During the first part of the missionaries' stay, sin was rife among those tribesmen, and even after they were shown how to preach Jesus to this people, there were a number of sinners remaining among them. BUT THE OVERALL PHILOSOPHY OF THAT ENTIRE TRIBE CHANGED! Stealing and murder were NOT the norms any more, & there was a real church among them, with pastors coming from their own people. Over half of them were saved, and were raising their children under Christian principles. And some of them had learned to read from our alphabet & had undertaken to both write the Bible in their language and read it to the people.

The issue here, however, is not whether one can be saved by the modern versions, or whether God could use a modern version. The issue here is would God desire us to rely upon these versions for our daily walk and study.

Yes, if this is what God has chosen for a given individual.


Not so much even that, but what our desire is. What is better for us, to rely upon and trust all of God's word that he has preserved for us and gives us the strongest testimony of who he is, and what he has done? Or would we rather rely upon and support those things that have weakened the strong testimony of Jesus Christ and who he is and what he has done? This has weakened our immune system that God has provided for us. Our daily diet of nutritional food, has been deleted, and might cause us to become weak and sick.

You hit the nail on the head-"ALL of God's word that He has preserved for us". There are those who believe that ONLY THE KJV is God's word in English, and the EVIDENCE shows this to be a PATENTLY-WRONG VIEW. I try to use EVERYTHING God has provided for me to use for Him, & that includes many of the valid versions of His word. The KJVO myth simply has NO EVIDENCE to support it, and therefore should be dismissed by all Baptists and other Christians.

You admit that the KJV is NOT the only valid English version of God's word, but you still seem to say the MNs are all some kind if "Bible-ette", not worthy of full consideration as God's word translated into English. But yet you cannot provide any EVIDENCE for such a view. Just saying, "It aint the KJV" won't cut it. That's the same as condemning an orange because you like apples & an orange aint an apple.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

You hit the nail on the head-"ALL of God's word that He has preserved for us". There are those who believe that ONLY THE KJV is God's word in English, and the EVIDENCE shows this to be a PATENTLY-WRONG VIEW. I try to use EVERYTHING God has provided for me to use for Him, & that includes many of the valid versions of His word. The KJVO myth simply has NO EVIDENCE to support it, and therefore should be dismissed by all Baptists and other Christians.
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

Can you please reread this above quote of yours and really contemplate what you have said. God has given us his preserved word perfectly in one translation. We do not need to go from one version to another. I can see how those who use the modern versions must do this. Those who use the KJV do not need to refer to any other version to receive, believe, teach, live, understand God's truth. It's all there, preserved perfectly for us all in one Bible.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Ok... normally I do not get involved in version debate, but I have question for KJVOers.

Michelle, you posted: "We do not need to go from one version to another. I can see how those who use the modern versions must do this. Those who use the KJV do not need to refer to any other version to receive, believe, teach, live, understand God's truth. It's all there, preserved perfectly for us all in one Bible."

Which brings up my question.
How do you explain someone "struggling" to understand a KJB, picking up another version, and understanding it?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Dina quoted:

Which brings up my question.
How do you explain someone "struggling" to understand a KJB, picking up another version, and understanding it?
--------------------------------------------------

I have heard this many, many times. The KJV is not difficult to understand. I can understand it and believers for generations understood it. I think the problem could be a personal spiritual issue, or lack of Godly and spiritual men in pastoral positions within the church, or a combination of both. It takes conviction of the Holy Spirit on ones heart, to hear and understand what he has said. This can confuse some, who do not understand, nor rely upon God to give them understanding. I encounter many passages that I do not understand fully, and much prayer, faith, meditation and desire to know the truth is part of understanding God's word. It is a heart matter. Is it the actual meaning of the english words used in the KJV that are difficult to understand? All one needs to do, is look to a dictionary, or ask their pastor or fellow christian brother/sister. Many times the footnotes explain the archaic word.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

If this is actually the case, then why don't we just use a copy of the textus receptus and let the Holy Spirit give us the meaning of the difficult words (Since it is Greek, they are ALL difficult for me.) But, we would be sure to be accurate, wouldn't we?

 

Michelle posted:"I have heard this many, many times. The KJV is not difficult to understand. I can understand it and believers for generations understood it. I think the problem could be a personal spiritual issue, or lack of Godly and spiritual men in pastoral positions within the church, or a combination of both. It takes conviction of the Holy Spirit on ones heart, to hear and understand what he has said. This can confuse some, who do not understand, nor rely upon God to give them understanding. I encounter many passages that I do not understand fully, and much prayer, faith, meditation and desire to know the truth is part of understanding God's word. It is a heart matter. Is it the actual meaning of the english words used in the KJV that are difficult to understand? All one needs to do, is look to a dictionary, or ask their pastor or fellow christian brother/sister. Many times the footnotes explain the archaic word."

Ah, of course it HAS to be me, it can't possibly be that God uses a different version than the KJB.

Reminds me of the faith healers who blame the people who are not healed on a lack of faith or sin.