God's Perfect Word?

Seems you ran right out in front ot it too!

You hold to the ideal and false premise there is no perfect word of God. You would argue from any point surmised by you that the KJB translators made some remarks to substanciate your errant belief system. But then the very same translators humbly admitted their work as being the perfecting work of preservation in a single form known as the Holy Bible.

Your insinuations are at best UNHOLY.

Everything I said is right within the topic "God's Perfect Word". You have suggested His word to not be perfect in any form. Probably due to your playing on the idea of the lack of the Originals at hand in this present day as some sort of leverage in this discussion?

Either we have the perfect word of God or you suggest God cannot perfectly preserve, convey, or proclaim the word of God through men He has called to do that very thing.

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!!!

 

The NIV is God's Perfect Written Word preserved
by the Divine Providence of God for the English Speakers of the
20th Century (1901-2000).

 

Salamander, I do not believe there is no perfect word of God as you falsely claim. Do you want the perfect word of God you can hold in your hand? Then you can go to the closest book store and buy a copy of one of the KJVs. Or you can buy a copy of the NKJV. Or you can buy a copy of the NASB. These Bible versions should be available at any book store.

The errant belief system is the belief that one and only one translation of God's perfect word is the "real thing."

I have not suggested "His word to not be perfect in any form" as you falsely claim. I have said that, with the differences in nuances between various languages, the words of no mere translation of God's word can be 100% accurate. Is your misrepresentation deliberate or due to your lack of understanding?

I agree that we have the perfect word of God in the 21st century. The KJVs are perfect despite their differences. The NKJV is alo perfect despite the fact it uses a different set of English words to translate God's perfect word. Ditto the NASB, the ESV, the HCSB.

The danger is in the belief that it is the English words that are the preservation God promised. You do not believe God can perfectly preserve His word while using a different set of English words to do so. You limit God's ability to preserve His perfect word. It is this limiting view of God that is unholy, Salamander, not the accaptance that He has perfectly preserved His word (the plan of salvation for mankind) in various English Bible versions using different words. The words used to translate God's word are not nearly as important as the message they convey, Salamander. And this message is perfectly conveyed in various English Bible versions - not just one. It is you and others who hold your view who suggest God cannot "perfectly preserve, convey or proclaim" His word in various translations of the Bible with your errant belief that only one particular version is the word of God in English. Jesus and the disciples used different translations of God's word in His day, and God has graciously provided us with different translations of His perfect and holy word. We should be on our knees thanking Him that He cares enough for us to do this, not denying the validity of Scripture He has so graciously given us.

 

Sal , I know this will rankle you , but ...

I spent the morning at the library . Among other things , I picked up a book by the William Tyndale expert -- David Daniell . He's a Shakespeare scholar among other things . He knows his Bibles also .

I ran across some good quotes . : "A reader familiar with KJV will feel at home with NIV." ( p. 756 )

" Hostile commentators with electron microscopes detected in NIV a theological tincture invisible to the naked eye , but in fact there is little in NIV to frighten the horses ." ( p. 757 ) .

Sal , here's a verse from the KJV for you to decipher . It's from Micah 1:11 . " Pass ye away , thou inhabitant of Saphir , having thy shame naked ; the inhabitant of Zoaanan came not forth in the mourning of Bethezel ; he shall receive of you his standing . "

This is a quiz , I repeat, it is only a quiz . Please give your understanding of the verse . ( No fair checking with modern versions to gain an advantage -- or commentaries either -- just look at the plain English of the KJV 1769 ) .

 

Sal : You never answered my question . Here's another opportunity to do so .

Logos1560 was possibly referencing David Daniell on another thread called "Is it a myth that KJV has "archaic" English ? In it he said : " .. a booklet by KJV-only author David Daniels... " Maybe he meant David Daniell who is not by any stretch a KJVO kind of man . He apparently thinks the NIV is not substantially different ( except with regard to archaic wordings ) than the KJV . He really admires William Tyndale's Bible translations . His favorite Bible of today is the Revised English Bible (REB ) because its English is superior to all other modern English versions .

 

Perhaps Winman or stilllearning can try to decipher Micah without recouse to a modern version or commentary etc.

What do you think of the Daniell's quotes?

 

Holy necropost, Batman!

 

The thread wasn't dead Robin,just taking a long nap.

 

I got to find and play the Mulberry Bush song again--Who is the monkey? Who is the weasel?

I prefer the version of the little kids washing their face.

Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush

:1_grouphug:

I love you guys--gotta go--Saturday morning fun time.

Hey! How are those sermons coming along?

...Bob

 

Obviously, but still the Joker in me chuckled when I saw the original date.

 

My sermon was done on Thursday.

 

I have some books by David Daniell, including his book entitled The Bible in English, William Tyndale A Biography, his modern-spelling editions of Tyndale's New Testament and Tyndale's Old Testament.

David Daniell is a different person that David Daniels, who is a KJV-only author. One of his book is entitled Answers to your Bible Version Questions and it is published by Chick Publications.

 

The Scriptures were translated into English before 1611. It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops']. The KJV is more of a revision than it is a new translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. If you claim that only the 1611 KJV is a perfect translation, are you claiming that the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision were imperfect and were not the word of God?

How do your claims relate to the fact that present KJV editions differ in more than one instance from the 1611 edition? If the 1611 KJV was perfect, your claim would be saying that present KJV editions are not perfect. Are you suggesting that God's promise of preservation is not fulfilled by having many different editions of the KJV with many instances of differences?

It would seem that a consistent application of your own reasoning would prevent present editions of the KJV from being considered perfect.