Inerrancy?

God has preserved His word in several high quality translations, easy enough.

One question, what proof do you have that God preserved His word only in the the 1611 (or 1769) KJV?

Are you really saying that people spoke English for roughly 600 years before God gave them a Bible? That none of the earlier English translations were the word of God? That Tyndale gave his life for a false Bible?

So you are indeed saying that God could preserve His word in the translation room, but he could not keep the printers from making mistakes?

If God wanted us to have a jot and tittle perfect Bible He is certainly powerful enough to keep the printers from messing things up, is He not?

I love my KJV. I have been using a couple of copies for more than 30 years now, but I am grateful to have a God who has preserved His word in the English of my century, not just those of 400 years ago.

We are getting nowhere friend. Rather than do anything to cast any doubts on your reliance of Scripture let me recommend that you cling to your KJV. God has used it for 400 years and I am certain He is not done using it.

 

Agreed.
By its false, KJVOnlyism denies preservation of God's Word and its inspiration and inerrancy. To reduce Bibliology to empty reliance upon humanistic philosophy and sophistry for the sake of translationolatry is a rejection of the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.

 

You are right, we are getting nowhere. I have my view, you have yours. I rarely participate in these types of debates for this reason.

I think what you are asking me is where were the scriptures before the KJV? Well, they were in all the various documents that went into translating the KJV. They were in the original languages. At that time there were many scholars who were experts in these languages, so the scriptures were not lost to the people, although they were dependent on these teachers. Actually, at the time illiteracy was very high among the common man, so even after the KJV was put together many were still dependent upon the teaching and preaching of others.

And yes, I do believe God preserved the scriptures in the translation room, and I do believe errors were made in the printing room which were quickly recognized and the vast majority of corrections were made within 27 years as that article showed.

Look, I don't care where you think the accurate documents are, the original autographs no longer exist, so there is no way to prove that when you read Isaiah, that it is word for word perfect with what he penned. And folks that know ancient Greek and Hebrew have no real advantage, because the original autographs are not, and have not ever been available to them.

So, we are dependent upon believing God preserved his word, that is the only leg any of us has to stand on.

I am not a scholar. I don't have a beard, and I don't smoke a pipe. And I am not intimidated by scholars in the least. I believe that Jesus is the Word of God. That is his very name.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

I happen to believe that Jesus was and is perfect. He is absolutely infallible. And I do not believe he would allow a corrupt version of his word to represent him. I believe he was behind having his word printed in English. Where was the word before that? Held by the corrupt Roman Catholic Church who kept men in ignorance and darkness for over a thousand years. We don't call it the Dark Ages for nothing.

But actually the TR did not come out of the Roman Church (you know that).

I actually believe God wants man to know his word, and so brought about the KJV just as England colonized the world, taking his word to the uttermost part of the earth just as the scriptures said would happen.

This is never going to be resolved with scholarly proof. The original autographs were lost long ago. Whether you like it or not you are either going to have to accept by faith that God preserved his word or not.

But to believe that the KJV and the MVs are the same scriptures with the same content is ridiculous and you know it. They are very different.

 

You assume falsely and ignored my question. I was asking if there was an English Bible before 1611. Did William Tyndale die for a corrupt Bible, or was Tyndale's Bible the preserved word of God?

 

And since you ignore the fact that I have repeatedly said that I, like every other poster here, believes in the preservation of God's word, any further discussion is useless.

 

I don't see how you can honestly say that. You know for a fact that the MVs omit many verses contained in the KJV, and there are thousands of word changes as well. They are not the same and you know it.

You must believe that one of these versions is the correct version if you believe God's word is preserved. Fine, which version is the correct and infallible version?

I'm betting you won't answer that question.

 

I answered you above. God has preserved His word like He has all through history, in several high quality translations of His word. You are the one redefining preservation.

Do you really define preservation with a definition something like - 'The act of God whereby He keeps His word safe in one translation per language?'

Now will you answer my question about whether or not William Tyndale died for a corrupt Bible? Did God preserve His word in the Tyndale Bible?


Say what you want to provoke me further, I stepping aside and giving you the last word. If you need to cling to your interpretation of preservation to trust God's word than do so, and the KJV is a great translation to trust. It was translated from what I see as the best manuscripts and using as much formal equivalence as possible. That, to me, makes it an excellent translation.

 

Well, I do believe he preserved it in one version in English, but I personally do not believe God's word is only preserved in English, if someone makes an accurate translation into another language, I have no problem with that.

If someone were to modernize the KJV replacing archaic words, as long as those modern words accurately reflected the true and full meaning of the archaic words, I have no problem with that, although I myself am satisfied with the version I have.

I think William Tyndale was a great man of God and his work contributed greatly to the KJV as well as other men. I don't think his version of the scriptures was as accurate as the KJV, but it was clearly a step in the right direction.

The whole movement was to get away from the power of Rome, to place the word of God into the hands of the common man. There were many godly men who risked and gave their lives so we could all have a Bible we could hold in our hands and read with our own eyes and not be dependent upon the evil Roman church.

It probably is best we leave the discussion. As I said before, there is no way to prove this issue through scholarship, that is impossible because the original autographs no longer exist. It comes down to faith.

But I will never agree with you that the MVs are the same scriptures as the KJV, and I don't know how anybody, especially a scholarly person could say that. You know very well they are not even remotely the same.

 

Could you point out where I said that please?

 

You certainly implied it when you said:

OK, you believe God has preserved his word in several high quality translations. Which are those?

(You know of course I am going to come back and show you how different they are from each other.)

 

Okay, just so that is clear that I did not say what you suggested.

I have repeatedly said that the KJV is a translation which can be trusted to be a faithful representation of God's word.

Most posters here know that I am a firm supporter of the traditional text body and formal equivalence as a means of translation. I certainly get enough comments about those views

 

Ok, and what other translations do you believe can be trusted to be a faithful representation of God's word?

You see, I have been through these discussions before. It is always the same. The folks that constantly attack the KJV will say they love it. I tell ya, they could sure fool me. If the KJV is accurate as you believe, then what do you care if I prefer it?

But then they will say that other versions are just as accurate. Well, this is impossible, because many verses and passages are omitted and many words are changed. And these are important changes that can affect doctrine. I posted an article on that, maybe you would like to read it again.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html

I mean, you wouldn't dare say the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses was an accurate translation of the word of God, would you?

So, in the end I always ask the same question, but nobody ever answers it, I ask if the KJV is not the accurate and preserved Word of God, then which version is?

So, very simple question, which version(s) do you personally believe to be accurate and infallible translations of the word of God?

 

I am not going to share which versions I find faithful, I hinted at that with my views on translation in my post above.

And you will never, ever, in any sense find me attacking the KJV or criticise any one for using it. I use it all the time myself.

 

Why won't you share which versions you find faithful? I can't understand that at all, unless you are afraid I will show proof that they do not agree with the KJV.

And you do not attack the KJV, but many do and you know it.

Gotta go to work.

 

Simple enough, I am not going to get involved in that discussion here. I, like you, also have real work to do

 

I'm a little late to the slow.

And God could not be behind anyone else at any other time? last I checked God was still God and He was still alive and kinking.

How do you make a chocolate cake? I can make one using one of a dozen recipes that I have and I do not have a corner on that market at all. The end result will be a chocolate cake, though. Each one may be slightly different fromt he next but all will be an honest to goodness chocolate cake.

The same goes for God's word. There are more than one language, and there are more than one set of translators. Any of them can give you God's word in its entirety. Will they be inerrant? Yes, they will... even though they are not identical.

So how can I claim that? Because we are talking about translations, not the source texts (autographs). Translation is not an exact science. I help teach "English as a Second Language" to Russian speakers. The translator that works with us will translate a problem word or phrase for the students and she does so in two or more different phrases. Why? Because it can be said more than one way. English is even worse for this.

But, what about the underlying manuscripts? Glad you asked. I am sure you would say that the TR is the true Greek text as this was (mainly) what was used for the KJV. The problem is that you would be speaking from your own thoughts. The honest truth is that NNE knows exactly which is the true Greek text, or if any of them are 100% accurate... and that includes the TR.

So, how do we have an inerrant bible? Because God is God. All your arguments about how thousand of words are different is just wind. Of course they are different because any other translation is not the KJV. Missing verses? Did you look at the footnotes and see why they were not included, that the verses is not in all manuscripts? That's called "being honest".

See the problem with this? It is "I". There is no "I" in God. God is the one who does the preserving. No where in His word (or in any translation) does He say He would only do so in a single form in any language. Instead He said He would preserve His word, period. He does not have to use English to do so as there are more widely used languages in the world.

Basically you are taking your own personal belief about this and trying to make it God's belief. Again, last time I checked (a few minutes ago in prayer) God was alive and kicking and in full command of His facilities and did not need you or me to tell Him what to do or say. Having your own personal preference is fine and dandy... but you seem to forget that your preference is just that, your preference. It does not come from God's word and cannot be argued from God's word (any translation).

If you want to cling tot he KJV you are more than entitled to do so. It is a grand translation. The one thing the KJV is not is the measuring stick for any other translation. It falls into the same category as all other English bibles as they are once removed from the original languages.

No one is bothered by you preferring the KJV. What bothers people is when you, or any other KJVO, starts spouting off about the KJV being God's only word in the English language and throwing off on and insinuating that any other translation is corrupt in some form. Disrespecting God's word in other translations is still disrespecting God's word.

So, as I could have said from the start without wasting all this time typing, we have God's inerrant word in a myriad of different translations. They may not use the exact same words, but they are all God's inerrant word. Which translations? Take your pick (excluding cultic submissions and such of course)... even the KJV translators wrote that the "meanest" of translations were still God's word.

 

Well I feel safe in saying that this is the only time that I have ever read of a chocolate cake being used as an analogy of God's Word...and that takes the cake! :tonofbricks: (No pun intended)

 

No question. I've never met a KJVO that believes in the fundamentals. Talked with one today that believed Buddhism was a legit way of salvation.

If I were to tell you what all amuses me about the sheer unScriptural lunacy of KJVOnlyism, we'd be here all day. Just like Mormonism, JW, etc., self-perpetuating falsehoods need no apology nor rationale...just itching ears.

 

I'll take that as a compliment.

Jesus used the things of every day life as illustrations so I thought I would follow his lead.