Just Don’t Call It the “word of God”

AV Bunyan,

The KJB didn't exist before 1611. In addition there have been revisions which changed the WORDS. If the KJB were in Hellenistic Greek and was proven to be 1940 years old you'd get no arguments here!

But what you have is an English translation of God's word which is only slightly older than the other English translations of God's word.

 

AV Bunyan,

If you are really serious about your definition of the Word of God then you better burn your KJV and go find one of the original autographs. Only the original autographs can truly fit your definition of the Word of God.

 

You stick with it AV. It's amazing to me that supporters of MV's cannot see that things that are different are not the same. They try to say that all versions are God's word. You have to say that with a forked tongue because they do not agree.
The KJV is in harmony with 95 % of manuscripts.
Mv's in harmony with 5% and even they do not agree.
Yet we who know the KJB is the very words of God are suposed to listen when they spew "a better translation would be" Not me.

 

This is all a nightmare, right? Maybe I'll wake up in a sane world soon! Lord, please let it be so! Please help the naive to see that the Word of God is just that, no matter what the version is...

 

AVBunyan said "Summary – some of us folks believe we have a book that is “the word of God”. All the words in it are from God and are therefore perfect. So we can, with complete honesty and consistency, call our King James Bible the “word of God.” If you don’t believe that then fine but don’t call your versions the “word of God” because it can’t be according to your own definition and the definition of terms and words."

Before finishing the KJV, did the people or the Translators have a book that is/was "the word of God"? I say yes. They say yes. How can you say yes?

 

AVBunyan: //Summary – some of us folks believe we have a book that
is “the word of God”. All the words in it are from
God and are therefore perfect. So we can, with
complete honesty and consistency, call our King James Bible
the “word of God.”//

Amen, Brother AVBunyan -- Preach it!

BTW, if you don't say the same thing about my
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) then you will
see my last name better: edwards.

The HCSB doesn't just contain the written
word of God, it is the perfect (i.e. complete)
words of God.

 

I seriously dont want to make any one mad at me,but this is so silly that my answer cant help but be:hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Would you say this about say,the Living bible? Or do you just pick and choose?
In Christ
KJVBibleThumper

 

Nope. The KJV disagrees with 100% of the Greek mss in Revelation 22:19 as well as every occurence of "God forbid" in the book of Romans.

It disagrees with over 99% of the mss at I John 5:7-8.

 

But things that are different are the same if they are different versions of the KJV?!?!?

 

I came from God because I was created by him and I am not perfect. I was even regenerated by God and I am still not perfect. Even though He sees me as perfectly rightious because of Christ's atonement.

Now if I, being imperfect, were to learn the Biblical languages and began to translate the Bible, that translation would also be imperfect. Even if I did it with a team or committee of other imperfect but re-born people.

Now God breathed his scripture and inspired the authors of the 66 books of the Bible. Thus making the original autographs perfect. God has not done this with any translation or translation committee. He did not breath perfection into St. Jerome or his Vulgate, and he did not breathe perfection into the 17th century Anglicans that translated the KJV.

You KJVO'ist rehash the same falicy that was perpetuated by the RC's for centuries. Luther proved the Catholics wrong, and history proves KJVO'ism wrong.

 

What I do resent though is calling something the “word of God” when it isn’t.

Well, then, resent all you like. The New American Standard Bible is the Word of God preserved for speakers of English. Anyone who disagrees with me can take a long walk off a short pier.

 

AVBunyan- yet another hit-and-run troll.

Not surprising, considering the train of thought (orlack thereof) posted above. I'd run and hide, too, if that was the best reasoning (or lack thereof) that I had to support my position.

Of course, if anyone agrees with his presuppositions, then it makes perfect sense.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Ya know, it seems really funny that almost all hit-and-run trolls are KJVO.

What is it with them? Either they hit-and-run, or go round and round the point and never seems to address it.

Or am I the only one that gets agitated by the misdirection and [bovine droppings]?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

It depends on what you call error. There are some minor translational errors, and this is factual, not opinion.

Now, as far as language issues, if you compate the 1611 translation to the English language of today, then some will say that it's got translational errors in today's verbage ("to let" "corn" and "brass" are three very good examples).

However, there a translation onlyist makes a doctrinal error is to assert that its length of time in use is evidence of authority. In actuality, the 1611 KJV was simply a revision of the tyndale. Two significant revisions fo the KJV took place some 50 and then another 85 or so years after the 1611. So, at best, the KJV has only been in its current state for a little over 200 years. The Geneva was used just as long. And, the Hebrew OT has been around for considerably longer than both. Add to the issue of KJV longevity is that most of its usage is attributed to the fact the King James of England made it a crime punishable by imprisonment to use any translation besides the KJV.

But, the biggest issue with the subject is what constitutes a "perfect" translation. If a translation cannot be a perfect translation if it contains even the slightest error, then there is no translation that qualifies.

 

Actually I think it was the Anglican Archbishop Laud who did this under the authority of James' son during the 1630's.

Otherwise good, well-reasoned post... which means that it will either be ignored or attacked on an emotional level.

 

I agree Keith,
The same standard must then be applied to the AV and it's offspring. After all, they should not be referred to as the Word of God either by those standards.

As for me, I will continue to use the word of God as my basis for faith and practice, whatever translation I am actually using to study the word of God.

If you want to throw God's word out the window, be my guest, if you are KJVO you already have anyway.

 

I believe in Gods preserved Word(one) I do not believe in a multitude of different versions that contradict each other and cause confusion. And God is not the author of confusion but the Bible does say who is. You accuse us of "throwing Gods Word out the window",at least we have Gods Word. Where pray tell is yours?

 

Mine is a NKJV and the Amplified Bible.