Just Don’t Call It the “word of God”

But which one is Gods preserved Word,inerrent, infallible,and error-free?

 

But which one is Gods preserved Word,inerrent, infallible,and error-free? </font>[/QUOTE]That is very simple to answer. The original autographs written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic are the inerrant, infallible, error-free, preserved (through modern translations) word of God.

 

But which one is Gods preserved Word,inerrent, infallible,and error-free? </font>[/QUOTE]That is very simple to answer. The original autographs written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic are the inerrant, infallible, error-free, preserved (through modern translations) word of God. </font>[/QUOTE]But, where are they? I know beyond a shadow of a dobt that the KJV is the preserved, infallible, error-free Word of God. I do not have to vaguely say that my authority is the "Greek" or "Aramaic" or "Hebrew".

 

And if the modern translations are it then why do they disagree with eachother?

 

Your allegation is in error, your conclusion is incorrect. You have no supporting
data to support your claim.

In fact, the Modern Version user generally
takes on Faith that the Word of God is right
there in the Modern Version.

 

Do all the revisions of the King James agree with each other? As I recall there were 4 revisions. If they got it right the first time, why the revisions.

 

The KJVOs try to do what ONLY GOD can do...make SOMETHING outta NOTHING.

They've taken a myth made by a cult official and tried to LIMIT GOD with it.

When asked to PROVE their myth, they either respond with deafening silence...or a flood of spin that dwarfs a presidential campaign. There are clear-cut examples of both in other topics on this board, especially from one certain person...

 

Since neither God nor Scripture promises a specific translation that is inerrant, infammible, and error-free, for you to require such out of a translation is unscriptural. Additionally, if only a translation that is error-free can qualify as the true Bible, then it certainly counts the KJV out.

 

Is this the "Word of God"?

omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum ad arguendum ad corrigendum ad erudiendum in iustitia ut perfectus sit homo Dei ad omne opus bonum instructus

 

LOL...could you translate that? Isn't that the ALL scripture is given by inspiration verse??? Looks familiar, but it's been years since I've seen it like that!

AVL1984

 

Hey Dr Bob, C4K is writing in tongues!
I didn't take Latin, but it looks like the Latin of 2 Tim 3:16 to me. If so, then it's also the Word of God to those who can read it, as the English BV's would be to us.

 

What do you do when the modern translations disagree with each other? The same thing you do when the pre-1611 English translations disagree with each other; or when the different editions/revisions of the KJV disagree with each other; or even when the KJV disagrees with the Greek or Hebrew text from which it was translated -- you go to the "final authority," namely, the original language text.

 

KJVBT: ‘I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the KJV is the preserved, infallible, error-free Word of God. I do not have to vaguely say that my authority is the "Greek" or "Aramaic" or "Hebrew".’

Time to call things as they really are, even if you don’t like it:

No, KJVBT, neither you nor any other KJVO “know” these things “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, since none of you have ever produced any evidence to support your “by faith” claims. You merely *think* you know, or have deluded yourself into thinking such, and all your supposed “knowledge” remains at best a “faith” presupposition and absolutely *nothing* more. There is KJVOism in a nutshell.

And some people wonder why we discuss this nonsense.....

 

Orvie said "If so, then it's also the Word of God to those who can read it"

I would go further: I would say it's the word of God to everyone whether one can read it or not.

KJVBibleThumper said "And if the modern translations are it then why do they disagree with eachother?"

The Gospels "disagree" with each other. Yet I accept them nonetheless, and do not doubt their status as the word of God.

 

But which one is Gods preserved Word,inerrent, infallible,and error-free? </font>[/QUOTE]Were the KJV translators infallible?

Did God inspire men who were not prophets, Apostles, or holy men of old?

Did God inspire men who believed in many false doctrines including baptismal regeneration?

Did God give His perfect word to men who hated Baptist doctrines and practices and used the authority of the king to try and snuff our forebearers out?

 

AMEN!

 

Do all the revisions of the King James agree with each other? As I recall there were 4 revisions. If they got it right the first time, why the revisions. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe ill let Gipp speak for me on this one as he puts it much better then I can.
Ill start a thread on it in a few days.

 

But which one is Gods preserved Word,inerrent, infallible,and error-free? </font>[/QUOTE]Were the KJV translators infallible?

Did God inspire men who were not prophets, Apostles, or holy men of old?

Did God inspire men who believed in many false doctrines including baptismal regeneration?

Did God give His perfect word to men who hated Baptist doctrines and practices and used the authority of the king to try and snuff our forebearers out? </font>[/QUOTE]Huh? If you are talking about the KJV translators youve been into some weird books!