Perfect Bible

Their motto should be, "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the truth."

 

FFF,

Just two points.

1. "God forbid" that the translators of the KJV used dynamic equivelency in any way, shape, or form.
2. I'm glad it wasn't the CoE that closed the canon, because it would have included the apocryphal books.

Jason

(Edited to include a third point):

3. The translators of the Geneva bible disagree with your exegesis of Psalm 12:7 in the translation , so the Geneva must be a modern RCC translation.

Psa 12:7 Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer.

 

Jason,

As I’m sure you know, there is a difference between DE when absolutely necessary and the extreme usage we see today in many versions where large sections are simply paraphrases. The words “any way, shape, or form” are yours not mine.

The CoE did not put the apocrypha in with the testaments, as you also know. But the canon is not closed in the eyes of modern scholars.

I’m glad God purified Psalm 12:7 for the reformation, great awakening, and last days.

 

Dear FF and F,

You asked...

The reformation, yes, it did not give final closure or correctly address the error of the Church of Rome (IMO).

The Great Awakening: I don't know for sure.

I am a Baptist and not a Protestant. If other Baptists consider themselves Protestant, well that is their right of Soul Liberty.
As this kind of Baptist, I see the major Protestant Churches as heretical illegitimate children of the corrupted Roman Catholic Church.

I am TRO (not radical) The Traditional Text has been with us from the beginning, cherised and protected by both the dissenting Church (the Church in the wilderness) and Orthodox Christianity until 1880.

Yes, the Church of England translated the 1611 KJV from the TR that is why I always use it and/or the NKJV. I also will use the MVs where they are faithful to the TR.

But no translation is perfect because both the translators and the translation by their very nature are flawed in that unlike the prophets and Apostles they (the translators) had not the Holy Spirit God-breathing the words of the receptor language into which they translated. I can not find that doctrine in the Word of God or in any translation including the KJV.

Only the originals and their faithful copies can be said to be inspired (imo).
By faith I accept the TR (Scrivener 1894/5) as the virtual Word of God. This is my belief, you have yours and while I strongly disagree with your basic belief that the English language (1611-1769?)KJV is the Only Word of God, I respect your tenacity and faith (though misguided imo).
Others are still considering the Wescott and Hort theory. I respectfully disagree with these brethren as well.

Your brother
HankD

 

Your intent seemed to be to accuse me of being deceived by the devil. But that is impossible because the writers of Scripture hold the same position I do and I don't think you would call them decieved by the devil.

I don't think being deceived is intentional. It is a failure to understand the truth of God's word. I did not condemn you. I made a blanket statement about a position that is contrary to Scripture. As the old saying goes, "If the shoe fits ..." But remember that I am not at fault for that. IF the shoe fits, it is your foot, not mine.

Sometimes discussions need to be ended because the point being made is so far out of bounds and out of reasonability so as to be ridiculous. This was one of those posts. It had no semblance to fact. It was, in fact, a ridiculous argument. That is not inflammatory in anyway. You are welcome to try to find ridiculous things in my post and I welcome you to point them out. That is not a problem.

Do you agree with his statement that God allowed the manuscripts to be preserved to prove who the true Bible believers were????

First, you said primary role, and what you described is clearly not Satan's primary role. Second, if you look at Gen 3, you will see that is the most abused passage (besides Psa 12:6-7) in this debate. Satan did not change God's word. Satan flat out denied it. God said you will die; Satan said you will not die. He flat out contradicted God. Had Eve done what she said, she would have been obedient. Satan's tactic was to call God a liar.

The falling away at the end times will come because people eat hot dogs. Therefore you should never eat a hot dog. Now prove me wrong from Scripture ...

YOu see how ridiculous that argument is?? (See I Used it about myself). My point is that Scripture never supports your position and it does support mine. Therefore, there is not only silence about yours; there is revelation about mine. And that should close the case. Unfortunately it doesn't becuase the word of God doesn't appear to be valued very highly. The point is about what Scripture teaches, not about what some men have taught. When you elevate one translation above others, you have entered shaky ground. When you deny that other translations are the word of God, you have contradicted Scripture.

And I would say the same. I have no ill will towards you and I would hope that you don't understand any illwill from me.

 

No. But that relates to scholarship, not spirituality.

No. I disagree with your assertion that this must be the choice. It is certainly the choice operating under your presuppositions- but not mine. That is why mine can let the evidence say what it says, let the Bible say what it says, and still not end up with conflict.

You suppose that modern scholars are blinded by Satan and inferior in knowledge and skill but fail to deal with the obvious problems in the spirituality and resources of the KJV translators. You operate under a double standard necessitated by your presuppositions... "faith", I think is what you call it.

No. I have chosen to believe that all of the mss are corrupted in some way or another which is a logical conclusion since no two match each other perfectly and all are several generations of hand copying from the originals. Based on this logical deduction, I have chosen to believe that there are several reasonable ways of looking at the evidence- none of which detract from the teachings of the Bible.

I know it is convenient for you to couch your presuppositions under the header of "faith" but I disagree that much of this is a matter of faith. When you apply the same expectations to the KJV translators as you do modern translators, the same expectations of Erasmus and the revisors as you do modern textual critics then we can approach the matter of what falls under the umbrella of faith from a common premise.

The CoE didn't close the canon. The canon of scripture had been closed for over 1,000 years when they undertook their translation effort. Nice try at diversion but these two topics have nothing to do with each other.

Thinks me that this issue has bee alive to one extent or another ever since the NT canon was declared closed.

I agree with you but I doubt even the most radical CT advocate would say they are "automatically" better. I lean toward the majority position by a mixture of deduction and faith.

One of the problems is that in doing so you establish double standards that we find objectionable.

No. While I am sure that it makes you feel more comfortable with your presuppositions, folks like Pastor Larry et al. make a much better accounting of the facts than you do. It is not a matter of pure faith but rather reasonable probability vs. miniscule probability.

Show me someone who hasn't or won't.

And to the exact same extent, this was true of Erasmus and the KJV translators. I agree that DE should be minimized but even the KJV uses it... "God forbid."

Which is a far better representation of the 1st century situation than the authoritarian church model that existed all the way up to modern times. Even the Protestants held on the belief of "Christendom" and that kingdoms were to be united with the church.

But they are able to question these things in soul liberty as opposed to the day when the RCC or some Protestants would have executed them for questioning the official church's doctrines.

And you somehow find this more objectionable than when the CoE persecuted our Baptists/Separatists forebearers for opposing Anglican doctrine?

So the tyranny of the RCC is somehow worse than the (short-lived) tyranny of the CoE? Do you really not see this obvious double standard? Why did the CoE exist separate from the RCC? Was it doctrine? No. The king wanted a divorce that the Pope disallowed so he established his own national church and put bishops in place that would allow it. In other words " a disbelieving, disobeying, everybody has their own interpretation" monarch decided he didn't like religion being dictated to him.

The KJV is a great scholarly work by all accounts. That does not preclude other versions from being good nor does it mean that the KJV is the one and only Word of God in English.

Yes. But I would give more credit to the operations of the Holy Spirit than the word choices of the KJV translators. It was and is an accurate version of the scriptures. This fact simply does not preclude--- "modern scholarship wants to proceed on this cycle on constantly questioning manuscript evidence and valid translation techniques."

No Bible believing Christian should ever oppose proving what we believe nor why we believe it.

 

Pastor Larry,

Now it is “if the shoe fits”, you are not even subtle. I do not believe this to be ridiculous, but if you do you believe this thread has gone too far you are welcome to leave or stop posting. I think it is obvious I believe these manuscripts are corrupt, and one must be deceived to believe they are closer to the originals. I’m not saying your demon possessed; I’m just saying you have fallen into the snare of modern scholarship. BTW, what do you think is Satan’s primary role? I have made it clear my position and backed it with scripture, what is your position and your scripture (just curious)? I’m glad to see you agree with me about specificity (hot dog example). I am wondering now, are you receiving some kind of special revelation? Is there some sort of special revelation needed to understand your view? Where is all this scripture that supports revising God’s Word every six months? I’d be interested in reading it. Chapter and verse please.

 

One of the gentleman's rules of this forum is that you do not call into question the spirituality or salvation of another person whose study of the issue has led them to prefer a group of mss or a translation. Please remember this. And remember that the moment we veer off topic, the topic is closed because the 24 hour notice was given days ago.

 

Are you saying that we did not have the perfect Word of God until God directly intervened to purify the Bible by the hands of the KJV translators?

So how do you reconcile that God had to "purify" his Word for the last days with any view of preservation?

Also, if God was still in the business of purifying His Word by the hands of Anglicans in the 17th century... what makes you think He isn't still doing the same thing by the hands of conservative, evangelical scholars like the Lockman Foundation today?

Please apply whatever standards of proof equally...

 

FFF said

This is horrible thinking. Based on your logic, I can now believe that the KJV is the Bible version leading to a great falling away just because you can't show me a verse in the Bible that doesn't say the KJV cannot be used in this way.

Among liberals, true. But not all "modern" scholars are liberals, so your point is invalid.

While I agree with you about being innundated with new translations, if the KJV translators hadn't engaged in no mss criticsm and evaluation, there'd be no KJV

 

Heb 11:6(hmmm)and let's see;1st Cor 2:12(whoa!)and lets not forget Romans 14:23(incoming!!)

 

Heb 11:6(hmmm)</font>[/QUOTE]I don't really believe that the Bible was talking about faith in things not taught in scripture and contrary to a truthful, rational evaluation of evidence being pleasing to God.

The KJV wasn't "given" when that scripture was written... in fact neither was John, Revelation, and possibly other NT books. The NASB, NKJV, and other faithful translations have been "given" to us in every sense the same as the KJV.

You have made a terrible misapplication of this scripture. First, it has nothing to do with Bible versions. Second, notice what the verse does not say. It does not say that "whatsoever is of faith is not sin." The JW's, Muslims, Mormons, evolutionists, atheists, Hindus, etc all have faith... but their faith is based on falsehood.

There is absolutely no doubt that KJVO's have faith. But like those mentioned above, it is based on false premises and rationalizations.

 

Again, my point is that I was not speaking directly about you but about a position. I am not sure what your position is.

YOu do not believe what is ridiculous? I was very clear about what is ridiculous. I will state it again. A poster said taht the reason God allowed those manuscripts to be preserved is to separate the true Bible believers from teh others. That statement, my friend, is ridiculous, no matter which was you slice it. That is what I was talking about, not this thread in general.

You have yet to show that it is a snare. That is something you take by faith, and I would argue a misplaced faith. There is a great mound of evidence that you are wrong about this. This "snare" is not a snare at all.

Tp deceive and accuse. He does this by denying the word of God. If someone lives by every word in a NASB or NIV or ESV, they will be exceedingly pleasing to God. I believe Satan would love for people to reject the NASB and NIV because they would be rejecting a very clear and very good version of Scripture. I think he would love to see people reject the KJV because it is an excellent translation.

I have said that all along.

No special revelation needed. It has been the position of the orthodox church for many, many years. I am not supporting revising God's word every six months. I don't know anyone who is. The KJV was revised itself, with support of Scripture I might add. So it is obvious you don't have great objections to revising God's word. It seems your objection is different that simply "revising God's word." Additionally, why (all of the sudden) is scriptural proof so important to you? You have maintained your (apparent KJVO) position without benefit of Scripture. Now you are asking for it.

Remember, I am not enforcing my position on translations. You are (or at least are trying to). I have no problem with the translation you use. My problem is with people who question the orthodoxy of those of us who hold the traditional position.

 

Heb 11:6(hmmm)and let's see;1st Cor 2:12(whoa!)and lets not forget Romans 14:23(incoming!!) </font>[/QUOTE]All of these verses are in the MVs. So that proves that the MVs are right, doesn't it??

 

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Question: If God kept his "word" in those verses then we have the Bible today, intact and perfect. Unless God lied to us.

I believe and KNOW by Faith that it is the KJV as well as the fact it has not got one proven error in it.

If you don't believe that but believe God is not a liar, then it is your job to find the Perfect Preserved word for us.

And please spare us the time of telling us about MSS Evidence and all the so-called Mistranslation errors your professor has found. He doesn't have the Originals to compare them with and you don't either so speculation means nothing.

YOu say, yes but older....Hey friend...Older isn't better. That isn't any proof. And the Dead Sea Scrolls vindicated the Older Idea for us as well as MUCH Older MSS of John.

Then of course there is the fact that we have other MSS that are older than Siniaticus and Vaticanus, but the good breathren don't give a lot of weight to them because they aren't Greek. How absurd.

Truth

 

Same place your Original MSS is. IT ISN"T ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. My guess is that God made sure all the originals are long gone because he knew you would worship them instead of the Bible he blessed.

If not for the KJV we would be living in a Catholic run world right now. The Greatest revival since the Reformation was started and kept going by the KJV. It didn't die until all of the "Great Schools or Orthodoxy" sold out to the New Versions so that they could sit in judgment on the word of God.

You can't prove conclusively that any verse is wrong in the KJV for the simple fact you don't have anything to measure it with.

The same nuts that say there is errors in it, say the originals were perfect.

How do they know they are perfect? They haven't ever seen them. "They say well God said they were perfect." Where did he say that? "In the English Bible that I read and don't believe is perfect." HA HA!!!! That would be a "Horse Laugh"

Has everyone lost their mind? At best you can say no Bible is perfect but you still don't know that for sure. I on the other hand chose to believe God. If I can't believe Matthew 18:11 I can't believe John 3:16. It's that simple.

Truth
"for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

 

Same old circular reasoning.

Since you do not have the originals to compare, you cannot prove that the NIV is not exactly the same as the original Greek and Hebrew.

I believe that God, today, has put His stamp of approval on the NIV for His end-time church. OI know He has blessed the NIV in our church.

 

Yes same old circular reasoning and unanswered question.

Which KJV is the "pure" Word of God.
There have been several revisions between 1611-1769.

Which one do you use? How do you know which revision is "pure"?

Why does the standard : "things which are different are not the same" work for the KJVO but is a satanic deception when someone else asks the very same question concerning the several revisions to the KJV?

Why is it when non-KJVO folks make this very same observation as the KJVO make it is answered with calling the questioner an apostate because they dare to find fault with the Word of God?

If there is one word, nay one letter different then one version is corrupt and one is not at very best, or at very worst both versions are corrupt.

There are two editions of the KJV, the Oxford and the Cambridge, they differ in several places.
Which is the "true" Word of God?

Things which are different are not the same.

In addition the archetype of the 1611 KJV has been lost so there is no way to determine which of the several different revisions and editions of the KJV is the "pure" Word of God.

How many differences between them does it take to make them different? Things which are different are not the same whether 1 difference or 10,000.

Unbelieving scholarship:
Where does this standard come from? The translators of the original 1611KJV were Anglican churchmen. These churchmen who ordained priests to say an anglicised mass and turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. These churchmen who baptised babies, heard confessions, lit candles, burned incense, approved of the Apocrypha including it in the original AV, included the reading of the Apocrypha in the Common Book of Prayer as a spiritual devotion. These churchmen also persecuted men such as John Bunyan who they locked up in prison for 12 years leaving his wife and children (one of whom was handicapped) a virtual widow and orphans because he was a "baptiser" of believers.

The whole KJVO theory is based upon a premise that this Church of England had some intimate connection with God who supposedly God-breathed the very English words of said translation.

If this is so, why are you a Baptist and not an Anglican?
Can you at very least answer me this last question?


HankD

 

The Word did and is standing forever. The words that God inspired this in belong to a virtually dead language.

Settled where? In the KJV? I didn't think so.

If you wish to ignore the original language evidence that shows that you are misusing these vss, why not just put them in the context of the entire passage. And while you are at it, please note that God inspired this scripture in Hebrew, not English.

No. God did keep His Word. You simply refuse to see the glorious way He did it- even to the point of abusing scripture to maintain your error.

How so? Do you have the originals? If you had them could you read them?... and I am not talking about the original Bible mss. I am talking about the original pages and translation notes of the 1611 KJV translation.

No. It is your duty to stop limiting God by your presuppositions. God did preserve His perfect Word. He did not providentially choose to do it by preserving the words of the originals. And, there is no evidence outside the vain imaginings of version onlyists that God re-inspired His Word in English.

 

Same place your Original MSS is. IT ISN"T ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. My guess is that God made sure all the originals are long gone because he knew you would worship them instead of the Bible he blessed.</font>[/QUOTE] You are probably right. Considering the way some people set the KJV up as an idol, the originals would probably be that much greater of a temptation.

No. The Baptists used and preferred the Geneva Bible. In fact, they considered King James' translation to be a step back toward romish errors.

All revivals are started and kept going by the Holy Spirit. It is idolatry to attribute an act of almighty God to an inanimate book.

I might say back to you that you cannot prove that a single word in the KJV is correct since you have nothing to compare it to.

However, both of these statements are incorrect. We have over 5,300 original language mss, 12,000+ ancient citations (witnesses) of the Bible, and 12,000+ ancient, handwritten versions. In fact, some have stated that the Bible could be reconstructed from the ancient witnesses alone since the early church fathers quoted so heavily in their works. This is ample evidence for us to know what the Bible said when written even if the exact wording isn't known for a few passages.

We know it is perfect because it is a direct work of God- based on the testimony of all faithful translations and copies.

We are certainly NOT dependent on the English version you read.

No. But there is sufficient evidence given by KJVO's that at least some people have.

We do have perfect Bibles and I do know for sure. Perfect means complete and fit for the the purpose for which it was made. It does not always mean identical. We are told to be perfect and to be conformed to Christ. Does that mean that we will be identical to Him including appearance and experience? No. It means we are to be like Him in character.

In the same way, even our faithful translations do not have the words God inspired but they project the same character and revelation so they are the perfect Word of God.

Really? If so, please cite the scripture that says that God would perfect His Word in the KJV by the hands of Anglican scholars. Or cite any other statement by God that points to the KJV.

Why? Do you quote Mat 18:11 every time you quote John 3:16? If one can't be true without the other then you should.

Or if Mat 18:11 was not in the original writing of Matthew then you could go to Luke 19:10 or John 12:47 or many other passages that declare this purpose.