Were there no good English Bibles before the Modern Versions ?

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
I do not want to offend anyone, I am just trying to explain why I will only use the KJV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Toolman:

If you, Joey or anyone else favors the KJV because they view it as the best translation, based upon the best mss, is worded the best and most faithfully, has preferred readings, is most reverent etc, than I and most here have no argument with you . Our argument is against those who say that the KJV is the ONLY Word of God in English, and all other versions are Per-versions and agents of the devil.

Many of my friends are KJV-Best; but not KJV-Only

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; I do have a problem with getting watered down scripture &gt;

I Samuel 25:22b (NASB)-- "...if by morning I leave as much as one male of any who belong to him."

I Samuel 25:22b (KJV)-- "...if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall."

And you would rate the NAS as the watered down scripture of the 2?

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:

Scott I’m not being cute but how would we know what the Word of God is for the human race if it wasn’t written down?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is not the point of the question. I am going for something more foundational. I am not asking how the Word of God gets communicated but what it is. I think it is obvious that there are at least four ways in the Bible that the Word of God is expressed: in writing, orally, by direct revelation from God (dreams or angels), and in the person of Jesus Christ. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How would we know what the message is if we don’t have a written word, to me you can’t have one without the other?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is true of our day but the Word of God is not limited to a specific set of human words. Not even the originals contained all of the deeds or words of Christ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On this I agree. But do you think that God can not keep his written word preserved? I think that is Toolmans point, that He can and that the Toolman believes it to be the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that the Word (God's complete revelation) is preserved but the original words are not in such a way that we can point to one document and say it is the word for word copy of the originals.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the Toolmans point is that from 1611 to now the Bible that was used was the KJV, sure there were other Bibles. That is his question he has put out there so many times, how do we know which mss? Which translation? Which Bible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Latin Vulgate reigned supreme for over 1000 years- tradition nor longevity of use necessarily make a translation superior.

The questions you ask have to do with how we come as close as possible to the original words of the Bible. We can and do have the Word of God without having the original words or words that are preserved. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thomas had to see and touch the Lord, we have to take by faith what we believe to be the preserved Word of God.
I’m just trying to understand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It takes faith but not blind faith and certainly not faith contrary to the evidence. I don't believe that anything that God revealed in the original mss is lost in several good translations.

We have over 5000 existing mss and 10000+ existing ancient versions. How many more existed at one time or another?!?! None of them are identical in every respect. Some of them contain books that were not accepted into the canon. Some of them are missing text that was accepted into the canon. Words and even whole passages are vary from ms to ms...yet, at one time, Christians somewhere accepted each one of these documents as the Word of God.

What I am trying to convey is that the Word of God can be and is expressed by more than one set of words...regardless of the language.

 

[ddavis]

Scott, do you know if the Latin Vulgate was in English or was it in Latin, because my understanding is that it was in Latin?

 

[Joey M]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you, Joey or anyone else favors the KJV because they view it as the best translation, based upon the best mss, is worded the best and most faithfully, has preferred readings, is most reverent etc, than I and most here have no argument with you . Our argument is against those who say that the KJV is the ONLY Word of God in English, and all other versions are Per-versions and agents of the devil. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not a KJV-onlyist. I don't think there are no errors in it. I know there are errors in some verses and could use some better words here and there. I even have and have had many different translations in my possesion that I use sometimes to help in my studies. But I use them more as a commentary than as the only Bible I read, because of the very things I have mentioned so many times. I was wrong when I first came here to even say that the other versions were satans bible. I know many preachers that teach and preach from the NAS and other versions that I believe were called of God to preach. And you can see and hear the love of Christ in there message. But I myself will never teach or preach from any other Bible than the KJV. Because it is the most reverant, beautiful version I have ever and I believe will ever read. As Toolman said. I would be all in favour of a new revision of the KJV that held to the same type of wording just clarify some of the difficult verses and difficult words. But no need to change things like virgin or repentance or washed in the blood or subtract through His blood. But really just try to revise it and not change it. Do you see what I saying? Or do you really believe that the KJV was written for an angilical church and not for us?

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
Scott, do you know if the Latin Vulgate was in English or was it in Latin, because my understanding is that it was in Latin?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I am quite certain it was in Latin and when it became dominate many could read and understand it. By the time of the reformation, it was a tool to suppress the spiritual independence of people who wanted to know God. The point is longevity of use under no circumstances means superiority of quality.