What Biblical basis did God promise Translation inerrancy. Inerrancy is always referring to the original autographs. The KJV is the Word of God but so is the NIV,ESV, RSV, NRSV, NASB.
If we claim inerrancy for the KJV then you will also have to say the KJV translators were moved by the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Biblical writers. To claim ierrancy for a translation actually can work to disprove inerrancy for the original Autographs. Since the Church of England translated the KJV...does that mean the Church of England is inerrant or infallible? Should we all become Episcopalians? People also forget that most Baptists and Puritans were not that crazy about the KJV and accused it of promoting Anglicanism and it was not until the late 1600's that they gradualy accepted it. If you love the KJV use it. It is a great translation and is by far the most beautifull but we need not say others are not God's Word in that you question the salvation of those saved under the preaching of others. To be honest I have never understood why KJV only's hate the NKJV since it is a revision of the KJV and just like the 1769 KJV that KJV only's call the 1611.
As far as Gail Riplinger goes, I have read much of her book and it is has been proven to be a book of slander, lies and misrepresentation.
What is the Worst Bible Translation?
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Kiffin, Jul 2, 2002.
Page 4 of 7
-
-
To those who have never read a tract called "Use The Bible God Uses", here's a few words from it:
"There are only TWO STREAMS of texts and Bibles coming down through the centuries. (1)THERE IS A PURE STREAM that the KJV is based on, which is the text of the Bible believers for the past 1900 years. It is the text of the Waldensians, Anabaptists, and the other ancestors of TRUE BAPTISTS. It was the text of Luther and the Reformation. (2)THERE IS A POLLUTED STREAM that ALL the modern versions are based upon. It is the text of Origen, Constantine, Eusebius, the Roman Catholic Church, of Westcott & Hort, and ALL of the apostates today. I have never met a modernist that said that the KJV was the best or the most accurate. They ALL prefer something else.
None of the popular new versions are translated from the Textus Receptus, and this includes the New King James Version. A careful reading of the Preface will reveal that it is NOT based entirely on the same texts that underly the King James Version. We do not recommend the New King James Version.
THE PURE STREAM has produced and preserved Christianity down through the ages. Why? Because the Bible says, "for thou has magnified thy word above all thy name."(Psa.138:2). THE POLLUTED STREAM has produced Roman Catholicism and apostate Christendom today. THE POLLUTED STREAM of Bibles NEVER has produced anything that God would ever claim, and they never will. While some who prefer them, still profess to believe the fundamentals of the faith, be sure that in the end they will produce apostasy." -
Granny's daughter- I am not calling God a liar. I am calling man a sinner. We make mistakes. God's original words are totally inerrant...but that is in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Our human translations will always have error. Thus no translation will be perfect. If God's word pointed that one translation was perfect, then yes, I would read it. But give me a verse that says that, then I will believe it!
-
So the poll would have us believe that the TNIV and the KJV are the worst Bibles, while the NCV is one of the best? I have no problem believing the former and have much problem with the latter
-
Hi Granny's Daughter,
Brian -
(rest of slander from that tract ignored)
Brian -
-
< If one thing is *supposedly* incorrect in the KJV, or any other so-called version, then it is not the true and perfect Word of God. >
You can do all the supposing that little mind of your will allow, but no text commands to make transaltions of itself, or says anything about such, and definitely guarantees nothing.
< Also, "New Age Bible Versions" by G.A. Riplinger is an excellent resource. >
Riplinger is a {snip}
< Shouldn't we as Christians have more backbone about God's Word than a government teacher with Shakespeare? >
Shakespeare is art, that's what it is read for. If you think the Bible is art, that explains your comparison of it to Shakespeare. Those of us who think the Bible is absolutely vital information want it in archaic language even less than we want a business report in such. Is the Bible art or is it information?
Anyone who wishes can take in "pisseth against the wall" (I Samuel 25:22, et al) and other wonderful KJV terms, but to make a particular translation-- which the original texts say nothing about-- a test of faith or a filter of anything significant is imbecilic lunacy.
[ July 12, 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ] -
[ July 12, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Granny'sDaughter ] -
To answer the other questions some of you have had concerning those books I mentioned earlier, I simply recommended them as a good place to start studying. Also, I would recommend a side by side comparison with the King James Bible and the so-called other versions of the Bible those interested in studying this out for yourself. -
Granny's Daughter, have you ever done a side-by-side comparison of the KJV with a pre-KJV Bible, like the Geneva or Tyndale's?
Brian -
Where was God's word prior to 1611? If it existed, why is the KJV not also a "so-called" translation? -
As for the "Things that are different are not ths ame," I didn't hint at the book. I was wondering if you were consistent with that statement or not. Which edition of the KJV are you arguing for? Since there are several different versions, would you not say that they cannot all be the Word of God?
Riplinger's book is full of lies, misquotes, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies. She is not a credible source.
But you still haven't answered the question: What scriptural basis do you use to determine which the "straight stick" is? In other words, which verse of Scripture identifies the KJV as the "only word of God" for the English language? Or are you adding somethign to Scripture that is not there?
[ July 12, 2002, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ] -
But you still haven't answered the question: What scriptural basis do you use to determine which the "straight stick" is? In other words, which verse of Scripture identifies the KJV as the "only word of God" for the English language? Or are you adding somethign to Scripture that is not there?[PLarry]
"Which verse of Scripture identifies YOURS as the "only word of God" for today? There IS a book in the English language in which ALL of the GOD INSPIRED WORDS can be found; the KJBible is that blessed Old Book. If this were not so, the devil would not be so adamant about trying to disprove this fact. If it weren't for the KJBible, there wouldn't be any of these other 'versions' as seen today. God is the ONLY one who can make a true standard. Such a standard (or STRAIGHT STICK) will ENDURE the test of time. The KJBible is such a Standard. You have a choice; make it wisely. It is God's Word, or variations FROM it which casts shadows of doubt UPON it, that you are choosing. -
-
:rolleyes: Sorry Granny, I like you but I can never accept that God's word popped into existence in 1611. -
On Riplinger, see also New Age Bible Versions: Review Article -- S. E. Schnaiter
-
There we have it. GrannyGumbo is telling us there was no STRAIGHT STICK before the KJV[BrianT]
"This is NOT what I said; I also never said God's Word popped into existance in 1611. Why don't you let well enough alone? -
Brian
Page 4 of 7