Where is the Perfect Bible?

Nope. But a Bible with a perfect message, that's right here in my hands. I'm willng to bet you've got one in your hands, too. Come to think of it, our foreign speaking friends in the Netherlands and Germany also have one in their hands, too.

[ September 07, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Nope. But a Bible with a perfect message, that's right here in my hands. I'm willng to bet you've got one in your hands, too. Come to think of it, our foreign speaking friends in the Netherlands and Germany also have one in their hands, too. </font>[/QUOTE]Great post, JohnV! I believe the important thing is to rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance in the Word -- no matter the version! No perfect Bible. Just His perfect Word! In Christ, WT

 

1. How do you determine which to use?
(don't answer and say I go by the mood I'm in - that is clearly a fleshly answer.)

I use the NASB. It speaks to me in a way that puts forth the very Word of the Most High in a manner that is easy for me to understand( THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON THE KJV or the Geneva. I study from the Geneva sometimes and the KJV sometimes).

I feel that the NASB is the most conservative bible in English. I like the way it's reference to God is in caps. Cetain verses like Jude 1:25 and Col chapter 2 really stick in my mind and I find that the NASB is rather easy to remember scripture by.

I study 99% of the time from the NASB, I read the NASB, and I take the NASB to work, bible study, and to church with me. The NASB is what I am comfortable with and that is why that I use it. I feel as a true fundamentalist that the NASB better reflects my doctrines. Now this is not saying that the NIV, NKJV, KJV, etc do not reflect my doctrines. So please understand what I am trying to say.

I have the perfect Word living in me and when I need help He is always faithful to help me. All I need to do is go to my Father I have a comforter etc...

***Every faithful translation of the Word of the Most High is a perfect bible with a perfect message of grace, salvation, redemption from sin, and the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ!

2. There is alot of talk about omitence and additions. Either way they have to hurt the value of the scripture, Right? So tell me which is better omitence or addition? (You should know this if you use multiple Bibles.)

I think that this issue is way overblown. Let's consider the omitence and additions. Do they actually change the message of the bible? No, faithful translations do not change the doctrines of the faith. I think that too many people make a mountain out of a mole hill simply because no two manuscripts from different time periods agree 100% word for word. Over all agreement is amazing in that the gospel and bible is still perfectly preserved even with so many different manuscripts.

I have studied the Geneva 1599, 1611 KJV, 1769 KJV, KJ21, and NASB and I have not found one single doctrine affected by different wording and/or additions/deletions etc... The message of God is 100% preserved!

I personally say that manuscripts from the 2nd, 3rd centuries better reflect what the apostles actually wrote. The reason I say this is because the methods of copying back them was very hard. The closer to the original, the closer the message. BUT then again overall the message is in tact.Verses like *1 John 5:7 may cause a fuss but it's inclusion or not being present does not change the Trinity.(* which I don't think it is scripture based on what I have read. I agree that it really does not hurt anything, but it's deletion does not bother me in the least simply because I don't depend on one verse to defend the Trinity)

3. What about the Ancient Greek or Hebrew. I speak neither. So can or did God create a single English Bible for us to use? And was he able to to use scholars to keep (or preserve his word.)

I don't speak either one so I must depend on faithful scholars from today and hundreds of years ago to translate the word for me.

 

Anyone who reads the 4 different "gospels" is already using "multiple" Bibles.

When did the Vice-Versa Version come out? I'd like to sample that one.

By the mood I'm in-- that was clearly a fleshly question.

"Omitence" or adddition? How many guesses do I get?

And was He able to use printers to print it right for us? Like the other questions, He can, but he obviously did not, as there were printers' errors.

Now just who would doubt that?

Have you found that out yet?

 

mjwegs42:1. How do you determine which to use?
(don't answer and say I go by the mood I'm in - that is clearly a fleshly answer.)

Depends upon what I'm doing. If witnessing to an older person or group, I generally use the KJV first, but have some other handy in case some of the audience wishes for me to use one. For my own studies, I use the NKJV and replica AV 1611. For speaking to a younger audience, I generally use the NKJV, NIV, or NASB.

2. There is alot of talk about omitence and additions. Either way they have to hurt the value of the scripture, Right? So tell me which is better omitence or addition? (You should know this if you use multiple Bibles.)

Many such omissions or additions depend upon the translation, and/or the manuscripts they were made from. Since many Greek or Hebrew words or phrases have multiple meanings in English, and different translators may choose different "added" words for clarification in English, we have many different translations made from the same sources. And we have no idea how many times the available mss were copied. However, we CAN be sure GOD caused'em to come out as HE CHOSE.

3. What about the Ancient Greek or Hebrew. I speak neither.

Neither do I, or most of us here.


So can or did God create a single English Bible for us to use?

GOD can create any number of BVs for us to use. And there's ample proof that He DID. Here's a little example...John 3:16 from the Tyndale Bible of 1534:"For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."

This is in the English that was current in 1534, including the spelling. If you didn't already know John 3:16 from currently-used Bibles, could you have deciphered this? It was perfectly clear to the British reader of 1534.

Clearly, God has caused quite a few English BVs to have been made since then.


And was he able to to use scholars to keep (or preserve his word.)

Yes...and why NOT? God can use anyone for anything. He often used PAGANS to punish His own people, Israel. He used Gideon, who wasn't exactly bursting with faith at first, to lead Israel from subjugation. He used Paul, one of early Christendom's greatest enemies,(and one of the world's GREATEST SCHOLARS) to spread Christianity throughout Asia Minor & much of Greece, & to write much of the New Testament.

Now...As for any One-Versionism...where is it supported in SCRIPTURE? Without any Scriptural support, all evidence is AGAINST any One-Versionism.

 

"Is there a perfect Bible?"
''
No. Humans are far from perfect so they need a Bible adapted towards their individual limitations, that's why there are translations (just to name an example) not everybody can read Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic.

"1. How do you determine which to use?"
''
That depends on a multitude of factors. What is available? What can I read? Can I even read? If I can read it, can I understand it? Did the translators of this Bibletranslation have a questionable bias? I can go on.

"So tell me which is better omitence or addition?"
''
Each individual case is different. Still in general I prefer additions over omittances. But I like the Apocrypha, so there is some bias here.

"So can or did God create a single English Bible for us to use?"
''
No he did not.

Interesting side note, those few objective standards that I have seen set by the KJVO's on this board that are supposed to prove that the KJB is the perfect Bible (Textus Receptus based New Testament translation, very literal translation, produces good fruit, brilliant translators, not contaminated by Jesuit translations, not strongly influenced by the Vulgate, sponsored by a righteous government and a few others) actually point to a different Bible version.
That would be the Ravesteyn edition of 1657 of the Dutch AV of 1637.
Don't worry, 17th century Dutch is relatively simple to learn.

 

Thank you for that suggestion, Dr. Bob. I will be getting one soon, and will contact you by PM if I have questions. I never had the opportunity to take Greek at MBBC. I wish I would have been able to. Any other suggested reading?

AVL1984

 

The KJV!

 

Which KJV?

 

Exactly, Ed. And I hope Terry's reply wasn't to me, as this wasn't what I was looking for, and I'm pretty sure he's aware of that. Mine was in response to Dr. Bob and his suggestion on GREEK study books.
Anybody should have been able to figure that out.

AVL1984

 

Let me reiterate, the KJV is perfect!

 

Like the fly said to the spider, "I will not fall into your trap!"

As far as which is perfect? The one I read!

 

Like the fly said to the spider, "I will not fall into your trap!"

As far as which is perfect? The one I read! </font>[/QUOTE]Typical dodge. How lame. Which version, Terry? The 1611? the 1762? 1769? Cambridge? Oxford? One of the other revisions. We truly want to know. Dr. Bob doesn't set traps. I find him to be a man of integrity, patience, and scholarship, fairness and balance.

AVL1984

 

Like the fly said to the spider, "I will not fall into your trap!"

As far as which is perfect? The one I read! </font>[/QUOTE]Typical dodge. How lame. Which version, Terry? The 1611? the 1762? 1769? Cambridge? Oxford? One of the other revisions. We truly want to know. Dr. Bob doesn't set traps. I find him to be a man of integrity, patience, and scholarship, fairness and balance.

AVL1984 </font>[/QUOTE]Evidently you may know Dr. Bob well, but you don't understand what I am saying. I think you are way too serious about all of this. It is as if you will not be happy until you convince everyone that your MV stand is correct. Trust me, this will never happen. Also, the people who stick to the KJV will never convince many others that they are correct either.

I don't get involved with manuscript evidence or the different linages of these manuscripts. My reason for saying that the KJV is perfect is based on other things.

For instance, I do not believe that God would basically bless the KJV for hundreds of years and then all of a sudden decide that we need scores of other versions in order to correct what He has overlooked all this time.

I do not think that God would wait until we are in a baby-killing, pervert-accepting society to finally get around to giving us His Word.

There are other reasons, but these two should suffice for you to understand why I believe what I do.

Another thing, I do not feel it is my duty to convert everyone to my way of thinking. Remember the Scripture says:

Rom 14:4
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
(KJV)

You decide for yourself what is the right Bible to depend on and, God bless you. As for me, I will continue to use what has worked in the past.

 

Terry, I am a KJV preferred myself. I am not an apologist for the MV's. I try to defend both sides. But, when one side is attacked over and over and over again, I will defend that side if they are being misrepresented, and that is exactly what many KJVO's do. They haven't researched the matter, nor do they intend to. So they say it is based on "faith" or "other things". Usually the "other things" or "faith" is actually what their pastor has told them. This is a "check your brain at the door" mentality and isn't scriptural. The Bible tells us to study things out and even gives an example of those who studied to see if the things being said were so. So, how does this give people a right to discern what is going on, or "judge" if you prefer? If they haven't studied the matter out, then they have not obeyed scriptures and their fruit will show forth in their circular reasoning, usually taught and engrained in them by a KJVO pastor who himself may or may not have studied the matter.
I can agree to disagree with anyone. At least you were honest in your post stating you had other reasons and that you didn't get involved with manuscript evidence, etc. Some here will not show that degree of honesty. Thank you for your truthfulness. I would not try to dissuade you from using the KJV.

AVL1984