Who Says Only the Originals Have to Be Inspired?

Are you saying that God INSPIRED the KJV translation and as such we should throw away the genuinely inspired Greek and Hebrew originals?

 

Brothers Ed and USN,

I also like the HCSB, in fact this is the Bible that we give to people following baptism.

The children's illustrated Bible is one of the best that I have seen, the reason is that in addition to the colorful teaching pages for the children, it contains the entire Word of God for them to read.

Between my wife and I we were given four copies at the last convention, I have since given two of those away.

I am looking forward to the larger sized version.

I use the HCSB along with the KJV, (sometimes NASB, ESV or NKJV) from the pulpit. Normally my youth pastor will open with the reading of the text along with the welcome and prayer at the beginning of the service. He always reads from the HCSB, and I generally will read from another version at the start of my sermon.

LOL as a side note, I have found myself using almost all translations from the pulpit, except the NIV... (don't ask me to explain, I am not sure that I can...)

I have been praying for a translation to come along, that will be easy to read and true to the original, as well as translated by trustworthy scholars. I think we may just have that.

God Bless


Fred

 

Wow, that's very generous. The only thing I got following Baptism is a towel.

 

AV Bunyan:We desire to see others know that in their hands they can hold the very words of God without doubt (Gen. 3:1).

So do WE...without being limited by a man-made myth to just one version, if they choose.

We believe the MVs have created much confusion in these last days (I Cor. 14:33)

You believe incorrectly.

What if God had NOT caused His word to be updated as he caused/allowed the language to change? Thus, here's how we'd have John 3:16:

?God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

This is from the first-known writing of Scripture in English, C.995 AD. Aren't you glad God caused it to be updated? Aren't you glad He STILL updates it?

Some of us folks have a true conviction about this issue of authority and God?s words. This conviction is based upon the power of knowing and having God?s words in our hands.

Same as WE do, only we're free of the man-made limitations.

Also, we can what has been happening since the MVs have come out ?a loss of real power, evangelism, and the work of God in saints? lives because they do not believe they have the words of God ? I Thess. 2:13. This has been a great deception Gen. 3:1



The Israelis had God's words written and spoken directly unto them, EVEN HEARING GOD HIMSELF say many of them, in their own then-current language! And look how THEY went to pot! The FACT is, it's mens' HEARTS AND ATTITUDE that have affected the power of many churches today.

And let's not forget the many CULTS which use only the KJV.


As for the "originals only" theory, I don't think
anyone here believes it. "I" certainly don't!


Where in any Bible does it say ?only the originals? are inspired?

Right before the verse that says, "The ONLY valid English Bible translation is the KJV".

The bottom line ? We desire true saints to know that hey have the inspired word of God in their hand so they can be equipped to do the work of the ministry.

So do WE...free of the limits some man-made myth tries to place upon God and his word.

THIS is the KJVOs' error...saying God is limited in English to just the one version. There's simply NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for such a myth...NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE...NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER from any legitimate source...NOTHING! KJVO is entirely a MAN-MADE FANTASY!

Do I believe God inspires translations and versions? ABSOLUTELY! If not, the Scriptures would be in the proto-English of the example above...if in English at all. And God has PROVEN that he oversees His word, presenting it AS HE CHOOSES, over the years. In English, he's provided it in the English of the day from Tyndale's time through today...and there's no reason to believe He'll cease doing it, long as He allows this age to endure.

The Bible in several English versions has been around a LOT longer than the KJVO myth has. The Myth is a recent(1930) invention and isn't based upon SCRIPTURE at all. This is what we want to make clear to the people new to this issue...KJVO IS AN EMPTY CAN! It's painted pretty on the outside, but INSIDE is only HOT, STALE AIR.

And, as I've said many times...if some people choose to use only the KJV or any other one valid version, fine, but when they try to tell me MY choice to use several versions is wrong, THEN THEY'VE DECLARED WAR, and I'll respond appropriately. And, YES...I WILL defend your decision to use only the KJV...and I'll defend your decision to change your view if you later choose. but such decisions do NOT affect the FACT that the KJVO myth is INCORRECT.

 

Tatertot, there's no winning any arguments here with Michele. She's hard line KJVO and any facts you present to her go in one ear and out the other. </font>[/QUOTE]Plus she won't address issues. She just spouts the same continual mindless drivel engrained in many KJVO elitists using circular reasoning.
It's like talking to a brick wall.

AVL1984

 

But there are many today who *do* know Hebrew and Greek. So why should their final authority not be the same as that of the KJV translators themselves, namely, the original language texts?

The same thing that the KJV translators themselves considered to be Scripture in the English language:

"...wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where.... A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it." (From the Translators' Preface to the 1611 KJV)

Not always. Where different English translations are in essential agreement (and they are faithful renderings of the original language texts), then there's no need to "go to the Greek and Hebrew." But where different English language translations disagree, then it *is* necessary to "go to the Greek and Hebrew" to determine which is most accurate. Just as it was for the KJV translators, so it is for us: the original language texts are the final authority to which *all* English translations must submit.

If you are relying on the KJV alone, then you are *already* relying on "some other man's interpretation" -- the interpretation of the KJV translators.

 

No one? They deceive THEMSELVES because they did not realize, YET. Look at me! I used NASB for 10 years. Did I deceive MYSELF when I use the NASB? Yes, of course! I did not deceive anyone but myself. When I learned the NASB is NOT the word of God, then I realize I deceived myself already.

NIV or NASB? Which is most accurate? The NIV has 6,500 false word of God; the NASB has 4,000+ false word of God. Are NIV and NASB the word of God? Absolutely not.

You did not realize, yet. Look at me -- I was naive to use the NASB until I saw obvious evidences then I realized I was deceived to use the false word of God that I hold, namely NASB for 10 years.

 

Askjo,

Look at you! you dance and parade back and forth saying "I have the truth" because you suddenly woke up one morning and decided to change bibles. Puh-lease.

I know that is an oversimplification (sorry for the big word...first one that came to mind...but I know you have a dictionary so you can understand the big words in the KJV). But you are using the same premise as Michelle, which is Gnosticism, special revelation. That is a lie straight from hell,and it smells like smoke.

"6500 false words of God", "4000+ false words of God." Says who? You? Hahahahahahahaha! Very funny. Just because something does not follow the KJV verbatim (sorry, another big word...means "word for word") does not make it false.

Where in the TR does the Greek words for "God forbid" appear? Don't know? THEY DON'T!!! But they are in the KJV. Oops, must be "false words of God." But wait! I thought KJVOnlyism claims that the King James is the actual words OF God. So, if the KJV has "God forbid" and the manuscripts it came from don't, then someone was lying when they penned the idiom (another one...just use your dictionary).

Askjo, you, Michelle, Anti-Alexandrian, psr.2, AVBunyan, and all the rest are prime examples of why King James Version Onlyism is the cancer of Christianity!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Look at me--I was naive enough to be KJVO:kjbo until I saw obvious evidences then I realized I was deceived to a false man made tradition which I held, namely KJVO:kjbo for ________years!

 

It isn't just a popular doctrine. It is the ONLY biblically sustainable doctrine on scripture.

As long as they equate "the very words of God" to the KJV... other faithful version are called corruptions, perversions, and the like. Even the originals that God inspired are scoffed at.

I don't necessarily claim to know your motivations but I can affirm that you are not speaking for most of the KJVO's I have known- which is several. Pride is very much an issue with KJVOnlyism. If it weren't, the first time a FACT was pointed out that cannot be reconciled with KJVOnlyism you would take pause and begin to review the position.

Every KJVO on this board, including you, have avoided factual issues that clearly refute your belief. Whether pride, fear, or simply a strong affection for a tradition, I can't tell. What I can tell for certain is that it isn't scripture nor an evaluation of the evidence by scriptural principle.

We don't suffer with these things even though we don't operate under the KJVO delusion.

Abuse? We get frustrated when KJVO's continually come in here and turn every issue into an argument rather than a factual debate... Of course that's really all you all can do. Any factual debate based on history, reason, and most importantly scripture will be won by those of us who believe in the historic, orthodox, FUNDAMENTAL doctrine of the scripture.

The only confusion and dissension is being caused by KJVO's. I don't know of a single MV user that will condemn another church or break fellowship for the use of the KJV. I use the KJV. My church uses the KJV. I simply refuse to return to the KJVO vomit that I expelled several years ago.

We also have convictions about having God's Word in our hands. It is authoritative in our lives also. We live and grow by its power.

However, you DON'T have God's "words" in your hands when you hold the KJV of the Bible. You have a translation of the words. A translation made by fallible men who held to baptismal regeneration... none of whom were biblically qualified to receive inspiration. None of them were prophets, Apostles, nor holy men of old. They were exceptional scholars... who happened to also hate Baptists for their doctrines and practices.

Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about. The power of God's Word is daily changing lives through the use of MV's.

Proof? Statistics tell us that there are more self professed born again American Christians today than there were in 1900 by percentage as well as raw numbers.

It may well be that while you sit around decrying a departure from man-made tradition God is getting things done His own way.

The only folks saying "yea hath God said" is KJVO's when they deny the legitimacy of MV's.

"Strong" is purely subjective. Baptists are much stronger today than they were in 1600-1800 simply because we threw off the official state church... which by the way ensured that only their Bible was available even though the Baptists preferred the Geneva.

It is you that shows a lack of perspective on church history. If they were stronger then it was primarily because they were persecuted.... by the very same church and monarch that foisted the KJV on them.

That's a false belief and assumption. Many of the great scholars appealed to the original language texts. The London Confession of the early 1600's appealed to them... and most of those folks probably would have still been using their Geneva's.

You start off with a false premise.

You don't need one particular set of words to have the "true Word of God". You only need words that express the same meanings, sayings, teachings, revelations, etc.

Adam was the original man who God literally spoke and breathed into existence. I am not Adam. I don't have the perfection that Adam possessed originally. However, I am of the same kind and essence as Adam. While we are not identical and I have flaws due to sin, it is completely true to say that both of us are men by every essential comparison.

This illustrates the relationship between the original autographs and later copies and translations. God created perfectly but man's fallibility caused flaws both in copying and translation. But, there has been no loss of completeness nor essence. Our translations can rightly be called the Word of God because they are essentially the same while not identical.

 

AV Bunyan,

Some of your points are quite reasonable. I can well understand the line of reasoning which sees the KJB as THE word of God during much of the past couple centuries. God MUST approve of the KJB or He would have had to provide an alternative.

However I think the fact that the KJB only came about in 1611 means that His word had to have existed prior to this. As such the KJB onviously has not been the only form of the "word of God" which has existed.

Regarding the originals - we don't have them! Since each Greek text is unique, even within text traditions, It seems that from early times God did not provide for ONE EXCLUSIVE copy of His word. Indeed prior to the emergence of the KJB one would have needed to trust in the Vulgate, one of many Greek texts - or both? Indeed the vulgate existed for roughly 1000 years before Greek texts were in wide circulation. Thus the vulgate must be looked on with approval - but yet must not the KJB progenitor Greek texts (in existence at the same time as the vulgate ALSO be the word of God? As such it becomes difficult to isolate ONLY ONE word of God. Even the venerable KJV underwent several revisions.

And now in "modern times" we see several other translations having emerged. They have been translated with skill and have gained wide acceptance in Christendom.

So my question is for what reason does the chain of inspiration conclude with the KJB?

 

It concludes with the KJV, Gods inspired Word to the English speaking people.

 

KJVBT,

"It concludes with the KJV, Gods inspired Word to the English speaking people."

I realize this is YOUR position. But my question is why this must be so - given the chain of inspiration.

 

That is your own fault. The resources needed to learn Greek and Hebrew are readily availiable here in America and are very reasonably priced. I purchased a CD Rom that has the entire first year of Greek study resources on it for less that $50 and the Berry TR-KJV interlinear NT for $20.

Studying the original languages gives me greater respect for the English translations we have and all the work that goes into them.

 

No one? They deceive THEMSELVES because they did not realize, YET. Look at me! I used NASB for 10 years. Did I deceive MYSELF when I use the NASB? Yes, of course! I did not deceive anyone but myself. When I learned the NASB is NOT the word of God, then I realize I deceived myself already.

NIV or NASB? Which is most accurate? The NIV has 6,500 false word of God; the NASB has 4,000+ false word of God. Are NIV and NASB the word of God? Absolutely not.

You did not realize, yet. Look at me -- I was naive to use the NASB until I saw obvious evidences then I realized I was deceived to use the false word of God that I hold, namely NASB for 10 years. </font>[/QUOTE]Askjo, I was raised KJV. I preached for years from the KJV. Then I saw the fallacies of what I was taught. I have not been deceived, and nobody from the MV position is trying to intentionally deceive anyone. Just like Michelle, you fail to address the subject of underlying texts used to translate before you start hurling accusations of having "false word of God", whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess you are referring to the common misrepresentations that KJVO's make against the MV's by saying they "leave out", "take away", "delete", "omit" or whatever you want to call it. They do no such thing. They are true to their underlying texts, and the doctrines are all intact, as are all the fundamentals of the faith. If you feel you were deceived, then it was because you deceived yourself. The KJV is a VERSION, just as the NIV, NASB and others are. It's a shame that the KJVO's won't wake up to that fact and intentionally misrepresent the facts.

AVL1984

 

Based on what? The doctrinal soundness of the translators... how about their zeal to eliminate all the "hereticks" such as Baptists, Separatists, and Independents... or their non-existent claims of inspiration or even that they were "Apostles or prophets"?

You have simply made an assumption with nothing other than your own opinion as a "final authority".

 

KJVBT:It concludes with the KJV, Gods inspired Word to the English speaking people.

Proof, please?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Studying the original languages gives me greater respect for the English translations we have and all the work that goes into them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't have a problem with this. This is fine. But when you come and try to tell me and others, that my Bible, the scriptures are in ERROR due to your vain interpretation of the Greek and Hebrew, then I HAVE A PROBLEM. I also have a problem with the hypocracy exposed of many who claim their condoning of the mv's because of the language of the KJB. To sit there and give the excuse that the KJB is too difficult for the common man to read and understand today (as if it was some sort of foreign language on its own - to which is false and a lie), to then turn around and say we need to learn and understand the Greek and Hebrew is HYPOCRACY! and it is the ONLY WAY ONE CAN justify their condonement of those obvious errors in the mv's. This is unacceptable to me, and I outright reject and oppose it, and call it for what it is.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle wrote:

Because I don't KNOW OR SPEAK HEBREW AND GREEK.

Most people, when they realize their ignorance, try to remedy it.

Diehard KJV-onlyists demand that it become the standard for everyone else.

You gotta laugh.

. .
. .
. .

 

--------------------------------------------------
KJVBT:It concludes with the KJV, Gods inspired Word to the English speaking people.

Proof, please?
--------------------------------------------------


If you own the true Bible, out of the plethora of counterfits you probably also own, open up the KJB and start reading from Gen.1 - Rev.22:21. Therein lies your PROOF. Then, feel free to compare it with the counterfits, and you will clearly see the true, from the real. And you don't even have to know the Greek and Hebrew languages to see it and know it. One more word of advice - Don't ignore the voice of the Lord speaking to you when you encounter it. You however, will not be able to do this, if you keep the shades of doubt and of a false label/bias upon your eyes.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle