God Is!

The Bible is not the Word of God, however, the Bible is the word of God.

Word of God = Jesus
word of God = Bible

 

while I did vote yes I now need to explain. In the original texts the word was all of God, but in today's translations I realize that there is some error small as it may be. When teaching I try and pont those places out when possible.

 

We're having freeatlast's debate on another thread...

This question seems to be is the entire Bible God's Word or not?

If not, where does one draw the line?

I've spent the past 25 years in intensive study, including learning Greek and Hebrew. I've read over 200 books dealing with the subject of the Bible, canon of Scripture, hermeneutics, etc. I have NO CLUE where one would draw the line between a Bible that "has some of God's words in it" and a Bible that is "God's Word."

We don't have to get into a fine-tuned discussion of translation issues, KJVO, etc., in order to say that. If we do, are we not then deciding that SOME of what is in the Bible is actually NOT God's Word?

 

I voted yes. I believe the KJB is the inerrant and preserved (complete) Word of God in English. I believe any translation faithful to the same text used for the KJB would be the inerrant Word of God in that language.

I do not believe the versions based on the Critical Text are the inerrant Word of God.

 

It depends on what YOU mean when you say, "bible".

If you are referring to the King James Version or ANY version the answer is simply- no.

They are VERSIONS OF THE WORD OF GOD.

If you read Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables" in English, are you reading the words of Victor Hugo?

No, you are not. You are reading an English translation of the words of Victor Hugo. In point of fact the translator may indeed have poorly translated some of Hugo's remarks from French to English. You cannot hold the English VERSION OF Hugo's work in your hand and say honestly- "I hold in my hands the very words of Victor Hugo." The simple FACT is that it is not the words of Victor Hugo.

Now, if, on the other hand, you mean by the term "bible" that truth has been preserved by God- that he has walked his word down through the ages and has made certain any part of it has not been destroyed- that we have in the plethora of manuscripts brilliantly and perfectly preserved the Words of God-

If that is what you mean by the Bible, then YES, we have the very Word of God today.

It is also important to note that good translations communicate the Word of God to us. Good translations, like the King James, are filled with the Word of God in the sense of it's message and truth. Good translations are reliable and dependable just as a good translation of "Les Miserables" would be.

 

Then you deny that the translating of the KJB is the works of men? You purport a new doctrine that the KJB is a version without error perfectly translated via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

This is a new doctrine that the church has never believed before. It is literally a newer doctrine than the UPC doctrine of tongues being necessary for salvation.

This is a dangerous thing to do to go around willy nilly creating new doctrines that the church in two thousand years has never believed.

Even the KJV translators did not believe it.

This is a dangerous practice that is on the rise the past 75-100 years.

 

I have never said the KJB translators were inspired. In fact, I have repeatedly said they were not.

I believe the scriptures were preserved in the Received Text the KJB translators used to make their translation. I personally do not believe the Critical text to be the preserved and inerrant text.

I do believe that God is still active in the affairs of man, and that God brought about the Reformation and the earlier translations. I believe the KJB translators were probably the best group of scholars concerning the ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramiac ever assembled and that they did an excellent and accurate job of translating the original langauages from the correct texts.

The issue is not translation. Some of the MVs are very good translations. My pastor said the NASB is an "excellent translation", only it is a translation of a corrupt text. He said the NIV is a very poor translation of a corrupt text.

The Critical Text and Received Text cannot both be the preserved and inerrant Word of God. The Critical Text is missing nearly 3000 words in the Greek text, nearly 200 complete verses, and several complete passages. Either the Critical Text has taken away from God's word, or the Received Text has added to it (both of which are strictly forbidden in the scriptures), but they cannot both be preserved and inerrant.

If the Critical Text provides 90% of God's word and omits 10%, then it is neither preserved or inerrant. But that is not the only issue, in some verses the Critical Text and Received Text are completely different and contradict each other.

If someone tried to sell you a '65 Mustang and said it was completely preserved, and then you found it was missing the engine, the transmission, and all the doors, would you buy it? I wouldn't. And would you believe the salesman if he argued that all the parts that were there were original, so this car was completely preserved? Only a fool would fall for a story like that.



Here you go, here is a preserved 65 Mustang I have for sell. Don't tell me it isn't preserved, all the parts on this baby are 100% original. And I'm only asking $30,000 for it!

 

No, no. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth dear brother.

You said the "KJB is the inspired infallible word of God". That is what you said. Plain and simple.

Then you come over the top of that and say that it is not about the translation but about the text. Which is it?

Is the Kjb the inspired word of God or not?

We can't deal with this other stuff about the differences between the texts until you pick a concrete position on whether or not the "KJB is the inspired word of God".

If you believe that versions are inspired then you believe a new doctrine introduced by, what I believe, are ignorant people with sincere intentions. But ignorant people with sincere intentions have been responsible for some of the greatest travesties in human history.

Many people have legitimate differences on the texts and have through the ages. But this idea that the "KJB is the inspired, infallible word of God" is fringe, near cultist type doctrine.

Versions are not inspired nor infallible. Do you agree or disagree?

 

:thumbs: Winman!

Please read Winman's post carefully Luke....it doesn't say "KJB is the inspired infallible word of God". What the above post does say is "I voted yes. I believe the KJB is the inerrant and preserved (complete) Word of God in English." The KJB is a translation into the English language from the Received Greek text and Masoretic Hebrew text which are inerrant and preserved.