THE WORD OF GOD

Jimslade
"The word of GOD is the teaching that comes from the scriptures and they are found in KJV,NIV,NKJV,and some other modern manuscripts."

"I am tired of christians who cant read a word of greek or hebrew argueing about Bible versions. "

Well, Jim, I happen to be tired of Christians who CAN read Greek and Hebrew, who think THEY are some sort of "authority" on CORRECTING God's revelation to us. IF, like you say, the word of God is "the teaching" that is found in all Bibles, then WHO is the one that is the authority, to tell us what is right, and what is wrong? What IS the "word of God", and what is not? You see, to say that all the "Bibles" are the word of God, and can be trusted, is a little scary. ALL the "Bibles" do NOT agree. There are contradictions. There is, however, a phenomenon, characteristic of ALL "bibles", when they are stacked up alongside a King James Bible; they all tend to agree amongst themselves AGAINST the AV. WHO is the "judge" to determine what IS, and what IS NOT to be trusted as the word of God? Two conflicting "authorites" cannot both be the FINAL AUTHORITY. It is either the AV 1611, or the "new" versions. And when you have BOTH, then YOU (or anybody, or any scholar) become the FINAL AUTHORITY.. for you "choose" the reading you "like best". We all know, or should, where this type of thing started..Genesis, chapter 3. The serpent asked the very first question in the Bible..."Yea, HATH GOD SAID?" He questioned the word of God. It is going on right now. In the margin of your "new" bible, look there at the little stuff like: "This verse is not found in oldest mss.", or "the best authorities say this means..", or "yea, hath God said this...??" This whole thing leaves the Christian without a written authority on which to depend. You say, "Christ is our authority." Yes, but can you see Him? Have you actually heard Him audibly? IF you did hear someone, HOW do you KNOW it was the Holy Spirit? It could have been a devil. How do you know, unless you have some way by which to "judge" the "voice", or "thought", and find out if it is in line with what God SAID? Can't you see, that when a scholar, or school, or preacher, or teacher, comes along and says "the Greek says...", or "the Hebrew says....", that he is simply telling you that you have to come to him in order to rightly understand the Bible, since YOU don't know Greek and Hebrew, and since the Authorized Version is filled with errors? They are trying to take your sword from you, brethren! The devil has made it so that you don't have to depend on God, but depend on your "lexicons", and "scholars", who MAY be deceived, just like you! YOU become a "god", just like it started way back in the garden. YOU become the "final authority", and if YOU "don't like" a verse, just find a manuscript, or bible, that has eliminated that verse, and then call it "God's word".

Question: If God inspired the "originals" (II Tim. 3:16), WOULD God allow them to "get lost", so that we, in the end times, would not have a copy of what God SAID?

 

I would like to suggest that this thread should be renamed to "Why Non-KJVO's are Evil" because that seems to more accurately capture the point of the previous two posts. Sorry to interrupt, guys, by all means continue to vent...

Eric

 

Welcome to the forum, NewMan. Why does it have to be limited to a single version? What happens to the logic of your argument if we apply it consistently across history: what was the FINAL AUTHORITY in 1605 and why should anyone reject it and replace it with the KJV?

See Luke 17:36 in a 1611 reprint.

Did the KJV-translator/scholars try to take the sword away from those who already had a final authority?

2 Tim 3:16 does not mention "originals", so the rest of your question is a strawman. We have God's word - both before 1611 and after it.

 

...If God inspired the "originals" (II Tim. 3:16), WOULD God allow them to "get lost",

Before I comment, note that the 2Tim referrs to the Old Testament, not the New Testament (much of which had not even been written yet).

At the time of Jesus, the original manuscripts had probably long since been lost, and what was being used then were manuscripts that had been transcribed from previous transcriptions.

We must accept the possibility that transcriptions are occaisionally subject to human error.

 

Jim, put a another log on the fire and relax
Whether one preferes the Byzantine or the Alexandrian text types, whether one prefers KJV or NIV, might be important issues, but not THAT important.

 

Good post NewMan795.

 

Who said the KJV is the final authority? God... where?... or was it you and others like you?

You have adequately demonstrated your point. When you question good translations such as the NASB, NKJV, ESV, etc., you are questioning the Word of God. ...hath God said? In deed.

Yes. This is called scholarly integrity. The KJV translators had it... many MV translators have/had it. Only KJVO's seemed to be lacking it.

How do you know who you heard? Who told you that the KJV was the only acceptable English version?

Of course... or perhaps it could have been you the Devil was speaking to?

The Word of God is the Sword. Unless you have scripture that says my Sword is not approved by God while yours is then you are simply doing Satan's work by dividing the brethren with the sword of your willful tongue.

Of course, we could just stick with a version that some people find hard to understand because it is not written in the language they speak... and of course they have to go to a fine KJVO preacher so he can tell them what the Bible says. And we should do this because YOU said so.

...or just like 17th century Anglican scholars... some of whom hated and persecuted Baptist.

... or perhaps it is you that wishes to lord over God by demanding that He provide something that He did not choose to do... a perfectly, exclusively worded English version of the Word.

And what are you making yourself out to be not only for yourself but for others as well? If God didn't say to only use the KJV or that only the KJV was the Word of God in English then who are YOU to put words in His mouth? Truly... hath God said?

Apparently so...

But since we have over 5000 mss plus over 20,000 other evidential documents to prove what the message was, we don't have to worry about having lost God's Word even though the originals have been long gone.

[ October 28, 2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Well. First, I would like to say, nobody "offended" me. I am doing jus' fine. Let me ask you something though:

Which sounds more like God:

A. We have a perfect Bible without error, that we can depend on as the words of God.

B. We do not have a perfect Bible, but one full of errors, and mis-translations (call them lies), and we always have the option of a "better" version if we don't like what the one we have says.

?????

 

Neither! However, if you can cite the passage in any version of the Bible that says exactly the words of either of these statements, I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

But knowing that such scripture does not exist, I must ask, why do you insist upon putting words into God's mouth or limiting Him to two possibilites defined by you?

 

I believe we are here to plant the seed and the Holy Spirit to water it. Are we to plant corrupt/bad seed? I seriously doubt it.

One question I have is, why not a perfect translation? I've said this before and I'll say it again, "God is perfect, therefore EVERYTHING God does is perfect." How hard is this.

Why the KJV? One reason is because it contradicts all other MVs. Another is because it has power, conviction power that is.

 

I have already answered your question. God was perfect in 1605, so if there was a perfect translation in 1605 then the KJV should not have corrected or replaced it. The whole KJV-only concept is proven false by the very existence of the KJV.

 

The average person in the streets or in the pews does not know which copy of scriptures is most accurate. The one they read and understand is conveying what God wants them to know. I am happy with that.

We develop a theology in order to systematize the disorderly fashion in which the bible is written. A basic rule is that we do not make a doctrine out of any one proof text. With this in mind, any and all translations, despite their inadequacies, can and do point people to God and His saving grace. For this we give thanks to God.

For those of us who understand Greek and Hebrew, there is still the question of interpretation of some, yea, many words in isolation without a solid understanding of culture, a people of the times, and the local understanding of that language.

Rather than hinging what we believe on the very words used in any translation, we should concentrate on thoughts and concepts. We should see the word as it was spoken at the time, and to whom it was addressed. Then, develop the theological principle then and how it applies to us now. This can be done with any of the older or modern translations.

We can have a preference as how any translation reads, but we must be aware that no one translation is absolutely accurate and each one comes with a bias of sorts, including the King James Version, which had a bent toward the Anglican Church, and some words are so translated.

Let's just promote the Word; even the Lord Jesus Himself.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I have already answered your question. God was perfect in 1605, so if there was a perfect translation in 1605 then the KJV should not have corrected or replaced it. The whole KJV-only concept is proven false by the very existence of the KJV.[/QB][/QUOTE]

God was perfect when the first book of 66 books of the Bible was written. But, other books were written.

I thought the MVs were to improve the KJV. Instead they contradict it.

Please tell me, if the King James Version is not God's perfect Word, what is.

 

I agree. Please don't change the subject, but deal with the point about the KJV correcting the perfect translation of 1605.

That's what I'm asking YOU. Since a perfect version must have existed in 1605, and since the KJV cannot be a perfect version because it "corrected" the previous perfect version, please tell me what is the perfect word of God so I can use it instead of the KJV.

[ October 29, 2002, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Here is a site to answer that question. http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/preservedcopies.asp

 

Often a good thing. Romans 3:4 and at least 9 other NT verses have the phrase, "May it not be." The KJV mistranslates this as "God forbid." If God wanted Himself in a direct reference, why did he not inpire Paul to write it that way? Your Anglican Bible attempts to correct Paul, and thus disregards divine authorship of what he wrote.

 

Sorry, but that site does not answer the question. It does not explain what the perfect translation in 1605 was, nor why the KJV "corrected" it. Homebound, surely you understand the point I am making.