THE WORD OF GOD

I understand what your point is and that is, 1605, 1600, 1215, 1400, 1611, etc., etc., etc., God's Word was perfect throughout any generation(as the Bible states). What I don't know is what was the name. Maybe someone that has studied it more thoroughly has a good answer.

 

Homebound, apparently you don't understand the point. The point is this:

According to you:
a) God's word is found in one perfect translation
b) every language can claim to have one
c) anything that contradicts the version is evil
d) the KJV is that perfect translation for the english
e) anything that differs from the KJV is evil

Now, based on your logic:
a) God's word is found in one perfect translation
b) the KJV is not the only or even original english translation
c) the KJV contradicted what the original english translation was
d) God's word must have existed before the KJV
e) the KJV contradicts the earlier english translations
f) the KJV must be evil because it denies the providential preservation of a perfect english translation

Do you follow all of that. Why do the KJVO ignore this? Why won't they answer? If your argument is so foolproof, demonstrate that for us all.

 

I don't think you do. Preach The Word's comments definitely help make my point clearer. KJV-onlyism demands a "perfect" Bible. If the KJV is that perfect Bible, than all Bibles before it were not perfect, for they all differ from the KJV (if they did not differ, the KJV did not need to be produced in 1611, since it already would have existed). Thus the KJV-only concept of perfect preservation breaks down - what exactly is the KJV a perfect preservation of if it's different?

Flip side, let's pretend your comments about the necessity of a perfect translation is correct. Suppose the year is 1605, and I have this hypothetical perfect translation (you need not name it) in my hand. A few short years later, the KJV is published - what happens to my perfect translation? Does it suddenly become imperfect? Or instead, does it remain perfect and the KJV (where it differs) contain imperfections?

Homebound, you do not need to identify a specific perfect Bible in 1605. That is not the point of the question. As you think about the question, you should quickly realize that *any* answer to the question exposes the fundamental problem with the KJV-only view.

To help you understand this better, suppose someone claimed that the 1978 NIV was the "perfect" translation, and it was the perfect translation because God is perfect and therefore it must be the perfect translation, and anything different from the NIV is a corruption. How could you possibly refute this? Wouldn't you ask him where was the perfect translation in 1970, and remind him that if the NIV is perfect, then the perfect Bible did not exist before 1978?

All you (and other KJV-onlyists) are doing is moving the date back a few hundred years, but you are stuck with the same logical paradox.

[ October 29, 2002, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

"Faith seeking understanding" not "understanding seeking faith." Faith comes through hearing the word of God (not a book, but a person) not through a perfect bible.

 

You know, God did say that He was not the author of confusion. We have so many versions today that say they are the Word of God and each one contradicts the other. That my friend sounds like confusion to me. So, there must be a book to clear up the confusion, a perfect book.

As far as God's Word goes, it has always been perfect. Today, it is the King James Version. If for some strange reason a MSS is found today adding to the KJV which supports and does not contradict it, then so be it, welcome aboard new MSS. I very seriously doubt this will ever happen. Maybe this is what happen, the Bible was perfect until another MSS was found that added to, but did not contradict it. I don't know, maybe Pastor Bob 63 can give some insight.

 

In the 1611 KJV, the translators' marginal note on "confusion" in that verse indicates the word means "tumult", not an individual uncertainty because they don't understand something better.

Besides, the KJV was the 17th complete English Bible. So if multiple versions = confusion, then the KJV *added* to the confusion of the 17th century.

So you believe the issue is about what we can fit in without obvious contradiction (as defined by who?), and not accurately what was originally penned? Besides, I've already listed some examples in another thread of where the KJV is "missing" scripture, such as Psa 145:13, Acts 4:25, Jude 1:25 and Phil 1:14. As well, how can the KJV be "perfect" if it is "missing" stuff, and yet MVs get slammed for the this very thing?

 

Missing what scripture? Accordingly to who or what?

How do we know what was originally penned?

I guess my stand is by faith.

 

What's so confusing? Please give us one example of how the New King James or NASB contradicts the King James.

Eric

 

What's so confusing? Please give us one example of how the New King James or NASB contradicts the King James.

Eric</font>[/QUOTE]One example of many: Daniel 3:24-25. Just how many gods are there?

 

There is one God, but as a pagan Nebuchadnezzar believed in many gods, so that's what he said. If you look at the Hebrew the word is in the plural.

Eric

 

There is one God, but as a pagan Nebuchadnezzar believed in many gods, so that's what he said. If you look at the Hebrew the word is in the plural.

Eric</font>[/QUOTE]Why must I study Hebrew and Greek just to get what God was saying? I have a hard enogh tme wth engles. See what I mean.

Here's another: 1 Corinthians 1:18; saved, or going through the process as Roman Catholics believe.

 

Homebound, you believe that the King James English translation corrects problems with the Greek and Hebrew? I think that where the King James differs from the manuscripts, the manuscripts need to be trusted. I guess you believe the opposite. Btw, nothing in 1Cor 1:18 in any translation I have seen implies salvation by works, you need to read Scripture in context.

Here's a sampling of some translations for another passage which might put your fears to rest:

Ephesians 2:8-9 :: New International Version (NIV)
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 :: New Living Translation (NLT)
8God saved you by his special favor when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. 9Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.

Ephesians 2:8-9 :: English Standard Version (ESV)
8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 :: New King James Version (NKJV)
8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Eric

 

I'm not exactly sure where the MSS disagree with the King James or the MSS that make it up, but if they do, then those MSS are corrupt. I believe that 90-95% of the MSS agree with the King James. Just a curious question, aren't the MSS gone?

As you may know 1 Corinthians 1:18 talks about how the unsaved see the preaching of the cross to be foolishness, while saved people see it as the power of God. I believe that other versions give a notion that there is a process of being saved. Lucky to the modern version reader they come across Ephesians 2:8-9 to see that is not the case, as you have pointed out.

 

No matter which translation of the Bible you use, if you do not read all of it and study it seriously you open yourself up to all sorts of misunderstandings. This is as true for the King James as anything else. Case in point:

James 2:24 (KJV) Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Obviously, this doesn't mean that the King James teaches salvation by works. You need to read scripture in context, interpret scripture with other scripture, and be familiar with as much as the Bible as possible.

Eric

[ October 30, 2002, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

I agree. Some verses are simple by themselves while other verses need to be read in context.

It's that time again. God bless.

 

HomeBound,

I appreciate the confidence that you place in me. I am not sure that it is merited, but thank you anyway.

I have decided to sit out for a while and just Moderate. This is the same old song, just a different verse. I think we have to accept the fact that the faith we place in the KJV will always be questioned; largely because it is misunderstood.

The Word of God tells us that God's way is perfect (Ps. 18:30) and that His law is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Jesus tells you and I to be perfect (Mat. 5:48). It is through the Word of God that we become perfect (II Tim 3:16,17).

You and I, and others like us, are branded unlearned, ignorant, heretics for believing we have a perfect Bible, given to us by God to accomplish in us what God demands of us.

Take heart in knowing that we are not the first to be ridiculed for taking a stand on the Word of God. Just remember that your attitude and spirit towards those who disagree must be blameless and above reproach.

God Bless,

Pastor Bob

 

That's what I'd like to know, every time a KJV-only supporter points to "missing" verses in the NIV.

Which is greater faith: faith that demands a "perfect" Bible, or a faith that said God's word is preserved despite minor imperfections in translation?

 

No, it is questioned because scripture does not admonish us to have the "KJV-only" kind of faith.

Pastor Bob, we have asked Homebound questions. We have pointed out inconsistencies and other problems in her arguments. We have not seen any real explanations in response. We have not "branded" her anything, let alone the terms you used. Stop misrepresenting, and stop playing the martyr. As a moderator, it is especially unbecoming.

 

As a moderator, Pastor Bob is admonishing us to keep the discussion civil, and I think he has a good point. Both sides so often present their views with what seems like open contempt for the other side, it'd be nice is we could all try "speaking the truth in love" (Eph 4:15) a little more.

Eric