THE WORD OF GOD

Brian,

The KJV has been laid aside for the simple reason that it is "archaic" and "hard to understand." Yet, many people still love and read it and are blessed by it everyday. As the Word of God, it is "quick" and "powerful;" it is a "living" Book.

Now I have heard the statement made here that in order to fully understand God's Word, you must have a working knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek. So the arguement to me is circular reasoning: "The KJV is archaic and employs Elizabethan English that we no longer understand. The answer to that is get a version that employs modern, contemporary English. But, to understand this fully, you must learn Hebrew and Greek so you know what it is really saying."

I think it shows greater faith to believe that God gave us a perfect Bible that conveys exactly what He would have us to know. Hebrew and Greek surely adds valuable insight to some words and phrases contained in the Word of God, but I do not think it is neccessary.

I have never referenced the ancient languages when I was leading a person to the Lord. I never extrapolate words when I am teaching children the truths of God's Word. I simply quote the verses and allow the Holy Spirit to do His work. It is the Word of God that is powerful; not our explaination of those verses. Therefore, the English is sufficient in the overwhelming majority of cases.

You asked the following question:

Faith does not "demand" a perfect Bible; faith accepts a perfect Bible. Faith in an imperfect translation is not really faith in God, it is faith in man. God is able to use imperfect translations, that is why I am not "hard-core" KJVO to the point that salvation depends upon which version you used when you were saved.

I have thought long and hard on a statement that you made a few days back. You said that, in your opinion, I was not really KJVO. I'll agree with you that I do not fit the description that is placed on KJVO's as a whole. My answer to the question, "Was there a perfect Bible in 1605?" would be a rather lengthy one and one that you probably do not expect so I'll save it for another time.

God Bless.

Eric, You are right. I would love see these dicussions remain civil and Christ-like. I judge a post largely by the demeanor in which it is written. If the attitude is wrong, the information to me is worthless. If the attitude is right, I'll read it with an open mind.

 

This is so typical. When truth, logic, and history, disprove the outrageous claims of the kJVO, they appeal to that which is outside of rational thought.

Homebound, you have been shown the error of your thinking. You have been asked why the KJV corrected the Geneva. You have been asked why God inspired so many english Bibles before the KJV but now the KJV is superior. You have been shown the faulty connections you are superimposing on the Bible. In spite of all of this, you refuse to answer. You run and hide and resort to some kind of escape route.

This is exactly why a conversation/thread with a KJVO can never happen. You point out truth, and they tell you you correct or doubt God. You point out truth, and they ask why you don't believe that the God who spoke the world into existence can preserve one particular english translation (even if it isn't the original english translation). You point out truth, and they tell you they don't believe in a God of confusion. You point out truth, and they say that God promised to preserve his word (but not the originals or even the pre-KJV english bibles).

Where is this going to lead people? I will tell you. This theology (KJVO) keeps people (intentionally or otherwise) in the dark and stunts spiritual maturity. Truth is rejected in favor of feeling. I think it is an assault on God's Word and he is not impressed.

As a pastor, I will never allow a KJVO to join the church because of their doctrine. I am not going to allow people into the church to promote false doctrine. Just so you know, I cannot stand the NIV or NLT. I believe in a literal translation only.

KJVO - STOP QUESTIONING THE AUTHORITY OF GOD'S WORD BY INVENTING PROMISES HE NEVER MADE.

Out like my tolerance for those who question God's Word.

[ October 30, 2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]

 

Preach,

Way to call a spade a spade. I will never attack a person for using a different version from what I prefer. I may debate the reasoning behind their choice, but if they have a rational reason behind their decision, they have the right before God to make that choice for themselves. Soul liberty is a Baptist disctinctive, after all.

But so is the sole authority of Scripture, and that's where KJVOs become modern day Gnostics, believing that they have some special revelation from God that non-KJVOs are unable to grasp.

If Scripture taught one translation, then we could debate which one. It doesn't. Not only do KJVOs add to the Word of God by saying it teaches something it doesn't, they also deny the sufficiency of Scripture by effectively claiming some "inner light" (a Quaker belief that early Baptists repudiated), which allows them to mystically identify which version is "perfect."

My only point of disagreement with you is that I will try to tolerate KJVOs. I won't tolerate the false doctrine.

 

No one is saying to lay the KJV aside. We are saying KJV-onlyism should be laid aside. I too love the KJV and read it and believe it is the word of God, quick and powerful.

I have never made that argument.

I thought you just said you were against circular arguments. How do you which Bible to accept as perfect? "By faith" Where are Christians told to have this kind of faith? Which perfect Bible should a person living in 1605 accept by faith?

I said that I didn't consider you "KJV-only" because previously you said (I can't find the quote right now) something like there are other Bibles that can be called the "word of God" besides the KJV. I have pointed out several times that KJV-only is about KJV-only. Maybe I should ask for more clarification: what Bible(s), specifically, are also the word of God besides the KJV?

The fact that it would be lengthy already has me a bit skeptical. I don't need a history lesson on manuscripts, church politics, language differences, etc. All these things dance around the issue. The answer is short, simple and easy. But remember the second part of the question - the answer must not contradict KJV-onlyism. In other words, any word differences from the KJV, etc. Recently, the poster KJVONLY answered the "Geneva". I told him he was correct, but I then showed him some word differences between the Geneva and the KJV. I have not seen him around here since. Every other KJV-only supporter who has tried to answer the question, has danced around the question, just like I told you they would.

Homebound recently said that God is perfect, and therefore a perfect translation must exist. I don't agree, but for the sake of argument, I accepted that statement. Therefore, there must be a perfect translation in 1605. And if KJV-onlism is true, that perfect translation must not be any different from the KJV. If such a Bible exists, it should be ***really*** easy to identify.

[ October 30, 2002, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Siegfried, thank you for your kind words. You are always a voice of reason when sanity is most needed. Can I confer upon you an honorary doctorate?

I only said that I do not tolerate those who question God's Word. You seemed to understand that as KJVO. Interesting connection. I will ponder that some more...

 

Now that's a topic we should take up in another thread. I personally abhor honorary doctorates (almost as much as I abhor self-conferred doctorates, but we don't need to bring up names).

That's not to say there's no place for honorary doctorates. Just that Baptists (especially fundamentalists) need to declare a moratorium and rethink the whole idea.

So to answer your question, I respectfully decline.

 

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Jimslade: "I started this thread because I am sick and
tired of people condeming me for using the NKJV."

May God bless Brother Jimslade for using the NKJV.
Furthermore, may God bless Brother Jimslade,
his family, and his ministry. May this request be
granted that we might give all the more honor
and glory to our blessed Lord and Savior: Messiah Yeshua.
Amen.

Ed's stand:
The inerrant written word of God is preserved
for our age in each English Version.

Eric_b: "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."

Amen, Brother Eric_b -- Preach it!

Pastor Bob 63: //The KJV has been laid aside for the simple reason
that it is "archaic" and "hard to understand."
Yet, many people still love and read it and are
blessed by it everyday. As the Word of God,
it is "quick" and "powerful;" it is a "living" Book.//

Amen, Brother Pastor Bob 63 -- Preach it!
Ed's stand:
The inerrant written word of God is preserved
for our age in each English Version.
Subset of Ed's stand:
The inerrant written word of God is preserved
for our age in each of the three KJVs.

BryanT: "I too love the KJV and read it and believe
it is the word of God, quick and powerful. "

Amen, Brother BryanT -- Preach it!

BryanT: "Every other KJV-only supporter
who has tried to answer the question, has danced
around the question, just like I told you they would."

Baptists dancing???? the shame

 

When we claim inerrancy, we do not claim this for every copy presently in our hands. We claim inerrancy for the original manuscripts.

When all the documents that have survived history are put together, we have enough information to give a reasonably accurate record of God's word.

Some people got all upset a few years ago over the Red Sea/ Reed Sea controversy. This has nothing to do with scripture in a sense, except most versions refer to the crossing of the Red Sea. Whichever sea it was, does not alter the miracle of the timing of the crossing, the crossing itself and God's intended actions of that event.

So it is with translations. We tend to get all uptight about a word here and a word there, nuances and even the omission of spurious verses.

Whatever copy of the bible you read and learn more about the Word,,,,,,,and I do mean the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is in essence the Word of God...will serve the purposes of God,,,,,putting a reliable document in the hands of His people.

I stick with the KJV because I started out with it. All my reference books use the KJV, RV and the RSV. My memorization is in the KJV, so it is convenient for me to work in this version of scripture.

Duvall and Hays (Grasping God's Word) point out this: "We are separated from the biblical audience by culture and customs, language, situation, and a vast expanse of time." I doubt very much that a word here and a word there will greatly affect these things. Let's get a grasp of these things and hence a better understanding of God's word to us, and not fight over which translation is best.

Cheers,

Jim

[ October 30, 2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Jim1999: "When we claim inerrancy, we do not claim this for
every copy presently in our hands. We claim
inerrancy for the original manuscripts."

When we claim inerrancy, we claim this for
every copy presently in our hands.
Ed's stand:
The inerrant written word of God is preserved
for our age in each English Version.

 

Thank you for saying this for me, DW.

I'm going to have to remember to log her
out and log me in

 

Bryan
"I wish that all the enemies of the AV1611 would consider the wickedness of their "position". You folks that think that there is no perfect Bible, but the "original manuscripts", are taking sides with the devil in seeking to destroy the word of God. Even if you didn't have enough sense to believe in a perfect Bible, you ought to have enough sense to keep your mouths shut in public, instead of standing on the platform with atheists and unbelievers, and taking their side in saying that the Bible is in ERROR. Everytime you say there are mistakes in the Bible, and that the Bible is "subject to human error", you DENY the divine authorship of the Book that made known to you your Saviour! You are siding with YOUR ENEMIES when you attack YOUR Saviour's WORDS!! To claim that ONLY the "originals" were perfect, is to say that the Bible has LIES in it. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes at the Judgment Seat of Christ! "

Jim
"When we claim inerrancy, we do not claim this for every copy presently in our hands. We claim inerrancy for the original manuscripts."

Bryan
"And WHERE are these "original manuscripts"?

Jim
"When all the documents that have survived history are put together, we have enough information to give a reasonably accurate record of God's word."

Bryan
"What? A 'reasonably accurate record"?? Is that like saying a "somewhat erroneous record"? Or, "A record that is full of LIES"??
YEA, HATH GO SAID?????"

Jim
"Some people got all upset a few years ago over the Red Sea/ Reed Sea controversy. This has nothing to do with scripture in a sense, except most versions refer to the crossing of the Red Sea. Whichever sea it was, does not alter the miracle of the timing of the crossing, the crossing itself and God's intended actions of that event.

So it is with translations. We tend to get all uptight about a word here and a word there, nuances and even the omission of spurious verses."

Bryan
"Why shouldn't we get upset about "a word here and a word there"?? And who is the "authority" to say what is a "spurious verse"? YOU? Don't you know the devil LOVES Christians that think it is OK to mess with a word "here and there"? ALL he did in the garden is put a little "not" into God's command! ONE little word! A LIE that brought damnation upon the whole human race! Oh yeah, lets not get all worked up over a word "here and there" that is missing...."don't mean nuthin'".....SURE, bud...SURE."

Whatever copy of the bible you read and learn more about the Word,,,,,,,and I do mean the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is in essence the Word of God...will serve the purposes of God,,,,,putting a reliable document in the hands of His people.

Bryan
"Why, you poor, poor critter! You get all mad about a man standing up and saying the "King James Bible is THE word of God!", then turn around, after attacking the Bible, and saying all manner of evil against it, and say we have a "RELIABLE document"! "Reliable"????? A "document" with LIES all in it, according to those folks who hate it?? Why, you wouldn't find me saying that about ANY so-called "HOLY Bible", if I thought for one minute that that Bible wasn't "HOLY". Why call a Bible "HOLY" if it is not the perfect word of the perfect God? You really think it is HOLY? I mean, the Book you have in your hand, that says "HOLY Bible" on the front...and you say is NOT perfect, but has LIES in it...you really think it is "RELIABLE"? C'mon, man, c'mon...! "

I stick with the KJV because I started out with it. All my reference books use the KJV, RV and the RSV. My memorization is in the KJV, so it is convenient for me to work in this version of scripture.

Duvall and Hays (Grasping God's Word) point out this: "We are separated from the biblical audience by culture and customs, language, situation, and a vast expanse of time." I doubt very much that a word here and a word there will greatly affect these things. Let's get a grasp of these things and hence a better understanding of God's word to us, and not fight over which translation is best.

Bryan
"We are connected to the Biblical audience by NATURE. We are ALL "of Adam". The Bible, as a spiritual Book, speaks to ALL people, from ALL customs. Again, to "blow off" the issue, and say that a "word here and there" is not important, is to take sides with the devil, and think that God's "original" manuscripts were not important enough to Him to keep around, but instead, He let them get corrupted in the process of translation....so now we are left to our own opinions, molded by our "studies", to be our final authority in determining what is TRUE and what is ERROR."

 

So do we.

 

I shall retire from ministry instantly..Wait,I am already retired.

Your castigation upon one who has served his Lord all these years and taught many who went out to reach even more with the truth of God, as we know it, is noted and appropriately filed for future reference.

I know men who don't accept the bible who speak more kindly of senior men who have so served the book.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Perfectly preserved in the NASB

 

The same ones who "lets" Bible [the rest of the post has been editted because of a personal attack].

[ November 11, 2002, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]

 

i think the human race has a tendecy to mess w/ anything it can. i personally own 1 thompsons chain reference;scofield;dakes all kjv + thomas nelson open bible nkjv+ 1 niv,thought i was doing ok ,but now after reading these 4 pages on this forum i'm really confused now! when i was'nt saved i don't think it mattered that much. praise the lord he was still able to find me & save me!
hope this helps ...bill
just remember ya'll jesus still loves us !!!

 

I really wish I could take a vacation with my wife every now and then...

I apologize to those who have been offended by this discussion. Untill I can sort out this problem, I am going to close this topic. Please everyone, if you want to continue to have these discussions, leave the insults and attacks on each other out of it.

Thank You,

Joseph Botwinick
Moderator