Chapter and Verse

tinytim... you quoted the promise.. the words are pure, tried in a furnace, thou shalt keep them, thou shalt preserve them from this generation... the idea that he promised to preserve poor people, of which are all dead now, is a private interpretation that was originally set up by the NIV committee. the reason the private interpreation was created was b/c you must have God loosing his words in order to justify multiple versions of them.... anyway, verse 6 the subject becomes the words of God. for some more promises of preservation that are "out of context" since God wouldnt dare preserve what he inspired are found in Matthew 24:35, Ps. 119:89, 1 samuel 3:19, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, Isa. 40:8

 

bryan1276... First of all I believe that God did preserve his words, it's just that, it seems that alot of KJVO (especially in WV) love to quote PS 12:6,7 as a proof text. It does not prove, in that passage, that God preserves his words, but he preserves his people (even the dead in Christ are preserved in heaven!) I'll agree that God has preserved his words - in the many manuscripts that have been handed down. By just looking at the 1000's of copies we have to compare, proves that God preserves his words. No other writing over 2000 years old has as many copies. We are the most blessed people in the world to have so many good translations of God's Word. We should be thanking God for blessing us with translations that even an uneducated man can read and understand, instead of trying to prove that only one translation is the correct one.

I looked at the five passages you listed, and none prove KJV is the only preserved word.

Matt 24:35 I agree totally -- Everything Christ says is true, and shall come to pass. Notice the context is prophecy. Everything Christ prophecied will happen, and his prophecies will not pass away until it does.

Ps.119:89 This passage does not prove that when the KJV was translated, and finished, that God declared "That's it, That's the perfect Bible." Notice that the writer used the word "is". That means present tense. They (God's words)were already settled way before 1611. The word "settle" means to stand up, to erect, to set in place, to make firm, as one would a column (Gen 35:20) or altar (Gen 33:20), or monument (1 Sam 15:12) It means that what God has promised will be sure forever.

1 Sam 3:19 This simply means that all of Samuels words were fulfilled.

1 Pet. 1:23-25 the "word" here is clearly the gospel (good news), as the plan of salvation. When I first read vs 23 I thought it could be talking about Christ (The Word) but in it's proper context it clearly means the gospel.
In the International Standard Version it plainly states in vs 25 "but the word of the Lord lasts forever. Now this word is the good news that was announced to you."

And last but not least, Isa 40:8, Again, what God says - you can take to the bank. If he says it will happen -- it will. By the way, what does it mean to "take someone at their word"? Doesn't that mean you can trust them to keep their promises. All five passages simply means that you can take God at his word. His promises are settled in Heaven, and not one will pass away until they come true. God outlined the plan of salvation and that is the only way to Him.

 

Not true. I have collected several examples of the same interpretation that predate the NIV committee by centuries. Some even predate the KJV. Some even predate English being a language.

Are you going to answer my questions about Luther's Bible? How about this one: you said you have no regard for the originals, because the originals are not mentioned in scripture - so why do you take the exact opposite approach and have regard for the KJV even though it too has no mention in scripture? That seems a mite inconsistent to me...

 

True, to ignore it is to not face the issue and play “ostrich” as it were.

My issue:
You asked for specifics, well let’s look at the text in question:

If the KJV is the “inspired or re-inspired” Word(s) of God then why don’t Isaiah 65:1 and Romans 10:20 agree word for word in the “inspired” English?

My answer: It is obvious to me that Paul is using a translation from the Hebrew or he translated it himself. For whatever reason the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek words which did not exactly align with the Hebrew (neither can they).

There can be only one explanation. God understanding the dynamics of human communication allows a degree of latitude when it comes to a translation of His Word(s).

What other explanation can there be?

Why not allow the MVs that latitude.

If there is a disagreement as to the choice of mss or words chosen in the translation, why not offer what you feel is correct or better?

Name-calling, insult and innuendo are totally unnecessary. With these tactics, no one learns anything except the extent that flesh will go to in order to “prove” a point.

HankD

 

Cope said:

The logic you are refuting is bad...but but your argument is equally errant, though in a different way.

No, in the same way. That's the point.

In response:

"Can you give me a chapter or verse that says I'm not God?"

Yes, I can:

1. Did you exist in the beginning?
2. Did you creat the heavens and the earth?

Then Gen. 1:1 should suffice as chapter and verse saying you are not God.

If I answer "yes" to both questions, how do you know I'm not telling the truth?

 

bryan1276 said:

the idea that he promised to preserve poor people, of which are all dead now, is a private interpretation that was originally set up by the NIV committee.

Once again . . . the amazing "proof by time travel"!

 

BrianT. I do find the originals in scripture and I find specifically that God does not care for them Jeremiah 36, 51, Exodus, etc... So I'm saying I find in the Bible a case AGAINST belief in inspiration only for originals.

 

And all God's people said...HUH?

 

Let me rephrase:

You said you are against ONLY the originals, because ONLY the originals are not mentioned in scripture - so why do you take the exact opposite approach and are for ONLY the KJV even though ONLY the KJV has no mention in scripture? That seems a mite inconsistent to me...

BTW, are you going to answer my question about Luther's Bible?

 

I take the position that God preserved what he inspired and he preserved it perfectly and those words are found in the KJV. TOMVOLS. if you read those chapters you find Gods originals being burned and rewritten (Jeremiah36), God commanded that his originals be thrown into a river (jeremiah51), Gods originals being broken and copied anew and a copy of them being just as good as the originals in Exodus when Moses broke the tablets. I missed your question about Luther BrianT. Ask it again and I'll answer it as best I can.

 

You can take whatever position you like. That simply doesn't dispense with all of the problems with your view. I have posted several that you haven't responded to. I understand you can only deal with so much as for responses. However, I have yet to see you post one valid reason (biblical, historical, logical, factual, or otherwise) for believing what you believe.

If you will back up one step and take the whole thing into perspective, you will see that Jeremiah and Moses were inspired writers. What they destroyed were originals... but so were what they replaced them with.

In fact, this is an indirect proof that God allows "words" to be lost or left in doubt without casting any doubt whatsoever on His Word.

You cited Luther's Bible as an acceptable version. Luther's Bible originally didn't contain the trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8. Luther knew Erasmus and many of their Catholic contemporaries. He also knew that this disputed text came from the tradition of the Vulgate, not the original languages.

 

Yes, I know you take that position. I'm asking *why*, since the KJV is never mentioned in scripture as being the perfect preservation.

I asked what the preserved words was before the KJV, and you said Luther's. I said/asked: Luther's Bible is different from the KJV. It doesn't even have 1 John 5:7. If it was the preserved word of God before the KJV, why did the KJV add that verse, and differ on so many others?

 

OK, but this does not address the question concerning the "inspiration" of a translation of the original manuscript or faithful copies of that original manuscript.

If we say that the translations are "inspired" or "re-inspired" then other issues might arise, for instance From Hebrew to which other languages would be inspired? Would the original writer have to do the translation such as Jeremiah? If not would the theological point of view and/or life style of the translator(s) matter?
Just to name a few of many other issues.

HankD

 

Is it not significant to the Onlyists that God chose not to preserve the first copies of His word that He had men write, far as we know? I think it speaks VOLUMES. God does NOT want His word frozen in time as are the works of man, such as Shakespeare's plays.

God is Master of all languages(Jesus is THE WORD, who created a host of languages at Babel at His Father's bidding)and He is Master of all the changes within the languages. He retains the flexibility to present His word in any language, in any form, AS HE CHOOSES. The Onlyist seeks to LIMIT GOD by not allowing Him to have continued to present His word in accordance with the changes in language He has caused or allowed.

Onlyism is a false, man-made doctrine.

 

Fundamental error in defining "originals." "Originals" when in this discussion, refers to things that came from the author's hand, or from an emanuensis writing on his behalf. Therefore, Jer 36, 51, etc. are still the originals, because the author rewrote them. Therefore, your contention fails.