Is your Bible 100% reliable?

Apparently some of the KJV translators were brilliant but ungodly as well as witnessed by their persecution of the Baptist of their day, their doctrines, and their practices.

Maybe the excellence of your church is because the pure Word of God is being heard and not the perverse KJVO non-sense.

Most who care and have prayerfully studied the issue disagree with KJVOnlyism. It is wholly illegitimate for you to assume someone has not studied or followed God's truth if they haven't accepted the false doctrine of KJVOnlyism. There is not a single passage that supports the single version only notion. The example of scripture (KJV- Luke 4:18 v. Isaiah 61:1) demonstrates that even Jesus used a different version of the OT than the one used to translate the KJV.

Perhaps He is at work because this is a Spirit filled congregation being fed through versions of the Bible that they can understand well enough to apply to their lives.

You demonstrate one of my main problems with KJVO... double standards. There is ample evidence that some of the KJV translators were involved in things and taught doctrines that Bible Christians should not be involved in.

Translating or evaluating textual evidence with a different result than that arrived at by a 16th century Roman Catholic and a group of 17th century Anglicans is not mutilating God's Word.

The only folks I see on this board doing this are KJVO's who call versions of God's Word "perverted", "mutilated", et al.

Try over 500 years ago. But you do bring up a good point. If it had been God's intention to preserve His Word in the word for word form demanded by KJVO's, He could have easily allowed man to invent the printing press thousands of years earlier. Instead, He used handcopying in spite of its common inaccuracies.

We have over 5000 "versions" of the Greek NT that all differ from each other. Prior to the 1450's, all Bibles were different from each other in one respect or another. They were still considered God's Word.

In fact with regard to real differences of substance, our translations agree with each other better than the 5 or 6 mss used by Erasmus to collate the TR. If I remember correctly, none of the mss used by him even had all of the NT books.

And you have a problem with people having the Bible in a form they can understand? Communicated instructions are much more effective when spoken in the vernacular of the one who is to carry them out.

You have given absolutely no evidence for this. MV's teach the same doctrines and standards as the KJV. The KJV IS NOT the standard. It is a translation. The TR IS NOT the standard. It is a text derived through primitive textual criticism.

If you think these are new issues or issues related to modern Bible versions then you need to learn some history.

The men who gave us the KJV were guilty of at least 6 of the things in your list... just concerning their treatment of Baptists and Separatists.

Or perhaps Satan could introduce a doctrine that has no basis in scripture that would deny God's Word to people in language that they can understand and apply. He did it before with the Latin Vulgate.

KJVO's and liberals seem to be the ones intent on casting doubt on the reliability of Bibles.

Perhaps to keep people from worshiping a book like an idol. Why would God create the world perfect, allow man to corrupt it, then say in Romans 1 that no one has an excuse because nature testifies of God?

It is not necessary to use identical words to give a 100% reliable account of what someone said. MV's tell us what God's message to us was just as well as the KJV does.

Please don't use the Bible out of context. Paul was speaking here, assuring the Romans of his desire to have come to them before that point.

This error in interpretation has been corrected so many times yet you guys keep repeating it. The promised preservation is for the righteous.

However, let's assume your interpretation is correct. If the KJV represents the sole manifestation of that preservation then God lied for more than 2000 years before giving man the TR and KJV. Neither of these works of men was identical to any book before them.

Since all of the mss are a little different from each other and the TR, "which one is it?" Which mss is the perfect preservation to the exclusion of all others?

Such a lack of humility is truly amazing.

I am truly saved. I do have such a desire. God led me away from the KJVO false doctrine. My prayer on this issue continues to be that God will show me the truth and change my heart and mind if I am wrong. The longer and more submissively I pray this... the more convinced I become that KJVOnlyism is completely false and a danger to biblical fundamentalism.

I don't dislike you because of your belief. In fact other than a few pompous comments, I think you are probably quite likeable. I dislike your belief because of what it might do to you, others, and the cause of Christ.

 

Apparently some of the KJV translators were brilliant but ungodly as well as witnessed by their persecution of the Baptist of their day, their doctrines, and their practices.

Maybe the excellence of your church is because the pure Word of God is being heard and not the perverse KJVO non-sense.

Most who care and have prayerfully studied the issue disagree with KJVOnlyism. It is wholly illegitimate for you to assume someone has not studied or followed God's truth if they haven't accepted the false doctrine of KJVOnlyism. There is not a single passage that supports the single version only notion. The example of scripture (KJV- Luke 4:18 v. Isaiah 61:1) demonstrates that even Jesus used a different version of the OT than the one used to translate the KJV.

Perhaps He is at work because this is a Spirit filled congregation being fed through versions of the Bible that they can understand well enough to apply to their lives.

You demonstrate one of my main problems with KJVO... double standards. There is ample evidence that some of the KJV translators were involved in things and taught doctrines that Bible Christians should not be involved in.

Translating or evaluating textual evidence with a different result than that arrived at by a 16th century Roman Catholic and a group of 17th century Anglicans is not mutilating God's Word.

The only folks I see on this board doing this are KJVO's who call versions of God's Word "perverted", "mutilated", et al.

Try over 500 years ago. But you do bring up a good point. If it had been God's intention to preserve His Word in the word for word form demanded by KJVO's, He could have easily allowed man to invent the printing press thousands of years earlier. Instead, He used handcopying in spite of its common inaccuracies.

We have over 5000 "versions" of the Greek NT that all differ from each other. Prior to the 1450's, all Bibles were different from each other in one respect or another. They were still considered God's Word.

In fact with regard to real differences of substance, our translations agree with each other better than the 5 or 6 mss used by Erasmus to collate the TR. If I remember correctly, none of the mss used by him even had all of the NT books.

And you have a problem with people having the Bible in a form they can understand? Communicated instructions are much more effective when spoken in the vernacular of the one who is to carry them out.

You have given absolutely no evidence for this. MV's teach the same doctrines and standards as the KJV. The KJV IS NOT the standard. It is a translation. The TR IS NOT the standard. It is a text derived through primitive textual criticism.

If you think these are new issues or issues related to modern Bible versions then you need to learn some history.

The men who gave us the KJV were guilty of at least 6 of the things in your list... just concerning their treatment of Baptists and Separatists.

Or perhaps Satan could introduce a doctrine that has no basis in scripture that would deny God's Word to people in language that they can understand and apply. He did it before with the Latin Vulgate.

KJVO's and liberals seem to be the ones intent on casting doubt on the reliability of Bibles.

Perhaps to keep people from worshiping a book like an idol. Why would God create the world perfect, allow man to corrupt it, then say in Romans 1 that no one has an excuse because nature testifies of God?

It is not necessary to use identical words to give a 100% reliable account of what someone said. MV's tell us what God's message to us was just as well as the KJV does.

Please don't use the Bible out of context. Paul was speaking here, assuring the Romans of his desire to have come to them before that point.

This error in interpretation has been corrected so many times yet you guys keep repeating it. The promised preservation is for the righteous.

However, let's assume your interpretation is correct. If the KJV represents the sole manifestation of that preservation then God lied for more than 2000 years before giving man the TR and KJV. Neither of these works of men was identical to any book before them.

Since all of the mss are a little different from each other and the TR, "which one is it?" Which mss is the perfect preservation to the exclusion of all others?

Such a lack of humility is truly amazing.

I am truly saved. I do have such a desire. God led me away from the KJVO false doctrine. My prayer on this issue continues to be that God will show me the truth and change my heart and mind if I am wrong. The longer and more submissively I pray this... the more convinced I become that KJVOnlyism is completely false and a danger to biblical fundamentalism.

I don't dislike you because of your belief. In fact other than a few pompous comments, I think you are probably quite likeable. I dislike your belief because of what it might do to you, others, and the cause of Christ.

 

How can you make this claim when the KJV is demonstrably *not* perfect (in the sense of "without flaw, being incapable of improvement?") There are many places in the KJV where the translation is poor, unclear, misleading, or just plain wrong, and where English versions before it and after it have a better translation (e.g. Mk. 1:10). There are places where the KJV fails to convey something present in the original language text from which it was translated (e.g., Psa. 37). And there are places where the KJV adds something to the word of God which is not found in the original language text from which it was translated (e.g., Rom. 11:4). We could discuss these specific examples if you wish.

 

Alex,

I do not comdemn you for your beliefs, and would appreciate the same from you. As I have stated elsewhere, I love and use the KJV, but I detest the garbage spewed forth about "Satan novels" and "mutilating God's word." If you believe that the KJV is the only perfect word of God, you can, and I won't stop you. But when you start trying to teach others the same thing, I will withstand you or anyone else.

The truth of the matter is that the KJV is still, after all is said and done, a translation. A translation that was put together by man, just like any other translation in this world. It is one of the oldest in the English language, and is the most beautifully written. But even it has been revized many, many times, and has had to be corrected.

Someone posted that the KJV was on the reading level of something (forth or sixth grade come to mind). That is ridiculous!!! The KJV is a twelth-grade reading level, and is extremely hard to understand without a dictionary nearby for the archaic words (many of which are no longer even found in modern dictionaries).

But even with its outdated language and non-linear sentence structure (the original Greek sentence structure is really wild), the KJV is still one of the greatest translations of all time. It just grieves my heart that you elevate it to equal status with God. I worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not a translation of the Bible.

You pray for me, and I'll pray for you. The truth of the gospel is what matters the most, not whether the verbs end with "-eth."

In Christ,
Trotter