Are we limiting God?

And if Charles (or William) one day does ascend the British throne, and then decides to sponsor a completely new translation of God's Word; will you then fully endorse & accept the newly produced translation? If not, why not? </font>[/QUOTE]I know the question wasn't addressed to me; however, I believe that I would definately reject any translation sponsored by 'King' Charles. It would probably be called the KCK (King Charles Koran).

http://alpha.furman.edu/~ateipen/pr_charles_speech.html

 

No more impure than they have today if there is no perfect bible. I personally believe that God gives us what we need for any given situation. If we come to the situation where we need God's perfect word, He will give it to us. I am convinced that if there is a perfect Bible in existence today, it is the KJV.

 

As for Ruckman, I'm not sure what to make of him. Sometimes I think maybe he is a jesuit

 

Willie wrote:

But if you tacitly acknowledge in this response that the character of a "King Charles" may be open to scrutiny, why is the character of King James so strictly off-limits when the subject is raised in regards to the KJV?

Just another double standard.

 

The character of King James is a straw man. What about the character of King Saul? David called him the Lords annointed.

 

Certainly. So based upon this, nobody would have just cause in rejecting the hypothetical "King Charles Version" based solely upon their personal opinion of Charles, right?

 

Lol, I'll grant you that one.

 

O.K. James, so now that we've established that the character of the King involved can be a moot point; and based upon your own remarks above relating to the authority of a King in the translation process- would you definitively say whether or not you would accept the hypothetical "King Charles Version" as being legitimate?

 

But if you tacitly acknowledge in this response that the character of a "King Charles" may be open to scrutiny, why is the character of King James so strictly off-limits when the subject is raised in regards to the KJV?

Just another double standard. </font>[/QUOTE]Personal research conducted regarding the character of King James has resulted in a variety of depictions, even from those supposedly written by eyewitnesses--personal opinions by his comtemporaries were varied. I would also assume that 400 hundred years from now, if the Lord tarries, the same will be said by those researching 'King Charles', if in fact he does ascend to the throne. My faith does not reside in the authorizer, nor the translaters, of the scriptures that I use, but simply in that which I believe the Holy Spirit has led me to believe through the study of my preferred bible.

 

But it would have to match the KJV, since I already have the perfect Bible. Seriously though, the authority issue is not the only reason I have for accepting it. So I would not just accept out of hand any Bible version stamped by a king.

 

James Newman:I told you, you have already rejected plain evidence. You start by discounting simple promises to keep His word. What could be added to that to make you believe the word He didn't promise to keep was the KJV?

Any verse that could be applied to the KJV EXCLUSIVELY....or, for that matter, any one version in use today, exclusively. WHERE IS GOD LIMITED TO JUST ONE VERSION?

 

As for the poisoned water & the poisoned pottage...GOD PURIFIED THEM, when Moses followed His instructions. The tree didn't purify the water, nor did the meal purify the pottage. God was using these things to teach OBEDIENCE. I believe God coulda simply told Moses, "It's now pure" and they woulda been pure. But He wanted toe people to learn to obey Him NO MATTER WHAT. Casting a tree into a bitter spring had never purified one before; in fact that was a universal warning sign for travelers NOT TO DRINK from such a spring, nor allow their animals to drink.

And meal is itself a food. Now, while many people of the time made poultices from various kinds of meal, it was NEVER used as a purifying agent. Yes, GOD was teaching OBEDIENCE...that's why He often instructed his prophets to do seemingly-illogical things such as casting a tree into a bitter spring to which He responded by doing what no humans could do-instantly purify the water.

This is entirely different from "purifying His word". God's word was pure when He first Gave it, it was in the Languages of his prophets, and it's pure today in the various valid versions in the various languages in which it's found today. just because MY version(s) disagree with YOUR version(s) doesn't mean any of our versions disagrees with GOD. After all, it's HIS word.

 

The Holy Spirit NEVER guides someone in a manner which is not scripturally supportable. Never. That is certainly what a KJVOist would say if a NKJVO or NIVO were to say the same thing.

A KJVOist who is asked that by a NIVO will replyl "that which is not of GOd is of Satan".

The KJV is not sxtrabiblical. That is not the arguement. KJVOism, however, is clearly extrabiblical, since it lacks scriptural support, and requires adding to scripture in order to adhere to it.

Indeed. However, God does not reveal thing to people that are not scripturally supportable.

 

Which one James (1611-1850, Cambridge, Oxford, Nelson)?

Unless "pefect" has two definitions, only one of them can be the "perfect" KJV.

HankD

 

I'll let you pick

 

If that were to happen:

1 - It would not support KJVOism.

2 - It would not mean that the "unicorn" in the KJV is the same as the mythical animal, since the source text uses the word "r'em", an animal which was not at all close to the mythical unicorn. If we are to falsely presume that the word in the KJV means a literal "unicorn", then we must accept that the KJV has added to scripture, and thus we must reject the KJV outright.

 

What do you do when your nose goes on strike? you "pick it" corny, I know, and I hope it ain't against them thar rules.
Which edition of the KJV do you use? Prolly Blayney's 1769, which has 100's of changes from the 1611...someone once asked, "where are the jots and tittles from the 1611, and where'd they disappear to in the 1769?"

 

Clever James, but this proves that you really don't know.

No translation is "perfect".

If ever there was a "perfect" translation which God superintended then it would have 0 (zero) errors and 0 (zero) revisions/editions because God cannot/will not make even the smallest mistake.

HankD

 

James Newman:No more impure than they have today if there is no perfect bible. I personally believe that God gives us what we need for any given situation. If we come to the situation where we need God's perfect word, He will give it to us. I am convinced that if there is a perfect Bible in existence today, it is the KJV.

Despite the KJV's PROVEN booboos?

 

James Newman:I'll let you pick

It appears that would be YOUR job since you said you have in the KJV a perfect Bible version. There are many KJV editions, and by your definition, only ONE can be perfect. Therefore, since it's YOUR stated belief, it's YOUR task to tell us WHICH EDITION is perfect, and why.