Are we limiting God?

Let's try this analogy, Amen...I wear a certain size pants. But if I were to give a pair of them to Shaq, they'd be useless to him, while if he were to give a pair of HIS pants to me, I'd hafta tie'em up with a rope to keep'em up, and roll the legs up about a foot.(He's a foot taller than I.) But MY chosen pants are perfect for me, while his are for him. Just becayse he couldn't fit into MY pants nor me into HIS pants doesn't mean they're not Pegitimate pants.

Same with Bible versions and manuscripts. Shoot, even within a given BV, the accounts of the same events vary from book to book. But GOD has chosen to allow these varying accounts to become Scripture. Whatever reasons we use to justify those varying accounts within one set of mss, or even within the same ms MUST BE APPLIED to all the "families" of mss, or we're USING A DOUBLE STANDARD.

I believe an outgrowth of the KJVO myth, in a vain attempt to justify it, is the "manuscript-specific" view adopted by several KJVOs, including a few members here. I believe GOD'S view is "one size fits all".

 

Ge 3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Ge 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

What would God think about Adam and Eve deciding to go back to their fig leaves, because they thought they better represented what God would have them wear? All the arguments against bible preservation imply that God does not work today the way He has operated throughout the Bible. Adam and Eve were naked, God gave them clothes. The Israelites were hungry, God fed them in the wilderness. If the Church needed a bible, God would have provided one. The only question would be has He, and if so, which one?

 

James_Newman asked:

Seeing as we now trust the Holy Spirit to guide us, how can we discount the testimony of a spirit-filled Christian who claims that they have been led by the Holy Spirit to believe that there is a promise in the Bible to preserve His word, and that He has done so in the KJV?

When you do test KJV-onlyism, even if the KJV-onlyists claim the Holy Spirit's guidance . . . tekel - weighed in the balance and found wanting.

 

Ransom, I am testing it. I'm waiting for someone to come up with some scriptural evidence against it. All I can get is a lot of scholarly boo-hoo about how the KJV can't be perfect. Can't get a single scripture, some people seem to think there is no scripture in the word of God about the word of God. That would be convenient, 'God didn't say anything about it.' But I don't think it is true. What is on the other end of that balance beside a bunch of vain philosophy and traditions of men?

 

But James,

Can you find any scripture that says the NKJV is not perfect?

 

Thats out of order. The first thing that must be shown is did God preserve. What version must come after.

 

Sorry James - I was following your lead.

 

James_Newman said:

Ransom, I am testing it. I'm waiting for someone to come up with some scriptural evidence against it.

I'm still waiting for someone to post Scriptural evidence that I'm not God. Does that mean you should assume I am until you learn otherwise?

 

Ransom:When you do test KJV-onlyism, even if the KJV-onlyists claim the Holy Spirit's guidance . . . tekel - weighed in the balance and found wanting.

James Newman:Ransom, I am testing it. I'm waiting for someone to come up with some scriptural evidence against it.

While we all know there's no verse which says, "Thou shalt use only the KJV", we also see there's no IMPLICATION in any verse that supports the KJVO myth, either. Every Scripture that applies to the KJV also applies to every other valid version in any language.

Many things from Scripture ARE implied, such as the Holy Trinity. While the word 'trinity' doesn't appear in any valid version of Scripture, it clearly shows Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Thus, the Holy Trinity concept, while man-made, IS drawn from Scripture. The concept is NOT made to alter any doctrine; it's made to have a shorter way to indicate Father, Son, Holy Spirit together w/o having to write all those words every time. The KJVO myth, OTOH, doesn't have the slightest implication anywhere in scripture, as written in the KJV itself; its origin is well-documented, entirely man-made, and is quite modern in comparison with the age of the Scriptures themselves. Therefore, due to reality and a total lack of scriptural support, it's FALSE.

Scripture DEFINITELY shows it's NOT limited to just one version. We've shown many times the differences between Isaiah 61:1-3 & 42:7 and Luke 4:16-21...and between Isaiah 53 & Acts 8, which proves beyond a doubt that there was another version of the OT in use in Jesus' earthly time. Then, there are the differing accounts of the same events. By strict definition, we can say each Gospel is a "version".


All I can get is a lot of scholarly boo-hoo about how the KJV can't be perfect.

I'm no scholar, but a STUDENT. And my studies have shown several clear imperfections in the KJV such as "Easter", "slew and hanged", etc. Those booboos are in every copy of the KJV in use today, for anyone to see. They're not something in cyberspace, but are printed with ink on paper.


Can't get a single scripture, some people seem to think there is no scripture in the word of God about the word of God. That would be convenient, 'God didn't say anything about it.' But I don't think it is true. What is on the other end of that balance beside a bunch of vain philosophy and traditions of men?

With all due respect to you, James, you're trying an old KJVO ploy that fell on its face decades ago, both in court and in the KJVO myth...the old reverse play. Why won't it work? Because it's the KJVOs who have invented their doctrine, and therefore have the burden of proof to show it's true.

In court, more than one defendant has tried to justify rape by trying to blame the woman for dressing provocatively, etc. Not once in modern times has this "defense" ever worked. In civil court, the PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE HIS/HER ASSERTION that the defendant committed a tort against him/her. Otherwise, the defendant doesn't even hafta present a defense. We see GOD'S judgments set the pattern for our courts. We see that when GOD makes an accusation, He has PERFECT PROOF to sustain it every time. We see the first people ever created originating an excuse still used today: "Da debble made me do it".

The burden of proof lies with the KJVOs to prove their myth true. They haven't EVER provided the first mote of such proof since their myth came into being. OTOH, we have presented MANY proofs AGAINST the KJVO myth, even though all we'd REALLY hafta do is simply reject that myth for lack of evidence.

We HAVE provided proof from the KJV itself that KJVO is false. Now, more than ever, it's up to the KJVO to provide some proof that KJVO is anything more than a BIG FAT LIE.

 

James Newman:Thats out of order. The first thing that must be shown is did God preserve. What version must come after.

James, no Baptist questions that God has preserved His word. Arguing for preservation in a Baptist group is preaching to the choir. What we DO question and reject are the theories of one-versionism, of which the KJVO myth is chief.

 

Mcgyver, you've hit it right on the head...You win a kewpie doll!

All...ALL...communication was made by God and is controlled by God, be it communication between Him & us, or between each other. When GOD communicates with us, HIS message is perfect, whether OUR interpretation of His message is or not. When GOD causes His word to appear in any given language, it's perfect for His target readership/audience to whom He's then giving His word.

When Wycliffe wrote his English translation of the LV, it was perfect for the readership to whom God had then chosen to read it, although the LV itself was far from perfect. The Wycliffe version perfectly served God's purpose at the time. While WE are limited to OUR earthly lifetimes, GOD is eternal, having control over His word for ALL lifetimes. It is HE who has influenced(not "inspired") men to translate His word into the languages of the times in which they live(d).

I believe that once a valid version of His word is made, it will valid long as this age shall continue, whether anyone can easily read it or not. If someone were to hand me a Japanese-language Bible w/o telling me what it is, it wouldn't be a Bible to me...but it would remain just as valid as it ever was. The simple fact would be that I was not among the TARGET READERSHIP for that particular version.

As I said before...In summary, every bible version God causes to be made, by whatever method He chooses, is perfect for His INTENDED USE.

 

Because you fulfill Romans 3:4;and that is more than enough proof.

 

Because you fulfill Romans 3:4

Exactly right! I, God, am true, and every man a liar.

 

James_Newman said:

Thats out of order. The first thing that must be shown is did God preserve. What version must come after.

Great! Since all sides stipulate that God did preserve, shall we move onto part 2?

 

mcgyver,

Dont forget all english translations dont derive from the same Hebrew/Greek manuscripts. Even if the KJV english was revised into modern english it would still be completly different from the NIV.


Dr Bob,

There should also be a sticky topic called "Definitions of Original Only" seeing there are those that differ on which set of originals are correct.

 

Im sure there is more than 3 different trains of thought on the Original Autographs Only, this is just for starters.

1. Those that believe Original Autographs are the only perfect word of God and the later copies contain errors.

2. Those that believe Original Autographs can be copied and still be as perfect as the Originals.

3. Those that believe the manuscripts that where found at a later date Vaticanus & Sinaiticus / Dead Sea Scrolls are considered part of the Original Autographs

 

Excellent post, John!

Now, how do we explain the differences between the Gospels? Quite easily!

Say shortly after Jesus' death, before His resurrection, some of the Apostles were together reminiscing, much as we do now when a mutual friend or relative passes. Luke might say, "I remember the time He read some of the Scriptures about the Messiah in the synagogue at Nazareth and told the crowd they'd come to pass that day". Matthew might say, "I remember when He taught the elements which should be in our prayers...and I remember His preaching to a large crowd from that hilltop." John might say, "I remember when He was baptized, the Holy Spirit taking the form of a dove & landing on His shoulder, and the very voice of GOD saying from heaven, 'This is My beloved Son in whom I'm well pleased!' " Peter mighta said, "I remember His commanding a STORM to stop and it did! And do you remember His allowing me to walk on the water with Him?" And so on & so forth.

Then when each of them sat down & wrote what would soon become Scripture, each of them recalled certain highlights of what they'd experienced. When they were narrating the same events with different versions, we must remember that we would do the same thing today. John said if EVERY event in Jesus' life that he had seen were written, the world couldn't have held the books.

The highlights JESUS wanted preserved ARE preserved. Each writer had a different perspective , writing style, and recall ability. As an old cop, I'd be quite dubious if several witnesses wrote accounts of the same event EXACTLY ALIKE.