Inerrancy?

[jbh28]

No, the NIV clearly says we were "in Christ" when we heard.

Only if you isolate that phrase away from the context.

And I don't expect you to admit these major differences between the versions, I have been in these types of discussions before.

Well, you haven't given any, so how can I admit to it? The only way you have done it so far is by using eisegesis to interpret the passage in the NIV and then state it in error.

And if you don't think Acts 8:37 is important and proves that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is false, I don't know what I or anyone else could possibly show you. People were burned at the stake by the Catholic Church because they would not allow their babies to be baptized based on this very verse.

I don't believe in baptismal regeneration. The Bible NEVER says that baptism saves, but is clear on how to be saved. There are many verses like acts 8:37 that say how to be saved and none of them say that being baptized saves. So again, you haven't shown any doctrinal changes.

Look, I am not going to continue this debate, I have presented several verses that show that the KJV and MVs are very different and give a very different meaning to many scriptures. I provided a link that shows dozens of more examples. There are numerous websites devoted to discussing the differences between these versions.

Believe what you wish.

And I proved every one you showed false. I have even gown through many in that article previously and showed the error of those.

If you think you are right, I challenge you to show one doctrine that is different between the two versions. For example, you mentioned baptismal regeneration, but the NIV, ESV, nor that NASB teach baptismal regeneration. I understand that you want to run off because you know you can't name one.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... It is a fact that words have been added to the KJV. This is absolutely necessary in any translation from one language to another. That words have been added is not the issue, being understood they are necessary to convey the true meaning of any translation. What is important is how these added words affect doctrine. ...

It is ridiculous to state that "words have been added to the KJV". No words were ever added to the KJV. [Except for a few edits, such as "of God" at 1 John 5:12]

What you probably meant was that through the process of translation words were added to the 'Bible text'. Almost every English version has more words than the original language texts from which it was translated (because it almost always takes more words to express a translated phrase with any accuracy). There is not an exact word-to-word correspondence even in the KJV.

Also, the KJV translators cannot add words to their own translation (since all the words are their words to begin with). They made the choices for all the English words, not just the "added" ones.

 

[Winman]

God doesn't have to do that, it is implied that his word will be available and that it can be identified. I have already posted Rev 22:18-19 where God warns against adding or taking away from his word.

How can you know if you are adding or taking away from his word unless you know the accurate version of his scriptures? You can't.

The problem is that many here are trying to avoid believing God's word by faith, and trying to prove which version is inerrant by scholarship. This is impossible because the original autographs are lost forever.

I have made this argument before and I will make it again. I believe God preserved his word because he promised to do so. That tells me that God's true and inerrant word is in the world.

But you are correct, that doesn't identify the exact version. But this we know, they cannot all be inerrant, because they differ from each other greatly.

If they all differ greatly (and they do), then there are only two possibilities.

# 1 The inerrant word of God no longer exists and is lost forever.

# 2 One of the existing versions is the inerrant word of God.

You may not like that, but those are the only two possibilities. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

But you cannot continue to argue that versions that can easily be demonstrated to be very different, and clearly do not teach the same thing doctrinally to be the same. It is a ridiculous argument that any honest person would abandon.

Now, for me, I studied where the different versions came from. This is easy, there are dozens of websites on the subject, although I had to read many books years ago.

I also considered history. I firmly believe that God brought about the KJV just as England became the first global super-power. England was on every inhabited continent and their influence was known everywhere. And without controversy the dominant version of scripture they took with them was the KJV. I cannot believe that a coincidence.

And for me, prayer helped. I wanted to know the truth, and nothing but the truth. I asked God to show me the truth and I firmly believe he did.

But when it comes down to it, I am simply believing the KJV to be the inerrant word of God by faith. And that is what we are supposed to do, believe God by faith. If we had scholarly proof of which version was the inerrant word of God, then faith would be impossible.

I really believe that God was behind the original autographs disappearing. What if they did exist, would that solve anything? No, scholars would be constanly fighting and debating over the correct translation.

Over and over Jesus told us to believe, to have faith. That is the way it works.

By seeking to prove which scriptures are the inerrant word of God through scholarship is to abandon faith.

Perhaps you will never understand my position.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Now, as to why the men who made this change did so, I cannot say. I do not know Greek, so I cannot say what the original languages truly implied in the language, or demanded for a true translation.

But you see, it still comes down to preservation. ...

No, it seems for you that it comes down to mindset. You have no idea why a change was made in the KJV text; you don't seem to care at all whether the change was actually necessary for translational accuracy. You just simply have put your trust in the KJV. Oh, you have read a few books and internet articles (mostly to reinforce and support your held view?). You don't really know if the KJV is the most accurate translation, and you don't care if its not.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... If they all differ greatly (and they do), then there are only two possibilities.

# 1 The inerrant word of God no longer exists and is lost forever.

# 2 One of the existing versions is the inerrant word of God. ...

Let's just cut to the chase.

You prayed and did research and concluded that the KJV was the only inerrent "word of God". If I can show you one error in the KJV then it would not be inerrent, would it? What manner of error would satisfy you? Would added words, missing words, mistranslated words, or changed words be errors?

You seem to like example texts. What if I show you a verse where the KJV translation left out words? Would you accept that as proof?

 

[Winman]

No, it seems for you that it comes down to mindset. You have no idea why a change was made in the KJV text; you don't seem to care at all whether the change was actually necessary for translational accuracy. You just simply have put your trust in the KJV. Oh, you have read a few books and internet articles (mostly to reinforce and support your held view?). You don't really know if the KJV is the most accurate translation, and you don't care if its not.

You are correct, I am looking beyond man and looking at God. This stuff is real to me, I actually believe there is a real God who is overlooking the affairs of men.

And when it comes to the scriptures, this is the one and only method God directly communicates with us today. We don't have dreams and see visions like the ancient prophets. And you know what? If I did have a dream or vision I would not trust it. Was I having a hallucination? Am I losing my mind? Or was that Satan appearing as an angel of light to deceive me?

I am glad I have God's word in black and white. I don't have to wait years for a revelation from God the way Ezekiel and the other prophets did. Ever read those prophets? Sometimes it was 20 years or more before God spoke to them again. But I can pick up my Bible every day and read it. I like that.

What some cannot grasp is that the scriptures represent Jesus himself. Jesus is the Word.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among men.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus's very name is The Word Of God.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Jesus is infallible, he is absolutely perfect, and therefore I do not believe God would allow his Word to be corrupted by man. But I believe that by faith.

When you read the scriptures, it is Jesus speaking to you. He is The Word of God. You may not believe that, but I do. Call me crazy, I don't care.

So yes, you are correct, it is a mindset. I know that this issue will never be settled by scholarship, one man says one thing, another man says something else. So, I don't listen to men, I listen to what God said in the scriptures.

But God is not the author of confusion. His word is not like "Where's Waldo?"

Some here argue that God's word is distributed among many versions. Good luck with figuring out God's word like that. God is not cruel, he is not playing a big joke on us putting a little of his word here, and a little over there, and then leaving it to us to figure out. No, he wants us to know his word and he has preserved it so every man can learn of Jesus and be saved.

 

[Winman]

Let's just cut to the chase.

You prayed and did research and concluded that the KJV was the only inerrent "word of God". If I can show you one error in the KJV then it would not be inerrent, would it? What manner of error would satisfy you? Would added words, missing words, mistranslated words, or changed words be errors?

You seem to like example texts. What if I show you a verse where the KJV translation left out words? Would you accept that as proof?

That won't work. First of all, I have seen where men try to point out errors in the KJV for years. If you want to show what you think is an error, go ahead, but it won't sway me.

You see, I believe one of the versions has to be the inerrant word of God. The MVs sure aren't it in my opinion.

No, you would have to show me something I've never seen before, because when it comes to comparing the KJV to the MVs, the KJV wins hands down in my opinion.

I have to get off the computer in a few minutes, but if you want to show what you believe is an error go ahead. I am going to guess right now what you are going to post, and if I get it right I will tell you tomorrow. If I get it wrong I will tell the truth and admit it.

Go for it.

 

[jbh28]

That won't work. First of all, I have seen where men try to point out errors in the KJV for years. If you want to show what you think is an error, go ahead, but it won't sway me.

You see, I believe one of the versions has to be the inerrant word of God. The MVs sure aren't it in my opinion.

No, you would have to show me something I've never seen before, because when it comes to comparing the KJV to the MVs, the KJV wins hands down in my opinion.

I have to get off the computer in a few minutes, but if you want to show what you believe is an error go ahead. I am going to guess right now what you are going to post, and if I get it right I will tell you tomorrow. If I get it wrong I will tell the truth and admit it.

Go for it.

Any basis for that statement? And if that is true, what was the inerrant translation prior to the KJV?

 

[Cutter]

Winman, I am afraid these [snipped] Baptists will never understand and accept your arguments and thank God, as you said, Jesus is infallible and perfect, and in the Good Old Book, He is called the Word Of God. :godisgood:

 

[Rippon]

Winman, I am afraid these liberal minded Baptists will never understand and accept your arguments...

Cutter, cut it out. You've uttered that inane remark three times now. It is still as foolish as the first time your fingers typed it. There is nothing liberal-minded about Baptists who are against KJVO arguments.

 

[Baptist4life]

Cutter, cut it out. You've uttered that inane remark three times now. It is still as foolish as the first time your fingers typed it. There is nothing liberal-minded about Baptists who are against KJVO arguments.

I thought people were free to express their opinions on here?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I thought people were free to express their opinions on here?

No one has denied Brother Cutter that right. But those accused of being liberal minded in their view of the preservation of scripture because they differ with him also have a 'right' to defend themselves from that charge.

I was just thinking, what would have happened if the Bible scholars in 1610 held to a 'one translation per language only' view of inerrant preservation? They already had a quality translation or two after all.

 

[sag38]

There some who know that there are variations in scripture versions but cannot accept that when taken in context they all say the same thing. And, when their position is clearly proven wrong they resort to belittling those who believe that God has preserved His word in a variety of versions.

 

[Baptist4life]

No one has denied Brother Cutter that right. But those accused of being liberal minded in their view of the preservation of scripture because they differ with him also have a 'right' to defend themselves from that charge.

My reply was because of this response:

Originally Posted by Rippon
Cutter, cut it out.

Just pointing out that, as you stated, people are free to express their opinions!:thumbsup:

 

[Cutter]

And, when their position is clearly proven wrong they resort to belittling those who believe that God has preserved His word in a variety of versions.

No one has proven conclusively that we are wrong and contrary to your assertion, the belittling comes from the liberal minded Baptist side more so than the KJV crowd.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No one has proven conclusively that we are wrong and contrary to your assertion, the belittling comes from the liberal minded Baptist side more so than the KJV crowd.

How can the 'one translation view' be the conservative view when it was unheard of until about 75 years ago? Do you have evidence of that view in church history before then?

 

[Winman]

How can the 'one translation view' be the conservative view when it was unheard of until about 75 years ago? Do you have evidence of that view in church history before then?

It was not an issue 75 years ago. The MVs didn't come on the scene until 1881, until that time without controversy the KJV was the dominant version. In most people's minds the KJV was the inerrant word of God without question. It was only when the MVs appeared that people even questioned the KJV generally speaking.

 

[Cutter]

How can the 'one translation view' be the conservative view when it was unheard of until about 75 years ago? Do you have evidence of that view in church history before then?

Are you trying to say that the only way the one translation view can be valid and conservative is based on how long it has been around? What does that have anything to do with it? The reason why it was not prominent until 100 years or so ago is because everyone within the Christian community, for the most part, read and accepted the KJV as the final word on all matters moral and spiritual. The market was not flooded then with all of these johnny come lately versions, that are nothing less than an attempt to improve upon that which is already complete and perfect. Oh yeah, let's not forget the money angle. The money hungry publishers loved to create new versions and appoint new panels to come up with what they saw as a cash cow considering the Bible is the number one seller. Do you actually believe that everyone involved in the alterations, reproductions, and revised versions of what was commonly viewed as God's Word, the KJV, to have pure and noble intent in doing so? Has there ever been anything pertaining to God that has been improved by adding more of the flesh to it? Think about the last question long and hard before you answer...

 

[TC]

So by your logic, why isn't the NWT an accurate translation? So what that they add a word in John 1:1? There are other verses that show the deity of Christ. Do you use the NWT?
You know better than this. The NWT purposely mistranslates the Greek texts to uphold the JW's errant doctrine. I have told y'all what Bibles I use multiple times.


It is not accurate to say that it is sin to be angry.
It does not say it is a sin to be angry. It says that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement. IMO, you may be found to be justified or you may be found to be wrong.



Of course not. You know me better than that. But I am also not against common sense.
Common sense tell me that anger always has a cause. I have never been angry with another person without a cause. You may not like it or you may think the reason is wrong. Nevertheless, there is a cause. That is why it is important to heed the admonitions to not sin when you are angry.


I have no problem with variants. It is helpful to point out the variants. But there are many verses in MV's which do change doctrine. Such as the one I have pointed out about being angry.
No, you have not proven that doctrine has been changed. You stating something over and over does not make it true.

BTW, when I say "MV's", I'm referring to versions that are translated from different texts than the KJV, NKJV, MKJV and others.

God has indeed preserved His Word and I have several good English representations of that Word in the Geneva, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, ect.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Angry responses - but still no answer to my question earlier. Where would we be if the church had a 'one translation only' policy in 1610?

I have met plenty of older fundamentalists, and remember many of them, who before this modern movement took hold preached from and were happy with the ASV.

Going back even further I guess C.H. Spurgeon was a liberal because he did not hold to onlyism?

Got to get ready for tomorrow - don't really have the time for this squabble. I am sorry I posted again .

Edited in: - I remember sitting at our kitchen table in 1995 with a noted Fundamentalist (a name everyone here would know) who wept because he saw the division that translation issue would bring to the body of Christ. This man, in his younger years, had preached out of both the KJV and the ASV and most of his fellow preachers had done the same. I will not mention his name because he would be called a liberal for his stand and I honour his memory too much to allow that to happen.