Inspiration vs Preservation

[HankD]

Sorry friend, If God can INSPIRE His Word, He can and would certainly PRESERVE His Word.

Not necessarily true in terms of absolute perfection.

By this logic we could say that if God saved us perfectly from the penalty of sin in this life, He can and would make us perfectly sinless in thsi life after this perfect salvation from sin.


HankD

 

[gb93433]

I don't have the book with me but Carson points out in his book that the KKV also uses some dynamic equivalence.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I don't have the book with me but Carson points out in his book that the KKV also uses some dynamic equivalence.

Is Carson KJVO?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
I don't have the book with me but Carson points out in his book that the KKV also uses some dynamic equivalence.

Is Carson KJVO? </font>[/QUOTE]No. He is a professor at TEDS. The bok is The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by mioque:
"Do we or don't we have GOD's infallable word today?"
"
Do.

"where is it at today for you and I to have and hold in our hands?"
"
I can stand up from this desk in the churchlibrary walk 3 steps to the nearest stack of bookshelves and pick up the infallible Old Testament in Hebrew and the infallible New Testament in Greek.
Perfect translations in over half a dozen languages are within reach on the next shelf.

Or just click on e-sword on my desktop!!!

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by wiseman:


As for there being 1,000 errors in the King James Bible from 1611-1769...get your facts straight! There were only 400 variations between the 1611 edition and the modern editions today. For proof of this statement, look at F.H.A. Scrivener's book entitled, "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives."

Please check the facts for yourself. In his history of the English Bible entitled THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH, David Daniell wrote: "In the first 250 years of KJV's life, there were many errors. In 1884 Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener listed about fifteen hundred" (p. 460).

Scivener may not consider all the changes he listed "errors," but he definitely mentioned over 400 in his book. Some have perhaps only counted the number of changes in one appendix in Scrivener's book. Scrivener also mentions other changes in the text of his book which are not listed in the appendix. For example, he mentioned the rendering "you" in the 1611 being changed to "ye" many times in 1762/1769 (p. 104).

I have compared the 1611 KJV edition with the present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible, and I have a list of changes that numbers over 1500.

 

[MISSIONARY]

To C4K, Psalms 12, speaks about God's Word in His preserved Word, in the "new" translations the Word was not just updated for better language understanding but CHANGED OR corrupted to read differently than the preserved Word.

If I was the enemy, I would attack the Word and confuse the people and take away references such as Psalm 12, to further confuse the people about the Word.

Just one note, many of the new tranlations have indeed updated the language, I can go along with that to a point. But in all the new translations they not only updated the language but dropped verses, changed verses etc, Psalm 12 being an example.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

All of the newer versions have Psalm 12v6-7 and even the translators of the KJV knew that "people" could be used there.

 

[MISSIONARY]

To Chopped Liver (LOL)

Saying all the versions add up to the true word of God is without merit.

Many of these versions do not agree with each other. One will have a verse deleted where the other will allow it.

So again all these versions are not correct, the enemy has placed counterfeit versions to discredit the real Word of God.

Jesus said, "I am the truth"

There is a Bible that is "the truth" the others may contain the Word of God but they are not "The Word of God"

Think on these things !

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You have no Bible support to claim any one version's superiority over another.

No one has any Bible support to refute your claim.

That is why this subject always comes to an impasse and is going to be closed on the next page.

 

[MISSIONARY]

C4K
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, doesn't mean that was the way that it was used.

Ever heard of literal tranlation. In other words we shouldn't seek to spiritualize the Word of God.

Such as the verse says this but really means this, unless it is stated that it is a parable or such, which this verse is not.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

In this verse it is clear that GOd may be talking about preserving His word or His people. Both are equally true.

I am a firm believer in literal translation and a staunch defender of the KJV/Byzantine text body, but this is not a proof text for single version onlyism.

Even IF it was man would have to determine in his own flawed wisdom which version it was talking about since all version contain the verse.

 

[MISSIONARY]

God preserved His Word through true believers down through the ages, they all used Bibles that came from one source, Textus Receptus, until some so-called older manuscripts that had long ago been disgarded by true believers.

From these [inflammatory word snipped] manuscripts come all the new versions.

Not only that is a problem, but the method of textual criticism is errant in these new versions.

Men decide by erroneous methods what will be included in the new versions and what will not.
Pretty much leaving God out of the picture.

The true believes always copied the Bible with the idea that God was in control and would presereve His Word.

The new versions are weak, in that take away from the diety of Christ.

Just one small example, Where the true Word will say Jesus Christ, identifying who the Christ is, the newer versions will simply say Christ.

Leaves the door open for any religion to say their "man"is Christ.

Sounds like a plan to me to unite all religions one day. ONE WORLD RELIGION

I will stick to THE WORD, not some watered-down book that contains the Word but is not the Word.

Think on these things ! !

[ January 14, 2006, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Most of your post is faulty and full of generalisations at best.


However, this one:

I will stick to THE WORD, not some watered-down book that contains the Word but is not the Word.

I don't think you would have any arguement at all on this statement - AMEN!

 

[MISSIONARY]

I think we all know which Bible sticks with the textus receptus. I work in English and Spanish.
Both my Bibles come from Textus Receptus.

Beware of all the changes made in the new versions, all of them weaken the TRUE WORD.

Think on these things ! !

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by MISSIONARY:


Beware of all the changes made in the new versions, all of them weaken the TRUE WORD.

Again, a hasty generalisation yet substantiated.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by MISSIONARY:
To C4K, Psalms 12, speaks about God's Word in His preserved Word, in the "new" translations the Word was not just updated for better language understanding but CHANGED OR corrupted to read differently than the preserved Word.

Actually the KJV of 1611 does not speak of God's word in Psalm 12:6-7. A marginal note in the original AV of 1611 clearly states that the "them" refers to the "poor and needy" in verse 5, not the "words" in verse 6. Every person able to read any Hebrew at all knows that.

If I was the enemy, I would attack the Word and confuse the people and take away references such as Psalm 12, to further confuse the people about the Word.

Well, it seems to me you have attacked the word of God and tried to make it say something God says it doesn't say and the KJV translators say it doesn't say.

Just one note, many of the new tranlations have indeed updated the language, I can go along with that to a point. But in all the new translations they not only updated the language but dropped verses, changed verses etc, Psalm 12 being an example.

Actually, that is not true. The NKJV, KJ2000, LITV, etc., do not drop verses, change verses, etc.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by C4K:
No one has any Bible support to refute your claim.

I do. "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Any bible that is "able to make thee wise unto salvation" is the "word of God" and "holy scripture" according to the bible.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by MISSIONARY:
Ever heard of literal tranlation. In other words we shouldn't seek to spiritualize the Word of God.

Such as the verse says this but really means this, unless it is stated that it is a parable or such, which this verse is not.

I agree. You shouldn't spiritualize what the word of God says. God says that in Psalm 12:6-7 the "them" refers to the "poor and needy" in verse 5 but you spiritualize that away and try to claim it refers to the "words."

You shouldn't contradict the word of God.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by MISSIONARY:
I think we all know which Bible sticks with the textus receptus.

Certainly not the KJV. The KJV departs from the TR in over 200 places.

I work in English and Spanish.
Both my Bibles come from Textus Receptus.

If you can read Spanish you know that the RV (either 1909 or 1960) is based, originally, on the Latin Vulgate. This is very clear by reading Mark 1:2 in the RV, "Como está escrito en Isaías el profeta: He aquí yo envío á mi mensajero delante de tu faz, Que apareje tu camino delante de ti." As anyone who can read Spanish knows the RV follows the LV and NIV in this verse, not the TR or KJV.

Also look at 1 Peter 2:2 in the KJV and TR, which reads, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:" but the RV and NIV read, "Desead, como niños recién nacidos, la leche espiritual, sin engaño, para que por ella crezcáis en salud:" Again, as anyone who can read Spanish knows the RV follows the LV and NIV in this verse too, not the TR or KJV.