Perfect Bible

Perfect in what sense? Perfect like we are to be perfect?... Fully capable of fulfilling God's purpose for us. Yes, several versions faithfully teach what we KNOW that the originals taught from the evidence.

Or perfect in the sense that a particular version is perfectly worded thus rendering all other versions corrupt? No. There is no biblical nor historical evidence that God chose or chooses the words of a particular translation over another. The message is God's Word and God's Word is what is important. The words of a ms or version are important only because they communicate the message. The original words are of primary importance because God inspired them- therefore they communicate the message in absolute precision and completion.

 

Couln't vote. The question is 'do we have a perfect Bible', but the answers listed are translations of Bibles, not Bibles themselves.

 

Perfect Bible? The originals, yes... That reminds me that once, when we were dating, my wife said, "sweetheart, you're perfect in every way." She was serious. And she's not said it since!

 

Just wanted to point out that your poll question and answers are flawed. You ask "Which one" and then give only one choice with one Bible in it. The others have many Bibles all lumped together, so if I wanted to say the 'one' that you asked for was the NKJV, I could not, because you have lumped more than one choice together.

Neal

 

Some Bibles are more perfect than others.

HankD

 

Actually, the NKJV is not my choice. I was just using it as an example to show that your pole is flawed and biased.

Neal

 

Depends on the definition of "perfect" now doesn't it?

I voted for the KJV, the several versions you listed, and for none. Because all of those answers are correct.

All of the versions you listed are perfect in that they fulfill the purpose God intended for scripture- to reveal Himself, His way, and His glory to man.

None of the versions are perfect in that their words are the product of fallible men's efforts.

I know I am saved because the evidence leaves absolutely no doubt as to how we can be reconciled to God... even most bad translations can be used to show this. Some people have learned to effectively share the gospel with JW's using the NWT.

 

Scripture is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice.

KJVOnlyism doesn't provide a better answer to your question than the historical, biblical, orthodox doctrine on the Bible.

KJVOnlyism depends completely on men. It is not found in scripture. It is derived purely from the imaginations of folks like Riplinger, Waite, Cloud, Ruckman, Gipp, Ray, Wilkerson, etc. It puts the ability to produce the "perfect" Bible in the hands of grieviously imperfect Anglican churchmen.

The numerous cults that have or do use the KJV prove that the meaning of that version is no less secure than that of faithfully translated MV's.

If you could show that the translators of the NKJV, NASB, ESV, or even the NIV were attempting to make changes to fit their needs, wants, and desires then you might have a case. So once again, the same old challenge to answer the same old false accusation- please show where MV's have omitted doctrines. If you can't then it should be obvious that the producers of MV's have not changed the Bible to match their needs, wants, and desires.

 

Hi, could you please tell me what Scripture are you making mention of? Is this Scripture you speak of perfect,infallible and inerrant??

Could you show me that their motives were NOT changing things to suit their needs/convictions??

 

Yes. But I won't. Instead, I will point you to a way to prove it for yourself. Take the text that these Bibles are translated from and see for yourself if their translation choices are legitimate. Then, do research on the character and education of the translators as well as the history of the translation. Then, choose Christian doctrines that can be proven with the KJV then one at a time and see if you can prove them from the versions you would condemn.

 

That depends on the definition of perfect.

If you are talking about being worded perfect then the proof against that is easy and only requires that you be honest and use the KJV. Look up NT quotes of OT scriptures. How many times do they match word for word? Ever? This proves that the sayings of God are much more important than the words used to communicate those sayings.

Well by all means show this evidence. If you can present real, tangible, honestly handled "evidence" that the KJV is perfectly worded so as to be the authoritative equivalent to the words that God directly inspired then you will have surpassed what any KJVO has done before.

I believe that too. However, the problem with your position is that you must identify that thread of perfect wording when it is impossible to do so. Erasmus, uninspired and probably unsaved, took less than 10 imperfect mss and recreated the perfect original? If so, why did it require so many edits?

The uninspired and, at least partially, unsaved CoE translators of the KJV produced the perfect English text? Where's the proof? And if they did it, why did it have numerous revisions? Why did they basically copy the readings of other English versions- were those writers partially but not completely inspired as well?

Only God knows for sure but my guess would be to prevent them from becoming an idol like the KJV has for many.

The primary proof for the perfection of the originals is that they were directly inspired, word for word by a perfect God. Without that direct inspiration, men cannot produce anything that is perfect.

Problems with this statement:

1) God nowhere promises to do this.
2) God didn't work a process when he inspired the original text. It came out perfect the first time. Both the TR and KJV have been revised several times.
3) The TR does not match the KJV perfectly.
4) The KJV does not match any known manuscript perfectly. So did God allow His Word to be lost until 1611?
5) There are over 5000 differing mss... that were all considered the Word of God by those who produced and used them.
6) Nowhere do the KJV translators claim to be producing an inspired or perfect text. In fact, they deny that they are.
7) If the KJV translators were providentially guided then why did they hate baptistic beliefs enough to persecute Baptists, Puritans, Separatists, and Independents?

 

Let's not go here again. I already had a thread on KJVO authority not too long ago. Check it out if you want. By saying that the KJVO position is not ultimately based on one's decision using one's mind is to be lying. You are beginning with a flawed premise to say that KJVO is not based on man and yet choosing other translations is putting man above the Bible or even God.

Neal

 

You don't need the Bible to be saved. Ya just need Jesus. Editions of the Bible just help it along a bit