Perfect VS Accurate

[Winman]

Yes, the Scriptures are perfect and without error. I would agree 100%. And yes they are preserved. But to say that there is a specific copy that is 100% without error is not supported by Scripture.

Oh, I see, you think God had to say, "I will preserve my pure and perfect word in the English language in a version called The King James Bible".

Now, suppose God had done that. What do you think the ol devil would do? I tell you what he would do, he would publish a thousand different bibles and call each and every one of them The King James Bible. We would be more confused than ever. Every one of them would be different to confuse man and hide the truth from him.

And actually, that is exactly what he has done if you have eyes to see it.

 

[Mexdeaf]

But I have never seen a MV commit to any version. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. They will insist that God preserved his word, and then say all versions contain error. I wouldn't call that preservation. Maybe you would.

And then if you ask them which version is that pure and preserved Word, they say they ALL are. This is ridiculous and absolutely illogical because they are all different.

No where does the Bible demand us to commit to a specific translation or version. As a matter of fact all of the different KJV's disagree (Cambridge and Oxford; 1611, 1769, etc.) so your argument turns against yourself.

 

[jbh28]

What kind of statement is that? Don't you believe the scriptures are the Word of God? If so, they are a representation of Jesus Christ himself.

You can not seperate Jesus from the Word of God. They are the same. Jesus created the universe by merely speaking His Word.

You see, I have a completely different viewpoint from you. You believe the scriptures are just ink on paper written by fallible men, so of course they have errors.

Where did I say that? The Scriptures are the God breathed words. They are the very breath of God. They are infallible and inerrant. We have them given to us without error to the original writers. The only errors are in the copies, but Scripture itself is not in error.

But I believe that one version has to be the preserved and pure Word of God. It has to be perfect and without error, because it represents Jesus himself who is perfect and without error.

And where in Scripture do you have to support this? Before the KJV what was this "perfect" version? If you say the Received text, which one? Was it the 1884 copy, or was it an earlier copy? Before that, where was this "one version"?

And you aren't going to prove this with scholarship. You can spend your entire life studying this and you will not get anywhere, because you are trying to comprehend and apprehend the spiritual through natural means.

And you won't prove it with Scripture either.

No, it will always come down to faith. You must simply believe that God kept his word that he would preserve his pure and perfect Word.

And I do believe that the WORDS are still pure and perfect. I find it ironic that you accuse me of believing that I," believe the scriptures are just ink on paper" when that is precisely your position. You believe that Scripture is just what is on paper and that is why a paper copy has to be perfect. I believe that the WORDS are perfect, regardless if they are copied perfectly or translated perfectly.

Now, if you want to argue which version is that pure and perfect Word, you have an issue. I believe it is the KJB in English, and those texts the KJB translators used to translate it.

But those texts don't agree with each other. They cannot be perfect. The KJV has been revised, it cannot be perfect. (well, not all revisions can be perfect)

But I have never seen a MV commit to any version. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. They will insist that God preserved his word, and then say all versions contain error. I wouldn't call that preservation. Maybe you would.

God WORDS are preserved, not some piece of paper, nor copy nor translation. My version has perfect preservation(words being perserved) yours has paper preservation(which simply isn't true).

And then if you ask them which version is that pure and preserved Word, they say they ALL are. This is ridiculous and absolutely illogical because they are all different.

Nobody says(well, nobody you should be listening to) that a version nor copy is pure. Which KJV is the pure one? and where was the pure versions before then, all the way to the original writings. If there isn't a perfect line, then your theory of preservation cannot be true. Mine is true because I believe it is the words that are preserved, not pieces of paper.

 

[jbh28]

Oh, I see, you think God had to say, "I will preserve my pure and perfect word in the English language in a version called The King James Bible".

Now, suppose God had done that. What do you think the ol devil would do? I tell you what he would do, he would publish a thousand different bibles and call each and every one of them The King James Bible. We would be more confused than ever. Every one of them would be different to confuse man and hide the truth from him.

And actually, that is exactly what he has done if you have eyes to see it.

oh, the classic "eyes to see" comment by another kjv only advocate. The pride the surrounds the kjv only community is deeply sad. The words are preserved, not pieces of paper.

No where does the Bible demand us to commit to a specific translation or version. As a matter of fact all of the different KJV's disagree (Cambridge and Oxford; 1611, 1769, etc.) so your argument turns against yourself.

Exactly.

 

[rbell]

Winman worships the KJV. Thus, winman, is guilty of idolatry.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Winman worships the KJV. Thus, winman, is guilty of idolatry.

It's call "bibliolatry" and the more winman posts the sadder it is evident.

That sort of blind devotion, veneration and claim of perfection to a man-made object hundreds of years later makes me cry with Hezekiah "NEHUSHTAN".

Sad.

 

[HankD]

This is an exercise in futility.

Every criteria the KJVO advocates apply to the MV's can be applied to the KJV:

It has been shown (and we get no joy from being forced into these activities) concerning the KJV (1611, 1613, 1769, etc) :

It adds words to the text.
It deletes words from the text.
Some of the translators were "heretics" according to baptistic standards.
It has been upgraded and revised several times over the years.
There are at least two publishers printing different texts (things different are not the same).
There are at least two different editions (1611,1769) which are different (things different are not the same).

Then we are told that these "errors" are "small" and "insignificant".

In other words God can make little mistakes but not big ones.

Actually, God is incapable of mistakes of any size from microscopic to galactic but the KJV translators being men were and even made a virtual admission to having made mistakes by refining the text over its lifetime with updated editions and revisions until the 1800's.

Pointing out these undeniable historic facts we are suddenly judged as those who "hate" the KJV and that we don't have eyes to see that we are deceived. We also require scholarship and evidences above and beyond those provided by the 17th century AV committee of scholars, linguists and historians.

When in actuality the truth is (again) if any translation is "full" of errors (which the KJV translators at least partially admitted to by their actions of editting and revising their work over the years) it is not God who made the errors but men. In fact, it is to their credit (KJV translators and the Anglo-Catholic Church) that they were diligent in their corrections and enhancements to the English text of the first edition of the 1611AV.

Neither does it make this historical fact of the imperfection of their work (of which they took great pains over the years to repair) go away by issuing these ad hominems against those of us who point out historical truth rather than an unsubstantiated fable.

Having said that please know that no one of us "hates" the KJV.

Rant complete.

HankD

 

[Askjo]

Jesus ≠ KJV.

Jesus > KJV.

KJV ≠ God.

If anyone calls the KJV, "Bible," the Bible is the God-speaking. If anyone calls the KJV, "Scripture," it is the God-speaking.

 

[Mexdeaf]

If anyone calls the KJV, "Bible," the Bible is the God-speaking. If anyone calls the KJV, "Scripture," it is the God-speaking.

Okay, whatever you say. :laugh:

 

[Askjo]

None of the manuscripts are in 100% agreement.
What do you mean by 95% reliable?

True, PSALMS 12:6-7 talked about God's Words preserved in apographs. That is how we got the Bible. Without God's preservation of His Words, there would be no Bible.

 

[Alcott]

With God's preservation of His Words, there would be no Bible.

Really? LOL you might want to edit that.

 

[Askjo]

Really? LOL you might want to edit that.

Thank you for a better catch than me. I edited it and corrected it.

 

[TCassidy]

True, PSALMS 12:6-7 talked about God's Words preserved in apographs.

Uh, well, actually, no it doesn't.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Uh, well, actually, no it doesn't.

I always choke up a little in my mouth when I hear someone rip God's Word from context and come up with such horrendous statements.

There ARE other passages that talk about God's Word being kept, but only a non-literal mystical view of Ps 12 would come up with such a conclusion.

But we've gone down that road with Askjo before. :BangHead:

 

[jbh28]

True, PSALMS 12:6-7 talked about God's Words preserved in apographs. That is how we got the Bible. Without God's preservation of His Words, there would be no Bible.

Psalms 12:6-7 has nothing to do with the Preservation of the Bible if you read the context of the passage. But, we are promised in other places that are dealing with the Word of God that God's word would be preserved. It isn't talking about the original autographs(they are not here) but the WORDS that will be preserved. Yes, these words are on paper, but no where does it say one specific copy would be prefect. No where in Scripture does it say that a copyist would be kept from error, nor a translator.

 

[Askjo]

Uh, well, actually, no it doesn't.

the people, not the Words?

 

[jbh28]

the people, not the Words?

read psalm 12 in context.

To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.

The opening of Psalm 12

Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
The godly and the faithful have because so scarce, that they don't seem to exist anymore. People speak vanity and with flattering lips and double heart.


The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
David, still in his prayer, is asking that the Lord cut off those with the flattering lips spoken of in vss 1-2.

For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
The wrong done by the flattering words and vanity. People's words cannot be trusted. The Lord set him in safety(godly from vs 1).

Notice, we are through the first 5 verses. The context has clearly been set, and it isn't about the Bible. It is about the godly man and those that use flattering lips. The Lord will set the godly man in safety.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Opposite to those in verses 1 and 2, the Lord's words are pure. What he says in verse 5 will be true because the Lord doesn't lie.

Again, notice nothing is mentioned yet about the Bible. While the Bible does include Gods words, they are not all of them. The Bible is everything that God wanted us to have, but it didn't record every single word that God has ever said. Not all the conversations between Adam and God are recorded for instance. David is talking about the words that God says and that they are true and pure, not like the ones that speak with flattering words...


Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

To say that David as change the subject just in this one verse doesn't have any contextual support. He is speaking about what he had just said in verse 5, who is speaking about the godly in verse 1. The "them" in the KJV is literally "him." Which could NOT be referring to words as we don't call words by "him." The KJV has them because it is speaking of the plural of the poor and needy which is more than one person. In English, we use the term "them" to refer to more than one person so "him" would be grammatically incorrect even though it would be a literal translation.

 

[TCassidy]

the people, not the Words?

Correct. The "them" refers to the "poor" and "needy" of verse 5. Verse 6 is saying that when God makes a promise, He will keep it. Then verse 7 tells us that God, just as He promised in verse 5 ("I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him."), will preserve the poor and needy even under the worst oppression imaginable.

Even the KJV of 1611 says, in the margin "Heb. him, i. euery one of them" referring to the poor and needy, not the words (in this case not referring to the written word of God, but to the promise of God).

 

[Phillip]

It is a wee bit hard to post when there is a "slant" to BOTH questions. I refuse to vote when the questions were written by a person who writes political speeches on the side (obviously).

 

[HankD]

read psalm 12 in context.

To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.

The opening of Psalm 12

Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
The godly and the faithful have because so scarce, that they don't seem to exist anymore. People speak vanity and with flattering lips and double heart.


The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
David, still in his prayer, is asking that the Lord cut off those with the flattering lips spoken of in vss 1-2.

For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
The wrong done by the flattering words and vanity. People's words cannot be trusted. The Lord set him in safety(godly from vs 1).

Notice, we are through the first 5 verses. The context has clearly been set, and it isn't about the Bible. It is about the godly man and those that use flattering lips. The Lord will set the godly man in safety.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Opposite to those in verses 1 and 2, the Lord's words are pure. What he says in verse 5 will be true because the Lord doesn't lie.

Again, notice nothing is mentioned yet about the Bible. While the Bible does include Gods words, they are not all of them. The Bible is everything that God wanted us to have, but it didn't record every single word that God has ever said. Not all the conversations between Adam and God are recorded for instance. David is talking about the words that God says and that they are true and pure, not like the ones that speak with flattering words...


Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

To say that David as change the subject just in this one verse doesn't have any contextual support. He is speaking about what he had just said in verse 5, who is speaking about the godly in verse 1. The "them" in the KJV is literally "him." Which could NOT be referring to words as we don't call words by "him." The KJV has them because it is speaking of the plural of the poor and needy which is more than one person. In English, we use the term "them" to refer to more than one person so "him" would be grammatically incorrect even though it would be a literal translation.

"him", vs. "them" It is within the realm of possibility that the "him" is a Hebrew word refering to the singular collective of the "words of God" and every Hebrew noun has a gender of masculine or feminine.

There is no neutral in Hebrew but sometimes a noun can be referenced as either masculine or feminine depending upon the context.

The number of Hebrew nouns is either singular or plural. The form of collective nouns is singular.

Biblical Hebrew, TW Nakarai, pg. 25.

It is not an uncommon thing in Hebrew to switch from plural to a collective singular noun or to change gender as well.
It doesn't happen on every page but it is not uncommon (See note 1 of the citation above on page 25 of Nakarai).

But so what if this passage is in reference to the "words of God" as a singular masculine entity!

There is no book in antiquity or history that has the thousands upon thousands of mss which bear witness to this passage concerning the preservation of the words of God.

Even Homer's Illad has only a small handful of source manuscripts from which it is reconstructed. No one makes a big deal about that.

Yet year after year after year with new archeolgical discoveries, Dead Sea Scrolls, papyrii and other sources it is proven over and over again the promise of God to preserve His words.

And both the KJV and the NIV are the products of this promise.

HankD