Perfection

"MV churches" is extremely vague and general, but perfection in what sense? Referring to what specifically? The reason I ask is that one of the core problems of the KJV-O debate is people using the word differently.

 

English lacks the ability to perfectly communicate all of the tenses and such of the Greek. Even if you had an exact word for word translation with no help, you would still need to check the tenses at the very least.

On that basis alone, there will NEVER be one english translation that is perfect in every way.

However, since formal equivalent translation are word for word (except in places of obvious cultural sayings), we can with all authority say that we have God's word in english. I have done so and will continue to do so with my NKJV (the version I preach from).

 

Yes. But that book was not given originally in English. Therefore, we have translations of it into English.

 

Hi Homebound, yes, I already know the dictionary definition of perfection. I was asking what specificially about the Bible you were applying it to: perfect in what way? word-for-word as God intended? Do spelling changes count as "improving on perfection"? Do printing errors negate perfection?

He gave perfect scripture, but not as "one book" but as a collection of writings by various authors over a span of centuries. That scripture has been collated, copied and translated by imperfect man since originally given. So no, "MV churches" do not teach "perfection" of any particular translation (in the way you are using the word) because that would imply that there was no perfection before that translation was published - and thus they would be creating a contradiction.

Was there a "perfect" Bible in 1605, "one book that everyone can rely on or goto for the final answer"? If so, was it corrected/replaced in 1611?

 

Still ridin that HobbyHorse question huh?;Sure the Geneva Bible.

Yes,according to Psalms 12:6-7.Hi-Ho Silver!!!

 

If you're referring to perfection of a specific translation English, most churches don't teach translational perfection, because it's not in sctipture. A great many of these churches are KJV.

If you're referring to the the verse, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be prefect in Christ, I'm reasonably sure most, if not all, churches, regardless of version used, teach this.

 

And according to Psalms 12:6-7, it has been replaced many times since then, you think?

 

Still ridin that HobbyHorse question huh?</font>[/QUOTE] My guess is he will ride it until someone from your side answers it intelligently. I am kind of tired of that question myself so why don't you do what none of you folks has done so far and answer the question.

I have a copy of the Geneva Bible thanks to E-Sword. It differs from the KJV so using your understanding of perfect, how can both be perfect?

Yes,according to Psalms 12:6-7.Hi-Ho Silver!!! </font>[/QUOTE]This passage says nothing about the Geneva, the KJV, 1611, correcting, replacing, Bible translating, Bible transmission, or in truth... the preservation of God's Word.

 

Still ridin that HobbyHorse question huh?;Sure the Geneva Bible.

Yes,according to Psalms 12:6-7.Hi-Ho Silver!!! </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm, so the Geneva Bible was the one and only perfect Bible until 1611, when it ceased to be perfect and the KJV replaced it as the one and only perfect Bible. So I guess the question is, which "modern version" replaced the KJV, since the KJV is no longer perfect.

This is a reasonable KJVO conclusion, since, by your own logic, Psalm 12:6-7 does not make a translation solely perfect in perpetuity.

 

Still ridin that HobbyHorse question huh?;Sure the Geneva Bible.

Yes,according to Psalms 12:6-7.Hi-Ho Silver!!!</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, still riding it as it's very effective in showing the error of KJV-onlyism. Your response illustrates it perfectly, thank you for helping me demonstrate. You say the Geneva was "perfect", yet then you say it was corrected. Your answer defeats KJV-onlyism on at least four levels:

1. if the Geneva was a perfect Bible, than not "only" the KJV is the word of God since we still have the Geneva today.
2. if the "perfect" was corrected, then it shows your understanding of "perfect" is wrong.
3. if the Geneva was perfect, it was not necessary to produce the KJV for us to have a perfect Bible.
4. Psalm 12:6-7 is in the Geneva, and if the Geneva is perfect, Psalm 12:6-7 had to already have been fulfilled before the KJV came into existence.

 

Hey great! But there is one small problem,where is the Geneva today in light of KJB vs MVs? Why is it not a key player in the discussions on this board? Why aren't Bible Believers today called GB-onlies? Why is the KJB the one thats been in the cross-hairs {rule violation deleted} since 1881? and not the Geneva?? It served it's purpose and was purified.

[ June 09, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

That's great, just ignore the points I made. Since addressing your questions here would take the thread off-topic (my points, through describing the problem with your logic, explain why "MV churches" don't teach any particular version is "perfect"), I'll gladly address them if you start another thread.

 

Why is the KJB the one thats been in the cross-hairs of Satan since 1881?
Because the KJVO crowd is the only crowd that espouses version-olatry, an unbiblical view.

 

HomeBound said:

Do MV churches preach perfection?

I don't know what you mean by "MV churches," but in my church, perfection is preached.

That being said, sometimes correctly handling the Word of God means noting where its human translators (whether they be King James' committee or Ken Barker's) have not done as good a job as they could have at rendering God's perfect Word into the English language.

 

Versionolatry! Nicely put, John. As Oscar Wilde said, "I wish I had written that, and eventually I will."

Or as I HAVE written, some are "worshipping an engraven image."

But jocularity aside, it is quite an apt term in describing the excess of some few.

--Ralph

 

Let's get back on topic