Perfection

What is "perfect faith" in either salvation or the word of God? What do you mean by perfect faith?

I preach the perfection of God's word, and I know a number of others that do. However, I can't speak for all the others.

 

This article documents several differences between the KJV and earlier versions, including the Geneva.

 

Just to quickly point out the obvious, you cannot purify something that is already flawlessly perfect.

But to answer your questions, the same state sponsored church that made the KJV became dissatisfied with its rate of acceptance. So, they used the power of the High Commission Court to outlaw the printing, binding, and distribution of any other version. While you bewail the "KJB" being in the crosshairs, it is in fact the KJV that gained its dominance at the point of a bayonet.

 

Do you believe God now intends for people to learn 17th century idioms, grammar, and sentence structure? I ask honestly.

Neal

 

Are you saying that you put the same faith in the translation work of fallible 17th century Anglican scholars as you do the work of the perfect, infallible Son of God? I hope that you will want to re-think this one.

I agree. God didn't say that we should... he also didn't say that the KJV was the perfect translation nor as Neal pointed out that we should all learn 17th century English.

The KJV while not declaring itself the only good English version does command us to try all things and hold to that which is good.

No one that I know of is trying to discredit the KJV. It is an accurate, scholarly version of the Bible. But it does have a few weaknesses that the wise user will recognize.

If you don't know about that stuff yet, how can you consider yourself a qualified judge of all those that do?

The verse you cite applies more to KJVO's than it does MV supporters. We have asked for "truth"- be it from scripture or historical fact that shows that the KJVO position is the correct one. What usually occurs is a KJVO will post a bunch of unsubstantial or unrelated arguments that are refuted by our side which in turn becomes a provocation to KJVO wrath rather than learning.

 

I doubt any of us have perfect faith. If we did, we would never sin. Every sin can be attributed to a lack of faith.

Now you have changed the subject. You started off talking about the perfection of the KJV and now you are talking about the perfection of your faith. These are two entirely different things.

But as one person already asked, why would he expect you to learn 17th century English? The only difference is the matter of time. In the first century, Greek was the common language. It did not take special dictionaries to be able to communicate. Why should we not have a version in the common language?

 

Thread will be closed soon. Let's wrap it up.

 

Doesn't matter. Every year I preach on the inspiration of the Bible, and the corrolaries of inerrancy, perfection, et al. I do this once a year. There are new people there, new believers who didn't hear it last year. And there are believers there who need to be reminded about some cardinal truths about the Word of God.

 

I think from time to time, we need to be reminded that we are to worship God and God alone. Too many people are worshiping the Bible, thinking it's synonymous. It's not.

 

Originally posted by HomeBound:
>>Just a question on Bible perfection. Do MV
>>churches preach perfection?

Well, I don't know about your area, but I have never seen a church that labels themselves as an "MV church." I had a job that took me to almost every state in the Union, and I never saw an "MV church." Identification of a congregation by a specific Version of God's Word seems to be an anomaly charactistic of KJV-Onlyism.

 

Of course not. That would take away from TV time

 

Many of you seem to believe that KJVOnlyism requires there was no perfect Bible before 1611 (for the sake of argument, let us assume this is true - even though I don't believe it). You find this objectionable. However, your position doesn't stand up to that same test:

1. You believe that the original readers of, say, 1 Corinthians, had perfect scripture there; but soon afterwards it became corrupted, and no Christian since has had a perfect book of 1 Corinthians. So if it's fair for 1st Century Christians to have perfect scripture, and 2nd century Christians not, why is it unfair for 17th Century Christians to have perfect scripture, and 16th Christians not???

2. I don't know which version you think is the best, but whatever it is, there was a time before it was translated. So, this means that there was a time when people didn't have "the best" version. All people living before that time have had something less good. This means the people living after that translation got something better. So why is it fair for one generation to have something "good" and the next generation to have something "better", and yet unfair for one generation to have from something "almost perfect" and the next generation something "perfect"???

3. You believe there was a time when certain languages (including English) had NO Bible at all. So if it's OK for people of one country to go from having NO Bible to having a "good" Bible, why is it wrong for people to go from having an "almost perfect" Bible to having a "perfect" Bible???

In all the above points, must allow that God has given more light to some than to others. You must think this is OK. However, why do you refuse to allow God to give so much light that what results is perfect??? Can God not do this??? Is he imperfect??? As long as we say "God's work has errors", almost everyone on this board seems happy. Why do you suddenly think it "unfair" when God acts perfectly???

 

Hey Bartholomew,

Good questions, I'll be happy to address them.

It's not about "fair" and "unfair", it's about the logical paradox created. KJV-onlyism teaches that the KJV is perfect because God promised to preserve his word and that his word is pure. Supporters of the KJV-only view understand this to mean that unless God is lying, there must be a perfect, pure word, word-for-word without blemish. If KJV-onlyism is correct, and this is how we are to understand the promise of preservation, then that promise must likewise be fulfilled at every point in history, otherwise God was lying at the points in history where it was not fulfilled. That means if there was a perfect, pure Bible in 1612, there also had to be one in 1610. It's about the KJV-only understanding of preservation, not just the perfection of the KJV. In otherwords, they say the KJV is perfect because of their understanding of God's promise of preservation, yet if the KJV is *different* from all Bibles of 1610, that type of "preservation" breaks down due to logical paradox. What exactly is the KJV "preserving" if it differs?

You see, KJV-onlyism is completely stuck:

1. it can't say a "perfect" Bible DID exist in 1610 because A. that would mean the KJV differs from that perfect Bible and perservation breaks down and B. you have *multiple* Bibles in an "only" viewpoint (the exclusiveness cannot exist without relying on inclusiveness).
2. it can't say a "perfect" Bible DID NOT exist in 1610 because that would destroy the very foundation (the KJV-only understanding of "preservation") upon which the view is built on in the first place.

Either way, KJV-onlyism defeats itself.

Because obtaining that perfection requires two things:

1. it requires a type of "presevation" that did not exist previously (see above), creating a paradox
2. it requires direct, divine inspiration of the translators, on the same level of inspiration as the original authors.

I suppose it is possible the KJV translators were in fact divinely inspired to translate absolutely perfectly, but then we are left with many unanswerable questions (such as: why? how can we even know? by what authority can we make such a claim? why did they then correct their work? why did God let the printers mess it up? etc.)

Basically the same reasons as above.

Agreed.

I don't refuse God to do this. There is just no reason, logically or practically, to believe he has. And if he did, you would have absolutely no way of knowing he did it.

God is perfect, and of course he could do it. He could also turn my car into a pink elephant. Just because God *can* do something doesn't mean he *did*.

Let me ask you something: why did God let imperfect man be the means of copying/translating scripture across the centuries, instead of just doing it himself? (hint: Do you have kids? Have you ever let them help you build a treehouse?)

 

But not in the way you say he did. I believe God promised to preserve his word, and I believe God preserved his word. I do not believe God promised to preserve his word in a word-for-word format and that the KJV is that word-for-word preservation (for the reasons stated above, please re-read it), and I don't think you can show me where God said that.

 

Do you believe God now intends for people to learn 17th century idioms, grammar, and sentence structure? I ask honestly.

Neal

New: Homebound, I asked this on page two and I don't know if you saw it. I would greatly appreciate your answer, please.

 

I thinkth thou knoweth the answer