Suppose for a Moment, if you will.....

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Consider if you will....

In bible terms, inerrant refers to no mistakes/errors, while infallible be that though has monor mistakes.errors, it willa ccomplish what God intends for it to do!

Now.....can you show me ANY chapter/verse in ANY Original language or ANY version/translation that justifies or demonstrates your (apparently)private definition of the words "inerrant" or "infallible". That is a fair question since it is the SAME ONE that is tossed at us KJV adherents almost every time the subject is discussed. My contention is....no...you can't....but then...I'll be honest and say I can't either. I'm dependent on the actual dictionary definition that God gave somebody (Noah Webster?) the wisdom to put in print. I'll stick with what I know and believe to be true.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Rippon]

Old Timer,
I would not concern myself too much about posts from Rippon. He has been slithering about for years, posting what on the surface appears to be very intellectual posts, but always address a minor or meaningless subject. It never addresses anything to do with our number one purpose for being here, telling others about Jesus. Even on the points he does make, it is never, ever in agreement. It is always opposing someone in a demeaning way. Look up his past history.

Funny that your personal posts to me have been apologetic for your conduct.

 

[Logos1560]

I contend that NO MAN...Or WORK OF MAN ( if it is strictly the "work of man") can be considered "infallible"....we have to be careful here....Are we to assume that it is impossible for ANY work of translation to carry with it the feature of infallibility...whether it be the KJV or ANY other work?

What scriptural support can you offer for your seeming inconsistent opinion that the work of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 can be considered infallible but the work of others such as the translators of the Geneva Bible or the translators of the NKJV cannot be?
Are you possibly using divers measures in your claims for the KJV? Are you showing partiality or respect of persons to one group of scholars?

Other translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, the Bible-believing Baptists and others who revised the KJV in 1842, or the translators of the NKJV had the same guiding of the Holy Spirit available to them that would have been available to the translators of the KJV.

The translators of the Geneva Bible could properly be considered more godly and doctrinally sound than the later Church of England translators of the KJV. Some of the unsound Church of England doctrinal views accepted by the KJV translators and some of their practices such as persecuting believers for their faith even during the time of the making of the KJV could call into question how yielded they were to the leadership of God. Perhaps they were more yielded to the earthly head of their state church--King James I and to Archbishop Richard Bancroft than to God or otherwise you would think that they would have given up some of the incorrect doctrines of their church such as baptismal regeneration that had been kept from the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Yeshua1]

Now.....can you show me ANY chapter/verse in ANY Original language or ANY version/translation that justifies or demonstrates your (apparently)private definition of the words "inerrant" or "infallible". That is a fair question since it is the SAME ONE that is tossed at us KJV adherents almost every time the subject is discussed. My contention is....no...you can't....but then...I'll be honest and say I can't either. I'm dependent on the actual dictionary definition that God gave somebody (Noah Webster?) the wisdom to put in print. I'll stick with what I know and believe to be true.

Bro.Greg:saint:

usin gthe terms as they are used in theologoical circles, that inerrant is that God so worked in and thru the original writers, that their finished books were totally free of any mistakes and error, regardless if theology/doctrine/historical facts etc, while the copies would be infallible, as some minor errors/mistakes crept in, but still have the word of God to us!

 

[Yeshua1]

What scriptural support can you offer for your seeming inconsistent opinion that the work of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 can be considered infallible but the work of others such as the translators of the Geneva Bible or the translators of the NKJV cannot be?
Are you possibly using divers measures in your claims for the KJV? Are you showing partiality or respect of persons to one group of scholars?

Other translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, the Bible-believing Baptists and others who revised the KJV in 1842, or the translators of the NKJV had the same guiding of the Holy Spirit available to them that would have been available to the translators of the KJV.

The translators of the Geneva Bible could properly be considered more godly and doctrinally sound than the later Church of England translators of the KJV. Some of the unsound Church of England doctrinal views accepted by the KJV translators and some of their practices such as persecuting believers for their faith even during the time of the making of the KJV could call into question how yielded they were to the leadership of God. Perhaps they were more yielded to the earthly head of their state church--King James I and to Archbishop Richard Bancroft than to God or otherwise you would think that they would have given up some of the incorrect doctrines of their church such as baptismal regeneration that had been kept from the Roman Catholic Church.

did the geneva and kjv use exactly same source texts?
How close were they translated to those texts, and how much agreement between the 2 of them?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Back At Ya.....

What scriptural support can you offer for your seeming inconsistent opinion that the work of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 can be considered infallible but the work of others such as the translators of the Geneva Bible or the translators of the NKJV cannot be?
Are you possibly using divers measures in your claims for the KJV? Are you showing partiality or respect of persons to one group of scholars?

Other translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, the Bible-believing Baptists and others who revised the KJV in 1842, or the translators of the NKJV had the same guiding of the Holy Spirit available to them that would have been available to the translators of the KJV.

The translators of the Geneva Bible could properly be considered more godly and doctrinally sound than the later Church of England translators of the KJV. Some of the unsound Church of England doctrinal views accepted by the KJV translators and some of their practices such as persecuting believers for their faith even during the time of the making of the KJV could call into question how yielded they were to the leadership of God. Perhaps they were more yielded to the earthly head of their state church--King James I and to Archbishop Richard Bancroft than to God or otherwise you would think that they would have given up some of the incorrect doctrines of their church such as baptismal regeneration that had been kept from the Roman Catholic Church.

I would ask you the same question (see the embolded parts of your post above) in regard to the group or groups of "scholars" or translations you feel are best.
I have said before that BOTH positions are based more on OPINIONS formed after examining the available manuscript evidence for BOTH positions. It is NOT the statements found in Scripture that we disagree upon primarily....it is the EXTRA-BIBLICAL and HISTORICAL manuscript evidence that we disagree upon....and always will unless one of us changes positions. You are welcome to your OPINION....but I am just as welcome to MINE.

In regard to the suppositions of the second paragraph above regarding the doctrinal distinctives (Church of England) held by some of the translators of the KJV....I don't see those distinctives becoming clear "features" taught in the text they arrived at. The text (in my opinion) would seem to be neutral at worst despite how the Church of Christ may twist Acts 2:38. I would personally prefer the way the KJV reads on these matters to ANY other reading in any other version that I have yet seen. I believe the KJV translators gave us an honest translation of the Scriptures based upon the textual basis they used without letting any supposed doctrinal bias they might have naturally had guide them. Believe what you will (I know you are going to anyway) but that is my position and I am at peace with it. I will now sit here awaiting the looooong opposing thesis that I know is usually forthcoming from you.:sleep:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

So Who Is To Say.....

usin gthe terms as they are used in theologoical circles, that inerrant is that God so worked in and thru the original writers, that their finished books were totally free of any mistakes and error, regardless if theology/doctrine/historical facts etc, while the copies would be infallible, as some minor errors/mistakes crept in, but still have the word of God to us!

So who is to say that the use of these "terms" is more correct by those in "theological circles" as opposed to the original definitions of the terms as found in the "dictionaries". Where do the "theologians" get THEIR definitions from? Or do they just invent them as they please to suit themselves and their opinions?

As to the inerrancy/infallibility of the translations.....if error has crept in to ALL of them then there is no perfect Word of God available to us today....by definition of the terms. Those of us that hold to the perfection of the KJV soundly refute and defend against that position. It has always amazed me that for the critics of the KJV, it is ALWAYS EVERYTHING ELSE against the KJV...yet...for the better part of 400 years the KJV was for the most part the undisputed Word of God without serious contention. I contend that the modern era assault against it (and to attempt to replace it) is just an indication of the oncoming and ongoing depravity of the darkness that is quickly enveloping our world as the day of Christ's return nears. Satan is at a near frenzy knowing that his day is running out. The attack he begun on the Word of God in the garden of Eden is at a fever-pitch today because he knows how highly God esteems His Word. Thank God I have that issue settled and I can say I have no doubt or confusion about what God actually says in His Word. Now all I need is a more perfect understanding and more complete degree of obedience to it.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Yeshua1]

So who is to say that the use of these "terms" is more correct by those in "theological circles" as opposed to the original definitions of the terms as found in the "dictionaries". Where do the "theologians" get THEIR definitions from? Or do they just invent them as they please to suit themselves and their opinions?

As to the inerrancy/infallibility of the translations.....if error has crept in to ALL of them then there is no perfect Word of God available to us today....by definition of the terms. Those of us that hold to the perfection of the KJV soundly refute and defend against that position. It has always amazed me that for the critics of the KJV, it is ALWAYS EVERYTHING ELSE against the KJV...yet...for the better part of 400 years the KJV was for the most part the undisputed Word of God without serious contention. I contend that the modern era assault against it (and to attempt to replace it) is just an indication of the oncoming and ongoing depravity of the darkness that is quickly enveloping our world as the day of Christ's return nears. Satan is at a near frenzy knowing that his day is running out. The attack he begun on the Word of God in the garden of Eden is at a fever-pitch today because he knows how highly God esteems His Word. Thank God I have that issue settled and I can say I have no doubt or confusion about what God actually says in His Word. Now all I need is a more perfect understanding and more complete degree of obedience to it.

Bro.Greg:saint:

So what do you called the mistakes in the kjv then?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

really....REALLY???

So what do you called the mistakes in the kjv then?

I don't believe there are any. (even though I know that there are those...maybe yourself included...that will attempt to convince me that there are). Over the years...I have never encountered or heard of even ONE supposed mistake in the KJV that could not be suitably explained. That said, I will say that I don't profess to be smart enough to be able to offer those kind of explanations myself. There are those to whom God has given the gift of that kind of wisdom......but I'm not one of them as far as I can tell. God HAS, thankfully given me the gift of faith so I can have confidence in His Word. If you are getting ready to show me all the "supposed" mistakes in the KJV I will, quite honestly, warn you that my mind is CLOSED to that kind of thing. I hate to be blunt but I'm not going to entertain any doubt in the Word of God (KJV). I don't understand it all....but I DO believe it all. I suggest you do the same.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Mexdeaf]

I don't believe there are any. (even though I know that there are those...maybe yourself included...that will attempt to convince me that there are). Over the years...I have never encountered or heard of even ONE supposed mistake in the KJV that could not be suitably explained. That said, I will say that I don't profess to be smart enough to be able to offer those kind of explanations myself. There are those to whom God has given the gift of that kind of wisdom......but I'm not one of them as far as I can tell. God HAS, thankfully given me the gift of faith so I can have confidence in His Word. If you are getting ready to show me all the "supposed" mistakes in the KJV I will, quite honestly, warn you that my mind is CLOSED to that kind of thing. I hate to be blunt but I'm not going to entertain any doubt in the Word of God (KJV). I don't understand it all....but I DO believe it all. I suggest you do the same.

Bro.Greg:saint:

And I don't know of any "mistakes" in the other versions that cannot be "suitably explained".

This is such a silly argument. The mulberry bush must be getting dizzy.

 

[Yeshua1]

And I don't know of any "mistakes" in the other versions that cannot be "suitably explained".

This is such a silly argument. The mulberry bush must be getting dizzy.

why are the KJVO so scared to even admit a mistake or error?

After all, we need a perfect saviour, not bible , right?

 

[jbh28]

why are the KJVO so scared to even admit a mistake or error?

After all, we need a perfect saviour, not bible , right?

Well, a perfect Savior gave us a perfect Bible. You may way to say translation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, a perfect Savior gave us a perfect Bible. You may way to say translation.

that would make better sense, thanks!

 

[Logos1560]

I have said before that BOTH positions are based more on OPINIONS formed after examining the available manuscript evidence for BOTH positions. It is NOT the statements found in Scripture that we disagree upon primarily....it is the EXTRA-BIBLICAL and HISTORICAL manuscript evidence that we disagree upon....and always will unless one of us changes positions.

I don't show partiality to any one exclusive group of scholars and don't use divers measures to use one standard for one group of scholars/translators but in effect a different standard for others. Use of unrighteous divers weights, uneven balances, or double standards would be unscriptural.

How do we supposedly disagree on the historical manuscript evidence? I accept the traditional original language texts. I attempt to hold to a consistent view of preservation that would be true both before and after 1611.

A KJV-only view in effect rejects the greater authority of the historical original language manuscript evidence in some cases to accept the readings added by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate and to accept conjectures introduced by Erasmus and Beza that are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts. The minority readings in the Textus Receptus and followed in the KJV are also problem when consistently accepting the traditional original language textual evidence. The twenty or so varying editions of the Textus Receptus with some textual differences with each other are a reconstructed text that differs in some points from the Traditional or Majority Greek text.

Thus since you seem to make the KJV in effect your authority instead of any consistent, sound acceptance of the actual historical manuscript evidence, we may disagree on that. We also disagree in that I do not consider it scriptural to attempt to bind or limit the word of God to the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

There definitely have been errors in the KJV, some in the 1611 edition and some introduced later. There have been errors that remained many years, sometimes over 100 years before being corrected.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't show partiality to any one exclusive group of scholars and don't use divers measures to use one standard for one group of scholars/translators but in effect a different standard for others. Use of unrighteous divers weights, uneven balances, or double standards would be unscriptural.

How do we supposedly disagree on the historical manuscript evidence? I accept the traditional original language texts. I attempt to hold to a consistent view of preservation that would be true both before and after 1611.

A KJV-only view in effect rejects the greater authority of the historical original language manuscript evidence in some cases to accept the readings added by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate and to accept conjectures introduced by Erasmus and Beza that are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts. The minority readings in the Textus Receptus and followed in the KJV are also problem when consistently accepting the traditional original language textual evidence. The twenty or so varying editions of the Textus Receptus with some textual differences with each other are a reconstructed text that differs in some points from the Traditional or Majority Greek text.

Thus since you seem to make the KJV in effect your authority instead of any consistent, sound acceptance of the actual historical manuscript evidence, we may disagree on that. We also disagree in that I do not consider it scriptural to attempt to bind or limit the word of God to the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

There definitely have been errors in the KJV, some in the 1611 edition and some introduced later. There have been errors that remained many years, sometimes over 100 years before being corrected.

reading you site information, it appears that you argue for the superiority of the traditiona/majority greek texts over the critical one, correct/

NOT slamming you for that, as I think it actually works here better when you adress the KJVO folks, since you and them would be essentially agreeing upon which greek text family tree to be the one to base translations on!

 

[Rippon]

Those of us that hold to the perfection of the KJV soundly refute and defend against that position.

Funny that you feel that way. Why then is the NIV continuing to be the most popular version?

If the KJVO position has "soundly refuted" those that oppose that dogma--- why are the KJVO winners actually the losers?

yet...for the better part of 400 years the KJV was for the most part the undisputed Word of God without serious contention.

I'd say that the KJV was dominant from 1750 to 1950 for the most part, although a weakening was happening in the first quarter of the 20th century. That's only 200 years.

I contend that the modern era assault against it (and to attempt to replace it)

An "assault" against the man-made doctrine of KJVOnlyism.

is just an indication of the oncoming and ongoing depravity of the darkness that is quickly enveloping our world as the day of Christ's return nears. Satan is at a near frenzy knowing that his day is running out. The attack he begun on the Word of God in the garden of Eden is at a fever-pitch today because he knows how highly God esteems His Word. Thank God I have that issue settled and I can say I have no doubt or confusion about what God actually says in His Word. Now all I need is a more perfect understanding and more complete degree of obedience to it.

You are one confused individual or exhibiting willful disobedience. You sure don't take correction very well.

You have said some perfectly outlandish things above. What doctrines are compromised in the modern versions? Doesn't Satan have better things to do than getting more and more Bible translations into the hands of millions? It seems to me that the Devil could really do more wicked work than that!

 

[Jerome]

I'd say that the KJV was dominant from 1750 to. . .

1750?

Huh?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Suppose, just for a moment, that at the hand of God, a Bible version rolled off the presses, in the English language, that no one could question the validity. That He, in His infinate power, in some manner declared it to be an absolute. If you see it, hear it, touch it, the Holy Spirit convicts you that it is a faithful translation in every detail of what God inspired to be recorded for mankind. It does not carry a copyright and is placed into public domain.

What would happen?

One question: How did we know about the infinite powerful "God" and the "Holy Sprit" before this unquestionably faithful translation suddenly appeared? (Think about it.)

 

[Oldtimer]

Original Post:

Originally Posted by Oldtimer
Suppose, just for a moment, that at the hand of God, a Bible version rolled off the presses, in the English language, that no one could question the validity. That He, in His infinate power, in some manner declared it to be an absolute. If you see it, hear it, touch it, the Holy Spirit convicts you that it is a faithful translation in every detail of what God inspired to be recorded for mankind. It does not carry a copyright and is placed into public domain.

What would happen?

One question: How did we know about the infinite powerful "God" and the "Holy Sprit" before this unquestionably faithful translation suddenly appeared? (Think about it.)

Thanks for the lead in to part two of this question. as this isn't a before but an after question. Even though I mentioned several times it isn't about the KJB specifically, the anti-KJB group just couldn't resist yet another opportunity. (sigh)

However,

InTheLight wrote:
Sadly I think most people would treat it like they treat all other translations and not read it.
"Odd, the more the Bible is translated, the less it is read."--C.S.Lewis
(probably not the answer you were looking for...)

Yeshua1 wrote:
would still have unsaved critics and skeptics, while the saved would still argue over if it replaced the originals to us or not!

Arbo wrote:
Probably nothing different from how Scripture is treated now. Skeptics would question its validity. Publishers would try to "improve" it. Sects would arise based on differing interpretations of what is written. I'm sure you get the idea.

What would happen:

-- if publishing houses could not longer profit from issuing updated versions every few years because of "better scholarship"?

-- if those who earn their livelyhood from supporting/rejecting various English current versions stop receiving checks?

-- if all churches within the Christian faith have to either unite with one Bible or further splinter apart?

-- if all manuscript proponents, whether TR, MT or CT are faced with a perfect, faithful, God given, copy of the "originals" translated into English at God's direction? One that can be used as the accurate/valid standard to which all historical copies can be compared. One that will show, without a doubt, where each version has or has not varied from God's initial inspiration. Every English Bible that has ever been produced by man, since Jesus died on the cross, can be "graded" with a red pencil.

-- if those who parrot other's opinions realize they can no longer rely on many of their choices of historial opinions to state their case? If God doesn't allow satan to interfere, every one of those historical opinions can be accepted, partly accepted or totally refuted by direct reference to the copy of the scriptures God directed to be printed.

Any thoughts on these variations of "What would happen?". Any thoughts on other "What would happen, if......?"

Is Arbo's reply the one most likely to be applicable?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Original Post:




Thanks for the lead in to part two of this question. as this isn't a before but an after question. Even though I mentioned several times it isn't about the KJB specifically, the anti-KJB group just couldn't resist yet another opportunity. (sigh)

However,



What would happen:

-- if publishing houses could not longer profit from issuing updated versions every few years because of "better scholarship"?

-- if those who earn their livelyhood from supporting/rejecting various English current versions stop receiving checks?

-- if all churches within the Christian faith have to either unite with one Bible or further splinter apart?

-- if all manuscript proponents, whether TR, MT or CT are faced with a perfect, faithful, God given, copy of the "originals" translated into English at God's direction? One that can be used as the accurate/valid standard to which all historical copies can be compared. One that will show, without a doubt, where each version has or has not varied from God's initial inspiration. Every English Bible that has ever been produced by man, since Jesus died on the cross, can be "graded" with a red pencil.

-- if those who parrot other's opinions realize they can no longer rely on many of their choices of historial opinions to state their case? If God doesn't allow satan to interfere, every one of those historical opinions can be accepted, partly accepted or totally refuted by direct reference to the copy of the scriptures God directed to be printed.

Any thoughts on these variations of "What would happen?". Any thoughts on other "What would happen, if......?"

Is Arbo's reply the one most likely to be applicable?

Sigh...

If God wanted it to happen, it would have.

He didn't. And He's a lot smarter than we give Him credit for.

Get used to it.