The KJV: the word of God or the very wordS of God?

quote:Originally posted by robycop3:

The KJV CANNOT be the very wordS of God, as He didn't speak to His prophets in English. He used whatever language(s) He'd assigned to each of His prophets.

Plain ol' Ralph: So God can't speak to anyone who knows only English???

Don't try an end-around, Ralph...this aint no football game. Please tell us to WHOM did God give His words for the first time in earth in ENGLISH. Joey Smith? Charles Taze Russell? Dr. Peter Ruckman, & his "advanced revelation"? Gail Riplinger, "God's secretary"?

Sure, God coulda spoken to Isaiah or Daniel in English...but could they have recorded His English words?

 

And this begs the question in what languages did He originally give His word?

the prophets and apostles were the vehicles of inspiration not the KJV (or any Bible translators) translators.

so is calling the NASB or NKJV "corrupt".

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

While some on this board will say such things, I am challenging you to show me where I have.
And I would also ask you to address the entire content of my post.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

What is untrue in this statement?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

You KNOW I did not say the statement was untrue. What I said was your equivocation was untrue. Are you having troubled with reading and comprehension? I can help you if you would like.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Scott said, "Nope. Not God's words. God gave words once. He gave them through men meeting special qualifications. Translations and even copies in the original languages are the works of men. The originals were a direct work of God. "

__________________________________________________

I get SOOOO tired of this constant appeal to non-existant "originals". Once more...IF the "originals" is your standard then you HAVE NO standard.

On the one hand ya'll will cry loudly that ANY faithful translation is the word of God, yet on the other ya'll cry just as loudly that "only the originals" are God's word.
And you all say WE have a double standard?

You know you cannot produce these "originals" so WHAT and WHERE are God's wordS? Don't go running to the plethera of extant MSS. You know they are all different. If they are the work of men and ONLY the "originals" are the work of God, then we are ALL in deep "doo-doo" to coin a phrase from our resident "expert".


In HIS service;
Jim

 

Back to the poll... I believe both are true. They are not mutually exclusive. If you don't believe the translation you use has accurately rendered the very words that God gave, then you don't have a Bible. If it's man's words or man's idea of what God meant, I don't want it.

 

jim, I didn't say that you said anything bad about the NKJV or the NASB. I simply gave a KJVO statement that has appeared on this board.

As to the other complaint you made:
If my statement about the Mormons and their view of the KJV Bible is true, then I have every right to equivocate that position to others in an open debate forum.

To prove my equivocation is wrong or where it it is wrong in part is the challenge.

To snivel and whine proves nothing about the issue except your passion for the KJV (which is understandable).

BTW, many years ago I had an interest in mormonism. It seemed suspect to me that when Joseph Smith used the peep-stone (Umim and Thumim?) to translate the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, the translation came out in KJV 17th century English and in many cases word-for-word copies of large sections of the KJV.

Which, BTW, supports the radical KJVO position in a bizzare way (and I don't mean you jim).

HankD

 

I like to say "faithful translation of the source manuscripts" which keeps it from being a "double standard" since that's what both sides believe except for the "radical" KJVO who believe that the KJV English (1611?-1853?) corrects those source manuscripts from which they were translated which BTW is a double-standard on their part.

Imagine the KJVO blood vessels that would pop if the MVers said this about the NIV (that it corrects the Greek and Hebrew).

HankD

 

When suspicion rules over a man to delegate his response, that man is ensnared by his own fear, whereby we are not given unto fear which is the spirit of bondage.

 

Agreed! </font>[/QUOTE]So what language does God then speak when he calls a man to preach??? </font>[/QUOTE]He speaks to that man through whatever language he knows, through the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]He sure does, and I Love the way He speaks thru the Holy Bible and doesn't get confused over which words He chose and think it should have been better said when all the while He knew exactly what He meant all along.

 

YOU need moderating, friend, not the other way around.

 

No, sir, I ask a legitimate question, which you doge and then ad-homenim; the Truth remains, God uses the KJB and we laugh at all others, especially when simple logic exposes the mv promoters, and congratulators, fallacies.

 

Honestly, he probabably doesn't use a language at all.

He talks to the Spirit of man. How many here have heard God say "I want you to preach." though their EARS. Not many, I would say.

Is he capable of this? Sure, does he do it. Probably not very often.

Same thing with reading a translation. If the Holy Spirit helps you see things in the Bible, usually a light flicks on in your mind and you say. I get what He's trying to say. That makes sense. Did He clarify that passage in English. No, you read it in English and the Holy Spirit clarified it in your mind---even beyond the capability of English. At least that is the way it seems in my experience.

Last Sunday we read a passage that I have read for years. All of a suddent I got a picture in my mind of how that verse fits with the rest of the Bible and God's message to man. The verse came from English, the clarification came in the form of an idea which was even difficult to put down in English. More of an internal UNDERSTANDING. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you also practice transindental- meditation? If you speak English, then say you have received this "understanding", then why can't you express in English what you undertsand? Then, how is it you can even say you "understood" something, when, as you say, you can't explain it? Seems more of an inclination than an understanding, which many cult leaders also attained, but tried their best to make others believe they had gotten revelation, but, and only, realistically, they had only this preminition and even a perversion of Truth; that is WHY God gave us the KJB, to refute such preminitions and inclinations.

 

Why, of course, just as God speaks to the heart of every believer when the Truth is preached w/o comprimise

So, by that same observation, nothing you can then say can be attributed as being from God.

We even have those words quoted from satan, does your logic then tell us that God cannot use the words of satan against him coupled with other Scriptures, (IN HARMONY NO DOUBT) to refute error?

Oh, yes, friend, there is, read the preface over closely again, you'll find they attributed to God everything they produced and UNDER His guidance, thus they were inspired to compile the KJB. You are therefore WRONG.

 

I prove you wrong in the very Bible you deny it's inspiration, then you also wrongly attributed "any other" translation as the words of God, and that smacks you right back in another post you made that tries to indicate, by your choosing, what is considered the Word of God and is not though they be a translation.

What one is only able to surmise by your logic is that no one is sure what is the Word of God and that no one can be sure, that is utter CONFUSION, you have no final authority in the matter and are leading others astray!!

May I recommend a little consideration of what you have already said?

 

So did David Koresh, but that doesn't change the Word of God one iota. We even have satan using the KJB to tempt the Son of God, even in every other translation available, so by your statement, all versions are thereby invalidated. NOT!

 

Oh, yes, friend, there is, read the preface over closely again, you'll find they attributed to God everything they produced and UNDER His guidance, thus they were inspired to compile the KJB. You are therefore WRONG. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Do you really, truly believe that the KJV translators were inspired with same way as Moses and Paul were?

 

Hmmm? So are you then saying those who compiled the Latin Vulgate had MSS not available today? Or are you saying all other versions that have these very same scripture references are thereby also invalid?

 

Oh, yes, friend, there is, read the preface over closely again, you'll find they attributed to God everything they produced and UNDER His guidance, thus they were inspired to compile the KJB. You are therefore WRONG. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you really, truly believe that the KJV translators were inspired with same way as Moses and Paul were? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Let me ask you this question and allow yourself time to come to a conclusion: When you witness to the lost, are you as inspired to say what you do as much as Moses or Paul was inspired to relate what thus saith the Lord, and if not, by whomm is it that inspires you, and why is there then this breakdown of Holy Ghost inspiration, when all the while there is NONE?

Is God somehow aging and losing His grip?

 

One question at a time - do you really believe that the KJV translators were inspired in the same way as Paul and Moses were?

 

Oh, C4K, if you mean did the translators originate the message, No, but the Lord did most assuredly inspire the compilation of the KJB to relate, finally, to the English speaking people the Mind of Christ.