The Perfect Inerrant Bible

[Ed Edwards]

Anti-Alexandrian: //Try John 1:18 in the NWT and it's twin,
the NASB....The KJB makes it quite clear that the Arian doctrine
found in those two "bibles" is false.//

I hope your Christology is not based on John 1:18
and John 1:18 alone???

Anti-Alexandrian: //And what about 1 Timothy 3:16 as found
in say the NIV or the NASB?//

What about? Do you have an NIV you can quote?
Do you have an NASB you can quote?
What is the difference between the NIV & the NASB?

For differences between the KJVs, check this thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=31304&page=7

The Perfect Inerrant Bible, the one that can be read by 21st
Century (2001-2100) English speakers, is the
HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003).

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Try John 1:18 in the NWT and it's twin,the NASB....The KJB makes it quite clear that the Arian doctrine found in those two "bibles" is false.

And what about [SIZE=-1]1 Timothy 3:16 as found in say the NIV or the NASB?[/SIZE]

Too simple for you?

Not to be contentious, but... are you serious?

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."--John 1:18, NASB

To deny the truth of that verse in the NASB, you have to deny one or more of the following:
1. Jesus is God.
2. The Son is separate from the Father.
3. Jesus is the only-begotten of the Father.
4. Jesus is with God.

I see no untruth in the doctrine as found either in the KJV or NASB.

I Timothy 3:16--I'm guessing you're upset about the change of "God" to "He." A little common sense will solve this one--to whom would you think, particularly with the rest of the counsel of Scripture, that I Timothy 3:16 is referring?

Yes, the Greek manuscripts from which the NASB was translated have different wording in those verses; however, neither of those contain even a hint of bad doctrine.

Michael

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Yep,too simple!

 

[Askjo]

I was under the impression that the authors of the originals were also sinners.

God inspired His Words in the autographs when His authors wrote down through the Holy Spirit's moving. Therefore His inspiration of the Holy Scriptures was inerrant.

 

[tinytim]

The KJV is perfect for crystal doctrines over modern versions. However the KJV is not perfect translation because the KJV translators were sinners and not perfect. Do you mean the "inerrant" KJV? If so, how would you know these KJV translators were inerrant during they were still sinners? The inerrancy refers to the autographs of the OT and of the NT only, not the KJV because the KJV is a translation.

Who are you, and what did you do with Askjo?

You are starting to sound like a MV proponent.:godisgood:

 

[Ed Edwards]

God inspired His Words in the autographs when His authors wrote down through the Holy Spirit's moving. Therefore His inspiration of the Holy Scriptures was inerrant.

Amen, Brother Askjo -- Preach it! :thumbs:

The translations of the witnesses (manuscripts) to those
autographs are also without error (inerrant). However,
people's understanding of what the inerrant Written
Word of God means is CHOCK FULL OF ERRORS.


It behoves us then to check out what others say about
the Living Word of God (Messiah Iesus) and to pass it along
undigested & ununderstood.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Who are you, and what did you do with Askjo?

You are starting to sound like a MV proponent.:godisgood:

Amen, Brother TinyTim -- You are so Right On! :thumbs:

That MV is, of course, the Modern Version KJV1769 Edition,
the most frequent KJV used by KJVusers.
(By Ed's Definition MV = on or after 1750)

 

[tinytim]

Why 1750?..... why not 1611?

 

[robycop3]

Where can the inerrant, perfect WOG in English be found? As many others have said above...IN EVERY VALID VERSION, including the KJV, old or new.

Where's the SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for any one version alone to be the "official" English version? Without that Scriptural support, no one version can be "official"; the ONLY valid reason oone is left with to use and advocate only one version is PERSONAL PREFERENCE, to which one person cannot hold another.

Maybe Bro. Askjo has had a "great awakening"!

 

[Jim1999]

I still think the best translation is the one that gets read and used. I have read from many translation and not one essential doctrine has changed when taking the whole of scripture to develop a doctrine.

I remember the controversy in evangelical circles when the RSV came out. It changed the word "virgin" to "young woman". In the times, a young woman was a virgin, but the Hebrew word allows for the words, "young woman". So, do we get all excited over nothing.

By the way, my group of Baptists simply state a belief in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the original autographs.....and none of the subsequent translations.

I use my KJV all the time and it has all the corrections duly noted...I kow they are inspired cos they are written in blue ink.

Cheers, and happy reading,

Jim

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards: // (By Ed's Definition MV = on or after 1750) //

Why 1750?..... why not 1611?

Alrightey: (By tinytim's Definition MV = on or after 1600)

So the good ol' Geneva Bible (My electronic copy is the
1587 edition, perhaps?) isn't an MV but
all of the KJVs are MVs -- Yes! I love it :1_grouphug:

 

[deacon jd]

Where can the inerrant, perfect WOG in English be found? As many others have said above...IN EVERY VALID VERSION, including the KJV, old or new.

Where's the SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for any one version alone to be the "official" English version? Without that Scriptural support, no one version can be "official"; the ONLY valid reason oone is left with to use and advocate only one version is PERSONAL PREFERENCE, to which one person cannot hold another.

Maybe Bro. Askjo has had a "great awakening"!

Is this the best answer any of you can come up with? I keep hearing this statement made about "every valid version" is inspired. How do you determine what a "valid" version is? That is going to be up to each individuals opinion, and opinions get us in trouble when it comes to the Word of God.

 

[deacon jd]

I still think the best translation is the one that gets read and used. I have read from many translation and not one essential doctrine has changed when taking the whole of scripture to develop a doctrine.

I remember the controversy in evangelical circles when the RSV came out. It changed the word "virgin" to "young woman". In the times, a young woman was a virgin, but the Hebrew word allows for the words, "young woman". So, do we get all excited over nothing.

By the way, my group of Baptists simply state a belief in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the original autographs.....and none of the subsequent translations.

I use my KJV all the time and it has all the corrections duly noted...I kow they are inspired cos they are written in blue ink.

Cheers, and happy reading,

Jim

If the denying of the virgin birth is not enough evidence [ATTACK ON THEWORD OF GOD DELETED] then I nothing will be. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Friend I know a lot of "young women" who aren't virgins, and I will assure you that there were many "young women" in the days of Mary who weren't virgins. I hope you realize that many of the liberal scholars who are responsible for "new versions" of the Bible had an agenda, and in this case it happened to be denying the virgin birth.

 

[Jim1999]

Sorry, I heard all those arguments at the time. They still don't hold water. I never denied the virgin birth of Jesus. I think there was far more purity in those days, than now. Just look how Joseph reacted when told that his betrothed was with child. He was ready to put her away.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Ed Edwards]

Deacon jd: // How do you determine what a "valid" version is?//

That is one of the good purposes of this Baptist Board (BB) bulletin
board (b). We can discuss among learned collegues what is
or is not (without even having to read a bunch of different versions)
a valid version. I'll start a poll ... BTW, being Baptists, we have to
each decide for ourselves if a particular 'version' is invalid.
Anyway, we have discussed many versions on the BB.
The concensus is that the following versions are INVALID:

Readers Digest Bible (about 1/4 of the RSV)
-- goss omission violations against Rev 22:20

New World Translation (NWT)
-- changes the Bible to 'prove' Jehovah's Witness'es doctrine

The Message
-- Bible Commentary by Bro. Peterson

But that is all.

 

[deacon jd]

Sorry, I heard all those arguments at the time. They still don't hold water. I never denied the virgin birth of Jesus. I think there was far more purity in those days, than now. Just look how Joseph reacted when told that his betrothed was with child. He was ready to put her away.

Cheers,

Jim

So you do not believe that there could have been one impure young woman at that time?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Deacon jd: //If the denying of the virgin birth is not
enough evidence of the pervesion of the RSV then
I nothing will be.//

The RSV does not deny but supports the virgin
birth of Jesus.

Matthew 1:18 (RSV):
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.
When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph,
before they came together she was found
to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

Sounds like Mary was a virgin to me.

20-23 (RSV):
20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeared to him in a dream, saying,
"Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife,
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;
21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus,
for he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us)

As can be seen, the term in the New Testament sources
in verse 23 is a Greek word meaning 'virgin' (not 'young lady').
The Greek version quoted in the New Testament is from the
LXX ('the seventy' or Septuagint). This translation into
Greek is not necessarily the same as the Hebrew sources
used by the KJV Translators.

The RSV does not deny the Virgin birth of Jesus (and
the scholarship of anyone who says so is suspect.
The golden rule of scholarship: check your sources,
then double check your sources, then (if necessary)
triple check your sources.
The RSV CONFIRMS the Virgin birth of Jesus.


but supports the virgin
birth of Jesus.

 

[robycop3]

If the denying of the virgin birth is not enough evidence of the pervesion of the RSV then I nothing will be. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Friend I know a lot of "young women" who aren't virgins, and I will assure you that there were many "young women" in the days of Mary who weren't virgins. I hope you realize that many of the liberal scholars who are responsible for "new versions" of the Bible had an agenda, and in this case it happened to be denying the virgin birth.

The Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 is "almah", which means 'young woman', not necessarily a virgin, as a young married woman could still be an almah. However, an almah was a 'quality' young woman, and if she was single, her virginity would be a gimme.

I am not saying that saying 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14 is wrong either, given the overview of Scripture, and what Ed Edwards pointed out above. But please explain why it's wrong to correctly translate the Hebrew.

In Matthew, Mary is called a "parthenos" in the Greek, which means 'virgin', and every Bible I know of renders it thusly.

The RSV is now little-used among Baptists, or other Christians. But if you consider 'young woman' in Isaiah 7:14 a corruption, then you must consider "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 a corruption also. You cannot have "situational" corruption to try to justify your myth.

 

[robycop3]

Is this the best answer any of you can come up with? I keep hearing this statement made about "every valid version" is inspired. How do you determine what a "valid" version is? That is going to be up to each individuals opinion, and opinions get us in trouble when it comes to the Word of God.

A valid version is one which is a correct translation of its sources. Given the wide variety of correct English meanings for many Hebrew & Greek words/phrases, it's inevitable there will be many differing translations. You have no valid reason to pick out the KJV as the only "official" one since you cannot provide any Scriptural support for your choice, except PERSONAL PREFERENCE. You just said opinion can get one in trouble, and that appears that's all you have in choosing just one BV.

 

[Amy.G]

Food for thought:
Romans 14:14-18

14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food (or bible translation) you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food (or bible translation) the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking (or bible translations), but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.