The Perfect Inerrant Bible

[deacon jd]

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.

Does this mean that you are going to write your own version? This is what is referred to as adding to the Word of God you will find what God says about it in the last chapter of Revelations.

 

[robycop3]

Does this mean that you are going to write your own version? This is what is referred to as adding to the Word of God you will find what God says about it in the last chapter of Revelations.

Well, then, the AV translators are guilty of writing their own version. And i can point out many occasions where they added words not found in the literal translation.

Are ya gonna answer my request for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT of what you're trying to tell us?

 

[Scott J]

If we take it form a Scriptural point of view...

Mat 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
(also Mk 13:31, Lk 21:33)

The very "words" of Jesus will not pass away. Does anyone here believe that His words have not passed away, if so where do they exist?

If we interpret this as you seem to be suggesting then it cannot be the KJV since Jesus never spoke English during His earthly ministry.

"Words" can mean individual units of speech or it can be the meaning of those words... in this case, context demands that it means meanings.

Isa 40:8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Has His word stood forever, or has only His thought/message stood forever? If so, where is it found today?

"Word" means "thought/message" and in particular "sayings". This is the definition that applies to preservation.

We know what was said originally. We have mountains of evidence to confirm it. We don't know precisely how it was said in every instance. God chose not to do something that KJVO's arbitrarily demand that He should have done. He didn't preserve a word for word facsimile of the originals. Their faith in what He actually did is so weak that they demand that He had to have done something more.

To ensure that His Word (Revelation, inspired message) was preserved "perfectly", it pleased God to be redundant.

If the answer to this is that while God gave plenary inspiration He only gives partial preservation, then perhaps you could list Scripture that speaks to God's "partially preserved" word??

Perhaps it would be more productive if you presented one iota of evidence that God inspired the specific words of any translation and moreover gave any text that said He would preserve a facsimile of the originals... or that He would grant certain 20th century men the power, wisdom, and authority to decide which English version was perfect to the exclusion of all others.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Just deleted a duplicate post (nothing sinister) But need to warn folks about attacking God's Word.

The ramifications of that are not just on the Baptist Board.

 

[Dr. Bob]

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.

Top drawer answer, brother. The NT actually gives a specific Greek word that clarifies the general/vague OT word.

But to say we must be accurate in translation (as "young woman" is 100% accurate) and then say that we must change Isaiah to say something he did not clarify, is problematic.

When Jesus quoted the OT He often clarified or upgraded it. Greek is such a wonderful language contrasted to Hebrew. So I personally would have, like the NT gives, gone back and changed "young woman" to "virgin". It isn't OUR commentary; it is GOD'S clarification.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Wrong in what? How do Bible translations alter the Gospel, ( for non-christians ) and how does it alter God's command to us ( who have recieved Grace ) to be Holy as He Is!

Please tell me how people are being lost through Bible translation. In the light of Scripture.

God draws us to Christ, it is a seperate thing.

Long live Bible translation.

"Go into ALL the world"...

 

[Amy.G]

Does this mean that you are going to write your own version? This is what is referred to as adding to the Word of God you will find what God says about it in the last chapter of Revelations.

Well, of course not I'm going to write my own version. But, do you really think Paul was referring only to food?

 

[Ed Edwards]

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.

Amen, Sister Amy.G, 'bible translations' are a spiritual food.

Does this mean that you are going to write your own version? This is what is referred to as adding to the Word of God you will find what God says about it in the last chapter of Revelations.

FOUL!

 

[Amy.G]

Thanks Brother Ed! Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in awhile! (little mountain humor there) :laugh:

 

[EdSutton]

Just deleted a duplicate post (nothing sinister) But need to warn folks about attacking God's Word.

The ramifications of that are not just on the Baptist Board.

Doc, you oughta' put your above post on "Speed-dial". Considering how often it seems to be needed , it would save you some time and aggravation! :BangHead:

I wanna' :laugh:, but really we should all :tear: over this.
And I'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit is grieved. (Heb. 10: 28-31)

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Top drawer answer, brother. The NT actually gives a specific Greek word that clarifies the general/vague OT word.

But to say we must be accurate in translation (as "young woman" is 100% accurate) and then say that we must change Isaiah to say something he did not clarify, is problematic.

When Jesus quoted the OT He often clarified or upgraded it. Greek is such a wonderful language contrasted to Hebrew. So I personally would have, like the NT gives, gone back and changed "young woman" to "virgin". It isn't OUR commentary; it is GOD'S clarification.

I'd say there is a reason the Holy Spirit did not have Isaiah 'clarify' this, and that this prophecy has reference to two different things, one is Isaiah's day, as well as the future Messiah. To have 'clarified' this, would have rendered one or the other non-existent. And that was not the intent of the Holy Spirit through Isaiah. And as it stands, with 'almah', it is perfectly clear to both.

Ed

 

[Plain Old Bill]

We should keep in mind what the translators of the KJV 1611 version had to say themselves.

It should also make us take time to stop and think about needing a modern translation when we find out that the KJV Dictionary now contains 820 words which need to be defined from the old terms which were common into new terms which we can now understand.

I also keep in mind that no person in the old or new testament spoke English in any of it's forms.:BangHead:

 

[franklinmonroe]

In the Word of God we find that the scriptures refers to itself at times in terms of being a tool, like a lamp (unto my feet) and sword (of the Spirit), etc.

I would have been proud to take my KJV into spiritual battle 400, 300, or maybe even 200 years ago; but today I'd be foolish not to fight "the good fight" with a Halogen spotlight and an Uzi available to me!

If butter churns and sickles are the tools you like to use, then the AV is the Bible for you! However, if you find automobiles and computers beneficial tools, then perhaps you will also find benefits in a modern translation.

 

[deacon jd]

Well, of course not I'm going to write my own version. But, do you really think Paul was referring only to food?

Yes. That is the subject of the text.

 

[deacon jd]

In the Word of God we find that the scriptures refers to itself at times in terms of being a tool, like a lamp (unto my feet) and sword (of the Spirit), etc.

I would have been proud to take my KJV into spiritual battle 400, 300, or maybe even 200 years ago; but today I'd be foolish not to fight "the good fight" with a Halogen spotlight and an Uzi available to me!

If butter churns and sickles are the tools you like to use, then the AV is the Bible for you! However, if you find automobiles and computers beneficial tools, then perhaps you will also find benefits in a modern translation.

Friend the Word of God is good for all ages, and I would be afraid to belittle it the way you have.

 

[EdSutton]

Friend the Word of God is good for all ages, and I would be afraid to belittle it the way you have.

I agree completely with you, here, but for some, this apparently only applies to certain 'selected' versions, depending on where you stand. Somehow I fail to see how some are "protected species" while some are in "open season", from the same individual. I know I'm actually merely a 'dumb farmer' and sometimes 'taxi driver', but still, what am I missing here??

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

Friend the Word of God is good for all ages, and I would be afraid to belittle it the way you have

There is no need for you to be 'afraid' for me. The Lord knows my heart. But I'll try to interpret for you, since you didn't seem to receive my meaning initially.

In the Word of God we find that the scriptures refers to itself at times in terms of being a tool, like a lamp (unto my feet) and sword (of the Spirit), etc.

Certainly, the accusation of 'belittling' doesn't apply here: the Scriptures refers to itself as a tool (I'm pretty sure we'll agree that lamps and swords are tools). I think you'll also concur that the Bible is a book, and a book is a communication tool. There is no other way to categorize it: the Bible is not a mineral, its not an animal, its not a place, its not a idea, its not a dream, etc. Its a miraculous, glorious book. Its The Book of books (literally)! Historically speaking, tools always progress.

I would have been proud to take my KJV into spiritual battle 400, 300, or maybe even 200 years ago; but today I'd be foolish not to fight "the good fight" with a Halogen spotlight and an Uzi available to me!

As stated, I am honored to have had the precious KJV, and I use it when its appropriate. The KJV hasn't changed, the English language has changed. Our society has changed (and not wholly for the better, in my opinion). However, I cannot conceive of a situation today that the power and might of a 'modern' version is not better suited to defend the Gospel.

I hope you know that we are at war. The enemy is bringing their modern 'weapons' to bear against us. There is no shame for the KJV, which has served admirably. Just has 17th century canons had served proudly, but do not have the firepower of a modern cruise missile. I just think that the KJV should be decommissioned. And again, there was no 'belittling' of any Bible written before.

If butter churns and sickles are the tools you like to use, then the AV is the Bible for you! However, if you find automobiles and computers beneficial tools, then perhaps you will also find benefits in a modern translation.

And finally, I conceded that some folks prefer the tools of the past; its not entirely a bad thing. However, those that cling to the Bibles of the past ought not belittle those that also utilize and benefit from modern Bibles.

 

[larryjf]

Scott,

Quote:
Originally Posted by larryjf
If we take it form a Scriptural point of view...

Mat 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
(also Mk 13:31, Lk 21:33)

The very "words" of Jesus will not pass away. Does anyone here believe that His words have not passed away, if so where do they exist?

If we interpret this as you seem to be suggesting then it cannot be the KJV since Jesus never spoke English during His earthly ministry.

I don't believe i mentioned the KJV at all.

"Words" can mean individual units of speech or it can be the meaning of those words... in this case, context demands that it means meanings.

When Jesus talks about jots and tittles that is clearly not just "meanings" but the very particulars of the words themselves, so the point still stands.

Quote:
Isa 40:8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Has His word stood forever, or has only His thought/message stood forever? If so, where is it found today?
"Word" means "thought/message" and in particular "sayings". This is the definition that applies to preservation.

So you don't believe in plenary and verbal preservation, only in the preservation of meaning and message? Do you believe that inspiration is plenary and verbal? And, how can you separate meaning from the words themselves? The meaning and message is a direct result of the actual individual words.

Quote:
If the answer to this is that while God gave plenary inspiration He only gives partial preservation, then perhaps you could list Scripture that speaks to God's "partially preserved" word??
Perhaps it would be more productive if you presented one iota of evidence that God inspired the specific words of any translation and moreover gave any text that said He would preserve a facsimile of the originals... or that He would grant certain 20th century men the power, wisdom, and authority to decide which English version was perfect to the exclusion of all others.

I didn't say that i believe anything in the quote above that you are implying i believe. I just find it interesting that instead of answering a question about preservation folks basically start denying the historic Christian doctrine of preservation.

My answer to where is the preserved word of God...
The preserved word of God is found perfectly in the multiplicity of extant original language manuscripts. Though the word has been preserved perfectly, that does not imply that we can perfectly ascertain it our extract it. We still have some questions about original readings, but those readings are there.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Oops, duplicate post :-(

 

[Ed Edwards]

There is no need for you to be 'afraid' for me. The Lord knows my heart. But I'll try to interpret for you, since you didn't seem to receive my meaning initially.

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- You are so RIGHT ON!

Certainly, the accusation of 'belittling' doesn't apply here: the Scriptures refers to itself as a tool (I'm pretty sure we'll agree that lamps and swords are tools). I think you'll also concur that the Bible is a book, and a book is a communication tool. There is no other way to categorize it: the Bible is not a mineral, its not an animal, its not a place, its not a idea, its not a dream, etc. Its a miraculous, glorious book. Its The Book of books (literally)! Historically speaking, tools always progress.

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

As stated, I am honored to have had the precious KJV, and I use it when its appropriate. The KJV hasn't changed, the English language has changed. Our society has changed (and not wholly for the better, in my opinion). However, I cannot conceive of a situation today that the power and might of a 'modern' version is not better suited to defend the Gospel.

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- You are so RIGHT ON!

I hope you know that we are at war. The enemy is bringing their modern 'weapons' to bear against us. There is no shame for the KJV, which has served admirably. Just has 17th century canons had served proudly, but do not have the firepower of a modern cruise missile. I just think that the KJV should be decommissioned. And again, there was no 'belittling' of any Bible written before.

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- You are so RIGHT ON!

And finally, I conceded that some folks prefer the tools of the past; its not entirely a bad thing. However, those that cling to the Bibles of the past ought not belittle those that also utilize and benefit from modern Bibles.

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs: