What is the True and Perfect Word of God?

Should I find a Bible that is to mine own liking?

Evidently you already have, bud.

 

I am guessing that you are talking about the words that God chose Himself??? If so, then it is the original manuscripts. If you happen to be talking about God's Word (what He divinely chose to reveal of Himself to man in the scriptures) then several English versions faithfully preserve the "True and Perfect Word of God."

I am absolutely, positively, 100% without a doubt sure. God only inspired the originals. All copies and translations derive their authority from those originals.

The better question is, Can you? You say the KJV is it. However, the KJV did not exist prior to 1611. What was it before that?

The KJV is a completely unique document. It does not represent a direct word for word translation from any Greek NT. Did the Word not exist prior to 1611... even in Greek, the language God chose to inspire it in? What do you do with the Greek manuscript evidence that God has providentially preserved for us? There are over 5,000 documents and none of them agree completely with another.

Yes. But He didn't do it in the way that you demand that He did. The KJV does not contain inspired words. It is the inspired Word. If you don't know the different definitions for "word" then hit this link and look them up- http://www.dictionary.com

Yes. And the trap for you is that if you think this means the actual words then you have to learn Greek and Hebrew then determine which if any of the ancient mss is the perfect words of God.

What do you think it is? The Bible says that God's Word pre-dated creation. Are you ready to say that He hid it until 1611?

Really. If so, here's a test for you. Which versions most clearly teach the deity of Christ at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1?

Even Jesus became angry with Pharisees.

You presume that holiness, a burden for the lost, doctrinal soundness, etc. all eminate from KJVOnlyism. I hate to burst your bubble but all of these things also pre-date the KJV... and are alive and well outside of your unbiblical sect.

KJVOnlyism is a false teaching. A teaching that presents a greater threat to true fundamentalism than liberalism, modernism, and pentacostalism combined. Open your eyes...Humble yourself to those with real understanding of the facts of this issue.... And stop destroying that which you claim to love.

 

Really. Prove it... by the only standard that counts, the words that God inspired.

Herein is the greatest danger posed by KJVOnlyism. People will hang on to their unique interpretations of the unique wording of the KJV without deeper study and develop false doctrines. The question is not (and never is) "what doth the KJV say?", rather it is "what did God say (and mean)?"

Did you actually read what you wrote? These two phrases mean exactly the same thing within their context and with an understanding of what "in" would have implied in the past. Here is the lexicon for this word:
epi epi ep-ee’

a root; ; prep

AV-on 196, in 120, upon 159, unto 41, to 41, misc 339; 896

1) upon, on, at, by, before
2) of position, on, at, by, over, against
3) to, over, on, at, across, against

Note that the KJV translates it as something other than "in" 737 times and that its definitions do not include "inside of".

Actually, it is your unsound beliefs about the KJV that lead you to make conclusions that are not proven by scripture.

The ASV uses Jehovah 5818 times to the KJV's 8 times... does that make the ASV superior to the KJV?

Did you search this out for yourself or did you blindly believe what someone else said? In either event, show your proof. While your at it, prove that the KJV never departs from a one to one, completely literal translation of the TR. And greater still, prove that the TR is the perfect replica of the original autographs

Yes... I think He is having a pretty good time using the ignorance and emotionalism of KJVO's to divide the brethren.

You presume way too much. Everyone that I have seen here posting in opposition to KJVOnlyism knows your arguments and rejects them because they don't line up with the truth.

 

Dear E&E,

IMO, its not the version of the derived Word of God that we choose but whether we choose to obey that Word.

For instance:

KJV Philippians 2:14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings.

NIV Philippians 2:14 Do everything without complaining or arguing.

HankD

 

Amen. (Although these words apply to Israel, the principle is still valid)

One of the great dangers facing God's people today is that legalists will prevent people from reading the Bible in language they clearly understand.

 

Just a quick question...are you not beginnning with a version you like and using it as the standard by which you judge the others?

 

whatever KJBOs' humanistic opinions, i know it must surely include the original forever settled in heaven.

BCV: Ps 119:89

 

Forever settled:

How can you believe Palm 119:89 when you support a movement that is changeing God's Word with each new version?

 

Please tell me all IFB's in the states are not this way. If so, I need to turn in my ID card and decoder ring.

 

I don't see how new versions could "confuse people" about the Mark of the Beast.

I don't believe the Bible teaches that people will be tricked or stuped into taking the mark. It's a clear decision and choice to worship the beast and deny God. I don't see new versions (or anything for that matter) "tricking people" into taking a microchip that later on we find out was the Mark of the Beast.

 

E&E, I respect you as a child of God and appreciate your love for God's Word, but why not answer some of Scott J's questions rather than avoiding them by posting another verse to supposedly support your position?

It just seems logical...if you want others to answer your questions and challenges, answer theirs.

 

God's Word is not changing any more than it changed when the KJV was produced and compared to the Bibles that preceded it.

The words used to express the Word have changed and the evidence used to rebuild the original language text is much more expansive. This is true whether you believe the TR, MT, or CT approach is the best.

The Word of God existed before creation. It is unchanging and unchangeable. Our effort and challenge is to discern it as clearly and accurately as we can.

For you to say that you prefer the KJV is fine. But when you start accusing other versions of changing the Word then you enter a whole new venue. To say that a version has changed the Word, you must come with proof. Not proof that MV's are different from the KJV/TR but proof that MV's are different from the originals or else not established on sound methods of textual criticism and translation. You have yet to do this therefore any opinion you have regarding the differences is purely speculative and without merit.

[ August 06, 2002, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]