What took so long?

What Biblical evidence is there that says that God would wait and create a perfect Bible in 1611? And does this mean we should all join the Episcopal Church since that is the is the Church that God used to created the perfect Bible? Does not this place the extreme KJV Only crowd in the Charismatic camp since they believe in extra Biblical revelation and make the Anglican translators as equal to the Apostles?

 

Based on what? The opinions of prideful men and women?

I have begun reading The Fundamentals. The first volume deals with the scriptures vs. higher criticism. The godly men that started the fundamentalist movement would not have considered KJVOnlyism, fundamental. In fact judging from what they wrote and their willingness to quote from the RV and ASV (the MV's of their day), they would have agreed with many of us here that KJVOnlyism is a man-made false doctrine- therefore a heresy.

Baptist? Perhaps you should look at the early history of the KJV and its translators. They were most often enemies of the Baptist of their day. Those Baptists by the way rejected that modern version in favor of one not tainted by a state-church union, the Geneva Bible.

Independent? What could be less independent than making an idol of a translation that came to be due to political motives at least as much as spiritual ones.

BTW, there were NO Baptist of any variety on the KJV translation committees. IFB were represented on the NASB translation committee and possibly the NKJV as well.

Your statements are as historically false as they are doctrinal false.

 

So you admit there IS no perfect,infallible,inerrant bible.
Then what are we to do??

 

http://www.dtl.org/versions/misc/translators.htm

http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbtrans.php

Here's some info on the NKJV and NASB translators.

I don't know about the NKJV but the NASB translators were required to affirm inerrancy in order to be qualified.

Far from being raving heretics and New Agers, the folks that worked on these translations were on average much closer to what a fundamental Baptist believes than anyone remotely associated with the KJV translation work.

 

So you admit there IS no perfect,infallible,inerrant bible.
Then what are we to do?? </font>[/QUOTE]I admit to what I have written to you and others consistently in spite of your efforts to twist and distort my words.

There is no current version of the Bible that is perfectly worded. God did not inspire the words of the KJV nor any other English translation. We have over 5000 mss that all differ from each other in wording. If it were necessary to have perfect wording to have God's perfect Word then I believe God would made it so for all generations, even those before the printing press.

God's perfect, inerrant, infallible Word is available to us in several faithful translations. As long as you persist in not understanding the difference between the Word and the words, this explaination is the best I can do for you.

 

Then what did He inspire? a pile of lost papers?

But you said a couple of post ago that there WAS no perfect,inerrant,infallible bible.

So which is it?? did He or did'nt He?

 

Then what did He inspire? a pile of lost papers? </font>[/QUOTE] He inspired His Word and the words of the original mss. And yes, the original mss were lost before the Bible was ever collated into one volume.

But you said a couple of post ago that there WAS no perfect,inerrant,infallible bible.

So which is it?? did He or did'nt He? </font>[/QUOTE]Read the context and stop trying to read into things. There is no perfect English translation. They are ALL subject to the translation and variant reading choices of sinful, fallible men. The KJV translators were no more immune to this than the MV translators... in many cases probably less immune since they had a distinct denominational bias they were operating under.

 

Scott,

The key issue I addressed was the timing of God's actions. I can tell you see my point. It is a proven fact that God has His own timing, one not constrained or explained by human logic. God's revelation of them prior to performing them is an entirely different issue. But even along those lines, the messianic prophecies do not give the year of His birth, that His name would be Jesus, or that His mother's name would be Mary. Weren't the Pharisees looking for a burden of proof this exact when they rejected the savior? I believe a scriptural case around preservation today is equally as strong as a scriptural case for the coming of the messiah before He came. From what I have read of what you've said I know you believe in preservation also. We only differ on the specific details like these on how He has or will do it.

 

I think it is highly hypocritical of you to accuse the KJV translators of "denominational bias" when no modern version advocate has ever admitted that there is a distinct possiblity that a modern version could be an attempt made by a group of "scholars" to corrupt the word of God. Why pick on the KJV translators? Why not the NIV translators? or the NASV translators?

 

Hmm...I was a member of an IFB church that was pretty much NASB only! Of course, you will say they were heretics, probably.

Neal

 

What would be the necessity of admitting as truth something that is untrue? There is no distinct possibility that the MVs are attempt to corrupt the word of God.

He put the KJV on the same level with the NIV translators (no more immune) with the possible exception of the anglican denominational bias that may have affected their work. He is saying that the KJV did not have a special power from God, that there was a possibility they mistranslated or made a bad choice, just like the possibility that exists for the NIV. You should have read more closely.

 

I am not picking on anyone. The KJV translators were all Anglicans or compromising Puritans. The Baptists of their day accused them of using language that specifically supported their ideas on church government. (If you like I will try to find those resources again.) They were commissioned by the King of England who held an office in the Church of England that was not completely unlike the Pope of Catholicism. He was considered the earthly head of the church by a divine right. According to their theology, the king had a God given right to govern both civil and religious affairs. They could and did use force to enforce allegiance to the official church.

As opposed to our day, church-state unions were the norm, not the exception, in 1600. Groups like Baptists, Hugenots, and Separatists were automatically deemed heretical if not illegal because they weren't connected to a monarchy.

Protestant groups were almost as hard on dissenters as were the Catholics. The mindset was completely different.

The bishops that reported to him were politicians as well as clergymen. Archbishops Bancroft and Andrewes were both directly involved in the AV's final form. Bancroft was labeled the bloodiest sectarian of the Reformation and was accused of having made at least 14 changes to the final draft. He presided over the High Commission court which tried those found in rebellion against the Church of England.

 

Let's start examining the character and the theology of the NIV translators (which includes a practicing lesbian). The preface of the NIV states that the translators were from many denominations including ANGLICANS. There were also CHURCH OF CHRIST people translating the NIV (who, by the way, believe and teach baptismal regeneration). You don't suppose they had some denominational bias in their translation work? Couldn't be, because the NIV is perfect, right?

 

Let's start examining the character and the theology of the NIV translators (which included a practicing lesbian). The preface of the NIV states that the translators were from many denominations including ANGLICANS. There were also CHURCH OF CHRIST people translating the NIV (who by the way believe and teach baptismal regeneration). Do you suppose they had some denominational bias in their translation work? Couldn't be, because the NIV is perfect right? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't use the NIV partly because of the reasons you cite above (less the erroneous accusation about Mollenkott being a translator, she wasn't) and partly because I disagree with their stated philosophy of translation. I believe this philosophy puts them in a position to shade passages toward an interpretation that is subject to their fallibility.

But even with the NIV, there were conservative fundamental type Christians involved with the translation. If you look up the IBS website and do some research on the translators, you can demonstrate this for yourself. If you have information on anyone other than Mollenkott that might be germane to this discussion please present it. I, for one, would be interested but have only heard about this one style consultant who didn't even finish the work.

The men who translated the KJV lived in a transition period. They were only about a generation removed from their break from the RCC and only about a generation ahead of High Church Anglicanism. Men like Andrewes and Bancroft were quasi-Catholic in their theology and had disdain for Baptists. I have read sermons by Andrewes in which he states that communion is both sacrament and sacrifice.

 

BTW, Pioneer, Why did you try to change the subject to the NIV? I know it it your favorite whipping boy but are you trying to evade some real issues about the KJV translators?