Why is the King James Version not the Perfect Word of God?

Now, this is exactly the response that I referred to in my earlier reply, when I said that many come on here and share nonsense, assuming that what they are saying are facts!

Paul33, let me ask you this. Have you ever stuided textual criticism for yourself? Or, are you one of those who has a Greek New Testament with the variant readings in the footnotes, and just mouth-off what others have said?

Do you really know how many manuscripts the KJV did not have access to? You are also assuming, that, because the modern Greek texts, like those by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Alford, etc, had more manuscripts to consult, therefore they are more reliable? This is nonsense! I suggest that you spend some time doing real TC, with an honest, open mind, and come back and tell me what you believe about the post-KJV versions is correct. Let me add here, the Greek New Testament produced by Scrivener, is far superior to those by the likes of Tischendorf, since Scrivener was a far more able scholar, with better judgement, like John Burgon. But, of course, you would not know this.

 

A reason why a politically-motivated Bible promulgated by an autocratic "Head" of a state-sanctioned baby-christening church which contains many words and phrases that mislead a modern reader and was claimed by its own translators as one among many Words of God, is not THE perfect Bible?

Welll, it may be hard to think of one. </font>[/QUOTE]Whats your point here? Are you too ignorant of the fact, that many Reformed Churches also baptise babies? So, you should also reject the work done by these men, seeing that they too are in error!

You guys should take more time dealing with the real facts about Bible Versions, which this post is for, and not bringing some silly remarks to share, which only show you up as being like a child, with no reasoning

 

I asked if you were ignorant, and I'll ask it again.

I did study textual criticism in seminary, did you? Or did you just read Peter Ruckman's books?

Alcott's statement was great. Hit the nail right on the head.

The KJV of the Bible is an outdated translation of the original texts from inferior manuscripts . Get over it.

 

I suppose your TC at seminary invloved the research of the manuscripts, and the Church fathers works in the original Greek and Latin? No, I have never read Peter Ruckman, whoever he might be! Again you display your ignorance and bias towards the KJV when you say that it is outdated. This sort of complete nonsense is what I would expact from a liberal. Is this your own position? I certainly would not class you with Evangelical, Conservvative school, with your warped, unfounded views!

 

Proof?!

 

if you're such a critic, Icthus, then you should be familiar with the fact that no two mss are alike, and that the KJV, Textus Receptus, and the material used to make the Textus receptus don't match. Also, you should know that JESUS HIMSELF used versions other than the Masoretic Text, as shown in Luke 4:16-21 when compared with Isaiah 42:7 and Isaiah 61:1-3. Not to mention the fact that the Aposeles' OT quotes often appeared to have followed the LXX instead of the Masoretic Text, which may or may not have existed in their day. And from all this, plus a great many more FACTS, you should see that GOD IS NOT LIMITED to any one version in the presentation of His word FOR mankind TO mankind.

I say again...The KJV is perfect for its intended use, as are the older and newer valid versions. And the last line of your above post says you admit that there are no two mss alike. The debate over the authenticity has been going on for several generations, and isn't any closer to being resolved now than it was 120 years ago.

 

Because if it is, then "God's PERFECT Bible" did not exist for the first 80% of church history. Isn't KJV-onlyism founded on some sort of concept of "preservation"? </font>[/QUOTE]Formaldehyde Fred.

 

I suppose your TC at seminary invloved the research of the manuscripts, and the Church fathers works in the original Greek and Latin? No, I have never read Peter Ruckman, whoever he might be! Again you display your ignorance and bias towards the KJV when you say that it is outdated. This sort of complete nonsense is what I would expact from a liberal. Is this your own position? I certainly would not class you with Evangelical, Conservvative school, with your warped, unfounded views! </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know about anybody else but I (for one) find it absolutely hilarious that a charge of reading Ruckman is leveled against a man who is in London and probably came to his conclusions completely independent of American arrogance.

Ruckman ...who?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Natters says...

Actually, the radical KJVO don’t give final authority to “preservation” based upon historical manuscripts, but give credence to a kind of theory of a inspiration/re-inspiration in 17th century English directly from the guidance of God (it would appear that God waited until 1611 to slam shut the door of revelation) along with an additional theory of “advanced revelation” included in those 17th century words.

Here is a website that gives an overview of these theories from publication extracts in Dr. Peter Ruckman’s (current leading KJVO spokeman) own words.

BTW, I was asked by Dr. Ruckman via email (presumably it was him) not to quote his works directly on the BB.

Later I was told that he doesn't even own a computer.

Anyway, that is why I am giving this website URL rather than making direct quotes (neither does it mean that I necessarily support Cloud - the content author - on every issue):

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm

HankD

 

We COULD answer the thread's question WITH a question: "Why IS the KJV the perfect word of God?"

 

There are so many words and phrases in the KJV that do not mean the same thing today. That, my friends, is outdated.

No one who teaches English believes that Shakespearean English is the English of today! Shakespeare's English is outdated and so is the KJV.

Those of you who can't see that are just being obstinate. Now if you don't mind reading, studying and preaching from an outdated translation to a modern audience that has never heard the language of the KJV, be my guests. But don't try and tell me that it is not outdated, or that it conveys perfectly the original text in today's English. It doesn't.

 

av1611jim
"In my opinion Mr. Alcott; you have just slandered the greatest Book God has graced this planet with."
"
The moment a mere translation of a book starts to be considered a book in it's own right there is a problem.

 

mioque, "mere translation" is the offensive phrase for most radical KJVO.

Rather than the KJV being "derived inspiration" from the words of the original language mss, they attribute the KJV 17th Century English words with intrinsic inspiration when they say that these words are the "very words" of God or the "pure" words of God.

Traditional Baptists attribute intrinsic inspiration to the autographs alone.

But what of the logical problems and historical evidence against this KJVO view of the directly inspired 17th century English words which have been addressed but totally ignored?

For instance:
Were the KJV translators inspired to translate the Greek and Hebrew in the same way as the prophets and apostles were inspired to proclaim it in Greek and Hebrew (including such phrases as "God forbid" inserted in the text)?

If yes, then does not this make the Church of England the true Church and the Monarch of England the titular head (pope/popess) of this true Church and it's bishops the succesors to the apostles?

Again, If yes, why then did those same translators find it necessary to correct the AV1611? Does God make mistakes?

etc, etc,...

HankD

 

British Israelism is rather funny as religious satire goes.
It's not funny when people take it seriously.

 

In response to the Post about Lester Roloff's comments on Revival and the King James Bible, He was talking about this country, not foreign countries, please keep his quotes in context. And there has been no revival in this country since the new versions have come out. The Philadelphia Church "kept" the word of God, while Laodecia needs "eyesalve" -the word- to see.

 

Can we on the other hand blame the KJV for the phenomenal rise of cults which prefer the KJV since it was introduced in 1611?

HankD

 

Well at least the cults have the good sense to use the right Bible. You see Satan wouldn't attack an imitation.

 

That's about a "mixing a metaphore" as I have ever heard.

 

So? If the MVs are "imitations" and are the cause of the lack of these revivals, what then does that say about the KJV which can't overcome these "imitations"?
Which is it? The inability of the KJV or the power of the MV's that is stopping the revivals.

And those of us who use the MV's don't?

HankD

 

Why is the ability of the KJV questioned when the Modern versions are the book of choice for the big name evangelists and radio preachers of the day,are promoted by Bible book stores all over the country and are quickly replacing the KJV on calendars, cards, etc. You have to let the Lion out of the cage for it to be effective.