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

av1611jIM: Roby;
OTOH; The supposed increase of knowledge and travel to which you refer has to do with secular knowledge,

Not necessarily. Scripture doesn't specify.


but when speaking of the words of God you need to look at Amos 8. God said He will send a famine...

Amos was speaking of Judah, during the reigns of its last kings.


which would mean that folks are so confused over the vast numbers of books claiming to be a Bible that they really have no Bible at all. [Big Grin]
Interpretations abound huh?

Actually, with all the copies of the Bible available in English alone, there's hardly a famine of God's word now. Believe it or not, there are many other valid English BVs besides the KJV.

The answer to the question that's the subject of this thread is simple...BECAUSE OF ITS PROVEN BOOBOOS. Valid? Yes. Perfect? No.

 

And there is the rub, brother Roby.
What you and others see as proven boo-boos, we OTOH do not see as boo-boos at all.

Perspective is a wonderful thing, NO?

Have a great day as you witness for the coming King of Glory!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Who says it isn't? The word "perfect" according to the American Heritage Dictionary means "Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind."

What do any of you believe the KJV is lacking that is essential to the whole? </font>[/QUOTE]Though I use the KJV myself, and a very strong defender of it and the TR, and consider myself a student of Scrivener-Burgon, I cannot honestly say that there are any versions in any language that ever could be considered as being "perfect", and I believe that it would be foolshiness for anyone to do so. We do not have the original Old and New Testaments in the Hebrew and Greek that they were written in, which alone can be considered as "Inspired by God". But, what we do have in the TR and KJV, are versions that have been "preserved by God". There is a very big difference here, and an important one

 

If the originals alone can be considered inspired of God then we have nothing with which to prove "doctrine, reproof, rebuke, and instruction in righteouesness." For you cannot take half of the verse and say it applies to the originals and take the other half and say it applies to us today. Either we have Scripture today or we do not. Paul said ALL Scripture is inspired of God.

Which is it? Do we have Scripture or not?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Who says it isn't? The word "perfect" according to the American Heritage Dictionary means "Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind."

What do any of you believe the KJV is lacking that is essential to the whole? </font>[/QUOTE]This is the "perfect" answer.

Likewise, the NASB, NKJV, and several others are "perfect" in that they lack nothing essential to the whole. The challenge has gone out to KJVO's many times and none have ever cited a single fundamental Christian doctrine missing.

 

Who says it isn't? The word "perfect" according to the American Heritage Dictionary means "Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind."

What do any of you believe the KJV is lacking that is essential to the whole? </font>[/QUOTE]That is only one aspect of perfection. Another is accuracy of preservation of what was originally penned.

I do not believe the KJV is lacking that which is essential to the whole, and I believe the same about many translations. But I also do not believe that the KJV is a 100% accurate representation of what was originally penned.

 

Is that you Dr Thomas Cassidy? If so, welcome back.

 

Jim, Look at the definition of perfect again. It says that something is "perfect" if it lacks nothing essential. It does not say that what is essential can only be communicated by one set of words.

 

Yes, it's me. Thank you. But I am not sure everyone shares your sentiments. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, you bloodied my nose a time or two but I'm probably the better for it.

Hopefully, everyone else will come around.

 

The problem we are going to run into is what qualifies as "essential".

 

We're probably looking at a range.

The KJVO's expect a single set of words that solely represent the fulfillment of God's promise of preservation while at the other end are those who basically accept anything that retains what they consider essential teachings.

I would agree with what you mentioned.

 

AV1611JIM: And there is the rub, brother Roby.
What you and others see as proven boo-boos, we OTOH do not see as boo-boos at all.

Perspective is a wonderful thing, NO?

Yes...IF IT'S CORRECT.

But where does perspective leave off & misjudgment begin?

"Wisdom is justified by her children".

 

So, the question remains. What do you think is missing from the KJV that is essential to the whole? </font>[/QUOTE]When "perfect" is used for Scripture, we cannot take it in the sense that you are using it, as this makes no sense to only apply it to the KJV. "Perfect", when applied to the original documents, denotes that these were "without fault in any way". This cannot be used for any translations for the Bible in any language. That the KJV like most other versions, do have the "essential Truth" that the Lord wants us to have, I do not doubt. But, when it comes to completeness, then no version gives us the text of the original. This can be seen from the fact, that the apostle Paul actually wrote more than the two epistles to the Corinthians, and yet we only have the two. However, what we do have is what the Holy Spirit has preserved for us, and is sufficient for all purposes.

My point is that no version can be called "perfect", that is, "without fault"