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

TCassidy

Let me give you the main definition of "perfect" from the Encarta English Dictionary: "WITHOUT FAULTS. without errors, flaes, or faults"

You says, "are you saying that part of the inspired canon has been lost"? Read what Paul says:

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)

"I wrote to you in an epistle". But, if this is found in 1 Corinthians, then how can he say this? You also must be aware that Paul says in Colossians 4:16 "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea"

But, in our canon there is no epistle from Paul or anyone else to the Laodiceans.

These are facts, and not something that I have made up!

 

Sorry, it should read:

"WITHOUT FAULTS. without errors, flaws, or faults"

 

1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

[Middle English perfit, from Old French parfit, from Latin perfectus, past participle of perficere, to finish : per-, per- + facere, to do; see dh- in Indo-European Roots.]per•fecter n.
perfect•ness n.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

So you are saying part of the canon has been lost! God inspired more than the 66 books of the bible but they have been lost? So, when God promised that his words would be preserved forever you think He was lying? </font>[/QUOTE]Shame on you! Please don't try to make out that I am making God a liar. You have the facts from the Holy Word of God, don't argue with me, as God what He means when Paul said these things. Where in the entire Bible did God say that His complete Revelation is in these 66 books? I am not arguing for an "open canon", as I firmly believe that it has been closed. But, to assume that what we have today is ALL of the Bible, cannot be correct as I have shown from above, which you have not bothered to respond to.

Its like when John says at the end of his Gospel, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (20:30-31)

 

Yes, it's me. Thank you. But I am not sure everyone shares your sentiments. </font>[/QUOTE]I share Scott's sentiments. Welcome back. I have missed your posts.

Doesn't the OE word "perfect" along with underlying Greek word, have the meaning "complete?" Would it be more accurate then to say that the KJV is complete in every way, inspired in the originals and preserved in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts of today (primarily masoretic and Received text)?
DHK

 

TCassidy,

Usually the Byzantine Textform is at least 60-80 percent united on any given variant. Are there any significant places where you would disagree with this Consensus?

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

You are not making any sense! The canon is the 66 books of our present bible and has been so since the close of the 1st century AD. You can't have it both ways. Either we have the canon now, complete, or it is still open and newly discovered books may yet be added. Just because Paul wrote other letters does not mean those letters were inspired by God and to assume that everything Paul wrote, other letters, grocery lists, checks, and "to do" lists were all inspired by God is a pretty shaky understanding of inspiration and the canon. </font>[/QUOTE]I note that your profile says that you are a "Pastor/Seminary Professor ". May I ask what you are a Seminary Professor for? I am not at all sure where you get your information from?
The canon of the New Testament was not closed in the first century. There were separate "books" of the New Testament being used in the Church in the first and second centuries. It was when heretics like Marcion published their own list of books for the New Testament, his own "canon", that the Church responded by producing their own list of approved books. The earliest "list" that we have is called the "Muratorian Canon" (after L A Muratori who discovered it in 1740), which dates from the second century. It mentions all the NT books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter

The first list of NT books that agrees with our present day 27 books, is found in the Festal Letter XXXIX of Athanasius 367 A.D. This was when the canon was officially closed.

 

What books in the NT were written after the 1st century? The canonization process only recognized inspired works; it didn't select them.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Bluefalcon, you don't seem to know the facts about the canon of the New Testament.

Yes, I do believe that all the New Testament books that we have were written in the first century. But, to say that the Church fathers did not select them, is a complete misrepresentation of what actuall took place! For many years books like Hebrews, Jude, Peter's Epistles and Revelation were debated, they were at one time put in the canon of books, and then another time they were taken out. There is no list of all the 27 books of the New Testament before the 4th century. If you can get your hands on, for example, Dr A Souter's The Text and Canon of the New Testament, you will see the many lists that were put forward for the New Testament, and how there were admitted or rejected. A very early list also includes the Apocalypse of Peter as Scripture, which was later rejected.

If you think that the canon of the New Testament was a simple thing, you are dead wrong. It went on for about 200 or more years!

 

... I must without hesitation mention the Scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John. These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them...mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.
- Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria


Athanasius mentions all 27 books of the NT in the 3rd century.

As for the whole controversy regarding which version of the Bible is closest to the originals, many KJ proponents believe the other versions denegrate Christ's Deity. However, the list below shows, for instance, verses in the NIV that say otherwise -

1. Jude 4 in the KJV says, "denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." By adding an "and," the KJV makes it appear like God and the Lord Jesus are different persons. The NIV says, "deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." The KJV separates God and Christ. The NIV makes God and Christ one. Also, "Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord" is stronger than "our Lord Jesus Christ."
2. In Titus 2:13, the KJV inserts the word "our" and makes it sound like God and Jesus are different. It says, "The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The NIV and NASB both say, "Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." They make it clear that the great God is the same as the Saviour Jesus Christ. Three times in Titus the expression, "God our Saviour" is used. (Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) In Titus 2:13 when he finally reveals who the "God and Saviour" is, the KJV obscures it. This mistake affects at least four verses about the Deity of Christ.
3. The KJV adds "our" again in II Peter 1:1, "Righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The NIV says, "God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The KJV makes it appear like "God and Saviour" are two different persons. The NIV and NASB make it clear they are one and the same.
4. In Colossians 2:9 the KJV says, "For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." The NIV says, "For in Christ all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form." The NIV is definitely clearer and stronger.
5. In Philippians 2:6 the KJV says, "Who, being in the form of God." The NIV says, "Who, being in the very nature of God." The "very nature of God" is certainly better than "the form of God."
6. In Romans 9:5 the KJV says, "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." The NIV says, "from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised." It is hard to see the deity of Christ in the KJV but it is crystal clear in the NIV.
7. In John 1:18 the KJV says, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." The NIV says, "No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known." Certainly "God the one and only" is stronger and better than "only begotten Son." All Christians are "begotten" by God. (I John 5:1,18.) Christ alone is "God the one and only."


That being said, there are verses in the NIV that do, at least in comparison with the KJV, seem to obscure Christ's Deity (any KJVO site will show examples)

However, in regards to the NIV, didn't one of the members of the translation committee write a letter renouncing the NIV as a false translation full of errors and an affront to the work and Person of Christ ?? I remember reading something to that effect somewhere but can't remember where !!


Ray

 

Ray, Athanasius was only born in 296 A.D, and his list of books of the NT were not complied till 367, this is the 4th, not 3rd century!

 

1. Jude 4 in the KJV says, "denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." By adding an "and," the KJV makes it appear like God and the Lord Jesus are different persons. The NIV says, "deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." The KJV separates God and Christ. The NIV makes God and Christ one. Also, "Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord" is stronger than "our Lord Jesus Christ."

********************************************

Please check your Greek New Testament, there is no dispute that the Greek "kai" (and) is part of the text. It should be noted, that "kai" can also be rendered by the English "even"

********************************************

2. In Titus 2:13, the KJV inserts the word "our" and makes it sound like God and Jesus are different. It says, "The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The NIV and NASB both say, "Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." They make it clear that the great God is the same as the Saviour Jesus Christ. Three times in Titus the expression, "God our Saviour" is used. (Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) In Titus 2:13 when he finally reveals who the "God and Saviour" is, the KJV obscures it. This mistake affects at least four verses about the Deity of Christ.
3. The KJV adds "our" again in II Peter 1:1, "Righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The NIV says, "God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The KJV makes it appear like "God and Saviour" are two different persons. The NIV and NASB make it clear they are one and the same.

*********************************************

The KJV does not insert any word here that is not represented in the Greek text. In both Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 2:1, the pronoun "hemon" (our) is in the Greek of all manuscripts.

There is no reason why anyone should take the readings in the KJV to refer to two persons, any more than as in Galatians 1:4, "the will of God and our Father", and 1 Thess. 1:3, "in the sight of God and our Father", where I am yet to find anyone suggest that two persons are meant!

************************************************

4. In Colossians 2:9 the KJV says, "For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." The NIV says, "For in Christ all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form." The NIV is definitely clearer and stronger.

"Theotes", is used to describe the essential Godhead of the Three Several Persons in the Holy Trinity. This word comes from the Greek "theos", and defines the "divine nature" of Jesus Christ. The use of "Deity" does not make it any stronger in its meaning.

*******************************************

6. In Romans 9:5 the KJV says, "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." The NIV says, "from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised." It is hard to see the deity of Christ in the KJV but it is crystal clear in the NIV.

If you are saying that the reading of the KJV is hard to see the Deity of Jesus Christ, then I suggest that you get your eyes tested! It is very clear to me!

*********************************************

7. In John 1:18 the KJV says, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." The NIV says, "No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known." Certainly "God the one and only" is stronger and better than "only begotten Son." All Christians are "begotten" by God. (I John 5:1,18.) Christ alone is "God the one and only."

You are arguing for the reading "monogenes theos" at John 1:18, and give the NIV reading as : "No one has seen God, but God the one and only...". You suppose that this reading is evidence for Christ's Deity? Firstly, the Greek you refer to does not have the definite article, "the". Secondly, in what sense is Jesus "God the one and only"? Since the Father and Holy Spirit are also equally God? Thirdly, it is more natural for John to have used "Son", since he goes on to say "in the bosom of the Father", which would have required him to use "Son"

The reading of "God" here was used by many of the early heretics, who had no problem in calling Jesus, "monogenes theos". The evidence from the Church fathers is strong for both readings, so you cannot claim "God" as being the original!

 

TCassidy,

I see that you have blinded yourself to the facts, and only want to see things the way you want to. I see no point in trying to show you that you are very wrong in what you say above, as I do not feel that you are open to the truth of the matter.

I am very surprised to see that you are a Seminary Professor, as you don't seem to know the first thing on the canon of the New Testament, and how we got the 27 books that are known as the New Testament. You argue with complete nonsense about the canon being closed in the first century, and you will find that NNE who knows anything about this subject will agree with you. You attack my use of the early Church by saying "Church of Rome", again showing your ignorance to the facts. Then you also contradict the fact that the final canon of the New Testament was in the 4th century, again calling it Roman Catholic heresy!

I think that you need to open both your eyes and mind to the FACTS, and not to let your distorted, warped, view of these important issues ruin your understanding. Can you give me ONE scholar who supports your nonsense?

 

TCassidy, I have to ask you. Do you really know what the Canon of the New Testament means? This is NOT some Roman Catholic thing, like making someone a saint!