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

Am I missing something here, but in my very humble and uninformed opinion concerning the canon---I would think that God completed it (and knew exactly what it was) when the final words were penned in the last book. Am I wrong?

 

In your humble and uninformed opinion you are 100% correct

This section on the Baptist Board deals with Textual Criticism, of which the Canon of the NT forms an important part.

No one as far as I am aware is questioning the 27 books of the NT. What I am saying that there was NOT a complete one volume with the NT as we have it today, back in the first, second, and third centuries. Determining the books that finally made up the NT was a long and painful process, and was not completed till the 4th century. Whether you like it or not, the Church at Rome did play an important part of this process, especially under Pope Damascus, and the scholar, Jerome. As I have pointed out elsewhere, even John Calvin rejected that Peter is the author of the Second Epistle, which goes against the majority testimony of the Church throughout the ages.

 

There is one who knows everything about this subject as well the exact date the of the closing of the canon of Scripture (the date that John the Apostle put down his pen/quill of the Apokalipsis),
that person is the Holy Spirit and the Church of Rome had nothing to do with it (except that one of the epistles of Paul was sent to them).

It took men 2-3 centuries to make a list of the same.

Noteworthy (in my estimation) is that Athanasius was one of those dreaded "Alexandrians".

HankD

 

here you go again, without any evidence!

The "first", please note this, Church father who qoutes or alludes to every of the 27 books of the NT, was Jerome (340-420). Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) quotes from every book except Revelation. These are facts, and not my "thoughts"

 

And sometimes I myself contribute to the mindless entertainment of others.....

Hehehehe

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Yes, but can you dance?

 

No, we are Baptists!

HankD

 

Hank;
But some will say that David danced! So...was HE a Baptist?



In HIS service;
Jim

 

No, he was under Law and he had to do it.

KJV Psalm 150:4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

HankD

 

Hi I am a Baptist, but first a Christian. Where in the Bible does it say that we cannot express our joy before the Lord with dancing that is not for showmanship? I read in Acts (NOTE, the New Testament) chapter 3, that after the man who was lame had been healed, that he "entered with them into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God" (verse 8). These is nothing whatsoever in showing our joy with/in the Lord by this and also the using of musical instruments, as described in Psalm 150, for example.

It is only the wooden British and American cultures that hold people back, and the fear of the Church becoming "Pentecostal", that makes most services seem as though you were attending a funeral service!

 

It should read: "These is nothing whatsoever wrong"

 

I was not think of revivals in Dutch, Mioque.

The KJV is used by cults such as JWs and Mormons. I also was told by a member of the black division of the cultic United Pentecostal Church that the KJV is what is used in that God-forsaken pulpit.

If we are going to evangelize the cults, we had better understand KJV.

 

I see this thread has drifted into a discussion of canon. First, let me say that no matter what people seemed to have selected the NT canon, it came out as GOD willed, and woulda done so even if He'd caused CHINESE to have made it.

Second, the Scriptures are as our Constitution...They're often an overview of Godly living, without containing all the specific nuts & bolts of every situation of life, but still covering it all. For example, "You Shall Not Steal" covers any theft, period, such as embezzlement, bad checks, etc. & other types of theft which didn't exist in Moses' day...while our Constitution doesn't have the first traffic law in it, but it gives the individual States the authority to regulate it within that state, & allows the Federal govt. to create such entities as the ICC.

As for God's revelations outside of Scripture...I haven't seen any genuine ones that fail to point back to Scripture, and I don't believe any of them to be genuine that are contrary to Scripture.

As for the original thought of this topic...I still say the KJV was perfect for God's purpose in causing it to be made...same as are all the other versions God caused to be made in English or any other language. IS GOD LIMITED AS TO HOW HE MAY CHOOSE TO PRESENT HIS WORD TO MAN?

 

I am a KJP, not a KJVO (I myself am a Masoretic and Texus Receptus man, regardless of the modern language it is translated into.)

So I repeat:
Aren't Baptists free to take whatever stance they want???

Then stop arguing about this stuff, and "have it unto thyself!"

 

Christlifter, the thing is that KJVO is a false doctrine that's invaded the Baptist faith, and we're remiss in our duties as Christians and Baptists if we simply allow such a false doctrine to go unchallenged.

YOU wouldn't let such a false doctrine as "regenerational Baptism" go unchallenged, would you? Just about every Baptist knows that doctrine is false. Well, some of us have taken the time to research the KJVO doctrine and have found it to be completely false. So shame on us if we keep it to ourselves. We know it can become irritating at times to go on & on about it, but JESUS set our example by persisting in doing and preaching right, which irritated many of His fellow Jews. Should WE do less when we KNOW we're right?

One of the incorrect points of the KJVO myth is that the KJV is perfect. While it's perfect for its intended purpose, it's not perfect in a technical sense, as we've often proven here. A member asked a legitimate question, and some of us have tried to give him some legitimate answers. That's what DISCUSSION & DIALOGUE is all about.

 

Of all the problems in Christianity, I do not see that someone's rejecting all English translations except KJV is a problem. It may be slightly anti-intellectual since the translation is "...not perfect in a technical sense..." as RobyC points out. However, it is a good choice and one could argue that all translations are imperfect I suppose.

I am not KJVO but more KJV 1st because I want to be able to understand the translation used by the cults, who also reject other translations albeit for other reasons than the KJVO. So I would say that KJV is necessary for evangelization of lost souls.

Luke 10:2 (KJV) Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly [is] great, but the labourers [are] few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.