When God's Word says that He will preserve His Word in one printed version, then we'll believe it. Until then, we know that God has preserved His Word in the multiplicity of translations that stand around the world. Praise God!! :godisgood:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why no commitment?
- Thread starter Winman
- Start date
- Status
When God's Word says that He will preserve His Word in one printed version, then we'll believe it. Until then, we know that God has preserved His Word in the multiplicity of translations that stand around the world. Praise God!! :godisgood:
Let me explain how I came to be KJB only. I wasn't influenced by anyone but the scriptures themselves. When I was young and first saved, I was struck by Matthew 4:4
Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
When I saw that word "every" it really stuck with me, and I thought on this verse for days. If God is good and true, and he expects us to live by "every" word he speaks, then it only seemed reasonable to me for God to provide every word.
At that time I had a KJB and an RSV and it was very easy for me to see they were very different. I knew they both could not be correct. So I prayed and did some study. I got many good books on Bible versions. When I was done, I was convinced the KJB was the pure Word in English.
Now, that does not prove I am correct, although I sincerely believe myself to be so. And I have always asked, if the KJB is not the pure Word of God in English, then which version is?
And that is it, you won't find anybody who stands up for a single MV. I have never found one person who says the NIV is the one and only pure Word of God in English, or the ESV, or NASB or any other MV.
All MVs try to insist that all versions are the pure Word of God which is impossible. I am amazed that a person can fool themselves into believeing this obvious false argument. It is impossible.
How a person can convince themselves that two versions that are different in thousands of words, dozens of verses and complete passages are both the pure and uncorrupted Word of God is beyond me. I cannot allow myself to believe a false argument like this.
Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
When I saw that word "every" it really stuck with me, and I thought on this verse for days. If God is good and true, and he expects us to live by "every" word he speaks, then it only seemed reasonable to me for God to provide every word.
At that time I had a KJB and an RSV and it was very easy for me to see they were very different. I knew they both could not be correct. So I prayed and did some study. I got many good books on Bible versions. When I was done, I was convinced the KJB was the pure Word in English.
Now, that does not prove I am correct, although I sincerely believe myself to be so. And I have always asked, if the KJB is not the pure Word of God in English, then which version is?
And that is it, you won't find anybody who stands up for a single MV. I have never found one person who says the NIV is the one and only pure Word of God in English, or the ESV, or NASB or any other MV.
All MVs try to insist that all versions are the pure Word of God which is impossible. I am amazed that a person can fool themselves into believeing this obvious false argument. It is impossible.
How a person can convince themselves that two versions that are different in thousands of words, dozens of verses and complete passages are both the pure and uncorrupted Word of God is beyond me. I cannot allow myself to believe a false argument like this.
It's easy. Even Jesus read from a different translation of the Scriptures, didn't He? God can absolutely preserve His Word in the multiplicity of translations we have today.
To doubt that He can do that makes Him a very weak God.It's easy. Even Jesus read from a different translation of the Scriptures, didn't He? God can absolutely preserve His Word in the multiplicity of translations we have today.
That is not true. While we do not have the right to restate scripture, the Holy Spirit does. When the apostles restated OT scripture and it was different than the scripture was oiriginally stated, that was the Holy Spirit speaking through them. The Holy Spirit has the perfect right to restate scripture any way he wishes.
And you cannot have word for word preservation which God promised and have two versions that are different in thousands of words and dozens of verses.
Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deut 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Jer 26:2 Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
When God promised to preserve his Word, he said it would be pure, that is, without error and corruption. We are not allowed to add or diminish from his word whatsoever.
Last edited by a moderator:
I will stand up for many modern versions.
The reason nobody stands up for a single one of these is because the Bible wasn't written in English. Anytime there is translation work involved, we know that there is not going to be a perfect version. The original manuscripts of the Bible are long gone, but we have discovered enough older ones, literally thousands, to have a pretty good idea what needs to be said. Of course, meaning is still very, very difficult to translate, which is why the work of Biblical translation is never done.
The King James was translated in this manner - it used the most reliable manuscripts available to come to the best possible understanding of God's word. But those manuscripts are no longer the best possible ones, in fact, they conflict with most of what has been found. The TNIV, NIV, NRSV, NASB, NJB, NAB, etc. are all more accurate than the KJV.
Also, meanings have changed since the translation of the KJV. What the word "study" means now is not what it meant hundreds of years ago. At a glance, the meaning is easily understood, but when changes are taken into account, we see how easy it is to fall into many interpretive traps.
But, the good news is that they give us the entirety of God's revelation to us and they have done it with the best tools possible. The importance of the Bible is the totality of truth that it brings to us. That is the inspired part.
And the Holy Spirit worked with the translators of the modern versions to bring us God's Word in our own "vulgar language" today. He is so good!
Like I said, tell your wife you are committed to her and five other women. Your view is a joke and fallacy. To say you are committed to many versions is to say you are committed to none.
I disagree with your logic. A translation can be perfect. When we read the words of Joseph to his brothers, that was a translation, Joseph spoke in Egyptian.
Gen 42:23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.
If God can translate Egyptian to Hebrew without error, why can't man?
So, this is yet another false argument MVs use. Their whole position is defined by many false arguments.
We have other examples as well, when Nebuchadnezzar spoke that is a translation. When Jesus and all the apostles spoke, that is a translation from Aramaic to Greek.
So, this is a false argument disproved by scripture itself.
I didn't say I was committed in the sense that I'm committed to my wife. That's bizarre!
I just said I will stand up for them. I will stand up for their accuracy, scholarship and reliability. The fact of the matter is that scholarship is way better and more reliable today than it was four hundred years ago.
The KJVO is a fringe belief by a very, very small portion of Christianity. It is barely worth noticing. And there is not one reliable scholar who will defend it. Not one.
What are you saying? When God finished giving his Revelation to John, did God withdraw into heaven and leave everything in the hands of men?
Or is God still working in the affairs of men?
I've read the Book of Revelations, and it is clear God is not finished working in the affairs of men. And I believe God was involved in the Reformation and the translation of the scriptures from the original languages into English.
I am not a Ruckmanite. I believe you could translate the RT into any language, and as long as it is done accurately you would have the pure and preserved Word of God in that language. But you couldn't make another translation missing thousands of words and dozens of verses in that language and also claim it is the pure and preserved Word of God.
That's ridiculous, the very men who translated the King James were some of the greatest scholars ever assembled. And there are hundreds of very scholarly Christians who defend the KJB. Your statement is pure nonsense. There are many dozens of Christian colleges that are KJB only.
It's not bizarre, try this same argument you use for the MVs on your wife and see if she is fooled by it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's try this again-
"That's ridiculous, the very men who translated the Modern Versions are some of the greatest scholars ever assembled. And there are hundreds of very scholarly Christians who defend the Modern Versions. Your statement is pure nonsense. There are many dozens of Christian colleges that are are not KJB only and use Modern Versions."
As to the foolishness about being committed to your wife THAT IS a plain Biblical principle backed up by Scripture, wheareas KJVO is NOT.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your twisting of Scripture does not prove your allegation. Nor does it disprove the fact that translations ALWAYS lose something in the translation process.
I have pointed out time and time again the unique meanings in Greek for 'love' that are lost to us in most English translations. And that is just ONE example.
That men have been entrusted with God's word is shown many times in scripture.
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
1 Tim 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
1 Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Titus 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
God has promised to preserve his Word, but he does so through faithful men.
Ok, then please show me the "pure" Word then. Remember, the KJV has different editions with different words. Yes, I know minor, but if you are going to go down the "pure" path, you need to be consistent.
Here lies your error. You are making the assumption that there must be a perfect version. Is this only in English? What about before the KJV ever existed. Was there a "pure" word "without error or corruption" before the KJV. If so, what was it?(I never seem to get an answer here) Was it the geneva? Bishops? Was it another language?
Again, as noted above. why must a version be perfect. If that is a requirement for preservation, then there must be a pure version prior to the 1611 AV.
This question is part of your fundamental problem with the issue. I'll be addressing that below.
there is only one word. It's not in English so we translate it so we can read it. Your wife vs word analogy has too many issues. Apples and oranges.
so, was it the Scriptures or the books that influenced you?Because they are translations of the Bible made by men so we can read it.
All MVs try to insist that all versions are the pure Word of God which is impossible. I am amazed that a person can fool themselves into believeing this obvious false argument. It is impossible. [/quote]Nobody says that any translation is perfect other than the kjvo's. We recoginzed that the translations themselves are not perfect translations of the perfect Bible
Because that isn't what we believe. Nobody(except the kjvo) says that a translation of the Scriptures will be perfect. There are translational choices(which you can translate something with lots of words or few words and have the same meaning), textual choices. (neither those that were involved with the TR or the CT were kept from error)
Analogy isn't the same.
Actually, here is part of the fundamental issue here. In Genesis, Moses translated. He was guided by God and kept from error in his works. This is what we call sometimes the inspiration of the Scriptures. Was the KJV translators inspired? If so, then that's double inspiration. If not, then that's why they don't have a perfect translation.
you mean the kjvo's right?
Were the kjv transaltors guided by the spirit to write exactly the correct words like the apostles were? If so, double inspiration, if not...well you have your answer then
Here is the truth from Scripture.
The words are God breathed(2 Timothy 3:16) and were written down by men and were kept from error (2 Peter 1:21, John 16:13). The words are pure and inerrant( John 17:17, Psalm 119:151,160, Psalm 12:6). We know the words will be preserved (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35).
This is what the Scripture teaches. Never does it teach that the copyist would be kept from making errors. (Which we know that no 2 manuscripts are in complete agreement). Never does it teach that translators would be kept from error.
Was the Bible inerrant before we ever had a copy of the Bible in English? Was it in one bound copy of the Scriptures? If so, what was it?
Jesus and Paul used more than one translation. So which one was declared God's word?
I have to leave for work in a few minutes, so I'll have to get back to you.
But basically, what I believe is this that God preserved his word through those texts the KJB translators used to translate the scriptures. I can't prove it, I rely upon this by faith in God's promise. I believe God was working in the affairs of men during the Reformation and bringing about the KJB in English.
I believe that those texts chosen, and the translation was pure. Now, the printing is a different matter, there were many obvious problems with the printing, spelling errors, words omitted here and there...
Printing was very tedious and very primitive in those days, it took years for errors to be identified and corrected. But because there was an infallible standard, errors could be spotted and corrected.
As new printings came out, occasionally new errors were introduced, thus we have editions like the famous "murderers bible". But again, these errors were spotted and corrected because an infallible standard existed to compare all printings to.
Changes like spelling are no change at all. The spellings of many words was not standardized then, so two editions could have different spellings for the same word. That is not an error whatsoever. In time, spelling was standardized and all printings used the same spelling.
The type style is not an issue whatsoever.
There were some textual changes as words omitted, or typos like "him" instead of "his" were identified and corrected. These were printing errors, not errors in the original translation.
Gotta go for now, but the King James we have today is basically the same exact translation that came out in 1611. There are books that tell each and every change made.
Be back tomorrow.
Well, there are changes that I don't believe could be link totally to just a printing error, but that's not really my point- though you would think God could have helped the printer out too if we are dealing with his word. Why would it take a couple hundred years to get this right if God is doing it? But this isn't the big issue.
So you cannot prove this. Are you saying physical evidence or biblical evidence or both? You are getting closer to my point. It isn't your conclusion that I'm addressing(though I would disagree with it) it's the fundamental difference that I'm addressing. I'm going much deeper than the typical discussion. You believe(as do I) that the Bible will be preserved. The difference is that you assume that the individual copies is what was promised, but it's the words that was promised. Now, you might think that I'm saying you believe the originals documents to be preserved. I know you don't think that, but your conclusions seems to come from that type of idea. Preservation means to keep. If the KJV must be pure translation to mean preservation, then that means there was one before it(as the AV came out in 1611). The texts that were used for the KJV disagree with each other. The text that matches up with the KJV came later. the KJV translators made textual choices. Meaning that there wasn't a pure text before the KJV If there was one, why didn't the KJV translators follow it completely?
Any Scripture. The problem is that this is double inspiration. The original writers of Scripture were guided by the Spirit to be kept from error. To say that the KJV is pure means that the KJV translators were guided by the Spirit to be kept from error. This is what is called double inspiration.
This here isn't about if the KJV is the best or if the majority type manuscripts are better. This is about saying the KJV translators were kept from error. It isn't supported in Scripture. I would assume you would say that the Scripture were pure prior to 1600's right?
Work work work!
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you suggesting that before English came into being as a language that nobody had God's word?
My, that's a bold statement. You have proof of that?
However it does not include the vulgar language of the KJV in 2 Kings 18:27, Is 36:12,1Sam 25:22, 1Sam 25:34,1Kin 14:10,1Kin 16:11,1Kings 21:21, 2Kings 9:8.
- Status