Where is the "ignore" button on this site?
 

:eek: Scott Simons:--- The Thread Topic is/was "Do we need Greek and Hebrew?" You inserted some other stuff into the Thread. At least two other posters pointed out to you that Thousands/Millions of people have followed Christ Jesus without reading the A.V./K.J.. Instead of you saying "oops", sorry for intruding, and quietly leaving the Thread---you continued on.

I just re-read my Post which you decided to pick apart---Nowhere in that did I claim to "walk-on-water". Nowhere did I say that the A.V./K.J. should NOT be used, and I didn't even mention Billy Graham's Bible. I used him as a illustration of an Evangelist who name is known worldwide, yet his daughter Anne came to Faith in The Lord Jesus by seeing a movie called "King of Kings"...All in order to point out to you (and anyone else reading the thread) that our Lord moves in mysterious ways... { Such as Balaam and the talking Donkey, and Saul on the road to Damascus.}

...What was so hard to understand about that..?!?!

:confused: As to the book by Fuller titled "Which Bible" (which I have read and like) ... how would me rereading the book excuse your interupting the Thread started by Atlas on the Topic of "Do we need Greek and Hebrew".?!?

It is obvious you have not read the thread all the way through. You jump in and attack me base on your ignorance of what had naturally evolved on a King James Bible site, duh. You make ignorant inferences with subtil injection about Billy Graham I should just ignore it? Dude, this is a forum, if you can’t take the heat stay out of the kitchen. You may get away with your attitude at home but you may have to answer for it here. If you think you can read ‘Which Bible” once and have half an idea of what is going on, think again.
And if you got anything of value to add to the discussion please enter in, otherwise I could do without the irritation, thanks.

Oh, by the way “walk on water” is a subtil metaphor for when a judgmental criticism with a dig is injected without any scriptural backing and so thus you don’t know what you are talking about, and so thus you are not walking on water, just how I felt about your rude interjection.

To be honest, I see no real "attitude" from PB's side, in fact I see it from the other side after your last post Scott. But then, thats just my opinion and from previous posts you hold no value to that either.

peopleoftheway:--- :) Thanks Much!

I thought maybe I needed to buy some new reading glasses... ;)

Problem solved = Went to the member list and found the "Ignore" button.

{Matthew 10:14}

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

I go for that, thanks Brother Tim.

Very Good Steven, and so true! it is along the similar line of modern versions removal of their "false witness"
The Bible
Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The niv
9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b]

The nlt
9 For the commandments say, “You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not covet.”[a] These—and other such commandments—are summed up in this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b]

The esv (even the most recent bible that claims its translation from the originals and built upon the KJB removes a commandment, quite obviously to ease their conscience)

9For the commandments,(A) "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word:(B) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

I realize this is a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor but it is sadly true. Just read any number of their books or publications and it becomes painfully evident how much false information is contained therein. Just flip through James White's book and it becomes difficult to find two consecutive pages that don't contain at least one lie or misrepresentation. I think they have told their lies for so many years that even they are starting to believe them. :)

Wow,:cool: now you guys are talking. Its all lies, and infectous too. They lie to themselves and are lieing to everyone else.
It's to good to call them versions, they preach another Jesus, nearly the same as Mormons. Except Mormons will say they believe their bilbe as far as it is translated correctly, The so called Christian with their version say they will believe anything even if it is translated incorrectly and wrong, I wonder which is better?

Need Greek-Hebrew?
 

Back to the OP - John Bunyan (best I can tell) knew neither Greek nor Hebrew and only read a few other books in his life (Practice of Piety, etc.) besides the scriptures and look what he produced! :eek:

I personally do not believe the average saint needs more than the scriptures and a good English dictionary...I like Webster's 1828. Later good commentaries, etc. are, of course, a great help.

If the saint reads the scriptures, seeks to define the words from the context first, then from the scriptures themselves, and then from the dictionary with prayer trusting the Holy Spirit then this saint has done more than any or at last most AV Corrector have done or will do and glean more from the word than these "enlightened ones" with all their Greek-Hebrew, lexicons, manuscripts, modern versions ,etc.

God bless

I agree!

First of all, I would like to say that I only use that KJV and refuse to use any of these other translations. That said I do not believe that the King James Version was inspired. If it were inspired then all other translations that have been used by the many faithful men before the KJV was finished as well as those that cannot understand English must have been inspired as well. Are we prepared to say this? How do we decide what has been inspired and what has not? If the KJV is the only thing that we have today that has been inspired then what are the Spanish and German and all the other languages supposed to do? Was God's inspired Word not in existence before 1611?

I believe that a much more logical thing to say is that God's Word has been preserved in the existing manuscripts of the Majority Text. I also believe that as a result of the extreme carefulness and great knowledge of the KJV translators that we can say that the KJV is as close as we can get to God's inspired Word in the English language. Therefore, I believe that it can be helpful at times to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to discover different shades of meaning to the words used (many times the English does not have an exact word or phrase to fully describe the Greek or Hebrew word). This can be done by simply looking up the word in a Strong's Concordance. This will give you the Greek or Hebrew word, its meaning and how it has been translated in different parts of the Bible. This makes it possible for anyone to be a Greek or Hebrew 'scholar' without actually knowing those languages.

I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I do not believe that any of the modern translations are good and I do believe that they all contain drastic contradictions as a result of being translated from the Critical Text. And while I do believe that it is theoretically possible to have a new translation based on the Majority text that would be better for us today as a result of being in our modern language, I believe that such a translation would not be as accurate because it would not use the various more precise forms of different pronouns and words that do not exist today. If anything were to be changed about the KJV today, I believe it should only be the punctuation and some spelling and capitalization (which should be done very carefully so as to be sure that the original meaning was not changed) because much of this has changed today and making those changes would make many passages more clear (the punctuation of a sentence can greatly affect its clarity and capitalizing pronouns and words referring to the deity could help clarify many passages that would otherwise take some study to understand). This very thing was done to the KJV that we have today. I understand that the people who did the NKJV tried to do this; however, I do not believe that they were as careful when they did what they did. Therefore, I am sticking to the KJV.

There are many that would agree with what you've just said. I however am not one of them. I believe God promised to preserve His Word, and He has done just that. He's preserved a perfect Bible in the King James Bible of 1611. This Bible is a faithful and error free preservation of the Greek Hebrew and Aramaic that God, by the hands of men, penned a very long time ago. This Bible is as inspired as those ancient texts.

I should mention that your idea of a Majority Text is flawed. There is no such thing as a Majority Text.

From http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/kinn...hell-game.html:
There really is no such thing as the majority text since what passes for this today is based on Von Soden's work of PARTIALLY comparing only about 400 of the 5000 Greek manuscripts that presently exist.

Even the TR isn't faithful to the reading of the KJB in every instance. So you have to ask yourself an important question; did God when He said that He isn't the author of confusion preserve His Words scattered across thousands of texts that only so called expert textual criticism scholars can track down (when they all don't even agree) or did He preserve an error free Holy Bible that can be completely trusted and read and cherished by all peoples from all backgrounds, and all educational levels?

When I answered that question, I found that I had enough for me to believe. Though there is more for those willing to dig deeper into the subject.

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

_______________________

"First of all, I would like to say that I only use(my emphasis) that KJV…."
" I do not believe..."
"I believe..."(5 times)

My comment: So, you "use" the KJV. Are you saying you "prefer" it, or it is your first "preference?"(correct me if I misunderstood you). I "use" a car manual, a "Strong's", a "dictionary…..
And I "prefer"/"like" ice crème, my "favorite"/"preference" being Vanilla , I "prefer" not going to work, my "preference being sleeping late, I "like"/"prefer" smoking, my "preference" being "Now" shorts, and I "prefer" other "religions" instead of Christianity…….

The question seems to me to be:
What do you believe? Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?

"….that we can say that the KJV is as close(my emphasis) as we can get to God's inspired Word(my emphasis) in the English language…"

My comment: Is this "kinda like" "close to being pregnant", "close to being dead", "close to being alive", "close to being saved","close to being a Christian", close to being true", "close to being false", "close to being white", "close to being black"……...…….?

"Almost inspired"? "Closed to being inspired?"

"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest(my emphasis)) me to be a Christian…" Acts 26:28


"...to go back to the Greek or Hebrew…"

My comment: There is no such thing as "the" Greek, correct?


"….making those changes would make many passages more clear …"


My comment: You confuse objective revelation, through words, with subjective interpretation.



"Therefore, I am sticking to the KJV."

My comment: Do you believe it?

In and with Christ,

John M. Whalen

Dear JMWHALEN,

I do not understand what you are trying to say, but I will try to clarify myself as best I can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMWHALEN (Post 9745) My comment: So, you "use" the KJV. Are you saying you "prefer" it, or it is your first "preference?"(correct me if I misunderstood you). I "use" a car manual, a "Strong's", a "dictionary…..

I use the KJV for my Bible reading wherever I am whether it is in church, in my room having devotions or witnessing to someone on the street. Yes, I do "prefer" it to the NASB, NIV, ESV, and all the other modern versions because these other versions greatly weaken many of the great doctrines of my faith (removing I John 5:7, for example, removes the one of the greatest proof texts on the Trinity that we have). Therefore, because I use the KJV in my devotions and in church and any other time, I refer to the Bible in my life I depend on it for guidance in my life. Further, I believe that any time I have a question in life I can go to it and find the answer. I use a Strong's concordance and a dictionary (Webster's 1828 Dictionary) as a tool to help me understand passages that are somewhat confusing to me. I also consult commentaries such as Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible for further explanation although I do so with a critical eye because what he says is merely man's opinion on what the Bible means. The next section of your quote does not make any sense to me. I do not understand how ice cream, sleeping late, smoking, and other religions instead of Christianity relate to each other or to the topic being discussed. Are you trying to say that because I do not believe that God inspired the KJV translators when they did their work that I will soon fall to these things? If that is true then that is quite a stretch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMWHALEN (Post 9745) The question seems to me to be:

There are several words in the original languages for which we do not have an English word to describe fully. For example, one of the many facets of God's love is His loyal love to us. The Hebrew word that that expresses this concept is the word chesed. This word has been translated into the KJV as mercy or kindness. Strong's describes it as "kindness; by implication (towards God) piety; rarely (by opprobrium) reproof, or (subjectively) beauty: - favour, good deed (-liness, -ness), kindly, (loving-) kindness, merciful (kindness), mercy, pity, reproach, wicked thing.” However, no single English word fully describes this Hebrew word. Therefore, when the KJV translators translated that word they certainly did the best they could at finding the best English word to describe this Hebrew word. Consequently, it is obviously better to go back to the original language to find the full meaning of the word. Anyone that has learned a foreign language knows that this is true. So since I believe that God's inspire Word is preserved through the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that have not been corrupted like the Alexandrian or Vatican texts (that is the Byzantine Text, Majority Text, Textus Receptus, or whatever you want to call it) and the entire meaning of the words cannot be captured through any translation, I must say that the KJV is as close to the intended meaning of the originals that we can get.

Having said all that, I would like to restate my main point. How can we say that the KJV is the only thing that we have today that is inspired today when there are good Christian men and women all over the world that cannot understand the English language? How has God preserved His Word to them? In addition, Did God preserve His Word before the KJV came into existence? Where was God's inspired Word to Martin Luther, Erasmus, Tyndale, Wycliffe, and King James himself? In other words, Where was God's inspired Word from A.D. 100-1611?

_______
My comments:

Originally Posted by JMWHALEN
What do you believe? Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?

My comment:

Please answer the question. I did not ask if you “use”(“Prefer”, “like”…..), I asked:

Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?

And you did not answer it.


“The next section of your quote does not make any sense to me. I do not understand how ice cream, sleeping late, smoking, and other religions instead of Christianity relate to each other or to the topic being discussed. Are you trying to say that because I do not believe that God inspired the KJV translators when they did their work that I will soon fall to these things? If that is true then that is quite a stretch.”

Perhaps this will. I believe Christianity. However, I believe in Christianity not because I “like” it, or because I “prefer” it, nor because of its "usability"-I submit to it because it is true. Thus, the question.: Do you believe that the KJV is true=the inspired word of God? Yes or no? If it is true, i.e., the inspired word of God, we/you should submit to it, irregardless whether you “like“/prefer/”use it”. That is, preferabilty, usability, or likability are thus irrelevant. I "like" ice creme, but is it good for me, is it "true" to a healthy body? Should we chose which "the" Bible as we chose Christianity? Did you choose Christianity because you "like" it, or you "prefer" it, or because of its "usabilty", or because you determined, based on the evidence, it is true? Most choose "which 'the' Bible" as they choose which "religion", like a big buffet("a little of this, a little of that"), i.e., based on "usability", "preference", "likeability", and NOT TRUTH. Here is my article, hopefully expressing this point:


Bible Buffet/Stew-Truth or Preference
Submitted by John M. Whalen
(bold is my emphasis)

"Come, let us reason together...." Isaiah 1:18
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________


Comments from posters(another board), on the question: “Which Bible translation do you favor, and why?

“ I personally favor…”

“I've tried the….”

“Love the …....that's probably my favourite for everyday use. I also like the……”

“I use the …. in my daily devotions, but I love the …..”


“My preferred bible is the….., although I love the archaic and poetic construction in the….. I also like …… translation, but my favourite New Covenant translation has got to be ...”


My fav is ….as well - I love the prose, the way it flows. I have others that I use…..”.


“….I prefer the ….”


“I like the…….and the……. These are the three that I use on a regular basis.”

“I read the….”

“I actually prefer the….”


“….which one do i use today?..... i prefer ….. but i get a better sense out of any verse or passage im studying when i use all that i have.”


“I read different ones.... the one we use in church is….. at home we also use a chronalogical Bible for some study……. but we do like ….. quite well.....”

“I chose other. My favorite translation is the..... It is for sure one of the best ones around of the ones I've read…… I also like the….I like…..”

“My favorite is the… as well. I love reading it on a daily basis. I still use the…..”


“my favorite translations in order of preference are :….”

“I used to read the…”

“I not only prefer the,,,,,,, it is the only translation I have any confidence in. To me, all other translations are full of errors and ommissions….., I use the ….”

“I have always used the…because I have found it reasonably well translated, but I know it has flaws like any translation, if I seriously thought….I would use that version as well..”

Vs.

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13

“…for I trust in thy word.” Psalms 119:42

“Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word:” Psalms 106:24

“…they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” John 2:22

“Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed;..” Acts 4:4
__________________________________________________ ___________

A serious comment that I would hope would be considered, for we serve a God of reason(Isaiah 1:18): I am under the assumption, which I feel is a reasonable assumption, given the depth/insight of many of the comments I have read on a vast number of theological subjects/questions, that there are many rational, reasonable, and prudent believers writing on these issues. Given this, I still would ask you to prayerfully consider the following: I understand that the question is

“Which Bible translation do you favor, and why? ", or, to restate the issue, "Which 'version' do you PREFER"? I would ask the following: Is it not more important not to ask which we "prefer", “favor”, like”, for implied in that question is the notion that "preference/taste/like determines truth", but MOST IMPORTANTLY, should not our criteria, the question be, "What is the Bible"? That's seems pretty simple to me. Do or do we not have a "the Bible" we can press to our heart, and say, without reservation, and without apology, that "This is the preserved word of God, without error-He inspired it, He preserved it, and it is without error." If we can do this, then, it seems to me that what we "prefer", what we “like”, what is our “favorite”, …. is not only irrelevant, it is subjective and should be discarded as the standard. After all, even though I may "prefer such and such version", if it is not the word of God, why read it, and certainlt we should not believe/trust it? That is, it is a moot point. I “like” smoking, and I “prefer” NOW shorts,…. I “like” not going to work, and “prefer” sleeping in bed Monday-Friday,…I “like” ice cream, and I “prefer” vanilla….

Allow me to elaborate.

"Religious" Pluralism, or "Religious Stew"

Religious pluralism is the world view that, when it comes to” religious" issues, "all roads lead to Rome". That is, it doesn't really matter what philosophy or "religion" you accept", as long as you've got "God"("THE UNKNOWN GOD"-Acts 17:23) thrown in there somewhere, and you're following your "heart"(despite Jeremiah 17:9); that is, you are "sincere"("The Oprah Winfrey Show") . This is an approach to "religion" that is sweeping the world. However, this approach is flawed in the best case, and is deception in the worse case.
.
I "like", I "prefer" sweets, and my brother is a doctor, so perhaps an analogy would clarify my argument. This may seem obvious, but there is a vast difference between choosing an ice cream flavor and choosing a medicine. When choosing ice cream, you choose what you like, what you "prefer".
When choosing medicine, you have to choose what heals.

When many/most(?) consider that of the spiritual realm as it pertains to God, they think of Him as they would of ice cream, not like they think of insulin. That is, they choose religious views according to their tastes, to what they "prefer", and not according to what is true. The question of truth hardly even comes up in their consideration.

Furthermore, the question of truth is somewhat of a confusing, almost incoherent issue to them. How can you test something like a "religious" claim to determine if it's true or not? That is, "religious" truth is what you believe-your "opinion", your "preference", what you "choose". It's that "blind leap of faith" you take, and ultimately it has nothing to do with reality. Thus, it is not anything you can test or measure. It is something you have to believe and hope against hope that it's true. It becomes a kind of wishful thinking, a religious placebo of sorts- "Fantasy Island", if you will.

In contrast, Christianity contends that you can test religious truth, and I'd like to offer one of those methods to you.

Someone once asked me to "try" "Jehovah's Witness's ism". I declined and provided my argument. The Jehovah's witness accused me of not being "open-minded", of being "intolerant"(ever you heard that-politics?) in that I wouldn't try it to see if it was "for me". This reveals something about how people choose "religion". They choose what they "like", what they "prefer", rather than what is true. I was considered "close-minded", intolerant, even "mean spirited" or "unchristian", because I wouldn't "try it" to see if I "liked" it.

But this admonition and criticism was misplaced. Why? Because "religion", isn't the kind of thing you "choose" because you "like"/"prefer" it. It isn't a matter of tasting, and sampling, and seeing if it "appeals" to you-it is not a buffet or stew where you "choose a little of this, a little of that".

Regrettably, not only is this a mistaken way of encouraging somebody to accept a particular "religious" view when done by a Jehovah's Witness", for example, or any "religion", it is also a mistaken way for Christians to appeal to non-Christians, because ultimately it is ineffective.

"Try my Jesus, you'll like Him." Although I have been a Christian for only 10 years, and I try to thank the LORD God every day for the joy I have experienced through the Lord Jesus Christ, there are a many times that I don't particularly like the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you find this shocking? Have not we all "been there" in our walk? The Lord Jesus Christ, and his standards, is not very convenient at times, in a sense. That is, the appeal, the conviction, of Christianity is not to preferences, not to what you "like", but to truth. The real question is this: "Is Jesus God, Lord, and Messiah, or not?" That ought to be the "bottom line" issue regarding Christianity.

The real issue is whether your "religious" beliefs are true or not, not whether you "like" them, not whether you "prefer" them, not whether you "try" them and find them appealing, or whether it is your “favorite” way of being acceptable to the LORD God..

Again, this is "Buffet/Stew Religion"-taking little bits and pieces of different "religions", mixing them together in one "pious smorgasbord", if you will.-go down the buffet line, pick a little here and a little there("prefer", "like", “favorites”), place it on your plate, and call it "your religion". When you put things on your plate you put them there for a reason. You put things on the plate in a smorgasbord because they are the things you like, not necessarily things that are good for you health-wise. This the inherent flaw the religious stew approach.

If you have this view, how do you know you haven't just invented a religious placebo based on what you "prefer", based on what are your “favorites”, that, in the end, and in the best case, doesn't do you much good ultimately, but just satisfies your appetite, and, at worst, will kill you(eating poisonous mushrooms)? It may be spiritual junk food, or empty "religious calories"--something that appeals to the palate, the senses, and you "prefer" it, but does nothing for spiritual health.

Is not much of "religion" in people's lives merely a placebo, like a sugar pill that they take to make them feel better, and not a pill that does any medicinal good, but a pill that helps them talk themselves into believing it will do some good? A placebo is given to people who are hypochondriacs and aren't really sick, but just think they are, so you give them a sugar pill. And they think it does some good and they feel better, but nothing has changed.

If you are looking for a religion that suits you, a religion that fits what you "'like" or "prefer", is it not true that you are simply manufacturing a "religious" view of your own invention?. This, of course, is the attack that philosophers through the ages some have used against Christianity, accusing Christians of inventing God out of psychological reasons, and for a "crutch"-we create God in the image of our own desires, our own "preferences".

To those I would respond as follows: If I were inclined to invent a "religion" and a "god", the LORD God of the Bible is the very last God I would ever invent. I would invent a "god" that would allow me to choose what I "prefer", or one who is my “favorite”-life would be more like ice creme.

I certainly would not invent a Holy(the most often stated attribute of God in scripture-not love) God whose perfect moral character becomes the absolute law of the universe. He is utterly demanding, encroaching on every corner of our life. Who would invent a God like that? That isn't the kind of God that would make me feel more comfortable, or the God I would "prefer", or my “favorite” “god.”. That type of God makes me feel uncomfortable, because that God's righteous demands are much greater than my ability to deliver on my own.

Some might think this idea of testing a "religious" truth is an unusual, an irrational concept, because in this day of religious stew pluralism, the notion that any one "religion" is true is viewed as "unlearned and ignorant"(Acts 4:13). It is viewed as "impolite, incorrect, mean-spirited, intolerant, divisive, closed-minded, irrational", coming from the minds of those who just aren't "enlightened". You just don't say that anymore, since saying that there is an objective truth that necessarily excludes all other "supposed truths" is not only intolerant, it is bad manners in this "civilized" society. And this is why Christians should be expected to be rejected by "the world".

Again, when choosing ice cream, for example, you choose what you like or "prefer"-your “favorites.” When choosing medicine, you cannot choose what you "prefer", you must choose what will cure you. If not, you will die.

In simple terms, due to the exclusive claims of Christianity, if Christianity is true(and it is!), all other "religions" are automatically disqualified by the law of non-contradiction. When somebody says I'm "close-minded, intolerant, bigoted", because I won't even "try" it, that's akin to someone saying to me "my brother is an only child, and you're so close-minded and intolerant you won't even take the time to investigate this", implying that knowing this truth involves some type of "Columbo" investigation, and I'm irrational and intolerant for not taking the time and effort to find out.

No, some things are obviously and irrefutably false. It is false to say "my brother is an only child"-this is a contradiction, and must be rejected as false, whether I "prefer" it or not. I have no rational obligation to even consider it. In the same way, if Christianity is true, all other "religions" are false, regardless of "opinion' or "preference".

And thus "religious stew' has got to be false by its very nature, and must be rejected, irrespective of what you "prefer". The only relevant question to consider is: Is it true?

Consider the implications of the preceding when witnessing to a predominantly Christ-rejecting, and thus lost and dying world.

I recently engaged in a debate on another board with a gentleman regarding this same issue. After many posts back and forth, he made a comment along the lines of this:

"That is your truth. What may be true for you, may not be true for me. My God would not(do such and such)............"

What was he saying? He was inventing a "god" of his own choosing, a "god" he "prefers", a "god" he "likes". His mind set is "That's good for you, but I don't need that, and I prefer......"

The problem is not that the nonbeliever doesn't "need" Christianity. How do we get them to feel the need for the Lord Jesus Christ, or "change their minds"(the biblical meaning of "repent")? The 'stumbling block" to the non-believer is that he/she does not have in their perception of reality the mind set that there is such a thing as truth-they are relativists. To them, Christianity is just a "preferred" activity of the Christian, or preferred notion or belief-an "opinion", if you will. The decision is simply a matter of preference. He/she "prefers" something different. And why would you fault him/her for their "preference", or what they "like", their preference? Why does he/she have to be like you in your "preferences"?

There's no sense that this is a world filled with both true and false notions, and that we have a rational, logical obligation to separate the two, and a moral responsibility to embrace and follow truth. Would I be "way off base" by the following observation?: Christians do not seem to understand this, because our own Christian world view is not broad. We don't have a rich understanding of the inevitable consequences of what we hold to be true. Instead, we embrace the rushing tide of the "world view"- things aren't true or false; they're pleasant or unpleasant, appealing or unappealing, "liked" or "disliked", "preferred" or "not preferred".

No, Christianity is not a question of our preference, or at least it should not be. As mentioned earlier, there are a "a lotta things" about the demands of this great Saviour of ours I just don't "like" or prefer". If our Christianity is what we "prefer", are not we misunderstanding our hope? As stated earlier, I will tell you, I "prefer" smoking, I do not "like" quitting. I do not "like" getting up early every morning going to work. I prefer staying home all day and smoking a few cigarettes! Similarly, I do not "prefer" Christianity. I "prefer" agnosticism, since it is not only much easier, it is much less troublesome. With it, I would have much more wordly freedom. However, I believe that Christianity is true based on the evidence, therefore I'm rationally and logically obligated to accept it as true, and not because I "prefer" it, and not because I “like” it, and not because it is my “favorite.”. And because it's true, there is a necessary quality to it. We can say this because we understand world views. That's why we approach this issue in this manner. But if we don't understand that our Christianity is necessary, that it is true, then we are incapable of discussing this truth when we try to witness to someone who doesn't share our "preference".

In "buckling under" to this notion of "preference", we try to appeal to the false view, instead of telling them the truth. We attempt to make the Lord Jesus Christ more likable, more pleasant, more appealing("Try him"! You will like him. He changed my life"-so do health clubs!), rather than clarifying that it is more true because that's what they're looking for, rather than clarifying that Christianity is more true. And so we fall into the trap of resorting to entertainment, rather than advocacy and conviction.

To restate the preceding in a somewhat different manner, consider that all begins with this great God, not man. If in fact man is all there is, the perspective of the atheist, for example, then the only place the atheist can start and end with is man. Then "preference" becomes the only relevant priority. However, if God does indeed exist, as Christians contend(and others), it is irrelevant what is "preferred". What only matters is: is it true?

Part of being "in Christ" includes a change in our world view, having "...the mind of Christ..."(1 Cor. 2:16), not just a change in our appeals to our senses. We adapt our lives to a new, true view of the world based upon the word of God and the exclusiveness of our faith, as opposed to offering a view that is meant to be adapted to our lives. So instead of trying to find a method of making the Lord Jesus Christ more pleasant, more agreeable, more appealing, more "preferable" to the lost, we explain that his/her view of the world is false, and then proclaim without reservation or fear that the Lord Jesus Christ because he is the truth, and all others are necessarily false. We conform, submit our desires, our "likes", our "preferences" , our “favorites”, to the truth, rather than the truth to our desires, our "likes", our "preferences", our “favorites.” Although we must make the truth appealing, for that is part of our roles as "... ambassadors for Christ..."(2 Cor. 5:20), but never can we, or should we, substitute appeal or "preference" for the truth. Or, as one writer stated this principle, we must never seek to build a temple of unity upon the grave of truth. This great God of ours expects more than this from those he calls his own.

Cannot the same be applied to the issue of this post?

If the Lord Jesus Christ's name is so precious to God the Father, and it is(Philippians 2:9, Eph. 1:21), and if God's own name is even exalted above all blessing and praise, and it is(Neh. 9:5), and if God has glorified His word (Acts 14:38, 2 Thessalonians 3:1), and He has, and if God has magnified His word above His own name, and He did and has(Psalms 138:2), is it not a disservice to frame the "Bible version debate" issue to a matter of "preference", or what we “like”? And, as a related question, given the glorification, magnification, and thus importance the LORD God has placed on his word, is it legitimate to ridicule and criticize those who stand on the premise that the LORD God, who created the universe, raised his Only begotten Son from the dead, and saved (formerly) dirty, rotten scoundrels such as all of were prior to his bestowing his infinite grace upon us, did in fact preserve his word without error as a present possession in a book we call "The Holy Bible"? "The" is singular, is it not? If the God as revealed in scripture is true, that is, possessing power we can not even imagine, much less comprehend, is it not "reasonable" to conclude that He could preserve his word without error? After all, what type of God do we serve, honor, and worship?

Does our "preference" miss the mark? "Try this version, you will like it." Was not this employed in Genesis, the "seed plot" of the Holy Bible(Genesis Chapter 3)? As outlined previously, the "appeal" to Christianity, as revealed in "the Bible", is not to preferences, but to the truth. The real question should be: Is this the word of God, or not, and not whether I "prefer" or "like" this "version".

Someone once said to me: I find people who limit God to the KJB do not believe in the full power and glory of God". I told this person this is backward. We do not limit God with the KJB-He limits us. If you can PREFER whatever version you want when you come to a passage you do not prefer-it is you that needs to be limited, because you are not under subjection to God's word, if in fact you are judging God's word as if you are superior to it-you are your own "god" and authority(Gen. 3:5). Do you not often find it to be the case that, when arguing a doctrinal point with someone, in the spirit of "...speaking the truth in love...."(Eph. 4:15), invariably your opponent, when his/her doctrinal argument seems to be "losing", will cite a passage in another "version" as proof text to support their "take" on a doctrinal issue?

I live in Texas. My preacher friend Mike Arnold provided me the below prize winning Chili recipe(ingredients). It is an 94.73% accurate "copy".

2 1/2 lb. lean ground chuck/ 1 lb. lean ground pork/1 c finely chopped onion/4 garlic cloves finely chopped/1 cn Budweiser beer(12 oz)/8 oz Hunt's tomato sauce/1 cn water/3 tb chili powder/3 tb ground cumin/2 tb Wyler's beef-flavored instant bouillon(or 6 cubes)/2 ts Oregano leaves/2 ts paprika/2 ts sugar/1 ts unsweetened cocoa/1/2 ts ground coriander/1/2 ts Louisiana hot sauce, to taste/1 ts flour, 1 ts cornmeal/1 tb warm water/2 ts ARSENIC

Pastor Jerry Lockhart of Berean Bible Church in New Braunfels, Texas points out that rat poison is 99.05% cornmeal, and .05% strychnine(a poisonous alkaloid). The .05% “gets the rat”. Satan’s deception is to “mix a little lie in with a whole lotta’ truth”, and the Body of Christ has bought into this deception.

"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" 1 Cor. 5:6

The danger of relativism is not people believing nothing, but people believing anything. The devil is "subtil"(Gen. 3:1), and the essence of deception is "mixing" just a little bit error with the truth. As most believers know, the Jehovah's Witnesses "prefer" the following "version" of John 1:1:

"...and the word was a(emphasis mine) god"(notice also lower case 'g'-New World Translation)

I applaud one believer, who wrote, who wrote:

"... here is what the bible says.
Psa. 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The bible says that his words will be preserved from generation to generation. He also says that anyone who adds to his word, or takes away from it will be stopped.....my stand is that the KJV is the pure, perfect, and infallable word of God."

This person did not "prefer" this "version" of "the Bible", he/she took a stand. I find that not only refreshing, but uncompromising and courageous. Does not conviction "separate the men from the boys"? And, more importantly, is that not what the Lord God demands, not "prefers", from those who are his children, from those who he "...bought with a price..."(1 Cor. 6:20), that price being the death by blood of the Lord Jesus Christ on a lonesome hill we call Calvary?

I wrote this post not to frame the issue as (fill in the blank) vs. "the other versions". Many of you know are well aware of my stand on this issue. My motivation was hopefully to inspire reasonable thinking on this issue, for I know that most believers on this board embrace the notion, the truth, the conviction, that we have a "reasonable" God(Isaiah 1:18). And as such, how can we ever be convincing to a lost world of the "...truth in Christ...."(Romans 9:1), which is, by its nature, based on uncompromising exclusivity, and not PREFERENCE, if we, in fact, do not hold to this ourselves on a simple issue such as "what is the Bible"?

I ask that, like Mary of old, you "ponder" these things in your heart(Luke 2:18).

No one has stated that they believe every word of the Holy Bible. I do, and I will. I believe the King James Bible is the preserved, without error word of God foe English speaking people. The word of God, by definition, has no errors, or it is not the word of God, as it is written:

“Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” Psalms 119:160

“…in the scripture of truth…” Daniel 10:21

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” John 17:17

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

___

___


“I must say that the KJV is as close to the intended meaning of the originals that we can get.” tlewis3348

My comment:
1. Again, you confuse objective revelation through words with subjective interpretation. The objective words are given by inspiration, not “the intended thought.”

2. How can you make this assessment/judgment, without “the originals”? They are “long gone."

3. “is as close”

Again, Is this "kinda like" "close to being pregnant", "close to being dead", "close to being alive", "close to being saved","close to being a Christian", close to being true", "close to being false", "close to being white", "close to being black"……...…….?

"Almost inspired"? "Closed to being inspired?"

"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest(my emphasis)) me to be a Christian…" Acts 26:28

Please address.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

My replies are numbered according to your comments.

1. I understand that God inspired each word of the Bible. I believe this with all my heart. My point is that when the KJV translators translated the Bible from the original languages into English they had to make a decision as to what was meant by certain Greek or Hebrew words since many have multiple meanings. In order to accurately translate they had to have a great understanding of the Greek and Hebrew languages as well as the different cultures and contexts of the Bible. Therefore they had to know the "intended thought" of the specific inspired words that were in the original languages.

2. What specific "assessment/judgment" are you referring to?

3. I do not know how to explain this any better than I did in the second paragraph.

My main point has yet to be answered:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlewis3348 (Post 9748) Having said all that, I would like to restate my main point. How can we say that the KJV is the only thing that we have today that is inspired today when there are good Christian men and women all over the world that cannot understand the English language? How has God preserved His Word to them? In addition, Did God preserve His Word before the KJV came into existence? Where was God's inspired Word to Martin Luther, Erasmus, Tyndale, Wycliffe, and King James himself? In other words, Where was God's inspired Word from A.D. 100-1611?

That pretty much sums it up.:D
So, if the KJ is not a perfect version,than what are these others considered?,and are you really going to trust them? I don't. would using several versions be considered a good cornerstone?
If the preacher is not confident in one version ,how is the congregation ever going to be.
No ,we don't need to learn Hebrew and Greek,why else would we have the perfect Word of God that was translated into English and preserved to this day.

Amen! brother.

______________________________



" I understand that God inspired each word of the Bible. I believe this with all my heart." -tlewis3348

My comment:

1. Sir, I did not ask you if "God inspired each word of the Bible.” I pointed out that you (repeatedly) said you “used” the KJV. I asked you:

What do you believe? Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?
(the reasons explained in a follow up article).

And you refused to answer a simple question. So, Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no? As a continuation,

2. You refer to “the Bible” in your “God inspired each word of the Bible” statement, i.e., “the Bible” as being inspired. What is this “the Bible?” Please name it-identify it. Do you have it in your possession? Is it the KJV? I thought you said the KJV is not inspired? If it is the word of God, it is inspired, correct? So, if you believe “God inspired each word of the Bible”, and you have “the Bible” in your possession, and therefore it is inspired(by your own definition), it is thus perfect, correct? Name it.


Again, address the issue/question above, as per below:

"….that we can say that the KJV is as close(my emphasis) as we can get to God's inspired Word(my emphasis) in the English language…" -tlewis3348

Is this "kinda like" "close to being pregnant", "close to being dead", "close to being alive", "close to being saved","close to being a Christian", close to being true", "close to being false", "close to being white", "close to being black"……...…….?

"Almost inspired"? "Closed to being inspired?" I thought you said:

" I understand that God inspired each word of the Bible. I believe this with all my heart." -tlewis3348

These 2 statements of yours together implies that you contend God's "intial"/"original"' inspired word is no longer inspired, does it not? God just could not preserve His inspired word? What was the purpose of the statement " I understand that God inspired each word of the Bible.? Is inspiration past tense?




2. What specific "assessment/judgment" are you referring to? -tlewis3348

My comment: You said:

"….that we can say that the KJV is as close(my emphasis) as we can get to God's inspired Word(my emphasis) in the English language.”

My point is simple: You cannot assess whether the KJV is “as close as we can get to God’s inspired Word”, unless you have the originals to which you can compare the KJV. Do you have “the originals”? No, you don’t, so you cannot make the assessment/judgment. Therefore the "….that we can say that the KJV is as close(my emphasis) as we can get to God's inspired Word(my emphasis) in the English language.” statement of yours is an assertion w/o a foundation(faulty premise-you/we/no one has today “the originals”/no one alive today has seen “the originals”).


Please at least answer, before we can move forward:

1. What do you believe? Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no? Again, I am not interested in what you “use”,”prefer”, “like”…………….Per scripture, which tells you to believe the word(and I cited the passages), Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?

2. What is this mysterious. “the Bible” in your “God inspired each word of the Bible” statement? We need to “be on the same page”, i.e., this is going to be a non-sensical discussion if we do not know what you are referring to as “the Bible.”

These are simple, 5th grade questions. Please answer, or none of your other questions/points matter.

In and with Christ,

John M. Whalen

I will lay out an overview in a simple way:

Some people think that the "real Word of God" has only been truly preserved in the original languages, and will use a "good" translation of the original languages like the King James Bible. This is a "preference" person.

Other people think that the "real Word of God" has been gathered from the original languages (and other witnesses), and will use the perfect translation, which is the King James Bible. This is a "perfect" person.

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

This is the question I would ask:

How can you assess whether or not the KJB is “as close as we can get to God’s inspired Word”, unless you have a certain perfect and accurate standard in the original languages? The only thing is that there is not one absolutely correct edition of the original languages which exists today, and every edition disagrees from one to another (perhaps in spelling alone), whether Hebrew or Greek.

Therefore the "...that we can say that the KJV is as close as we can get to God's inspired Word in the English language.” statement of yours is an assertion without a foundation (faulty premise -- you/we/no one has today a perfect and accurate edition in the original languages, nor a sure method of apprehending what is an exact and fully correct edition, nor the ability to form such in the original languages.)

“Yes, I do "prefer" it to the NASB, NIV, ESV, and all the other modern versions because these other versions greatly weaken many of the great doctrines of my faith(my emphasis)….” -tlewis3348
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______
My comment:

1. Again, I am only interested in what you believe, not "prefer." Do you believe the KJV is the word of God?


2. The Holy Bible, through objective words, determines, reveals doctrine; doctrine does not determine “what” the word of God is.

That is, it is not “Here is my developed doctrine-now I will find/”prefer”/”favor”/”use” a particular “version” that suits/fits my doctrine-the bible corrector

It is: Here are the objective words of God as contained in the inspired word of God. If you do not understand them, because they somehow “disagree”, “weaken” your developed doctrine, it is you that must change/revise/correct your doctrine to “line up” with the word of God. But “don’t mess” with the objective text of the word of God. You are not to submit the word of God to your correction, for that presupposes an authority of the word of God. Instead, you are to submit to the correction of yourself, including your doctrine, and sanctification(2 Tim. 3:16) to the word of God-the bible believer. That is, the Holy Bible corrects you, and you are to submit to it, as it has authority over you, not vica versa..

The inevitable result of the bible corrector? No one believes a “the” Bible they can correct, “prefer”, “like”, or “use”. The bible corrector thus has the mindset: “This is my doctrine. I will find a ‘version’ that fits my doctrine.” They are thus the final authority(Judges 21:25 principle), instead of the word of God.


In and with Christ,
In the Lord,

John M. Whalen

___
bibleprotector:

"...Thou hast well said...., "...Thou hast spoken well..."(John 4:17, Exodus 10:29).


In Christ,

John M. Whalen

________-

"correction"(play on words):

My statement reading "presupposes an authority of the word of God" ,should read "presupposes an authority over the word of God."

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

Aloha tlewis3348,

Please read the following Threads:

AV1611 Bible Forums > Bible Versions > "The Inspiration of Scripture" {by Moses LemuelRaj - India}

AV1611 Bible Forums > Bible Versions > Why I believe in the King James Bible {by myself - George Anderson}

IF you "think" (at this date") that the King James Bible can be "improved" - WHO would you TRUST to do it?

This issue is about FINAL AUTHORITY - What is yours?

I humbly submit to you that it's this statement you must prayerfully reconsider based on the written Word of God.

“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” (Psalm 12:6–7).

“For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven” (Psalm 119:89).

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:8).

Brother, let us reason together with eyes of spiritual understanding. Surely you believe that God is able to preserve and keep His Word--every Word. Has He? If so, has He given it to humankind? Which version?

I remind you that as a follower of Christ, "...ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things" (1 John 2:20). Be still and be small and listen to the still, small voice of the Lord through His Word.

First, I would like to thank those of you who have pointed out my error in logic of saying that the KJV is "as close as we can get to the originals." Please let me clarify myself.

Stick with me on this.

If we take Shakespeare's Hamlet and translate it into Spanish, is this not still Shakespeare's work? I would submit to you that it is if and only if the translator did not add any of his own opinions to it. We had to do something like this in high school English. We were to take a quote from a famous work and paraphrase it without adding any of own ideas. I found this to be surprisingly difficult. Is it possible? Yes, of course. It especially is when one is very good at understanding language. Now when someone is translating a work of literature the idea is to translate it word for word and then rearrange those words into a reasonable thought (since the grammar of different languages call for different sentence structure). I believe that the KJV translators accomplished this when they translated the Bible. Now as we continue with this train of thought, we consider what happens when a translator comes to a word in the original that simply does not exist into which he is translating. What does he do in this situation? He chooses the word in the translation that most closely represents the original word. These are simple facts that must happen when something is being translated. I believe that the KJV translators did a superb job at this. Now some say that these men were unknowingly divinely empowered to choose exactly the right word in the English language. Since we know that there are some words in the original languages for which there exists no English word to fully describe, we must conclude that either one or the other is a fuller description of what was meant. Therefore, if the English is the fuller description then that must mean that the originals were not as good of a description. Now God did inspire the original writers of the Bible (I think we can all agree on at least that); therefore, what they wrote is exactly the inspired word of God. Now as scribes copied the Bible there were differences that appeared (there are differences in the Greek manuscripts that exist, though very few). Does this mean that God has not preserved His Word? NO! Historians say that we still have Homer when we only have a few copies of his work. We have several thousand copies of the scripture, as well as billions of Bibles in circulation. Yes God most definitely does preserve His Word. So although the Greek and Hebrew manuscript do contain differences they are very small and very few and we therefore conclude that they differ very little from the original manuscripts written by the original authors that were most definitely inspired by God. As we have already said, when translating a language there are some words in the original that have no exact translation in the new language. So therefore we see that there is a logical succession here. First there were the original autographs, then scribes copied those autographs, then translators translated from those copies into what we have today. We have many of those copies and we know that they differ slightly from each other and therefore they must differ slightly from the originals. We also know that any time something is translated into a different language there is a slight loss of meaning. Therefore, is it not logical to say that the closer we can get in that succession to the original autographs the more accurate representation we will have of what the originals said? I believe that this is a logical statement. I also believe that this does not remove any of the foundations of my Christian faith. Let me restate something here. I do believe that the KJV is God's inspired Word (just like a Spanish translation of Hamlet is still Shakespeare); however, I believe that the study of a compilation of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts can give a fuller understanding of what is being said in a certain passage. So while it is not necessary to have knowledge of what the Greek or Hebrew says it certainly is helpful. This knowledge can be had by anyone through the use of a Strong's Concordance.

tlewis3348,

So when Strong's Concordance and the KJV disagree with each other and they do witch of the two is correct?


Maybe you need to read my post, " The Originals and Can translation be inspired? "

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=581


Atlas

Do you believe that God, not man or scribes, kept and preserved His Word for us today in written form with no differences between what He "originally" meant and what we read today? Yes or no?

If so, do we have in our possession the written Word of God He originally meant to give us? Yes or no?

If so, which version do we have in our possession that contains what He originally meant to give us?

__________

(bold is my emphasis)

"the translator... the KJV translators ...accomplished this ….when a translator comes to a word in the original ….What does he do in this situation? He chooses ..I believe that the KJV translators did a superb job at this...."

My comment: Wrong premise("supporting walls") -wrong conclusion. Your premise is that man is responsible for the preservation of the inspired word of God, i.e., secular humanism/moderism. Why is it(rhetorical question) that Christians can believethat LORD God created the universe, saved sinners, raised the dead....................but "just couldn't get this preservation thing down right."



"Does this mean that God has not preserved His Word? NO! Historians say that we still have Homer when we only have a few copies of his work. We have several thousand copies of the scripture, as well as billions of Bibles in circulation. Yes God most definitely does preserve His Word. So although the Greek and Hebrew manuscript do contain differences they are very small and very few and we therefore conclude that they differ very little from the original manuscripts written by the original authors that were most definitely inspired by God….We have many of those copies and we know that they differ slightly from each other and therefore they must differ slightly from the originals.

__________________________________________________ ________________________________
"they differ very little….differ slightly from each other"

My comment. This is incorrect. The 5000+ ms. differ in hundreds of places.

And Please define "slightly." Again, "slightly" wrong? "Almost the word of God"?



So, how do you explain the following(among hundreds of examples), i.e., if all the different the translators were all looking at "the" Greek, how can any reasonbally(Is. 5:20) prudent person ccome to this "differ slightly" conclusion?:

Ephesians 3:6

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" King James Bible


"This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." NIV

In the NIV, the phrase that "the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel", the words "with Israel" are not found in any of the 5000+ manuscripts-nada. Someone else on this board can either verify this, or correct me. If this is so: One of the very "lynch pins"of a dispensational approach to understanding the Holy Bible, is the premise that there is a clear separation between Israel and the body of Christ=things that differ-scriptures which apply to Israel cannot be applied to the body of Christ in this mystery dispensation. Gentiles are not heirs "together with Israel." The King James Bible and the NIV cannot both be the word of God, if the logic of the law of non-contradiction as a tool, is a presumption in our/any discussion(The KJB and the NIV contradict each other in hundreds of places. I only focus on a dispensational aspect here).

And how do you explain, if these differences are just "slight", the following:

Galatians 2:7

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;" King James Bible


"On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews." NIV

"But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised ." NASB


Our faith("in") vs. the Lord Jesus Christ's faith("of")

Galatians 2:16
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." King James Bible

" knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." New King James Version

"know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." NIV
_____________________________
Galatians 2:20
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." King James Bible

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." New King James Version

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." NIV
_____________________________
Galatians 3:22
"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." King James Bible

"But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." New King James Version

"But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe." NIV
______________________________
Ephesians 3:12
"In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him." King James Bible

" in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him." New King James Version

"In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence." NIV
________________________________
Philippians 3:9

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:" King James Bible

"and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;" New King James Version

"and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith." NIV
___________________________________
Colossians 3:12
"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." King James Bible

"buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." New King James Version

"having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." NIV
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________




"the Greek... manuscript "

My comment: Are you sure you are not just restating what you read on other websites, i.e., have you done the research? There is no such thing as "the Greek manuscript." Please identify this "the" Greek manuscript.




"...differ very little from the original manuscripts written by the original authors that were most definitely inspired by God…. ... "

My comment: You continue to argue this point, but, as I asked you twice previously, how are you able to make this assessment/judgment, i.e., " differ very little from", without having "the original manuscripts written by the original authors."


Do you mean "the originals", or the 5000+ manuscripts? "Fess up"-have you seen/reviewed/studied either "the original manuscripts written by the original authors", or the 5000+ manuscripts? If no, how can you make this statement?. I believe you are confused on the terms "originals"/"original manuscripts"-there is only one "original"(of anything); there are 5000+ ms.

I assume you mean the 5000+ manuscripts, given your "We have many of those copies and we know that they differ slightly from each other and therefore they must differ slightly from the originals" statement. . If so, my question remains: how are you able to make this assessment/judgment, i.e., that "those copies" "differ slightly" from "the originals?

(I suggest you "tighten up" your teminilogy, i.e., be more precise.)


__________________________________________________ _______________________________
".... We have several thousand copies of the scripture, as well as billions of Bibles in circulation....

Vs.

"I do believe that the KJV is God's inspired Word "



My comment: You seem to distinguish/differentiate between "the scripture" and "billions of Bibles", i.e., your "as well as" phrase, and you seem to distinguish between "the scripture" and "the KJV." Are 'billions of Bibles" "the scripture"? I thought that "the" in "the Bible" is singular, as in "the book", "the volume of the book?"
___________

"I do believe that the KJV is God's inspired Word. "

My comment: Thank you!!!! Despite the preceding comments, I am happy to see your conviction, your "spine/backbone", in stating, on record, that you believe "that the KJV is God's inspired Word."




In Christ,

John M. Whalen

The story about Shakespeare being in Spanish needs a bit of revision:

1. In English, there is not one "text" of Shakespeare. We do not have Shakespeare's autographs, but we have some early notes taken by people at the playhouse, and early printings, both unauthorised and authorised. These all contain varying readings between them. Therefore, editors have worked the text through history, and most importantly the best printed text in English is the Globe Edition (called the "Cambridge Standard Edition"), edited by W. Aldis Wright and some others.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_Editors

2. If we take "Cambridge Standard Edition" of 1864, and translate that to Spanish, we would certainly have the best textual basis for a Spanish Shakespeare. But the translation would have to be done properly. It would have to balance:
a. following the very literal meaning of the English words into like Spanish words;
b. convey the sense (what would strike an English reader's mind, would also have to likewise strike a Spaniard's); and
c. the feeling, felicities, grace and various stylistic rhythms and metres found in the English would have to be conveyed into the Spanish.

3. On this basis, even if a new text was formed superior to the "Cambridge Standard Edition" and this translated into Spanish with all poetic force, etc., it would just be impossible for it to be "right", in that there is no perfect edition of Shakespeare in English, and translation can never exactly convey a literary work in another tongue. (Conclusion: the best Shakespeare is in the Cambridge Standard Edition.)

4. To apply these textual critical phenomena of Shakespeare to the Scriptures is entirely wrong, because the Scripture directly speaks upon these topics.

A. TEXT
i. The promise of preservation (Psalm 12) ensures that in the original languages the true Scripture would yet exist, though scattered;
ii. The promise of preservation also allows for the utilisation of other witnesses and sources, e.g. lectionaries, other ancient translations, etc.
iii. The promise of preservation also allows, even requires, seven forms of textual gathering, as may be observed in the seven English Bibles of the Reformation.
iv. While the King James Bible has been identified as an independent form of the Received Text (the Textus Receptus editions all differ slightly), it is also, by virtue of the outworking of the promise of preservation, the final pure text.

B. TRANSLATION
i. The promise of world evangelisation (e.g. the Great Commission, etc.) does not require that the Scripture should stay in the original language to retain the power and message of truth.
ii. The Scripture has gone forth in many tongues.
iii. The Scripture actually is required to be in "another tongue" (see Isaiah 28:11), which is singular and particular, for the purpose of world evangelisation.
iv. There is power therefore to render the Scripture perfectly by translation that it might be in this other language, the Scripture therefore being made to be in a pure language (see Zephaniah 3:9).

C. PRESENTATION
i. The promise that not one jot nor tittle would fail (see Matthew 5:18), and of the inability of the Scripture to pass away, etc., all require that the entire Scripture, the entire Canon, to be present in one text and translation as a perfect standard, being the Book of the Lord, with nothing added or missing: This cannot and does not exist anywhere in one extant form in the original languages today, nor is any Bible Version in the world, including Reformation English ones, equal to the King James Bible in these regards, and other matters, such as its scope, influence, majesty and, very importantly, its being in a language which is conversant to the world's global language.
ii. That the text (or readings) of 1611, (being the text, not the margins) has not altered to this very day in the proper line of editions;
iii. And that the translation likewise has not been altered;
iv. But that we have in one standard form (for the correction of any and all printing errors, the standardisation of the language and the editorial regularisation) the very Scripture perfectly, utterly accurate and matching to the lost Autographs, being their very representative on Earth.

To conclude, we ask, where would we seek the Word of God? By running to and fro? By yet attempting to divine the original languages? By relying upon Aland or Strong? By being content with the "imperfect best", contradicting Deuteronomy 32:4? Or rather by having faith in God, that by His Divine Providence He has afforded to the world by His superintendence the Holy Scripture perfectly, exactly and totally in one standard form for all? (That "all" is coming to pass to include Spaniards, see Isaiah 18:3, Matt. 24:14, Rom. 16:26, Col. 1:5, 6, 23 and Revelation 14:6).

Excellent Post!
 

:) Well said, well phrased, and your thinking cap is on! Stick to yer guns young man! Don't let the nit-pickers get you down. The folks that claim the A.V./K.J. is "inspired" have not read The Translators to the Reader", which should be at the front of your A.V./K.J.. Those "Learned Men" never claimed to be inspired, but rather "to make a good translation ( primarily Tyndale's and also the Geneva) better."

Your point about the NKJV is "nail-on-the-head". IF they (Thomas Nelson Pubs.) had simply done things like taking off "est" and "eth" from the ends of certain words, AND had used the T.R. Greek New Testament, instead of their (Farstad and Hodges) special Greek Text,,, AND stuck with the Biblical Words concerning the San Fran/Hollywierdos types... It might have been a better work.

Your Bio says you are studying to be an Engineer---good! Keep at it and maybe someday we will see a bridge or building or an airplane that can run on H2O and fizzies tabs someday that you had a hand in . The Lord God gave us brains, and it is good to use them.

Here is a Psalm to read if you are feeling like Elijah in 1Kings 19.... A famous General once prayed this Psalm when he was feeling like Elijah; Psalm 63.

PB1789,

I do not claim that KJB was made by inspiration 1604-1611.

Changing one jot or tittle of God's Word, including messing with His use of English, is not going to improve anything.

Which Greek TR?

* * * * *

Let me now outline a few points to you:

Did the 1611 translators really doubt the exactness of their translation? Did they really think that their own work was not 100% the same as the original inspiration, though rendered in English?

Argument One:

The presence of marginal notes such as, at Luke 17:36, "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." does not mean that the translators were, in their final collective judgment, uncertain as to the text or translation of Scripture. If they were really uncertain, they would not have included that verse. Interestingly, they do not comment upon when they omit material found in the manuscript evidence, which indicates that while they made a show of uncertainty, they presented their work as to be judged on its merits. Telling the honest truth about the rareness of a reading is a lot different to saying that they thought it wasn’t Scripture.

As I shall explain yet again shortly, the presentation of the facts concerning the manuscript evidence is vastly different from actual doubt as to the content of Scripture.

Argument Two:

That whatever is in the margins is never an alternative to the Scripture, and that the 1611 men utalised their final collective judgment as to what stood as the text of Scripture, and what did not, thus being placed in the margins (i.e. centre column now).

Argument Three:

The utilisation of italics either to give a minority rendering, or to complete the sense in English, is not in any way an addition or subtraction of Scripture, nor is this method any way to doubt as to the very words of Scripture, but is an honest policy. That the italics read as part of the text is obvious.

Argument Four:

The existence of the word “but” in 1 John 2:23 in paranthetical marks is the completion of the sense of the original, and the second portion of that verse is found in minority attestation, however, that it is part of Scripture without doubt is obvious for the reason that the italic typeface in no way indicates anything different about Scripture itself. They are only a technical phenomena in both utalisations (minority readings or completion of the sense in English).

Argument Five:

Lack of regularisation in italic typeface in the printing of 1611 is primarily a sign of the haste of the printer, not the translators. However, since the use of italics in no way affects Scripture, nor changes the certainty of them in one degree in any place, the use of italics is better today than 1611. As for Scrivener and Norton, these men both were incorrect and ignorant on the proper use of the italics. (What standard was Scrivener comparing to when he attempt to so-called “correct” the italics? Since Norton assumes that the translators were wrong to begin with, any conclusion he comes up with is going to be equally flawed.)

Argument Six:

That true readings are found among the Alexandrian Family is not to be doubted, but all true readings were found and have been presented in the King James Bible. Of course, the Byzantine Family is a solid basis for true readings.

Argument Seven:

That the meanest of English Versions prior to 1611 was the Word of God.

“Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God”

This in no way casts doubt on the King James Bible, since it bettered, in the opinion of its own makers, all those Bibles referred to which came before them, and they do not give grounds that their own work could be improved. Therefore, they are indicating certainty as to their own work as the best and final form of the Word of God in English.

Argument Eight:

That the freedom of use of English words to best match the sense does not require an identity of phrasing of the same English word to the same original word in every place.

“For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?”

This does not mean that there is freedom in translating yet again and again, or freedom in editing the underlying text yet again and again. This was not even the subject they were addressing. Burgon said, “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English” (Revision Revised, page 187).

Argument Nine:

That the information concerning other senses, which were not the exact Scripture, being shown in the margin (or information about other translations or readings) did not itself impinge upon the integrity of the text, translation or any thing of the Scripture which they wholly presented in the main text.

“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point.”

While there was a “show of uncertainty”, it was only an uncertainty to the unlearned. Those who thought that there must be a dishonest presentation that Bible preservation did not pass through a scattering, or that it did not require a gathering. On the other side, this does not allow for perpetuated doubt, uncertainty or any kind of actual shaking. Those who read this to mean that their is shakeableness regarding the certainty of the text and translation of the Scripture, and therefore, that the King James Bible is imperfect, are actually indicating that they are both unlearned and ignorant of God’s power. Sound judgment accepts that out of what seems to be a mass of possibilities and probabilities, that one final text can be presented, sense for sense identical to the originals, and given completely in English. The 1611 men did not indicate that their Scripture work that they presented was yet uncertain even in one place, but they did invite the Christian reader to check their work. And after about 400 years, the believers have always had consensus, both tacit and avowed, that the King James Bible is pure and perfect.

Argument Ten:

That there are places where the words or meaning of them were not known by all, yet the translators endeavoured to make things “complete as they should be”, for they studied and sought, so that they could finally “resolve” what would stand as Scripture and what was not, and that rather than present their final work as is, they did the honest thing and showed the other possibilities in various places, that is, the things which were rejected by the translators’ final collective judgment.

“it hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence”

This by no means indicates that the difficulty or doubt is more, or more powerful than what study and the Holy Ghost could do. Rather than yet have the Scripture not fully discerned and known, they went through it, with fearfulness, that is, deference to God, and without the confidence of man: “Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jer. 17:5). This is not saying that men of God or the translators themselves remained or should yet be unlearned or ignorant, but that after putting confidence in God, that we may find our certainty there. This is exactly missing by those who reject the King James Bible, because they obviously have confidence in flesh, either in the power of corruption to remain, or in the power of flesh alone to just get the best that can be without ever achieving perfection (no perfect Bibles in either of those ways). But to defer to God is connected with getting a perfect Bible.

Argument Eleven:

That the translators consulted holistically the manuscript evidence, commentaries, etc., to find out the meaning of hard or rare original words.

“There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.”

The translators’ study having been completed, they did indeed gain all the help by the conference of places, and thus gave a final, single correct Bible. No need to yet look at a variety to find the truth.

Argument Twelve:

That the marginal notes were supplied so that the reader might know the honest basis for the case of the technical aspects of the Scripture so presented, and be able to study himself to be satisfied.

“Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?”

Never did the translators come against concluding or dogmatising, only against doing so prematurely and presumptuously. One cannot start from a false authority in such matters (e.g. the pope). However, those who reject the King James Bible only have a false authority, namely, a law which states that one cannot be correct, and that the corruption they see in the evidence, men and the world around them must be the overarching factor as how to approach the Word of God, rather than to rely upon the imminence, providence and perfect workings of the Almighty through His vessels, e.g. the Church. Seeking further and studying are commended, but not to doubt, but rather to come to understand the truth.

Argument Thirteen:

To claim infallibility for the presentation and rendering of the Scripture on a false basis or without knowledge is incredulous, and the judgment of men alone is insufficient. Thus, the papist has no grounds. Moreover, those who presume that God cannot give His Word, and question everything or anything, even to the uncertainty as to what it is at any given point, is nothing to do with the Spirit of God’s work: the Spirit of God has made loopholes for those who will not believe, so that those who will believe may always find the truth, and those who do not believe that God would have one perfect Word in one Bible may always, according to God’s supply, always reject the evidence.

“For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”

The existence of many possibilities besides the King James Bible does not make the King James Bible false. Even the greatest judges in Christian history have been wrong, e.g. Luther or Burgon. This does not prohibit that Christians can be right, or that Christians are barred from access to the full counsel of God. The Holy Ghost has supplied the Scripture in such a way as it needs to be studied and believed, so that people who desire right judgment would actually have to act to find it. To presume something is true (as various modernists do who reject the King James Bible off hand) is as bad as claiming Papal Infallibility.

Argument Fourteen:

That the translators consulted a variety of sources, and formed their collective final judgment afterward was the most profitable method for finding and determine the true sense of the true Scripture which they subsequently presented.

“Therefore as St Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

We are not ourselves encouraged to begin from a position of doubt, and then to consult many places and many things in order to find truth, that is, we are not encouraged to do as the modern versions and their adherents do, but we are rather profited by the good work with the men of 1611 have already accomplished for us, in clearing up all things, and then where we might study such things (by their indicating margin notes) we ourselves may at any time confirm and agree with their judgment.

This does not mean that a Christian today has to go through every last margin note and thus satisfy himself. If he believes, and has but a general idea of the case, he has the sufficient equipment.

Argument Fifteen:

The policy of honesty of showing their judgment, i.e. the consensus of the collective of the translators’ final judgment, as to what are the final and settled readings of Scripture is manifest, and should be openly viewed, and at any time studied, and judged by the reader. It would be foolish to accept the inspiration of the 1611 translators, or, as many do, to regard them as subject to error, and that their work was liable to be false. That readings may be one or the other does not mean that, after the process of the translators’ work where they did select one over the other, that the one they chose was wrong. Every one of their choices can and should be vindicated by believers.

“They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

There is not a continuing uncertainty, as the modern versions have, as to what is the Scripture and what is not. They have the belief that there cannot be a captivity to anything, in that it might yet be wrong. But this is not what the 1611 translators were indicating, they acted and spoke as if what they presented was the truth, which afterward would be found to be so. Thus, the captivity of God was not “forced” upon people, but as they willingly chose to captivate themselves to one reading and placing other material into the margin, so we today can yield to this, and captivate ourselves to the truth out of knowledge, and that by God.

Argument Sixteen:

That the translation into English was sense for sense accurate, despite whether different English words were used for the same original word in various places or vice versa. Thus, our ability to compare Scripture with Scripture is precise and accurate in English. (This could never be done before to this extent even in the original languages, because not one whole and total perfect extant complete BOOK existed at any time on Earth until 1611, and exactly presented in the Pure Cambridge Edition.)

"we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way.

This is no way deals with the inaccuracy of the King James Bible, but rather confirms it, as Burgon said, “If would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression characterises the original Greek. When we find them turning ‘goodly apparel,’ (in S. James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.” (Revision Revised, page 190).

___
(bold is my emphasis)

The folks that claim the A.V./K.J. is "inspired" have not read The Translators to the Reader", which should be at the front of your A.V./K.J.. Those "Learned Men" never claimed to be inspired, but rather "to make a good translation ( primarily Tyndale's and also the Geneva) better."

A few comments:

Your argument(correct me if I am wrong), is that since the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired", and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired.


I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:.


1. "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22

Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19).

Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word,by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?:


"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7)

(And so much for the "scholarly" premise that "only the originals 'were'(past tense) inspired"-copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)

2.I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof).

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12

To be consistent with your argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to your argument????!!!!!!?


"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17

Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!??

Can not the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!

3.Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it).


4."The Translators to the Reader"

Who said their "opinion" was inspired?

5."And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51


Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant.

The words are inspired, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God.


In Christ,

John M. Whalen

Amen to that.

Pb1789 - Inspired Or?
 

It is very strange! Everyone that doesn't believe that the King James Bible is the Inspired, Holy, Infallible word of God always use the same "lame" arguments. :confused:

Just for the record, and to repeat what has already been said [Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Amos 3:12; Matthew 18:16; 2Corinthians 13:1] None of us who profess to believe in and trust in the King James Bible as being God's perfect word , and without error {that is: Inspired, Holy, and Infallible) have NEVER claimed "inspiration" for the translators! :( NOT ONCE! :eek: EVER! :mad:

We believe that the WORDS ARE INSPIRED and that GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORDS - just exactly as He promised in Psalm 12:6-7.

This issue is about "FINAL AUTHORITY"! :( It is now, and has always been about "FINAL AUTHORITY"!

Since PB1789 has come on to this Forum he has demonstrated (over & over again) that his "Final Authority" is his own "Humanistic Opinion" in all matters of faith and practice. But the "Icing on the Cake" is his lame attempt to twist and wrest our words ("nit-pickers") in regards to "inspiration"! :confused:

The record is clear. Many of us have stated it. And any attempt on the part of PB1789 to twist it any further will only prove just how disingenuous he really is! :eek: {And that is the major reason that I have "ignored" him and his Posts from early on.} :p

Great post, Brother George.

To tlewis. I am very curious how you would answer my questions on my previous post.

Do you believe that God, not man or scribes, kept and preserved His Word for us today in written form with no differences between what He "originally" meant and what we read today? Yes or no?

If so, do we have in our possession the written Word of God He originally meant to give us? Yes or no?

If so, which version do we have in our possession that contains what He originally meant to give us?

_______-

George "...hast spoken well...(Ex. 10:29- a "play on words" here-see below written vs. spoken).

I post an excellent article(in my "opinion") written by a brother named Moses LemuelRaj. I hope I have not misquoted him(left anything out?):


Before I proceed to explain what is meant by "All scripture is GIVEN by INSPIRATION of God," let us lay some foundation:

1. Scripture(s) means WRITTEN word of God (Deut 28:58; Ps 40:7; Ecc 12:10; Hosea 8:13; John 5:47; Rev 22:19). That is the plain meaning of the English word. Scribe, script, scripture, scribble, etc., are those words have to do with WRITTEN stuff.

2. All WRITTEN stuff is NOT Scripture (Eg. "book of Jasher" Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18). But ALL "Scripture" is WRITTEN.

3. These WRITTEN Scriptures are called the "WORD of God." We read about the "WORD of the LORD ...that is WRITTEN in this BOOK" (2 Chr 34:21; also see John 10:35).

4. The WRITTEN Scriptures are also called as God's "WORDS" (plural). "Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast WRITTEN from my mouth, the WORDS of the LORD in the ears of the people" (Jeremiah 36:6).
5. Many of these WRITTEN Scriptures were SPOKEN before they were WRITTEN. "Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, WRITE thee all the WORDS that I have SPOKEN unto thee in a BOOK" (Jer 30:2). Here the Lord Himself SPOKE. Some times, His prohets spoke. "Holy MEN of God SPAKE as they were MOVED by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet 1:21). David says, "The SPIRIT of the LORD SPAKE BY ME, and his word was in my tongue" (2 Sam 23:2).
6. Some times the "holy men of God" who SPOKE, did not WRITE it down themselves. Some one else did it. "BARUCH WROTE from the mouth of Jeremiah all the WORDS of the LORD" (Jer 36:4). "I Tertius, who WROTE this epistle, salute you in the Lord" (Rom 16:22). The epistle to Romans was written by apostle Paul (Rom 1:1).

7. All that is SPOKEN is not necessarily WRITTEN (Rev 10:4), and all that is WRITTEN, may not have been SPOKEN, but written directly (1 Cor 16:21; 2 Thess 3:17).

8. The Bible says, "All SCRIPTURE is GIVEN by INSPIRATION of God" (2 Tim 3:16). ALL that is "Scripture," is GIVEN by God. We are talking about the WRITTEN word of God, and the WORDS of God. Genesis to Revelation is Scripture. The 66 books are Scripture. They are GIVEN by God. And He gave it "by INSPIRATION of God." We will soon look into what is INSPIRATION.

9. "The Lord GAVE the word: great was the company of those that PUBLISHED it" (Psalm 68:11). The Lord Jesus Christ said, "For I have GIVEN unto them the WORDS [plural, words] which THOU GAVEST me; and they have RECEIVED them, and have KNOWN SURELY that I came out from thee, and they have BELIEVED that thou didst send me" (John 17:8).

10. Unless the SPOKEN words of the Lord are WRITTEN down, people in the later generations cannot KEEP the words of Christ. "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will KEEP my WORDS: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (John 14:23). In Rev 3:10, they "KEPT the WORD."

11. God has PROMISED to PRESERVE His WORDS (Ps 12:6-7; 1 Pet 1:23,25; Mat 24:35). "But the word of the Lord ENDURETH FOR EVER. And THIS IS THE WORD which by the GOSPEL is preached unto you" (1 Pet 1:25). "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him" (Ecc 3:14).

12. The Scriptures are HOLY (Rom 1:2), and they are TRUTH (Dan 10:21). "EVERY word of God is PURE ... Add THOU not unto HIS WORDS" (Prov 30:5). "Thy word is VERY PURE: therefore thy servant loveth it" (Ps 119:140). "For the word of the LORD is RIGHT; and ALL HIS WORKS are done in TRUTH" (Ps 33:4).

Scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God
==================================
1. Let us make it plain that the Bible DOES NOT say anywhere that any MAN is INSPIRED. Moses, Paul, John, Jeremiah and others WROTE the Scriptues, or some one else wrote when they SPOKE. But the MEN who wrote are NOT inspired. It is the SCRIPTURES that are given by INSPIRATION (2 Tim 3:16). The "holy men of God SPAKE as they were MOVED by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet 1:21).

2. Let us define INSPIRATION using the Scriptures. "But there is a SPIRIT in man: and the INSPIRATION of the Almighty giveth them understanding" (Job 32:8). That is the "spirit" in a man. He got it by the process of INSPIRATION. Inspiration is a PROCESS wherein God breathes IN the SPIRIT (BREATH) into something/someone, and the result is LIFE. "All the while my BREATH is in me, and the SPIRIT of God is in my NOSTRILS" (Job 27:3). You see there the Scriptures use the word SPIRIT instead of the word BREATH - "the SPIRIT of God is in my NOSTRILS."

3. First case of INSPIRATION - "And the LORD God FORMED man of the dust of the ground, and BREATHED INTO his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE; and man became a LIVING soul" (Gen 2:7). Adam was FORMED from the dust. But he did not start living until the Lord breathed INTO him. The Lord did not make Adam by ASSEMBLING living cells. A complete, FORMED body in a lifeless condition, was made living by God BREATHING INTO him. Inspiration is God breathing INTO something the "BREATH (a.k.a SPIRIT, Job 27:3) of life." The resulting product will be LIVING!!! That is "INSPIRATION" as defined by the Scriptures.
cont'd...

5. Inspiration explained by the Lord Jesus - "It is the SPIRIT that QUICKENETH; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE" (John 6:63). The SPOKEN words of the Lord are SPIRIT, they are LIFE. Because they contain the BREATH of the Lord. But they are WRITTEN (read John 6), and preserved for us.

6. "Knowing this first, that no PROPHECY of the SCRIPTURE is of any private interpretation. For the PROPHECY came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God SPAKE as they were MOVED by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet 1:20-21). It does not say "For the SCRIPTURE came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God WROTE as they were MOVED by the Holy Ghost." Please notice, the Holy Ghost MOVED some men, and they SPAKE, and the result was PROPHECY. These are the ORIGINAL SPOKEN WORDS. They are LIFE, they are SPIRIT (as in John 6). But 2 Pet 1 is NOT talking about how the SCRIPTURE came. It talks about how the SPOKEN prophecy came. 2 Peter 1 talks NOTHING about the SCRIPTURES. No ORIGINAL WRITTEN words are in the context of 2 Pet 1.

7. But the ORIGINAL SPOKEN words are WRITTEN down. The Lord instructed to make COPIES (Deut 17:18; Josh 8:32). Jeremiah WROTE down his own ORIGINAL SPOKEN words after many years (Jer 36:2). So he dictated, and Baruch wrote them (verse 4). Later, that ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH was cut by a pen knife and burnt by Jehudi (verse 23). The Lord later made Baruch write it again in verse 32. Later on, all the prophesies againt Babylon that were written in a book, were tied to a stone, and CAST IN THE MIDST OF RIVER EUPHRATES (Jer 51:59-64). There is NO RECORD of them written again in the book of Jeremiah, or elsewhere in the Bible. Then HOW COME you and me have the WRITTEN record of all the prophesies againt Baylon? They are "GIVEN by INSPIRATION of God" to us. Remember Ezek 37?

Conclusion: INSPIRATION is God breathing the SPIRIT INTO something, therby making it LIVING. Scripture is WRITTEN word of God, and WRITTEN WORDS of God. Whether in ORIGINAL, or in a copied COPY, or in a miraculously restored COPY, the SCRIPTURE - meaning the WRITTEN WORDS of God are "GIVEN BY INSPIRATION." They have the breath of God in them. 2 Tim 3:16-17 talks NOTHING about the ORIGINAL SPOKEN words, or ORIGINAL WRITTEN words, It talks about SCRIPTURE. And SCRIPTURE is some thing which the Lord Jesus commanded us to READ and SEARCH. The Bereans SEARCHED them. Timothy HAD them. They are PROFITABLE. "Scriptures" are not some non-existing non-available invisible ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. God gave us the Scriptures. The OT in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek. The NT contains TRANSLATIONS of OT Scripture. God had said in Isaiah that He will speak in "ANOTHER tongue (Isa 27), and so God's word was spoken in VARIOUS tongues. Irrespective of what language it is in, Scripture is Scripture.

The AUTHENTIC MASTER COPY of the Scriptures was with the Levites. The king "shall write him a copy of this law in a book OUT OF THAT which is before the PRIESTS the LEVITES" (Deut 17:18). God's people are the STEWARDS of the TEXT of the Scriptures. The manner of TRANSMISSION of any truth of God is like this - "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received" (1 Cor 15:3; see also 1 Cor 11:23; 2 Tim 2:2). Faithful men DELIVERING what is RECEIVED from other faithful men. God has PRESERVED His words (Ps 12:6-7). The RECEIVED TEXT of the Scriptures is scattered in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the Greek Textus Receptus. God gave many gifts for the edification of the Church (Eph 4, 1 Cor 12), but He did not ordain one single GREEK or HEBREW PROFESSOR or SCHOLAR sitting in a theological college to determine the "WORDS OF THE SCRIPTURE AS CLOSELY TO THE ORIGINALS AS POSSIBLE." This is a bunch of nonsense. EDUCATION, and SCHOLARSHIP are NO REQUIREMENT in the MINISTRY of God. If any one quotes Paul, let him realize that Paul counted all his previous previleges as DUNG.

After the dark ages of AD 300 to AD 1500, the Lord was gracious to give us the AUTHORIZED VERSION in 1611, which after its SPELLING updation and correction of PRINTING errors, is preserved to us as it stands in the 1769 edition. The Lord has GREATLY use this version of the Scriptures. NONE of the versions stood the test of TIME. The RV came, and went off. Its tough to find a copy today. The Lord used the British around in the 1600s to go round the globe, and spead the word of God. They took the REFORMATION Bible (the Geneva/King James tradition), with them. Millions of souls were saved. Further, MANY people in this world speak English as second language. This version of the Scriptures was PROFITABLE in the truest sense of the word (2 Tim 3:16). Many TRANSLATIONS of the Scriptures were made from the AV into many languages. This Bible was a FRUITFUL Bible. "For every tree is known by his own fruit" (Luke 6:44). The modern English versions, and the Indian vernaculars come from the Critical Greek text (in the NT). The church has not been a good STEWARD of the Scriptures, nevertheless, the Lord left the AV uncorrupted, and greatly used for His purpose in the last days.

The two common objections to the AV are related to the TEXT, or the TRANSLATION. The AV is translated out of the Original Tongues (not Original Manuscripts), AND with the FORMER TRANSLATIONS (Gothic, Coptic, Old Syriac, Old Latin, Geneva, Great Bible, Bishops Bible etc) diligently compared and revised.

If a TEXTUAL objection comes from the "Greek", my answer would be - you cannot say for sure that the AV translators used the Greek text, or ANY Greek text for that matter, in the passage (word) under consideration. All corrupt Greek texts come from EGYPT, or VATICAN. The Lord said, dont go to Egypt for help (Isa 31:1).

If a TRANSLATION issue come up, my question is - Is the Greek Lexicon, or your "Professor of the Greek" INSPIRED that I should follow the meaning YOU supply, and reject the AV text? Please read the preface of Mr. W.E. Vine's work in the Greek. He says of HIMSELF, that the NEW meaning of the Greek words are figured out from the SECULAR Greek material picked up from the DUMPS and GRAVEYARDS of EGYPT!!!

I believe that the Scriptures as found in the AV is "given by inspiration of God." I believe all the words, and live by them. I will REFUTE all CORRECTIONS suggested to the Scriptures (as in AV) by ANY man, no matter who/what he is. I do not believe there are ANY ERRORS in the AV. The Scriptures (as in the AV) are my FINAL AUTHORITY in the matters of faith and practice. The Lord helped me to be PROFITED by them. And I solely depend on the Lord for its INTERPRETATION (Gen 40:8; 1 Cor 2:14).

Sincerely in Christ,
Moses LemuelRaj
____________-

In Christ,

John M. Whalen