Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuby
Tell me, is it really a stretch to agree that there are other truths also "even in the poorest of bible translations"? Indeed, the MV crowd insists there's not ONE missing, though both camps obviously don't agree as to the level of support for those truths in the various versions.
|
Hi pneuby. The fake bibles like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV etc. reveal themselves to be bogus imitations of the real thing by the lies, foolish statements and perverted doctrines found in them. Sure, there is a lot of truth, but the lies prove them to be false witnesses.
If you are interested, check out the "No Doctrines Are Changed?" article I put together a couple years ago.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html
Quote:
|
Wasn't this the same debate faced by the AV commitee? Didn't they have to come to some level of agreement about the texts available to them in their day? Indeed, it's acknowledged that the AV holds no word-for-word allegiance to Erasmus', Beza's, etc. Rather, there is some from each.
|
pneuby. This is basically the arguments you present in the rest of your post. Your present way of looking at the Bible version issue is, in my opinion, very humanistic and evolutionary in nature. You have left the sovereignty of God out of the picture and focus on the gifts, methods and abilities of mere men. The end result is that you do not have nor believe in a complete, preserved, and infallible words of God Book that you can hold in your hands or recommend to anyone else. Right? I have stated my beliefs on this before, but here they are again.
Scholars tell us God has preserved His words somewhere in a few thousand conflicting manuscripts which only they can read. Yet they cannot agree among themselves as to which texts to put into their "bibles", nor how to translate the meaning once they agree on the text.
Get 10 scholars into a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions. They try to piece together the original words from the remaining, conflicting manuscripts. Yet God can work through this "scholarly process" Himself much better than they, and place His true words in one volume, because He knows which words are His and which ones are not.
I often hear objections raised by "scholars" who themselves do not believe that any Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They ask such things as: "Well, how do you know the King James translators got it right?" or "What was their textual source for deciding which readings were inspired and which ones were scribal additions or omissions?". Implied in their very questions is the idea that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible now, nor ever was one.
Don't the "scholars" who put together the constant barrage of "new and improved, based on the latest findings" type of bible versions that keep coming down the pike go through a similar process, at least in their own minds and on their best of days? Don't the modern scholars get together and pray asking God to guide their efforts, hoping that perhaps their's will be the best bible version to ever appear in print and be "the closest to the originals" of any of them? (This scenario is, of course, giving them the best of all possible motives for their work).
Is it impossible for God to work through a group of dedicated men, though fallen, sinful and imperfect, to bring about the truth of His preserved and perfect words and place them in a real Book between two covers printed on paper with ink, that the children of God can actually hold in their hands and believe every word? Why do the Bible critics mock at the idea that God may have actually already guided through this "scholarly process" and done what they themselves think they are trying to do today? I don't get it.
God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."
He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.
I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.
In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.
Will K