Which Bible?

[Dino246]

Why is it strange to say that our God, who gave us His words, also made sure His words were preserved for all generations? That's not crazy when dealing with God and His words.

Let me demonstrate to you, using your logic, the inconsistency of this belief. You have elsewhere quoted Psalm 12:6, and listed the major Bible versions in English prior to 1611. Either these were God's preserved words, or they weren't; by your own statements there is no middle ground. If they were God's preserved words, then there was no need for the KJV, for it is different from the previous versions and therefore corrupt (again, by your logic). If the previous versions weren't God's preserved words, then (your understanding of) God's promise has failed, for the English had no trustworthy Bible prior to 1611. If, on the other hand, you believe that each pre-1600 translation was in fact God's preserved words, then you have no basis on which to complain that more recent translations are any less God's preserved words.

If you want to read only the KJV, good for you, and I encourage you in that. However, if you want to continue to make arguments that support KJV-onlyism, at least have the intellectual integrity to examine your arguments and toss the ones which are factually or logically unsound.

 

[KJV1611]

This is a fine example of a false dichotomy. Simply put, there are other options.

Let's examine your logic: If in 1604, there was no Bible which the English could trust, by definition they could not make one in English because there was no trustworthy source. Elsewhere you have written that prior to 1611, the English did not have a perfect Bible, so by your own admission you undermine this dichotomy.

The only problem with that logic is you're leaving out God. God can and will do whatever He wants. God doesn't need a copy of anything to give us an English bible.

 

[HisHolly]

The only problem with that logic is you're leaving out God. God can and will do whatever He wants. God doesn't need a copy of anything to give us an English bible.

I get it..
While the Holy Spirit speaks we must know what scripture says.
Satan will recite scriptures, he did with Jesus but was off.. That's exactly how people contradict each other. Some don't know they listened to the devils version.


To know which Bible is ok beyond the human reasons, you must have the HS.
Either way all is ok as long as The Guide guides you. He won't lead astray..

 

[hornetguy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a son of the gods would the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men aka Giants or Nephillim.

Also why do you choose little g god instead of big G God? Apparently elahh can mean either one.

אֱלָהּʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god.

Yes, it can. Both "gods" exist, and I use little g to indicate those that are not the most high God...
Since the most high God (big G) is never referred to in the plural, then when scripture mentions "the gods" plural, I assume the little g gods are being referenced.

I'm not sure if the Nephilim are the only offspring of the little g gods, or not... I'm not sure anybody knows that. I think that the spiritual being that was in the furnace was so impressive that people assumed he was a son of one of the little g gods.

It could have been speaking of Jesus, however.... but I would have to know what the original text said.. and I'm not enough of a Greek/Hebrew scholar to know that.

 

[hornetguy]

Well, except for the creation, where God said "let us make man in our image"....

 

[KJV1611]

I get it..
While the Holy Spirit speaks we must know what scripture says.
Satan will recite scriptures, he did with Jesus but was off.. That's exactly how people contradict each other. Some don't know they listened to the devils version.


To know which Bible is ok beyond the human reasons, you must have the HS.
Either way all is ok as long as The Guide guides you. He won't lead astray..

That's why we have to have a mistake free bible. If we believe scripture for exactly what it says it will correct any false doctrine the devil tries to feed us.

 

[KJV1611]

Yes, it can. Both "gods" exist, and I use little g to indicate those that are not the most high God...
Since the most high God (big G) is never referred to in the plural, then when scripture mentions "the gods" plural, I assume the little g gods are being referenced.

I'm not sure if the Nephilim are the only offspring of the little g gods, or not... I'm not sure anybody knows that. I think that the spiritual being that was in the furnace was so impressive that people assumed he was a son of one of the little g gods.

It could have been speaking of Jesus, however.... but I would have to know what the original text said.. and I'm not enough of a Greek/Hebrew scholar to know that.

Why is this plural? It just says God or god, not Gods or gods. Again I don't know anything about Aramaic.

אֱלָהּʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god.

 

[hornetguy]

Why is this plural? It just says God or god, not Gods or gods. Again I don't know anything about Aramaic.

אֱלָהּʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god.

I do not know. KJV says "son of God" and NASB says "son of the gods".

In the grand scheme of understanding the story, is it important? The point was that there was a fourth being in there with them.

I don't think it would diminish Jesus at all if it was quoted as "son of the gods".... and if that was the true translation, I don't think it would hurt anything if people understood it to be Jesus, instead.

It's simply not a critical point to understand. It could be either one, and it wouldn't change the story, or the outcome..

 

[Dino246]

The only problem with that logic is you're leaving out God. God can and will do whatever He wants. God doesn't need a copy of anything to give us an English bible.

Sure, let's just toss out logic (which is an expression of God Himself) and invoke miracles any time we choose. While we're at it, let's recognize that if God is able to create an error-free bible in English out of thin air (as you claim), that He is more than able to take any translation and speak His truth through it, and is not at all limited by minor differences in word selection.

 

[fredoheaven]

That WOULD make a difference, if it was true. The KJV is no more "written" by the inspiration of God than any other mainstream version is.

All main translations are TRANSLATED with the help of the Spirit, by MEN. The only "inspired" writings were the originals, that the apostles wrote. And Moses, etc.... you know... the originals.

I see your views in proving faults in the KJV issue. It seems your view of inspiration has its flaws that is why your view of translation is flawed. Let me try to demonstrate your flawed views.

1. You made mention if it was true? Well, the Bible mentions/teaches the purity of His words. Psalms 12:6 Psalms 19:8 Psalms 119:140 Proverbs 30:5, Romans 1:2, 2Timothy 3:15. The Bible also mentions/teaches preservation. Psalms 12:7 Matthew 28:19-20 2Timothy 3:15-16. Now KJV is a scriptures and is/are given by inspiration which means presently is/are inspired words of God. Your scriptures in contrary “was/were” inspired, used in past tense and are therefore expired. Yes your theoretical inspiration may contain the words of God, but that’s partial not complete.

2. What I said in the KJV being the scriptures “is given by inspiration of God.” That’s what recorded in the kjv in 2 Timothy 3:15-16. Review and compare mostly of the newer version if it they are the same.

3. You see, if the translation is with the aid of the Spirit, how can they be in error? NO, it can’t be in error otherwise you are saying the Spirit of God is in error. That’s a blatant lie against the Holy Spirit! Futher, you said, the only “inspired” writings were the originals,that the apostles wrote…

Let’s put it to test this theory on the light of the scriptures, and I will be using the same scriptural texts in No.1 found in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 to prove my point.

“All scripture is given by the inspiration of God…”

Q. Is Timothy’s scriptures are in reference to the original writing of Moses or the prophets of God? Does the Bible says it? That the like theory of yours and what Timothy holds were the original writings? How sure are you?

Nay, if Timothy’s scriptures were the original writings in the original parchment/tables of stone or it was since the time of Moses etc. then prove it! This is your space and time to demonstrate of what you beleive. I’ll wait…I am patient. Hoho, written either in vellum or in parchments has already been deteriorated by that time of Apostle Paul is charging Timothy, his son in the faith and were actually they were in reference to copies of the OT. Believe it or not faithful copies of the scribes and the Bible says it is Holy! Pure and separate they are because God is Holy and his words must be holy.

4. Now, are those copies of “holy scriptures” like that of Timothy inspired words of God? Yes! as the Bible says. So copies are inspired words of God. Your original writings to which I agree is given by inspiration of God have been destroyed either by the copying scribes or due to old age. Again, good thing is they were faithfully copied and got into the hands of like Timothy as described as “holy scriptures” and is given by inspiration of God as the text says. BTW, if you found the original autographs please scan and email me. That might be a worthy of study if you really can find it!

5. What about translation? Are they inspired words of God? My scripture says it is given by inspiration therefore it is God inspire it. If your Bible says it is inspired, then it “was” therefore they already expired then it is all true that your Bible is tarnished with faults and error which you are trying to imply over and over again. Maybe yours cannot be trusted as the whole counsel of God. What has been harping is an error found Bible. Let me say this, the problem lies not in the scriptures; maybe or perhaps, it’s you.

 

[fredoheaven]

Yes, I really think that, and no repentance required.

Yes, there are some translations that are just wrong in some things... the Mormon one, or the JW's translation... but nearly ALL biblical scholars agree that they are incorrect...

This is why I specifically said all "mainstream" translations...such as the NASB, NRVS, NKJV, etc....

And, FISnookman got it right... a translation cannot cut you off from Christ.

So in plain and simple it is you now that repentance is not necessity. Jesus said He calls sinners to repentance Luke 5:32; Luke 15:7; Luke 24:27; Acts 5:31; Acts 20:21 Romans 2;4, 2 Corinthians7:10; 2 Peter 3:9

It is evident those who have been delivered from the power of darkness were translated into the kingdom of his dear Son. Colossians 1:12-13. Likewise, Bible translation can deliver us from the power of darkness. In Hebrews 11:5 says By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death, parallel to that is that God’s word translated means no death, the scripture is alive! though originals were no longer found. It also says for before his (Enoch) translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. Amen, God the Father was well please with Jesus Mark 1:11 and said, his words are spirit and they are life. John 6:63.

 

[Dan_473]

So the Holy Spirit's job as we are reading the word of truth, is to guide us around the errors and lead us to the truth? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Try explaining that one to the world.

The world doesn't understand the role of the Spirit
1 CORINTHIANS 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

 

[Dan_473]

It don't see that it says Jesus read from the book of Isaiah or quoted it. All it says is that Jesus opened the book to that passage and spoke the words below and then closed the book.

Jesus stood before the synagogue and read scripture every Sabaath. If he had just quoted Isaiah or read directly from the book of Isaiah that day then why would everybody's eyes been fastened on him after he finished?

Luke 4:17-20 KJV
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

[19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

[20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

he found the place where it was written,

[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

That's not written in the kjv of Isaiah.

 

[KJV1611]

he found the place where it was written,

[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

That's not written in the kjv of Isaiah.

The words in Isaiah don't match the words of Luke in any of the translations because Jesus didn't read the book of Isaiah, he opened the book to Isaiah 61 and began speaking to the audience.

 

[trofimus]

For KJV1611:

You guys who advocate for KJV Only can be very different from each other, so can you clarify to me your positions to these questions?

1. Why do you think that translations or copying of manuscripts are inspired? And how do you decide which one?

2. Why do you think that a perfect translation has to be in English (why not Latin, Greek, Chinese or Spanish or something else)?

3. Why do you think that it is middle age KJV and not something else, what is your background reason for choosing KJV - tradition? Or some article that convinced you? How did you arrive at KJV translation as the only one good.

4. What do you do with errors in KJV like corrupted OT sources and therefore wrong OT texts in KJV that obviously differ from their quotations in NT?


Thanks Then I will be able to better discuss it.

 

[KJV1611]

Sure, let's just toss out logic (which is an expression of God Himself) and invoke miracles any time we choose. While we're at it, let's recognize that if God is able to create an error-free bible in English out of thin air (as you claim), that He is more than able to take any translation and speak His truth through it, and is not at all limited by minor differences in word selection.

Yes and he could have sent 50 different Saviors with 50 different methods of salvation but he didn't because that's not the nature of God. There's nothing illogical about God and miracles either.

By the way just for the record I've never said that people couldn't be saved by reading different translations, I was saved reading no translations and as a young Christian read the NIV. I wasn't looking for God nor did I even believe in God when he came and saved me. Being born again is a different story... and yes being saved and being born again are not the same. Salvation is instant but the birth of our spirit man takes some time. A topic for another discussion.

 

[John146]

For KJV1611:

You guys who advocate for KJV Only can be very different from each other, so can you clarify to me your positions to these questions?

1. Why do you think that translations or copying of manuscripts are inspired? And how do you decide which one?

2. Why do you think that a perfect translation has to be in English (why not Latin, Greek, Chinese or Spanish or something else)?

3. Why do you think that it is middle age KJV and not something else, what is your background reason for choosing KJV - tradition? Or some article that convinced you? How did you arrive at KJV translation as the only one good.

4. What do you do with errors in KJV like corrupted OT sources and therefore wrong OT texts in KJV that obviously differ from their quotations in NT?


Thanks Then I will be able to better discuss it.

#1 I would never say a translation is inspired. I always promote preservation. God has preserved His words in the English language through the KJV.

#2 I believe God chose English as He foresaw the English language ready to explode on the scene and the English speaking world ready for harvest and would use the KJV to save millions and millions through all the way through the 20th century.

#3 As a maturing believer I was searching for a perfect Bible. I was getting tired of Pastor after Pastor correcting their Bibles and saying "this is a better way to say this verse." The Holy Spirit led me to study the different forms of manuscripts used for translation.

#4 There are not proved errors in the KJV, only alleged errors.

 

[NathanBmajor7]

There are no perfect Bible translations.

Words only allow us a measure of understanding of who God is.

What's amazing is that in every different language, there is a different way of understanding the way different Biblical concepts work. Even when the meaning is agreed upon, there will never be complete unity over the way we view God because our worldviews are all different.

God is beyond our understanding but He's provided words and inspired words so that we can at least connect with Him here on earth. To do this we need to have a relationship with the Holy Spirit. He is the one who illuminates.

I think while no translation of the Bible is perfect, each offers us a different perspective on who God is.

 

[KJV1611]

For KJV1611:

You guys who advocate for KJV Only can be very different from each other, so can you clarify to me your positions to these questions?

1. Why do you think that translations or copying of manuscripts are inspired? And how do you decide which one?

2. Why do you think that a perfect translation has to be in English (why not Latin, Greek, Chinese or Spanish or something else)?

3. Why do you think that it is middle age KJV and not something else, what is your background reason for choosing KJV - tradition? Or some article that convinced you? How did you arrive at KJV translation as the only one good.

4. What do you do with errors in KJV like corrupted OT sources and therefore wrong OT texts in KJV that obviously differ from their quotations in NT?


Thanks Then I will be able to better discuss it.

Why do you think that translations or copying of manuscripts are inspired?

For many reasons, mainly logic and the nature of God dictates that it has to be so. I'll list a few.

1) God said he would preserve his word... the original writings don't exist anymore neither do the original languages.
2) The bible never says that God can't translate his word into other languages.
3) God translated his word into other languages in the book of Acts.
4) God tells us to study and search the scriptures, not James Strong's opinion of what 2000 year old Greek words may have meant.
5) We are born again by incorruptible words, not possible if we don't have the incorrutible words.
6) Why were the Hebrew and Greek speakers given the pure inerrant word of God but English, Spanish or Korean speakers are not.
7) We can't protect ourselves from false doctrine if we have no standard to base doctrine on.

How do I know which bible is inspired?

The one that 100% of the time reflects the image of God. The one that doesn't contradict itself nor contain errors.

 

[KJV1611]

For KJV1611:

You guys who advocate for KJV Only can be very different from each other, so can you clarify to me your positions to these questions?

1. Why do you think that translations or copying of manuscripts are inspired? And how do you decide which one?

2. Why do you think that a perfect translation has to be in English (why not Latin, Greek, Chinese or Spanish or something else)?

3. Why do you think that it is middle age KJV and not something else, what is your background reason for choosing KJV - tradition? Or some article that convinced you? How did you arrive at KJV translation as the only one good.

4. What do you do with errors in KJV like corrupted OT sources and therefore wrong OT texts in KJV that obviously differ from their quotations in NT?


Thanks Then I will be able to better discuss it.

2. Why do you think that a perfect translation has to be in English (why not Latin, Greek, Chinese or Spanish or something else)?

I don't think it has to be in English only, I believe God's perfect word is in all languages. The only language I know is English so I can't comment as to which which versions are preserved in the other languages.