Do we have a complete, perfect, and sufficient Bible?

[SilverFox7]

The King James translators had one goal – to make an outstanding English translation to which no one could take exception. They succeeded in this, and for over 300 years, this was regarded as "the Bible" by everyone in the English-speaking world. But then came the critics who wanted to promote corrupt Gnostic Greek manuscripts, and now we have all the modern versions. The OT was also corrupted by Rudolf Kittel, and is now used instead of the traditional Hebrew text.

Every Christian owes it to himself or herself to know which is the true Bible, since it is the Word of God, and is totally sufficient to bring sinners to salvation and saints to perfection. God speaks to us through His Word, and the words of Christ are the words of life.

One of my favorite literary eras is the English Renaissance, and the King James Bible is one of the "canonical" works in the English literature of the 17th century on top of being the foundational translation of the Bible for reformed Christians. The commitment, devotion, and inspiration of the Holy Spirit that produced this literary and spiritual masterpiece is unsurpassed down to our time in my opinion.

Of course, I'm biased because of my love for Shakespeare, Donne, and all of the great writers of that era, and I am very comfortable and love the poetry associated with the "Old English" language. My first study Bible was a KJV, and I spent many wonderful years with it during my undergraduate days.

The New King James Version is my go-to translation currently. The language is much more relatable to current audiences, and it sticks very closely to the original KJV scholarship committed to an accurate and reliable translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. I would have no problem with all study, church activities and services, and education standardizing to the King James Version, however. God has given us everything we need with this pinnacle translation - we just need to become more familiar with the language used in England back in the 1600s.

A few other useful translations I use for comparison are the NIV, RSV, and the Moffatt. These are all more modern translations that follow the strict standards required for any credible translation of God's Word into English. I'm not a fan of paraphrases like the Living Bible because core doctrinal teachings can become corrupted and misleading. It's best to use a credible and reputable translation for serious study, and the KJV is at the top of my list.

 

[Dino246]

I'm sure John will explain.

I doubt it, but I would be pleased to be wrong.

Monogenes means "uniquely begotten" (not created) and reveals an ETERNAL Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. There is no mother involved, since this is not a human begetting.

In a word, wrong!

It means species-unique, one-of-a-kind. By itself it neither says nor implies anything about Jesus’ relationship to His Father. Those ideas come from other words and verses.

Though “only begotten” is the chosen translation, it’s incorrect (another case among many where the KJV is wrong),as the term has nothing to do with ‘begetting’ as in reproducing after one’s own kind.

 

[tedincarolina]

The New King James Version is my go-to translation currently.

Hi @SilverFox7

That's also one of my favorites. In fact, my fellowship bible that I carry to services is that translation. I was saddened that our pastor recently changed to, I think the NLT and I'm not crazy about that translation, but it still works in doing the work for which God sent forth His Scriptures. I'm also not a fan of the Message translation. On the style of bible odometer, which I've seen on these threads before,

I do prefer the word for word and thought for thought, but I tend to end at the NIV as my choice. As you see, the Message translation is considered waaay out there by itself in the 'paraphrase' style. And yes, I would not encourage one to read any of the paraphrase translations. But there are quite a few good and reliable translations besides the KJ translation.

 

[Nehemiah6]

By itself it neither says nor implies anything about Jesus’ relationship to His Father.

It absolutely does, Please go and read John chapter 1 again and stop being obtuse. Either John was inspired to write those words or he wasn't.

If he was inspired, it is the Holy Spirit who has presented us with this truth because it is important. If you think this is not significant, you have deceived yourself.

John 1: 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

God already knew that there would be many heresies regarding Christ. And this term ties in with Christ being the Word of God, and the Word being God. It also ties in with the love of God for humanity. The only begotten Son is in the bosom of the Father.

 

[Dino246]

It absolutely does, Please go and read John chapter 1 again and stop being obtuse. Either John was inspired to write those words or he wasn't.

John was inspired to write “monogenes”, not “only-begotten”.

 

[fredoheaven]

I doubt it, but I would be pleased to be wrong.


In a word, wrong!

It means species-unique, one-of-a-kind. By itself it neither says nor implies anything about Jesus’ relationship to His Father. Those ideas come from other words and verses.

Though “only begotten” is the chosen translation, it’s incorrect (another case among many where the KJV is wrong),as the term has nothing to do with ‘begetting’ as in reproducing after one’s own kind.

Where did you get this definition of monogenes? Are you referring to the Gk. word "monadikos"? Below is a google (modern) translator

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Hi @John146

That's an irony of God isn't it? Not one man has proven it guilty. Nor has any man proven it not. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We don't have the original MSS. You can't prove either position. We can only accept on faith that Erasmus produced a good and suitable translation of the sources available to him to cobble together a new translation of God's word for that day and that generation. It was a wonderful thing that he did. Many great and godly men have given of their life's work to practice Paul's instructions to us that we be careful and studious with God's word. These men, like Erasmus, took on the calling of trying to produce a version that the commoner of that day could understand. He was, supposedly commissioned by King James to do that and thus the name, the King James version. There's some quibble about how much the King might have been involved in the work, if any, other than commissioning it. And that was also a wonderful thing.

That a Gentile King of the earth would find God's word so valuable as to order a translation to be made. To get it out of the locked hands of the Catholic organization who were trying to always keep it in it's Latin form so the common man would have to trust their understanding of all that God reveals to us in His great Scriptures. Praise Him!!!! He is God over all!!

But it's just a translation made from the best available sources that Erasmus had available to him. Today we have more translations of God's perfect word. His pure truth that He has revealed through His faithful prophets to deliver to us. And that truth is not for us to sit and squabble over 'how' some particular translator did in his translation work. No, the work of the Scriptures is to reveal a God who created all that is that we see. To tell us that this God loves us and created us to have and be in a real personal relationship. That word that God sent to us through His many Jewish prophets is for turning the hearts of men back to Him. To tell us that we can have what He has to offer us, if we would trust in the work and sacrifice of His Son. The Scriptures, my friend, are not for us to argue over "OOOOOO, this guy is more correct than this guy'. The Scriptures were sent to us that we may know God and His salvation.

In my research over 30 years, I've found that there are at least a dozen good and reliable translations that will do that.

So, I will leave you to argue the case that you cannot prove and tell you that I believe God wants you to take that copy of your King James translation and bring people to Him through His Son.

God bless you in that work.
Ted

Here's some more information on Erasmus.<
King James commissioned 54 historically top ancient manuscript scholars who took 7 years to work on the Bible I use.
Erasmus' translation was done 100 years earlier. He was also a super genius. He followed up with a continuation of the first with follow up works on the Bible a few years later.

 

[John146]

I doubt it, but I would be pleased to be wrong.


In a word, wrong!

It means species-unique, one-of-a-kind. By itself it neither says nor implies anything about Jesus’ relationship to His Father. Those ideas come from other words and verses.

Though “only begotten” is the chosen translation, it’s incorrect (another case among many where the KJV is wrong),as the term has nothing to do with ‘begetting’ as in reproducing after one’s own kind.

Obviously as one reads through scripture, they would conclude that Jesus is not God's only son. Adam was a son of God. All the angels are sons of God. Believers have the power to become sons of God. The word "begotten" is necessary because it links God the Father to the seed place within Mary. Joseph had no relation whatsoever. The body was that was prepared within Mary's womb came from God. The Word moved into that body and became flesh and dwelt among us.

Simply stating that Jesus was God's only son is false.

Using the first mention principle:

Genesis 5:
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

The word begotten shows us that Jesus is the express image of the Father. Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

One day, at the redemption, the body of Christ will be conformed into the image of Jesus, the Son.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

I have read the Books mentioned throughout the Bible and Others that were not picked for the 66 Books so I believe I have more than enough information to have a complete view of God's Plan Beginning to End. And even without the added information I believe the Bible is sufficient enough for what we need to use as a guideline for this life. But as far as being complete I would say there's so much we don't know about. It could be viewed as a Complete Outline. But information wise, we only have small samples of what we will know in the Next Life.

 

[tedincarolina]

And even without the added information I believe the Bible is sufficient enough for what we need to use as a guideline for this life.

Hi @FollowerofShiloh

That's rather my understanding. I'm don't know whether any of the books of the Apocrypha are blessed to have been given through the work of the Holy Spirit to some follower of God, but I haven't yet found anything within them that isn't already testified to among the 66 books that we have. And honestly, any doctrine that is supported solely on some piece from the extrabiblical accounts would be questionable in my understanding.

You mention having read the books and understanding God's plan. I too, believe that the Scriptures delineate a working out plan of God. From the moment that He spoke into the emptiness of our known universe and said, "Let there be light!", the Scriptures describe plan beginning with God creating a creature that He called man and culminating in His taking a harvest from all of mankind that has ever lived to be with Him for eternity. From beginning to end of what we know as the Scriptures, God has worked to bring about this great harvest and He will get His harvest. God's will for creating this realm in which we live will not be thwarted by the likes of feeble man.

God bless you,
Ted

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Hi @FollowerofShiloh

That's rather my understanding. I'm don't know whether any of the books of the Apocrypha are blessed to have been given through the work of the Holy Spirit to some follower of God, but I haven't yet found anything within them that isn't already testified to among the 66 books that we have. And honestly, any doctrine that is supported solely on some piece from the extrabiblical accounts would be questionable in my understanding.

You mention having read the books and understanding God's plan. I too, believe that the Scriptures delineate a working out plan of God. From the moment that He spoke into the emptiness of our known universe and said, "Let there be light!", the Scriptures describe plan beginning with God creating a creature that He called man and culminating in His taking a harvest from all of mankind that has ever lived to be with Him for eternity. From beginning to end of what we know as the Scriptures, God has worked to bring about this great harvest and He will get His harvest. God's will for creating this realm in which we live will not be thwarted by the likes of feeble man.

God bless you,
Ted

Well said

My mention of the other Books is merely a reference that we have Genesis thru Deuteronomy known for me being Jewish as the Torah. And like the ancient Hebrews, they used a Book called Jasher as referenced by Joshua and king David. What we get in Jasher is more Lineage and more individual stories of the names we read in the Torah. So my reference to our Bible being a better Outline just means names are highlighted but in Jasher we read more detailed information is all.

But that detailed information means nothing with the exception it goes into deeper detail how Enoch is Noah's Great Grandfather and Noah is Abraham's Great Grandfather. And it details more of Abram's life before God called him out to move and become the Nation of the Promise.

My thinking is that for some reason God Inspired Joshua and king David to mention this Book. So as a continual Student I read it. And that's all there is to it. I am not debating the importance of these Books just that they do shed deeper insight.

 

[Dino246]

Where did you get this definition of monogenes?

From the late Dr. Michael S. Heiser.

 

[Dino246]

Using the first mention principle:

Which only exists in KJV-only circles. It's not really a 'thing'.

As to the rest of your post, you're missing the point. "Monogenes" simply does not mean "only-begotten". "Unique" is a much better translation, and it falls short too.

 

[John146]

Which only exists in KJV-only circles. It's not really a 'thing'.

As to the rest of your post, you're missing the point. "Monogenes" simply does not mean "only-begotten". "Unique" is a much better translation, and it falls short too.

What does the word begotten mean to you? Do you believe God the Father was responsible for Mary being with child? What word should be used, because this is the big difference between Jesus and all the other sons of God in scripture.

Genesis 5:
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

 

[Dino246]

What does the word begotten mean to you? Do you believe God the Father was responsible for Mary being with child? What word should be used, because this is the big difference between Jesus and all the other sons of God in scripture.

Genesis 5:
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

‘Begotten’: born by sexual procreation.

Scripture says the Holy Spirit is directly responsible for Mary’s pregnancy, though of course it is by the Father’s will.

Which word? “Unique” is probably the best single word.

 

[Inquisitor]

You could always recall that it is actually 24 +27 = 51 books. And 5 +1 is also 6! 66 without the last 6 means nothing. But 6 +6 = 12 means the number of divine government (hence 12 apostles or 12 tribes of Israel).

And if Scripture is not complete then you are questioning the fact that Christ gave John "the Revelation o Jesus Christ" as the very last book. So you have just three other options: (1)go along with the Catholic Church, (2) go along with the Orthodox churches, or (3) go along with the Mormons.

Don't trust any of those modern churches, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, etc.

Go with the Vulgate.

 

[Inquisitor]

Your criteria of perfection are not necessarily the true criteria. You claim that the KJB cannot be made better. But there were improvements made to it at least a couple of times. And the King James 2000 Bible does exactly what is needed to clarify, something which has caused confusion. This does not detract from the perfection of the KJB. So take a look at this:
King James Bible
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
King James 2000 Bible
Because you will not leave my soul in hades, neither will you allow your Holy One to see corruption.

The Greek Received Text should be the taken as the starting point. And the word in Greek is hadou which is translated as Hades.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδου, οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν

We know that Hades is NOT the actual Hell -- the Lake of Fire -- for which the Greek is Gehenna. And Hell is not Tartarus either. As to why the translators did not simply transliterate these words is something we will never know. They did transliterate all the Hebrew names which are spelled differently in Greek, instead of translating them. So we have "Jonas" for "Jonah" and "Noe" for Noah.

King James Bible
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
King James 2000 Bible
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Did the King James 2000 faithfully translate the exact Greek? Yes it did.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν Ἰωνᾶς ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους [in the belly of the great fish] τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας

So all I am saying here is that in spite of its 99.9% accuracy and reliability, there is room for improvement. But the modern versions are in fact corruptions.

Either the KJV is perfect or it is not perfect.

Make up your mind please.

The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does
the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[152]
(wiki.KJV)

These modern translations written roughly a thousand years after the Vulgate. Always need
to check their translation against the Vulgate.

The Vulgate was sufficient in the fourth century and as close as can be to the original
letters of the apostles. Why would anyone go with these late translations?

 

[John146]

‘Begotten’: born by sexual procreation.

Scripture says the Holy Spirit is directly responsible for Mary’s pregnancy, though of course it is by the Father’s will.

Which word? “Unique” is probably the best single word.

Unique does not connect Father God as being directly responsible for "fathering" Jesus. Every child of God is unique in their own way. What separates Christ from all other sons of God? Begotten.

 

[Dino246]

Unique does not connect Father God as being directly responsible for "fathering" Jesus. Every child of God is unique in their own way. What separates Christ from all other sons of God? Begotten.

“Unique” has no obligation to connect Father God to Jesus where monogenes doesn’t. You need to set aside the KJV wording and its implications and focus on the meaning of monogenes by itself. Don’t use KJV-related references as you will just go in circles.

 

[John146]

“Unique” has no obligation to connect Father God to Jesus where monogenes doesn’t. You need to set aside the KJV wording and its implications and focus on the meaning of monogenes by itself. Don’t use KJV-related references as you will just go in circles.

No thanks, the seed placed within Mary's womb came from the Father and that's where the word begotten reveals this truth. This truth is important in connecting the image of Christ as the image of the invisible God. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.