Theology Online | Christian Forums & More

  
Active Threads
Social Groups
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Religion
Reload this Page "Why do you King James Bible only people 'attack' the word of God?"
Religion Discuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#31) Old
Bright Raven Bright Raven is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Bright Raven's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Bright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peers
July 18th, 2011, 07:10 PM

Not infallible in the sense that the autographs are without error. Infallible in that it is the inerrant Word of God. The Geneva just existed before the KJV.





He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

Jim Elliot

Last edited by Bright Raven; July 18th, 2011 at 07:47 PM. Reason: Unclear
   
Reply With Quote
  (#32) Old
CabinetMaker CabinetMaker is online now
TOL Subscriber
 CabinetMaker's Avatar

 

Reputation:
CabinetMaker is well respected by his peers
CabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peersCabinetMaker is well respected by his peers
July 18th, 2011, 07:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
So, Bright Raven, are you serious? Are you willing to state that the Geneva Bible IS the inerrant words of God and when any other translation that differs from the Geneva bible by omitting numerous whole verses and containing totally different readings, then these other versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NKJV are NOT the inerrant words of God? Are you willing to take that stand openly and affirm that this is what you really believe?

Will K
Are you serious? Do you really believe that there was NOT an inerrant Bible prior to the KJV? Why on earth would you think God waited until 1796 to produce only one inerrant Bible in a language only a fraction of the world speaks? I don't believe that th KJV is inerrant but I believe that God's inspired truth has been available to mankind since Jesus ascended into Heaven. Apparently you do not.





Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

What are my fruits today?

Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

Last edited by CabinetMaker; July 18th, 2011 at 10:12 PM.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#33) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 

Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
God's infallible Book - The King James Holy Bible - accept no substitutes - July 18th, 2011, 08:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
Not infallible in the sense that the autographs are without error. Infallible in that it is the inerrant Word of God. The Geneva just existed before the KJV.
Once again, you did not answer the question, but you did answer another one. So, you are one of those invisible, non existent, phantom "originals only" guys with No inerrant Bible, huh. Golly, like I'm totally surprised, Dude

Will K



   
Reply With Quote
  (#34) Old
Bright Raven Bright Raven is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Bright Raven's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Bright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peersBright Raven is well respected by his peers
July 18th, 2011, 09:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
Once again, you did not answer the question, but you did answer another one. So, you are one of those invisible, non existent, phantom "originals only" guys with No inerrant Bible, huh. Golly, like I'm totally surprised, Dude

Will K
I've been called worse.





He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

Jim Elliot
   
Reply With Quote
  (#35) Old
unknown unknown is offline
Over 1500 post club

 

Reputation:
unknown is making a name for themselvesunknown is making a name for themselvesunknown is making a name for themselvesunknown is making a name for themselvesunknown is making a name for themselvesunknown is making a name for themselvesunknown is making a name for themselvesunknown is making a name for themselves
July 18th, 2011, 09:18 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
Hi Unknown, this has got to be one of the silliest "lists of errors" I have yet to see. The majority of them are cases where you are taking the corrupt Westcott-Hort, Catholic UBS texts and pitting them against the Traditional texts used by most Bibles in history and the King James Bible, and then you label them as errors. How pathetically simple minded and shallow of you.

Others are like this first silly example of yours. It is a private interpretation of how some other bible agnostic thinks the verb should be translated. Did you bother to check even your modern versions like the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation or anything else? Apparently not. Well Surprise, NONE OF THEM agree with you.

You bible agnostic types are a laugh a minute.

Will K
that's not my list, i don't waste much time with that kinda nonsense. Just goggle " errors in the king james bible", you're not the only one with an opinion ya know. afaik, that's all you have.

You still have not addressed the list and disproved them all, it only takes one of those things from that list to prove kjv is not perfect.
Actually the list was for others to see, you will never accept any of it yourself.

You're not very good at insults either, "bible agnostic" doesn't bother me in the least. But since you seem to try insulting others, I've had no respect for any of your long winded cut & paste spam posts from day one. Ya big dummy! (since you do it to others, I figure you want to be insulted too. Moron!





Make A Difference Day Award Winner - Outstanding National Project - 2000
   
Reply With Quote
  (#36) Old
chair chair is offline
Over 4000 post club

 

Reputation:
chair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peers
July 18th, 2011, 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
Hi chair. I have not avoided this question at all. There was no infallible Bible in 1610. They were pretty close and a lot better than the ever worsening "new" Catholic bibles like the NIV, NASB, ESV, but they were not infallible. Do you know of one that existed before 1611? Do you know of one that exists now?

Will K
So what of God's promise to preserve His Word?



   
Reply With Quote
  (#37) Old
Krsto Krsto is online now
Over 5000 post club
 Krsto's Avatar

 

Reputation:
Krsto has a large reputationKrsto has a large reputationKrsto has a large reputationKrsto has a large reputationKrsto has a large reputationKrsto has a large reputationKrsto has a large reputationKrsto has a large reputationKrsto has a large reputationKrsto has a large reputationKrsto has a large reputation
July 18th, 2011, 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chair View Post
So what of God's promise to preserve His Word?
And why only for English speakers? No wonder the rest of the world considers us Americans and Brits to be egocentric. Last time I checked less than half of the 6000 languages on earth even had a bible in their own language.





Atheism is a advertising nightmare as in what you see is what you get and when you die that's it. - DaveDodo007

Totally depraved doctrine.
Uncertain salvation.
Luck of the draw.
Irresistible damnation.
Persecution of the saints.

Courtesy of Desert Reign
   
Reply With Quote
  (#38) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 

Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
G - July 19th, 2011, 04:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chair View Post
So what of God's promise to preserve His Word?
Chair, you are a funny guy. You yourself do not believe there IS or ever was a complete, preserved and inerrant Bible. I tell you that there is and it is the King James Bible, and then you ask me What about God's promise to preserve His words (not Word - that is Christ). I just told you where His words are preserved. It's called the King James Holy Bible.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#39) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 

Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
God's infallible Book - The King James Holy Bible - accept no substitutes - July 19th, 2011, 04:21 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krsto View Post
And why only for English speakers? No wonder the rest of the world considers us Americans and Brits to be egocentric. Last time I checked less than half of the 6000 languages on earth even had a bible in their own language.
And do YOU consider ANY Bible in any language to be the inerrant words of God? Of course not!


If the King James Bible in English is the perfect words of God, then What About Other Languages?

I am frequently asked this question by other Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any bible is now the inerrant words of God.

I finally decided to put a concise answer together to respond to this common question. Here it is.

Hi brother and sister......, this is a good question but not at all hard to answer if you think about it. God never promised to give every nation or every individual a perfect Bible. It certainly never turned out this way in history, did it?

In fact, for the first 3000 to 4000 years of recorded history, there was only one nation on earth that had the true words of God. "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." Psalm 147:19-20.

Now that the gospel is going out to the nations, the only promise from God we have is that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 24:14

The gospel of salvation through the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible in any language it has been translated into, no matter how poorly or partially done it may be. God can and does use other bible versions, partial translations, or just simple gospel tracts to bring His people to faith in Christ. I do not deny but strongly affirm this to be true.

But that does not make these other partial translations, bible tracts or versions the perfect words of God. There has to be at least one perfect Bible in this world that serves as the Final Authority and Standard by which all others are measured.

It certainly does not exist in the Hebrew or the Greek. There is no "the Hebrew" and much less is there "the" Greek. Besides, once a complete Bible is put together, there has to be a translation of some kind in order to put both the Old and New Testaments into one language. Since God has promised to preserve His WORDS (not just the general, ballpark approximation) in the book of the LORD, this book must exist somewhere.

All the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that book for the last almost 400 years. It was the KJB that was used by English and American missionaries to carry to gospel to the nations in the greatest missionary movement in history. It was the KJB that was carried out into space and read from.

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. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened.

Today it is only the King James Bible believer who boldly maintains that there really is an inerrant, complete and 100% true Holy Bible on this earth that a person can actually hold it in his hands and read and believe every word. All modern version proponents deny that any tangible, “hold it in your hands and read Bible” IS now the inerrant words of God.

God only holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. To whom much is given, from him shall much be required - "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48. God has given to the English speaking people His perfect words in the King James Bible. We will be held far more accountable for what we have done with this Book than any other people.

In his excellent book, Which Translation Should You Trust?, Timothy S. Morton writes: -
http://www.biblebelievers.com/KJV3.htm

“Nowhere in the scriptures does God make any statement or implication that there must be a perfect Bible in every language. He has promised to preserve His word for every generation as we have seen, but He has not promised to preserve it in every existing language. Let's look at the language of the original autographs for a moment. Nearly all of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, however, no nation spoke Hebrew except the Israelites. God was not obligated to give His word in Egyptian, Syrian, Chaldian, or any other language. His word was available to the people in these nations also, but they had to go to the Jews to get it. To the Jews were committed the oracles of God, and there were provisions in the law to allow strangers (foreigners) to convert to Judaism. Look at Ruth the Moabite for example. She was David's great-grandmother, an ancestor of Jesus Christ.

The same can be said about the New Testament language, Greek. Though it was a more widespread language than Hebrew, there were still millions of people who could not understand it when the New Testament was written. Again, God was not then, or now, obligated to give His word in every existing language, and those who argue He must are ignorant of history and of the scriptures.

God, who will not be intimidated by modern "scholarship," decided to combine His word into one universal language to make it more accessible to all men. He knew how English would circle the globe under the British empire and American influence. He knew how in the twentieth century English would be the second language for millions. He knew how it would become the world language of diplomacy, finance, and airlines, as well as of absolute time, temperature, and position. By his grace, God has made His word more available, readable and understandable by putting it in English; much more than it ever was in the "original languages." (End of quote by Tim Morton)

To the degree that foreign language bible versions follow the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, and to the degree that their individual translations match those found in the King James Bible, to that degree they can be considered to be the true words of God. To the degree that they depart from both the texts and meanings found in the KJB, to that degree they are corrupt and inferior.

Among foreign language translations that I would recommend are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, or the more modern Reina Valera Gomez translation of 2004, the Italian Diodati of 1649 or the New Diodati of 1991 and the French Ostervald of 1996. All these Bibles are based on the Hebrew Masorretic texts in the O.T. and the Traditional Greek texts in the New Testament.
I do not believe that every foreigner in non-English speaking countries needs to learn the English language and read the King James Bible. Salvation through faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is not only found the King James Bible. If there are several different versions in their own native language (Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, or whatever), then I would recommend they use the one that most closely follows the same Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. If they only have a translation based on the ever changing, modern Critical Texts, then they should thank God for what they do have and use it.

Regarding the question of “Well, what about before 1611?” please see my article here:


http://brandplucked.webs.com/wordofgodbefore1611.htm


As for: “Can a Translation be inspired?” please see:


http://brandplucked.webs.com/translationinspired.htm


This is how I see it and what I believe. Not a difficult question at all.

In contrast to the KJB believer's views, the multiple choice, contradictory meanings, and "different, omitted, added, or made up underlying texts" proponent has no Final Written Authority or Standard by which all others are to be judged, and he has no inspired, inerrant and 100% true Bible to give or recommend to anyone.

By His grace, accepted in the Beloved,

Will Kinney



   
Reply With Quote
  (#40) Old
chair chair is offline
Over 4000 post club

 

Reputation:
chair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peers
July 19th, 2011, 05:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
Chair, you are a funny guy. You yourself do not believe there IS or ever was a complete, preserved and inerrant Bible. I tell you that there is and it is the King James Bible, and then you ask me What about God's promise to preserve His words (not Word - that is Christ). I just told you where His words are preserved. It's called the King James Holy Bible.
Wise guy. Evading the question yet again.

According to you, God's Word did not exist before 1611. Therefore, up to 1611, God had lied when He said that His Word would be preserved forever. This is the logical conclusion from your claims.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#41) Old
chair chair is offline
Over 4000 post club

 

Reputation:
chair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peers
July 19th, 2011, 05:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
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. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened.
...
English is not the most commonly spoken language on this planet. Chinese is. Followed by Spanish. The infallible Words of God (TM) should be in Chinese.
http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/help/to...opulation.html

But those are just facts. Facts don't seem to interest you.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#42) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 

Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
Does the King James Bible only position "blow up"? - July 19th, 2011, 02:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chair View Post
Wise guy. Evading the question yet again.

According to you, God's Word did not exist before 1611. Therefore, up to 1611, God had lied when He said that His Word would be preserved forever. This is the logical conclusion from your claims.
No, as usual, you misunderstand what I am saying. God's words did exist before 1611, but the complete Bible with ALL of these words and the correct translation did not exist in perfection until the 1611 King James Bible.

I've been challenged on this before and this is my answer to this challenge.



Does the King James Bible only position “blow up”?

“Seek ye out of THE BOOK OF THE LORD, and read” - Isaiah 34:16

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” - 1 Corinthians 1:19

The one argument the “No Bible is inerrant” crowd continually throws in our face as being unanswerable is this: “Where was the perfect and inerrant Bible before 1611?”

Here are some direct quotes from a seminarian who thinks this question completely destroys our position. He writes: “I must ask you this in return, where was the Word of God prior to the KJV being written? This is where your position blows up at. You MUST claim that God didn't write an infallible Bible until 1611 if you hold to all of this. Can you name where the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God existed before the KJV was translated?" The answer needs to stay consistent with your position. Don't say they were found here or there. You MUST, to be consistent, say a specific Bible in a specific language that the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God" were located.”

Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including "the" Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. The force of their argument is that since there was no perfect and infallible Bible before the King James Bible, then the King James Bible itself cannot be the perfect words of God anymore than their favorite, multiple choice and contradictory bible versions. They don’t defend any of their modern versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, NKJV or Holman Standard as being the 100% true words of God in contrast to the other versions. Most of them don’t claim to have an infallible Bible but they take offense at our claim that we do.

There are only Four options open to them.

#1. “Only the originals were inspired and infallible.” It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible and they have not seen a single word of these “originals” a day in their lives. At one Bible club I belong to there was one guy who objected to my King James Bible only position saying that he was against any form of "onlyism" because it was unbiblical and elitist. I then pointed out to him that if he bothered to check almost any Baptist or other Christian site that addressed the issue of their belief about "the Bible" they almost always say: "We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant; no translation is inerrant." This most certainly is itself a form of "onlyism" and it is far worse than believing that the King James Bible is the only pure and perfect Book of the LORD. The "originals only" position leaves us without a perfect and inerrant Bible NOW, and it is a profession of faith in something that THEY KNOW does not exist. Now how silly is that?!?.

#2. “All reliable bible versions (NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, KJV, Spanish, German etc.) are the inspired and infallible words of God.” How someone with the discernment of a poached egg can say such a thing is beyond me, but I do run into this type of nonsense. In order to hold to view #2 they need to give new meanings to old words. "Infallible" no longer means "without errors"; it now must mean something like "ballpark close enough to be divinely useful" or something like that. These modern versions differ among themselves by omitting or adding literally THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament alone, and the modern versions change the meanings of hundreds of verses and often reject the Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places as the others. Not one of them agrees textually with any other in scores if not thousands of places. Try arguing that they are all “the inspired and 100% true words of God” before a court of law or even a high school debating team and you will be laughed out of the room. To prove the utter absurdity of making such a claim that all versions like the NASB, KJV, NIV, ESV etc. are the perfect and infallible words of God, just take a look at the first part of this study I have put together showing in clear black and white how all these versions differ radically from each other in numbers and names alone. http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm Then get back to us and tell us once again with a straight face that all these different versions are the infallible words of God.

#3. "The words of God are preserved in the extant or remaining 5000 plus Greek manuscripts that we have today." This is a very common explanation that ends up meaning absolutely nothing. Men who generally hold this type of position are what I call Bible Agnostics like James White, Doug Kutilek, Rick Norris, James Price, Daniel Wallace and company. Their position is on the same level as saying "God's words are preserved in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. They are all out of order and mixed up among thousands of other words that are not God's true words, but, Hey, there in there someplace." The simple fact is that among these thousands of remaining (not counting of course all the thousands of manuscripts that have disappeared and turned to dust over the centuries) manuscript scraps, pieces, partial books and sections of the New Testament (none of which is an entire New Testament) there are literally thousands upon thousands of very real and serious variant readings, and nobody is sure which ones are God's words and which ones are not. The modern bible versions are based on the constantly changing theory called the "science" of textual criticism. They have no fixed and settled text and what they do have can and does change at the slightest whim, and no two modern scholars are agreed on what the New Testament should look like.

For some concrete examples of what this so called "science" of Textual Criticism looks like and how it really works, check out this article here:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/scienceoftextcrit.htm

Also, be sure to take a look at this one called "The Oldest and Best Manuscripts?" It will show you some clear examples of the total confusion found in these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" upon which most modern versions like the ever changing NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, etc. versions are based on.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm



#4 There really is a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible and history and the internal evidence points to the Authorized King James Bible as being the Final Written Authority - the true words of the living God. You only have these four options. There is no other alternative left for you to go with.

There is a huge difference between the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God. As God says in Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. Far as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

And again God says in 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

I readily admit that “the book of the LORD” (the Holy Bible) was in a rather lengthy process of being perfected and brought to full maturity, but I and thousands of other Bible believers hold that the final product was and is the King James Bible. In general terms the Bible versions that existed before the perfection of the King James Bible followed the same Hebrew texts and the traditional Greek texts. For example, you will find 1 John 5:7 in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1560 to 1602. (Even the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 included all of 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" etc. and not even in brackets. The later Douay version of 1950 still included the phrase but in brackets, but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 began to omit the Trinity phrase altogether just like the modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, NET and Holman versions do. But wait. Now once again in 2009 The Catholic Sacred Bible Public Domain Version has gone back to include it! However there was no perfect and inerrant Bible until God brought forth His finished product in the King James Bible.

“God calls those things that be not as though they were”

I believe that those who say there must have been a perfect Bible before the King James Bible or our position "blows up" or falls to the ground as being inconsistent are guilty of using the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of God, and their thinking is decidedly unbiblical.

Was there a perfect Bible consisting of the present 66 book canon in the year 90 A.D? No. Not all of it had even been written yet. Why is it that the God of history didn’t allow the invention of the printing press until around 1455 A.D? Most Christians didn’t even have an opportunity to have their own copy of any printed Bible till around 1550.

Even regarding the canon of Scripture, or the individual books that taken as a whole form the Bible, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

There was no formal church agreement on the present day Protestant Bible consisting of 66 books until 1563. The Catholics still do not agree with the Protestants and include several other books called the Apocrypha.

In the wisdom of God something can be in process or even non-existent and yet God calls it done. This is totally contrary to the wisdom and ways of men. God refers to “the book of the LORD” before it is even finished and certainly before it was gathered into one single volume.
Read through the 34th chapter of the prophet Isaiah. Here God records the coming judgments upon all nations when the host of heaven shall be dissolved and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll. We find similar reference to these future events in the book of the Revelation. Though none of these things had actually happened at the time Isaiah wrote them, yet God sometimes referred to these events as having already happened. - “he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.”; “my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isaiah 34:2, 16)

So too in this chapter we read about “the book of the LORD”. “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...” (Isaiah 34:16) What exactly was this “book of the LORD” at Isaiah’s time in history? Was it all the books of the Bible written up till the time of Isaiah? Was it just the book of Isaiah? In either case the Bible as we know it today was not a completed Book. Isaiah was still being written at this time and there yet lacked many other Old Testament books still to be written. And that’s not even mentioning the entire New Testament. Yet God calls it “the book of the LORD” and commands us to read it.

God can and does refer to the Book of the Lord as being a real object even though it is still in the process of being written and perfected. Yet He sees the end from the beginning and refers to a future event (from our point of view) as a present reality.

Daniel 10:21 - 11:2 - "the Scripture of Truth"

Another clear example of God's Book being progressively revealed to us is found in one of the heavenly visions revealed to the prophet Daniel. In chapter 10 a heavenly messenger is sent to Daniel who tells him: "But I will shew thee THAT WHICH IS NOTED IN THE SCRIPTURE OF TRUTH". The angel then says - "And now will I shew thee THE TRUTH. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings of Persia: and the fourth shall be far richer than they all..."

Here the angel refers to a Book of Scripture that is ALREADY WRITTEN IN HEAVEN, and that is progressively revealed to man. This "Scripture of truth" has already recorded coming events BEFORE they happen in time. Nothing takes God by surprise; He sees the end from the beginning, and there is a completed Book in heaven that God progressively reveals to His people in time and history.

Let’s look at some other Biblical examples of where God calls something that is not as though it were. In Genesis 17:5 God tells Abraham: “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; FOR A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE THEE.”

The Bible critic using human logic and wisdom can easily say: “Hey, wait a minute. Abraham didn’t have any children at this time. There was no Isaac nor Ishmael; no Esau nor Jacob, and certainly not the nation of Israel much less other nations (plural). God must be wrong. The Bible can’t be true and inerrant.”

Yet the verse is repeated again in the New Testament were we read in Romans 4:17 “(As it is written, I HAVE MADE THEE a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and CALLETH THOSE THINGS WHICH BE NOT AS THOUGH THEY WERE.”

What we see here is God naming something as real and yet it wasn’t fulfilled in history till some 2000 years later. God was in a long process of gradually bringing about the fulfillment of His promises, yet He referred to them as something He had already accomplished.

Psalms 12:6-7 says: "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."

I believe that these verses, like many other Scriptures, have a double fulfillment. It can only be seen in the second way after it has happened, not before. How many prophecies of Christ Himself were not understood until after they had happened? Many if not most of them.

Even at the time of the writing of Psalm 12 not all but maybe half of God's words had been penned, yet they are and were pure at that time. Are all the rest of the O.T. books that were written after David penned Psalm 12 part of the words of the Lord? Yes, we believe they are. How about the whole New Testament? Are they also part of the pure words of the Lord? Again, we affirm that they are. If God was going to keep them from this generation for ever, then He must have included what He knew would be written in the future as a present reality - the words of the LORD. Obviously God's words over the centuries had become corrupted through false readings, omissions and additions. If God did not purify them, then there never would have been a perfect Bible.

We see the same Biblical principle in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in John 17:4 where He says: “I have glorified thee on the earth: I HAVE FINISHED THE WORK which thou gavest me to do.” Again, the Bible critic will protest. “Now just hold on here a minute. Jesus hadn’t gone to the garden where He prayed with great drops of blood. He hadn’t yet been betrayed nor handed over to the Roman authorities. He certainly hadn’t yet died on the cross for our sins nor risen from the grave three days later. How can He then truthfully say that He had finished the work God gave Him to do? He must have been mistaken.”

Yet in the wisdom of God the thing was so sure that He referred to it as a present reality - a finished work - even though in human terms His redemptive sacrifice was not accomplished till some time after these words were spoken by our Saviour.

A third Biblical example that shows the principle of how God can refer to something as already existing (the book of the Lord) when from our point of view it doesn’t at all, is found in Ephesians 2:4-6. Here we read: “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace are ye saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

God speaks of this glorious redemption and new life from the dead as being a present reality which has already been accomplished - “quickened together with Christ, raised up and seated in the heavenly places” - Yet multiplied millions of us all over the world had not even been born yet, let alone had made some kind of a “decision for Christ”! Yet God refers to them as already done. We are seated together in the heavenly places.

In the same way, the King James Bible believer does not need to somehow trace all the way back in history to try to find any perfect and inerrant Bible that existed before God brought the finished product of the King James Bible on the scene in 1611. The Sovereign God of history sees the end from the beginning and He can refer to the true “book of the LORD” even when, from our point of view, it wasn’t yet complete nor perfected.

As the King James Bible translators themselves wrote in their Preface: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."

The King James Bible believer is the only one today who consistently, historically and logically stands for the doctrinal truths that God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words and that there really exists such a thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible.

Remember, God says: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ...even God who calleth those things which be not as though they were.” (1 Cor. 1:19-20; Romans 4:17

For some additional thoughts on the subject Where was the word of God before 1611 and its purification process please see my article here:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/wordofgodbefore1611.htm

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney



   
Reply With Quote
  (#43) Old
chair chair is offline
Over 4000 post club

 

Reputation:
chair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peers
July 19th, 2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
No, as usual, you misunderstand what I am saying. God's words did exist before 1611, but the complete Bible with ALL of these words and the correct translation did not exist in perfection until the 1611 King James Bible.
...
In one breathe you get upset at the "Bible Agnostics" who don't think that there is such a thing as a complete correct Bible today, and in the next breathe you say outright that there wasn't a complete correct Bible before 1611.

You insist that God promised to "preserve his words" in a perfect book, and at the same time insist that his words didn't exist as a complete book until 400 years ago.

You are inconsistent at best, and dishonest- mostly to yourself- as well.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#44) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 

Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
God's infallible Book - The King James Holy Bible - accept no substitutes - July 19th, 2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chair View Post
In one breathe you get upset at the "Bible Agnostics" who don't think that there is such a thing as a complete correct Bible today, and in the next breathe you say outright that there wasn't a complete correct Bible before 1611.

You insist that God promised to "preserve his words" in a perfect book, and at the same time insist that his words didn't exist as a complete book until 400 years ago.

You are inconsistent at best, and dishonest- mostly to yourself- as well.
I would expect you to see it that way. No surprise at your reaction on this end.

Happy hunting for that ever elusive perfect Bible.

Will K



   
Reply With Quote
  (#45) Old
chair chair is offline
Over 4000 post club

 

Reputation:
chair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peerschair is well respected by his peers
July 19th, 2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
I would expect you to see it that way. No surprise at your reaction on this end.

Happy hunting for that ever elusive perfect Bible.

Will K
I'm not hinting for it. You are inventing it.



   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2012 TheologyOnLine

Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.