"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"

[Soldier4Christ]

Dear Person in Christ Chris

 

[Reba]

To answer the thread we need to know or understand what is the Bible.

The written Word of God?

The old manuscripts?

the old hand written pages,


the first ones off the press,


The Scriptures tell us what the word of God is....and in the form the the scriptures describe yes YES the word is inspired and inerrant...

John 1:1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
KJV

[cris]

 Dear Person in Christ Chris,

I thought that I knew at one time, but maybe it was like that dream I had once:

I dreamed that I was awake and woke up to find that I was asleep.  

ROFL

After all these months!!!!  Finally!


Wake up BEP!  Oh, forgot, you read in your sleep.

[Reba]

 


i too have wondered about you cris.....

[cris]

i too have wondered about you cris.....

tehehe!

[JudgeNot]

Boys say (He-he).
Goils say (Te-he).

 

[cris]

Boys say (He-he).
Goils say (Te-he).

 

he-he.....................te-he.  What could it be?

[brandplucked]

Hi Chris, thanks for your response.  First of all, I agree with you in that neither do I accept the Prefatory remarks of the KJB translators as inspired or inerrant in any way.  I agree with many of their held beliefs but not all, and I do not try to defend anything they said or did not say in the Preface.

Secondly, and more importantly, you say: "As for me, I believe God preserved His Word in my heart, all of our hearts for that matter, which have been given to Him.  I'm accountable to Him only.
I don't like the old English of the KJV.  I use the NASB.  If that bible led me astray, then I'm accountable to God for that.  I don't think it has.
Grace and peace,
cris

Chris, first of all "the Word" (capital letter) refers to the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.  "the word" or "the words of God" refers to His written revelation.  Without this written revelation called The Bible we are in total darkness about Who God is and what He has done for His people in Christ.

Without the Bible you are left to pure speculation, private interpretation and mysticism.

If God's words in our hearts do not match the words of The Bible, then we are off into the land of make believe and "What is true for you, may not be true for me."

Thirdly, you mention the Douay version as being "the best" but then turn around and say you use the NASB. Why?  The NASB is very different from the Douay.  

You really do not believe there is any such thing as The inerrant, inspired and compete word of God, do you?

This has been my whole point.  I wonder why some of the "scholars" I have seen on this board do not come over here and address this issue.  Let them come, and maybe we can then have a reasonable discussion about this crucial topic.

The fact is, though most will not openly face what they REALLY believe, Most Christians today do NOT BELIEVE that The Bible IS now the inspired and inerrant word of God.

If you are not a King James Holy Bible only believer, then you do not believe any Bible or any text in any language is the inerrant words of God.

God can and does save His people even using inferiour bible versions.  I do not dispute this.  But has God kept His promises to preserve all His words of truth and life here on this earth in a Book, or did He lie?  This is the central question.

Also Chris, do you personally think either the Douay or the NASB is now the complete and inerrant words of God?  Don't tell me they are both inerrant, when they both read completely differently in literally hundreds of verses and many verses found in the Douay are omitted in the NASB.



God bless,

Will

[Reba]

I just looked at the words...    Word as in John 1:1 and word as in John 2 :22

The given meaning is the same according to esword. No change because of the capital W. The inerrent scriptures plainly say ...

John 1:1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
KJV

Chris, first of all "the Word" (capital letter) refers to the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.  "the word" or "the words of God" refers to His written revelation.  Without this written revelation called The Bible we are in total darkness about Who God is and what He has done for His people in Christ.

Rom 1:19-20

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
KJV

[nChrist]

gotcha104,

Let's just use ONLY your logic and argument on this issue and see what we come up with. God's Word didn't exist before King James.

Now, that's silly - isn't it?

Much of your logic and argument is like many other "King James Only-ists", and it really isn't very logical. I understand and agree with many of the things that you state, but you ignore many facts. Further, you limit God with many of your comments.

Let me just ask you a few questions and see how you respond:

1 - Do you use the 1611 version of the King James?  If not - why not? Again, let me help you out some. you probably use a revision of the KJV from about 1769 like I do. Reversing the "u" and "v" and other quirks of Old English make the 1611 version very difficult to use. Using your complete logic, you should be using nothing but the 1611 version.

2 - Is the KJV THE BIBLE - or just a translation of THE BIBLE? Let me help you some with the answer. It is a translation, and the translators admitted errors and short-comings in the preface.

3 - Why did the translators of the KJV recommend the use and comparison of other translations?

4 - Did the KJV translators purposefully use a single English word in the translation of numerous Hebrew or Greek words that would have had an English equivalent?

5 - If the KJV is a completely accurate translation, why is there still a need to do word studies in the Hebrew and Greek for many portions of Scripture?

6 - What is the purpose of the following disclaimer in the KJV?

Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the tex t is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.

7 - Does the KJV have errors?  YES!
_______________________________

In short, I believe the KJV is the best English translation of the Holy Bible. BUT, the Word of God existed before King James, and it exists without King James now. I think that many "KJV Only-ists" harm the work of God with some of their claims and arguments. It really amounts to hypocrisy that harms the lost in many cases. I would say the "KJV" if someone asked me what translation of the Holy Bible is the best. BUT, I certainly wouldn't say all other translations are works of the devil, nor would I make the ridiculous statement that the KJV is the only Word of God. In short, I would conclude with a very simple statement:

King James is nothing compared to ALMIGHTY GOD!!

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Timothy 6:12  Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

[cris]

OK gotcha104, there's the scholar you were asking for.



Good job BEP..............as JN would say, "you go girl."



I use the NASB because it's the one I bought when I got saved many moons ago.  I didn't know much about the different versions at that time.  Since then, I've purchased many versions.  I use them at different times, but I mostly study the NASB.  I think the argument over the different versions is a tool employed by the enemy to get one's mind off of what it should be on.  OK that's my two cents worth.

The post I initially referred you to about the Albert Cook article on the KJV, you partially disagreed with.  People can disagree forever.  I don't think the guy pulled his article out of thin air.  He had to have researched it, and it's what he found out.  That's all I can say.  I don't mean to offend you in any way.  We are all in different degrees in our walk with God.  Maybe you're much higher than I am.  I only change my mind when new information surfaces that causes me to.  I stand firm until then.  God will move me when God will move me.  He has, He is, and He will.  Like I said before, there are more important things to do in our Christian walk than to argue over which version of the bible we should read, ie., loving God and loving our neighbor, in that order.

I understand you firmly believe in the KJV and are on a mission to inform others.  I applaud you for that and I'm sure God does too, as He would rather a person be hot or cold than lukewarm.

Grace and peace,
cris

 

[brandplucked]

I just looked at the words...    Word as in John 1:1 and word as in John 2 :22

The given meaning is the same according to esword. No change because of the capital W. The inerrent scriptures plainly say ...

John 1:1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
KJV

Chris, first of all "the Word" (capital letter) refers to the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.  "the word" or "the words of God" refers to His written revelation.  Without this written revelation called The Bible we are in total darkness about Who God is and what He has done for His people in Christ.

Rom 1:19-20

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
KJV

Hi Reba, thanks for your comments.  Every Bible I am aware of makes the distinction between the Word (capital letter) referring to the Son of God, and "the word" (small letter) referring to the written or spoken word.

Is esword your inspired Bible?  You have yet to tell us if you believe The Bible or any bible or any text out there in wonderland is the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God.  Could you do that for us please?

As for the very good reference you gave us in Romans 1, I am well aware of this verse, but all it proves is we can know by the creation only two things about God -#1 He exists and #2 He is powerful.  Without the written revelation from God as found in The Bible, we know absolutely nothing about Who He is, What He is like, Who the Son of God is, and what He has done for His people.

We also would know nothing at all about the true nature of man, how man responds to the covenants of God, prophesy, the fall of Satan, the entrance of sin, the redemption in Christ or any number of hundreds of other divine revelations.

If we did not have the Bible, we would all be heathens and pagans.

Now, about that inspired and inerrant Bible that tells us all these things - Do you believe such a thing exists?  If so, name it for us please.  If not, then just tell us so we will know where your are coming from on this vital issue.

God bless,

Will K

[brandplucked]

Hi Tom, thanks for the thoughts and questions.

Here is part of your post:
Let's just use ONLY your logic and argument on this issue and see what we come up with. God's Word didn't exist before King James.
Now, that's silly - isn't it?


Tom, it is apparent that you did not read my opening posts very well, or look at the links I provided.  Again, you are confusing The Word (the Son of God) with the word - the written revelation of God.

Of course, the Son of God has always existed.  He is eternal God, but we know absolutely nothing about Him without "the words of God" in written form.

I too believe God has always had His words preserved here on this earth, even before the King James Bible.  I have addressed this on my site in an article "Where was the word of God before 1611?"

Here it is again: http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/before1611.html
 
You ask: Do you use the 1611 version of the King James?  If not - why not? Again, let me help you out some. you probably use a revision of the KJV from about 1769 like I do. Reversing the "u" and "v" and other quirks of Old English make the 1611 version very difficult to use. Using your complete logic, you should be using nothing but the 1611 version.

Tom, one of the links I initially provided deals with this issue of the so called Revisions.  The underlying Hebrew and Greek TEXT of the KJB has never changed.  



You ask: Is the KJV THE BIBLE - or just a translation of THE BIBLE?

Tom, you've got yourself in a pickle on this one.  Are you saying that a translation CANNOT be the inspired words of God?

Where did you ever get this idea?  Certainly not from the Bible.

Please read my article Can a Translation be Inspired?  Then see if what you say or imply is Biblical or not.

http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/transinsp.html

I may just go ahead and post it so others can see if this idea that "No translation is inspired" comes from the Bible itself or mere human reasoning.



You close with - Does the KJV have errors?  YES!

In short, I believe the KJV is the best English translation of the Holy Bible. BUT, the Word of God existed before King James, and it exists without King James now.


OK, Tom.  Let's try to clear this up a bit, OK?  Tell us EXACTLY where this word of God existed before the KJB and more importantly, exactly where it exists now, so we can all go out and get ourselves a copy of it and compare it to what you think is the best English translation.

I await your answer.  Thanks,

Will

[brandplucked]

Can a Translation be Inspired?

I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they happen to admire, but is it the truth?

Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.

It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.

So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, it does many times.

In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.

A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is translated into another language.

" And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.

It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".

So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.

Will K

[brandplucked]

Hi again Tom, I thought I would also post something regarding the quote you took OUT OF CONTEXT from the King James Bible Preface.  By the way, I do not defend the KJB translators nor their Preface; I defend only the TEXT of the King James Bible as being the inerrant, preserved, inspired and always truthful words of God.

Anyway, here is some info regarding that phrase "variety of translations".


Variety of translations



        Sam Kobia, Secretary, World Council of Churches, ENI 1-23-04:

"Having a variety of translations available encourages the Bible to be read in a plural and ecumenical way. Having a variety of translations available is a precious tool in the struggle against religious fundamentalism."





One line from the Preface to the KJV is often cited by supporters of modern versions. It has to do with the goal of the KJV translators in making a good translation better. In his tract entitled, Pick a Bible, Any Bible, Mr. Terry Alverson cites Dr. Miles Smith of the KJV translation committee and states, "Obviously Smith and his co-workers did not undertake the task of translating the KJV with the intent that it was to be the only Bible. Quite the contrary. It appears the 1611 KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort to 'make a good translation better.' "(p.2).

One wonders if the claim that the KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort is correct in light of their full statement. The context of Dr. Smith's citation is given below:

Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.

The history of all the "good ones" which predated the KJV shows that they were all based upon the same Greek line of manuscripts; the Traditional Text. Further, it should be noted that the translators said their goal was NOT to make a bad one good, else the accusation from the Pope that the translators were feeding their people with "gall of dragons" might have some basis. Their goal was to make "one principle one" from the good ones which predated the KJV. Clearly, this is not an affirmation to alter the text based on either the Alexandrian or Western line of manuscripts.

Likewise, the KJV translators spoke of the need for many translations. Some have used this to justify the use of modern versions based on a differing line of manuscripts. Jame R. White writes, "When the very preface to the KJV says, 'variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures,' it is obvious that the KJV Only position is proven utterly ahistorical thereby. The position requires the translator to be something its own authors never intended it to be." (The King James Only Controversy, pp. 76-77).

The context of this statement was the use of marginal notes to explain the meaning of some Hebrew and Greek words which either carry several meanings or for rare animals. Please note the full context of the phrase in question:

There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement . . .Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."


Obviously the KJB translators were referring to the variety of translations regarding specific names of certain birds, beasts and stones, NOT to the wholesale  omission or addition of thousands of phrases, verses and words to the God inspired texts.

The modern version proponents like James White rip this quote out of context and apply it in an attempt to justify their rejection of the Traditional Greek Text of the Reformation Bibles, and their rejection of many Hebrew texts as well.

Will Kinney