Warning: session_start(): open(/var/lib/lsphp/session/lsphp80/sess_naeqiangur5nkrmbrd7b3bc7tj, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /home/kjv.site/public_html/Discussion-Thread/index.php on line 2
Warning: session_start(): Failed to read session data: files (path: /var/lib/lsphp/session/lsphp80) in /home/kjv.site/public_html/Discussion-Thread/index.php on line 2 BIBLE DISCUSSION THREAD 225756
"Surely men of low degree are a vapour, Men of high degree are a lie; If they are weighed on the scales, They are altogether lighter than vapour."(Ps.62:9-NKJV)
A degree marks ascent or descent in matter of development. It is a sign for the faithless nation in their perpetual backsliding. In extending the life of King Hezekiah the sundial showed something else. It went backwards, "And Hezekiah answered, "It is an easy thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees; no, but let the shadow go backward ten degrees."/ So Isaiah the prophet cried out to the LORD, and He brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down on the sundial of Ahaz.(2 Ki.2:20-8-11-NKJV).
"So the last shall be first, and the first," Jesus warned. Here we have a saying of Jesus that is built of chiastic structure. The Spirit instructs from the life of Hezekiah how the word of God works. The birth of Manasseh and his evil rein was consequential for Israel to be cast off as an apostate nation. Time is what the word of God shall make of the predetermined will of God.
Hi Bennyhkje: A little offense taken, but that's ok. I believe you are a very intelligent, man of intellect and I understand why you wouldn't want to listen to a woman of "nonsense" that believes the KJB bible was written By God, so I will be silent, for you. Thank You for the discussions we have had. I have enjoyed them. God Bless :)
Yes, KJV as with great many translations are compiled under the leading of the Holy Spirit. I am writing this by the same. You cannot be a child of God without being Led by the Holy Spirit.(Ro.8:14).
One example of a "unicorn" mentioned in KJV is clearly describing some other animal as it is a mythological animal that doesn't exist. In that case another version may make clear what it was referring to. With all that is said here it shouldn't dissuade you from believing anything of importance of doctrine in the KJV just that some other versions may have added detail or a slightly different accepted text included or excluded which doesn't change things much. We can almost always prove that when there is a difference than certain truths are in both versions of the same event; or there are two separate events (such as is indicated in different details in the Gospel accounts). One is missing most geneology (I think in Mark); other parts have the end of the Lord's prayer cut out (in Luke) which in reality is said only to be a sample prayer for us to follow. Again the Lord in His Providence kept certain things hidden from view and all the truth He wanted is in scripture; hence we can be assured that no one can add or subtract anything as Revelation states after that last book of scripture was written by the last surviving Apostle; John.
In general then we have an infallible scripture in the KJV which God also used an "infallable" means of preservation through the oral and later written texts through that time for the 1611 version except for the Apocrypha that was in some versions. It was first removed in 1666 apparently overseas but not until the 1800s in our nation so until then that part was NOT infallable.
I won't attempt to go on anymore at this point. This certainly shouldn't dissuade you from the KJV or your faith; but also of course you shouldn't say it is the ONLY version that has any truth and should see some other versions on occasion for clearer or alternative meanings of text. Only John Himself may know whether the woman caught in adultery actually occured; I see no reason to doubt it at least close to what is written.
I will appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16. It states that all scripture is God breathed (by inspiration) of God and suitable for teaching; correction; reproof; etc. That would insure that at the time the 66 books were approved (as opposed to spurious tales such as the Gospel of Thomas) in the Protestant Bible were indeed the infallable Word of God. So in that regard the answer for the King James Version; although it was after earlier versions (Latin Vulgate; Tyndale and Geneva and others) which THEMSELVES were copied from manuscripts which were at best several HUNDRED years removed from the original manuscripts are indeed infallable with the exception of versions that have later texts and some statistical information that may be off from the original manuscripts and earliest accurate historical accounts. In terms of doctrine therefore I would say that I am unaware of any laws or any other important supernatural accounts that are only seen in some manuscripts so that in that case ALL of what we read should be infallable.
Defining the word infallible is helpful. As to what the Catholics consider the Pope to have (and indeed if he WERE keeping the doctrine that Peter himself had as the so called first Pope) that is the standard I am using here. In other words in terms of doctrine he is claimed to be infallible; not to his so called "ex cathedra" statements. These extra sections such as the story between the end of chapter 7 and beginning of 8 in John about the woman caught in adultery involve no doctrinal statement as I said before. We see parts of Enoch mentioned in scripture which indicate that what is mentioned in that snippet (in Jude I think) IS the truth as to what the book originally said; but other parts are not so clear. I believe we are missing parts of some of it as well; but since the whole book isn't in the Bible God in His Providence used men such as those that screened the KJV to preserve His Word and remove spurious writings.
Why is it so hard to accept that God in His omniscience had control of the writing, copying and translation of His word from the beginning to be sure we have the finished KJB today being the only infallible truth, the ONLY one written by the Holy Ghost? God is a powerful, almighty God and there is no place with Him for those whose corrupt His Word. Rev. 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Just a couple of examples.
Rev. 13: 8 KJB "And I beheld, and heard an ANGEL (my emphasis) flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!"
NIV "As I watched, I heard an EAGLE that was flying in midair call out in a loud voice: "Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the trumpet blasts about to be sounded by the other three angels!"
Mark 15: 28 NIV omits this verse which speaks of a prophecy of the Messiah being fulfilled by Jesus. This dilutes the deity of Christ.
Luke 4:8 KJB "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
NIV Jesus answered, 'It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' " Again, dilutes the deity of Christ and His power to rebuke satan.
I am going to roll over after this last attempt to answer your question.
First; again we need to understand that the KJV was closest to the OLDER renditions of Geneva and Tyndale. Again the earliest edition in 1611 had the Apocrypha which was NOT inspired for 50 years or so and in this country apparently until the mid 1800s.
I will state that it is infallable as to doctrinal matters. For instance all but one or two books are in the Dead Sea scrolls from the 66 in our Bible; but other extrabiblical stuff was left out. We cannot say the same for a few words different (even KJV will state that one manuscript is slightly different as an option in it's own commentary and there may be a couple other cases when other manuscripts have a section present or missing.) When one manuscript is chosen over another there MAY be a clear indication error occurred but in other cases we can't say other versions are wrong either.
Finally; the issue in Revelation is adding new scripture AFTER Revelation or deliberately adding or subtracting from Revelation in particular but also indicating not doing violence deliberately to scripture after the Word is complete post Revelation. Such a manipulation is CLEAR in things such as the Passion Translation and the versions that cults have (such as the Jehovah's Witness Bible). That is different than say a historical statement (which BTW is needed to understand the Feast of Dedication which Jesus celebrated (i.e. Hanukkah) which is NOT in either Testament of the Bible except there and to understand it we need to read from nonbiblical sources. Facts can be scriptural or nonscriptural as God uses all things for His glory.
One can argue that God wouldn't allow error in numbers taken in a census or other like statistics but discrepancies appear to exist even within different passages in KJV which again usually can be explained with the details missing or added in another section.
Your welcome and I will take your lead and roll over, also, after this response.
"I will state that it is infallable as to doctrinal matters ..... When one manuscript is chosen over another there MAY be a clear indication error occurred but in other cases we can't say other versions are wrong either." You don't seem to understand or else believe that when God canonizes His word it is in a righteous and complete way. God doesn't do this so that some parts are right and some wrong so they need to be corrected, added too or erased according to man's arrogance. If we can't trust all of it we
can't trust any of it. Do we trust and have faith in God's omniscience and omnipotence spirit or don't we?
As far as the Apocrypha goes, this is just a side-step to ignore the corrupt verses I included, which, you did not respond to. The Apocrypha was always understood by Christians of that day that it was not a canonized book and, therefore, it was advised to read in private, to not preach from it. I believe, the Lord allowed it for a while to help separated the wheat (Protestantism) from the chaff (Catholicism). It is still in their bible.
The example I gave in Rev. 13:8 is just one of a myriad of ridiculous to serious changes the new versions, written by man, are riddled with. I know you probably won't', but if you were to do a comparison of even just a few of the over 200 new English versions available today, you would understand this belief and see the differences yourself. You can get a list of the particular verses to compare online. You don't have to pay any attention to what is said about these changes, just get the list of verses and versions and compare them yourself. I really hope you haven't done this already, and are still promoting the new versions?
I hope we can have continued discussions other then this one. I enjoy reading your comments. God Bless :)
At least we can agree that many modern translations are spurious in part; some are clearly blasphemous or not well translated.
The other issue which I hate to bring up is that when more than one manuscript is mentioned (such as a few KJV mentions) there could be more than one case which is the inspired version; why can't the truth be slightly different in multiple manuscripts that each have a different part of it? Their own comments vary from saying there is another mansucript that may be equally valid or one that is likely NOT valid originally. We can't prove of course an earlier version HAS to be the correct one as again they are hundreds of years removed from the original texts. This does happen; at times for context. Personally I spend some time reading a lengthy dissertation of NIV as to its errors. I'm not as familiar with other stuff.
Since we are in a checkmate situation discussing this subject; I will say that we need to consider carefully if we are going to disfellowship with other believers who have a different translation. Many major topics have a similar enough meaning in different versions (I could mention the New King James which may have English more understandable as we speak today). As to what churches we attend that is up to us but those who show fruit of true faith I would think we should choose battles wisely. Also that goes for those who may read the version we approve of but have no evidence of saving faith.
So anyway not to belabor the point. I'll leave it up to you how to deal with others with this issue.
Actually the Dead Sea Scrolls include many of the Apocrypha or as others call them Deuterocanonical Books. A bit less than half of the books found there are from the Apocrypha.
Also in the New Testament, in the epistle of Jude we can find stories from books that both Christians and Jews rejected as fake. One is the incident about Moses' dead body and the other the incident with Enoch. Both of those stories can not be found in the Bible. That shows that at that time things were a bit fluid and since there wasn't any canon established yet, people were reading all sort of religious books. That is why those Apocrypha were included in the Septuagint which means that they were read by Jews at that time. A lot later both Christians and Jews canonised their scriptures.
I agree with your application of 2 Timothy 3:16 and your use of the term "God breathed," as the phrase "inspiration of God" is one Greek word that means God breathed. This would include scripture that was in existence prior to 1611. I also agree that defining the word infallible is helpful.
I do not believe that any bible translation is infallible, including the KJV. In order to claim infallibility of any translation, we would also have to believe that the men involved in the translation process of whatever bible we choose to read were themselves infallible. No man (Christ being the exception) has ever been, or ever will be infallible, therefore, whatever translation put forth by man cannot be an infallible translation. The KJB translators never claimed infallibility for themselves nor their translation.
I'll probably take some heat from some on this forum for disagreeing with the infallibility of our English bible (all versions included), but first let me say that I am in no way discrediting the KJB. The KJB is my bible of choice when I study, not because I believe it is perfect, but because I believe it to be (one) of the better translations available.
There are other translations that can be trusted, although none are perfect. In order to make such a claim, one would have to take whatever version they choose, do a word-by-word comparison with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to confirm the infallibility of the translators. Other than that, we have to go off blind faith to claim infallibility of any version. I am not a King James Only believer and I would never judge another believer on what bible they choose to read or what church they attend. That is between them and the Lord. Richard, thank you so much for the things you share. You are a blessing to many, I'm sure. God Bless!!!
We need to keep in mind what John said at the end of the Gospels about if everything Christ did was written down all the books in the world couldn't contain it ( John 21:25). There is no reason to believe that more texts or true anecdotes about the Lord are out there and may be found at some point. We see the same principle in the fact that certain things are written in only one Gospel; others in all and most in one or two others. We need to realize that nothing is contradictory unless God changed things Himself (such as going from the old to new covenant eliminating; for instance ceremonial dietary laws). We see full explanations; for instance on divorce in Matthew 5 and 19 which are known as the "exception clause" as opposed to Luke and Mark where this "except for fornication" is not listed as reason for divorce and remarriage being constituted as adultery. Again; when we see apparent contradictions (such as the apparent error in numbers killed in some of the accounts of wars in books such as Chronicles and Kings (and apparently in the census from 2 Samuel as compared to 1 Chronicles) further examination usually clears up details. Again much of this may come from issues of later translations (copies of copies) which continued for several centuries before today's versions.
Also we need to see that even Paul in Mars hill used secular writings to describe the "unknown god" and also Cretian writings later on in Acts that described (in no flattering terms) the manner of behavior known about Cretians to hammer home that their own writings summed up correctly their beastly behavior that needed to be mended among brethren confessing Christ who wished to be in leadership. This confirms the factual content being the inspired Word of God just as the account of Satan and all the sins of the Patriarchs and saints. We wouldn't want to emulate them but it is there as 2 Timothy 3:16 states to instruct us in righteousness and scripture is sufficient.
So you take this to mean that John was telling to be on the look out for these other writings and that they can be trusted to be from the Holy Ghost? Interesting.
In light of my earlier commentary I would like to add that as with the Torah; I would assume similar rules applied at first to the ORIGINAL copies made to the original manuscripts in the New Testament as well. We can't be entirely certain that the first copies we have CURRENTLY in our possession had such stringent rules as to translation; but also that doctrinally we don't need to concern ourselves with error. We see a consistency with the story of the woman caught in adultery; for instance with the rest of scripture.
We don't see that with the Apocrypha which doesn't contain specific statements from God Himself; and more importantly has doctrines opposed to the rest of scripture such as necromancy in Maccabees (despite what seems a highly accurate account of the events in Israel at that time with the rebellion of the Jews against Antiochus Epiphanes. So we CAN say if it says "thus saith the Lord" that His commands ARE all accurate in the Bible itself. There are many historical facts which also can be relied on and help to make sense of obscure passages or names of cities that have more than one spelling and in fact can be found in a different location than assumed. In other words the Bible proves to us that the Archaeology will be found; and original concepts in that field changed to conform to scripture; never the other way around.
Anyway; what I am saying is that any supernatural information the Lord had for us has been preserved in that sense it is the 100 percent inspired Word of God even in copies of manuscripts today. We need to understand that in English the original Greek in particular can have MORE than one meaning in descriptive language; so we cannot translate word for word without confusion but we also need to be cautious not to do violence to the text to make it more readable. Word patterns are different without vowels in many cases; but also chapter and verse numbers added and the Bible is not in Chronological order.
"that doctrinally we don't need to concern ourselves with error" We don't have to concern our selves if what we read is wrong doctrinally! This is crazy. God's word is INFALLIBLE. The KJB has no errors, no matter how you spin it, and we need to stay away from "errors in doctrine" for the sake of our souls.
I, honestly don't know if I'm following you and Bennymkje in your belief about the infallibility of the KJB. Do you believe it was under the direction of the Holy Ghost from beginning to now so we have God's word that we can rely on or not? So, again, a simple yes or no would be nice ; is the KJB infallible or not?
I think you need correct this point when you write of my belief and I quote, ", honestly don't know if I'm following you and Bennymkje in your belief about the infallibility of the KJB. " The Bible is inerrant but KJB infallible, oh no! To the pure everything is pure. Even if one stutters to say 'The Lord is my shepherd' it doest matter he is reading from KJB or NIV, it is inerrant. It is all we need know. How long one shall humbug over trifles and keep an argument go on? Leave my name out, momsage.
I agree , the KJB is the only one I use and I trust it implicitly . This is where concordances are so valuable to us , any disputes ? Check your concordance . Do you have a concordance Momsage ? They are worth getting for sure , I have a Strongs Exhaustive . Surely it's better to talk about what we are reading , which book ? What do we think about it ? Any questions about it etc . Let's help each other out and talk about the Truth , the actual Word and what it means to us . Much more fun than going round in circles .
I appreciate your comment Jema and yes I also have a Strong's concordance and I also like Bible Hub. They are very helpful to me, however, I have to disagree with you in that we should only discuss doctrines that we all agree on and ignore the errant ones. Bennymkje is putting forth the definite doctrine that all the translations of the bible are inerrant, written by the Holy Ghost, but I can't let that ride. What if a new convert is on this site? Is it ok for me to let them believe any translation is ok, that it can be trusted as the true Word of God when only the KJB is? If I don't say anything and a believer reads the NIV as his favorite translation and they read in Rev. 13:8 that John saw an EAGLE flying threw heaven giving a warning instead of an ANGEL, do I not care?
ANGEL: A typically benevolent celestial being that acts as an intermediary between heaven and earth, especially in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Zoroastrianism.
EAGLE: Any of a number of large, strong, flesh-eating accipitrine (raptor) birds of prey noted for their sharp vision and powerful wings, as the bald eagle. REALLY!
I don't mean to be decisive on this site but I must put forward the truth and speak against the false that may be presented.
"Surely it's better to talk about what we are reading , which book ? What do we think about it ? Any questions about it etc . Let's help each other out and talk about the Truth , the actual Word and what it means to us . Much more fun than going round in
circles " I'm sorry I guess I put to much into this and misunderstood your meaning. I apologize. God Bless :)
We should only discuss doctrines that we all agree on and ignore the errant ones ? When did I say this to you ? Have you mixed me up with some one else ? Those are not my words sorry :) .
It isn't written by direct inspiration of God but is a TRANSLATION which shows; in general respect and is an accurate REPRESENTATION of what was in the original Greek; Aramaic and Hebrew languages.
Apparently; from my limited knowledge on the subject King James actually wasn't a very big fan of the Bible but allowed for what is a decent translation. I believe from what I heard that the Apocrypha was in some of the original editions. Clearly; there were earlier editions such as the Geneva Bible from the 1500's and the Tyndale (whose author was murdered apparently).
The Catholic Bible apparently was written about the same time period (I am not sure of all the accuracy or lack thereof of the Douay Rheims) except to say there appear to be some doctrinal issues and of course the Apocrypha which IS not inspired text is included. It should be noted that even Catholic commentators will admit this fact; but also justify the bizarre additions to such books as Daniel with a wild story about dragons and such after chapter 12.
I would even state that ANY version of the Bible even copies of manuscripts are not guaranteed 100 percent the inspired Word of God as it was in the ORIGINAL manuscripts which WERE 100 percent accurate. What I am saying here is that there are different COPIES of manuscripts; some of which may have sections added or missing (such as part of the text about the woman caught in adultery at the end of John 7 and beginning of John 8). Since we only have copies of the original text this happens on occasion as well as details about the number of people killed in certain battles; for instance. That being said there is no reason to suspect that anything is false in these different manuscripts and these are mainly trivial issues.
When we can find cross references which we do in almost all scripture we can be certain that the meanings of the original writings are preserved. In the original TORAH every LETTER had to be the same in a new copy.
Thank you for your explanation of what you meant by the scriptures you used and I am not offended, although it may sound that way sometimes, I'm just frank. I hope I haven't offended you.
I'm still wondering what your purpose is for using corrupt versions? To me, if you use them, you trust them to be accurate, even if what they say is different from what God's translation says. I thought this was a KJB only discussion forum. I thought, which I guess I was wrong, that using other versions was frowned upon and discouraged. Very naive of me. It's discouraging, but I'll just have to look up any verses used without a link to that verse to be sure it's the KJB which is good for me. Sometimes I can tell but not always.
I shall only explain the point you make, "I'm still wondering what your purpose is for using corrupt versions? To me, if you use them, you trust them to be accurate, even if what they say is different from what God's translation says," All scripture is God breathed. The writers in Greek themselves were not handling classic Greek that one may expect from Plato or any other masters. "The New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean" areas. God could make it work because it is the Spirit that intercedes "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God,"as St Paul eloquently explains in this vv.27-28. Not only with prayers but also in grasping the word of God. So truth written in our inward parts must help to go beyond the literal.Those who are the hard nuts who would rather win what they believe and not believe that they are 'the called according to his purpose' They fail because their ear of faith is shut out.
The parable of the rich fool Luke 12:13-21 in any version can only mean one thing. KJV is not saving any because it is accurate and others are corrupt. Hypocrisy of the Pharisee was in their insistence on the outward appearances. They did not enter therein to believe the doctrine of Jesus. "God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God." we ought to look at the word of God beyond Sabbath and such like baggage, in the light of our Savior. May God help you to the truth.
"if you use them, you trust them to be accurate, even if what they say is different from what God's translation says," All scripture is God breathed" This is circular reasoning. If you use them they must be right and they are right because you use them so they must all be God breathed. "God breathed" is not referring to the 200+ English translations out there. The changes made may be insignificant to you but not to God. Rev 22: 18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." A very profound WARNING. God had His hand in the copying and translating of His Word from the very beginning, to be sure it remained pure, to the time of the finished KJB which He always intended for modern man to have. The authors were directed by the Holy Spirit totally. God's omniscience does this. Rev. 13:8 the KJB talks about an angle, in the NIV the word angle was changed to EAGLE. Luke 4:8 KJB "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." NIV "Jesus answered, 'It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'" This dilutes the Omnipotent attribute of Christ. Mark 15:28 NIV omits this verse which speaks of a prophecy of the Messiah being fulfilled by Jesus. This, also, dilutes the deity of Christ. There are so, so many more of these examples and they do matter to our understanding of what God's true word teaches us. As believers we must be able to trust the "Inspired Word of God" to the fullest. Reading the TRUE word of God can lead to the salvation of a soul but reading false doctrine certainly won't. God Bless :)
What is vapor? I meant in the sense James asks,"Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away."(Jas.4:14) As for NKJB It is simply that I cut and pasted from a Bible Dictionary that I have been compiling. I have helped my self with verses, great many NIV NKJB and several others. I would rather go by the spirit of the sense than King's James version save me. Find you fault with it? I did not mean to offend anyone. God forbid!
Hello Bennymkje: I have a question for you. Why did you quote the NKJB instead of the KJB? The NKJB uses the word vapor. the KJB uses vanity:
AMERICIAN HERTIGAGE DICTIONARY
VANITY:
Excessive pride in one's appearance or accomplishments; conceit. synonym: conceit.
Something about which one is vain or conceited.
Worthlessness, pointlessness, or futility.
VAPOR:
To engage in idle, boastful talk.
These words are not interchangeable other then diluting the meaning of vanity to just a simply way of speaking with pride. Obviously the true scripture is wise in using vanity for it's meaning.
I thought this was a KJB discussion group only? Why would you chose to use a false doctrine translation of God's Word even if a verse happens to quote the same way, which this one doesn't, it's still a worldly version written by men?
Just a thought. Vanity as used by the preacher the meaninglessness of life without Christ is what quote from the Psalm 62 I intended to make a point.
Leaving it aside consider it now according to the context. "Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity."In other words "The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of them all."(Pr.22:2) vanity referred there is the manner rich treats the poor shabbily because they have the means. Vanity of riches fund their oppression. The following verses make it clear. "Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart upon them./God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God." The so-called money power to buy judges when the rich are called before the law" is what it refers. Both rich and poor when they hit the dust we have the 'vanity' as used by the preacher.
The whole point of my post was on the topic of 'degree' not scholarly degree, please not Momsage but the degree the sun casts on the face of a sundial.
Understand from the above-mentioned quote why 'God has spoken once; twice have I heard?" Doctrine of God is heard by ear of faith by every heart it is to which the Psalmist refers. You and I must hear well before we judge.
"Surely men of low degree are a vapour, Men of high degree are a lie; If they are weighed on the scales, They are altogether lighter than vapour."(Ps.62:9-NKJV)
A degree marks ascent or descent in matter of development. It is a sign for the faithless nation in their perpetual backsliding. In extending the life of King Hezekiah the sundial showed something else. It went backwards, "And Hezekiah answered, "It is an easy thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees; no, but let the shadow go backward ten degrees."/ So Isaiah the prophet cried out to the LORD, and He brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down on the sundial of Ahaz.(2 Ki.2:20-8-11-NKJV).
"So the last shall be first, and the first," Jesus warned. Here we have a saying of Jesus that is built of chiastic structure. The Spirit instructs from the life of Hezekiah how the word of God works. The birth of Manasseh and his evil rein was consequential for Israel to be cast off as an apostate nation. Time is what the word of God shall make of the predetermined will of God.
In general then we have an infallible scripture in the KJV which God also used an "infallable" means of preservation through the oral and later written texts through that time for the 1611 version except for the Apocrypha that was in some versions. It was first removed in 1666 apparently overseas but not until the 1800s in our nation so until then that part was NOT infallable.
I won't attempt to go on anymore at this point. This certainly shouldn't dissuade you from the KJV or your faith; but also of course you shouldn't say it is the ONLY version that has any truth and should see some other versions on occasion for clearer or alternative meanings of text. Only John Himself may know whether the woman caught in adultery actually occured; I see no reason to doubt it at least close to what is written.
Defining the word infallible is helpful. As to what the Catholics consider the Pope to have (and indeed if he WERE keeping the doctrine that Peter himself had as the so called first Pope) that is the standard I am using here. In other words in terms of doctrine he is claimed to be infallible; not to his so called "ex cathedra" statements. These extra sections such as the story between the end of chapter 7 and beginning of 8 in John about the woman caught in adultery involve no doctrinal statement as I said before. We see parts of Enoch mentioned in scripture which indicate that what is mentioned in that snippet (in Jude I think) IS the truth as to what the book originally said; but other parts are not so clear. I believe we are missing parts of some of it as well; but since the whole book isn't in the Bible God in His Providence used men such as those that screened the KJV to preserve His Word and remove spurious writings.
Just a couple of examples.
Rev. 13: 8 KJB "And I beheld, and heard an ANGEL (my emphasis) flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!"
NIV "As I watched, I heard an EAGLE that was flying in midair call out in a loud voice: "Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the trumpet blasts about to be sounded by the other three angels!"
Mark 15: 28 NIV omits this verse which speaks of a prophecy of the Messiah being fulfilled by Jesus. This dilutes the deity of Christ.
Luke 4:8 KJB "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
NIV Jesus answered, 'It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' " Again, dilutes the deity of Christ and His power to rebuke satan.
God Bless :)
First; again we need to understand that the KJV was closest to the OLDER renditions of Geneva and Tyndale. Again the earliest edition in 1611 had the Apocrypha which was NOT inspired for 50 years or so and in this country apparently until the mid 1800s.
I will state that it is infallable as to doctrinal matters. For instance all but one or two books are in the Dead Sea scrolls from the 66 in our Bible; but other extrabiblical stuff was left out. We cannot say the same for a few words different (even KJV will state that one manuscript is slightly different as an option in it's own commentary and there may be a couple other cases when other manuscripts have a section present or missing.) When one manuscript is chosen over another there MAY be a clear indication error occurred but in other cases we can't say other versions are wrong either.
Finally; the issue in Revelation is adding new scripture AFTER Revelation or deliberately adding or subtracting from Revelation in particular but also indicating not doing violence deliberately to scripture after the Word is complete post Revelation. Such a manipulation is CLEAR in things such as the Passion Translation and the versions that cults have (such as the Jehovah's Witness Bible). That is different than say a historical statement (which BTW is needed to understand the Feast of Dedication which Jesus celebrated (i.e. Hanukkah) which is NOT in either Testament of the Bible except there and to understand it we need to read from nonbiblical sources. Facts can be scriptural or nonscriptural as God uses all things for His glory.
One can argue that God wouldn't allow error in numbers taken in a census or other like statistics but discrepancies appear to exist even within different passages in KJV which again usually can be explained with the details missing or added in another section.
Thanks for taking time to read this.
Agape.
"I will state that it is infallable as to doctrinal matters ..... When one manuscript is chosen over another there MAY be a clear indication error occurred but in other cases we can't say other versions are wrong either." You don't seem to understand or else believe that when God canonizes His word it is in a righteous and complete way. God doesn't do this so that some parts are right and some wrong so they need to be corrected, added too or erased according to man's arrogance. If we can't trust all of it we
can't trust any of it. Do we trust and have faith in God's omniscience and omnipotence spirit or don't we?
As far as the Apocrypha goes, this is just a side-step to ignore the corrupt verses I included, which, you did not respond to. The Apocrypha was always understood by Christians of that day that it was not a canonized book and, therefore, it was advised to read in private, to not preach from it. I believe, the Lord allowed it for a while to help separated the wheat (Protestantism) from the chaff (Catholicism). It is still in their bible.
The example I gave in Rev. 13:8 is just one of a myriad of ridiculous to serious changes the new versions, written by man, are riddled with. I know you probably won't', but if you were to do a comparison of even just a few of the over 200 new English versions available today, you would understand this belief and see the differences yourself. You can get a list of the particular verses to compare online. You don't have to pay any attention to what is said about these changes, just get the list of verses and versions and compare them yourself. I really hope you haven't done this already, and are still promoting the new versions?
I hope we can have continued discussions other then this one. I enjoy reading your comments. God Bless :)
The other issue which I hate to bring up is that when more than one manuscript is mentioned (such as a few KJV mentions) there could be more than one case which is the inspired version; why can't the truth be slightly different in multiple manuscripts that each have a different part of it? Their own comments vary from saying there is another mansucript that may be equally valid or one that is likely NOT valid originally. We can't prove of course an earlier version HAS to be the correct one as again they are hundreds of years removed from the original texts. This does happen; at times for context. Personally I spend some time reading a lengthy dissertation of NIV as to its errors. I'm not as familiar with other stuff.
Since we are in a checkmate situation discussing this subject; I will say that we need to consider carefully if we are going to disfellowship with other believers who have a different translation. Many major topics have a similar enough meaning in different versions (I could mention the New King James which may have English more understandable as we speak today). As to what churches we attend that is up to us but those who show fruit of true faith I would think we should choose battles wisely. Also that goes for those who may read the version we approve of but have no evidence of saving faith.
So anyway not to belabor the point. I'll leave it up to you how to deal with others with this issue.
Actually the Dead Sea Scrolls include many of the Apocrypha or as others call them Deuterocanonical Books. A bit less than half of the books found there are from the Apocrypha.
Also in the New Testament, in the epistle of Jude we can find stories from books that both Christians and Jews rejected as fake. One is the incident about Moses' dead body and the other the incident with Enoch. Both of those stories can not be found in the Bible. That shows that at that time things were a bit fluid and since there wasn't any canon established yet, people were reading all sort of religious books. That is why those Apocrypha were included in the Septuagint which means that they were read by Jews at that time. A lot later both Christians and Jews canonised their scriptures.
I agree with your application of 2 Timothy 3:16 and your use of the term "God breathed," as the phrase "inspiration of God" is one Greek word that means God breathed. This would include scripture that was in existence prior to 1611. I also agree that defining the word infallible is helpful.
I do not believe that any bible translation is infallible, including the KJV. In order to claim infallibility of any translation, we would also have to believe that the men involved in the translation process of whatever bible we choose to read were themselves infallible. No man (Christ being the exception) has ever been, or ever will be infallible, therefore, whatever translation put forth by man cannot be an infallible translation. The KJB translators never claimed infallibility for themselves nor their translation.
I'll probably take some heat from some on this forum for disagreeing with the infallibility of our English bible (all versions included), but first let me say that I am in no way discrediting the KJB. The KJB is my bible of choice when I study, not because I believe it is perfect, but because I believe it to be (one) of the better translations available.
There are other translations that can be trusted, although none are perfect. In order to make such a claim, one would have to take whatever version they choose, do a word-by-word comparison with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to confirm the infallibility of the translators. Other than that, we have to go off blind faith to claim infallibility of any version. I am not a King James Only believer and I would never judge another believer on what bible they choose to read or what church they attend. That is between them and the Lord. Richard, thank you so much for the things you share. You are a blessing to many, I'm sure. God Bless!!!
We need to keep in mind what John said at the end of the Gospels about if everything Christ did was written down all the books in the world couldn't contain it ( John 21:25). There is no reason to believe that more texts or true anecdotes about the Lord are out there and may be found at some point. We see the same principle in the fact that certain things are written in only one Gospel; others in all and most in one or two others. We need to realize that nothing is contradictory unless God changed things Himself (such as going from the old to new covenant eliminating; for instance ceremonial dietary laws). We see full explanations; for instance on divorce in Matthew 5 and 19 which are known as the "exception clause" as opposed to Luke and Mark where this "except for fornication" is not listed as reason for divorce and remarriage being constituted as adultery. Again; when we see apparent contradictions (such as the apparent error in numbers killed in some of the accounts of wars in books such as Chronicles and Kings (and apparently in the census from 2 Samuel as compared to 1 Chronicles) further examination usually clears up details. Again much of this may come from issues of later translations (copies of copies) which continued for several centuries before today's versions.
Also we need to see that even Paul in Mars hill used secular writings to describe the "unknown god" and also Cretian writings later on in Acts that described (in no flattering terms) the manner of behavior known about Cretians to hammer home that their own writings summed up correctly their beastly behavior that needed to be mended among brethren confessing Christ who wished to be in leadership. This confirms the factual content being the inspired Word of God just as the account of Satan and all the sins of the Patriarchs and saints. We wouldn't want to emulate them but it is there as 2 Timothy 3:16 states to instruct us in righteousness and scripture is sufficient.
In light of my earlier commentary I would like to add that as with the Torah; I would assume similar rules applied at first to the ORIGINAL copies made to the original manuscripts in the New Testament as well. We can't be entirely certain that the first copies we have CURRENTLY in our possession had such stringent rules as to translation; but also that doctrinally we don't need to concern ourselves with error. We see a consistency with the story of the woman caught in adultery; for instance with the rest of scripture.
We don't see that with the Apocrypha which doesn't contain specific statements from God Himself; and more importantly has doctrines opposed to the rest of scripture such as necromancy in Maccabees (despite what seems a highly accurate account of the events in Israel at that time with the rebellion of the Jews against Antiochus Epiphanes. So we CAN say if it says "thus saith the Lord" that His commands ARE all accurate in the Bible itself. There are many historical facts which also can be relied on and help to make sense of obscure passages or names of cities that have more than one spelling and in fact can be found in a different location than assumed. In other words the Bible proves to us that the Archaeology will be found; and original concepts in that field changed to conform to scripture; never the other way around.
Anyway; what I am saying is that any supernatural information the Lord had for us has been preserved in that sense it is the 100 percent inspired Word of God even in copies of manuscripts today. We need to understand that in English the original Greek in particular can have MORE than one meaning in descriptive language; so we cannot translate word for word without confusion but we also need to be cautious not to do violence to the text to make it more readable. Word patterns are different without vowels in many cases; but also chapter and verse numbers added and the Bible is not in Chronological order.
God Bless :)
ANGEL: A typically benevolent celestial being that acts as an intermediary between heaven and earth, especially in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Zoroastrianism.
EAGLE: Any of a number of large, strong, flesh-eating accipitrine (raptor) birds of prey noted for their sharp vision and powerful wings, as the bald eagle. REALLY!
I don't mean to be decisive on this site but I must put forward the truth and speak against the false that may be presented.
here.
God Bless :)
REALLY!
circles " I'm sorry I guess I put to much into this and misunderstood your meaning. I apologize. God Bless :)
Apparently; from my limited knowledge on the subject King James actually wasn't a very big fan of the Bible but allowed for what is a decent translation. I believe from what I heard that the Apocrypha was in some of the original editions. Clearly; there were earlier editions such as the Geneva Bible from the 1500's and the Tyndale (whose author was murdered apparently).
The Catholic Bible apparently was written about the same time period (I am not sure of all the accuracy or lack thereof of the Douay Rheims) except to say there appear to be some doctrinal issues and of course the Apocrypha which IS not inspired text is included. It should be noted that even Catholic commentators will admit this fact; but also justify the bizarre additions to such books as Daniel with a wild story about dragons and such after chapter 12.
I would even state that ANY version of the Bible even copies of manuscripts are not guaranteed 100 percent the inspired Word of God as it was in the ORIGINAL manuscripts which WERE 100 percent accurate. What I am saying here is that there are different COPIES of manuscripts; some of which may have sections added or missing (such as part of the text about the woman caught in adultery at the end of John 7 and beginning of John 8). Since we only have copies of the original text this happens on occasion as well as details about the number of people killed in certain battles; for instance. That being said there is no reason to suspect that anything is false in these different manuscripts and these are mainly trivial issues.
When we can find cross references which we do in almost all scripture we can be certain that the meanings of the original writings are preserved. In the original TORAH every LETTER had to be the same in a new copy.
I'm still wondering what your purpose is for using corrupt versions? To me, if you use them, you trust them to be accurate, even if what they say is different from what God's translation says. I thought this was a KJB only discussion forum. I thought, which I guess I was wrong, that using other versions was frowned upon and discouraged. Very naive of me. It's discouraging, but I'll just have to look up any verses used without a link to that verse to be sure it's the KJB which is good for me. Sometimes I can tell but not always.
God Bless :)
I shall only explain the point you make, "I'm still wondering what your purpose is for using corrupt versions? To me, if you use them, you trust them to be accurate, even if what they say is different from what God's translation says," All scripture is God breathed. The writers in Greek themselves were not handling classic Greek that one may expect from Plato or any other masters. "The New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean" areas. God could make it work because it is the Spirit that intercedes "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God,"as St Paul eloquently explains in this vv.27-28. Not only with prayers but also in grasping the word of God. So truth written in our inward parts must help to go beyond the literal.Those who are the hard nuts who would rather win what they believe and not believe that they are 'the called according to his purpose' They fail because their ear of faith is shut out.
The parable of the rich fool Luke 12:13-21 in any version can only mean one thing. KJV is not saving any because it is accurate and others are corrupt. Hypocrisy of the Pharisee was in their insistence on the outward appearances. They did not enter therein to believe the doctrine of Jesus. "God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God." we ought to look at the word of God beyond Sabbath and such like baggage, in the light of our Savior. May God help you to the truth.
What is vapor? I meant in the sense James asks,"Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away."(Jas.4:14) As for NKJB It is simply that I cut and pasted from a Bible Dictionary that I have been compiling. I have helped my self with verses, great many NIV NKJB and several others. I would rather go by the spirit of the sense than King's James version save me. Find you fault with it? I did not mean to offend anyone. God forbid!
AMERICIAN HERTIGAGE DICTIONARY
VANITY:
Excessive pride in one's appearance or accomplishments; conceit. synonym: conceit.
Something about which one is vain or conceited.
Worthlessness, pointlessness, or futility.
VAPOR:
To engage in idle, boastful talk.
These words are not interchangeable other then diluting the meaning of vanity to just a simply way of speaking with pride. Obviously the true scripture is wise in using vanity for it's meaning.
I thought this was a KJB discussion group only? Why would you chose to use a false doctrine translation of God's Word even if a verse happens to quote the same way, which this one doesn't, it's still a worldly version written by men?
God Bless :)
Just a thought. Vanity as used by the preacher the meaninglessness of life without Christ is what quote from the Psalm 62 I intended to make a point.
Leaving it aside consider it now according to the context. "Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity."In other words "The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of them all."(Pr.22:2) vanity referred there is the manner rich treats the poor shabbily because they have the means. Vanity of riches fund their oppression. The following verses make it clear. "Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart upon them./God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God." The so-called money power to buy judges when the rich are called before the law" is what it refers. Both rich and poor when they hit the dust we have the 'vanity' as used by the preacher.
The whole point of my post was on the topic of 'degree' not scholarly degree, please not Momsage but the degree the sun casts on the face of a sundial.
Understand from the above-mentioned quote why 'God has spoken once; twice have I heard?" Doctrine of God is heard by ear of faith by every heart it is to which the Psalmist refers. You and I must hear well before we judge.
With joy and peace,
I'm such a dizi. LOL
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?