Bible Discussion Thread

The word of God is infallible.

No translation is infallible.

Most of our short comings in the word of God is probably in the area of faulty hermeneutics and a lack of taking in the whole counsel of God's scripture.

If the KJV or any other translation was the only one available there would still be much error.

The error is in man!

.

It's nothing wrong with the seed, It's the ground where the issue often is found.

God's message of any doctrine doesn't hang on one verse.

If you removed John 3:16 from the word of God would you loose It's message?

YOU SHOULDN'T!

Don't doesn't have a problem with a blood tipped ear and eyes that see.

The word and the work of the Holyspirit is infallible

John 3:16 is spreaded broadly throughout the bible.

"FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, We don't solely depend on Jn 3:16 to tell us that!

"THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON,"

We don't solely depend on Jn 3:16 to tell us that!

THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. We don't solely depend on Jn 3:16 to tell us that!

I use the king James Bible however it's not perfect but don't let that get in the way!!

God doesn't have a problem conveying his message.

Balaams donkey didn't have the KJV either.

Study the word of God!

It patches itself up.

God bless.

Just noticed this interesting discussion. I agree with what I'm seeing here and perhaps a little surprised I haven't seen KJV-only opinions.

I personally have seen the "wicked Bible" on display in the British museum in London with my own eyes, which had a word accidentally omitted. I think it said thou shalt commit adultery instead of thou shalt not. They caught it and destroyed all copies they could and I doubt anyone acted on this and lead them to sin. It was not an error of the KJV translators, but by the printer, I believe. But for this reason and others I agree that the Word of God is true and perfect, but humans are fallible and can mess things up. Even well meaning Jesus-followers have the same fallibility. I'm sure people making Bibles today have an occasional printing issue, as all printers have. I've heard of Bibles missing pages before.

People like Joel Osteen talk about "favor" a lot like its some kind of constant privilege, but I think that's a lie. Christians have all kinds of obstacles and challenges even when we are struggling to do good works. People in the Bible did. Even when trying to serve others, or in this case just trying to print a Bible. I think the government even hung the man for that mistake, although in my quick search I could not verify that.

That's a very interesting point Adam,

" thou shalt commit adultery instead of thou shalt not. They caught it and destroyed all copies they could and I doubt anyone acted on this and lead them to sin."

If someone acted on this and use this error for a excuse it wouldn't fly with all the other scriptures stating what Adultery is.

The word of God straightens itself out.

I heard J Vernon mcgee say the word of God is like a lion in a cage.

He don't need anyone to be there to guard him.

Just open the cage and he will take care of himself.

God bless.

"Balaam's donkey didn't have the KJV either." Brother Spencer, that is a rather humorous visual, but good point. God can speak to us with or without the written word. We are blessed to have His spoken word in written form to study from, but if every bible somehow disappeared, God's Spirit will still speak to us in some other way. I'm not sure if you have read the introduction to the 1611 KJB that can be found on this website, but it is a very good read. The translators were not KJB only and never claimed to be infallible, nor their translation to be infallible. There is nothing found in the KJB that states that it is the only bible to be trusted.

I think most of us here read the King James Bible and would agree that it is a very good translation. But it is a translation, and as you say, no translation is infallible! And many would probably agree that there are some corrupt versions out there. But there are also other good translations that can be trusted the same!

God Bless!!!

Amen Brother Jesse.

No, I have never read the introduction to the 1611 KJB but I will do so.

Thanks and God bless!

Jesse, well stated and I agree with all you've stated concerning the KJV and its translators.

It is good to take what is said in the introduction of the KJV and by its translators at face value and agree with what is stated in this introduction concerning the KJV.

GiGi,

Thank you! Something I think we must keep in mind is that the KJV is a translation, meaning the translators had to translate from something. If they were inspired by God to put forth a perfect translation superior to all others, and the only one that should be used and trusted, you would think the translators might have at least hinted to that.

The KJV translators took what was available to them (the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts), and translated those texts into English after being commissioned King James I.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I read the KJV. It is my bible of choice, but I know it is not perfect. I trust the KJV, but there are other English translations that I also trust. If I were to make such a claim about the KJV, how do I back that claim up? I can't, unless I take my English text bible, sit down with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts, and take on the tedious task of doing a word-for-word comparison, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation. Otherwise, I can only make such a claim off blind faith, trusting that the translators made no errors.

If one claims that the KJV is infallible and without error, and that all other versions are corrupt, what is their standard in making such a claim? Is the KJV the standard? A KJV Onlyist might say yes. But then the burden of proof must be on them to prove that the translators were infallible, incapable of making any errors in their translation of the texts they had available.

If there are differences between the KJB translation, and the original languages and texts, are we to trust the original texts, or are we to believe that the KJV is correct, and the Hebrew and Greek are wrong?

Just a thought!

Jesse,

I think that one fault (among many) of the King James Onlyism movement is an approach to Scripture inerrancy that is Anglo-centric, as if God only intended those who speak and understand English are to read a Bible in 16th century English that is the ONLY true, errorless, and God-inspired Bible. But there are millions and millions of Christians who read and understand and learn from Bibles written in their own native tongue or one they have learned such as Greek. If the language of Europe and the U.S. were Greek only, would the Bible translation that is Greek be uninspired and full of errors? I think not. In fact I think a Greek translation is probably even more accurate than and English one.

God chose to send His Son at a time when Greek was the international language of the day and Aramaic was the common language of the people in Israel. The Scribes and Teachers were the ones who read and studied the Torah in Hebrew,

for the most part. Most Jews of that time needed to go to the synagogue to hear the Torah be read to them. Did they not hear the true word of God at that time, as the scrolls read in the synagogues were copies of copies of copies of the original writings.

Anyone who make the claims often stated by King James Onlyists are speaking not from facts, nor from the viewpoint of the original translators, but from a rather recently-emerged movement of a very small minority of believers.

But people will fall for any teaching that is unfounded if they are not careful and diligent and I think that this may be the case for the King James Onlyists. This site is a KJV site but not a King James Only site. It is not a part of this movement. It is a site that offers the KJV to readers along with many helps and a wonderful discussion forum, but nowhere does it say that it adheres to King James Onlyism. Those who insist that this site is to be so are speaking in error concerning this site.

I appreciate that you have spoken well on this topic Jesse.

Hi GiGi

My opinion about translations.

I mainly use a greek Bible that was written in the 1850's. The greek in that Bible is quite close to the greek spoken in Jesus' times. It is generally considered very accurate.but a bit difficult to understand some times. So I have to look some things up in other modern greek Bibles for clarification. I wouldn't use the word "translation" for that Bible, it is a modern version of the ancient grk. But still it is not perfect. I don't think that any translation can be perfect. Just some translations are more accurate than others. As we have discussed that topic before a translator can have two options. They can translate word for a word which can sometimes lead to not understandable texts since different languages use different expressions for the same things and so something which is clear say in Engl. may not make any sense in grk or translate in a free manner (if that is a right expression). In this latter case the translator often has to find out first what the author tries to say and then say it in understandable English.In the NT Paul is a person with a very complicated way of thinking and sometimes it is difficult to understand what he wants to say.

But I think that all famous translations old and new have taken into account other translations older and newer as well as the knowledge of numerous scholars and theologians. So they have done that job for us. So I wouldn't really care which translation I use as far as it is a known and acceptable version. I could also use more than one, why not?

Now about what people here say about "an inspired" translation . Definitely God helps people who have the task of propagating His Word in every nation and language. But inspired? I can not answer to that.

But I would also like to discuss with you lot what "inspired" means. Because many people believe that "God inspired" means "God written" or "God dictated" which is absolutely wrong. But I will go through that during the weekend.

GBU

Thanks Giannis, I was thinking of you when I was writing my posts to Jesse, knowing you most likely read from a Greek Bible since that is your native language.

I concur with what you are saying here. I am definitely not a King James Onlyist. I look forward to what you present in your next reply.

From what I understand: infallible not only means without error, but also unable to error. God-inspired means that God led the writers by his Spirit in their writings, but the writings were the words chosen by the writers rather than words dictated to them by the Spirit. I see it this way because of the many places where in the word that reflect a view of the world, the heavens, and space reflects the common view man had at that time in history whereas now we have learned more about these topics through scientific investigation, such as the earth going around the sun rather than the Bible writers view that the sun went around the earth; the makeup of outer space that we know now and the view of what lie beyond our "sky" of the Bible writers, for example.

Jesse,

Again, well stated.

The original manuscripts were written in perhaps, proto-Hebrew by Moses or the Hebrew that the Jews knew going into captivity, Aramaic, and Greek. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Torah. Most of the people of the time of the writing of the original writings would have understood what was being said in these languages as they were either their mother tongue or a learned language. In the time that the KJV, and other protestant translations were made, the Latin Vulgate was the common Bible used in the church up until the Reformation when Luther and Calvin translated the Latin Bible into their native tongues. Some in England also translated what manuscripts that were available at that time into an English version that was written in the English of that time period. Very few people in England in the early 1600's spoke nor understood Hebrew or Greek or even Latin. There was not a great amount of literature available to be read by common folk at that time in most instances anyway.

And today, very few of us in English speaking countries can read or speak Greek or Hebrew. So how can any of us know for certain if the translators did their work accurately as compared to the manuscripts that were available at the time of the translation.

If most of the people of the U.S. and Europe spoke Greek, we would have a Greek translation made in the early 1600's. Would King James Only folks say that such a Greek translation was accurate, infallible, and re-inspired like they do with the English translation of the KJV? The Greek translation would be even more accurate to those who can read and understand Greek!

There are millions upon millions of non-English speaking Christians who read the Bible in their own language or one they can read and understand that is not English. Are they learning from corrupt versions because they are not the KJV in English? I think not!