Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word of God.

Jason0047 said:

But how can they truly know a dead language?

Is it not possible they may be in error?

They are human after all.

They technically are not writing for God but making educated guesses on a dead language.

Click to expand...

As they would in any specialist academic field - by studying. They have studied hundreds of thousands of ancient Greek documents over their cumulative lifetimes and have become thoroughly acquainted with the language, it's vocabulary and its grammar.

Jason0047 said:

The Bible has homonyms in it and there are strange rules of grammar and spelling even in English. How can they know about such things in another language that is dead unless they experienced it personally by being in that time period? It is madness that can claim to know such things.

Click to expand...

But we are not talking about homonyms. We are talking about the same word, ἐγείρω (to raise), in different voices. You, without any justification, are claiming the active and passive voice of the word have the same spelling. But the lexicons plainly tell us otherwise. They say that ἐγερθέντι is the passive voice, and ἐγεῖραι is the active voice. Are they wrong? And if so where is your evidence they are wrong?

Jason0047 said:

They can help us to point out the same occurrences of words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Any joe can see the repeat occurrences of the original words and tie that in with our English translations. What they cannot do is say this word means this or that without the English. What they cannot do is claim to know the grammar, spelling, homonyms, etc. The only way they can truly know a dead language is if they had a time machine.

Click to expand...

Seriously, my friend? Have you not seen entries from Strong's or Thayer's Greek lexicon? (I know you have because you have quoted them yourself to prove the meaning of a word). That is exactly what a lexicon is. An catalogue of a language's word meanings and grammar.

Jason0047 said:

This is pretty basic to see in the Bible, friend. Even Gotquestions believes all three persons of the Trinity were involved in the resurrection of Jesus. You can check out the article.

Who resurrected Jesus?

Click to expand...

Right. So why is saying God raised Christ in 2 Cor 5:15, any worse than all the other verses that say God raised Christ?

Jason0047 said:

How do we know these minor errors do not effect core doctrines? If there is even the tiniest error in it, what makes you trust the rest of the Bible as being error free? Do you have a device that is like an error detector for the Scriptures?

Click to expand...

Because there is no dispute over the other 95% of the translation which covers all core doctrines. The translations agree.

Jason0047 said:

Logic dictates that God is perfect and everything He does is perfect. How do we get faith in God? By the Bible. If the Bible is flawed in some way, then the whole thing is flawed and corrupted. The Bible is either all true or it is not. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. But if the Word is full of errors, what does that say about our faith?

Click to expand...

I never said God's word is imperfect, I said man's translations of God's word are imperfect - all of them to some degree. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat that.

Jason0047 said:

Do you just blindly believe scholars in what they say every time? Think man. Look at the verses for yourself. Does the removal of these verses look like it was done for a good reason or for a bad reason? A good criminal detective is good because he looks at the evidence of the scene and not just because he follows what others say.

Click to expand...

The words haven't been removed. They didn't exist in the original Greek in the first place. As the Wikipedia page you quoted says, they are additions.

Anyway I'm now off to bed so I will bid you goodnight.

Jason0047 said:

So let me get this straight. You don't believe there is any perfect Bible in existence for our generation today? That all Bibles have errors of some kind? So if there is an error in a Bible, who gets to decide what are errors and what are not errors?

Click to expand...

There is no Bible translation that is 100% perfect, contains all new information discovered in manuscripts that were discovered after it was written and uses all the meanings of words that ever have been, or will be. Even if you were to discount all this, the spelling of words may be different in different countries. To me, "color", "favor", "honor" and so on, are spelt incorrectly - a child might say they were mistakes. Yet an American might consider "honour" to be spelt wrongly.
None of this means to say that God's word spoken through the prophets - "this is what the Lord says" - through the apostles and through Jesus, THE Word of God, is imperfect.

There have to be revisions of the Bible from time to time. People have discovered more manuscripts, but even if they hadn't, language changes all the time.
When I was a teenager "gay" meant "happy" - but nowadays the sentence "he was gay" would lead most people to believe he was a homosexual. When I was younger, the word "wicked" meant "very bad" or "evil". It doesn't mean that to teenagers these days; tell a teenager they are wicked and they would doubtless see that as a compliment. Similarly "sick", "cool", "hot" etc etc.
I am pretty sure you are intelligent enough to know that this is the case. You even admit that you use newer versions of the Bible (which you have labelled "garbage") to help you with the language of the KJV.
When the NT was written it was in Koine Greek; the language of the people, street language. Apart from maybe a very few people, no one speaks today the way the the KJV is written - "I beseech thee that thou passeth me the salt"; "I wouldst care to know if thou wisheth to partake of coffee".
I am pretty sure that you realise, know and understand this too. So why the reluctance to admit that God's Holy word may be put into a form of English that people can read and understand - and one that makes use of new discoveries and scholarship?

Jason0047 said:

So let me get this straight. You don't believe there is any perfect Bible in existence for our generation today? That all Bibles have errors of some kind? So if there is an error in a Bible, who gets to decide what are errors and what are not errors?

Click to expand...

There is no perfect TRANSLATION of God's word.

To read the absolutely perfect, flawless, grammatically correct version of God's word, you'd have to read it in the original Greek or Hebrew - which did not have any grammar, chapter or verse divisions or passage headings, such as "Jesus goes to Jerusalem". ALL of the latter were added, by humans, to make the Bible easier to read and learn.

If you had a whole page of words in any language, how would you know where to put commas, full stops, new paragraphs and so on? If you copied it out, inserting punctuation where it seemed right to you, and someone else wrote it out inserting punctuation where it seemed right to them - how would you know which was correct? Human nature leads us to believe that WE are always right and what WE do/say/think/believe is correct - but how would anyone else know? Even different punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence.
Try it.

Jason0047 said:

How do you know it is an undisputable fact of the Greek language? The biblical Greek is a dead language and it is not the same as Modern Greek. We cannot make assumptions that we know a dead language today.

Click to expand...

So why do you, then?
Why is it that the experts you quote - in the form of Youtbe clips and books - are correct, but when anyone else talks about experts, you pour scorn and question if we can trust them?

afishamongmany said:

We need to give proper weight to Revelations 22:18,19. The Bible is not an "If I were to write" book. The Bible is wounderous.
Go well
><>

Click to expand...

Yes it is.
But that doesn't mean that every translation/revision made by man will be perfect. There can be minor mistakes in grammar, spelling and so on without changing the truth of God's word and the Gospel.

swordsman1 said:

Sorry, I don't buy the idea that the poorer climate in the Eastern Mediterranean destroyed all the early copies. If that was the case you would expect the earliest Byzantine texts from that area to be in very poor shape, and improve the younger they are. But that is not the case. The earliest pure Byzantine manuscripts that suddenly started appearing in the 8th and 9th century are in good condition. Eg
Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12 - Wikipedia
So the early Christians threw away the early Byzantine manuscripts because they regarded them as defective, hence we have no surviving copies? Well if that was the case they may certainly have been right in their judgement! But I think a more likely explanation is that the new wordings were only introduced at a later date.

Click to expand...

"So the early Christians threw away the early Byzantine manuscripts because they regarded them as defective, hence we have no surviving copies?"
No swordsman, you've not taken the time or given concentration to what this quote is saying.

afishamongmany said:

C.H. Roberts comments upon a practice of early Christians that would have had a similar effect.
It was a Jewish habit both to preserve manuscripts by placing them in jars . . . and also to dispose of defective, worn-out, or heretical scriptures by burying them near a cemetery, not to preserve them but because anything that might contain the name of God might not be destroyed. . . . It certainly looks as if this institution of a morgue for sacred but unwanted manuscripts was taken over from Judaism by the early Church.
Note that the effect of this practice in any but an arid climate would be the decomposition of the MSS. If
"Byzantine" exemplars, worn out through use, were disposed of in this way (as seems likely), they would
certainly perish. All of this reduces our chances of finding really ancient "Byzantine" MSS. Nor is that all.

Click to expand...

- my under-linings
Yes, those early Christians (and later ones) who had respect and reverence for God's written word would have weeded out and declared unacceptable, bad copy. But also damaged, worn out, good copy would not have been just left lying around or deliberately preserved after their usefulness had come to an end.

In his thesis Pickering gives sound, scholarly arguments (based on detailed and extensive research) for the probable early history of the transmission of and acceptance of a greek text by those early Christians. You 'don't buy' what he has put on the table, fine, your prerogative. My concern is that you haven't given the time and concentration needed to understand what it is he has put on the table.
Go well
><>