If there is no perfect Bible, then what makes me trust some words over others? Who gets to decide what is true and what is false?
There is a perfect Bible. But it's not written in English.
Upvote
0
If there is no perfect Bible, then what makes me trust some words over others? Who gets to decide what is true and what is false?
That's the corner they paint themselves into. There's no single source text that matches the KJV, it's an amalgam of different sources.I find it amusing that there's folks out there who actually believe it's (King Jimmy's Version) perfect. I've even heard some whackadoodles insist that the KJV actually corrects the manuscripts used for its translation.
Ecclesia is usually translated into English as "Church."The Church are the Ecclesia (called out ones)...Abraham is a member; one reason why the "Old Testament" is the Bible (the Writings). All those in Hebrews 11 (the "Faith" chapter) are the Church as well, which is why we have their stories in our Bibles. The Bible is the work of Elohim, through men...men filled with the Ruach ha Kodesh...The Holy Breath of Yah, just like the Scriptures testify--they are "God-Breathed".
Yep. And I suspect a great many of them have never read the KJV translators' notes to the reader. That alone puts the "KJV is perfect" argument to rest.That's the corner they paint themselves into. There's no single source text that matches the KJV, it's an amalgam of different sources.
If God wants something to be unclear, then it can be both unclear and perfect. In that case, any unclarity in the KJV would be exactly as it should be. Any "improvement" to make it more clear would actually be something of a corruption if God intended for it to be unclear.
So let me ask again, could the KJV as an English translation ever be improved upon in any place?
There is no power on earth or below that can destroy Christ's church.Some in my other thread have begun to argue that the Bible is not strictly necessary. They said that if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed, the church would still survive. Could the church survive without God's word?
I think this question gets to the heart of the relationship between God's word and God's church. Catholics and EOs are wont to say: "Jesus didn't just leave us a Bible, he left us a church." They also want to say that the Bible and the church have an equal authority and even that the church wrote the Bible! In the Catholic and EO view, it sometimes seems to be the case that it's really the church that is most important, and the Bible is just a book that the church wrote.
But what would the church be without the word of God? Isn't it the word of God that creates and continually recreates the church? Isn't it the word of God that sustains the church? Isn't it the word of God that sanctifies the church and teaches the church?
Without the word of God, the church might still function in some traditional sense. It might go on to ordain bishops, sprinkle babies, lift up crackers to heaven and break them, etc. It might even have an unbroken line of ordination succession that can be traced back to the apostles! But without the word of God, the ministry of the church would not be able to help or save anybody. The church would become a dead institution that is utterly indistinguishable from the world.
Isn't this what happened to Israel in the time of Hosea? Though they were circumcised and had maintained certain Jewish traditions, they had become "Lo-Ammi" - not my people. Without God's word, we are not his people and he is not our God.
There is a perfect Bible. But it's not written in English.
Ecclesia is usually translated into English as "Church."
There is no power on earth or below that can destroy Christ's church.
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The people of God, the Body of Christ.Who are?
The people of God, the Body of Christ.
Yes. The Church (ἡ ἐκκλησία) is the Body of Christ (Col 1:24, Eph 5:23).The Ecclesia?
There is a perfect Bible. But it's not written in English.
Some in my other thread have begun to argue that the Bible is not strictly necessary. They said that if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed, the church would still survive. Could the church survive without God's word?
I think this question gets to the heart of the relationship between God's word and God's church. Catholics and EOs are wont to say: "Jesus didn't just leave us a Bible, he left us a church." They also want to say that the Bible and the church have an equal authority and even that the church wrote the Bible! In the Catholic and EO view, it sometimes seems to be the case that it's really the church that is most important, and the Bible is just a book that the church wrote.
But what would the church be without the word of God? Isn't it the word of God that creates and continually recreates the church? Isn't it the word of God that sustains the church? Isn't it the word of God that sanctifies the church and teaches the church?
Without the word of God, the church might still function in some traditional sense. It might go on to ordain bishops, sprinkle babies, lift up crackers to heaven and break them, etc. It might even have an unbroken line of ordination succession that can be traced back to the apostles! But without the word of God, the ministry of the church would not be able to help or save anybody. The church would become a dead institution that is utterly indistinguishable from the world.
Isn't this what happened to Israel in the time of Hosea? Though they were circumcised and had maintained certain Jewish traditions, they had become "Lo-Ammi" - not my people. Without God's word, we are not his people and he is not our God.
The "Textus Receptus" is the Majority (Byzantine) text.There are two major lines of Greek manuscripts. The Textus Receptus line (Which is where the KJV comes from), and there is the Critical Text (the Greek Text that Westcott and Hort created based on the Majority text) (Which is where all Modern Translations come from).
So you believe the original languages manuscripts are perfect? If so, then the originals are not in existence today. We only have copies. Also, which line of Greek manuscripts are you preferring? There are two major lines of Greek manuscripts. The Textus Receptus line (Which is where the KJV comes from), and there is the Critical Text created by Westcott and Hort who were into the occult. Note: the Greek Text (Critical Text) that Westcott and Hort created was based on the Majority text (This Critical Text is where all Modern Translations come from).
The point here is that there are: Two vines. Two different and distinct modes of communication are being told from these two vines or two lines of manuscripts. One vine waters down the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, holy living, and the blood atonement, etc. The other vine does not do this. One has to side with the right kind of vine. Most who are into the original languages being perfect side with the Critical Text because they believe this was based on superior texts because they were older. But just because something is older does not mean it is better or more superior (unless one has a romanticism with History).
The "Textus Receptus" is the Majority (Byzantine) text.
So you admit -- it's a hodgepodge of different texts, of different ages, coming from different places. Do you think the "Textus Receptus" is perfect?Here is a quote from an article at Gotquestions.
"The King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text, but there are in fact hundreds of differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus."
Source:
What is the Majority Text?
Here is a quote from Bible Researcher:
"The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516. They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text. The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text. They agree with one another much more than either of them agree with the critical Greek texts published by scholars in the past two hundred years. These critical texts are based upon the oldest manuscripts and versions (from the 100's to the 600's), and agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text. And so it is appropriate to say that the texts in question fall into two groups: (1) The kind of text found in the majority of medieval manuscripts (often called the Byzantine text-type); and (2) the ancient type of text which is exhibited in our oldest available manuscripts (often called the "Alexandrian" text-type). I personaly do not put much store by the terms "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian," because I think that these terms are prejudicial. They imply that the texts are local products of Byzantium or Alexandria, and this cannot be proven in either case."
Source:
What about the Majority Text?
I have heard Chick Publications make the claim that the KJV is from the Majority Text, but I do not believe everything they say (even though I accepted Christ via a tract called "This Was Your Life."). I believe Chick Publications has such an inflated opinion of the KJV, they merely decided to rename previously used terms to their own liking.