I believe that God preserves a "Holy" Bible and there are many un holy bibles.. I would think that the KJV would be the "Holy" Bible while versions like the NIV and NLT are unholy. When I say unholy I mean not sinful necessarily just not the "Holy" Bible. I think if we didn't have a Holy Bible then God's word would have passed away. And we have assurance that "none of these prophecies will pass away."
um, you're making a claim for the veracity of one variant of a text based on words that occur in ALL texts? that makes very little sense.
the bald fact is that all translations, of everything -- not just the bible -- have errors, mistranslations, ambiguities, insertions, and deletions, to one degree or another. the KJV is not immune to this; nothing is. it's patently false to hold the position that the KJV-Only crowd does, that this is some final, perfect rendition of the original autographs (which don't exist so we can't compare). Tyndale et al were criticized in the exact same terms that some current people criticize newer translations such as the NIV, and they made copious notations and scholarly recommendations regarding alternate translations, their own lack of knowledge, and warned, specifically, that the kind of dogmatic book workship that goes on today should be avoided.
and really, if you somehow do believe that the original word of god was inviolable and protected, your bibles should be, in various points, in aramaic, koine greek, and perhaps other tongues. i believe the admonishment was to change not one single letter right? well, last i checked, English doesn't contain a single yod or gimel.
One of the things that has become evident from archaeological digs is that the hebrew OT was fluid until codified in the 1st century AD. Qumran itself has proven this beyond a doubt -- while there is much consistency between those records, and later versions, as one would expect considering the concern with accuracy in transcription, there is much that is
not so consistent with other texts.
the very variety between all different texts, different bibles with different books, at different times, in different places, is proof positive that there is no such thing as biblical inerrancy or consistency. and anyone who responds, "Well the KJV is the only
true bible" is ignorant of the history concerning it (such as the Wicked Bible) and is only fooling themselves.
errors happen. differences of opinion occur. if you are going to believe, believe the message, and don't focus on the method of transmission, otherwise the message gets lost.
focusing on single bible verses, or even groups of verses, as justification for belief structures, dogma, etc. -- this is a trap. it's putting the cart before the horse, in an incredibly arrogant and self-defeating way, as when this is done, it becomes an exclusive focus on the words of the text, rather than it's meaning, and leads to serious cognitive issues and logical impossibilities, such as the extreme denial of reality seen so often in american fundamentalist congregations.
case in point: snake handlers. based on just a few words, in a single verse, these guys have decided that playing with poisonous snakes is something they should be doing, and that god will protect them. it doesn't work that way, people get bitten and die, and it's not because they had too little faith -- evidently they were gullible / faithful enough to trust some guy who said "here play with this cottonmouth" - it's because they have
venom in their veins. the other comedic thing is that many of these types of preachers have disclaimer notices trying to say that they aren't responsible if somebody dies. talk about faith.
yes, it's an extreme example, but that's why it's a good example
