Changing the Bible

[Christ4Ever]

If the Spirit was at work during the initial translation from Greek-Hebrew to one's native language, why would He change any single understanding later?
I use the bible to verify the discovery, and not the discovery to verify the bible.
I can see that new discoveries can and should be compared to what we already know, but I feel that if they are truly of God there will be no discrepancies.
If there are, I can't consider them "of God".
When I look at a new version of the bible, the first verses I check are 2 Tim 16-17.
If the new version changes the word "perfect," I know it is not of God.

Why? Maybe because we are a thick obstinate people who are extremely prideful?

The question you ask, can be asked of a very many things that has the fingerprint of God. Why God does what He does? The unbeliever thinks in this fashion and it is what stops many of them at times from taking the next step leading to Salvation. Sad, really.

You ever ask yourself, why God did not ensure the original autographs survived and left us to use at times small pieces of manuscripts to use in order to translate from? He could have ensured their survival you know.

Hold it...........A thought came to me just now. Do you believe that those who put the KJV to paper did not use manuscripts to translate from, but were inspired as the original writers were and had no need for them????

This might be the only reason that you won't otherwise be using the standard of your own words......using the original manuscripts to verify the Bible you are holding and not the other way around. Then again, maybe you are, but haven't said so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before continuing on in this discussion, I'd like to advise you to not read into what I have written to satisfy what you believe to be true. I will endeavor to do the same for you. Conjecture is fine, and I'll correct you as needed, and I would expect no less from you. Which considering my last two comments above that I made. I'll be hearing from you

Always with the Love of Christ Jesus Brother.
YBIC
Nick
<><

 

[B-A-C]

Hold it...........A thought came to me just now. Do you believe that those who put the KJV to paper did not use manuscripts to translate from, but were inspired as the original writers were and had no need for them????

I won't presume to answer for AtPeace here, but you bring up an interesting point.
God used the prophets and apostles to write the Bible into.. (Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek..etc...)
They were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write certain things.

Now in the 15th century people started translating the Bible into a number of different languages... German first I believe.
Eventually we got the King James (authorized ) version. And a few others... This was a painstakingly slow process. From a few articles I've read,
I gather many of the "copiers" couldn't even read what they were copying... simply copying letters and shapes they didn't understand.

Eventually we got the Guttenberg and the printing press...

But now in the 20th century... we have many translations... the NIV, CSV, ESV, KJV, MKJV, NKJV, NASB, NLT, AMP, and well as paraphrased Bible... "The Message", etc...
Not to mention the "un"Bibles... WatchTower, Book of Mormon, etc...

Some of those Bible were simply "transposed" from the King James. But many of them were copied from the original (Greek/Hebrew) manuscripts.
There are couple of 5th century and 7th century Bible still in existence.

So back to your question... are today's translations are less "inspired" by the Holy Spirit than....
1. The original prophets and apostles.
2. The original translations... (i.e. the Septuagint, etc..)
3. The first "modern language" translations... Guttenberg, King James, etc...
4. The contemporary modern day translations.

Now your answer might be... it's different for different translations (perhaps that is the case) but even if that is the case... are there no valid verses
of modern day Bibles available to us? If that is the case, what does the common man base his theology on?

 

[B-A-C]

An old acquaintance of mine works for the Wycliffe foundation. There is a country that even today does not have a written language.
Only a spoken language, but there is no way to write it down. So how do you create a Bible for a culture that has no written language?

They are in the process of creating a written language for these people. This is a predominately Muslim country where Christians are persecuted.
So, for now... this is somewhat under the guise of "education". But once the written language is developed enough, the plan is to translate a Bible
into their language. Now of course you might ask... which Bible? From What Language? Which interpretation? I don't know the answer to any of
those questions, perhaps it hasn't even been determined yet. But this is being done by "mere men" like you and me that have no claim to being
prophets or apostles. But is it still possible... the Holy Spirit is guiding these men in what to write down?

 

[B-A-C]

Now there are people who believe things like "God is sovereign over my salvation. I myself don't really have that much control over it."

But yet some of these same people will say... "The Bible has changed over the years". "The newer translations leave out things".

The ironic thing about that point of view is.. the Bible doesn't say your salvation will stand forever, but it does say "my Word will stand forever".
(1 Pet 1:25; Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; etc..)

If God has the ability to create the universe, name the stars individually, control the course of comets and rivers, and even control some of our decisions.
I should think His sovereignty over "His Word" would be a simple thing.

 

[Christ4Ever]

So back to your question... are today's translations are less "inspired" by the Holy Spirit than....

Actually for the sake of accuracy. That was not the question I asked. Let's see I believe I asked and don't tell me it means the same thing, because it does not. My question was....

Do you believe that those who put the KJV to paper did not use manuscripts to translate from, but were inspired as the original writers were and had no need for them????

You notice the difference between my question and what you believe my question to be? Hope so. Love you brother, but don't twist my words, into something they were not intended to communicate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and so you don't believe I'm disregarding in total what you have written in that post #22.

They were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write certain things.

I don't just believe they were inspired to write "certain things", but rather to write exactly what God wanted them to write. No more, no less. Which actually fits into your opening verses:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

Otherwise, I am unable to deduce much else from your post #22 relevant to my response to Brother At Peace, in which to reply to. Sorry.

Always with the Love of Christ Jesus Dear Brother.
YBIC
Nick
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

An old acquaintance of mine works for the Wycliffe foundation. There is a country that even today does not have a written language.
Only a spoken language, but there is no way to write it down. So how do you create a Bible for a culture that has no written language?

They are in the process of creating a written language for these people. This is a predominately Muslim country where Christians are persecuted.
So, for now... this is somewhat under the guise of "education". But once the written language is developed enough, the plan is to translate a Bible
into their language. Now of course you might ask... which Bible? From What Language? Which interpretation? I don't know the answer to any of
those questions, perhaps it hasn't even been determined yet. But this is being done by "mere men" like you and me that have no claim to being
prophets or apostles. But is it still possible... the Holy Spirit is guiding these men in what to write down?

What an awesome project! Thank-you brother for sharing this! We can become so oblivious in our own riches that we don't always realize the fact that not everyone has access to a Bible, much less in the language of their origin.

Truly an endeavor that deserves our prayers and support! The enemy especially in a country that they seem to already have control of, will not be disposed kindly on these men/women who are so involved.

Not knowing how they intend to proceed, but sure that it will be in prayer, seeking Holy Spirit guidance. I'm sure it will be a success!

But this is being done by "mere men" like you and me that have no claim to being
prophets or apostles. But is it still possible... the Holy Spirit is guiding these men in what to write down?

More than possible!!! A necessity! My hope and prayers are that some of these men/women will be of the people of this nation! Oh, this endeavor will take years! Take a look at this chart on parts of a language!

I'm sure this doesn't even touch the tip of the iceberg on the complexity involved!

Sorry for the divergence, but to finish off answering your question. The context of what results should not be any different from what they use as the source document.

Once again I thank-you for sharing this story! Alleluia!
Always with the Love of Christ Jesus Dear Brother!
YBIC
Nick
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

Now there are people who believe things like "God is sovereign over my salvation. I myself don't really have that much control over it."

But yet some of these same people will say... "The Bible has changed over the years". "The newer translations leave out things".

The ironic thing about that point of view is.. the Bible doesn't say your salvation will stand forever, but it does say "my Word will stand forever".
(1 Pet 1:25; Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; etc..)

If God has the ability to create the universe, name the stars individually, control the course of comets and rivers, and even control some of our decisions.
I should think His sovereignty over "His Word" would be a simple thing.

I think I touched on this in my post to Brother At Peace Post #21. However, I'll quote the pertinent part, so you don't have to go looking. Remember this is directed to Brother At Peace, and a post of his.

Why? Maybe because we are a thick obstinate people who are extremely prideful?

The question you ask, can be asked of a very many things that has the fingerprint of God. Why God does what He does? The unbeliever thinks in this fashion and it is what stops many of them at times from taking the next step leading to Salvation. Sad, really.

You ever ask yourself, why God did not ensure the original autographs survived and left us to use at times small pieces of manuscripts to use in order to translate from? He could have ensured their survival you know.

Only God knows the answers to some of the questions we have, and in truth if our trust is in Him and not man, we'll be in really, really, really...I'm sure you know what I mean.

With the Love of Christ Jesus Dear Brother.
YBIC
Nick
<><

 

[At Peace]

Why? (why would He change any single understanding later?) Maybe because we are a thick obstinate people who are extremely prideful?

The meanings and intents of scripture don't change.
Do you think the people have changed and require another "interpretation of scripture?
I don't.

The question you ask, ( why would He change any single understanding later?) can be asked of a very many things that has the fingerprint of God. Why God does what He does? The unbeliever thinks in this fashion and it is what stops many of them at times from taking the next step leading to Salvation. Sad, really.

What else can you name that has changed, relative to God's...ideals?

You ever ask yourself, why God did not ensure the original autographs survived and left us to use at times small pieces of manuscripts to use in order to translate from? He could have ensured their survival you know.

You will have to site something "created" by man to fill in the blanks.
I believe every word HAS been saved from the beginning.

Hold it...........A thought came to me just now. Do you believe that those who put the KJV to paper did not use manuscripts to translate from, but were inspired as the original writers were and had no need for them????

I think they did use manuscripts from long ago.
I think God saved them from destruction for our benefit.

This might be the only reason that you won't otherwise be using the standard of your own words......using the original manuscripts to verify the Bible you are holding and not the other way around. Then again, maybe you are, but haven't said so.

I don't think we would have a KJV of the bible without those manuscripts.
But why have later versions of the bible used the same manuscripts to arrive at a different conclusion than the original interpreters?
I know that new writings appear all the time, like new gospels by Mary and Thomas, but they are discredited.
I feel that God controlled both the interpretation and availability of what was used in the KJV of the bible.

Before continuing on in this discussion, I'd like to advise you to not read into what I have written to satisfy what you believe to be true. I will endeavor to do the same for you. Conjecture is fine, and I'll correct you as needed, and I would expect no less from you. Which considering my last two comments above that I made. I'll be hearing from you

Always with the Love of Christ Jesus Brother.
YBIC
Nick<><

OK fine.

 

[At Peace]

If that is the case, what does the common man base his theology on?

It should be "love God above all else and your neighbor as yourself".
If the new versions counter anything from the KJV regarding love, they should automatically be dismissed.
A little leaven leaveneth the whole bunch.

 

[At Peace]

An old acquaintance of mine works for the Wycliffe foundation. There is a country that even today does not have a written language.
Only a spoken language, but there is no way to write it down. So how do you create a Bible for a culture that has no written language?

They are in the process of creating a written language for these people. This is a predominately Muslim country where Christians are persecuted.
So, for now... this is somewhat under the guise of "education". But once the written language is developed enough, the plan is to translate a Bible
into their language. Now of course you might ask... which Bible? From What Language? Which interpretation? I don't know the answer to any of
those questions, perhaps it hasn't even been determined yet. But this is being done by "mere men" like you and me that have no claim to being
prophets or apostles. But is it still possible... the Holy Spirit is guiding these men in what to write down?

As "faith cometh by hearing", written words have no bearing on the subject of conversion.
Speak the words of life to them and, as apparently in the past, the worthwhile will be passed on verbally.

 

[At Peace]

Now there are people who believe things like "God is sovereign over my salvation. I myself don't really have that much control over it."

But yet some of these same people will say... "The Bible has changed over the years". "The newer translations leave out things".

The ironic thing about that point of view is.. the Bible doesn't say your salvation will stand forever, but it does say "my Word will stand forever".
(1 Pet 1:25; Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; etc..)

If God has the ability to create the universe, name the stars individually, control the course of comets and rivers, and even control some of our decisions.
I should think His sovereignty over "His Word" would be a simple thing.

Agreed.
The newer versions of scripture will never eclipse the KJV.

 

[Christ4Ever]

The meanings and intents of scripture don't change.
Do you think the people have changed and require another "interpretation of scripture?
I don't.

Between the original autographs, as we well as the language translated into, of course. I do believe there has been changes made, only due to the limitations intrinsically existing when translating from one language to another. English is not kind to the meaning that comes from words originating from another language.

You want me to talk against the KJV, and I won't. However, I also will not say that the KJV is above all the others either. This is not a contest of which one is better, but rather how one can understand what God has wanted us to know from His Word.

The question you ask, ( why would He change any single understanding later?)can be asked of a very many things that has the fingerprint of God. Why God does what He does? The unbeliever thinks in this fashion and it is what stops many of them at times from taking the next step leading to Salvation. Sad, really.

What else can you name that has changed, relative to God's...ideals?

You know of the Covenants and would ask this question and narrow the question further by saying "ideals"? You are an interesting man, I dare say.

I'll wait for you to show me the different contexts between KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV.........please don't repeat 2 Timothy 3:17. Since Tyndale NT used this as well and is one of the sources for the KJV. Reads a little different, but the word that you have issues with as not being in other translations can be found there. "17 yt ye man of god maye be perfect and prepared vnto all good workes."

I would love to continue to pray and digest what you have written, but I can see you waiting so will post this tidbit and continue tomorrow, if my wife allows me the time

With the Love of Christ Jesus Brother.
YBIC
Nick
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

You will have to site something "created" by man to fill in the blanks.
I believe every word HAS been saved from the beginning.

To me there are no blanks to fill. I believe as you do that every word has been saved, just not in the original autographs.

I think they did use manuscripts from long ago.
I think God saved them from destruction for our benefit.

Agreed! Yet, they were not the sole source for the KJV, nor for most if not all other translations into English. Some exceptions.

I don't think we would have a KJV of the bible without those manuscripts.
But why have later versions of the bible used the same manuscripts to arrive at a different conclusion than the original interpreters?
I know that new writings appear all the time, like new gospels by Mary and Thomas, but they are discredited.

Agreed with your opening.

However, the differences might not necessarily be attributed to just the manuscripts, but to the other sources used. As far as "conclusions", you'll have to site some examples, especially as it pertains to what God is saying verses, what we believe it says.

Conclusions, and not verse differences. A verse difference doesn't necessarily change the context of the Chapter, Book, Testament, or Bibles being compared. Unless you look at the NIV, which to me had a man's agenda driven purpose included in its making. Sadly, its probably the most popular of all the English translations. Most however, will be contextually consistent with each other.

So, differences however can easily be found in ones some folks call Bible, but in truth are not. Some are Paraphrases and some as identified by Brother BAC are way out there. But for some of the more critical ones, this should not be the case, i.e. KJV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, YLT, etc.

It's keeping in mind that Bible Translators for the most part were moved by the Holy Spirit. Maybe even those who sponsored the undertaking. Can't say for sure on that part. Excluding of course those that are clearly not, though I'm sure if you were to ask them, they'd probably say they were, i.e. Gay Bible, Ungendered one, etc.

I know that new writings appear all the time, like new gospels by Mary and Thomas, but they are discredited.

The exposing of some new found documents, means that Godly men are paying attention. Does not affirm the position that only the KJV is valid. As mentioned before, the Dead Sea Scrolls were not rejected, but rather embraced, because they confirmed what believers already knew. The manuscripts used to create the Bibles in use, were valid! When needed, any work done by man at the direction of God will be confirmed! Forgeries will be found out and rejected, by the knowledgeable.

I feel that God controlled both the interpretation and availability of what was used in the KJV of the bible.

Others who use the other translations also feel as you do, that the Bible they use was God controlled in both interpretation and sources. I feel that way as well, but just not for one translation. This I believe is where we differ.

Finally got back to this. Thank-you for your patience brother!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><

 

[At Peace]

Between the original autographs, as we well as the language translated into, of course. I do believe there has been changes made, only due to the limitations intrinsically existing when translating from one language to another. English is not kind to the meaning that comes from words originating from another language.

I do agree, but I believe that God is keeping the important things clear to those really interested in serving God.

You want me to talk against the KJV, and I won't. However, I also will not say that the KJV is above all the others either. This is not a contest of which one is better, but rather how one can understand what God has wanted us to know from His Word.

That was never a goal of mine.

You know of the Covenants and would ask this question and narrow the question further by saying "ideals"? You are an interesting man, I dare say.

By "ideals" I mean...love God above all else and your neighbor as yourself.
When "men" change the word "perfect" to "complete" it changes the entire dynamic we are to enjoy with God.
A single word can carry so much weight, relevant to another.

I'll wait for you to show me the different contexts between KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV.........please don't repeat 2 Timothy 3:17. Since Tyndale NT used this as well and is one of the sources for the KJV. Reads a little different, but the word that you have issues with as not being in other translations can be found there. "17 yt ye man of god maye be perfect and prepared vnto all good workes."

As I never use other versions of the bible, "context" is beyond my...scope.
I'm more interested in the changes of single words.
When men say "be complete" do you think of living without sin?
When they say "be perfect" I'll bet you do.

I would love to continue to pray and digest what you have written, but I can see you waiting so will post this tidbit and continue tomorrow, if my wife allows me the time
With the Love of Christ Jesus Brother.
YBIC
Nick
<><

Keep up the fight, in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[At Peace]

To me there are no blanks to fill. I believe as you do that every word has been saved, just not in the original autographs.
Agreed! Yet, they were not the sole source for the KJV, nor for most if not all other translations into English. Some exceptions.
Agreed with your opening.

However, the differences might not necessarily be attributed to just the manuscripts, but to the other sources used. As far as "conclusions", you'll have to site some examples, especially as it pertains to what God is saying verses, what we believe it says.

What other sources have been used?
My prime example is the use of "complete" in lieu of "perfect"
In the original Greek, (Strong's concordance), the word has both meanings, but only "perfect" fits God's bill. (2Tim 3:16-17)
As I have never gotten past that particular "word-verse" in my comparisons, further study was unnecessary.
"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump".

Conclusions, and not verse differences. A verse difference doesn't necessarily change the context of the Chapter, Book, Testament, or Bibles being compared. Unless you look at the NIV, which to me had a man's agenda driven purpose included in its making. Sadly, its probably the most popular of all the English translations. Most however, will be contextually consistent with each other.

To me, any difference from the KJV is authored by those who wish to change God's intents.
That source is unGodly.

So, differences however can easily be found in ones some folks call Bible, but in truth are not. Some are Paraphrases and some as identified by Brother BAC are way out there. But for some of the more critical ones, this should not be the case, i.e. KJV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, YLT, etc.

Do you see the difference in the exhortation to be "perfect" and the one to be "adequate"?
That was a comparison between KJV and NASB (2 Tim 3:16-17)
I think that changes the context a lot.

It's keeping in mind that Bible Translators for the most part were moved by the Holy Spirit. Maybe even those who sponsored the undertaking. Can't say for sure on that part. Excluding of course those that are clearly not, though I'm sure if you were to ask them, they'd probably say they were, i.e. Gay Bible, Ungendered one, etc.

Problem is, those who don't have the Holy Ghost can't tell the difference.

The exposing of some new found documents, means that Godly men are paying attention. Does not affirm the position that only the KJV is valid. As mentioned before, the Dead Sea Scrolls were not rejected, but rather embraced, because they confirmed what believers already knew. The manuscripts used to create the Bibles in use, were valid! When needed, any work done by man at the direction of God will be confirmed! Forgeries will be found out and rejected, by the knowledgeable.

You write..."already knew".
I ask...Knew from which version of the bible?
If their studies are predicated(?) by the NASB or the Gae bible, will they tell us so?

Others who use the other translations also feel as you do, that the Bible they use was God controlled in both interpretation and sources. I feel that way as well, but just not for one translation. This I believe is where we differ.

You have to ask "others" if they commit sin.
If their version is written to tolerate wickedness...it isn't of God.
Almost all sects of false-Christianity have come up with ways to accommodate sin.
Those ways are not in the KJV, but quickly located in the false translations.
Are we to be "perfect"? Or are we to be "adequate"?

Finally got back to this. Thank-you for your patience brother!
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><

Have a good Sunday.

 

[Christ4Ever]

By "ideals" I mean...love God above all else and your neighbor as yourself.
When "men" change the word "perfect" to "complete" it changes the entire dynamic we are to enjoy with God.
A single word can carry so much weight, relevant to another.

As I never use other versions of the bible, "context" is beyond my...scope.
I'm more interested in the changes of single words.
When men say "be complete" do you think of living without sin?
When they say "be perfect" I'll bet you do.

As I never use other versions of the bible, "context" is beyond my...scope.
I'm more interested in the changes of single words.
When men say "be complete" do you think of living without sin?
When they say "be perfect" I'll bet you do.

What other sources have been used?
My prime example is the use of "complete" in lieu of "perfect"
In the original Greek, (Strong's concordance), the word has both meanings, but only "perfect" fits God's bill. (2Tim 3:16-17)

As I have never gotten past that particular "word-verse" in my comparisons, further study was unnecessary.
"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump".

Sorry, brother, if I must remind you. We're talking Bibles, and not gambling "bet you do". So, you don't remain ignorant. If I had wanted to get into the discussion of a singular concept of what the Bible means or says about being "perfect", I would have joined the discussions in the other postings you've already had.

However, since you use this one word as the weather vein on the rightness of the Bible one uses. You will need to answer why you did not actually look into considering the Bible I referenced. It seems to satisfy what you believe as the "sole" important verse by which a Bible is to be considered, along with it's antiquity (pre-dates KJV).

As far as what other sources being used. I've mentioned the Tyndall Bible as being one, at least two codex's and other sources that you can locate if you're really interested, but you already know these sources, which leaves me wonder why you ask?

Back to the importance of context. The reason context is important verses having ones focus solely on a "singular" word is that one must know exactly which source was used for that specific word to have been translated the way it was. You can't go parallel to the word, which is what a lot of people do. You have to go backwards to its source (document of origin). Otherwise it proves nothing but the meaning of "a" word used and not that the actual word "was" used in the original autograph. That is why the manuscripts are important because as you have rightly mentioned, forgeries continually are brought forward as if they were the word of God!

If you read YLT, you will find that the word used there "fits" as well. Also, it's the first choice of Strong's and doesn't even require any further defining.

You write..."already knew".
I ask...Knew from which version of the bible?
If their studies are predicated(?) by the NASB or the Gae bible, will they tell us so?

Knew that the manuscripts used prior to this find were correct as source documents for use in the making of the Bible.

Have a good Sunday.

You as well.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><

 

[Born Again 2004]

But I also see "less obvious" changes to the Bible. A common phrase you hear is "we are saved by grace alone".
But "grace" and "alone" don't appear together in any scripture in the Bible.

You have said this before for many times now. You don't say it because it is true, you say it because you don't accept grace as the reason for your salvation....you can't deny grace so, you say grace because of your works. The Bible doesn't say exactly those together either! But it does say Grace and not your works together doesn't it:

• Ephesians 2: 8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
• This says you are saved by grace...and it includes nothing else....
• Are you saved by grace only or grace and works?
• If you are saved by works...then do you boast in works?

 

[B-A-C]

Ephesians 2: 8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

There are a lot of things in the Bible because faith and works. Obedience would be one of these things.
I will answer your question with a question.

1 Cor 6:9; Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1 Cor 6:10; nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Do you think people who practice fornication, idolatry, adultery, and homosexual lifestyles are saved?

Gal 5:19; Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
Gal 5:20; idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
Gal 5:21; envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Do you think people who practice sexual immorality, sorcery (drugs), drunkenness are in the kingdom of God?
Even if they are saved by grace through faith?

 

[At Peace]

. So, you don't remain ignorant. If I had wanted to get into the discussion of a singular concept of what the Bible means or says about being "perfect", I would have joined the discussions in the other postings you've already had.
However, since you use this one word as the weather vein on the rightness of the Bible one uses. You will need to answer why you did not actually look into considering the Bible I referenced. It seems to satisfy what you believe as the "sole" important verse by which a Bible is to be considered, along with it's antiquity (pre-dates KJV).

My online bible source had no listing for a Tyndall bible. (Bible Gateway.com)

As far as what other sources being used. I've mentioned the Tyndall Bible as being one, at least two codex's and other sources that you can locate if you're really interested, but you already know these sources, which leaves me wonder why you ask?

As the results of using previous compilations of scripture led to the KJV, what purpose is there for using them to validate errors from newer versions?

Back to the importance of context. The reason context is important verses having ones focus solely on a "singular" word is that one must know exactly which source was used for that specific word to have been translated the way it was. You can't go parallel to the word, which is what a lot of people do. You have to go backwards to its source (document of origin). Otherwise it proves nothing but the meaning of "a" word used and not that the actual word "was" used in the original autograph. That is why the manuscripts are important because as you have rightly mentioned, forgeries continually are brought forward as if they were the word of God!

If a word makes sense, what point is served with over-analyzing it to death? The motive for changing "perfect", (2 Tim 3:17), to "adequate" can only be a defense of non-perfection.

If you read YLT, you will find that the word used there "fits" as well. Also, it's the first choice of Strong's and doesn't even require any further defining.

I presume you are still discussing "perfect", from 2 Tim 3:17.
As it requires no further defining, why do you suppose there are twenty(?) other "translations" that are different?
Could it be that the newer versions are of the devil?

Knew that the manuscripts used prior to this find were correct as source documents for use in the making of the Bible.

That gives even more credence to sticking to the KJV...only.

 

[Christ4Ever]

My online bible source had no listing for a Tyndall bible. (Bible Gateway.com)

Here's one location for reviewing the Tyndall Bible.
Read the Tyndale Bible Free Online

As the results of using previous compilations of scripture led to the KJV, what purpose is there for using them to validate errors from newer versions?

If errors they are. Then to help others to see the truth. Why else?

If a word makes sense, what point is served with over-analyzing it to death? The motive for changing "perfect", (2 Tim 3:17), to "adequate" can only be a defense of non-perfection.

I presume you are still discussing "perfect", from 2 Tim 3:17.
As it requires no further defining, why do you suppose there are twenty(?) other "translations" that are different?
Could it be that the newer versions are of the devil?

With the way you state "newer", then if one is to look at all the Bibles, the KJV would be considered new to others that were previously written. Would that then be of the Devil? I don't ask you to change how you see the KJV, I would just ask you take a new approach on how you consider how others both, older and newer are viewed as to their origins. They are not of the Devil.

I mentioned Covenants before. They are an example that they build upon each other. Doesn't make the one previous wrong, but serving a specific purpose. I understand that for you the singular word is more important which relegates context of text unnecessary for you. This however, is not the case for others. If difficult for you to understand. Then think of it as a different language. That might help you understand that it doesn't make it evil.

As the results of using previous compilations of scripture led to the KJV, what purpose is there for using them to validate errors from newer versions?

The other question that comes to mind by your standards is "Why do we need the KJV when we have them?"

That gives even more credence to sticking to the KJV...only.

Glad that some newer discoveries fortified your use of the KJV. I'm sure this has done it for others as well.

If a word makes sense, what point is served with over-analyzing it to death? The motive for changing "perfect", (2 Tim 3:17), to "adequate" can only be a defense of non-perfection.

Or the seeking of truthful translation that brings them nearer to the original autographs.

Off to work!!! Another Monday!

Love you brother. You have lifted me up today.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><