Av Bible Beleivers Check List Of Beliefs

[AVBibleBeliever]

1)   Believes that the AV in English Contains the Preserved words of God for this generation

 

2)   Believes that the words in AV English are exactly what God meant for mankind

 

3)   Believes that they can hold in their hands a BOOK (the AV) that contains ALL of the words of God

 

4)   Believes that there are no problems with the text of the AV – some words or doctrines may be hard to understand, but there are no problems with the text

 

5)   Believes that the AV in English is Without Error

 

6)   Believes that the English words in the AV are Inspired

 

7)   Believes the AV English can correct the underlying Greek or Hebrew

 

8)   Believes that they don’t have to go to “the Greek” or “the Hebrew” to better understand the English

 

9)   Believes that the AV has a built in Dictionary to Define the English words used in the AV text

 

10) Believes that the AV has a divine built in cross-reference for establishing Bible Doctrine

 

11) Believes the Scriptures when they say: “It is written” or “Thus saith the Lord”

 

12) Believes they should use only AV terminology and words when establishing Bible Doctrine

 

13) Believes ALL other Bibles in English today are inferior to the AV text

 

14) Believes that no scripture is of private interpretation

[No Nicolaitans]

Hi AV,

 

Correct me if I'm wrong...and I'm not trying to argue with you...but in reference to #7 in particular...

 

 

 

7)   Believes the AV English can correct the underlying Greek or Hebrew

 

If I'm understanding this correctly, that would mean that the underlying Greek and Hebrew had errors; thereby, that implies that God didn't preserve his word...though he promised to preserve his word.  If the Greek and Hebrew needed correcting, that means there were mistakes that needed correcting...and that would mean God, who cannot lie...lied when he said that he would preserve his word...from this generation for ever.

[Arbo]

Hi AV,

 

Correct me if I'm wrong...and I'm not trying to argue with you...but in reference to #7 in particular...

 

 

If I'm understanding this correctly, that would mean that the underlying Greek and Hebrew had errors; thereby, that implies that God didn't preserve his word...though he promised to preserve his word.  If the Greek and Hebrew needed correcting, that means there were mistakes that needed correcting...and that would mean God, who cannot lie...lied when he said that he would preserve his word...from this generation for ever.

 

Beat me to it.  Read it the same way.

[fmcsimmons]

Unqualified "yes" to all except the following which I will expound on in more depth.

 

 

7)   Believes the AV English can correct the underlying Greek or Hebrew

I would agree with the following explanation. There is no single underlying "original text" on which the AV is translated from. Rather, the AV takes reading from an eclectic mix of sources and is thus a perfect culmination of God's words for us today in English. This is evidenced by its unparalleled usage by God in history among other things. Therefore it is superior to any other text in any other language. If you believe that the AV can be corrected from some Hebrew or Greek text today, you have no reason to be fooling around with the AV in the first place. Why settle for second best?

 

 

9)   Believes that the AV has a built in Dictionary to Define the English words used in the AV text

 

10) Believes that the AV has a divine built in cross-reference for establishing Bible Doctrine

Dictionaries can be helpful but typically the context will define the usage of a word in Scripture. As with all literature, the author is the final authority as to the interpretation. The author of Holy Writ, the Lord God, is the final and authoritative interpreter of his words. How blessed it is to have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

 

12) Believes they should use only AV terminology and words when establishing Bible Doctrine

This should be strived for in all manners of communication(1Pe 4:11). That being said, certain common theological terms (trinity for example) are not present in Holy Scripture although their basis is derived therefrom.

[AVBibleBeliever]

First you need to understand that there has never been found a KOINE Greek dictionary.  There are not enough documents in Koine Greek to establish one and the words that are avaiable translate differently.

 

John Strong's Greek Dictionary is based on Classical Greek in most of the Greek words he numbers in his concordance.

 

If there were errors in the copies of the original Greek or Hebrew God made sure we had the correct English words for this generation.

 

so in conclusion

 

1) We don't have any ORIGINAL Greek documents to compare too, we have only copies and we have no way to verify their accuracy to the original.  Same with the originals in Hebrew.

 

2) Strong's Classical Greek meanings given to Koine words is disengenuos at best.

 

3) If we beleive that the AV/KJB is inspired #6, then God gave us his interpretation of his words and their meanings he wanted us to have #2 and he gave us a built in dictionary in English for us to define the English words #9, then we could correct any undrelying Greek COPY or Hebrew COPY (there are no originals today they have all been lost).

 

4) The English words God inspired and employed are broad in meaning just like the original Greek and Hebrew words were.  And as such  you can teach any English version pinpointed interpretation or meaning available today from the AV/KJB.

 

rmstcb1611, great reply and I fully agree.

 

I believe if you have to run to the Greek and Hebrew to correct the English then you realy don't beleive in a preserved text and you or scholars become the authority of God's word. And if anyone believes that the Koine Greek COPIES we have today are without error you have more faith than I. 

[TheSword]

 

 

 

6)   Believes that the English words in the AV are Inspired

 

7)   Believes the AV English can correct the underlying Greek or Hebrew

 

8)   Believes that they don’t have to go to “the Greek” or “the Hebrew” to better understand the English

 

10) Believes that the AV has a divine built in cross-reference for establishing Bible Doctrine

 

12) Believes they should use only AV terminology and words when establishing Bible Doctrine

 

By these points I understand you to believe in the secondary inspiration of the AV. Do you mean the 1611 edition, the 1769, or the various editions in between that refined things such as spelling, grammar, punctuation, and mis-prints? The former requires that you use only 1611 edition because anything after that would be adding to or taking away from Scripture would it not? The latter requires a 158-yr period of secondary inspiration. 

 

I respectfully disagree with the concept secondary inspiration. I also share No Nicolaitans' assessment of point #7 because it asserts a poor fulfilment of God's promise to preserve His word in the same way that dogmatic modern textual criticism does. It requirese God's complete and accurate Word to have been lost and unavailable for roughly 1500-1800 years.

[wretched]

Divide it properly, strengthen your English grammar, punctuation skills, verb tense and reading comprehension: learn and understand context.

 

Once done, you will never again have the urge to open one of the many lexicons out there which guess at modern Greek translations of Ancient Greek meanings.

 

The language constantly changed along with word meanings. IMO, folks grow dumber with lexicons.

 

Anyone can google a AV word and come up with several "greek" meanings. The big mystery to me is why this is not a red flag to you?

 

I have seen arguments on this forum over greek word meanings because folks were looking at different lexicons. It is amazing that nobody involved in those arguments wonders why? 

 

Come on gents, you realize that anyone can look up "greek" now, right? You no longer look scholarly quoting whatever guessicon you looked at.

[TheSword]

Divide it properly, strengthen your English grammar, punctuation skills, verb tense and reading comprehension: learn and understand context.

 

Once done, you will never again have the urge to open one of the many lexicons out there which guess at modern Greek translations of Ancient Greek meanings.

 

The language constantly changed along with word meanings. IMO, folks grow dumber with lexicons.

 

Anyone can google a AV word and come up with several "greek" meanings. The big mystery to me is why this is not a red flag to you?

 

I have seen arguments on this forum over greek word meanings because folks were looking at different lexicons. It is amazing that nobody involved in those arguments wonders why? 

 

Come on gents, you realize that anyone can look up "greek" now, right? You no longer look scholarly quoting whatever guessicon you looked at.

 

This is a gross oversimplification of what it means to actually study and apply Greek and doesn't negate people's attempts to do the same thing with English. That's perhaps a topic for a separate thread though.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Note:  The following post is not a direct response to the specific details of the original post, but is a declaration of belief in relation to the general subject matter of this thread.

 

I myself hold to the Authorized (KJ) translation specifically because I believe in the divinely preserved Hebrew and Greek communication of God's Holy Word.

____________________________________________________________________

 

Now, some specific thoughts:

 

1.  It is sometimes indicated that the Authorized (KJ) translation has had an unparalleled blessing by God's hand.  In truth, at least the Peshitta (sp?) in Syriac has had a longer standing blessing by God's hand, being used of God to maintain the preservation of His Holy Word throughout the 1000+ years of the dark ages.  Indeed, there may also be others in other languages that actually have a longer standing blessing by God's hand than the Authorized (KJ) translation does in the English language.

 

2.  I may be selfishly biased on this; however, I believe that I possess a fairly strong grasp of English grammar, punctuation, verb tense and mood, noun and pronoun usage, modifier, participial, infinitive, and clause application, etc.  Yet this understanding of the English has not completely removed my "urge" to consider the "jots" and "tittles" of the divinely preserved Hebrew and Greek through which the Lord our God originally inspired His Holy Word.

 

3.  To those who believe that the Authorized (KJ) translation is so absolutely perfect that it can correct any and all of the divinely preserved Word of God in any other language, I would ask -- Do you believe that the men who were involved in the translation committee for the Authorized (KJ) translation were moved by the Holy Spirit in the same "inspirational" manner that the original pen-men (such as Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, Peter, James, etc.) of Scripture were moved?

[AVBibleBeliever]

It is all a matter of faith on each of our parts.  I cannot have faith for another on these issues but I believe that inspiration is part of God's way of preserving his words.

 

Up until a few years ago I have always been a little leery of accepting the "second" inspiration theory of the English text.  I find it easy to accept it in Jeremiah concerning the destroying of God's word then God re-inspiring or second inspiration of the same text plus at the same time inspiring additional text that was not in the original that was destroyed.  
  
I understand preservation of the Text as God said in Psalm 12:6 but Inspiration of the English text seemed a little far fetched to me.

However, while searching to be able to answer an inquiry about the name of Jesus I discovered something that has got me convinced that God did inspire the translators as part of preserving his word to every generation.  

I found that the name Jesus is found 942 times in the AV/KJB New Testament but the Greek word Iesous translated into English only as Jesus, was found 935 times.  I soon found myself searching for another Greek word for Jesus but there was none.  So using SwordSearcher Bible Study program word search function I was able to find there were seven, note that, 5 additional uses of Jesus in the English text which were not in the Greek and two were input for the Greek word auto which is normally translated him or his.  

While in the Greek text there was implied reference in the language so the text flows smoothly.  For example in Luke 7:37 there was no way the Greek could be translated word for word into English without causing confusion and a poor English reading.  Hence God inspired them to insert the name Jesus into the text so that the translation would be accurate, correct and flow smoothly.  Upon looking at all 5 italicized insertions and the two translations of autos as Jesus, all the English additions were justified for a correct and accurate translation and reading of the Greek text.

I am now convinced God not only preserved his word unto every generation but that he indeed did inspire the translators with the additional Texts found Italicized in our Authorized Version.  

Now someone asked which version I would feel was inspired and to that I say the one I hold in my hand.

[TheSword]

 

It is all a matter of faith on each of our parts.  I cannot have faith for another on these issues but I believe that inspiration is part of God's way of preserving his words.

 

Up until a few years ago I have always been a little leery of accepting the "second" inspiration theory of the English text.  I find it easy to accept it in Jeremiah concerning the destroying of God's word then God re-inspiring or second inspiration of the same text plus at the same time inspiring additional text that was not in the original that was destroyed.  
  
I understand preservation of the Text as God said in Psalm 12:6 but Inspiration of the English text seemed a little far fetched to me.

However, while searching to be able to answer an inquiry about the name of Jesus I discovered something that has got me convinced that God did inspire the translators as part of preserving his word to every generation.  

I found that the name Jesus is found 942 times in the AV/KJB New Testament but the Greek word Iesous translated into English only as Jesus, was found 935 times.  I soon found myself searching for another Greek word for Jesus but there was none.  So using SwordSearcher Bible Study program word search function I was able to find there were seven, note that, 5 additional uses of Jesus in the English text which were not in the Greek and two were input for the Greek word auto which is normally translated him or his.  

While in the Greek text there was implied reference in the language so the text flows smoothly.  For example in Luke 7:37 there was no way the Greek could be translated word for word into English without causing confusion and a poor English reading.  Hence God inspired them to insert the name Jesus into the text so that the translation would be accurate, correct and flow smoothly.  Upon looking at all 5 italicized insertions and the two translations of autos as Jesus, all the English additions were justified for a correct and accurate translation and reading of the Greek text.

I am now convinced God not only preserved his word unto every generation but that he indeed did inspire the translators with the additional Texts found Italicized in our Authorized Version.  

Now someone asked which version I would feel was inspired and to that I say the one I hold in my hand.

 

 

While I don't entirely agree with your conclusion, that's an interesting observation. Certainly the nuances of Greek grammar and syntax may seem confusing to the average person, but it would have been plainly clear to the translators who "him" was referring to because of the way Greek words are inflected to match the pronouns to its antecedent in gender, number, and case. To the translators it would have been obvious when reading the manuscripts. I'm not sure I could personally consider this to be inspiration so much as knowing both languages well enough to make an accurate and understandable translation.

 

Which version do you hold in your hand?

[AVBibleBeliever]

While I don't entirely agree with your conclusion, that's an interesting observation. Certainly the nuances of Greek grammar and syntax may seem confusing to the average person, but it would have been plainly clear to the translators who "him" was referring to because of the way Greek words are inflected to match the pronouns to its antecedent in gender, number, and case. To the translators it would have been obvious when reading the manuscripts. I'm not sure I could personally consider this to be inspiration so much as knowing both languages well enough to make an accurate and understandable translation.

 

Which version do you hold in your hand?

 

Did you know that where autos was translated Jesus by the translators of the AV today many English Versions translate those two instances him?

[TheSword]

Did you know that where autos was translated Jesus by the translators of the AV today many English Versions translate those two instances him?

 

That doesn't make either one inaccurate. It's a product of how AV translators tried to stick as close to formal equivelancy as possible while still maintaining clarity.

 

Which version do you hold in your hand?

[AVBibleBeliever]

That doesn't make either one inaccurate. It's a product of how AV translators tried to stick as close to formal equivelancy as possible while still maintaining clarity.

 

Which version do you hold in your hand?

 

So are you saying that the AV is not accurate because the translators are not?

 

I believe out of all the translator commitees that have translated Bibles over the last 500 years that the 1608 group were posibly the most honest in dealing with the text and the most used of God for preserving his word.

 

I hold an AV in my hand.  I use a Pure Cambridge personally.

[TheSword]

So are you saying that the AV is not accurate because the translators are not?

 

I believe out of all the translator commitees that have translated Bibles over the last 500 years that the 1608 group were posibly the most honest in dealing with the text and the most used of God for preserving his word.

 

I hold an AV in my hand.  I use a Pure Cambridge personally.

 

I'm not saying that at all; quite the opposite in fact. What I'm saying is that both "Jesus" and "him" are accurate and the AV translators chose "Jesus" for the sake of clarity in English. I don't, personally, see such a simple, and truthfully non-essential,  choice for clarity as evidence of divine inspiration any more than changing the order of the words to fit English syntax and grammar structure.

 

So are you saying that the Pure Cambridge edition of the AV (printed circa 1900) is the inspired one? Or was every edition leading up to that one as well? Or were there different levels or phases of inspiration that produced the PCE? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand your view of secondary inspiration.