Av Bible Beleivers Check List Of Beliefs

[AVBibleBeliever]

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.

 

It is about having faith in God preserved word.  I have gone down this path with others and I wont tread that path again. 

[OLD fashioned preacher]

It is about having faith in God preserved word.  I have gone down this path with others and I wont tread that path again. 

I think the questions he is asking is in seeking to understand your distinction (or equivocation) concerning "inspiration" and "preservation".

[TheSword]

I think the questions he is asking is in seeking to understand your distinction (or equivocation) concerning "inspiration" and "preservation".

 

Correct. I'm curious of where you're drawing the line and for what reason.

 

 

It is about having faith in God preserved word.  I have gone down this path with others and I wont tread that path again. 

 

 

I absolutely have faith that God preserved his word. However, in my understanding preservation is not the same as inspiration. I'm not at all trying to change your mind on anything. Clearly that would be a fruitless effort. I merely want to understand your position better because with our limited interaction so far it seems inconsistent and/or misplaced based on what we've discussed so far. I just want to know what your position is and why.

 

After that we can decide if it's worth interacting with the facts or moving on. I'll admit that you'd have to have really sound reasoning to change my mind (I'm that way with most doctrinal issues), but I'm not immovable.

[AVBibleBeliever]

I think the questions he is asking is in seeking to understand your distinction (or equivocation) concerning "inspiration" and "preservation".

 It is easy I believe God used inspiration as of means of preserving his pure words.

[TheSword]

Well...that doesn't really clarify anything. I believe God preserved His pure words through the accurate propagation of what the inspired authors wrote. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. Unfortunately I just have very little basis to understanding your opinions/assertions/etc in other threads so please forgive me if don't always understand what you're trying to say or why it's relevant.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Well...that doesn't really clarify anything. I believe God preserved His pure words through the accurate propagation of what the inspired authors wrote. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. Unfortunately I just have very little basis to understanding your opinions/assertions/etc in other threads so please forgive me if don't always understand what you're trying to say or why it's relevant.

 

"I believe God preserved His pure words through the accurate propagation of what the inspired authors wrote"

 

Interesting statement.  Would you mind clarifying. 

 

I believe that it was not the authors who were inspired but the words used that were.

 

when people get dogmatic about which AV is the inspired or preserved I can only say that it becomes a matter of ones preference over God's preservation and that is where faith comes in and I draw the line of communicaiton.

 

In the end these types of posts where one begins to question a persons words as relevant or irrelevant, they lead only to endless babble as we are now expereincing here and rather than going down that hard trodden broad way I concede the way to you and your opinion over mine.

[TheSword]

"I believe God preserved His pure words through the accurate propagation of what the inspired authors wrote"

 

Interesting statement.  Would you mind clarifying. 

 

Certainly. I don't mind clarifying my position on things. By that I mean I believe God inspired the authors who wrote the words. I believe He inspired each word and the entirety of the writing (known as verbal-plenary inspiration); not by rote dictation, but that He used their experience, knowledge, and tendencies to shape what they wrote as they conveyed His divine message through supernatural influence. I believe that God also promised to preserve His Word; not just the message but the particular words themselves (based on Psa 12:6-7, 119:89, 138:2; Isa 40:8; Matt 24:35; Mark 13:3; Luke 21:33; John 10:35; 1 Pet 1:23, 25). I believe this was done through providential guidance of the reproduction of the original words through the ages which is represented by the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text group of manuscripts which was accurately translated into the AV/KJV.  I believe it would be a poor fulfillment of God's promise for parts of His Word to have completely misplaced or lost for centuries at a time only to resurface via a translation that corrected prior manuscripts in the original language while also translated from those manuscripts or via obviously disparate manuscripts that remained hidden for over a thousand years.

 

 

I believe that it was not the authors who were inspired but the words used that were.

 

I disagree based on 2 Peter 1:21 which indicates that God inspired the men who wrote to write what He wanted written.

 

 

when people get dogmatic about which AV is the inspired or preserved I can only say that it becomes a matter of ones preference over God's preservation and that is where faith comes in and I draw the line of communicaiton.

 

In the end these types of posts where one begins to question a persons words as relevant or irrelevant, they lead only to endless babble as we are now expereincing here and rather than going down that hard trodden broad way I concede the way to you and your opinion over mine.

 

I'm not attempting to be dogmatic about which one, but rather trying to discern if you were. This is part of what I don't understand, though. How can you assert secondary inspiration without establishing what was inspired? How can it be both a matter of preference and a matter of faith (due to inspiration)? I just struggle to understand that line of reasoning being the basis of such a firm belief; but I earnestly want to understand.

 

Additionally, I didn't mean to convey that I question the relevance of what you have to say (I apologize if that's how it came across). Rather, there is a good chance I'll fail to understand how what you're saying pertains to the topic. For example, when I read your post in the thread on Testament vs. Covenant, it seemed to come way out of left field to me because we weren't at all questioning the choice of the word(s), just simply trying to explain the difference and how they got there.

[GraceSaved]

Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. 

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

Beyond the NKJV, other attempts have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.

When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Loyalties should be to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
 

[GraceSaved]

Are translations of the Bible inspired and inerrant? The answer is no, they are not. God nowhere extends the promise of inspiration to translations of His Word. While many of the translations available today are superb in quality, they are not inspired by God, and are not perfect. Does this mean we cannot trust a translation? Again, the answer is no. Through careful study of Scripture, with the Holy Spirit's guidance, we can properly understand, interpret, and apply Scripture. Again, due to the faithful efforts of dedicated Christian translators (and of course the oversight of the Holy Spirit), the translations available today are superb and trustworthy. The fact that we cannot ascribe inerrancy to a translation should motivate us towards even closer study, and away from blind devotion towards any particular translation.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. 

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

Beyond the NKJV, other attempts have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.

When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Loyalties should be to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
 

 

Do You have an actual original?

 

Not a copy of one but an original.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Sword, the 14 points are clear and without equivocation.

[TheSword]

The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

 

Kinda, but not really. The heartburn many people have with the NKJV was that it included notes and brackets from the critical texts and adopted a fair amount of wording from some of the other spurious translations such as the NIV. The NKJV started out as merely a project to update KJV language, but went went slightly off course when they had to start making enough changes for it to be eligible for copywright. In order for the translators to get paid (and publishers to get paid more), it must be copywrighted and in order for it to be copywrighted it must be different enough to be considered unique. The initial stab at the NKJV fell short of the copywright threshold so they modifed some things in a manner that reflected the critical texts. That's why it was met with so much criticism.

 

I for one don't have any trouble understanding the language in the KJV, nor do most people I know. I think the roadblock for most people is a failure to try to understand it rather than an inability. A high school level English should be enough to read with successfully. Nevertheless, the average readership of America is somewhere around the 7th-grade level so I would support a new translation based on the TR and Masoretic text provided it is as accurate and faithful to the text as the KJV. The problem is that just hasn't happened at an acceptable level (in my opinion).

[TheSword]

Sword, the 14 points are clear and without equivocation.

 

I suppose...I would certainly like to have a better understanding of some of your 14 points, but it's your prerogative whether you want to dive into them or not. I won't continue to bug you about it