John 5:3-4 Is it Scripture?

[John81]

Yes, I believe it is without error.

Then wouldn't that necessarily mean that any other version that isn't in agreement with the KJB is in error?

[kevinmiller]

If there are fundamental differences, then yes, one must assume that one of those Bibles is in error.

[John81]

If there are fundamental differences, then yes, one must assume that one of those Bibles is in error.

Does one just assume that one of them is in error or does one believe the KJB is without error so those which don't agree with the KJB are in error?

[kevinmiller]

The KJV can be used for comparison since it is an excellent translation. I think the most important thing, however, is that it is a faithful translation of the Greek and Hebrew, not a faithful translation of the KJV.

[John81]

That's another argument.

My question is, if you believe the KJB is without error, then any version that omits verses that are in the KJB must be in error. If you don't believe that, then how can you say the KJB is without error?

[Randy]

That's another argument.

My question is, if you believe the KJB is without error, then any version that omits verses that are in the KJB must be in error. If you don't believe that, then how can you say the KJB is without error?

Or even parts of verses.

[kevinmiller]

Well, you can't really use the word "omit" because they didn't take away a verse. I imagine there were somewhat different translation methods used in translating the Geneva Bible and the KJV. They may both be extremely accurate translations and both of them might be error free with or without those verses. Now in the case of modern versions, those verses missing are due to corrupt manuscripts and should be seen as a serious problem, especially when there are a lot of changes and they are important doctrinal verses. In the case of the Geneva versus the KJV, it may be missing a verse in the Geneva, but the rest of the Geneva may still be without error. If that makes any sense... :smile

[John81]

Not really! Something can't be error free and have an error in it! Either it's the perfect Word of God or it's not.

[kevinmiller]

I'm saying it might not have all the same verses, as in it might be missing one, yet still be without error. You can have a New Testament without the Old Testament and that Bible would still be error free. The New Testament would be error free even though the Old Testament wasn't included.

[John81]

You have some rather odd analogies here!

How can a Bible version be error free if it leaves out verses or parts of verses that are included in the KJB which you claim is error free? That makes no sense at all.

[kevinmiller]

Because if different translation methods were used, then it may have resulted in their being slight difference between them. Not having one verse that the KJV has in it does not mean that their is something wrong with the rest of the Bible. If they accurately translated from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts but only translated Matthew and Mark, Matthew and Mark would still be without error even though it didn't contain the rest of the Bible, see what I mean?

[Randy]

Well, you can't really use the word "omit" because they didn't take away a verse. I imagine there were somewhat different translation methods used in translating the Geneva Bible and the KJV. They may both be extremely accurate translations and both of them might be error free with or without those verses. Now in the case of modern versions, those verses missing are due to corrupt manuscripts and should be seen as a serious problem, especially when there are a lot of changes and they are important doctrinal verses. In the case of the Geneva versus the KJV, it may be missing a verse in the Geneva, but the rest of the Geneva may still be without error. If that makes any sense... :smile

I have looked at the Geneva bible, and I haven't seen any missing verses or parts. The language of the Geneva bible doesn't flow like the King james, there are some different words used which do not change the meaning at all, and the word order is frequently different. Other than that it is the same.

The problem with the Geneva bible is the marginal notes. The worst of which says that the angel Michael is Christ.

As to missing verses or parts, the MVs differ from the KJB because of the source documents that they were translated from. The Geneva bible and the KJB were both translated from the same sources. If a verse is missing when you compare a MV to the KJB, it will also be missing when you compare the MV to the Geneva.

[ltl]

The Scriptures clearly say that God will PRESERVE His Word (Psalm 12:6-7). Kept pure throughout the ages! One question here: What did the Bible-believers use as the infallible Bible before 1611? Surely there has to be an infallible Bible before the KJV was translated!

[kevinmiller]

I have looked at the Geneva bible, and I haven't seen any missing verses or parts. The language of the Geneva bible doesn't flow like the King james, there are some different words used which do not change the meaning at all, and the word order is frequently different. Other than that it is the same.

The problem with the Geneva bible is the marginal notes. The worst of which says that the angel Michael is Christ.

As to missing verses or parts, the MVs differ from the KJB because of the source documents that they were translated from. The Geneva bible and the KJB were both translated from the same sources. If a verse is missing when you compare a MV to the KJB, it will also be missing when you compare the MV to the Geneva.

I agree. I don't know if there are any TR-based Bibles that are missing verses, I was just giving a "what if" scenario.

[dwayner79]

The Scriptures clearly say that God will PRESERVE His Word (Psalm 12:6-7). Kept pure throughout the ages! One question here: What did the Bible-believers use as the infallible Bible before 1611? Surely there has to be an infallible Bible before the KJV was translated!

Are you sure? Try reading the whole passage and find the antecedent of preserve. Many Many scholars think its in verse 1, not verse 6.

I have been trying not to speak up (because I normally get in trouble with will's threads), but I figured I would just add a note of clarity. The difference between John81 and Kevin is the definition of "perfect". How does one define perfect when it comes to a translation. Is it that every word must be set in stone for a translation to be perfect? If so, then John81 is right and every translation that differs even slightly is no longer perfect. If perfect is defined as effectively and faithfully conveying the meaning of the original text being translated, then Kevin is correct, and translations can differ while still both being correct.