Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Defining a PERFECT BIBLE


Recommended Posts

  • Members

It is vitally important, that every Christian believes that the Bible that they hold in their hands is PERFECT.  But this is something that Satan just will not sit still for.

Therefore, lets establish what makes a Bible IMPERFECT!

I will start,
First of all, “typos don’t count”!  Half of the KJBs I own, have typos, but they are still perfect, because they don’t stop me searching “that which is Spiritual”(1 Cor. 2:13), and finding the truth.

What does count, in making a Bible imperfect, are those Bibles that have had verses or passages changed or removed, by some scholar: Who feels he has the authority to correct God’s Word.

I am open, for more suggestions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hello Jordan Kurecki

You asked.....
So when you say it’s vitally for every Christian. Do you mean English speakers? What about the foreign language speakers who’s only bibles are missing verses like 1 John 5:7?

This is a good question, (Or set of questions).

First of all, I don’t believe in “double inspiration”, therefore the KJB, is a perfect Bible for English speaking people.

But what I am talking about is “what people believe” about their Bibles(of any language).  It is not a perfect world, so we can’t eliminate all those NIV’s etc. that are out there.  But any BELIEVER, who uses even one of these Bibles, is much better off if they BELIEVE their Bible to be perfect.

The problem is, all of us are being taught, that “no Bible is perfect”!  Even though some Bibles are “less perfect” than others, a Christian is harmed, by being told that they can’t trust God’s Word.

Have a good night.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A different SPELLING of the same word does NOT change the perfect trustworthiness of a Biblical translation.

Whether we spell the word "saviour" or the word "savior" (with the "u" or without it), it is still the SAME word.  And various examples could be provided in addition to this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Members
On 10/8/2018 at 7:04 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

A different SPELLING of the same word does NOT change the perfect trustworthiness of a Biblical translation.

Whether we spell the word "saviour" or the word "savior" (with the "u" or without it), it is still the SAME word.  And various examples could be provided in addition to this one.

Ironically I was just moments ago thinking about a King James Bible I have that changes the spelling of the names of the OT prophets to the regular equivilent Esaias to Isaiah, Jeremias to Jeremiah, etc. 

On 10/7/2018 at 10:46 PM, Donald said:

Hello Jordan Kurecki

You asked.....
So when you say it’s vitally for every Christian. Do you mean English speakers? What about the foreign language speakers who’s only bibles are missing verses like 1 John 5:7?

This is a good question, (Or set of questions).

First of all, I don’t believe in “double inspiration”, therefore the KJB, is a perfect Bible for English speaking people.

But what I am talking about is “what people believe” about their Bibles(of any language).  It is not a perfect world, so we can’t eliminate all those NIV’s etc. that are out there.  But any BELIEVER, who uses even one of these Bibles, is much better off if they BELIEVE their Bible to be perfect.

The problem is, all of us are being taught, that “no Bible is perfect”!  Even though some Bibles are “less perfect” than others, a Christian is harmed, by being told that they can’t trust God’s Word.

Have a good night.

 

So you are saying that if a Christian has a translation that has mistranslations, is missing verses, etc that it's good that they believe that it is perfect and without any error? 

So are you saying it's good for someone to believe something even if it isn't true? How is that good?

And what do you mean "less perfect" that's two adjectives that contradict each other, an oxymoron if you would. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hello again Jordan Kurecki

You asked.....
 So you are saying that if a Christian has a translation that has mistranslations, is missing verses, etc that it's good that they believe that it is perfect and without any error?
So are you saying it's good for someone to believe something even if it isn't true? How is that good?
And what do you mean "less perfect" that's two adjectives that contradict each other, an oxymoron if you would.
 
------------------------
You will notice, that I prefaced this with an acknowledgment that “this is not a perfect world”, so things won’t always be the way we want them to be.

For instance, there are lots of languages that have no Bible at all and many other languages that may only have the book of John or Romans translated.  Therefore one of the things that I am saying, is that these people are better off having a single book, rather than no Bible at all.  

As for those that may be reading a bad translation, like the NIV, etc
The circumstance by which these Bibles are “good” for these people, is when these individuals, BELIEVE God’s Word to be PERFECT!  Believing that God preserved His Word, is GOOD.

The rest of the story(with these people), is the “doctrine of light”: The Doctrine taught all over the Bible, that “if a person uses the light God gives them, than He will give them more light”!  I trust, that our Sovereign creator, is able to correct any wrong conclusions that these bad translations, may give a believer: If that believer is truly searching for the understanding.
------------------------
Also you asked...
“what do you mean less perfect"

It’s kind of like the “mustered seed”: If a person has a Bible that is 75% accurate(like the NIV), than God can use the few verses that are correct in that version, to minister to that believer. Bringing them to the understanding, that the Bible is a Supernatural book, that no man is qualified to correct or update. Until they come to this understanding, they may continue to worship at their Pentecostal or their Methodist Church.

See you later

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe in the Biblical definition of Preservation. God has preserved his word from generation to generation. Currently, the KJV is the only translation that follows the doctrine of preservation and therefore is the best translation for English Speaking individuals. When I hold my KJV, I can clearly say that I am holding the Preserved Word of God.

Now with that said, I believe that one day we may see a modern translation that follows the same process that the translators in 1611 did and we could hold that up and also say it is the Preserved Word of God. I reject the modern translation because they do not follow the doctrine of preservation and therefore have many errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But..... my hopes for a new English translation(that I can trust as much as I do the KJB), are dampened, when I am reminded of 2 Timothy 3:13
"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."

It would be nice, if I could see a hopeful future for my grandchildren in this world; But unless I am misinterpreting, this and other passages of Scripture, the Earthly future of the Church, does not look bright!

Note: If anyone can correct this view, PLEASE do so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Members

A perfect Bible is a Bible that keeps all the doctrines of the faith secure and complete. There is really only one Bible that I know of that does that for the English-speaking people. The Authorized 1611 King James Bible.

I can pick that Bible up and know that I am going to see the absolute virgin born Son of God,  and I can see the doctrine of salvation presented by grace without works to a lost and dying world, I can know when I read about the future I will see a premillennial, dispensational scenario where Israel is still Israel and the church is still the church. When I pick up my KJB I will see that sin is an abomination against God, and not merely a mistake. With this Bible I have absolute assurance that it is my final authority, and I do not need to worry that scribal mistakes somehow crept in. My King James Bible is a product of faithful men that carefully protected their copies of the Word from the day that they were written until the day that they were gathered together in one Book. I can also be assured that my Bible did not come out of some trash pile sitting in St. Catherine's Monastery where Tischendorf made off with them.

I'd say that fits the description of perfect for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Members
On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:55 PM, Donald said:

It is vitally important, that every Christian believes that the Bible that they hold in their hands is PERFECT. 

Therefore, lets establish what makes a Bible IMPERFECT!

I will start,
First of all, “typos don’t count”! 

 

 

How is determined whether something is a "typo"? 

What standard do you use to determine what should be considered a "typo"?

Would a "typo" or printing error be considered a perfection or an imperfection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It has been a long time....

But you asked a good question.
The answer to this question, has to do with the “intent” of the person printing that Bible.

What I mean is “a typo”, is a “mistake” that is not intentionally put their by the publisher.  Therefore, you can have small typos and large typos.

Here is an example of a mid-sized typo........

(Joshua 19:2)
“And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, and Sheba, and Moladah,”

Half of my King James Bibles say, “Beersheba, and Sheba, and Moladah,”
and the other half say.... “Beersheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,”

Now since Beersheba and Sheba are the same city, than the former is a “typo”.

This is further established four verses later in.....
(Joshua 19:6)
“And Bethlebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities and their villages:”

Counting the cities from verse 2 through verse 6, comes to 13, when verse 2 is printed right.
------------------------
A little more, on what I mean by the “intent” of the publisher.

Second Timothy chapter 3, is all about the “last days” and how wicked people are going to be.
In the last 5 verses of this chapter, we have a wonderful example of an “evil intent” and how we can keep our "intent" right.
The first of these 5 verses says.......
(2 Timothy 3:13)
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

These evil men and seducers, will include men like “Westcot & Hort”, etc
(Respected scholars, who hated any Bible, that allows regular people to study God’s Word and takes "scholars", out of the loop.)

What is interesting about this passage, are the last two verses.........
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)
V.16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
V.17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

------------------------
It is almost as if, the LORD knew the kind of attacks that were going to be launched against the Bible, in these last days; And reminded all of us about “Verbal Inspiration”.

Thanks for the question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Donald said:

 

But you asked a good question.
The answer to this question, has to do with the “intent” of the person printing that Bible.

What I mean is “a typo”, is a “mistake” that is not intentionally put their by the publisher. 

 

How are readers to know whether a difference in editions of the KJV was unintentionally or intentionally put there by a publisher or printer?

Would readers need to be able to read the minders of others in order to know for certain what their intentions were?

Would it not be possible for a printer to have the good intention of correcting what he considered an error in an earlier edition when it possibly was not an error?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Members
On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 11:02 AM, Pastorj said:

I believe in the Biblical definition of Preservation. God has preserved his word from generation to generation.

Jim Taylor maintained that preservation is not “an attribute” but that it “is a process” (In Defense of the Textus Receptus, p. 40).  Jim Taylor asserted that “translations are not preserved because preservation is not an attribute” (Ibid.).  Taylor noted:  “Add to this the fact that God preserved what he gave.  God gave us his words in Greek and Hebrew and thus, he preserves his words in those languages” (Ibid.). 

Tim Fellure observed:  “Obviously, it’s not required that preservation extends to a translation if the Word of God has been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew text” (Neither jot nor tittle, p. 71). 

Thomas Corkish acknowledged that “it is true that He [God] has not promised to preserve versions” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 210). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...