KJV, last version inspired by Holy Spirit????

[LifeHiscost]

Would it be reasonable to disbelieve until we are able to understand the truth as it was written in its' first transcribed language? If not, why should we believe the Holy Spirit stopped conveying truth through more recent translations than the KJV? And if yes, who on this forum would be qualified to know the truth as it is in Jesus?

[:"red"] "But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." [/] Proverbs 4:18 KJV

[:"red"] "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." [/] Psalm 119:105 KJV

Keep the faith!

[NormF]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

... should we believe the Holy Spirit stopped conveying truth through more recent translations than the KJV?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Or that God never got it right until the KJV, some 1581 years after Jesus' crucifixion? ... never before and none since? - (as some would have it). Seems unlikely to me. I suspect God meets a variety of people in a variety of ways.

Your choice of Proverbs 4:18 is very apropos to the question - it has been the favorite of one of my favorite people, Dr. H. Ward Hill, Professor Emeritus of Religion and longtime chair of the Religion Department at Union College. His words, as only he could say say them, still ring in my ears to this day ... and they were always in the KJV translation. That does help me understand and accept the KJV's resonance for many people, even at that.

Regards,

Norm

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

NormF said:

(until 1581? I think that's right.LHC)

---

My sentiments exactly!

[james423]

Which King James Version are you refering to?

There is the original 1611 edition, which almost no one uses any more. Then there is the 1769 revision, which is the version we know as the KJV today. A history of the English Bible printed in one of the Thomas Nelson Bibles alerted me to the revision. I think it was mostly spelling and punctuation, but I am not sure how much was revised at that point.

I agree there is nothing wrong with modern versions as long as those versions are not deliberately slanted - the Watchtower version (Jehovah's Witnesses), the Reader's Digest Bible (parts left out), and the Thomas Jefferson Bible (all reference to Christ's divinity left out), for examples.

I find that using a CD-Rom with various versions on it helps to settle the problems of translations for me at least. Most translations fall in one or two groups on any given verse. At that point, it is interesting to compare the two variant readings with the 1769 KJV.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

I agree there is nothing wrong with modern versions as long as those versions are not deliberately slanted - the Watchtower version (Jehovah's Witnesses), the Reader's Digest Bible (parts left out), and the Thomas Jefferson Bible (all reference to Christ's divinity left out), for examples.

---

I think the misnomer is that we need a Bible to discern truth.

[awh1]

I do believe thw KJV was only a translation from a different language. That being so, it was not inspired, rather translated.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

awh1 said:

I do believe thw KJV was only a translation from a different language. That being so, it was not inspired, rather translated.

---

If that is truly the case, then only the direct words of the Creator are inspired and to be understood only by those who understood the language He was speaking.

[:"red"] "Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered.

Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all the earth nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you." [/] Ex 34:1,10 NASB

[:"red"] "Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." [/] John 20:29 NASB

[Gregory Matthews]

The reality is that we do NOT have any autographs (directly written manuscripts) of the Biblical writers. What we have is a collection of copies, of copies, of copies. These are often in the case of the Old Testament, produced hundreds of years after the Biblical writers penned them.

These manuscripts (MSS) differ, and are not exactly the same. As this is true, the question now becomes whether or not these MSS are reliable. Some attempt to tell us that the differences demonstrate that we do not have reliable MSS of the Biblical writings. Others tell us that the differences are largely minor, and can typically be explained.

I accept the second explaination. In the case of variations that one might think are not minor, and/or do not have a good explaination, I have a further thought. The resolution to an individual quesion is to be found in a study of what the entire Bible says. The witness of the Bible as a whole is to be accepted over one problem text.

In addition, as I look upon the Bible as a combination of the human and the devine, I am not troubled by minor errors. God has preserved His essential message. But, that does not mean that God has protected the Bible from human errors that do not affect its central message.

[bevin]

The ORIGINAL WORDS of the Bible are not infallible or nor do they cover all issues.

On occassion the original authors got their facts wrong, got their understanding wrong, and probably occassionally used the wrong word.

The original hearers/repeaters probably misunderstood and misremembered.

After centuries of oral transmission the older parts were written down by people with an agenda.

The parts without a long oral phrase include Luke, with its acknowleged "I went searching for people's memories and tried to get a consistent account together for you" prologue.

Other parts of the NT are letters to individuals, where we have long lost the precise context.

Arguing about the inspirition of a translation is pointless. You should not be basing anything on a single text from here or there - certainly not from a word - and absolutely not from the shade of meaning of a word in English.

The Bible is a God-protected record of His interactions with His people. He never claimed it was perfect - just profitable.

/Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "The ORIGINAL WORDS of the Bible are not infallible or nor do they cover all issues."

The original words that the Biblical writers wrote were NOT dictated to them by God. An examination of the MSS show such to be true. There is a human element in what the Biblical writers wrote.

If one were to take the position that God dictated those words to the Biblical writer, then one would have to take the position that God sometimes dictated with higher levels of grammer than at other times. The idea that God would dictate with changing levels of grammer simply does not make sense.

But, if one accepts that on one level the original words of the Bible are not infaliable, that does not necessarily imply that they are not inspired.

NOTE: I am tagging on to Bevin's post.

[Johann]

Back in 1958 the Sabbath School lessons for most of a quarter were so based on the exact wording in the KJV that we had a hard time teaching some of those lessons in countries where people did not speak English. To some it seemed like they did not have the right bible.

It is good to realize that our salvation is not dependent on the exact wording found in a single translation of the Bible. It is more important that we read and absorb the message from God through a vocabulary that brings the divine saving power into our understanding, enlightened by the Holy Spirit.