Green Kepi
Active Member
Have you studied the history of how the 1611 KJV came into existence and the revisions of it? Might provide some interesting reading for you (that is "if" you are "open" to interesting reading)....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is there anyone out there who upholds bible infalliblility?
- Thread starter ThuggishSplicer
- Start date
Have you studied the history of how the 1611 KJV came into existence and the revisions of it? Might provide some interesting reading for you (that is "if" you are "open" to interesting reading)....
Free4all
It's all about the blood
What revisions are you talking about?
I know how it came about....
I'm open to a lot, as long as it's the truth.
Last edited:
idea
Question Everything
idea
Question Everything
Some things were written after Paul said those words too. So... after Paul was told he was given all things, why read any farther in the scripts?
By this logic, everything only pertains to the dispensation that is was written in. So.... seeings how you prob think nothing was written in this dispensation directly to us, then nothing applies to us. What was said to Paul was only for Paul, not for us. What was said to _____(fill in the blank) was only for them, not for us.
Paul did not mention a lot of stuff... so... I guess if Paul did not mention it, we should wrip those pages out of the Bible? Great logic.
Do you go to the "Church of Paul" or something? Don't get me wrong, I love Paul, but he is not the only prophet out there.
Last edited:
idea
Question Everything
How about the history of how it was only written in Latin, a language that pretty much no one could read, that the priests kept it from the people, and changed it to fit their combined church/state system… how they invented infant baptism to update their census and collect taxes, how they put themselves between the people and God, made the people afraid of God rather than revealing God as a loving entity. How they said they could pay the church money to buy forgiveness, etc. etc… Great history indeed.
13 ¶ Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his ahands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them saying, There is no need, for Jesus hath said, Such shall be saved.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, (and blessed, not baptised them) and departed thence.
(New Testament | Matthew19:13 - 15)
saying, There is no need, for Jesus hath said, Such shall be saved....
isn't it amazing how just taking out a little line here and a little line there can turn something that is beautiful into a nightmare (like little children who are not baptized go to hell) pretty sick that people did things like this.
Free4all
It's all about the blood
Sounds like your talking about the a certain religion, not the bible. Latin? the AV1611? yea right, I'd like to see that in writing, if anything it chastises religion. I think it was written in hebrew and greek.
Where the hel* did the baptism rant come from? I personally agree with ya on that issue.
Green Kepi
Active Member
You seem to be a person that I could have a good Bible study with; however, I hesitate to give an answer to your question. There's so much heated arguments that lead from saying anything negative about the KJV. I'd be attacked from all sides. For example, some get all "heated" up about the difference between revisions and editions and so forth. I just mentioned the history and the history of some English versions. The first whole Bible in English was translated by Wycliffe and Nicholas Hereford about 1380. Miles Goverdale Version was in 1535. Matthew's Bible was published in 1537. The Great Bible in 1539. The Geneva Bible in 1560. Bishop's Bible in 1568 and the Rhemish Version of the New Testament was in 1582. All I was saying...what makes the KJV the 100% "true one"?
Green Kepi
Active Member
*Paul*
Jesus loves you
God was being extra generous!
No you misunderstand, I never said that the writings of older dispensations were of no use, Paul himself said they were also for our benefit to learn from them but God has decided not to give the aforementioned lost books to us yet we still have all things that pertain unto life and godliness, we lack nothing.
No but if the books are already missing then you don't get to have a say on the matter.
So I mention Paul in one post and all of a sudden i'm from the church of Paul?? :sarcastic Do you have a prejudice going on here maybe?
Free4all
It's all about the blood
I'm easy going - I won't take arguments against the KJV personally, but I do need a little time to get back with you on my arguments supporting it.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This all hinges on definitions. What, exactly, do we mean by "infallible?" What do we mean by, "Is the Bible right or wrong?"
The modern translations are pretty darned accurate to the earliest manuscripts we have. The earliest manuscripts are rather late. Plus, we have to remember that even the OT, as we have it, was not written down until after 600 BCE. That's pretty late, too.
This argument is only necessary if we try to pin salvation onto the "accuracy of the Bible." Since salvation comes from God, I'd say that the Bible, as a piece of the Tradition is a wonderful resource for the faithful. But as a "necessary" cog in salvation, the Bible has been lifted to a status that was never intended.
The modern translations are pretty darned accurate to the earliest manuscripts we have. The earliest manuscripts are rather late. Plus, we have to remember that even the OT, as we have it, was not written down until after 600 BCE. That's pretty late, too.
This argument is only necessary if we try to pin salvation onto the "accuracy of the Bible." Since salvation comes from God, I'd say that the Bible, as a piece of the Tradition is a wonderful resource for the faithful. But as a "necessary" cog in salvation, the Bible has been lifted to a status that was never intended.
davis.esquire
Member
Green Kepi said, "The first whole Bible in English was translated by Wycliffe and Nicholas Hereford about 1380. Miles Goverdale Version was in 1535. Matthew's Bible was published in 1537. The Great Bible in 1539. The Geneva Bible in 1560. Bishop's Bible in 1568 and the Rhemish Version of the New Testament was in 1582. All I was saying...what makes the KJV the 100% "true one"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite true, Kapi.
The firts Catholic Bible COMPLETELY translated to English was published in 1610, a rush job of two seperate works begun nearly 60-years earlier and abandoned until it was recognized that King James of England had hired translators to search out the original Hebrew, Armaic and Greek languages of scripture and translate them to English. The KJV was completed in 1611.
The Catholic version translated to English in 1610 was a copy of the Latin Vulgate, which the Catholics preferred since the dead language required and require, according to catholics, whatever meanings the priests-readers of the dead language wanted and want it to mean in any particular passage.
The translators of the King James 1611 preambled the English translation of the original languages with a dedication to King James son of Mary Queen of Scotts whom Queen Elizebeth beheaded and pretended the throne in Mary's place. Elizebeth had no marriage nor children, having full knowledge that Mary's son James was heir. James recognizing the godless brutality of protestant-clergy and popish men sending half-wits who believed either denominations of denominations of a Christ that cannot be denominated (1Cor 1:11-13; Eph 4:4-6), required all Englishmen to have direct access to God's word so the B.S. might stop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite true, Kapi.
The firts Catholic Bible COMPLETELY translated to English was published in 1610, a rush job of two seperate works begun nearly 60-years earlier and abandoned until it was recognized that King James of England had hired translators to search out the original Hebrew, Armaic and Greek languages of scripture and translate them to English. The KJV was completed in 1611.
The Catholic version translated to English in 1610 was a copy of the Latin Vulgate, which the Catholics preferred since the dead language required and require, according to catholics, whatever meanings the priests-readers of the dead language wanted and want it to mean in any particular passage.
The translators of the King James 1611 preambled the English translation of the original languages with a dedication to King James son of Mary Queen of Scotts whom Queen Elizebeth beheaded and pretended the throne in Mary's place. Elizebeth had no marriage nor children, having full knowledge that Mary's son James was heir. James recognizing the godless brutality of protestant-clergy and popish men sending half-wits who believed either denominations of denominations of a Christ that cannot be denominated (1Cor 1:11-13; Eph 4:4-6), required all Englishmen to have direct access to God's word so the B.S. might stop.
davis.esquire
Member
P.S.
Green Capi,
The first Catholic Bible translated into English from the original languages was ordered by Pope Pius in 1943, completed in 1970 (a copy I bought that year and still have). The papacy had come to realize that protestant laymen knew more about scripture than the common Catholic priests, who at that tme were required to restrict their studies to cateschisms under the higher priests direction.
I'm only 62, and in my lifetime a catholic who read scripture was committing a sin.
Green Capi,
The first Catholic Bible translated into English from the original languages was ordered by Pope Pius in 1943, completed in 1970 (a copy I bought that year and still have). The papacy had come to realize that protestant laymen knew more about scripture than the common Catholic priests, who at that tme were required to restrict their studies to cateschisms under the higher priests direction.
I'm only 62, and in my lifetime a catholic who read scripture was committing a sin.
Free4all
It's all about the blood
I remember someone in my family saying that same thing... I was brought up catholic until 7th grade.
ThuggishSplicer,
The truth is: Every true Christian on earth, believes that the Bible is, both infallible and inerrant.
The Almighty God, Jehovah has made a promise to all mankind, that He would protect His sayings from all generations, Psalms 12:6,7, Isaiah 40:8, Proverbs 30:5,6, John 17:17, 1Peter 1:25.
Now, how are we to understand this??
It has been proven that no man can translate the Bible, or even copy the entire Bible, without making a mistake.
The Original Autographs were inerrant, and copies would have some errors in them, but as copies were made the same mistakes would not be in all Bibles. By a study and a comparison of different Bibles, any mistakes would be easily discovered and corrected. Today, no Bible is completely free of errors, but if one Bible says one thing and ten say something different, in a particular place, we would take the nine that say the same to be the accurate ones.
Bible Scholars have found copies of the Holy Scriptures, that have been hidden for hundreds of years. When they were compared with other Bibles that had been copies over many times, they were shocked to find so few errors.
Another thing that should make all people understand that the Bible is accurate, and will always be accurate. Our God has stated that His son will judge every person on earth, Acts 17:31. People will be judged by what the Bible says, that is the reason God had His word written and promised to protect it, Psalms 12:6,7. God is more that fair and is righteous in everything He does, so the Bible must remain true, Deuteronomy 32:4, Job 34:10-12, Romans 3:5,6.
No one has any reason to deny the accuracy of God's word, the important thing is to obey what it says, and stop trying to find an excuse for not obeying!!!
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Do people make mistakes? Yes. Who did the actual writing of the stories in the Bible? People. So that's a good reason to question the Bible's accuracy. So I have an excuse for not obeying it. But what excuse do Christians have for not obeying it 100%? Don't they believe it 100% like so many of them claim to?
Is that all that irritates you?