Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
If you mean "perfect" in the KJV-only sense, why is this sad? Haven't you guys been saying this is how it was for the first 80% of church history?
|
No Brian. My point was that God's book for the O.T. was the Hebrew Scriptures and most likely the Old Latin and Waldensian bibles for the N.T.
[QUOTE]I believe I hold God's word in my hands when I hold the KJV. And when I hold any of several other versions. I do not believe mistakes in the ink-on-paper mean there must be mistakes in the intended meaning. As the KJV translators said, all existing translations are "the word of God" despite imperfections in them and despite variances in quality between them (and before someone reminds me that they would not say that about the "modern" versions, I would remind them that they even called the LXX "the word of God"and the LXX is much more dissimilar from the KJV than "modern" versions are).[/QUOTER]
It seems you accept the Preface to the Reader and the KJV translators as final authority when it suits you even though they were wrong, and reject the text God produced through them as wrong when it is right.
To try to get around my post to you about Tyndale being "in the same way the word of God" as the King James Bible by telling us this was the view of the KJV translators is not addressing the issues. I want to know what YOU think and How YOU can justify your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
Yes, I believe the KJV is "the word of God", but in the same way that the Geneva Bible was "the word of God", Tyndale's translation was "the word of God" Brian
Hi Brian. It is statements like this that make me wonder what kind of strange logic you are using to try to sound 'orthodox' or even insightful. I have a lot more I could post about Tyndale's version, but here are just a couple examples.
Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Luke 17:36 - “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left.”.
Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Mark 11:26 - “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. “
Amazingly, Tyndale’s N.T. also omits all these words from James 4:6 - “Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”
In the book of Revelation Tyndale omits the words: “And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee” from Revelation 18:23 and the entire verse in Revelation 21:26 which reads: “And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.”!!
Now, how in the name of sound reasoning can Tyndale's version be called "in the same way" the "the word of God" and the King James Bible also be called "in the same way the word of God"?
Do you mean that Tyndale contained some or even most of God's words, but not all of them? Or did the King James Bible add these parts to the word of God? How is this "in the same way"?
How do you reason your way through this kind of logic?
Don't cop out on us by taking a quote from the Preface OUT OF CONTEXT and not addressing the issues. How do YOU explain how both these Bible versions ARE IN THE SAME WAY THE WORDS OF GOD.
Will K