[Will Kinney]

Hi brother V. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I guess there are different ways of looking at how God has preserved His inspired and inerrant words, but I rejoice to see that you, as well as I, believe they are found today in the King James Bible.

We all do see through a glass darkly but one day soon we will know even as we are known. True faith is a gift from God and I thank Him every day for giving me faith to believe the glorious gospel of salvation in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and faith to believe His precious words of truth and grace.

Blessings to you brother,

Accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6)

Will K

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Hi brother V. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I guess there are different ways of looking at how God has preserved His inspired and inerrant words, but I rejoice to see that you, as well as I, believe they are found today in the King James Bible.

What on earth would I be doing in this forum if I believed otherwise?

Never mind. Don't answer that....

[KJBPrincess]

Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride

It is a sheer canard to imply that there was no written word of God prior to 1611 - - - in fact, it's worse than a canard; it's an insult to the memory of some of God's most faithful saints. William Tyndale was not burned at the stake in 1536 for the sake of an "inadequate translation;" his version, at that point in time, was the word of God, just as the AV is in our own time. And there were others: because, as has been mentioned once or twice in this thread, God's word was purified over a period of time.

Very well said, VR!

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Hi PB1789,



I do believe he can (and did) preserve his written word over the many centuries. My point is that if the form of that preservation was not a single, exclusive, textually-inerrant book for the first 80% of church history, and scripture does not say anything about this changing in 1611, by what authority should anyone believe it changed? Why should those scriptures that talk of preservation change meaning just because someone hand-cranked a printing press? Why claim the Bible is the only source of doctrine, but then hold to a new doctrine that is not in the Bible?



A Christian should be defending the truth regardless of how that truth may be abused by others.



First, I came because I was having this discussion on another board with Kinney but he brought his response to this board (and others) and abandoned the original board, and when I found it here he invited me to continue the discussion here. Second, I do hold to the AV/KJ, just not to the AV/KJ-only because that is a doctrine I do not find in the Bible. It it is a new doctrine, a doctrine not possible for the first 80% of church history. Only scripture is the authoritative source of doctrine, right? So by what authority should we accept this new doctrine?

Brian

Say again your last. Transmission was garbled.


Brian T. : --- Your words are in english, but I'm still not sure what you believe,,, sooo I went over to the website on your Profile Page and looked around. Saw Posts by Steven Avery and Will Kinney and your posts. After reading several posts on several threads,,, I can understand why Will Kinney came over here. The website is meant to be about "Bible Versions", (which would be a good topic to discuss-IMO)---but it seems like most of the group over there has to spend their efforts on bad-mouthing the AV/KJ and especially "KJ Onlyism"... and least from what I saw.

Do you read from a modern translation ? Do you sell/market one of the versions that follow the 1881 R.V. ? Do you own stock in Zondervan/Tyndale/NavPress/etc.. ? I'm trying to figure out your "point-of-view". {I'm not the Admin or Mod.--- just curious}. I do appreciate your reply to my post---no cuss words or insults-unlike some folks- .

I think the Post by "Vendetta Ride" was well done wherein he mentioned the various Bible versions/translations. He stole my sermon-- . Before the 1604-1611 A.V., the Geneva Bible was used by many, many English reading Christians (to include the Pilgrims that sailed over on the Mayflower) and btw--even though I only own AV/KJ Bibles and a N.T.,,, If the guy in the red suit with the reindeer dropped a a copy of the Geneva in my chimney---I wouldn't mind!

[PB1789]

Will Kinney:--- Good Posts on this Thread.

Vendetta Ride:---- Very good points in your post above! You posted ( and rather well)- (didn't know about the Gothic one- thanks.) what I was going to mention about those early english translations. Tyndale lived/worked translated about the same time period as Martin Luther, but unlike Luther, Tyndale did not have a friendly Government allowing him to do his work. He fled, but was captured in Belgium (which was a R.C. governed country) , and he was burned at the stake. Much of his translation/phrasing survived and was used by the 1604 translators.

Then the gents who were Protestant refugees in the city of Geneva ( from the claws of the R.C. Queen Mary of England ) translated a Bible that was used for many decades. Much blood, tears and sweat in order to get the Bible into the hands/language of the common people. Makes a person wonder what those R.C. agents/Jesuits are going to say on Judgement Day ..?

[bibleprotector]

The first step was the Gothic Bible, which we associate with Ulfilas (310-383). The Goths may have received the New Testament first-hand: many of them served in the Roman army in Thessalonica and Cappadocia. Ulfilas' Gothic Bible, according to liberal and conservative scholars alike, contained no contamination (or influence, if you prefer) from Jerome's wretched Vulgate. The Cambridge History of the Bible says that Ulfilas' Byzantine text "differs very little from the fully developed Textus Receptus of the later period." So, the Goths had a Bible, long before 1611.

The Goths were not the only one to have a good Bible in that period. And there is no connection between the Gothic Bible and the English. They are separate branches on the Bible tree.

I know that the Gothic language is the eastern form of the Germanic family tree, but that is as close as it gets to "English". English is a branch on the far end of the German family tree. To find a common ancestor language, you have to go back toward the time of Ashzenaz ("proto-German")... or Woden.

The "pure stream" of the NT was being preserved most specifically in Byzantium. However, it is true that Bibles already existed in Latin of the proper type before the Vulgate, and these continued for many years in "insular" use, such as in Britain. The Vulgate was not entirely bad, though it did overtake Europe to become a standard Latin Version.

We already have quotes of the Scripture from Gildas from the 6th century, whose Latin Scriptures do not match the Vulgate, but shows similarity to the Byzantine.

Next came the Anglo-Saxon Bible(s), which started cropping up around 450 AD. The "father of English history," the Venerable Bede, bears witness to these vernacular Bibles, which were of the Byzantine text type. There was not a single edition of the Bible in these days before the printing press, but the Anglo-Saxon Bibles were faithful to the Receptus and to one another. So the ancient Britons had God's word, too.

The Anglo-Saxon Versions did not begin until about 658 A.D. or so, and were not wholly conformed to the Vulgate, because they were based on the pre-Vulgate line of Latin Bibles which had gone from France into Ireland, to Scotland and to the North. Therefore Bede's Bible would be similar to the Byzantine Text. However, in time, there was an increasing "Romanization".

Then, like dawn breaking after a stormy night, came John Wycliffe's Bible in 1389.

Wycliffe used the Vulgate to render into English, just as others around that time had done so, like the R.C. translator Richard Rolle (1290–1349).

Then Tyndale's printed edition.

Tyndale's version, which underwent revision, appeared in Matthew's Bible, also Coverdale's further edited and expanded, and then the Great Bible too.

Then the Geneva Bible in 1560.

There are at least 40 differences between the 1557 NT and the 1560 NT.

Then the Bishops' Bible, in 1568 (although the Geneva was still in use until around 1599).

The seven purifications leading to the KJB cannot be the Gothic, and is not the Wycliffe (it had no real influence on the KJB).

[MC1171611]

I tend to think of it this way: God preserved His people, the Jews, scattered all over the globe, for almost 2,000 years since the last dispersion, and He was able to bring them back into the Land of Promise starting in 1948. If He could do that with those stiffnecked (God bless them!!) and rebellious people (Shalom Aleichem! ), then what a fool a man would have to be to think that He could not have preserved His own WORDS through the centuries and brought them back together in one place in 1611!

As far as Wycliffe is concerned; there's an interesting passage (and some of you may know this) in Revelation chapter 2. The Church of Thyatira is, I believe, the church of the Dark Ages, when Rome ruled with an iron fist and slaughtered those that dared to stand against her evilness and perversions. In verse 28, Jesus told them that He would "give him the morning star." While Jesus is the Bright and Morning Star (not to be confused with Lucifer in Isaiah 14 in all the new perversions!), John Wycliffe, if you'll remember, is called "the morning star of the Reformation" for his work in translating and promulgating the Bible in the common language. For whatever reason, God protected him (though men like Tyndale and Huss were killed for the same things), and his efforts helped shape the Reformation that would explode through Luther and Calvin (ick!).

I just thought I'd throw that in there.

Hi Vendetta Ride,

I am still attempting to figure out exactly what your position is. You seem dubious as to the uniquely preserved status of the Authorized Version; I'm trying to understand why. Frankly, the notion that all of the modern versions could be equally reliable, or equally "preserved," does not seem to be the sort of thing that would commend itself to a rational mind.

Let me clarify my position for you. Here's what I recently posted elsewhere to someone that asked: I believe God preserved his word, and that we have it today just as we've had it throughout the church age. What Will and I disagree on is the form of that preservation. Like Will, I believe that prior to 1611, God's word was preserved not in a single perfect complete book, but in various texts. Unlike Will, I see no doctrinal, authoritative reason to believe differently for the time after 1611. 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", etc., but since scripture itself doesn't tell us the KJV is textually perfect, then by definition KJV-onlyism cannot be an authoritative Biblical doctrine. That's all I'm saying and that's what I mean when I said "So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now'. I deny that doctrine, because that doctrine is not found in the Bible." Just like I would deny the doctrine that the Geneva Bible (or any other translation) is textually and singly the perfect complete preservation of the word of God, that Mary physically ascended into heaven, that martyrs receive 70 virgins when they enter eternity, or that after Jesus' resurrection he appeared physically to the native Indians of North America to preach the gospel to them - for none of these doctrines are found in scripture and thus are, by definition of someone who claims scripture is the only source of doctrine, not authoritative Biblical doctrines.

So, that's my position. I do believe the KJV is "the word of God", but I believe it in the sense the KJV translators believed it: that multiple translations can all be the word of God because a translation of a King's speech is still the King's speech even though not all translators do an equally good job, and that a man is still made in the image of God even though he may have scars or warts on his hands. I do not believe all translations are of equal quality, and I believe the KJV is definitely one of the better ones. If some one wants to use it exclusively, I have absolutely no objection. But I will not accept a doctrine about the KJV that does not come from scripture, and I don't think it's wrong of me to ask someone who does accept this doctrine, like Will, "why?" - and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a reply from him that is not full of personal jabs.

It is a sheer canard to imply that there was no written word of God prior to 1611

I agree 100%. However, like Will I believe there was no "single 'hold in your hand' complete inerrant perfect Bible" in the year 1600 A.D. I agree that Tyndales and others were the written word of God. But 1. they differ from the KJV, and 2. we still have them today.

there have also been seven purifications in English

This is where we disagree, for the following reasons:

- Psalm 12:6 is using a simile. The verse is saying that God's words are (not will be) pure. How pure? Pure as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. That's pretty darn pure.
- You, I, Will, etc. already all agree that God's wordS (plural) are, and always have been pure. You and Will are saying that God's word (singular, the "Bible") underwent a purification process - yet the verse does not talk about the word (singular) but about the wordS (plural). Why are you attributing this supposed purification process to the word (singular) when the verse is specifically talking about the wordS (plural)?
- even if this was a prophecy (which I disagree with) about a future purification of God's words (which I disagree with), the verse does not give any more details. Naming specific dates, languages, version is unauthoriative speculation, and you cannot hold this guesswork as authoritative doctrine for the church. You have no more authority to determine these details than anyone else who would name any other dates, languages or versions.

God bless,
Brian

Originally Posted by PB1789

Brian T. : --- Your words are in english, but I'm still not sure what you believe,,,
...
Do you read from a modern translation ? Do you sell/market one of the versions that follow the 1881 R.V. ? Do you own stock in Zondervan/Tyndale/NavPress/etc.. ? I'm trying to figure out your "point-of-view". {I'm not the Admin or Mod.--- just curious}. I do appreciate your reply to my post---no cuss words or insults-unlike some folks- .

See my previous post for what I believe on this issue. Yes, I read from a modern translation occasionally, but not exclusively - I use a range of translations including the KJV. I do not sell/market Bibles, nor own stock in any publishing company. I am not affiliated with any publishing company, although I do admire and support the translation/missionary work of Wycliffe Bible Translators.

If the guy in the red suit with the reindeer dropped a a copy of the Geneva in my chimney---I wouldn't mind!

I know what you mean. A few years ago I managed to get my hands on the University of Wisconsin Press' 1969 facsimile reprint of the 1560. It's a real treasure, and very interesting to read the word of God as it appeared almost 500 years ago. You see, I believe the Geneva is the word of God, but not 100% textually perfect. I believe the same about the KJV. All I'm questioning Kinney (and others) on is the fact that they have no real, Biblical authority to say things changed in 1611. They can speculate about supposed prophecies and supposed fulfillments, but it all boils down to personal, fallible interpretation and guesswork.

God bless,
Brian

Hi Brandplucked,

To the best of my understanding at this time I would have to say there there was not a perfect, ENTIRE Bible as we know it today which contained both the New and Old Testaments.

OK, so since there wasn't a single "hold in your hand" complete inerrant perfect Bible in the year 1600 A.D., then obviously you do not believe that scripture teaches that there will always be a single, perfect, preserved Bible (or else those verses would be in error prior to 1611). You believe that Psalm 12:6 prophesied that someday there will be, but we are in agreement about the lack of a single "hold in your hand" complete inerrant perfect Bible from the time the last scripture was originally penned in the first century A.D, until 1611.

So, where that leaves us is to determine:

- whether or not scripture prophesied a future single "hold in your hand" complete inerrant perfect Bible
- if scripture did, what that future single "hold in your hand" complete inerrant perfect Bible is

You have already seen my objections to your use of Psa 12:6 (they are listed again in my previous response to Vendetta Drive). Bottom line, is even if you are correct (which I do not believe you are) in both there being a prophecy in Psa 12:6, and the details of the fulfillment of that prophecy, you still have no authority to proclaim it as doctrine for the church. Nobody is doctrinally bound to believe it (for scripture doesn't specify this), and you should not be opposing and attacking fellow Christians who are not willing to go beyond what scripture states. If Jesus Christ himself were to appear to the world and proclaim that yes, Psa 12:6 is a prophecy about a future single "hold in your hand" complete inerrant perfect Bible, and yes, the fulfillment of that prophecy is the 1611 KJV, then we would be doctrinally bound to believe it because it was pronounced by someone with real authority.

It seems that God preserved His perfect words in the majority of the Hebrew texts for the Old Testament, and the New Testament may well have been found among a majority of the Waldensian believers around the time of the Reformation. Can I prove this to your satisfaction? No, not at all.

You don't have to prove it to me. I agree with that. God's preserved His perfect words in the majority of the Hebrew textS (plural!) for the Old Testament, and as your webpage puts it, the Old Latin and the Waldensian bibleS (plural!) contained (not "were") the perfect New Testament.

Satan is always trying to discredit "The Bible, the words of God, Scripture" or however you wish to name it.

I agree. Satan is also always trying to introduce new doctrines that are not from scripture.

There is absolutely no need nor promise from God that every nation or every individual would have a perfect, inerrant and complete Bible in their language.

I agree.

It was only after the King James Bible came out and was well established among English speaking people that the church began to make their formal declarations concerning the inerrancy of Scripture.

Are you saying that "the church" is authoritative, as scripture is? Also, the church never made any formal declarations about KJV-onlyism, just about "scripture".

It seems that your view is that God's true words are STILL scattered "out there somewhere" among the remaining thousands of variant readings in obscure languages that the vast majority of people cannot read, and not one of you can know for sure which ones are right and which are not. You end up being Bible Agnostics, and every individual becomes his own little authority as to what God may or may not have said, and each one differs from everybody else.

Not at all. My view is that God's words are in the same form now as they were prior to 1611, and that there is no authoritative reason to believe differently.

Brian