Originally Posted by againstheresies

Did you want to try and take a stab at the question?

Uh... lessee. Where's the dagger?

A translation is not an inspired work; it's just a translation. The scriptures are inspired, but not a translation. However, God's providence influenced the English translation from Greek/Hebrew, as well as translations in other languages.

When somebody quoted this scripture ref saying in part, "All scripture is inspired," that doesn't mean all translations are inspired. It's saying the revealed word of God is inspired.

I don't wish to revisit old controversies, but I really must recommend In Awe of Thy Word by Gail Riplinger. The book is not simply a rehash of the basic questions, such as Sinaiaticus vs. Receptus, although she briefly touches on those matters; rather, it is a unique and utterly invaluable discussion of the development of the English Bible, from the Gothic to the Old English to the King James. She discusses the earlier English translations in great detail, and demonstrates that they were authentic and authoritative. She doesn't say they were "inspired," but then, the Bible itself wasn't "inspired:" it was "given by inspiration" (2 Tim. 3:16).

She also has a very valuable discussion of the "Jesus or Jehovah" question that's become so controversial.

I've been a Christian for many years, and if I were forced to reduce my library to five or ten books, this would be one of them.

Riplinger is a controversial figure, simply by virtue of her sex. That's a shame. Women are not forbidden to do research or write books, and she has rendered a great service to the Body of Christ in her work. She doesn't preach or teach or "usurp authority." The only reason I mention this is that I have heard good, solid Bible believers sneer and dismiss her because she's a woman.

Here's a link, if anyone's interested:

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/home.html

[bibleprotector]

Here are some answers to questions regarding the Word of God before 1611:

1) Why is it if another Bible Version's verse says the same thing that it is not the Word of God?

No. The Word of God is in many books, versions, etc. The issue is how accurately in English the TEXT of the Scripture is rendered and how proper the TRANSLATION is. Clearly, some books are going to match the KJB word for word in places.

A book that is of the right spirit, the proper tradition, can be said to be the Word of God, a book which is of the wrong spirit, a usurping tradition, can at best contain some of the Word of God.

2) Is the KJV1611 the Word of God? If so, and nothing can be changed then why is you revision still the Word of God even though it is changed from the 1611?

Yes, the editions from 1611 are the Word of God, and since the changes are not to the actual (underlying) text or translation, no change, such as correcting typographical errors, standardising the language or introducing editorial regularisation is "changing the Word of God". It is just changing things like typeface, spelling, etc.

There are no changes to the Word of God since 1611 since there are no changes to the Word of God since the inspiration of Scripture.

3) Since there were other accurate Bibles printed before the KJV1611 could one have not applied the same teaching back then and say the KJV1611 was not the Word of God?

If the Geneva Version and Bishops' Bible, etc. were so accurate, why did both Puritans and Anglicans wish and participate in correcting them and making a new and better translation? Since the Geneva and Bishops' were used as the Word of God, and the KJB is used as the Word of God, there is no problem. The "teaching" is that God's work through history is for the purifying and settling of things on Earth which are already settled in Heaven. In other words, there is no continuing holding to the Geneva Version today in any discernable way simply because people knew that the KJB was better, and in time this was vindicated.

4) Do you realize the KJV1611 were written by Anglicans which are basically Catholics and still persecuted Christians. Do you trust a Bible that was written by them? (It is accurate but I am just asking you. I believe the KJV is the Word of God along with other versions so please do not take me wrong and think I am trying to disprove it. I am not.)

The Anglicans at that time were anti-Catholic. Some of the Anglicans of the 1630s were getting more Catholic, indeed they were in the 1830s too. Also, there is evidence of where certain Puritans persecuted Christians too, e.g. English Presbyterians versus English Congregationalists in the 1640s. Most importantly, Puritans were involved in the making of the KJB, and unless you are accusing them of being Papists or crypto-Catholics, then your point would be that there were really no Christians in existence circa 1611.

5) The writers wrote in the preface or something like that at the beginning that it was a translation and not inspired. Why is it then that you think it is the only inspired word if those who wrote it warned this was not the case?

Of course the KJB is a translation, and it was not made by inspiration. That is just silly points made by people who think KJBOs are cultists.

6) What did people do before 1611 for a Bible? Could the Geneva or Bishops (which is what the KJV is a revision of) not have been the Word of God back then?

The Word of God existed in 90 A.D., it existed in 300-400 A.D. in Latin, and it existed in 1540 or 1599 in English. So, clearly a Protestant living in 1610 had the Bible, the Word of God. The whole point is that the KJB is a good revision of the other good Bibles.

7) (If you answered yes to #6) If the Geneva or Bishops could have been the Word of God back then then why can we not have an updated version today?

But we do, the KJB is an updated version of the Geneva and Bishops.

Now, the reason why the KJB should be fixed as far as text and translation is because once it was made perfect, there was no need to change it. We have no need to change the Bible today. It is perfect.

The translators themselves said, "there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue".

[George]

Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride

I don't wish to revisit old controversies, but I really must recommend In Awe of Thy Word by Gail Riplinger. The book is not simply a rehash of the basic questions, such as Sinaiaticus vs. Receptus, although she briefly touches on those matters; rather, it is a unique and utterly invaluable discussion of the development of the English Bible, from the Gothic to the Old English to the King James. She discusses the earlier English translations in great detail, and demonstrates that they were authentic and authoritative. She doesn't say they were "inspired," but then, the Bible itself wasn't "inspired:" it was "given by inspiration" (2 Tim. 3:16).

She also has a very valuable discussion of the "Jesus or Jehovah" question that's become so controversial.

I've been a Christian for many years, and if I were forced to reduce my library to five or ten books, this would be one of them.

Riplinger is a controversial figure, simply by virtue of her sex. That's a shame. Women are not forbidden to do research or write books, and she has rendered a great service to the Body of Christ in her work. She doesn't preach or teach or "usurp authority." The only reason I mention this is that I have heard good, solid Bible believers sneer and dismiss her because she's a woman.

Here's a link, if anyone's interested:

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/home.html

Aloha brother,

I am in complete agreement with your comments. Gail Riplinger has brought a whole new "perspective" to the "Which Bible" debate that is both refreshing and informative.

A very good Christian friend of mine that now resides here on Kauai, knows sister Riplinger personally, and has been in her and her husband's home and has fellowshipped with her and her husband on several occasions.

His testimony is that Gail Riplinger is one of the nicest, sweetest, and humble persons you could meet (She's barely 5' tall); and that she is not seeking to preach or usurp authority over the brethren, but is trying to inform them of the truth.

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila andPriscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

If Aquila and Priscilla could expound the way of God "more perfectly" to Apollos {An "eloquent" man of God "mighty in the Scriptures"} - why can't Gail Riplinger expound on the issue of "Which Bible" for the benefit of all Bible believers everywhere?

Since sister Riplinger is not seeking the office of a bishop {elder/pastor} or a deacon; and since she hasn't sought any position of authority OVER men in the body of Christ - I can see no reason to malign her or dismiss her (or her books), just because she is a woman. I hate to admit this - but In 68 years of life I have met women who are brighter than me and may actually know more than me on some issues! Sometimes the "brethren" get their britches in a bunch over nothing.

[George]

Aloha brother,

I just want to thank you for your fine defense of the King James Bible. Once again - your last Post concerning the Holy Bible is both informative and edifying to the brethren and glorifying to God. THANKS!