What Greek text do you hold to that is perfect or near perfect?
What English translation do you see as God's words without error?
Do you not choose readings that are legit and others that are not?
....
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What Greek text do you hold to that is perfect or near perfect?
What English translation do you see as God's words without error?
Do you not choose readings that are legit and others that are not?
....
B
Blue155
Guest
I have noticed how out of all the translations there are..the KJV seems to be the one that gets attacked the most (and I’m not even KJV only), just going by what I’ve seen or heard.
This isn't my experience, but it may well be true given it's long history and the fact that there are those who advocate for it being inspired. I don't know of other translations that are pushed as "_____-only" no matter what the language.
B
Blue155
Guest
Well, it appears that you missed the second half of my post.
The reply by me that you are highlighting now was in response to another thing you said.
In post #840, I quoted your words from your question about whether the KJV was inspired or not. I replied by saying this:
I hold to two possible views of inspiration.
#1. I believe God had inspired the originals once and that God carries that inspiration through preservation like a horse carries a carriage. So in this view it is not a re-inspiration or double inspiration.
#2. I believe that when the book of Job may be a possible definition on inspiration. Meaning, inspiration is merely illumination of what God wants to communicate to man whereby he would write down those words. Thus the words are inspired because God has given man the understanding or revelation on what to say in order to write them.
“But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
(Job 32:8, KJV)
What does this mean involving the KJV translators?
Well, I don't believe the KJV or the KJV translators were inspired in the same way as the originals or as the apostles were because the originals was written down once and were perfect. The KJV translators went through a multi-revision process in several groups or companies.
However, I do believe that the hand of God was upon the KJV translators.
Meaning, in the multi-revision process of translating the KJV and by their looking at the Hebrew, Greek, foreign language Bibles, etc.
(a) God was giving many of the KJV translators the correct understanding (without their knowledge that this was happening).
(b) God was ultimately guiding the KJV translators to put the correct words in the translation in its final step through their multi-revision process (without their knowledge).
How do I know this is what happened?
Look at the fruit.
The KJV became the standard for hundreds of years and led to the three great revivals in history.
Where are the great revivals with the modern Bibles?
The KJV became a part of our language in English with hundreds of idioms.
So even unbelievers will speak God's word without them even realizing (Because they are like sheep, i.e., not in the biblical sense).
.....
Interesting.
Question #1: - Do you see the KJV without any errors?
Question #2: - Do you see the KJV as the most trustworthy translation in English today?
Question #3. - Do believe Modern Bibles contain false doctrines?
Note: I will not try to go on the offensive with you if you think otherwise.
I would just like to know where you stand.
Note: - I know you said you believe in the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7, which appears only in TR Bibles like the KJV.
.....
BH, you are still showing signs of poor understanding of English, so please allow me to explain again:
No, I cannot point you to any perfect English, Greek, Hebrew or BH text.
I did not even try to rebut your points, because I am a truthseeker rather than a debater.
Yes, I addressed the point about Jesus appearing to sin and did not try to rebut anything,
although I did explain why Jesus might have had righteous indignation because of the leper's question.
I am glad you are not KJV only, because I have experienced pastors who think their job is wasting most of their
sermon's time explaining to the congregation what it means in modern English instead of beginning with a MEV.
Even if there were no errors in the KJV, we as fallible sinners could not claim to know for certain that is true.
We all walk by opinion aka faith, however confident for various reasons.
I tend to have confidence in both KJV and MEV translators, because I believe they were trying their best because of love for God/GW. However, this does not mean any of them had access to the original perfect manuscripts.
I did not choose the 1984 NIV; it was given to me by my church when I was ordained in that year.
I am aware that the extant manuscripts use male-oriented terms when both sexes or neither are obviously meant.
I think I am as good as most people at seeing patterns, connecting dots and harmonizing diverse Scriptural doctrines.
Again, I want to say that the KJV was not inspired in the exact same way as the originals.
I do not hold to a classic re-inspiration or double inspiration viewpoint.
So to summarize my two positions that I gave you before in light of your question:
(1) Under the view that the originals are inspired once, and that inspiration is only carried through preservation like a horse carries a carriage: This would mean that I do not think that the KJV was re-inspired or had some kind of secondary inspiration but that it simply was inspired by the fact that it carries forth the original wording that is inspired through preservation of the translation of those original language words into English. In this view, the KJV is only inspired in the sense that the original language words that are inspired are carried through preservation with the translation of those original languages into 17th century English.
(2) Under the view that "inspiration" means "illumination" according to Job 32:8: I would take this to mean that while the KJV translators did not receive a 100% uncorrupted revelation or illumination by God to write perfect Scripture one time like many men of God did, I believe that God was able to speak to them (without their knowledge that such a thing was happening) that would communicate the correct words into English on what the original Hebrew and Greek says for that generation through a process of multiple revisions (With God overseeing the text to make sure that the right words were chosen in the end of the translation). Do I see the KJV English as fully conveying all of what the Hebrew and Greek says? No. But neither do I see the KJV as having any errors in it, either. It may convey the Hebrew and Greek in limited ways, but this is not the first time God would veil meaning before. Jesus (who is God) gave many parables in the public but they did not understand the spiritual aspect of it, except for his disciples. It is only now with those who have a completed Bible who can understanding the spiritual explanation given to the parables of Christ (which the Father ultimately told Him to say). So in this view, the KJV would be an inspired work by God ONLY in the sense that God gave the KJV translators understanding at the right moments in time while God was also guiding them to put the right words in their translation (without their knowledge) through their multi-revisionist work to hammer out the perfect translation in 1600s English.
.....
So this means that my claims before were not incorrect because my claims were against those who have a shape-shifter text mentality or a pick and choose your own adventure Bible type belief. That is the only alternative if do not think there is no perfect English, Greek, or Hebrew text in existence. If that is what you believe, then such a belief would run contrary to Jesus speaking about how not one jot or tittle shall pass away. These are marks that make up the Hebrew language. So at the very least, if you are a Bible believer, you should naturally accept that there must be a perfect preserved Hebrew text in existence right now (Well, that is if you believe Jesus' words plainly like a child).
If you are for the NIV, that means you are for a shape-shifter text, whether you like that truth or not.
The NIV has constantly shape-shifted over the years. The Nestle and Aland is the Greek that underlies the NIV. The Nestle and Aland Greek text has constantly shape-shifted as a text over the years.
You said:
A truth seeker must explore the English and the Greek with either Ai's or the internet to confirm the truth of things.
Seeing the English or the Greek and the context does not support you involving Mark 1:41, I don't see how you claim you are a truth seeker here. It just seems like you are not willing to see it and not wanting to admit you may be wrong here.
You said:
But see. That's the problem. Nowhere in the Bible in English or Greek in Mark 1:40 does it suggest that the leper's question was a question of doubt or unbelief that would have gotten Jesus angry. You have not demonstrated in any way shape or form how that works in English or Greek. But you keep doubling down on that idea as if it were true without any evidence except the flawed NIV 2011 reading that is absolutely ridiculous. Again, you can confirm this with an Ai, and they can explain to you how the English and Greek does not defend your conclusion here.
You said:
I am not sure you understood me. I am for the KJV Bible as the only Bible in English as the final word of authority. I do not see the KJV as having any errors. Where I disagree with my KJV-only brethren is that I believe we can flesh out the meaning of archaic words in the KJV with a Modern Bible (even though I see Modern Bibles as most corrupt because of their many false doctrines). I also do not pretend like the KJV's archaic words are just easy to understand overnight, either. I don't downplay that challenge that the church must contend with involving this matter. Unlike many KJV-only believers, I also do not say that we should not look to the original languages that underly the KJV. Note: I know some KJV-only believers may look to the original languages on occasion, but this still they do not make a consistent practice of this or take it as seriously. This leads to problems in understanding the English in the KJV. They do not know that a Hebrew or Greek word could be conveying a deeper meaning that is not conveyed in the English at times. They just see English as the complete form and I see the KJV English along with the underlying languages as the complete form.
As for the MEV:
See Will Kinney's article here:
https://brandplucked.com/mev2014fakebible.htm?
Note: Please keep in mind that while I am friendly with Will Kinney when it comes to defending the KJV, that does not mean we have not bumped heads on the Calvinist discussion. I strongly disagree with Calvinism. Nevertheless, Will Kinney has done a lot of research into the KJV on a level that many have not.
Again, I am Core KJV (Anchored in the Hebrew and Greek Behind it).
.....
B
Blue155
Guest
When I said “get attacked”, I meant that in a good way. I believe there is a reason a lot of people in the younger crowd don’t like the KJV. Perhaps it is because it refutes their doctrine.
It means that I did not claim your opinions were incorrect when I said I agreed.
However, I do claim that our opinions are not perfect, so we must walk by faith.
I believe God ensured that His Word would be preserved in texts and translated
with sufficient accuracy so that readers could understand, repent and be saved.
Not sure how you got the idea that I defend either NIV version as anything more than adequate,
although I have used my ordination Bible so much that the pages are quite soiled--mostly at Ephesians 4,
and I have no problem with you preferring the KJV as long as you do not practice bibliolatry.
So, anyway, I am ready to continue learning from you whenever you are ready to share some more couplets.
Of course you do not. You hold the position that there is no settled text, so the words of the Bible ultimately come down to preference, so long as no actual Bible is believed to be perfect or without error. That is precisely where we differ. I am not merely “KJV preferred,” as you would like to frame it.
I find that position deeply troubling. A shape shifter text or a Choose Your Own Adventure Bible Reading mentality is highly illogical and problematic on many levels.
You said:
I am not even sure what “bibliolatry” is supposed to mean in the real world we live in. I do not know of any meaningful group today that bows down to the KJV, kisses it, or believes it is the totality of God Himself. Even those commonly labeled as extreme KJV advocates believe God is spirit and distinct from the Bible. I have never seen anyone claim that the KJV should be worshipped.
The Bible is like a love letter from God. It is also where we receive His instructions, and those instructions go far beyond salvation alone. Sanctification matters. The way God instructs His people to live is altered in Modern Bibles, and that distortion has real consequences. The claim that doctrine and Christian living are unaffected by these changes is simply not true, and it is an issue you are not dealing with.
Scripture itself speaks directly to the nature of God’s words:
“Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.”
(Psalms 119:140, KJV)
This verse teaches two clear and inseparable truths. First, it declares that God’s words are very pure. Second, it teaches that the one who recognizes God’s word as pure loves it. The order matters. Love for God’s word flows from acknowledging its purity. God’s word is not loved in spite of corruption but because it is pure.
“Pure” means undefiled and without corruption. Psalm 119:140 does not describe devotion to a text believed to be corrupted, uncertain, or defective. It describes love for God’s word precisely because it is pure. We can openly say that we love God’s word because it is pure. You cannot say that consistently, because you believe the Bible is corrupted and defiled, even if you avoid using those exact words.
Psalm 119:140 also shows that it is not only appropriate but biblical to revere God’s words. Reverence is not idolatry. To revere God’s word is not to treat the Bible as God Himself or as something beyond what it is. The words of Scripture come from the mind of God. They are the expressed thoughts, will, and instructions of God communicated to man. Loving and honoring those words is simply honoring what God has spoken.
Those words are not God Himself, but they are not detached from Him either. They are the means by which He reveals His mind and directs His people. To attack those words, corrupt them, or treat them as unreliable is not a neutral academic exercise. It is an attack on the express thoughts and instructions God has given for our lives. Undermining the purity of God’s words undermines the authority of His revealed will. Psalm 119:140 affirms that God’s servant loves His word precisely because it is pure, and that reverence is exactly what the verse calls for.
This is exactly why the NIV shifts the focus away from God’s word and onto promises:
“Your promises have been thoroughly tested, and your servant loves them.”
(Psalms 119:140, NIV)
This reflects a consistent theme within the Modern Bible Movement, which did not gain real traction until the 1980s. Modern Bibles repeatedly water down or redirect the characteristics Scripture assigns to the communicated Word of God itself. Like many other doctrines that are weakened or altered, this one is foundational.
Your side consistently argues that it is only the doctrines or promises of God that are preserved, not the actual words. It is striking how perfectly Modern Bibles condition people to think exactly that way. Do not take my word for it. Read the PDF. Or download it, upload it into ChatGPT, and ask where this issue is addressed. You can verify for yourself whether what I am saying is true.
You may not agree with the KJV or its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, but its doctrines and theological consistency are far superior to the Modern Bibles. People have been trained to view Scripture as an unsettled text that must be endlessly reconstructed and revised. That mindset did not come from the Bible itself but from modern scholarship, which conditions readers to distrust any settled form of God’s word. The result is perpetual uncertainty, where no Bible is ever final and no text is ever truly authoritative.
Modern scholars repeatedly insist that the KJV is defective while promoting a Critical Text that was never the Bible of the church for any meaningful period of history. That approach is not grounded in preservation, faith, or continuity. It is grounded in academic authority and constant revision.
You said:
I am not interested. The pattern is already clear. You disagree, offer opinion, and avoid engaging the larger body of evidence. At this point, the material is already available. You will simply have to deal with reading the PDF.
.....
Both. I believe GRFS has been preserved (Acts 16:30-31, etc.), but some verses are distorted, such as Mark 16:16-18.
You seem to idolize the KJV, but I understand that it is troubling to walk by faith aka uncertainty.
Part of me prefers proof, too, but the closest I come to it is the Propensity Principle.
So, ultimately, we cannot escape the necessity of voting for/betting on what we choose to believe
and waiting until we are resurrected to attain certainty about which beliefs were best.
Anyone who believes a certain translation is perfect is part of a cult of bibliolatry that effectively worships it.
I love GW, and I have believed the Bible is a love letter from God for 70+ years, which is why I am glad my initials are GW.
I agree its instructions go beyond salvation/GRFS/the kerygma to moral sanctification/didachaic doctrines.
I especially like and agree with Psalm 119 and Ephesians 4 in every translation.
I was enjoying comparing the couplets you shared, so I am sorry you pooped out.
LIC, GWH
You deny re-inspiration in name, but your second view still attributes divine verbal oversight and error-free outcome to the KJV. That is functionally inspiration, even if you relabel it as illumination.
Well, this is a common accusation, and I have heard it many times before. From my perspective, if the King James Bible is God’s perfectly preserved Word in English, which I believe it is, then accusing believers of idolatry simply for trusting God’s words is a serious charge. Scripture plainly teaches that God’s words are pure and preserved (Psalms 12:6–7). To label faith in those words as “cultic” or “bibliolatry” is not a harmless disagreement; it is a slander against believers who are taking God at His word.
To be clear, this does not mean that I believe Christians who are multi-versionists, or who hold to what I would call a “phantom Bible” that exists only in the mind, are unsaved. I fellowship with believers who hold those views. But when someone crosses the line and accuses fellow believers of being in a cult or of worshiping a Bible, that becomes a different matter altogether. Disagreement is one thing. False accusation is another. I do not see how a brother can falsely accuse another and still be right with the Lord unless there is repentance.
The reality is that Westcott and Hort and their 1881 movement are the new kids on the block (which has now slightly morphed into the Nestle and Aland tradition). Westcott and Hort introduced a never-before-seen artificial Greek text by smashing together Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Their movement helped to popularize a system where man sits in judgment over the biblical text, deciding what God said and did not say, rather than humbly believing God’s promises that His words are pure and preserved for all generations. Under this approach, certainty is replaced with probability, and faith in God’s words is treated as naïveté.
Even after I pointed out to you the serious problem in Mark 1:41 in the NIV 2011, you still chose to double down and defend the ridiculous "indignant" reading as a legitimate possibility, all while ignoring the larger pattern and theme that is taking place. Yet no English or Greek grammarian would agree with you that Jesus was angry because the leper was questioning or doubting His willingness. The text does not support that idea.
As I have already shown you, Scripture contains multiple examples where believers make requests of God while explicitly acknowledging His will, without rebuke and without God becoming upset. To suggest otherwise not only ignores basic grammar, but it opens the door for people to conclude that Jesus sinned based on Modern Bible readings. I am not speaking hypothetically. I have personally encountered a professing Christian who believed Jesus sinned and pointed directly to Modern Versions to support that claim.
You said:
You don't seem to understand that even God's commands are changed in Modern Bibles, which would affect your walk or Sanctification. Please refer to my free 77 Changed Doctrines PDF write-up.
You said:
This is where you are confused and uninformed.
I just pointed out to you that Psalms 119:140 in the KJV says that His words are pure, and that is why God's servant loves it.
This describes what I believe and not what you believe. You believe God's words are defiled and not pure today. Hence, you do not love it and say that those who do are cultists and idolaters. As I said before, the NIV says something different. It says His promises are pure. Let me repeat that if you are slow. It says "his promises are pure" in the NIV. Did you get that? This is not an isolated incident in Modern Bibles. Your side keeps telling us repeatedly that God's promises or cardinal doctrines are preserved and not the words. Yet, the very Bibles you read and prefer have a repeated pattern in them that helps to facilitate that very belief. Don't believe me? Read the PDF or have ChatGPT analyze it. But it appears that you do not want to see it.
You said:
So you can refute them with mere opinion alone while ignoring English and Greek grammar and the testimony of the rest of Scripture?
Besides, I do not need to share them because I already have. They are in my PDFs that are free on my website, www.affectionsabove.com.
You said:
It has nothing to do with being pooped out. It has to do with the fact that you are putting up a wall as a response to the changed doctrines I showed. You have not offered any rational explanations as part of any kind of rebuttal. Not even close. You fail to connect the dots or look at the larger pattern that Modern Bibles make Jesus appear to sin. There are other groups of verses that show a pattern like this that attack good doctrines in God's word. But you can just pretend like they do not exist and keep putting up that wall and continue to falsely slander us Bible believers if that helps you to sleep at night.
.....
Not sure why a guy as smart as you are to know so much about biblical manuscripts and languages would claim the Bible
teaches the KJV is "God’s perfectly preserved Word in English", but may I suggest you amend your belief to say "the KJV is the best English translation IMO"? And frankly, I would have no quarrel with that, since it was what I used until I got tired of trying to decipher the KJ English and was given the NEB c. 1967. I guess you view it with disdain also?
If you do NOT deem the KJV to be perfect/verbally dictated by God and do NOT therefore idolize it,
then my statement does NOT apply to you and is neither false nor true with regard to you.
I am glad you do not deem me to be unsaved for liking many translations of GW,
but I guess you consider me back-slidden for viewing the leper as possibly righteously rebuked
for saying "IF you are willing...".
Re your 77 CC, I may get around to viewing it myself, but it won't be as much fun.
Re Psalm 119:140, my NIV says "Your promises have been thoroughly tested, and your servant loves them",
which is true enough for me, and I also believe "his promises are pure" (my default hermeneutic is both-and),
so your accusation is false. I also believe my 2007 ASB, "Your word is completely pure, and Your servant loves it",
my 1976 TEV, "How certain your promise is! How I love it!", and my 1960 NASB, "Thy word is very pure; therefore
Thy servant loves it." So sue me!
For the umpteenth time, we TSers desire to learn, not rebut, so don't be so defensive.
Again, I understand that it is troubling to walk by faith aka uncertainty, because
part of me prefers proof, too, but the closest I come to it is the Propensity Principle,
and I guess the closest you come is the KJV.
So, ultimately, we cannot escape the necessity of voting for/betting on what we choose to believe
and waiting until we are resurrected to attain certainty about which beliefs were best.
My apologies. I should have clarified my position more precisely. While the King James Bible translation work was completed in 1611 and was final in a primary and general sense, I believe that God continued to provide multiple acts of illumination at a very small and careful level in the years that followed. This illumination did not involve new major translation work, doctrinal revision, or ongoing radical retranslation of Scripture. Rather, it involved the refinement, correction, and standardization of the English wording in order to bring the printed text into its most faithful and settled form. These were very slight word level adjustments, fundamentally different in nature from the substantial and often doctrinally significant changes introduced between successive editions of the NIV, such as those culminating in the 2011 revision (Note: In regard to the NIV edition changes, see my free 77 Changed Doctrines PDF at www.affectionsabove.com to learn more.)
In other words, it would not be accurate to say that I hold to a secondary inspiration in the same sense as the inspiration of the originals. More accurately, in my second possible position or view of inspiration, I would call it:
Progressive Illumination Through Multiple Instances Across Time:
By progressive illumination through multiple instances across time, I mean that God granted understanding in many small and discrete ways throughout history to preserve, refine, and standardize the English text of already inspired Scripture, without producing new revelation or repeating the unique original act of inspiration. This illumination operated subtly and providentially, in both the KJV translators work, and later official KJV editors often addressing printer introduced inconsistencies, representational refinements, and minor word level adjustments, rather than introducing new meanings or doctrines.
While the King James Bible was translated in the early seventeenth century, I believe this process of refinement continued at a very limited level through later editions, particularly within the Cambridge textual tradition, until the English text was finally settled in the Pure Cambridge Edition around 1900. This settling did not represent a new translation or a new secondary stage of inspiration, but the completion of the standardization process through God’s providential illumination in multiple instances, resulting in a stable and trustworthy English Bible for the church.
How Progressive Illumination of the KJV Differs from the Inspiration of the Originals
Below is a clear comparison that helps prevent category confusion.
1. Nature of the Act
- Original inspiration was revelatory and creative, producing Scripture itself.
- Progressive illumination was preservative and corrective, refining how Scripture was represented in English.
- Original inspiration occurred as a once for all act through prophets and apostles.
- Progressive illumination unfolded gradually across many small instances over time.
- Original inspiration involved prophetic and apostolic authority.
- Progressive illumination involved no prophetic authority and no claim of divine dictation.
- Original inspiration often involved conscious awareness of speaking or writing God’s words.
- Progressive illumination operated without the translators or revisers knowing when or how God was guiding understanding.
- Original inspiration produced new Scripture that had never existed before.
- Progressive illumination produced no new Scripture and no new doctrine.
- Original inspiration was perfect at the moment of writing.
- Progressive illumination allowed for correctable printing errors and gradual refinement before final standardization.
- Original inspiration governed every word of Scripture.
- Progressive illumination operated narrowly and sparingly, often at the level of minor wording, representation, or standardization.
- Original inspiration revealed God’s Word.
- Progressive illumination preserved and stabilized God’s Word for continued use.
- Original inspiration was complete once Scripture was written.
- Progressive illumination culminated in a settled English text, which I believe is represented today by the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible.
I hope this helps you to understand where I am coming from, and may God bless you.
With loving kindness to you in Christ,
Sincerely,
~ Bible Highlighter.
.....