Do we have a complete, perfect, and sufficient Bible?

The King James translators had one goal – to make an outstanding English translation to which no one could take exception. They succeeded in this, and for over 300 years, this was regarded as "the Bible" by everyone in the English-speaking world. But then came the critics who wanted to promote corrupt Gnostic Greek manuscripts, and now we have all the modern versions. The OT was also corrupted by Rudolf Kittel, and is now used instead of the traditional Hebrew text.

Every Christian owes it to himself or herself to know which is the true Bible, since it is the Word of God, and is totally sufficient to bring sinners to salvation and saints to perfection. God speaks to us through His Word, and the words of Christ are the words of life.

I'm sure John will explain.

Monogenes means "uniquely begotten" (not created) and reveals an ETERNAL Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. There is no mother involved, since this is not a human begetting.

The New King James Version is my go-to translation currently.

By itself it neither says nor implies anything about Jesus’ relationship to His Father.

It absolutely does, Please go and read John chapter 1 again and stop being obtuse. Either John was inspired to write those words or he wasn't.

I doubt it, but I would be pleased to be wrong.


In a word, wrong!

It means species-unique, one-of-a-kind. By itself it neither says nor implies anything about Jesus’ relationship to His Father. Those ideas come from other words and verses.

Though “only begotten” is the chosen translation, it’s incorrect (another case among many where the KJV is wrong),as the term has nothing to do with ‘begetting’ as in reproducing after one’s own kind.

Hi @John146

That's an irony of God isn't it? Not one man has proven it guilty. Nor has any man proven it not. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We don't have the original MSS. You can't prove either position. We can only accept on faith that Erasmus produced a good and suitable translation of the sources available to him to cobble together a new translation of God's word for that day and that generation. It was a wonderful thing that he did. Many great and godly men have given of their life's work to practice Paul's instructions to us that we be careful and studious with God's word. These men, like Erasmus, took on the calling of trying to produce a version that the commoner of that day could understand. He was, supposedly commissioned by King James to do that and thus the name, the King James version. There's some quibble about how much the King might have been involved in the work, if any, other than commissioning it. And that was also a wonderful thing.

That a Gentile King of the earth would find God's word so valuable as to order a translation to be made. To get it out of the locked hands of the Catholic organization who were trying to always keep it in it's Latin form so the common man would have to trust their understanding of all that God reveals to us in His great Scriptures. Praise Him!!!! He is God over all!!

But it's just a translation made from the best available sources that Erasmus had available to him. Today we have more translations of God's perfect word. His pure truth that He has revealed through His faithful prophets to deliver to us. And that truth is not for us to sit and squabble over 'how' some particular translator did in his translation work. No, the work of the Scriptures is to reveal a God who created all that is that we see. To tell us that this God loves us and created us to have and be in a real personal relationship. That word that God sent to us through His many Jewish prophets is for turning the hearts of men back to Him. To tell us that we can have what He has to offer us, if we would trust in the work and sacrifice of His Son. The Scriptures, my friend, are not for us to argue over "OOOOOO, this guy is more correct than this guy'. The Scriptures were sent to us that we may know God and His salvation.

In my research over 30 years, I've found that there are at least a dozen good and reliable translations that will do that.

So, I will leave you to argue the case that you cannot prove and tell you that I believe God wants you to take that copy of your King James translation and bring people to Him through His Son.

God bless you in that work.
Ted

I doubt it, but I would be pleased to be wrong.


In a word, wrong!

It means species-unique, one-of-a-kind. By itself it neither says nor implies anything about Jesus’ relationship to His Father. Those ideas come from other words and verses.

Though “only begotten” is the chosen translation, it’s incorrect (another case among many where the KJV is wrong),as the term has nothing to do with ‘begetting’ as in reproducing after one’s own kind.

And even without the added information I believe the Bible is sufficient enough for what we need to use as a guideline for this life.

Hi @FollowerofShiloh

That's rather my understanding. I'm don't know whether any of the books of the Apocrypha are blessed to have been given through the work of the Holy Spirit to some follower of God, but I haven't yet found anything within them that isn't already testified to among the 66 books that we have. And honestly, any doctrine that is supported solely on some piece from the extrabiblical accounts would be questionable in my understanding.

You mention having read the books and understanding God's plan. I too, believe that the Scriptures delineate a working out plan of God. From the moment that He spoke into the emptiness of our known universe and said, "Let there be light!", the Scriptures describe plan beginning with God creating a creature that He called man and culminating in His taking a harvest from all of mankind that has ever lived to be with Him for eternity. From beginning to end of what we know as the Scriptures, God has worked to bring about this great harvest and He will get His harvest. God's will for creating this realm in which we live will not be thwarted by the likes of feeble man.

God bless you,
Ted

Where did you get this definition of monogenes?

Using the first mention principle:

Which only exists in KJV-only circles. It's not really a 'thing'.

As to the rest of your post, you're missing the point. "Monogenes" simply does not mean "only-begotten". "Unique" is a much better translation, and it falls short too.

What does the word begotten mean to you? Do you believe God the Father was responsible for Mary being with child? What word should be used, because this is the big difference between Jesus and all the other sons of God in scripture.

Genesis 5:
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

You could always recall that it is actually 24 +27 = 51 books. And 5 +1 is also 6! 66 without the last 6 means nothing. But 6 +6 = 12 means the number of divine government (hence 12 apostles or 12 tribes of Israel).

And if Scripture is not complete then you are questioning the fact that Christ gave John "the Revelation o Jesus Christ" as the very last book. So you have just three other options: (1)go along with the Catholic Church, (2) go along with the Orthodox churches, or (3) go along with the Mormons.

Your criteria of perfection are not necessarily the true criteria. You claim that the KJB cannot be made better. But there were improvements made to it at least a couple of times. And the King James 2000 Bible does exactly what is needed to clarify, something which has caused confusion. This does not detract from the perfection of the KJB. So take a look at this:
King James Bible
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
King James 2000 Bible
Because you will not leave my soul in hades, neither will you allow your Holy One to see corruption.

The Greek Received Text should be the taken as the starting point. And the word in Greek is hadou which is translated as Hades.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδου, οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν

We know that Hades is NOT the actual Hell -- the Lake of Fire -- for which the Greek is Gehenna. And Hell is not Tartarus either. As to why the translators did not simply transliterate these words is something we will never know. They did transliterate all the Hebrew names which are spelled differently in Greek, instead of translating them. So we have "Jonas" for "Jonah" and "Noe" for Noah.

King James Bible
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
King James 2000 Bible
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Did the King James 2000 faithfully translate the exact Greek? Yes it did.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν Ἰωνᾶς ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους [in the belly of the great fish] τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας

So all I am saying here is that in spite of its 99.9% accuracy and reliability, there is room for improvement. But the modern versions are in fact corruptions.

‘Begotten’: born by sexual procreation.

Scripture says the Holy Spirit is directly responsible for Mary’s pregnancy, though of course it is by the Father’s will.

Which word? “Unique” is probably the best single word.

Unique does not connect Father God as being directly responsible for "fathering" Jesus. Every child of God is unique in their own way. What separates Christ from all other sons of God? Begotten.

“Unique” has no obligation to connect Father God to Jesus where monogenes doesn’t. You need to set aside the KJV wording and its implications and focus on the meaning of monogenes by itself. Don’t use KJV-related references as you will just go in circles.