“Every word of God is pure”
Something to consider is the word Pure. God said in (Prov.30:5) that “Every word of God is Pure”. And in (Ps.119:14)) “Thy word is Very Pure”. And (Ps.12:6) “The words of the Lord are Pure Words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. Then in (Ps.12:7)”Thou shalt Keep them, O Lord, Thou shalt Preserve Them from this generation for ever.” Clearly God said He would give us His Pure Words and then Preserve His Pure Words. Now the word “Pure” means: “Free from anything of a different, inferior, or contaminating kind”, and “Being that and nothing else.” Thus for a Bible to be Pure, by definition, that Bible would have to consist of nothing but God’s exact inspired and preserved words. One word in the entire Book that wasn’t Purely from the mouth of God would taint the entire Book. That Book-Bible would not be Pure, much less Very Pure. For God to be true to His word the KJV must be Perfect. If it is not then one of the other translations has to be or God is a liar. Chew on that a while. It is an undeniable fact, or the 3 verses I started with are all wrongly using the word Pure. Look the word up in any dictionary. Pure must be All of whatever substance it is without any trace of anything else. God is not a man that He should lie. God by nature would not leave us without a Pure Bible. Not with eternity hanging in the balance.
Authored by my friend Duane Karr
They were not perverts.
I must confess that when it comes to general reading of the bible I prefer the easier read of the NIV and the message bible… that being said I always go back and compare it to the KJV just to see the differences. I am 50 yrs old and it is hard to let go of that habit. But when I really dig into the text and study the word… Neither works for me.. I dig out the Strong’s concordance and look at the original language and get in prayer with God and ask the Holy Spirit for Truth. This is really the only way to seek God and His Word. JMO
Now, I wanted to remark on the little debate you guys have going on here. I can’t speak to which version is best, as I believe they each have a place and a function. If they are bringing souls to God then they are a good thing.
What really struck me though was the argument that we should avoid the NIV because a lesbian tainted it by giving her expert opinions as a stylistic consultant. I gave this some serious thought. I considered the possibility that the enemy had poisoned a version of the Word that I no longer wanted in my home. Rather than making a decision on emotion, I went to the Lord in prayer and i was reminded of His life here on earth. He sent me to the scripture in Luke 7: 36–50 and I was reminded of a prostitute who came to Him while he was surrounded by a higher class of people who gave an argument very much like the one you just gave. They suggested that Jesus stay away from that woman. They told Him that she was not the kind of woman whom He should let near Him. They told Him she was not the type who should be allowed to touch Him. But what did Jesus do? He let her in and He accepted her and He forgave her and told her to go in peace.
Now we know that God wants us to try to live sin free lives… we also know that we don’t do it. The homosexual are deceived not evil. Every man who worked on the committee for the NIV Bible translation was a sinner. Every single one. Just like every man who worked on the committee for the KJV was a sinner. I believe this is where we trust God to do His Holy work. If we throw stones at the homosexuals for their sins I cannot help but believe we are not doing the Lord’s will. We are told in Mathew 18:15 “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother” and in 2 Thes 3:15 “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
These scriptures tell me that just hating and ostracizing people for their sins is not the correct path, especially in the name of Christ. If we are to call ourselves Christians then let us strive with all diligence to be like Christ.
Kreine: The website you listed does not take away from the fact that Sodomites were part of the translation process completed by the NIV committee. Consultant or not this queer woman should not have been near the translation of the Bible into any language. Queer women are not qualified to take up an offering. You are straining at a consultant and swallowing another translator. Did you read the rest of your recommended site? Liberals like you cannot be convinced of Truth. IF those on the NIV committee admitted to having homo sex in the break room you would make some hair brained ecumenical excuse for them. Bro. Ray P.S. Are you sure you are saved and love the Saviour?, when you detest his written words?
I assume you are referring to Virginia Ramey Mollenkott?
If you’d do some fact-checking, you’d find she didn’t assist with translations for the NIV. She was a “stylistic consultant,” as was Elisabeth Elliot.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/woudstra.htm
Reading easily understandable grammar, vocabulary, and syntax is what sheds the light of knowledge.
Aaah, that makes a great deal of sense. Thanks for clarifying!
And the rest of your post is spot-on. I’m afraid it will fall on deaf ears on the part of our host, but hopefully other readers will take its lesson(s) to heart.
h.gual: Which “bible” is the final authority in your life? Is it the NIV that had a flaming lesbian on the translation staff? How can you have a final authority called the Bible in your life when you cannot name the translation you consider to be your final authority. Where do the mistakes in your translations begin and end? Jesus did not have at his disposal the orginal autographs. But he still called what he was reading and what you should be reading scripture. You say you believe in the God’s ability to inspire but do not trust Him to keep the scriptures available from generation to generation. The first translation after the AV1611 had to quite different from the AV1611 to receive a copy right. The next had to be quite different from the AV1611 and the second translation and so on and so on, over 200 translations since the AV1611. Do you not think the translators have gotten totally off course. THINK MY MAN, THINK. Bro.Ray
Ray, the belief that the KJV translation alone was guided by the Holy Spirit (and thus perfect) is not dissimilar to Rome’s doctrine of the Spirit’s preservation of church tradition (the inerrancy of papal teaching). The Bible doesn’t say that the Spirit guided only the interpreters of the KJV. You have to draw that simply from your tradition. Again, this is what Roman Catholics do.
I enjoy having a final authority in my life. That authority is the Bible. It has many different translations, because language translation is fluid, not bound to one-to-one correlations (like cracking a code). Koreans read the Bible in their own language. So do Russians, and the French, and the Spanish, and the English. The multiplicity of translations in existence do not threaten Scripture’s authority – rather, they fill the earth with it.
The translators of the KJV did not have the original autographs of the Apostles – they had copied texts that at points contained errors. Manuscript errors, however, have in no way impeded the truth of God’s word, nor do they threaten the veracity of Scripture’s claims.
By the way, I’m no liberal. I’m quite conservative. I believe in the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. I just don’t assume that only one translation is the “right” translation, because I know that languages are fluid and multifaceted.
h.gual: That analogy is funny, I think. And yes I do think the translators were led of the Holy Ghost to translate the AV1611. The same cannot be said of other newer perversions of the bible. The newer perversions were translated from the Westcott and Hort text that was mutilated purposely by them after it was found in the trash. All the modern versions agree in whole or part with the pope. Your problem along with all the AV1611 naysayers is this, you cannot stand to have a final authority in your life and you want to be your own final authority. For heresy and blasphemy go to http://www.stufffunkieslike.com. For truth go to the AV1611 King James Bible. Bro. Ray
Kreine: How does the NIV co-translated by a lesbian shed any light on the Greek and Hebrew that is not found when the AV1611 is opened? Bro. Ray
Ray, the post above claimed that the KJV was God’s exact *words* as if God spoke the English Bible and the King James committee copied that down. That’s different from what the translators say, that the KJV is an exact *translation.* Surely you understand the difference between words and the translations of words?
Also, your non sequitur analogy gave me a good chuckle, so here is one of my own: arguing with elephants is like tickling an apricot in the winter.
Kreine: Are you female? I feel like I’m talking to an odious woman. Bro. Ray
h.gual: I’ll say it again, arguing with liberals is like discussing dress code with a cross dresser at a sodomite parade. Bro. Ray
Ray, an exact *translation* is different than the exact *words.* Its a translation, not a transliteration.
You completely missed my point. God’s words are in EVERY translation of Scripture. For you to condemn other translations makes you guilty of detesting God’s words.
Language is fluid; the spellings and meanings of words change over time. Middle English simply doesn’t have the same impact on modern people as modern English does.
Is the KJV unsurpassed in poetic beauty by other English versions? I think so.
But for typical readers, it is much more difficult to understand than a newspaper article or blog post.
What’s wrong with making God’s Words accessible to today’s generation?
Kreine: “How can you love God and detest His WORDS” That’s my point. The words are not sealed in the AV1611 that reads at the 5th and 6th grade level. It’s not fundamentals these reprobates have a problem with, it is God’s word to the English speaking people. Bro. Ray
h.gual: …one more exact Translation…holy Scriptures…English…:AV1611 Translators
Charles: Does this seem familiar? …one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures… AV1611 Translators
h.gual: Here it is out of the mouths of the translators. – present unto your MAJESTIE. For when your Highnesse had once out of deepe judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue;
Did everyone get that-…one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tonge;
“How can you love God and detest His WORDS?”
I ask you the same question, Bro. Ray. Even the translators of the AV1611 noted the necessity of translating Scripture into the vulgar language of the people.
From the Preface to AV1611:
“But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voyce, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shalbe a Barbarian to me. The Apostle excepteth no tongue, not Hebrewe the ancientest, not Greeke the most copious, not Latine the finest. Nature taught a naturall man to confesse, that all of us in those tongues which wee doe not understand, are plainely deafe; wee may turne the deafe eare unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous: so the Romane did the Syrian, and the Jew, (even S. Jerome himselfe calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperour of Constantinople calleth the Latine tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storme at it: so the Jewes long before Christ, called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better then barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that alwayes in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtaine, that we may looke into the most Holy place; that remooveth the cover of the well, that wee may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which meanes the flockes of Laban were watered. Indeede without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deepe) without a bucket or some thing to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esau, to whom when a sealed booke was delivered, with this motion, Reade this, I pray thee, hee was faine to make this answere, I cannot, for it is sealed.”
Giving God’s Word to someone in a language he cannot understand is the same as giving him a sealed book which he cannot open.
Jeremy, I find no fault with that interpretation. My argument was in response to the statement that the KJV contained God’s “*exact* inspired and preserved words,” which seemed to indicate some form of dictation theory. My point was simply that if this was the case Paul would have never said “not the Lord, but I say.” Apologies for being unclear.
If Ray is itching for a longer, more complex argument, however, I offer this: 1) the KJV is not God’s “exact words” because the Scriptures were not originally in English. They were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Jesus spoke these languages, as did the Apostles. They were not Englishmen.
2) Anyone who has studied languages knows that words cannot simply be directly translated into another language as if language were a mere code – the meanings of words are sometimes determined by context, grammatical markings, syntax, semantics, etc. Variations in Bible translations are simply a product of the fluidity of language. Translations improve over time as the language is better understood. Note: by the fluidity of language I do not mean that words can mean just *anything*, but that rather there may be more than one right translation.
3) Lastly, the translators of the KJV were anything but baptist, and would have likely disagreed with you (Ray) on a number of theological points. King James’ imperative to the translators was that the version would conform to Anglican ecclesiology. The translators heavily consulted the Tyndale Bible and Geneva Bible, both translated by heavily Reformed, paedobaptist men. There are many different versions of the KJV, with continual alterations being made between the different printings. The KJV didn’t just drop out of the sky as a perfect Bible – it went through a messy process of editorial work and translation. There is nothing about it that makes it more authoritative than any other translation.
Hope this helps. If not, Ray, hit me with another of your creative and entertaining insults, dodging the actual discussion in the process!
Jeremy, I find no fault with that interpretation. My argument was in response to the statement that the KJV contained God’s “*exact* inspired and preserved words,” which seemed to indicate some form of dictation theory. My point was simply that if this was the case Paul would have never said “not the Lord, but I say.” Apologies for being unclear.
If Ray is itching for a longer, more complex argument, however, I offer this: 1) the KJV is not God’s “exact words” because the Scriptures were not originally in English. They were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Jesus spoke these languages, as did the Apostles. They were not Englishmen.
2) Anyone who has studied languages knows that words cannot simply be directly translated into another language as if language were a mere code – the meanings of words are sometimes determined by context, grammatical markings, syntax, semantics, etc. Variations in Bible translations are simply a product of the fluidity of language. Translations improve over time as the language is better understood. Note: by the fluidity of language I do not mean that words can mean just *anything*, but that rather there may be more than one right translation.
3) Lastly, the translators of the KJV were anything but baptist, and would have likely disagreed with you (Ray) on a number of theological points. King James’ imperative to the translators was that the version would conform to Anglican ecclesiology. The translators heavily consulted the Tyndale Bible and Geneva Bible, both translated by heavily Reformed, paedobaptist men. There are many different versions of the KJV, with continual alterations being made between the different printings. The KJV didn’t just drop out of the sky as a perfect Bible – it went through a messy process of editorial work and translation. There is nothing about it that makes it more authoritative than any other translation.
Hope this helps. If not, Ray, hit me with another of your creative and entertaining insults, dodging the actual discussion in the process!
So God spoke 1611 English exclusively to the original writers (in the first century and before)?
In fairness, h.gual, there are quite a few biblical scholars who believe Paul’s point here is that his statement in verses 10-11 are based on Jesus’ teaching during his time on earth, whereas v. 12 and what follows is a new teaching from him. That’s not necessarily the case, but it is one legitimate possible interpretation.
I’m not agreeing with Ray/Duane’s (Dwayne?) argument; I find them theologically, logically, and historically absurd. But, there are better arguments to raise against them then the verse you bring up.
I had to perform church discipline on one of our faithful members. I just heard he was “saved” by reading the NIV. I mean it is so clear the NIV is sin and no one comes to Christ through it. For example, look at Romans 10:9 in the inspired AV 1611 (or actually 1789) it reads “thou shalt confess” the HIV version says “declare with your mouth.” Inspired says “Lord Jesus” but the satanic version says “Jesus is Lord.” It’s so (un)clear as mud, but we (you and I) just ignore it, right Bro Ray?
Fundy Fred (I put the “fun” and “dam(n)” in fundamentalism)
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” And you think God’s Word is merely a book? Ray, you really do have a heavily Koranic view of scripture. Are you sure you’re not a Moslem? I could respect that. Not agree with it, but at least respect it.
Every blessing for your holiday. Salaam alaikum. Jezz
If agreeing with the Apostle Paul makes me a reprobate, then I’m in good company.
And yes, Erasmus dedicated the Textus Receptus to Pope Leo X. A personal hero of yours I’m sure! Don’t take my word for it though, go here or anywhere else for a basic bio of Erasmus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Also, have you read the preface to the original 1611? Perhaps you should allow the translators to speak for themselves.
“Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: [Cicero 5::de finibus.] so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, “Read this, I pray thee,” he was fain to make this answer, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” [Isa 29:11]” -Original preface to the 1611.
It seems the translators, *gasp* saw their work as an interpretation of Gods word? Hmm…you aren’t at odds with us, but rather the KJV translating team!
Also, if the KJV is the absolute final authority, why did the Translators provide alternative manuscript readings in the columns?
Oh and before I forget, please try to come up with an answer. You can weasel your way out of the questions here, but surely you desire to know these answers for yourselves?
ramonsosamon:: You speak in the Koine language of a certifiable reprobate. Have you looked at some of the perversions like the Living Bible, The Way and etc?
How can you say you love God and detest his WORDS. YES I SAID WORDS. Bro. Ray
Charles: I won’t be running to Duane for answer to your question concerning the scripture where the word He is used. The answer is coming. I’m busy getting ready for my vacation/prison ministry. The answer to your question is an in depth and careful on that deserves a post of it’s own. See my home page, I’m leaving now on vacation/prison ministry. Bro. Ray
Ray, all you have is insults. That’s all you can do. It’s rather sad.
Go run back to Dwayne and try to come up with an answer.
You do realize that what you wrote there is impossible right? The KJV is not perfect as you claim, there aren’t any 100% word by word pure Bibles anywhere in this world. Th original autographs are lost, of all the ancient manuscripts and translations we have ther aren’t even two that are exactly the same word by word.
So, if your theory of at least one of them being completely pure is true, we are still in the dilemma of deciding which one it is. And in the end that is a matter of personal opinion, and there is no way to know for sure if you made the right choice or not. Just live with it,
God preserved as much as he wanted of his word, which for all matters of life and religion is enough.
h.gual: My dear non gender reader must also be a reprobate to the 10th power. Intellectual huh? Bro. Ray
So what about 1 Corinthians 7:12, “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away”? (KJV) Paul says right there that the Lord is NOT saying this. Seems to contradict your assertion that “for a Bible to be Pure, by definition, that Bible would have to consist of nothing but God’s exact inspired and preserved words. One word in the entire Book that wasn’t Purely from the mouth of God would taint the entire Book.”