introducing Bible Protector

[Paidion]

and He is the Logos.

I am sorry, but I cannot find support for this in the Bible. Someone might think that you are saying he is a space monster or a kind of cheese.

It's a good thing the King James translators were able to find it in the Bible, or they would have been unable to translate John 1:1

[bibleprotector]

It's a good thing

I also think that it is good that we have the Scripture properly translated and present in English.

[john6809]

Hi Bibleprotector,

Is it necessary for a person who believes that the KJV is the one true version of God's word to also hold the same eschatological beliefs as you?

[bibleprotector]

Hi Bibleprotector,

Is it necessary for a person who believes that the KJV is the one true version of God's word to also hold the same eschatological beliefs as you?

First, I don't believe that the KJB is the one true version of God's Word, I believe it is the best translation and completely accurate to what was originally inspired. I think it should be the only version used, even though many others have been used, particularly other languages, besides the reality that the KJB only existed from 1611. In other words, using the KJB exclusively is not a test for salvation, it is recommended, just like it is recommended that a Christian does not attend Mass.

As for eschatology, you will find that a lot of people who use the KJB are currently dispensationalists.

To understand my approach, you first need to know that my theology is Word of Faith & King James Bible Only. My view is Multiple Fulfilments of Bible Prophecy. So, to answer the question, you would find that the eschatology from my position is different because I accept Historicism and Futurism.

[john6809]

I don't believe that the KJB is the one true version of God's Word

Pardon me if I mis-represented your view. If it is the best translation AND it is perfect, then any other translation is imperfect, and shouldn't be used.

you would find that the eschatology from my position is different because I accept Historicism and Futurism.

I have a few questions for you, based on your answer above:

1 - Would you agree that there are at least 2 other major views re. eschatology including partial preterism that have been around since the very early days of Christendom?

2 - Would there be KJV onlyists that hold to the view of partial preterism? If yes, how do you explain that God has perfectly transferred His word to us and yet, those who study the KJV as the best translation still disagree with what it means? Isn't the purpose of having certainty regarding the very words of God to create unity and dispel confusion?

3 - In the latter days, will all true believers eventually come around to a unified (the same) eschatological view?

4 - If there are valid differing views on eschatology, even among those who hold the KJV as the best translation, how do you determine whose understanding is correct?

[Candlepower]

First, I don't believe that the KJB is the one true version of God's Word, I believe it is the best translation and completely accurate to what was originally inspired.

1) If, as you assert, the KJV is not the one true version of God's Word, then which one do you think is the one true version?

2) If, as you assert, the KJV is the best translation and completely accurate, but is not the one true version of God's Word, then what does the KJV lack in order to qualify as the one true version of God's Word?

3) You have made it abundantly clear that you believe the KJV is perfect and that all other versions are imperfect. Yet you describe the "perfect" KJV and some "imperfect" versions as "true." How is it possible for both the perfect and the imperfect to be true?

4) You have been arguing as if you think the KJV is the one true version of the Bible, but then you admit that other versions are also true. If the KJV is true along with other versions, why are you making such a big deal about the KJV? It seems to me you are choking down the proverbial gnat.

[bibleprotector]

Pardon me if I mis-represented your view. If it is the best translation AND it is perfect, then any other translation is imperfect, and shouldn't be used.

The point is that people who don't speak English cannot use a perfect English translation. They need to learn English first in order to do so, therefore, there is clearly grace of God and sufficiency in versions and translations outside of the KJB, even though the KJB is exact. This means that the Word of God is not restricted to the KJB. Your question contained the statement that the "KJV is the one true version of God's word", when God's Word is true outside of the KJB also.

1 - Would you agree that there are at least 2 other major views re. eschatology including partial preterism that have been around since the very early days of Christendom?

Yes, but all views have been developed and are in their current forms really in the last two centuries.

2 - Would there be KJV onlyists that hold to the view of partial preterism?

A few.

If yes, how do you explain that God has perfectly transferred His word to us and yet, those who study the KJV as the best translation still disagree with what it means?

That is a good question. The answer is having the same foundation is entirely different to what is built upon it. Your question presumes that interpretation should be the same as having uniformity in version/translation. In practice, many different Protestant denominations began and developed using the same Bible version, the KJB. Therefore, uniformity in doctrine is another step beyond having the same Bible. If the issue is hardly established for having the same Bible, then coming into unity of the faith and full counsel of God is not yet.

Isn't the purpose of having certainty regarding the very words of God to create unity and dispel confusion?

Yes, and it does on the foundational level. In the past the Church at Jerusalem had unity without the KJB, but in time I think it would be unity on the KJB.

3 - In the latter days, will all true believers eventually come around to a unified (the same) eschatological view?

This presumes that all believers will first use the KJB, second come into unity of doctrine so that third they will have the same eschatology. That seems rather a large thing, besides any kind of notable evangelistic effort/success. Since all the fruits are not appearing, even union on the most fundamental things and basic doctrines is, to present appearance, in a rudimentary stage. You are asking about things which are so far beyond the reality of where many are at.

4 - If there are valid differing views on eschatology, even among those who hold the KJV as the best translation, how do you determine whose understanding is correct?

A. There are not valid mutually exclusive views on eschatology. There are differing views as a present reality, but some/many are to some degree wrong. (I believe in Multiple Fulfilments which accepts more than one school of Revelation interpretation, and rejects the idea of the fight between genuine beliefs, i.e. that there are complementary truths.)

B. Those who hold the KJB as the best translation appear to be in a state of disagreement as much as people using the NIV, i.e. that Protestant Churches, and different sections of it, say, Pentecostalism or Baptists, where there are true believers to be found, are in disagreement on doctrine, whether or not they use the same versions. The rectification of this must be based on actually believing the promises of Scripture (e.g. in Ephesians 4) and on God's providential outworking in time (i.e. indications of reversal of this are found in the Historicist framework).

C. Finally, your question for discerning of judging whose understanding is correct is the dilemma of relativism and so on. It is the dilemma of carnal and unbelief-infected Christianity. The solution is believing the Scripture, that there is a Holy Ghost who is outworking toward unity, that there are times and seasons for accomplishing this, and that there is an absolute true set of doctrines which the Church should attain before the Second Coming.

In conclusion, unless there is a plan of God for all/many of His people in time to come to correct views and actually possess judgment (which is really what you are asking about), then we would all just be grasping about, that chance would be in control and God would have abandoned us. The Church should not be a mess and in disarray, and then one day there is order because of we are transformed only when meeting Him in the air. If things are not already attainable now, before that day, then all we would have is hope, and nothing else. But there is a heartening promise, "and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." (Daniel 7:22).

[bibleprotector]

1) If, as you assert, the KJV is not the one true version of God's Word, then which one do you think is the one true version?

I assert that God's Word is true, and that the accurate version and translation of it which is fully perfect is the KJB, which I encourage to be widely as possibly used.

2) If, as you assert, the KJV is the best translation and completely accurate, but is not the one true version of God's Word, then what does the KJV lack in order to qualify as the one true version of God's Word?

It doesn't lack anything. The "problem" is that some people do not recognise it as yet. In reality, God's Word is not limited to the KJB. The KJB is just specifically God's Word exactly given in one book. The NKJV contains Scripture, but there are corruptions in it also. That is why a Christian could use the NKJV, but should use the KJB. Also, a person in South America may not speak English, and might use an RV Spanish Version. Clearly, that would have to be God's Word for them, despite the lack of perfection of the various Spanish versions.

3) You have made it abundantly clear that you believe the KJV is perfect and that all other versions are imperfect. Yet you describe the "perfect" KJV and some "imperfect" versions as "true." How is it possible for both the perfect and the imperfect to be true?

The Word of God is 100% true. The KJB contains 100% God's words and message, and is 100% God's true Word. Other modern versions contain God's Word, but are not exactly accurate in every place (there is noticeable conceptual corruption in them). So likewise with foreign translations.

4) You have been arguing as if you think the KJV is the one true version of the Bible, but then you admit that other versions are also true. If the KJV is true along with other versions, why are you making such a big deal about the KJV? It seems to me you are choking down the proverbial gnat.

If you want an exactly accurate copy of the Bible, that has every verse present, nothing added or missing, and every concept properly rendered in English, sense for sense, then you would use the KJB. You couldn't use a Greek NT, because there are variations among the Greek copies where none is fully accurate, and because people don't speak Greek well, if much at all, they are in dissonance of what certain words mean. Therefore, it is much better and only proper to use one perfect English Bible which is understandable, then partial, imperfect or varying copies, versions and translations, where words, verses and meaning differ.

[jriccitelli]

BP, You agree that there are other translations/manuscripts that are worthwhile, well then, which one/s would you recommend, and why?
(again, besides the NKJV)

[john6809]

Bibleprotector,

You said,

First, I don't believe that the KJB is the one true version of God's Word, I believe it is the best translation and completely accurate to what was originally inspired.

Then you said,

The KJB contains 100% God's words and message, and is 100% God's true Word.

I am not trying to trap you in your words - it is possible that I am misunderstanding you. Could you clarify this seeming discrepancy for me?

From about the first page or two of this thread, I have had a sense that your theology is Anglocentric. You see the great power and significance of the english speaking "empire" and the way that the english language has grown and you have come to think that God must have chosen us (english speaking Christians), in a manner similiar to the way He chose Israel in the OT. And then, we go looking for evidence of it under every rock (or verse as the case may be). If your understanding of the meaning of the verses you use as proof are accurate, then I would ay you have a valid argument. Trouble is, no matter which version I read, I don't see those verses as saying what you think they do. If we are indeed approaching the latter days, then it seems likely that the english language would not become a dead language like Latin or Hebrew. However, if human history is to continue for centuries or millenia, it is entirely possible that english is not the "pure" language you think it is.

You seem to see references in the bible as signifying that the KJV was destined by God to be the one translation that could unify believers around the world. I see those scriptures differently than you, even when I read the KJV. The purpose of my questions was to establish whether you would reject the views of partial preterists who see one of your favourite passages (Zephaniah 3) as being secondarily fulfilled in the church age. If Zephaniah is not prophecying about the "latter days" but rather, the current age of the church, then how could you be so certain that another culture and their language would not rise up and the english language fade away into obscurity?

Empires and languages have indeed risen and fallen, according to the humility and faithfulness (or lack thereof) of their citizens. I would suggest that this could (and likely will) happen again if the western world does not change their ways. In the coming decades, we may find that the dominant economy on the planet is Chinese. I suspect that the language would follow likewise. What then? Is there anything in scripture that suggests that another perfect(er) translation will come about? Written in Chinese?