What was the perfect, preserved, inspired word of God prior to 1611?

voicecrying

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
233
Reaction score
39
Points
28
Age
52
I know these questions have been asked before, but in light of all the thread hijacking, they deserve to be asked again.

1. Prior to 1611, what was the perfect, preserved, inspired word of God?

2. If it was perfect, preserved, & inspired prior to 1611, why is it not still?

3. If it is still, and it differs from the KJV, how can two things that are different be the same?

4. If it was perfect, why the need for the KJV?

Answers not directing us to go watch a video preferred.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
653
Reaction score
88
Points
28
UGC... i don't like the direction these questions are going. I really think we need to just accuse voice of being part of the Alexandrian cult and maybe a meme with his avatar on the face of an animal. Remember sometimes deflection is our friend.
 

Walt

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
21
Points
38
I know these questions have been asked before, but in light of all the thread hijacking, they deserve to be asked again.

1. Prior to 1611, what was the perfect, preserved, inspired word of God?
We kind of need to define terms... "inspiration" is the ACT by which God gave His word to mankind. He chose to give it in (primarily) Hebrew and Greek. The words He gave are perfect. I believe, along with many others, that God preserved what He gave through time. The KJV is a translation of those words, but it is an error to call it "inspired" - it is, if you like, what God would have said had He given the Bible in English in 1611.


2. If it was perfect, preserved, & inspired prior to 1611, why is it not still?
Oddly enough, until Mr Ruckman started using the term "inspired" with the KJV, it was never called "inspired" previous to whenever that was (I think early 1970s - I have information, but I'd have to dig it out). Groups and churches always were careful to note that the original text was inspired.

3. If it is still, and it differs from the KJV, how can two things that are different be the same?

4. If it was perfect, why the need for the KJV?
Both good points to which the Riplinger crowd has no answer.

Answers not directing us to go watch a video preferred.
I agree; I don't like answers of this sort.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,700
Reaction score
90
Points
48
Oddly enough, until Mr Ruckman started using the term "inspired" with the KJV, it was never called "inspired" previous to whenever that was (I think early 1970s - I have information, but I'd have to dig it out). Groups and churches always were careful to note that the original text was inspired.
You'll need to clarify what Ruckman actually taught. He himself admits that it is assumed by his teaching/preaching that he teaches the KJV is "inspired" [Hence all the "double-inspiration nonsense], when in reality he teaches that the KJV is the Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration.

Both good points to which the Riplinger crowd has no answer.
Actually she does address this. I just read her comment and have no idea which book it was in, but she states that the previous Bibles that use the same text as the KJV are the word of God.

As to the dumb comment by "Voice" about "why do we need the KJV", well, as far as I know, no one here today was alive back then to know WHY the King of England did what he did, but it sure worked out pretty well. I guess "Voice" is upset about it. He should take a baby aspirin.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,700
Reaction score
90
Points
48
And let me say that trying to quote messages on this board software SUCKS!!!!
 

Walt

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
21
Points
38
You'll need to clarify what Ruckman actually taught. He himself admits that it is assumed by his teaching/preaching that he teaches the KJV is "inspired" [Hence all the "double-inspiration nonsense], when in reality he teaches that the KJV is the Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration.
Two things on this: First, I wasn't trying to say what he taught; merely that no one called the KJV "inspired" until he started it; I think in the 1970s; I have the study that was done on this, but I haven't looked at it in a while.

Second, I'm not really seeing much of a difference in his statements. Besides, it seems well-established that he claimed that the KJV was advanced revelation over the Greek texts. Sounds suspiciously like double-inspiration. The statement that "the KJV is the Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration" is confusion and can be taken either way.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,700
Reaction score
90
Points
48
The statement that "the KJV is the Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration" is confusion and can be taken either way.
That's why he admits to the confusion. Of course, few on this board have ever seen the scriptures. Many have not.
 

Walt

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Actually she does address this. I just read her comment and have no idea which book it was in, but she states that the previous Bibles that use the same text as the KJV are the word of God.

As to the dumb comment by "Voice" about "why do we need the KJV", well, as far as I know, no one here today was alive back then to know WHY the King of England did what he did, but it sure worked out pretty well. I guess "Voice" is upset about it. He should take a baby aspirin.
I remember someone stating the King James wanted to stop the squabbling between the popular Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible (preferred by the upper echelons in the church). But you're right; we probably won't know.

There is a BIG difference between saying that Geneva, etc, Bibles are the word of God and claiming that they are "perfect" (which is what the post claimed she said) are quite different. I believe that the AV improves upon the Geneva.
 

logos1560

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
29
Points
28
There is a BIG difference between saying that Geneva, etc, Bibles are the word of God and claiming that they are "perfect" (which is what the post claimed she said) are quite different.
Gail Riplinger wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe of thy Word, p. 566).
Riplinger asserted that “generally speaking, the early English Bibles are the same” (p. 130; Hidden History, p. 37).
Riplinger asserted that “the words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 859).

Riplinger even indicated that those previous early English Bibles “were no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJB”
(Hidden History of the English Scriptures, p. 59).
Riplinger asserted that the Geneva “follows the traditional text underlying the King James Version” (Which Bible Is God‘s Word, p. 51).

Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot [which was an edition of the Geneva Bible] as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108).
 

voicecrying

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
233
Reaction score
39
Points
28
Age
52
As to the dumb comment by "Voice" about "why do we need the KJV", well, as far as I know, no one here today was alive back then to know WHY the King of England did what he did, but it sure worked out pretty well. I guess "Voice" is upset about it. He should take a baby aspirin.
First, it was a question, not a comment.

Second, I am not upset at all - just searching for answers to gain a better understanding of the issue. :)

Third, I asked the question because I have heard KJVO folks ask the same question about newer versions - "why do we need a newer version when we already have the perfect word of God in the KJV?" It seems as reasonable a question to ask about the KJV vs earlier translations as it does to ask about newer translations vs the KJV.

Are you upset that I ask questions?
 

logos1560

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
29
Points
28
Third, I asked the question because I have heard KJVO folks ask the same question about newer versions - "why do we need a newer version when we already have the perfect word of God in the KJV?" It seems as reasonable a question to ask about the KJV vs earlier translations as it does to ask about newer translations vs the KJV.
Perhaps it is impossible to get KJV-only advocates to be consistent, reasonable, sound, just, and scriptural in their position concerning Bible translations.

It is sound and reasonable to ask that assertions made by KJV-only folks be applied consistently and justly.
 

voicecrying

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
233
Reaction score
39
Points
28
Age
52
We kind of need to define terms... "inspiration" is the ACT by which God gave His word to mankind. He chose to give it in (primarily) Hebrew and Greek. The words He gave are perfect. I believe, along with many others, that God preserved what He gave through time. The KJV is a translation of those words, but it is an error to call it "inspired" - it is, if you like, what God would have said had He given the Bible in English in 1611.




Oddly enough, until Mr Ruckman started using the term "inspired" with the KJV, it was never called "inspired" previous to whenever that was (I think early 1970s - I have information, but I'd have to dig it out). Groups and churches always were careful to note that the original text was inspired.



Both good points to which the Riplinger crowd has no answer.



I agree; I don't like answers of this sort.
I agree with all your answers.
 

logos1560

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
29
Points
28
You'll need to clarify what Ruckman actually taught. He himself admits that it is assumed by his teaching/preaching that he teaches the KJV is "inspired" [Hence all the "double-inspiration nonsense], when in reality he teaches that the KJV is the Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration.
Can you clearly explain the significant difference in meaning between the two?

Are you perhaps trying to claim that there is a real significant difference in meaning between the two without demonstrating it to be true?

Can you clarify the difference?

Would not both expressions act as predicative adjectives that would suggest a similar meaning?

The KJV's "given by inspiration of God" is for a rendering for a Greek adjective [God-breathed] and is parallel to the predicative adjective "profitable"
 

Tarheel Baptist

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
7,736
Reaction score
33
Points
48
First, it was a question, not a comment.

Second, I am not upset at all - just searching for answers to gain a better understanding of the issue. :)

Third, I asked the question because I have heard KJVO folks ask the same question about newer versions - "why do we need a newer version when we already have the perfect word of God in the KJV?" It seems as reasonable a question to ask about the KJV vs earlier translations as it does to ask about newer translations vs the KJV.

Are you upset that I ask questions?
Yes questions upset Twister.
He is a drive by poster...just posts things and moves on.
Substance and debate are not in his purview.
If you were KJVO, they wouldn’t be in your purview either. 😊
 
Top