With all due respect to you, many of these statements you are making are simply untrue, unsupported and drawn by an apparent need on your part to make your evidence meet a need for something that if God had wanted to accomplish He would have done.
First, the "Word of God" is Jesus Christ, not the Bible. One can accept Jesus Christ as Savior (as the early church did without the Bible being canonized in its current form until the 4th century) One can accept inspiration, infallibility and inerrency in the original texts without creating the ridiculous argument that God intended a particular English Version, translated from the original languages more than 1500 years after Christ rose from the dead, and no one complete set of manuscripts to suddenly fill the need that you continue to reason backwards from. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say, that I believe God could have, if he so chose, had the Bible miraculously descend from on high without human involvement if it were God's intention to be reduced to a book rather than how he in fact chose to incarnate Himself and reveal Himself to man, which again was in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible is not the 4th member of the Trinity. Neither has God ever intended for the Bible to be placed upon a pedestal and worshipped and treated like a manual or rule book. One can accept inspiration, and infallibility without the need to stick one's fingers in their ears and in effect ignore the facts and create a line of transition to a translation that is demonstrably imperfect, and it is not reasonable nor supported by the evidence to be what you claim to the extent that you have here.
I hardly know where to start with what you've put up above and I suspect there will be little interaction on your part with anything I say, and so with some hope that you will discuss this, but more from concern of those who are observing, I'll address a few.
The internal logic and contradictions of what is said above are appalling and self-contradictory and the use of these verses has been cobbled together to say something that simply isn't taught by the Bible about itself. First you make a statement that "the" reason for something, the language of which is exclusive and then proceed to give "another" reason. It's a small point overall but it illustrates the empassioned rhetoric you're giving to make claims for something that is just not consistent with the facts. The reason anyone believes in the true word of God who is Christ can certainly be through the testimony of the Bible and often is, but it is a work of the Holy Spirit that takes place in the heart of a person. Higher forms of criticism are certainly a realm where non-believers seek to cast doubt upon the Gospel message but there are a strong number of believers who are equipped to work in this area who believe in the Bible and respect and honor it as a primary means of revealed truth without in effect becoming anti-intellectual and going above and beyond what God Himself has chosen to do to preserve the Bible. Are you or anyone else wiser than God or is God unable to work through His plan so that what He has done now needs you to "help" him by elevating a particular version of the Bible to claim for it what cannot be demonstrated and proven in the original languages and manuscripts? I choose to believe that God knows what he is doing and that one reason that He orchestrated things as he has may be that He never intended the Bible to be seen as the equivilent or equal of Christ Himself, or God forbid, more than Him.The reason the majority of Christians no longer believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God is because the pastors and seminarians are taught this and then pass it on to the common Christians. Another big reason is because the Bible itself tells us that there will be a falling away from the faith in the last days before the return of Christ. 2 Thes. 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first..." The Lord Himself asks a rhetorical question in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?", and God Himself says that He will send a famine of hearing the words of God - Amos 8:11-12 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it."
.Some versions like the RSV omit some 45 entire verses from the N.T. plus another 2000-3000 words
That is true. What you appear to miss is that the other possibility is that the KJB in part or whole adds these verses and words for many reasons. There is no one manuscript that is used or was used to create any version of the Bible. The reality is, which is undeniable no matter how some attempt to dance around it, that we don't have the original manuscripts. Further the manuscripts we have don't all agree in every area. Most elements of disagreement are very easily reconcilled. There are simple copying errors made by scribes. There are occassional notes placed by scribes or scholars on some manuscripts that then inadvertantly have been imported into the text in latter places. There are even a few areas where there may be intentional changes made by some attempting to "help" the Bible. What's ironic to me, is that is in effect what the KJB only supporters do. They try to "help" God by claiming more than her chose to do. The sad part is that if someone hears that message, many assume what you're saying to be true and then on the basis of your argument reject the entire Bible when they examine the evidence. The support for the Bible today is remarkably better than any other writings from the periods of time they come from. There is a remarkable amount of good work done and being done that supports the overall reliability of the Bible and the strong likelihood that what was originally written has been preserved. In the end, the Bible is not some Gnostic document that has to be elevated into some spiritual realm accessibly only to those who accept the mystical key against all reason that God chose an english version of the Bible to become more than it is.
The all or nothing logical error KJB promotes in that regard may in fact be responsible for some of what you claim is a result of liberal seminaries and pastors. People may indeed accept your premise, but then when they see the evidence that your claim is unprovable and outside the claims that the Bible makes for itself that there must be a perfect Bible or God is impotent then the result will be that they will walk away rejecting the faith.
The reality is, that the preservation and reliability of the compilated text we have that most modern translations have been based upon, are remarkable for the level in which they do agree. Ironically much of this work has taken place since 1611 when the KJB used what was known as the Textus Receptus which was pretty much a compilation of the manuscripts that were used for the Geneva Bible and which accepted a particular rendering of a passage based upon a majority of the manuscripts with no regard to the age of the manuscripts or the traditions tracable. We have more manuscripts discovered since then. God and the Bible don't need the exagerated and simplistic arguments of the KJB movement. Despite the fact that many question and challenge things and reject the Bible there is very good work that has been done and which I and many others accept and affirm its inspiration and infallibility without having to go to the lengths you do. We serve the cause of Christ better I believe by keeping the focus upon him rather than trying to reverse engineer something that God didn't go Himself.
God certainly can and has used imperfect men to reveal his truth through the Bible. There is only one perfect man and that man, the Son of God, Jesus Christ is the fullest revelation of God. If God desired to elevate the Bible to the level you claim, God was certainly capable of preserving it in the originals he gave and delivering it outside of men themselves. Claiming that the perfect revelation now has jumped over those originals which we no longer have, and is based upon a translation into another language different from the originals is simply preposterous. It's indicative of the cultural tendency sadly we have in the West to somehow believe that we are more special and understanding of God than other people today or in other times. English is not the chosen language of God to reveal his truth to the rest of the world. That came through the nation of Israel in Hebrew and Aramaic and then through Christ in a time of history where Hebrew, aramaic and greek were spoken. We have not as a nation or culture replaced Israel. We are the body of Christ, of which Christ is the head, not the Bible, and which is made alive and preserved through the Holy Spirit. The Bible is important and wonderful and part of God's plan, but not to level you're attempting to raise it. The Bible is both a divine and a human document because God chose to deliver it through those channels.They also reveal their unbiblical stand and deep ignorance by their inane statement "made by imperfect men". If God cannot use "imperfect men" to give us His words, then we would never have had "the originals" to begin with!
More can be said, but again, I don't see a great deal of reason to continue. You have come onto our site and simply taken material from your site and cut and pasted and instead of interacting with the questions you're asked then continue with a series of strawmen arguments, ad hominem statements. logical fallacies and in some cases just plain distortion of many simple facts that require the mental gymnastics to come to a conclusion and claim something that God Himself chose not to do. I appreciate that you don't go to the extent of claiming that others who use these other "inferior" translations are not unsaved. I won't do you that discourtesy either.
I really question however, your approach here and I have to point out again, that you are not being fully respectful of the discussion guidelines here. That's hardly an effective way to win a hearing for your thoughts and message.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but ridiculous claims require strong rebuttals.
If you want to have a productive conversation which if not leading to agreement will at least present the positions clearly, I would suggest we stick with shorter posts, stick to a topic and stick to those claims that can be demonstrated or proven.
bart
