Are the Sinner Haters Correct in saying that God is a Sinner Hater?

A scripture in the Bible that as believers would do us all well to understand with clarity.

Isaiah 55:8-9 reads; For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

From the rendering of the passage, it is fair to say that whatever man's understanding of hate and its consequences are, God's knowledge and understanding of hate is righteously far beyond the puny brain power of man who figure they have a handle on scripture and use the verses about hate to bring God down to their level of understanding that essentially makes God into their image of who He is. This is the height of idolatry where the self-appointed-knowers of God become are idol and deceive many to bow to their perceptions about God. 

Have you considered that when you read about God's "hatred" of sinners, and you attribute your personal, human emotional psychology to God's words, you are lowering God to your level? You are making your thoughts God's thoughts, and your ways, His ways. You are attributing your feelings, which proceed from your human heart...which the scripture says is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9) to a God who is not flesh, but Spirit. Yet you have the gall to say that you do not discredit or devalue God! Is it because you think your ways are as high as God's ways? This is blasphemous in that you are attributing the mind of man to be the mind of God!

Those who have lifted the "hate" scriptures from the Bible and have chosen to lower them to a human level, are now living by them. And because they blaspheme the Word of God by proclaiming His thoughts to be as low as theirs, their lives are filled with anger, judgmentalism and condemnation. 

The "hate" scriptures, therefore, have become idols in their heart that renders themselves, idols of hate to people who support them, even if doing so innocently.

God is nothing like you and I. His ways are not our ways, but are higher than our ways. His thoughts are not like our thoughts, but are higher. Even His so-called "hate" is "love" compared to our weak human emotional hatred we show our enemies. Do you see how easy it is for God to melt the human heart with His "hatred?"

God says many things in the Bible that shock the carnal mind. Make no mistake, "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." But if you see the things God says within your own human psychology and fail to understand how ancient people talked you will not understand God's prophecy. Some preachers go so far as to label God's anger with sinners as "Holy Hatred." If they are marrying the word "holy" with their human emotional hatred, which proceeds from a deeply flawed, dark, and desperately wicked heart.

This is not to say that God has no emotions. Only that we should not judge God's emotions based on how we understand with flawed human understanding. Otherwise, we are guilty of making God in our image.

To conclude that your understanding of the scripture is superior because you deem the translation you use is inspired is groundless. You must understand that if there is ONE error ANYWHERE in ANY translated text of scripture, then that error is a fatal flaw in the idea of divine inspiration and therefore the version CANNOT be a divinely inspired translation, but the work of man. Our God cannot and will not make ANY errors of ANY kind ANYWHERE 

No translation is completely free of errors of translation. That in itself should be ample evidence that the statement of preservation of His word had nothing to do with various foreign language versions but with His original language text, which has been preserved in accordance with His word. 

Sometimes these errors of translation are introduced unintentionally by well-meaning people who have missed the point of a phrase or maybe they just made a human error of transcription (copyist error). Sometimes the translational errors are deliberate attempts by some individual or class of individuals who want to make a case for their particular body or group and this is the case with the KJV.

So the only honest and legitimate conclusion possible is that there is no "divinely inspired" translated version of scripture. Since that is the case, and you are responsible for what you believe, it behooves you to take no man’s word for what is in scripture. The only way to be sure of the interpretation you are being led to believe is to get the original language scripture and learn how to decipher it for yourself with the help of the Holy Spirit.

If the original texts of the Bible were inspired by God they are without error, the same cannot be said for  any translations made from them. Translators are human, and many have allowed their own religious biases to influence their work. Usually such mistranslations are relatively minor, but in some cases they are major blunders and promote erroneous teachings and doctrines.

If you hold to the belief that translations, of which the KJV is one, are inherent you are grasping at straws that are not there because there is no biblical evidence to support your belief.

Proof that the translators were NOT inspired in their work of translation:

There are over 8000 alternate English renderings from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were identical.

The first example (Judges 19:2) below shows a place where the meaning of the Hebrew is obscure. Was it "4 months" or "a year and four months"??? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew makes it difficult to for any translators to know for sure which it is. So they show the alternate reading, NOT KNOWING THEMSELVES FOR SURE WHICH IS CORRECT!

No one questions the Greek and Hebrew is inspired. But if the translators were also inspired by the Holy Spirit, in their work of translating the inspired Hebrew into English, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GUIDED BY DIVINE INSPIRATION THE CORRECT RENDERING, hence no need for any alternate readings in the margin.

Remember, although we have only shown one example of this first type of marginal reading, there are over 8000 more we have not shown!

Everyone agrees that there are minor variations in the copies of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. There errors are typical of types of errors men make when they copy things and make absolutely no doctrinal difference. Jesus promised that "scripture cannot be broken" John 10:36 and Peter said, that the "imperishable ... word of the Lord abides forever" 1 Peter 1:23-25.

Now KJV ONLY advocates believe that the translators were directed by the Holy Spirit to make the correct choice between two variations in the Greek or Hebrew text.

There are a number of marginal readings that indicate alternate manuscript readings. This is different from two English readings from identical manuscripts.

The fact that the translators placed into the margin alternate manuscript readings PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT that they WERE NOT GUIDED by the Holy Spirit as to which one of the two readings were correct.

KJV ONLY advocates will make these incredible arguments: (actual arguments from those who defend the infallibility of the KJV)

Consider this by Steve Rudd.

Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.

What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.

Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.

Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?

If the KJV translators were inspire, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha: 

If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!

If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?

If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!

If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?

Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?

When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?

If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?

In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?

Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?

Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)

Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?

If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?

Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)

Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)

Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?

Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)

Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?

Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?

If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)

Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?

Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.)