Featured Does authorized by a king mean authorized by God?

Are you suggesting that the scriptural truth that teaches that words added by men are not the word of God should be disregarded and ignored?

Are you directly claiming that any errors introduced by men [whether printers, editors, or translators] in a translation are the word of God?

Since 1980, some editions of the KJV that are printed from a computer-based text have a new set of variations and even some errors that were unintentionally introduced by the person who typed up the KJV text on a computer.

 

Instead of making an incorrect, wild guess, you could have answered the questions that you were asked and you could have discussed what I actually stated.

I correctly and truly think that a Bible translation is what it is--a translation. I properly consider the meaning of the term Bible translation. I do not improperly try to claim that a translation is something that it is not.

It is the truth that a post-NT Bible translation is not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

 

My statement is the truth while you seem to try improperly to twist and distort it or try to attack my honesty or integrity. You again try to put words in my mouth or twist what I stated into something else. There is nothing fancy about my clear, plain statement of truth.

The KJV is one English translation of the word of God, but it is not the word of God given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

 

You do not explain how I can supposedly be any more neutral, more objective, or more balanced than I attempt to be. I have read all the books by KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates that I can obtain. I favorably quote KJV-only authors and TR-only authors when I find their assertions to be true or scriptural. I attempt to be as fair to them as I can be. I attempt to get them to apply their very own assertions consistently, soundly, and justly. I have read the KJV for many years. I have examined and studied the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and have done some research concerning other Bibles on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles.

Perhaps I have made considerably more effort to understand their position than they make to understand mine.

 

According to a sound definition and explanation of the term translation, a translation could be understood to act as a borrower. “The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7). One clear way in which a Bible translation could properly be considered to act as a servant would be in how it borrows, derives, or acquires its own text and its authority from its master or source original-language Scripture text or texts from which it is made (Prov. 22:7). By definition, a translation would be a borrower from its original language texts. As a borrower, a translation would act as servant to the lender or lenders [its original language texts] according to what is stated at Proverbs 22:7. Should what the Scriptures directly state about a borrower be denied or rejected? The specific words of the master original language texts of Scripture should or would determine which different words in another language should be in a Bible translation. The original meaning of the words as used in context in the master original language texts should give rise to which words should be used in a translation of those texts. The different words of a translation are under the authority of the original language words from which they are translated. The exact original-language words that proceeded directly from God set the standard and are the proper authority for what the words of a translation should say (John 12:49, Matt. 4:4). Therefore, it is sound and scriptural to conclude that the preserved original-language words of Scripture have greater authority than the translated words that borrow or derive authority from their underlying source or sources.

Principles or truths derived from an application of the meaning of other scripture verses would also support this truth that a translation acts as a borrower or servant. Since a borrower is clearly described as being a servant, scriptural truths that apply to a servant could soundly and justly apply to a borrower. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt. 10:24). In like manner, can it be inferred or deduced that a translation, which acts as a borrower, would not be above the master underlying texts from which it is translated? "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16). Likewise, a translation is not greater in authority than the original language source or sources [the master text] from which it was made and translated and that gave it its proper derived authority. The lord or master gives authority to his servants (Mark 13:34). The servants do not give authority to the master nor do they have greater authority than the one who delegates authority to them. The person or servant who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16b). In like manner, a translation is not greater than the underlying texts from which it was made. A translation acts as a servant ambassador or messenger that attempts to present faithfully or accurately the meaning of the original language words of its underlying Scripture texts in the words of the receptor language. By its definition and in its clear role as a borrower, a Bible translation can be properly considered servant to the master original-language Scripture texts from which it was made and translated.

 

Where is the verse about only one English translation in 1611 being given by inspiration of God?

Where is the verse that states and teaches that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611?

Do you try to hide behind questions as you fail to present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural case for your own unclear opinions?

 

Your allegation is not true and would bear false witness in disobedience to the Scriptures.

Isaiah 40:8 was stated long before 1611. The word of God stood forever before the 1611 KJV was ever made, and the word of God shall stand forever even if the 1611 KJV had never been made.

The standing of the word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. If you think that it is, you show that you misunderstand and misinterpret Isaiah 40:8.

 

Your allegation is not true. I have not adjusted nor changed the clear meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16.

2 Timothy 3:16 clearly refers to the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles. Only what God gave directly by inspiration is what God only gave by inspiration. It is KJV-only reasoning which attempts to adjust, change, and alter the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16 as it tries to add to it by reading something else into the verse or it tries to apply the verse unjustly to only the KJV in English. You misinterpret and misapply the verse out of context, avoiding the other scripture verses that connect the supernatural process of the giving of the Scriptures of inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.