Featured Is "unicorns" better than "unicorn" at Deut. 33:17?

I would suppose that you are not here just to win arguments but to help people who needs help. Obviously you think I qualify as someone who needs help.

So, what is a good alternative English translation that best expresses what you teach?

 

It is unreasonable to demand from God one perfect English edition that did not come into existence until 1500 years after the New Testament was written. Especially since no edition of the word of God matches that English edition perfectly. To say that one English edition is perfect is to deny the word of God existed before hand. Believers have always had the Word of God. Some in Greek, some in Hebrew, some in Aramaic, some in Latin, some in Gothic, some in other different languages. See how many different editions of the word there is? To demand immaturely one perfect english edition against all others is not only unreasonable it is to deny how God gave us the Bible in the truly miraculous way that he did. Your history is not the same as God's.

 

Okay, state which of the manuscripts, from which all translations come, is without error and I will be satisfied that you know what you are talking about. Here are bible translators that claim that the manuscripts are perfect and they are the only perfect words God has left us. That is what they claim Then they have at least 4 philosophical methods of translating them. The dynamic equivalence method requires at least a measure of private interpretation. The claim is that we must believe the manuscripts and then when they are translated it is obvious the translators did not believe them because thousands of the words are left out and doubt is cast on many others even after they read a statement from Jesus Christ, the son of God, who said in John 12 that he spoke only the words that the Father in heaven had given him to speak and he said this;

Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

He said this to the devil!

Then the devil quoted scripture to the Son of God, who inspired the scriptures, and used the philosophical method of dynamic equivalence in his quotation. look at it.

Mt 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Psa 91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
12 They shall bear thee up in [their] hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

He omitted "in all thy ways."

I think your views are wrong.

 

We know that the Originals were inspired and perfect, is any translation then also inspired by God same fashion?

 

Yes, the Lord did not just stop having the word of God into translations until 1611? He did not use Vulgate, Geneva, Tyndale etc?

 

I recall that the early pilgrims and puritans did not accept the KJV. They did not consider it as worthy of their agreement.

 

You are making the best argument for the intervention of God in translations across languages. You are asking us to follow men who you admit are ignorant. They did not know, you said. And you are finally right about something. You are asking us to follow them in their ignorance instead of God in his perfection. I quoted a passage in Isa 55 concerning God's thoughts and ways being so much higher than ours that we could never attain to it without his help. That passage was in the context of his words and how he has purposed through them to accomplish certain wonderful things. He has bragged much on the purity of his words.

You fellows have quoted no bible for your preaching on the insufficiency of scripture. You quote one another. You would have us to believe that God is so divorced from his words in the modern translations that we must rely on our own scholars to do the best they can and then you justify the continual translations in the English language by trying to get bible believers to admit that God is not perfect and that he dead sure is not concerned about the words through which his own testimony is presented to the world. He says just the opposite in passages like 1 Corinthians 2.

All the scores of English translations? Who is the final arbiter in the trying of these English translations? The publishers who stand to make the most money from them? The translation committee members? God? No, none of the above. It is the scholars, the worldly wise, who alone can tell us what the word of God really is. Your two statements above are just silly. You seem to be advocating for a priesthood

I see the devil all over these modern English translations. This is not the way God has presented himself in the scriptures I read and it is not his way to have scores of translations in the same language because he cannot get it right in a single one.

 

i recognize the tired argument(s) you are making, however, it comes down to one basic principle. Do the KJV, NKJV, NASB (1995, 1977), actually pervert in some manner the Scriptures. Comparing each to the Geneva Bible (used by the Pilgrims and the Puritans), would find them rejected by both groups,

Did not King James make it a felony to have the Geneva Bible in a home?

My point being :
1). There is no great doctrine in which any of these three can be used to disagree with the others.
2). There is no great difficulty in learning the truth from any of the three
3). There are those who engage in deceitfulness of pitting one against the other as if any had any greater “authority” given to them.
4). There are those non-intellectuals pew sitters who take anything presented to them from the pulpit as if from God’s mouth and not sifting everything through the Scriptures as Paul stated should be done.

There are more points, but the underlying message is why spend money on a Bible and not use what is readily available here.

 

WOW! Thank you for that agedman. That pretty much settles it for me. It does make me wonder though why we needed the KJV, the NKJV, and the NASB and many more if what you say is true. If there are no differences in them and one can learn the very same truth in all of them, no more, no less, then why continue to create them? Are you making an uninformed and rather silly argument here?

Have you read the op? How do you see it? Do you think the context supports the prophecy that he, Joseph, will take the two horns of the wild ox and gore the nations, whatever gore the nations means? All prophecies, we are told by scriptures, must have a demonstrable fulfillment for the sake of the integrity of the prophet. Since this is true, has Joseph already taken the wild ox and gored the nations or is it still future? I don't know about you but I ask questions of the text I am reading in my KJV and seek for answers. None of these things are written for fillers.

Would you delight in seeing more English translations so we can learn the same things from them?

 

I never included “many more.” But was very specific.

I also pointed out the historical rejection by the early Protestants to the KJV which seems to be ignored by some. I have no interest in any other translations other than the Geneva, NASB (‘55, ‘77j, KJV, NKJV.

There is no need to contend over the prophesies. They are not for private interpretation, but presented both for edification and validation that God is faithful and will, faithfully complete all that He has given us and even more for did not John seal up part given him?

Why would you think that? What in my post even suggested such?

 

Thanks for the clarification agedman. Thank God for the soul liberty of being Geneva, NASB (‘55, ‘77j, KJV, NKJV only. I see no problem with your onlyism and I figure you are at least broad enough that you will not be harassed by logos1560.

May God bless you!

 

IOW's, the bible translators are the arbiters of truth. Yet, they do not agree on which original language manuscripts are the proper standard and bible translators continue to produce new translations from the same original language manuscripts in the same English language.

There is a law involved here. The principle is like inflation. If one prints paper money without additional backing, each new bill printed reduces the value of the previous ones.

I do not agree with you that we should accept translators agreements of what the truth is because their translations are so different. I see the devil all over that philosophy. There is a Holy Ghost in the world, who is God, and who lives in the believer and teaches him through his own chosen words. It is what the scriptures teach. I am not making this up.

1 Cor 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but (in the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Translators can continue their work of more and more translations but it is all in vain because thousands of translations will not help anyone understand the mind of God if they are not born again and have the resident teacher indwelling their bodies, the Holy Ghost. He needs only one translation in the believers language.

Jesus said "ye must be born again." I believe that.

.

 

Amen! I get that. But what does the scriptures teach?

 

I expressed my own opinion and tools, but in no manner have I placed onlyism as restricting others.

Again this post is merely my own opinion.

Proper tool handling and experience with the tool capabilities allows one to move from apprenticeship, journeyman, to master craftsman.

As it is, the journey is not for the weak, uninterested, or complacent; but, with each experience, gain insight and experience.

Onlyism is for the weak, uninitiated, and manipulators who are basically afraid. They generally construct scaffolding of straw removing the authority of God to preserve and giving over to excess of personal authority.

To place an example before the readers, a familiar name of one, now long dead, is Peter Ruckman. He was even arrogant when he attended BJU and, when his popularity began to wain after his first divorce, grasp at straw to maintain his own camp followers. The same with Jack Hyles who, being covered over in the sins of the flesh, engaged much bluster to continue having camp followers.

Folks are free to choose from that offered, but ultimately must answer for proper handling of the tools they select and knowing both the strengths and weakness of those tools.