How To scripturally Determine the Mind of God on the Modern Practice of Paraphrasing His Words

[Logos1560]

everyone knows it because you have never talked about anything else.

You are not everyone, and you do not speak for everyone. You assume something that is not true as you use the fallacy "every schoolboy knows". Henry Virkler noted: "This is sometimes called the fallacy of self-evident truths, for the speaker claims that 'everybody knows that this true'" (Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 206).

I know for a fact that your statement is not true. I have posted here about other subjects or topics. Even if I had supposedly posted only about this one subject, it would not lead to the conclusion that it means that my statements are discredited or are not true.

It seems that you try to divert since you are unable to answer or refute my true statements. You can choose to claim to be bored by the truth so that you can close your eyes to it, but it does not provide any support for your unproven claims.

The KJV is an English Bible translation or the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are English Bible translations and are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

 

[JD731]

You are not everyone, and you do not speak for everyone. You assume something that is not true as you use the fallacy "every schoolboy knows". Henry Virkler noted: "This is sometimes called the fallacy of self-evident truths, for the speaker claims that 'everybody knows that this true'" (Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 206).

I know for a fact that your statement is not true. I have posted here about other subjects or topics. Even if I had supposedly posted only about this one subject, it would not lead to the conclusion that it means that my statements are discredited or are not true.

It seems that you try to divert since you are unable to answer or refute my true statements. You can choose to claim to be bored by the truth so that you can close your eyes to it, but it does not provide any support for your unproven claims.

The KJV is an English Bible translation or the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are English Bible translations and are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

As far as scripture goes it is just a record of what was said. Nothing can really be proven. Moses wrote the history of the first 2500 years. What he wrote was very selective. Did God and Moses chat and then did Moses write everything in his own words? Do we just have the message of God only or do we actually have the words of God? Do the scriptures put the emphasis on the words of God or on the message of God, like all the people on this forum do? Is there a sin of presumption in the modern Christians and their translation and paraphrasing philosophies?

Many people from different times and languages were quoted by God into the Hebrew language for Moses to write and none were too hard for God. Who can argue that something was lost because God translated it? Let’s just believe if it says it is the word of God it is the word of God. We must believe God.

 

[Logos1560]

Is there a sin of presumption in the modern Christians and their translation and paraphrasing philosophies?

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that some of the same type translating and paraphrasing is found in the KJV? Are you claiming that the paraphrasing in the KJV would be a sin of presumption?

The Church of England makers of the KJV made the same type changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision as the makers of the NKJV made to the KJV of which it is a revision.

The truth remains that the 1611 KJV is not a literal, word-for-word translation for each and every original-language word of Scripture. The KJV adds thousands of words for which its makers had no original-language word of Scripture, and it omits providing any English rendering for many original-language words of Scripture in its underlying text. According to what KJV-only advocate allege is paraphrasing and dynamic equivalent renderings in modern English Bibles, the KJV would have many examples of the same thing.

I believe God instead of believing your human, non-scriptural assertions and accusations.

Could your non-scriptural claims concerning the KJV involve a sin of presumption since you seem to assume and presume claims for the KJV that are not true and that are not stated in Scripture?

 

[Scarlett O.]

MOD NOTE: When I was teaching VBS a few years ago, one of the lessons was on the Tower of Babel.

My class was made up 5-year-olds and as I told the story, we "built" a tower out of blocks. When I finished telling the story, I asked, "Why didn't God just knock down the tower? Wouldn't that have been easier?"

One smart cookie said, "Well, you know those people were bad and they would have just built it right back."

I say that to say this. I want to close this thread. It NEEDS closing. It's not God-honoring at ALL. But you all will just start another one.

There is name-calling, spam, feuding, and general hatefulness that seems to just permeate the Baptist Board.

In 22 years, I've never been able to understand THAT level of unChristian posting. And the same people "tattling" on each other who cannot seem to see their own contribution to the problem.

Ya'll just keep going. People are going to hell. But ya'll just keep on tattling and fighting.

 

[JD731]

It is called a "debate" forum.

 

[Piper]

MOD NOTE: When I was teaching VBS a few years ago, one of the lessons was on the Tower of Babel.

My class was made up 5-year-olds and as I told the story, we "built" a tower out of blocks. When I finished telling the story, I asked, "Why didn't God just knock down the tower? Wouldn't that have been easier?"

One smart cookie said, "Well, you know those people were bad and they would have just built it right back."

I say that to say this. I want to close this thread. It NEEDS closing. It's not God-honoring at ALL. But you all will just start another one.

There is name-calling, spam, feuding, and general hatefulness that seems to just permeate the Baptist Board.

In 22 years, I've never been able to understand THAT level of unChristian posting. And the same people "tattling" on each other who cannot seem to see their own contribution to the problem.

Ya'll just keep going. People are going to hell. But ya'll just keep on tattling and fighting.

I agree. I am trying my hardest to be civil, kind, patient. It is hard when someone impugns my motives. I just put my first poster on ignore, against my better judgment. That person continually calls me names, questions my motives, etc. Better to avoid and serve others.

 

[Scarlett O.]

It is called a "debate" forum.

That excuses NONE of what's going on here.

 

[JD731]

That excuses NONE of what's going on here.

If everyone agrees with one another we should change the status of the board and just add it to the Baptist fellowship forum. What IS going on here that is not going on in every debate forum?

 

[Piper]

If everyone agrees with one another we should change the status of the board and just add it to the Baptist fellowship forum. What IS going on here that is not going on in every debate forum?

Read her post.

It is the tenor of the disagreements, not the fact of disagreement.

 

[JD731]

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that some of the same type translating and paraphrasing is found in the KJV? Are you claiming that the paraphrasing in the KJV would be a sin of presumption?

The Church of England makers of the KJV made the same type changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision as the makers of the NKJV made to the KJV of which it is a revision.

The truth remains that the 1611 KJV is not a literal, word-for-word translation for each and every original-language word of Scripture. The KJV adds thousands of words for which its makers had no original-language word of Scripture, and it omits providing any English rendering for many original-language words of Scripture in its underlying text. According to what KJV-only advocate allege is paraphrasing and dynamic equivalent renderings in modern English Bibles, the KJV would have many examples of the same thing.

I believe God instead of believing your human, non-scriptural assertions and accusations.

Could your non-scriptural claims concerning the KJV involve a sin of presumption since you seem to assume and presume claims for the KJV that are not true and that are not stated in Scripture?

What is it exactly that the NIV or the NASB or the NLT says that you believe that the KJV does not say better?

 

[JD731]

Read her post.

It is the tenor of the disagreements, not the fact of disagreement.

Debate and contention have been around as long as there has been a church. It is approved of God.

Ac 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing,

The apostles and elders are no longer at Jerusalem, but we have their decisions in print. We shall not be ignorant.

 

[Piper]

Debate and contention have been around as long as there has been a church. It is approved of God.

Ac 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing,

The apostles and elders are no longer at Jerusalem, but we have their decisions in print. We shall not be ignorant.

Outbursts of anger, unwholesome words, lack of patience and kindness are sins.

 

[Scarlett O.]

If everyone agrees with one another we should change the status of the board and just add it to the Baptist fellowship forum. What IS going on here that is not going on in every debate forum?

I'm not talking about everyone agreeing with each other. Where did you get that?

I'm talking about getting "reports" that are just of a tattling nature and the name-calling and hostility here. NONE of that has of any purpose.

There is a difference between healthy, productive and adult debate and what's going on on this thread that I received reports about.

I'm done explaining myself.

 

[JD731]

To Logos1560 and others, a general post.

Logos1560 in almost every post to me, leads off or soon after includes phrases like the following; Read it and tell me if he is trying to be provocative and if his aim is really to convince me of anything.

I believe God instead of believing your human, non-scriptural assertions and accusations.

Logos1560 has never in the history of his posting on these forums ever proven his doctrine that God commands a continual line of translations into the same language by the church or that God is unconcerned with the words of scripture but is concerned only that the message is presented. Therefore Logos1560 is not presenting the true scriptural teaching to refute what he is against, someone believing God can preserve inspiration into translations if he chooses ,he just continually rails against what he does not like and believe. He is against things. He is not necessarily for things. He makes being human (as if I can be anything else) seem like a bad thing with his rhetoric as well as his likening to reasoning from the scriptures as being evil.

He says above that he believes God. I give him the benefit of the doubt but his posting history has been about what he is against, not what he believes. If he ever attempted to prove whatever it is that he believes from the scriptures, I just might agree with him. One can hope he will try that some day. Yep, one can hope.

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:

How is one to reason with the LORD, knowing he is not going to visit us face to face? He is not even going to give us a vision. We will have to reason with him through the scriptures if we reason with him at all. The words he claims are inspired by him and are pure and truth. There is no other way.

 

[Logos1560]

JD731, you improperly try to put words in my mouth that I do not state or else you completely misrepresent and distort what I state I have nowhere advocated a "continual line of translations into the same language." Your strawman misrepresentation is not sound reasoning. Do you try to suggest a fallacy of false dilemma where if one does not blindly accept your non-scriptural one-translation-only view it means that they have to accept a continual line of translations? Those are not actually the only two choices. Furthermore, I nowhere suggest that "God is unconcerned with the words of scripture" so your false accusation bears false witness and disobeys a command of God. God was just as faithful to preserve the same words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles before 1611 as afterwards so that the preserved Scriptures in the original language remain the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

I have repeatedly noted what I believe and what I am for. I am for what the Scriptures state and teach. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. I have presented what I believe the Scriptures teach concerning inspiration and concerning preservation. I have posted threads where I presented the scriptural case for scripturally-based position concerning Bible translations. The pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the 1611 KJV is the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

You have presented no scriptures that suggest 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. You contradict the Scriptures in trying to suggest that God contradicted Himself and showed partiality to one group of critics in 1611. The Scriptures do not teach that God changed in 1611 or that God's promises changed in 1611. You have not refuted my true statements from the Scriptures. You have not proven a modern KJV-only view to be true from the Scriptures.

 

[JD731]

JD731, you improperly try to put words in my mouth that I do not state or else you completely misrepresent and distort what I state I have nowhere advocated a "continual line of translations into the same language." Your strawman misrepresentation is not sound reasoning. Do you try to suggest a fallacy of false dilemma where if one does not blindly accept your non-scriptural one-translation-only view it means that they have to accept a continual line of translations? Those are not actually the only two choices. Furthermore, I nowhere suggest that "God is unconcerned with the words of scripture" so your false accusation bears false witness and disobeys a command of God. God was just as faithful to preserve the same words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles before 1611 as afterwards so that the preserved Scriptures in the original language remain the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

I have repeatedly noted what I believe and what I am for. I am for what the Scriptures state and teach. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. I have presented what I believe the Scriptures teach concerning inspiration and concerning preservation. I have posted threads where I presented the scriptural case for scripturally-based position concerning Bible translations. The pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the 1611 KJV is the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

You have presented no scriptures that suggest 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. You contradict the Scriptures in trying to suggest that God contradicted Himself and showed partiality to one group of critics in 1611. The Scriptures do not teach that God changed in 1611 or that God's promises changed in 1611. You have not refuted my true statements from the Scriptures. You have not proven a modern KJV-only view to be true from the Scriptures.

Basically your charge against KJV only believers is that they cannot go to a chapter and verse wherein God says, "Behold, I have power to translate my words through men and preserve the inspiration and I have done it in the KJV." That is your whole argument. Consequently you have taken a position that all and any man or group of the same can translate or paraphrase the scriptures at their own behest and present it in the market place, with the approval of the church at large, as the word of God, but you cannot provide a chapter and verse in any of these translations or paraphrases that says this. Therefore, your life's work is to prove the former while ignoring the latter and being silent about it. You vehemently oppose the one while approving the latter with your silence while at the same time claiming you have presented a scriptural argument while I have not. I have a name for this but I cannot say it here lest I break the rules of the forum.

If you can give me the same thing for your position on the reality of multitudes of translations into English since the late 19th century that you are demanding of me, which is chapter and verse, then I will change my mind about you being as bad a hypocrite that I have ever had the misfortune of meeting on a Christian forum. The fact of many translations and paraphrases in existence is not scriptural proof as you claim over and over.

Ec 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

 

[Logos1560]

JD731, you wrongfully seem to imagine that your attack on your strawman distortion excuses your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions. I did not claim that multiple English Bible translations is scriptural proof as your bogus strawman alleges. What you allege is not at all what I have stated.

The fact of many English Bible translations is not an excuse or rationalization for a non-scriptural KJV-only position. Your attacks on a strawman are not scriptural evidence for your human KJV-only opinions.
There were several good English Bible translations already available before 1611 so according to a consistent, just application of your own incorrect reasoning another one should not have been made in 1611. Your inconsistent, incorrect reasoning would in effect condemn the making of the KJV in 1611. There would be less need for another English Bible translation in 1611 after less than 100 years than there would be for a new English Bible translation in present day English after over 300 years. You display your own inconsistency and hypocrisy.

My statement states the truth. The pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the 1611 KJV is the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. The 1611 KJV is in the same category or classification as a Bible translation as the pre-1611 English Bibles.

The very word translation by definition, when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language, would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent. By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.“ Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language. What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived? A Bible translation cannot be something other than what it is. By definition and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than untranslated original language texts of Scripture. By definition, every dependent thing or being such as a translation depends upon something else for its making and existence. A proper definition of a term would include the whole category or class of things which it seeks to define and would exclude what does not properly come under that term or name. Edward Carnell asserted: “For it is impossible to relate two different orders of being by the same terms with exactly the same meaning to each” (Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 145). Frank Turek noted: “A category mistake is when you treat something in one category as if it belongs in another category” (Stealing from God, p. 101). It should be clear that a Bible translation does not belong in the same category or classification as untranslated original-language texts of Scripture.

A Bible translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities. By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages. By definition, a translation would be dependent upon something else for its existence. Translation would be a relative term since it is connected to another object. The source of a translation would be one of its essential causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation into another language could be made from it. Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes on which it is dependent. Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources or causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Any reasoning that would attempt to reverse cause and effect would be erroneous. Can the greater authority of the antecedent source(s) be denied and the authority of the consequent translation affirmed? Does some KJV-only reasoning seem to involve use of the fallacy of affirming the consequent while denying the antecedent? Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “When we affirm the consequent, we guarantee nothing” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 64). According to the laws of causality, of good and necessary consequence, and of non-contradiction, the preserved original language texts of Scripture cannot be and not be the authority, cause, source, and foundation for a translation at the same time and in the same respect.

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.

 

[JD731]

JD731, you wrongfully seem to imagine that your attack on your strawman distortion excuses your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions. I did not claim that multiple English Bible translations is scriptural proof as your bogus strawman alleges. What you allege is not at all what I have stated.

The fact of many English Bible translations is not an excuse or rationalization for a non-scriptural KJV-only position. Your attacks on a strawman are not scriptural evidence for your human KJV-only opinions.
There were several good English Bible translations already available before 1611 so according to a consistent, just application of your own incorrect reasoning another one should not have been made in 1611. Your inconsistent, incorrect reasoning would in effect condemn the making of the KJV in 1611. There would be less need for another English Bible translation in 1611 after less than 100 years than there would be for a new English Bible translation in present day English after over 300 years. You display your own inconsistency and hypocrisy.

My statement states the truth. The pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the 1611 KJV is the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. The 1611 KJV is in the same category or classification as a Bible translation as the pre-1611 English Bibles.

The very word translation by definition, when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language, would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent. By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.“ Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language. What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived? A Bible translation cannot be something other than what it is. By definition and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than untranslated original language texts of Scripture. By definition, every dependent thing or being such as a translation depends upon something else for its making and existence. A proper definition of a term would include the whole category or class of things which it seeks to define and would exclude what does not properly come under that term or name. Edward Carnell asserted: “For it is impossible to relate two different orders of being by the same terms with exactly the same meaning to each” (Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 145). Frank Turek noted: “A category mistake is when you treat something in one category as if it belongs in another category” (Stealing from God, p. 101). It should be clear that a Bible translation does not belong in the same category or classification as untranslated original-language texts of Scripture.

A Bible translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities. By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages. By definition, a translation would be dependent upon something else for its existence. Translation would be a relative term since it is connected to another object. The source of a translation would be one of its essential causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation into another language could be made from it. Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes on which it is dependent. Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources or causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Any reasoning that would attempt to reverse cause and effect would be erroneous. Can the greater authority of the antecedent source(s) be denied and the authority of the consequent translation affirmed? Does some KJV-only reasoning seem to involve use of the fallacy of affirming the consequent while denying the antecedent? Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “When we affirm the consequent, we guarantee nothing” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 64). According to the laws of causality, of good and necessary consequence, and of non-contradiction, the preserved original language texts of Scripture cannot be and not be the authority, cause, source, and foundation for a translation at the same time and in the same respect.

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.

This is an example of my charge. It is human reasoning without scriptural evidence, the exact thing you charge me with. It leaves the omniscient God and his promises concerning his words applicable to only the original hearers. The authority of the original words as you define them will never be seen and compared by most people in the world. This fact leaves the world to accept what they are presented with by the church as.being the words of God by faith. Your philosophy essentially changes faith to scholarship. Testing the words of a favorite translation or paraphrase is outside the capabilities of most.

Then, besides that, there is the pesky disagreement among the scholars about the originals.

 

[Logos1560]

Your philosophy essentially changes faith to scholarship.

Do you fail to apply your own assertion to your reasoning? Are you in effect suggesting that your modern KJV-only philosophy essentially changes faith into blind trust in the imperfect, incomplete scholarship of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611? You do not practice what you preach.

Blind faith in human claims for the KJV that are not true and that are not scriptural is not biblical faith in what God said in Scripture.

The Scriptures do not teach 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/scholars in 1611.

KJV-only advocate Jack Moorman stated: "Within the New Testament Church there has never been any body of men to whom God has given any special authority to make decisions concerning the New Testament canon or the New Testament text" (Forever Settled, p. 46). Timothy Morton wrote: "God never intended for a 'priest class' of elite scholars to have a lock on the words of life" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 68). Under the heading “Scholasticism or Scholarship becomes the final authority,” James Rasbeary asserted: “Scholasticism is when an educated man or group of educated men assumes that they are the best qualified to tell us poor ignorant folks what God has really said” (What’s Wrong, p. 51). James Rasbeary declared: “Scholarship is not the guiding criteria for determining the Word of God” (p. 95). Wayne Williams claimed: "God placed no scholastic lords over His heritage" (Does God Have a Controversy, p. 66). Bob Kendall wrote: “The scholar unwittingly is declaring that God has been waiting for centuries for him to be born so God would finally have His word back to its original wording based on the scholar’s ability” (How Firm, p. 44). Doug Stauffer asserted: “God does not expect the Christian to elevate the ‘textual scholars’ to the position of ultimate authority” (One Book Stands Alone, p. 265). Lloyd Streeter maintained that “God never said that scholars should determine the text of the Bible” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 182). R. B. Ouellette wrote: “It is wrong to commit--to any individual or exclusive group--the determination of truth for every person in matters relating to faith” (More Sure Word, p. 51). R. B. Ouellette wrote: “God did not appoint scholars to be the final authorities for the interpretation of Scripture” (p. 27). Phil Stringer wrote: “The translation is only as accurate as the honesty, objectivity, and scholarship of the translators allow. The translators become the priests for the reader” (Unbroken Bible, p. 166).

Do Moorman, Morton, Williams, Stringer, Stauffer, Rasbeary, and other KJV-only advocates fail to apply consistently and justly their very own assertions to the textual critics/scholars who made the varying Textus Receptus editions and the varying editions of the KJV?

 

[Silverhair]

JD731 your support of the KJV is well known but which version do you think is the inspired one?
The KJV was a translation done in 1611, and then redone in 1629 & 1638 & 1760 & 1769. You seem to think that the KJV is the gold standard but it seems that it is actually just your golden calf.