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

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Read her post.

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

 

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

 

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, 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.

 

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?

 

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.