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

[JD731]

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?

Your reasoning is sensual and you have not met the standard you have required of me. When you do that come back and let's talk some more.

 

[JD731]

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.

I do have a much different view of the word of God than you. When the scriptures say in places like Heb 4:12 and in 1 pet 1:23 that the word of God is living, I actually think that I have a little understanding of what God means by it. I certainly do not think he is filling space because he wants a certain number of chapters in Peters first letter to the stangers.

If you and I were to communicate what we think God means when he says his word is living, then I would say our understanding of God might be further divided and our contention would be greater. Having said that, I hope you do not go to guessing what I believe before I tell you.

 

[Silverhair]

I do have a much different view of the word of God than you. When the scriptures say in places like Heb 4:12 and in 1 pet 1:23 that the word of God is living, I actually think that I have a little understanding of what God means by it. I certainly do not think he is filling space because he wants a certain number of chapters in Peters first letter to the stangers.

If you and I were to communicate what we think God means when he says his word is living, then I would say our understanding of God might be further divided and our contention would be greater. Having said that, I hope you do not go to guessing what I believe before I tell you.

Have I told you what you think re scripture, NO. What you have done a number of times is suggest that only the KJV is a valid translation but as yet you have not said which version of the KJV you think is the correct one.

 

[Logos1560]

Having said that, I hope you do not go to guessing what I believe before I tell you.

You do not practice what you preach. You seem to keep wildly and inaccurately guessing what others believe, and you keep improperly trying to put words in their mouth and mind that they do not state and do not believe.

This thread seems to be intended to get others to defend something that they have not advocated. This thread seems to be based on a bogus, strawman misrepresentation that does not present accurately what non-KJV-only believers believe.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning -
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0730 hrs GMT (Fri) 330 am EDT (Fri) 1230 am PDT (Fri)

 

[Logos1560]

When the scriptures say in places like Heb 4:12 and in 1 pet 1:23 that the word of God is living, I actually think that I have a little understanding of what God means by it.

Do you consider the word of God translated into English in the 1537 Matthew's Bible to be living?

Do you consider the word of God translated into English in the 1560 Geneva Bible to be living?

 

[Silverhair]

I do have a much different view of the word of God than you.

Since I believe that the bible is the word of God and you say you have a different view than I do what does that say about you?

I actually think that I have a little understanding of what God means by it.

Do you think that those of us that do not use the KJV do not know what the bible says or lack understanding?

If you and I were to communicate what we think God means when he says his word is living, then I would say our understanding of God might be further divided and our contention would be greater. Having said that, I hope you do not go to guessing what I believe before I tell you.

For someone that tells me I should not guess what you believe you sure do a great deal of guessing about what others believe. And seem to think you know how God wants His word spread.

 

[JD731]

Do you consider the word of God translated into English in the 1537 Matthew's Bible to be living?

Do you consider the word of God translated into English in the 1560 Geneva Bible to be living?

I believe the word of God is living no matter where it is found because God says it is. We just need to be sure we are defining both the word of God and the word living in the same way God does.

Do you have a scriptural definition that will include both those Bibles you asked about in your comments?

Is life translated by all the translations of men as well as the paraphrases which I understand are admittedly not the words of God by their creators? Would the dynamic equivalence of ithe NIV be the word of God and be alive?

I am just asking. If you can prove scripturally that they are then I am ready to believe you.

 

[37818]

Hebrews 4:12, ". . . For the worde of god is quycke and myghty in operacion and sharper then eny two edged swearde: and entreth through even vnto the dividynge asonder of the soule and the sprete and of the ioyntes and the mary: and iudgeth the thoughtes and the intentes of the herte: . . ."

Hebrews 4:12, ". . . For the worde of God is liuely, and mightie in operation, & sharper then any two edged sword, and entreth through, euen vnto the diuiding asunder of the soule and the spirit, and of the ioints, and the marow, and is a discerner of the thoughtes, and the intents of the heart. . . .'

1 Peter 1:23, ". . . for ye are borne a newe not of mortall seed but of immortall by the worde of god which liveth and lasteth for ever. . . ."

1 Peter 1:23, ". . . Being borne anewe, not of mortall seede, but of immortall, by the woorde of God, who liueth and endureth for euer. . . ."

 

[Logos1560]

Would the dynamic equivalence of ithe NIV be the word of God and be alive?

My preferred English Bible translation--the KJV has some dynamic equivalent renderings according to what KJV-only advocates have identified as being dynamic equivalence, and it provides no English rendering for some original-language words of Scripture and adds many English words for which it has no original-language words of Scripture.

Do you apply your own stated measures/standards consistently and justly including to the KJV?

According to scriptural truth, the same measures/standards should be applied consistently and justly. The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9).

 

[Silverhair]

I believe the word of God is living no matter where it is found because God says it is. We just need to be sure we are defining both the word of God and the word living in the same way God does.

Do you have a scriptural definition that will include both those Bibles you asked about in your comments?

Is life translated by all the translations of men as well as the paraphrases which I understand are admittedly not the words of God by their creators? Would the dynamic equivalence of ithe NIV be the word of God and be alive?

I am just asking. If you can prove scripturally that they are then I am ready to believe you.

Can you prove that the bible you use, KJV, is God inspired. You seem to place a great deal of trust in a version that has gone through so many revisions and corrections.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning -
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0730 hrs GMT (Fri) 330 am EDT (Fri) 1230 am PDT (Fri)

This thread is closed
Feel free to start a new thread