Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

2 Timothy 3:16.

Why did God wait to "inspire" His Word until 1611 and to early english speaking people only? Can you prove that is true as you have claimed?

 

Dude! You're looking at a translation, aren't you? Worse, you're looking at a translation of a copy. How do you know that verse was contained in the original?

Sorry. From an empirical standpoint, that just isn't proof that the original was actually inspired by God.

 

So do tell which one is...

 

Ah, yes! Once again, eternal life in a Baptist Board thread.

Ed

 

It goes to show you can't prove that any document is inspired. So why do you believe the originals are?

Faith? So how is that more sensible than having faith that the translation into English is inspired in the King James?

I mean, if you believe the originals were inspired, you believe translations were inspired, right? Paul's words in Acts 22 were in Hebrew, but they were recorded in Greek. Was that Greek translation inspired?

If you have faith that the translation of Paul's words into Greek was inspired, why is it suddenly a strange thing to believe that the 1611 translation into English was inspired?

What about Luke's translation of Malachi 4:5 in Luke 1:17? Do you believe it was inspired?

Why? Faith? You have faith that it was inspired in the original?

You haven't even seen the original!

 

You summed it up in the next sentence...

I believe the KJV is inspired. I never claimed it wasnt'. Is it THE only inspired translation? No.

Yes.

What I find strange of the KJVO cult (because that is exactly what it is) is the notion you have laid forth...that NO original autograph or translation was "inspired" UNTIL 1611. That is plain foolishness, and defies any and all logic. It's almost science fiction foolishness, IMO.

I don't have a Bible here at work...mind posting it?

Yes.

...and you have seen the original 1611 KJV written? How old are you exactly!

This conversation just goes to show how ridiculous KJVOism really is....

 

I never heard of this. I sure never said it.

 

It is not the original 1611 document, but it is a copy of it.
Do the KJVO people read from it today? That is my question. If not, why do they call themselves KJVO?

 

The KJV was a new bible [translation] in 1611 that was brought into the equation after English-speaking believers already had a good English translation that they accepted. The infallible final authority existed before 1611. What was the infallible final authority in one book that existed before 1611 that the 1611 KJV agrees with 100%? Otherwise, the KJV-only view in effect brings a new bible into the equation in 1611 and contradicts your own argument.

The KJV was more of a revision of earlier English translation than it was an original translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. On what scriptural basis can it be claimed that the KJV has any qualities that already not present in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision? The KJV was based in effect on mulitiple varying authorities [both English and other languages] that did not agree 100%. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611.

 

This thread has far exceeded the 20 page limit and is therefore closed.