Featured Does authorized by a king mean authorized by God?

Even when Peter said that he is talking about what was preached not a King James Bible. How does that statement disqualify any other extra book like the Cat in the Hat? How do you answer when a Mormon points to the same verse to justify the Book of Mormon in his New Testament?

 

Here’s the thing that does not cross your mind and plenty of people want you to ignore > who decided officially what books do or do not belong. Who decided what works should even be considered for translation?

You don’t want to go down this rabbit hole.

 

Then are you saying our God is so unconcerned with His promise that men while translating goof it up and He does not care?

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

The word of the Lord endureth for ever.
1 peter 1:25

 

Jesus is the Logos of the father, and he is perfect and complete, we do not need bible versions to be that !

 

Eating you up, that ol' black book, ain't it? Keep'em coming.

 

was the Kjv any more "authorized" then the Geneva Bible?

 

Why attack me and lower yourself?

You are a big intellectual guy who cannot prove with scripture only the originals are inspired but have given a caveat that, yes there is preservation (Great!), but are you willing to say those preserved verses are inspired?

Please do not say "scriptural principles" with out providing the actual verse that says what you purport.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Timothy 3:16

Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 24:35

 

BOTH refers to the Originals!

 

I realize you haven't posted this to me, as this is addressed to SGO,
But...

Logos,

To me, your reasoning and allegations are wrong.
You jump to wrong conclusions about God and His willingness and power to keep His promises towards them that know and love Him.

In addition, your erroneous reasoning seems to be similar to the reasoning of those who deny that God exists and that He does not reward those who diligently seek Him ( Hebrews 11:6 ) because they know whom they have believed in, and are persuaded that he is able to keep that which they have committed unto Him against that day ( 2 Timothy 1:12 ).

I agree.

But I think you've overlooked something...
His promises.

Unless He has provided for His words to be transmitted to them so that they actually have them, then He does indeed permit men to not only make mistakes, but for those very men ( and Satan himself ) to have power over Him and His people.

But He does not.
God has preserved His words for His people to take comfort in, and in many languages.

Are you suggesting that He has not preserved His words and does not work in the hearts and minds of men to give His people His words in their own languages?
If this is what you believe, then please tell the readers here the answer to this question:

Where are His preserved words kept for those of His children that do not know Greek and Hebrew?
For that matter, where are they preserved for those that do?

 

If all we can trust are the originals,
Then His words have indeed passed away ( at least here on earth ), contrary to what the Bible I read, actually says.

Which,
if God does not preserve His words somewhere,
then we really cannot know for sure that what any Bible does say are actually His words, and not man's words.

The originals are long since turned to dust...

Therefore, if His words are only contained in the originals,
then you have no Bible, Dave.
Don't quote it, because you cannot trust it 100% to be His words...

Unless of course you believe by faith ( as I do ) that He does indeed preserve His words for all of His people to take comfort in.

 

Respectfully,
I see a clear bias here, Logos.

Despite your claim to using the KJV for years, every thread that I've read from you on this subject seems overwhelmingly weighted in favor towards taking aim at one thing...
Tearing down the notion that there should be a standard in English that everyone who speaks it ( and has put their trust in the Lord ) can actually rely on to be the word of God.

When someone puts forth the AV as that standard,
you don't reply with what you believe should be that English standard.
Instead, it seems that your focus is more heavily on what it should not be.

I find that very strange behavior from someone who voices their concerns about all parties consistently and justly applying clear Scriptural truths ( which, thus far I have not seen you list and give the references for ) to their choice of a standard regarding English translations.

As I've stated in past threads on this issue,

When you address the claims of those who tell believers that "older is better" ( despite sometimes massive differences in just the manuscripts themselves, such as "Sinaiticus" compared to "Vaticanus" ) regarding Greek manuscripts,
and that we can actually trust a never-ending cycle of English ( and other world languages as well ) translations that are based on an ever-changing NA / UBS textual apparatus for their Greek foundations,
then I'll believe that you're interested in coming to a resolution on this subject.

Until then,
Every thread that you create trying to get "KJV-Only" believers ( and anyone who resembles them ) to doubt their convictions,
will only confirm what I've suspected since I joined this board:

You're not interested in discussing what should be the standard...
You're only interested in convincing people what should not be the standard.

 

I've read books that vehemently defend the "Authorized" 1611 KJV of the Bible, and those that do not necessarily hold to such a position on our Bible versions/translations, and I read some not so (Eph. 4:1-3 & 31) in their accusations of those who would as much as think about thinking about their "Directly from heaven to use here on earth" 1611 KJV O N L Y!! ..... AND about the same as those who don't hold to such a position in their so-called divinely inspired "Test(s) of Fellowship." Why such a divisive attitude exists among people who claim to have personally received in their hearts & minds the very personification of Peace: Jesus Christ Himself, "THE Prince of Peace." If "... and ye shall know them by their fruits, or, as Galatians 5:22-23 indicates, maybe some of their (both pro & con the "Divinely Inspired 1611 KJV" issue). Sesms to me that one or more of our fruit baskets might just be a tad smelly. .... YA THINK??

 

That is your own opinion and I respect your right to it.

Regrettably and in regards to walking together on the subject,
I also happen to disagree with it.

Respectfully and from my own perspective,
You are not demonstrating, from the Scriptures, that those whose opinions that you differ with are jumping to any wrong conclusions about God and His willingness and power to keep His promises to those who love Him, either.

That said:

I strongly encourage you to step back and re-approach the subject with a more neutral posture,
and address the advocates of the CT and the MT ( and their respective and favorite translations ) with the same questions and concerns that you continually pose to those who believe that the TR ( or the KJV or even both ) are God's preserved words in their respective categories.

In my opinion,
Continuing on in your present course only seems to be giving people the idea that you're attacking them, and not in any way trying to get them to step back, weigh the evidence for themselves from many angles, and to re-evaluate their beliefs and conclusions more.

 

I'm glad to see this.

Now, if you are inclined to answer this question, where ( in your estimation ) has He actually kept the promise to preserve His words?
In Heaven alone, or on the earth as well?

If on the earth, then where is this contained?
In what manuscripts and in what translations ( if any ) can God's preserved words actually be found?

Not one bit.
But I have a question in response:

Are you trying to smear the beliefs of those who differ with you, by continually insinuating that they are being dishonest and are engaging in applying unjust measures to their preferences of what they believe should be the standard for God's words?
I hope not, and I'd also like to point out that if you are not, then there are better ways to make your case.

I respect that you see things differently,
and I am not interested in making innuendos, distortions and misrepresentations in order to bring your motives into question...
But I am starting to question them.

In addition, continuing to ( apparently ) paint those who hold that believers already have a standard ( and that standard, for the time being is the AV in English, or the TR or even both ), has its own set of negative detractions that I happen to believe that you may not be aware of.

Perhaps if you were to adopt a more neutral approach in your writing style,
then people like me might not get the wrong ideas.

 

My apologies for coming across in a way that offends,
but it seems that no matter what I say on this subject or how I say it, you will most probably take offense to it... one way or the other.

So I thought it best to simply get it out in the open and see how you addressed it,
while maintaining that I personally do not have any ill will towards you.

I'm sure that it can be taken that way,
but that is not my intention towards you.

Then why don't you simply state it out in the open more,
so that people like me won't get the wrong ideas regarding your threads on this subject?

Can you not see that I must not be the only one who might be misunderstanding the purpose of them?
Let me put it another way so that my perspective is clearly understood:

If someone like me who is well-read on the subject can misunderstand your position,
what does that say about those who are new to it?
Do you think that they might get the wrong ideas about it, as well?


I do.