Many of you are King James only people based on the TR and the Masoretic text.
That is certainly the most respectable of all of the KJVO positions in my opinion even though I do not agree.
Here is my question:
Two different translation committees gather and each produces their own translation.
THey both use the exact same mss basis for their translation.
they both use the same literal approach to the task.
They both come up with very similar translations but they do differ slightly in places.
Which one is the inerrant Word of God?
Neither......it's simply that they are both quality (if imperfect)
Translations of the inerrant Word of God. The difference between KJVO and others is that we read that Jesus Christ "opened up the 'SCRIPTURES' " (that's the inerrant Word of God) and read from them.
A non-kjvo would insist that Jesus wasn't reading from inspired "Scripture"...only an
imperfect copy of an inspired Original.
A KJVO (or TRO) <---that's how I lean, would insist that:
1.) "All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God"........
and
2.) That Jesus read from "
SCRIPTURE".
Thus, although Jesus clearly didn't have an "original"...they maintain that SCRIPTURE is known and knowable and can be followed and known
perfectly....word for word.
That doesn't mean we always
translate it perfectly, it means that this idea that "Only the originals were 'inspired' " is hog-wash. They believe his
written Word has been
preserved perfectly. This rules out it's mere meaningless and ethereal preservation "in heaven" which means functionally NOTHING to us. And therefore it's our job to translate it faithfully.
That essentially rules out any idea that say, the last 11 verses of the book of Mark are ("Meh, who cares Tomato, Tomahto, whateva'
)
That's my best answer of how they see it.
A TRO thinks that if Acts 8:37 isn't critical...and neither is Mark 16:9-20 critical (or knowable) than no one has any
REAL clue whether God has preserved ANY of his WRITTEN words at all. How do you distinguish which words belong or don't?? We have at best a good and educated guess.
God didn't PROVABLY either preserve those words
nor prevent un-inspired words from infesting God's Divine Words did he?
What actually bothers ME isn't that Modern Translations don't claim Mark 16:9-20 inspired, it's that they don't seem to give a FIG whether they are in fact preserved SCRIPTURE or NOT! It's not simply "Meh, whateva' " include them, ya know, or not. but give liner note that it might just as easily be a load of crap. My view is...Take a STAND!
Did God preserve his WORDS or just well, Most of them, and it's your best guess which ones... :laugh: Happy hunting sucka's! BWAH HA HA HA HA!
That's not an acceptable P.O.V. to a TR Only.
You can't point to God's providential preservation of his
WORDS if you aren't either TRO only or heck CT only if you want...not if you are consistent anyway. I'd rather Modern Versions skip those "deleted" verses, and not even bother with a liner note that they
MIGHT be Scripture....just we dunno for sure... PBBBTH. :tongue3: Skip them like a man I say...don't INCLUDE THEM and then say "the Oldest and best MSS admit"...to T.R. only, that's cop-out crap. That's how I believe T.R.O's see it.
Let's ask a few questions of non-TRO's for clarity....to
non-TRO:
1.) Is Mark 16:9-20 the inspired inerrant preserved Words of God or not?
2.) If they AREN'T, why do Modern Versions include them?
3.) If they ARE...than why utilize or have faith in manuscripts which exclude them?
4.) Did God preserve all of his words ON EARTH for us to read? or only the general Theological THRUST of doctrine?
5.) Were the verses which the CT omits infestations of some sort which worked their way INTO the extant manuscripts?
6.) What system do you use to ferret out the un-inspired infestations of Scripture to preserve the correct words?
Maybe hearing an answer to those questions will help you see how TRO's view it Dale.
Whatever answers you'll get from that...........that's why there are TRO's and everyone else.
