A very silly KJVO argument...

[Cutter]

Dr. Bub closed the inerrancy thread before C4K and some of the other guys answered my relevant question concerning all of the new versions read by liberal minded Baptists.
The question was, "Has there ever been anything pertaining to God that has been improved by adding more of the flesh or man's thought and ideas to it?"

 

[Trotter]

Dr. Bub closed the inerrancy thread before C4K and some of the other guys answered my relevant question concerning all of the new versions read by liberal minded Baptists.
The question was, "Has there ever been anything pertaining to God that has been improved by adding more of the flesh or man's thought and ideas to it?"

I would take "liberal minded Baptists" to be those who do not hold to the fundamentals (elevating a specific translation is not a part of those fundamentals). I, for one, hold to the fundamentals... do you?

As to your question, no. Nothing of God has ever been improved by man's additions. This applies to all things of God including bible translation. Your setup question for the KJV also includes the KJV... it is also a product of fallen man and not a second work of inspiration. The question also includes the source texts for both the KJV and today's translations. Both the TR (compiled by Erasmus and you REALLY don't want to go there) and the Aland manuscripts fall into the same category.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The question was, "Has there ever been anything pertaining to God that has been improved by adding more of the flesh or man's thought and ideas to it?"

The question is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with a discussion of translations.

 

[Cutter]

The question is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with a discussion of translations.

Nice dodge. Every Christian knows or should know, and be willing to say that the answer to the question is unequivocally, NO! But we discover that you can't bring yourself to state such since it would undermine your position. :sleep:

 

[Dr. Bob]

Take a wonderful Protestant (not Anglican) translation of the Word of God into English, the Geneva. AV "translators" happened to borrow much of it for their version, as well as using the Catholic Douay translation.

Can such not cause me to ask "Has there ever been anything pertaining to God that has been improved by adding more of the flesh or man's thought and ideas to it?"

You can't get more ungodly or flesh or liberal than Anglican/Catholic, but that is what is touted as "best" by the myopic few.

I'm a Baptist, not an Anglican/Catholic. And making a Bible understandable is what has happened time and time again in the revisions of the AV1611. Still today, the 1769 oxford revision I use will befuddle a reader, so I appreciate little things of newer, more accurate translations.

Like using the personal (rather than impersonal) pronoun for God. God is a HE, a person, not a force or an it.

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted - lots of folks know what a succour is, right?

And Jude 25?
"To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen" (NIV).
"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen" (KJV).

And on and on. Yes, my willingly blind brother, there are hundreds of changes that, praise God, have been made to enhance our doctrine and understanding about God in Modern English translations over the outdated Anglican Version.

 

[Amy.G]

Dr. Bob, it is fine if you disagree with Still learning, Cutter, me or anyone else, but it is inexcusable the way that you insult and belittle others. It is extremely shameful in my opinion for a pastor to behave in such a way, especially on a public forum for all the world to witness.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Ah, Amy, how am I belittling you?

I am presenting detailed evidence of error of position/doctrine that attack the core of the church. That is not belittling.

No one is more blind that he who is willingly blind. That is an old proverb and quite applicable to some.

 

[Amy.G]

Ah, Amy, how am I belittling you?

I am presenting detailed evidence of error of position/doctrine that attack the core of the church. That is not belittling.

No one is more blind that he who is willingly blind. That is an old proverb and quite applicable to some.

The problem is not that you present evidence, it is the way in which you do it.

Maybe you don't mean it to be belittling in your heart, but that is how is comes across in print.

 

[Dr. Bob]

You have been a faithful part of the BB and I will take your advice.

Sometimes I get "caught up" in zeal against what I consider to be false teaching and can come across "heavy handed".

It is typical on the Fundamental Forum (where I also post) but I would say not "productive" here.

I will walk away, having tried to answer (the question was has any modern translation enhanced our understanding) with example of YES. But don't want to wound or hurt anyone.

Again, thank you.

 

[Amy.G]

You have been a faithful part of the BB and I will take your advice.

Sometimes I get "caught up" in zeal against what I consider to be false teaching and can come across "heavy handed".

It is typical on the Fundamental Forum (where I also post) but I would say not "productive" here.

I will walk away, having tried to answer (the question was has any modern translation enhanced our understanding) with example of YES. But don't want to wound or hurt anyone.

Again, thank you.

Thank you Dr. Bob. Blessings to you! :godisgood:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Dr. Bub closed the inerrancy thread before C4K and some of the other guys answered my relevant question concerning all of the new versions read by liberal minded Baptists.
The question was, "Has there ever been anything pertaining to God that has been improved by adding more of the flesh or man's thought and ideas to it?"

I consider Dr. BOB a friend and would appreciate your respecting him. At least he is gentleman enough to apologize when he is corrected.

And to answer your question- the answer is NO- and that includes the work of the translators of the KJV. Their "Preface to the Reader" is proof that they would be the first to say "GOD FORBID" to the idea of "One Version Onlyism" and would recoil in horror to know that some today have placed them and their version on a pedestal.

 

[Trotter]

The problem is not that you present evidence, it is the way in which you do it.

Maybe you don't mean it to be belittling in your heart, but that is how is comes across in print.

While you were speaking to Dr.Bob, I will take this opportunity to offer my own apologies to you.

I tend to speak using a broad brush. This is the way I actually talk and reason and it drives my wife crazy at times. While this is a facet of my personality, it can also come across as a general condemnation of all who hold solely to the KJV. This is absolutely NOT my intention in the least. The KJV is a fine translation of the word of God and there is nothing wrong in using it as your sole translation.

I vehemently oppose the "one version onlyism" espoused by some here. While I will readily agree that the KJV is the word of God I will also fiercely oppose any who deem themselves as equal to God and declare the KJV to be the sole repository of God's word in English (or any other language). This claim is a man-made lie dreamed up by the SDA cult and them propagated by liars and sensationalists.

The only "one version onlyism" in history before the last century was that of the Catholics claiming the Latin Vulgate to be the sole repository... and this was for the sole reason of keeping the word of God completely non-understandable by the common people. And yet this very lie has arisen yet again, but this time it is with the KJV. If the KJV was to be the sole word of God in English, why was it not claimed as such from the get-go? Why did this man-made abomination not come forth for three hundred years after many other translations had been made? Surely if the KJV is God's only word in the English language it would have been defended against any other translations that were produced, would it not? Instead it was used side by side by many preachers for many, many years... until this blasphemy against God's word was poured out and taken up by others.

 

[Cutter]

And on and on. Yes, my willingly blind brother, there are hundreds of changes that, praise God, have been made to enhance our doctrine and understanding about God in Modern English translations over the outdated Anglican Version.

Cursed be ye by God for referring to a man of God as blind.

 

[Rippon]

Cursed be ye by God for referring to a man of God as blind.

Dr. Bob called you a brother. Would it be more acceptable for you to be referenced
as having some blinders on?

Your reply was uncalled for -- sinful.

 

[Rippon]

Sadly, the Byzatine family of copies of copies of copies of copies of the same error got magnified over the centuries.

And sometimes hundreds of years after the earliest manuscripts extant.

Additions of piety are frequent. Matthew records an event and says "Jesus Chirst". Mark records the same event and says "Lord Jesus Christ". What happens? When the scribe is copying the next 50 times thru Matthew he adds "Lord".

Very true. Pietistic expansion happened frequently. A lot of scribes thought they needed to "adjust" the text.

...thousands of ADDITIONS were found.

And in the Majority texts at least hundreds of additions were made.

This is why the man-made copies NEAREST the source are far more accurate than are man-made copies a thousand years later.

Much of what the TR and MT people rely upon are from the 9th century or later.

Praise God for His divine preservation of His EXACT words (not translations into other languages)

Yes indeedy.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Cursed be ye by God for referring to a man of God as blind.

Saving this one. I have never been cursed at by a "christian".

I have, sadly, seen many pastors who were theologically blind. As I've pointed out.

[And to the many who have hit "alert" to have a moderator/admin delete such a post or pm'ed me, I have decided to let it stand. Demonstrates a point.]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

[And to the many who have hit "alert" to have a moderator/admin delete such a post or pm'ed me, I have decided to let it stand. Demonstrates a point.]

I agree, hence the inaction on my part.

 

[robycop3]

Winman:So you see, Satan altered God's word right there by adding the word "not". He also added the word "not" when God told them that in the day they eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they shall surely die.

We have been over this before.

I have a fast red car.
I have a red fast car.
I have a car that's fast and red.
I have a car that's red and fast.
Ad Nauseam.

JESUS worded His Gospel message differently at times while proclaiming the same message. That's why I say the KJVOs who use the "yea, hath God said..." argument are grasping at straws.

 

[robycop3]

Cursed be ye by God for referring to a man of God as blind.

A REAL man of God uses ALL the resources GOD provides for him, including His variety of Bible translations.

Now let this not become just another thread of ad-hominem exchanges. Cutter, you're not new here & you oughtta know better.


"Has there ever been anything pertaining to God that has been improved by adding more of the flesh or man's thought and ideas to it?"

The answer is "Yes, when man's 'additions' have been to translate His word into a currently-used language or language style." The AV men did exactly that 400 years ago.

 

[jonathan.borland]

This is why the man-made copies NEAREST the source are far more accurate than are man-made copies a thousand years later.

Actually most of the earliest copies of Scripture, such as, e.g., p45 and p66, are so wild that not even the most ardent NT textual critic would rely on them for preserving the original wording intact. Copies at least 150-200 years later are generally considered much better and more stable representations. It is a truism of textual criticism that the earliest survivable documents do not necessarily preserve the earliest text, just as numerical preponderance does not necessarily indicate authenticity. Perhaps you would like to pinpoint a particular passage of Scripture to demonstrate your point?

Jonathan C. Borland