Are translations inspired?

[Ransom]

HomeBound said:

Sorry, but they [the KJV translators] were saved.

Really? I've never seen a salvation testimony from any of them.

 

[HankD]

God has promised to preserve his word. Do you deny this? Where is that preserved word today?

The same place it was prior to 1611 all the way back to day one. Either in the original autographs or their copies contained in the Traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Old and New testaments.

HankD

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Except that Psalm 12:7 has nothing to do with preserving God's Word; rather it is a promise that God will preserve his people "from this [wicked] generation forever."

That's it, change God's word to fit your own.

Oh well. ...if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. (1 Cor 14:38).

But let's suppose that Psa. 12 is about Word preservation instead of people preservation. Does this Psalm say God has preserved his word for us today in the English language?

Your right, it does not say that he will preserve his word in the English language, but as I said before, God knew what the language of today would be.

If so, why does it say he preserves it from this generation?

Sorry, but twisting God's word will not work. God did not preserve it from that generation(people as you have implied), but has preserved his words from that generation to forever. In other words, from then until.....

 

[Ransom]

HomeBound said:

That's it, change God's word to fit your own.

If I did that then I'd be a KJV-onlyist.

Do some homework and you will find that the "people preservation" interpretation of Psalm 12 is the one that the church has believed through the ages. It is the KJV-onlyists' "word preservation" spin that is changing the meaning of God's word to suit their own theology.

Tell me - would the "saved" KJV translators have changed God's word in the way you falsely accuse me of? Because they believed Psalm 12 was about "people preservation" as well, as their textual notes on this psalm show.

Sorry, but twisting God's word will not work. God did not preserve it from that generation(people as you have implied), but has preserved his words from that generation to forever.

First of all, I did not "twist" God's word. I quoted it verbatim.

It is you, on the other hand, who is distorting the Word of God by adding words to it to force its meaning into your mould. You added the word "to," as in: "from that generation to forever."

But I guess once you are already used to adding to God's Word by being presuppositionally commited to the extra-biblical doctrine of KJV-onlyism, adding actual words to the ones God revealed comes easily.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Do some homework and you will find that the "people preservation" interpretation of Psalm 12 is the one that the church has believed through the ages. It is the KJV-onlyists' "word preservation" spin that is changing the meaning of God's word to suit their own theology.

So now the church is right and not the Bible. Sounds like what a Catholic would say.

Tell me - would the "saved" KJV translators have changed God's word in the way you falsely accuse me of? Because they believed Psalm 12 was about "people preservation" as well, as their textual notes on this psalm show.

Curious, where can I get this info?

First of all, I did not "twist" God's word. I quoted it verbatim.

It is you, on the other hand, who is distorting the Word of God by adding words to it to force its meaning into your mould. You added the word "to," as in: "from that generation to forever."

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I was not directly quoting the verse, I was simply implying that God is not preserving his word from his people, but from that particular generation to for ever. In other words, to keep pure for ever for all generation to read and enjoy.

 

[Ransom]

HomeBound said:

So now the church is right and not the Bible. Sounds like what a Catholic would say.

You really enjoy twisting other people's words, don't you? Of course the Bible is right. I have never said otherwise, and it is dishonest of you to insinuate otherwise.

I said the Church has the right interpretation of the verse, as opposed to a fringe group of KJV-onlyists with an agenda. Kindly stick to what I said, not what you wish I said.

Curious, where can I get this info?

Get a proper KJV Bible with the translators' original margin notes. It has been discussed here before.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Yes, it does and many of them have been documented here. As much as you wish it were not true, the KJV is a product of men, Anglican men, some of whom were probably unsaved.

Sorry, but they were saved.</font>[/QUOTE] Your testimony won't get them in to heaven. Several of these men held false doctrines. They persecuted Baptists specifically for holding sound doctrine. Bishop Andrewes who headed the committees has a published sermon where he stated that communion was both sacrament andsacrifice (the RCC view).

Compare the testimony they left with the testimony of the NASB translators. This group of conservative, fundamental, evangelical Christians was required to sign a statement of faith affirming salvation through faith by grace alone. I would also challenge you to find one of them who persecuted others for their beliefs or attempted to use the force of government to outlaw all other translations of the Bible because they were dissatisfied with the NASB's rate of acceptance.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A short list of weaknesses: 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, the last 7 vss of Revelation, 1 John 3:1, the phrase "God forbid" throughout Romans,...

A short list of weaknesses: NIV, NASB, NASV, NKJV, ....</font>[/QUOTE] In other words, you don't have an intelligent response and must resort to meaningless, argumentative blather.

So you deny that God preserves his pure word throughout each generation.?

Once again you cannot present a case so you resort to putting words into my mouth.

God did not preserve His words- Period. If He had then all mss would be the same or it would be self-evident which single copy was the correct one.

The Word and the words are not synonomous. One is the communication, the other is the means of communication. You can accurately express one's word using a variety of words.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Can what we have be trusted?

You can the KJB. If not, what can?</font>[/QUOTE] No one said the KJV cannot be trusted. We have repeatedly said that it can be... as can several faithful translations and texts.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This is exactly what we have with the various texts and versions of the Bible. Anyone who reads and follows the KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc. will have sound doctrine and practice.

Not when they disagree with each other. </font>[/QUOTE]No one on this board, especially you, has ever shown a doctrine missing from these versions... not one, although the challenge has been given many times. So in fact, you have never demonstrated that they disagree. All you have shown is that some verses differ. These differences have legitimate, fact based explainations that are persistently evaded by KJVO's... because any rational discussion of facts reveals KJVOnlyism as a falsehood.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
So now the church is right and not the Bible.

The church and the Bible are right. It is you who are wrong.

Curious, where can I get this info?

If you were using the 1611 that you claim to believe, you would have it. This is evidence that you are not using the Bible that you claim is the only word of God. Of course, very few KJVOs do use the Bible that they claim is the word of God. Most use a more modern revision of it that has a great many changes in it.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Ransom:
I said the Church has the right interpretation of the verse, as opposed to a fringe group of KJV-onlyists with an agenda. Kindly stick to what I said, not what you wish I said.

What church is this?

Get a proper KJV Bible with the translators' original margin notes. It has been discussed here before.

Marginal notes are sometimes helpful, but will never overwrite scripture. Sorry, I can not recall it being discussed before, besides, there may be a newbie who would like to know.

 

[Ransom]

HomeBound said:

What church is this?

Stop playing dumb. You know very well that I meant the body of Christ throughout history.

Marginal notes are sometimes helpful, but will never overwrite scripture.

So in other words, rather than read the margin notes of the actual translators that shed light on their actual translation and the actual meaning of what Scripture says, we're just supposed to blindly accept KJV-only spin.

OK, sure.

Sorry, I can not recall it being discussed before, besides, there may be a newbie who would like to know.

I'm sure you, and the newbies, are as capable of clicking the Search link at the top of the page as anyone else, right?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Scott J:
In other words, you don't have an intelligent response and must resort to meaningless, argumentative blather.

[/qb]
Sorry, but these versions have done nothing but discourage the believer in his walk with Christ. How? They have caused the believer to deny God's word.

God did not preserve His words- Period.

Sounds to me that your problem is not with me, but with God. Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Ransom:
HomeBound said:

What church is this?

Stop playing dumb. You know very well that I meant the body of Christ throughout history.

Then you are wrong. I believe that any Bible Believer would agree with the Bible.

So in other words, rather than read the margin notes of the actual translators that shed light on their actual translation and the actual meaning of what Scripture says, we're just supposed to blindly accept KJV-only spin.

Why not just believe the Bible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Why not just believe the Bible.

That's what we are asking you. You insist on following the teachings fo those who have distorted the Bible. Why not just believe the Bible and do away with this nonsense about Psa 12:6-7 referring to the KJV?

 

[Ransom]

HomeBound said:

Then you are wrong. I believe that any Bible Believer would agree with the Bible.

Are you this obtuse on purpose?

This is the second time you have dishonestly and not-so-subtly implied that I do not believe the Bible.

I believe the Bible. I do not believe you.

I'm sure you can grasp the distinction.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
Why not just believe the Bible.

That's what we are asking you. You insist on following the teachings fo those who have distorted the Bible. Why not just believe the Bible and do away with this nonsense about Psa 12:6-7 referring to the KJV? </font>[/QUOTE]Because Pastor Larry, I love this book and the author of it. I don't understand how someone cannot believe that God would preserve his word then and not now. How they believe in the Bible, but if something comes up that sounds better, they believe it. It seems that a new version of the bible comes out each month/year. This is IMHO the works of the anti-christ, to try to get rid of the pure truth.

As Dr. Hyles asked, "Would God tell His people to live by the Word and not give it to them?" I think not. You as a pastor are called to preach the Gospel and to lead the flock of local believers in your church as with many other things, but how can you lead without a final authority, something you can say this is it, this is God's preserved, infallible, perfect word.

As I have stated before, I don't know Greek, Hebrew or any of that other stuff. I just know what the Bible says and believe exactly what it says without any doubt. When you guys talk about LXX, codecs A and B, etc, etc, I have not looked at these things, to tell you the truth, the only thing I look at is the Bible and if anything goes against it, it is wrong - period. I will always believe this pastor Larry, besides, am I hurting any one by believing what the Bible says is true? I think not.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Ransom:
HomeBound said:

Then you are wrong. I believe that any Bible Believer would agree with the Bible.

Are you this obtuse on purpose?

This is the second time you have dishonestly and not-so-subtly implied that I do not believe the Bible.

I believe the Bible. I do not believe you.

I'm sure you can grasp the distinction.

How can you believe the Bible and find fault with it at the same time? If you believed the Bible, we would not be having this conversation.

 

[Ransom]

Homebound, with the possible exception of MV-neverist, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Homebound, with the possible exception of MV-neverist, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

Now that's funny.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Because Pastor Larry, I love this book and the author of it.

Then believe what He said in this book. He said in Psa 12:6-7 that he would preserve the godly man; He did not say in Psa 12:6-7 that he would preserve his word. If you love his word, then treat it correctly.

I don't understand how someone cannot believe that God would preserve his word then and not now.

I don't either. However, I haven't seen anywhere here argue that he has not preserved his word. As soon as we find someone who argues that, you can team up with me and argue against that person. But as of now, no one here is arguing that God didn't preserve his word.

As Dr. Hyles asked, "Would God tell His people to live by the Word and not give it to them?"

On this, Hyles was right. However, Hyles was a very arrogant man who should have left the pulpit many years before he died. He had violated his standards of being a pastor, both in doctrine and in deed. This KJVO doctrine was oneof those places.

I think not. You as a pastor are called to preach the Gospel and to lead the flock of local believers in your church as with many other things, but how can you lead without a final authority, something you can say this is it, this is God's preserved, infallible, perfect word.

I can't. But thankfully I don't have that problem.

[qb]I just know what the Bible says and believe exactly what it says without any doubt.

[/b]No you don't, not according to what you have said here. You continue to deny the meaning of Psa 12:6-7. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. Either you believe his word, and thus believe that Psa 12:6-7 teach the preserveation of the godly man, or you don't believe his word and you believe that Psa 12:6-7 teach the preservation of his word. You cannot be on both sides of the fence.

am I hurting any one by believing what the Bible says is true? I think not.

The problem is that you are misleading others with a false doctrine about God's word. The problem is not that you believe what the Bible says it true. Most of us believe that. The problem is rather than you have taken the true teachings of the Bible and conformed them to your own choice of belief, rather than conforming your belief to the teachings of the Bible.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Then believe what He said in this book. He said in Psa 12:6-7 that he would preserve the godly man; He did not say in Psa 12:6-7 that he would preserve his word. If you love his word, then treat it correctly.

Now see, this is what I'm talking about, what authority do you base godly man on?

I don't understand how someone cannot believe that God would preserve his word then and not now.

I don't either. However, I haven't seen anywhere here argue that he has not preserved his word. As soon as we find someone who argues that, you can team up with me and argue against that person. But as of now, no one here is arguing that God didn't preserve his word.

ScottJ said, "God did not preserve His words- Period." Page 6

On this, Hyles was right. However, Hyles was a very arrogant man who should have left the pulpit many years before he died. He had violated his standards of being a pastor, both in doctrine and in deed. This KJVO doctrine was oneof those places.

Do you have something negative to say about every KJB believer?

I just know what the Bible says and believe exactly what it says without any doubt.

No you don't, not according to what you have said here. You continue to deny the meaning of Psa 12:6-7. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. Either you believe his word, and thus believe that Psa 12:6-7 teach the preserveation of the godly man, or you don't believe his word and you believe that Psa 12:6-7 teach the preservation of his word. You cannot be on both sides of the fence.

I believe the Bible is correct when it says it will preserve them (words).

am I hurting any one by believing what the Bible says is true? I think not.

The problem is that you are misleading others with a false doctrine about God's word. The problem is not that you believe what the Bible says it true. Most of us believe that. The problem is rather than you have taken the true teachings of the Bible and conformed them to your own choice of belief, rather than conforming your belief to the teachings of the Bible.

Funny, this is what I think you are doing.