Does authorized by a king mean authorized by God?

[SGO]

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??

Do you consider every word you read in the translation you use to be the word of God?

Smell ya later.

 

[Logos1560]

Do you consider every word you read in the translation you use to be the word of God?

Are you suggesting that the scriptural truth that teaches that words added by men are not the word of God should be disregarded and ignored?

Are you directly claiming that any errors introduced by men [whether printers, editors, or translators] in a translation are the word of God?

Since 1980, some editions of the KJV that are printed from a computer-based text have a new set of variations and even some errors that were unintentionally introduced by the person who typed up the KJV text on a computer.

 

[SGO]

I'll have to guess you do not think the translation you use is the word of God.


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

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his LORD;
John 13:16

 

[Logos1560]

I'll have to guess you do not think the translation you use is the word of God.

Instead of making an incorrect, wild guess, you could have answered the questions that you were asked and you could have discussed what I actually stated.

I correctly and truly think that a Bible translation is what it is--a translation. I properly consider the meaning of the term Bible translation. I do not improperly try to claim that a translation is something that it is not.

It is the truth that a post-NT Bible translation is not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

 

[JonC]

The Great Bible was authorized by Henry VIII (the KJV was commissioned, but never authorized, by a king.

 

[atpollard]

Do you consider every word you read in the translation you use to be the word of God?

Smell ya later.

Of course not.
Only the ones above the line.

 

[SGO]

Instead of making an incorrect, wild guess, you could have answered the questions that you were asked and you could have discussed what I actually stated.

I correctly and truly think that a Bible translation is what it is--a translation. I properly consider the meaning of the term Bible translation. I do not improperly try to claim that a translation is something that it is not.

It is the truth that a post-NT Bible translation is not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

Neither did you answer my question but, "It is the truth that a post-NT Bible translation is not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles" is just a fancy way to say you do not believe the bible in English is the word of God.
The word of God means what God said.

Thy word I have hid in mine heart that I might not sin against thee.
Psalm 119:11

You have nothing to hide.

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

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

But the Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:26

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever,
And this is the word by which the gospel is preached to you.
1 Peter 1:25

Praise to God His word endures for ever.

 

[Logos1560]

Neither did you answer my question but, "It is the truth that a post-NT Bible translation is not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles" is just a fancy way to say you do not believe the bible in English is the word of God.
The word of God means what God said.

My statement is the truth while you seem to try improperly to twist and distort it or try to attack my honesty or integrity. You again try to put words in my mouth or twist what I stated into something else. There is nothing fancy about my clear, plain statement of truth.

The KJV is one English translation of the word of God, but it is not the word of God given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

 

[SGO]

My statement is the truth while you seem to try improperly to twist and distort it .

Oh, I'm so sorry only you have the right to play that game.

Maybe I should ask the "great" KJVO mentor you associated me with, Mr. Ruckman, for some tips, eh?

 

[Logos1560]

I strongly encourage you to step back and re-approach the subject with a more neutral posture,
.

You do not explain how I can supposedly be any more neutral, more objective, or more balanced than I attempt to be. I have read all the books by KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates that I can obtain. I favorably quote KJV-only authors and TR-only authors when I find their assertions to be true or scriptural. I attempt to be as fair to them as I can be. I attempt to get them to apply their very own assertions consistently, soundly, and justly. I have read the KJV for many years. I have examined and studied the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and have done some research concerning other Bibles on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles.

Perhaps I have made considerably more effort to understand their position than they make to understand mine.

 

[Dave G]

You do not explain how I can supposedly be any more neutral, more objective, or more balanced than I attempt to be.

Then I'll state it plainly so as to avoid any misunderstanding.

You could be more neutral, more objective and certainly more balanced if you started posing the same questions and comments to those who support the use of Critical Text Bibles over TR-based ones...
And who end up mocking people who advocate the use of a standard that many professing believers are now beginning to belittle as "archaic", out-of-date and based on "inferior Greek texts".

Simply put,
I've never seen you call into question the treatment of those who oppose the TR or the KJV as a standard, or question them on their choice of Greek text and the merits or de-merits of any of their preferred translations.

As I asked in prior posts, did I miss these threads in which you did?
If so, then please link them here, and I will gladly take a look at them.

Perhaps I have made considerably more effort to understand their position than they make to understand mine.

If I may ask, what exactly is your position?

 

[Dave G]

It is the truth that a post-NT Bible translation is not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

But if performed faithfully and accurately,
is it not the very same word of God, only in a different language...

The very same words that were inspired by God to his apostles and prophets?

 

[Logos1560]

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his LORD;
John 13:16

According to a sound definition and explanation of the term translation, a translation could be understood to act as a borrower. “The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7). One clear way in which a Bible translation could properly be considered to act as a servant would be in how it borrows, derives, or acquires its own text and its authority from its master or source original-language Scripture text or texts from which it is made (Prov. 22:7). By definition, a translation would be a borrower from its original language texts. As a borrower, a translation would act as servant to the lender or lenders [its original language texts] according to what is stated at Proverbs 22:7. Should what the Scriptures directly state about a borrower be denied or rejected? The specific words of the master original language texts of Scripture should or would determine which different words in another language should be in a Bible translation. The original meaning of the words as used in context in the master original language texts should give rise to which words should be used in a translation of those texts. The different words of a translation are under the authority of the original language words from which they are translated. The exact original-language words that proceeded directly from God set the standard and are the proper authority for what the words of a translation should say (John 12:49, Matt. 4:4). Therefore, it is sound and scriptural to conclude that the preserved original-language words of Scripture have greater authority than the translated words that borrow or derive authority from their underlying source or sources.

Principles or truths derived from an application of the meaning of other scripture verses would also support this truth that a translation acts as a borrower or servant. Since a borrower is clearly described as being a servant, scriptural truths that apply to a servant could soundly and justly apply to a borrower. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt. 10:24). In like manner, can it be inferred or deduced that a translation, which acts as a borrower, would not be above the master underlying texts from which it is translated? "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16). Likewise, a translation is not greater in authority than the original language source or sources [the master text] from which it was made and translated and that gave it its proper derived authority. The lord or master gives authority to his servants (Mark 13:34). The servants do not give authority to the master nor do they have greater authority than the one who delegates authority to them. The person or servant who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16b). In like manner, a translation is not greater than the underlying texts from which it was made. A translation acts as a servant ambassador or messenger that attempts to present faithfully or accurately the meaning of the original language words of its underlying Scripture texts in the words of the receptor language. By its definition and in its clear role as a borrower, a Bible translation can be properly considered servant to the master original-language Scripture texts from which it was made and translated.

 

[robycop3]

Interesting thought. Take it or leave it.

The King James Bible.

"James" is simply English for "Jacob", see James 1:1 GNT TR, "ιακωβος".

Thus it is also, by extension, the King Jacob Bible.

Jacob is also known as Israel.

Jesus Christ is the true Jacob (having taken our sins upon Himself) and the true Israel (the prince and overcomer with God His Father).

So, King James I of England (VI of Scotland), is merely a human type to the Greater King Jacob/James.

That Bible was authorized not by a mere man, but by the Redeemer Himself (kinda like Ezra 6:14).

More KJVO nonsense. KJ was named by his parents; they were named by their parents.

The FIRST "authorized" English BV was the "Great Bible", ordered to be made by Henry VIII.

A human's "authorization" of God's word means nothing to GOD.

KJVOs, having no real evidence to support their myth, invent goofy stuff like this.

 

[SGO]

Where is that verse about only the originals are inspired again?

This is not true for you:

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

Oh, right, my mistake, the word of God is standing now, here, but hidden behind the coats in the closet.

Some of the KJV, NIV, NAS, NLT, NKJV, NEB, etc., (modern generally accepted) English translations have God's truth, just not inspired, but we have to study Greek and Hebrew, the human authors, the times it was given, and other factors before WE determine what the real word of God is.
Any one who claims to have the word of God now is just not a scholarly person, and is, in fact, a deceitful wacko.

Our God is passive and that little phrase, "the word of our God shall stand for ever", only had His involvement in the beginning.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2 Timothy 3:16, has been adjusted by you to say all the original scripture only is given by inspiration of God and we have panned this gold out into our English translations (and all the others) by our efforts. God was helping a little, maybe, because people still get born again.

Here are a few pesky verses which illustrate another scripturally based principle:

The word of God is alive.

The word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts
and intents of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12


Being born again,
not of corruptible seed,
but of incorruptible,
by the word of God,
which liveth and abideth forever.
1 Peter 1:23

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

Yes in the translations the inspired word of God is alive.
In some, the word of God is more living than in others, but not counting the KJV, (not counting it), is that just too far for you?
Send me then to the scripturally based principal's office.

 

[Logos1560]

Where is that verse about only the originals are inspired again?

Where is the verse about only one English translation in 1611 being given by inspiration of God?

Where is the verse that states and teaches that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611?

Do you try to hide behind questions as you fail to present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural case for your own unclear opinions?

 

[Logos1560]

This is not true for you:

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

Your allegation is not true and would bear false witness in disobedience to the Scriptures.

Isaiah 40:8 was stated long before 1611. The word of God stood forever before the 1611 KJV was ever made, and the word of God shall stand forever even if the 1611 KJV had never been made.

The standing of the word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. If you think that it is, you show that you misunderstand and misinterpret Isaiah 40:8.

 

[robycop3]

Your insults become you.

Can you prove me wrong? Of course not !

 

[robycop3]

Do you consider every word you read in the translation you use to be the word of God?

Smell ya later.

Do YOU? Even the proven goofs & booboos & added words in the KJV ?

 

[Logos1560]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2 Timothy 3:16, has been adjusted by you to say all the original scripture only is given by inspiration of God .

Your allegation is not true. I have not adjusted nor changed the clear meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16.

2 Timothy 3:16 clearly refers to the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles. Only what God gave directly by inspiration is what God only gave by inspiration. It is KJV-only reasoning which attempts to adjust, change, and alter the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16 as it tries to add to it by reading something else into the verse or it tries to apply the verse unjustly to only the KJV in English. You misinterpret and misapply the verse out of context, avoiding the other scripture verses that connect the supernatural process of the giving of the Scriptures of inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.