Does authorized by a king mean authorized by God?

[SGO]

Your diversary strawman has nothing to do with my actual scripturally-based position.

I have not advocated nor recommended Westcott and Hort's Greek text.

But you advocate modern translations as being above the King James Version and even go out of your way to attack those that show its superiority.

The modern translations all use Westcott and Hort's Greek text.

So you get around that by saying you don't "advocate or recommend" it.

Wolfie.

 

[Logos1560]

The modern translations all use Westcott and Hort's Greek text..

Your assumption and assertion is simply not true. You show that you believe an assertion that is not true. Just because you may believe your claim does not make it true.

The truth is that there are some post-1611 English Bible translations that are not based on Westcott and Hort's Greek text.

There is the 1833 revision of the KJV by Noah Webster that was reprinted in 1987.
There is the 1842 revision of the KJV by several Biblical scholars including Baptists, and I have a copy of it.
There is the 1862 Young's Literal Translation, that was still being reprinted.

Others include the 1982 NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the 2000 King James 2000 Version, and the 2014 Modern English Version.

There are the English translations of the Syriac Peshitta, which is on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles. I have three of those.

There are English translations of the Majority Text NT.

 

[Yeshua1]

But you advocate modern translations as being above the King James Version and even go out of your way to attack those that show its superiority.

The modern translations all use Westcott and Hort's Greek text.

So you get around that by saying you don't "advocate or recommend" it.

Wolfie.

The Nestle Aland 28 text is quite a bit different then the W& H Greek text used for the 1901 Asv!

 

[Yeshua1]

Your assumption and assertion is simply not true. You show that you believe an assertion that is not true. Just because you may believe your claim does not make it true.

The truth is that there are some post-1611 English Bible translations that are not based on Westcott and Hort's Greek text.

There is the 1833 revision of the KJV by Noah Webster that was reprinted in 1987.
There is the 1842 revision of the KJV by several Biblical scholars including Baptists, and I have a copy of it.
There is the 1862 Young's Literal Translation, that was still being reprinted.

Others include the 1982 NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the 2000 King James 2000 Version, and the 2014 Modern English Version.

There are the English translations of the Syriac Peshitta, which is on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles. I have three of those.

There are English translations of the Majority Text NT.

And yet the KJVO will reject ALL of those English translations you cited as not being "true Kjv"

 

[SGO]

Your assumption and assertion is simply not true. You show that you believe an assertion that is not true. Just because you may believe your claim does not make it true.

The truth is that there are some post-1611 English Bible translations that are not based on Westcott and Hort's Greek text.

There is the 1833 revision of the KJV by Noah Webster that was reprinted in 1987.
There is the 1842 revision of the KJV by several Biblical scholars including Baptists, and I have a copy of it.
There is the 1862 Young's Literal Translation, that was still being reprinted.

Others include the 1982 NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the 2000 King James 2000 Version, and the 2014 Modern English Version.

There are the English translations of the Syriac Peshitta, which is on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles. I have three of those.

There are English translations of the Majority Text NT.

Just because you may believe your claim does not make it true.
Touche' for you.

KJV for me.

You claimed in another thread, pardon me for bringing it in here if you object, that you have read the KJV for FIFTY years!

Wow!

Yet you actually attack its veracity and especially those who defend it.

Why do you read it?

It is not the best translation for you?

You do not believe it is the word of God?

You betray yourself.

 

[SGO]

And yet the KJVO will reject ALL of those English translations you cited as not being "true Kjv"

Please, please, please, don't say things without substantiation.

Especially bible proof.

Is that the most important issue to you?

Why not ask yourself why don't I read a bible I can completely believe in or why hasn't God seen fit to provide one for me?

Get your KJVO hating friends to help you if you need it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please, please, please, don't say things without substantiation.

Especially bible proof.

Is that the most important issue to you?

Why not ask yourself why don't I read a bible I can completely believe in or why hasn't God seen fit to provide one for me?

Get your KJVO hating friends to help you if you need it.

So you do accept then those english translations listed as being just as valid as the Kjv then?

 

[SGO]

So you do accept then those english translations listed as being just as valid as the Kjv then?

Why not answer my question first, do you have a bible you trust implicitly, every word?

Are you trying to dodge the answer?

It is not me you are dodging.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not answer my question first, do you have a bible you trust implicitly, every word?

Are you trying to dodge the answer?

It is not me you are dodging.

I have a bible that is trustworthy, as it does not have to be perfect to be infallible!

 

[SGO]

I have a bible that is trustworthy, as it does not have to be perfect to be infallible!

How can it not be perfect yet infallible?

Haven't you said no Bible is perfect?

And no Bible is infallible?

God is perfect, right?

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 5:48

Is it God's words in English?

God's word is perfect.

Every word of God is pure.
Proverbs 30:5

Is that a lie?

Oh, men make mistakes in translating.

It's ok God will bless it.

How can you trust God if He said,

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God?
Matthew 4:4

Oh, that only for His listeners on the day He said it.

He said man, right?

Like humanity, right?

He said, every word, right?

No that is impossible.

No it's not for us.

You need to be like a little child and accept.
Matthew 18:3

You want the NAS?

OK.

Is it perfect?

God's words are in there.

All of them?

Men are such screw ups.

God could not assist men to make a perfect translation, right?

He does not regard His words that highly.

Oh, there are all kinds of problems with ALL the translations.

Every body says so and they have excellent arguments!

Then God is very weak.

Are you looking through this letter just to see where you can attack?

 

[Alofa Atu]

I like this question instead of the OP.

Does authorized by God, mean He can issue that through any one, including a king (like King James) if He so chooses?

 

[JonC]

I like this question instead of the OP.

Does authorized by God, mean He can issue that through any one, including a king (like King James) if He so chooses?

Depends if someone believes in a second special revelation. So it goes to one's idea about the nature of God and perhaps also to the nature of redemptive history. I'm sure there are a lot of opinions...at least two .

 

[Logos1560]

You claimed in another thread, pardon me for bringing it in here if you object, that you have read the KJV for FIFTY years!

Yet you actually attack its veracity and especially those who defend it.

I have read the KJV over 50 years. I accept the KJV as what it actually is. I do my best to present the truth concerning the KJV. My view of the KJV is actually the same basic view of it as that held by its makers so how would that supposedly be attacking its veracity?

I do not attack those who state the actual truth concerning the KJV and who teach sound Bible doctrine relating to it and other English Bible translations.

I properly and soundly object to those who make claims for the KJV that they do not prove to be true and do not prove to be scriptural. The KJV itself does not state nor teach the modern KJV-only theory. KJV-only advocates will make assertions for the KJV that are not true and that are not scriptural. Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is not attacking the veracity of the KJV. It would be wrong to try to suggest that criticism of non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is criticism of the KJV itself.

 

[Logos1560]

God could not assist men to make a perfect translation, right?

Do you try to put words in the mouths of others that they do not say?

The issue is not what God could do, but what He said that He did or would do according to the Scriptures. The issue is not whether God could make a perfect English translation or a perfect translation in every languages. You quote no statements where anyone questions whether God could make a perfect translation. Your question could be considered a bogus straw man that is not the issue. How does it benefit to speculate merely about possibility?

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that God choose to have and will have any and all post-NT Bible translations made by the supernatural process of inspiration that He used to give the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles.

God Himself could deliver the gospel to every human being on earth, but that is not what the Scriptures say that He will do. Again the issue is not what God could possibly do, but what He actually did and what He actually said He will do.
God gave the commission to believers to take the gospel to the world. Efforts to carry out the Great Commission lead to efforts to make Bible translations in different languages in order to communicate the gospel and the word of God to those who speak those languages.

Do some possibly seem to try to dictate to God what He has to do according to their human reasoning?

 

[SGO]

I have read the KJV over 50 years. I accept the KJV as what it actually is. I do my best to present the truth concerning the KJV. My view of the KJV is actually the same basic view of it as that held by its makers so how would that supposedly be attacking its veracity?

I do not attack those who state the actual truth concerning the KJV and who teach sound Bible doctrine relating to it and other English Bible translations.

I properly and soundly object to those who make claims for the KJV that they do not prove to be true and do not prove to be scriptural. The KJV itself does not state nor teach the modern KJV-only theory. KJV-only advocates will make assertions for the KJV that are not true and that are not scriptural. Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is not attacking the veracity of the KJV. It would be wrong to try to suggest that criticism of non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is criticism of the KJV itself.

You say the KJV's makers are men and stop there.

It is the word of God and you do not give it its just.

That is the human mind set.

You need empirical proofs.

You know and I know that I cannot give those to you.

When our Lord said,

Man shall not live by bread alone but by
every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:4

he was actually speaking to the devil.


(Please just think to yourself the answers to these questions.)

Why did he say "man" then?

Just only quoting the Old Testament?

Were those words only true for that one time He spoke them in that situation?

Why did He say every word from the mouth of God?

Every word

Comes from the mouth of God

I am trying to reason with you using scripture. Not "KJVO principles" and by your saying that you throw in one of your little but often digs.

You read the KJV why?


"I properly and soundly object to those who make claims for the KJV that they do not prove to be true and do not prove to be scriptural. "

Here you are calling me a liar in scholarly like language.

Above is the scripture quoted.

It is true.

Why do not you believe the word of God?

You have principles of pride but no scripture if you do not believe the KJV is the word of God.

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

You say the KJV is not scripture.

That is the lie.

Fifty years of maybe God will speak to my heart.

Humble yourself and accept the word of God.

 

[Logos1560]

You say the KJV is not scripture.

You improperly put words in my mouth that I did not say. You do not take my actual statements and prove them wrong.

The Scriptures were translated into English many years before 1611.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense and in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

According to your unproven claims, it becomes clear that you misunderstand, misinterpret, or apply unjustly what some verses in the KJV state. You may be reading your own opinions into the verses or adding something to them. You seem to think that the verses that you cite support your stated opinions when they do not. You have failed to prove that the verses you cite actually teach the conclusions or opinions that you try to suggest in your posts.

2 Timothy 3:16 does not state nor teach that the KJV is Scripture given directly by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Matthew 4:4 does not state nor teach that the KJV is an every word perfect English translation. It is a proven fact that the 1611 KJV does not have an English word for every original-language word of Scripture in the underlying original-language texts on which the KJV is based or from which it is translated. Matthew 4:4 does not say that all the words in the 1611 KJV including the errors introduced by printers proceeded from the mouth of God.

According to the Scriptures, errors introduced by imperfect men whether printers, editors, or translators are not the pure words of God. It is a proven fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV has some errors introduced by men.

 

[Logos1560]

Why do not you believe the word of God?

I believe the word of God, and I accept the word of God. You are wrong to suggest that I do not.

Disagreeing with your opinions about the word of God is not the same thing as not believing the word of God.

Do you have so much pride in your own non-scriptural opinions and in your reasoning that you are unable to deal with a Bible believer disagreeing with them?

 

[Logos1560]

Please, please, please, don't say things without substantiation.

You do not practice what you preach. Are you betraying yourself or contradicting yourself? You say many things without scriptural substantiation. The verses that you cite do not say the non-scriptural assertions that you make after your quotations.

You attack me for disagreeing with your human opinions that you try to add to the Scriptures or read into the Scriptures when it is clear that the Scriptures do not state them. Your human reasoning is faulty and imperfect.

I believe and accept all that the Scriptures state about themselves.

 

[SGO]

Always calling me a liar now.

You are definitely not a nice person but dress yourself up as one.

You do not believe that any existing bible is the inspired word of God completely.

You know who you are also calling that?

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

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

 

[Logos1560]

Always calling me a liar now.

Your allegation is not true. I acknowledged that you believe what you claim, but I also pointed out the truth that your believing it does not make it true.

You refuse to acknowledge that I believe what I stated, but instead you incorrectly try to put words in my mouth that I did not state. You even falsely try to suggest that I am supposedly calling God a liar, but that is also not true. You have failed to prove that I deny any Scripture that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Instead of discussing what I state, you seem to focus on trying to smear me or accuse me falsely.

The Scriptures themselves teach that any errors introduced by men and any words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God so I am agreeing with the Scriptures and I am agreeing with God.