Scripture was not revealed to every person throughout time.But someone did.I don't think the point was that everyone knew the Bible languages, but that the prophecy Forever Settled quoted was that every generation could know the Word of God, and that's true, in Hebrew and Greek much more than English.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is some Bible-correcting in effect accepted by believers?
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
Are you saying that you have read all my posts and that you can provide documentation giving the first statement in every one of them? Did you read the opening post of this tread and other threads that I have started? It did not start with the words your statement alleged.
Do you try to suggest that there is no such thing as stating an opinion? Would you claim that subjective opinions would not be in a different category than statements of fact that can be proven to be true and falsehoods that can be proven to be false? Opinion could be considered in a different category than something that can be proven true and something that can be proven false. Opinion is not always the opposite of truth. A person's sincere opinions would not be classified and defined as lies even if they may be mistaken or incorrect. A person may sincerely and truly hold his opinion, but that does not make his opinion verifiable truth. Because someone may sincerely believe something to be true does not make it actually true. Subjective opinions would be in a different category than statements of fact that can be proven to be true. My point does not suggest that someone did not believe what they claimed, but instead it soundly points out that the claim has not been proven to be true.
Merely saying something does not make it so. Because someone merely makes a claim or assertion or allegation does not mean that it should be blindly assumed to be true. It is proper and sound to ask that a claim be demonstrated to be true instead of being merely assumed or claimed. It would also be proper and sound to state that a claim, an assertion, or an allegation has not been proven to be actually true. That could be showing that the claim, assertion, or allegation may be a subjective opinion even if the person sincerely thinks it to be true.
Pointing out that something has not been proven to be true puts the responsibility back on the person who made it to back it up and prove it. Someone can be sincerely wrong and incorrect in what they state and claim even if they do not realize it.
It is not at all calling someone a liar to say that they did not prove a claim or allegation to be true. As already noted, someone can be sincerely mistaken or incorrect in their claims and opinions. .
Do you in effect try to suggest that disagreeing with what another person states and claims is supposedly calling that person a liar? You disagree with statements that I make and question them.
Last edited:
A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God.
These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28).
Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? There is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God.
Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles?
Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2).
These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28).
Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? There is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God.
Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles?
Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2).
So, the KJVOs DO know about the originals ? ?
And that promise is EXACTLY why God has caused translations of His word to be made in CURRENTLY-USED languages, including English.
Any valid English translation.(Before ya ask, "valid" means one that closely follows the source(s) being translated.)
Actually, the newer English translations are made from an eclectic assortment of the over 5K mss. & parts of mss. available to translators now.
FS, IF you're KJVO, please provide us with some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, or else admit it's not true.
Self evident.
The correct answer would be zero!
Yes, as we know the Watchtower Bible perverts the scriptures, but that would be due to their faulty translation, not Greek text itself....
When was it not available after the first century though?
Its why He preserved to us the Greek/Hebrew, as much easier to have translations off them than if preserved in 1611 English!
There is no significant different areas of disagreement between the various Greek texts in use today by the translators!
37818
Well-Known Member
Presenting the Father, the Word (instead of saying the Son) is indeed a minor teaching difference. But it is a difference in presentation. Biblically it is either God and the Word or the Father and the Son. And yes the Son is called the Son of God. Again it is a difference in presentation.
I don't know what you are trying to say re my post.
not to everyone, just as it is today.
What about those who have not heard?
The teachings (translations) of man should be considered as opinion , some might be good some bad but not inspired.
We expect translators righteous to be lead of the Holy Spirit, but cannot guarantee it nor their work
The KJV translators acknowledged that they engaged in a process of Bible correcting [that is, making corrections, improvements, and revisions to the pre-1611 English Bibles which they identified as being the word of God], and later editors/printers of KJV editions also engaged in a process of Bible correcting in making some corrections and revisions to the 1611 edition of the KJV.
In their dedication to King James, the KJV translators maintained that their translation would be "one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue," which would put their translation on the same level or in the same category as pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible.
Those who read the KJV are in effect accepting Bible correcting so that the obvious hypocrisy of those who make the inconsistent charge of Bible correcting against readers of other English Bible translations is clearly exposed.
The KJV translators asserted that if anything in a Bible translation was "not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected."
In their 1611 preface to the readers, the KJV translators wrote: "For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance in one or other of other editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected and the truth set in place."
The KJV translators also asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it
In their dedication to King James, the KJV translators maintained that their translation would be "one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue," which would put their translation on the same level or in the same category as pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible.
Those who read the KJV are in effect accepting Bible correcting so that the obvious hypocrisy of those who make the inconsistent charge of Bible correcting against readers of other English Bible translations is clearly exposed.
The KJV translators asserted that if anything in a Bible translation was "not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected."
In their 1611 preface to the readers, the KJV translators wrote: "For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance in one or other of other editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected and the truth set in place."
The KJV translators also asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it
37818
Well-Known Member
The extra Biblical detail is not found elsewhere in the written word.