Is the "Version" issue really that Important?

[Trotter]

. When one preaches, what can he hold in his hand to honestly say, "This is the Divinely, Inspired, and Inerrant Word of God"?

Actually, I can do it with any bible translation I own... and I own quite a few different translations.

My faith in in the Author, not the translators. I learn which is good and which is inferior by actually reading and using a translation... not taking some crakpots' opinions about them.

If I were going to take another's opinion, it would be from someone who was at least reputable.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Actually, I can do it with any bible translation I own... and I own quite a few different translations.

My faith in in the Author, not the translators. ...

Amen Brother Trotter -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Bob]

Roby - if only 4 HAD it in but they were the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, et al, then THEY would be evil and terrible, and could not be trusted. But if 4 out of 5500 OTHERS have it and some SDA sources agree, well bingo, the "AV is right and all others false" malarkey.

One cannot debate with someone who believes a position by faith without one shred of evidence and not ONE verse (in ANY translation!) They will not learn.

So best to ignore such "trolls" and figure they are "willingly ignorant" and go about discussing in an intelligent manner with many who hold to the priority of the KJV without going to such an extreme.

 

[william s. correa]

Crack pipe?

Actually, I can do it with any bible translation I own... and I own quite a few different translations.

not the translators. I learn which is good and which is inferior by actually reading and using a translation... not taking some ? opinions about them.

If I were going to take another's opinion, it would be from someone who was at least reputable.

Well I dind"t studder "My faith in in the Author",when I said "The AV 1611 Is the Inerrant ,infallible ,Word of God"

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Sure it is

If you ignore all questions on the subject!

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

One cannot debate with someone who believes a position by faith without one shred of evidence and not ONE verse (in ANY translation!) They will not learn.

So where is "scripture"(chapter and verse;any translation will do) to support the Alexandrian position?

 

[Ed Edwards]

2Ti 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable
for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction,
for instrution in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

 

[IronWill]

So where is "scripture"(chapter and verse;any translation will do) to support the Alexandrian position?

As soon as you show me verses that say the King James or Textus Receptus is the Bible, I'll show you verses that show you my version of choice or underlying texts are the Bible.

 

[Askjo]

2Ti 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable
for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction,
for instrution in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

All Scripture on this verses refers to the WORDS in the autographs -- Hebrew, Greek and little Aramiac.

 

[Askjo]

As soon as you show me verses that say the King James or Textus Receptus is the Bible, I'll show you verses that show you my version of choice or underlying texts are the Bible.

Please provide your proof reflecting to the bold of your quotation above.

 

[IronWill]

Please provide your proof reflecting to the bold of your quotation above.

You do the first part, at which point I will do the latter.

 

[Ed Edwards]

All Scripture on this verses refers to the WORDS in the autographs -- Hebrew,
Greek and little Aramiac.

All Scripture on this verses refers to the WORDS in the autographs -- Hebrew, Greek
and little Aramiac; the WORDS in the original language copies;
the WORDS in faithful translations.

In fact, that shouldn't be hard for an omniPOTENT God to have more than
one set of WORDS that express His WORD.

 

[Askjo]

You do the first part, at which point I will do the latter.

You relpied to Anti-Alexandrian, not me. Come on, please provide your proof.

 

[IronWill]

You relpied to Anti-Alexandrian, not me. Come on, please provide your proof.

Sorry, not playing. If you post your verses about the KJVO position, I'll post mine about my position.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Iron, they have no proof so MUST attack you. Don't play the silly game of that sect.

NO TRANSLATION is proven in any Scripture or any translation of Scripture to be "perfect". Why? IT IS THE WORK OF MAN. And if man can do a "perfect" work, we don't need God.

Remember, those claiming such perfection for only one English translation (don't know which revision - they can't get their act together on that) are moving BEYOND what God preserved/promised!

Or they are claiming a second work of inspiration. Ugh. Talk about heresy.

 

[Askjo]

Sorry, not playing. If you post your verses about the KJVO position, I'll post mine about my position.

Sorry, I will not answer it until you provide your proof because you asked Anti-Alexandrian for it, but I asked YOU, not Anti-Alexandrian, for proof. If you refuse to answer it, then I will not answer it.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

They answer a question with a question;how original!
They do so because they cannot give a honest answer.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Come on fellas - lets quit the "if you don't tell me I won't tell you" game.

Leave it please and get back on topic.

 

[IronWill]

They answer a question with a question;how original!
They do so because they cannot give a honest answer.

Ah, hold on now, I believe that ad hominem attacks are forbidden here. Let's stick to the issue please. What scripture defends the KJV-Only position?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

No attacks,just stating the obvious.

There IS no scripture to support that.