Says the king of "taint so"
...and "twaddle".
"Taint so" and "twaddle".
Tweedle dee and tweedle dum...
Last edited:
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!
Says the king of "taint so"
Yet another off topic vicious vilification of a messenger of Truth. This is all they have, shoot the messenger and change the subject. Their posts of empty, never addressing the text that demonstrates Calvinism is bogus. They say no one is able to repent, but Jesus says people would repent. They say no one ever seeks God, but numerous verses state the lost sought God.I've known @Van since March 2011 and he ain't changed a lick. Calvinist hatred is a deep sickness with some of these people. Makes one wonder what has occurred in their lives to bring such hatred about.
messenger of Truth
What do the KJVO who believe that God miraculously preserved the KJV, but no other version, base that belief on?
How did they choose the KJV as the version they choose to believe this about?
That went by the point. No one is debating that.Then it would not be the word of God.
The New Testament books were accepted as Scripture when they were received by the first century receiptant church or churches and copies were made and given to other first century churches. Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was written. Not when those irregular 4th century churches wanted them as Scripture.
God pivoted in 1611 and put the trinitarian signature on languages with which he has dealt with men. Hebrew, Greek, and English.
Your human opinion concerning 1611 is not taught in the Scriptures.
The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.
My understanding of the ways of God are taught in the scriptures and that is why I reject your counsel.
The ways of God are taught in the Scriptures, but human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning and opinions are not.
I have nowhere claimed that God hid His words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The preserved words of God can be and should be translated into other languages, but the actual words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles remain the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of those translations.
Do you try to ignore or dodge the fact that the word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611?
So called translations that vary in the number of words by as many as 65,000 and are dynamic equivalences and paraphrases are not real translations.
You do not discuss, answer, nor refute my actual statements. Instead you use the bogus tactic of trying to misrepresent what I believe or distort it into something that I do not believe nor state.
You evidently will accept dynamic equivalent renderings or paraphrased renderings in the KJV so you do not apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly.
One can look at several quotes of OT scriptures in the NT scriptures and see that they are not word for word. You can call those instances paraphrasing but I wouldn't. They are translations from one language to another, and they are inspired. God alone can do that because it is his word and he knows what he wants to say in any language.
So called translations that vary in the number of words by as many as 65,000 and are dynamic equivalences and paraphrases are not real translations.
My understanding is that there are roughly 400000 variants in the NT, and less then 1 percent involve actual word changes of a significant degree, and NONE of them affect changing doctrines or theologyWhile I may not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text nor any English translations made from it, I do not blindly accept KJV-only claims concerning it. Have you personally collated and compared them and counted the claimed "65,000" variations or are you blindly repeating a KJV-only claim that you have not checked out?
You also do not identify and list what is supposedly being counted as variations. Someone could have counted changing the archaic verb endings ["eth", etc.] as variations when the same word may have been used in present-day English, and they may have counted changing the archaic pronouns such as "ye" to "you".
The only really significant differences at the end of the day are the end of Mark's Gospel and the Woman Caught in Adultery and we know neither of those are original.My understanding is that there are roughly 400000 variants in the NT, and less then 1 percent involve actual word changes of a significant degree, and NONE of them affect changing doctrines or theology
You make an invalid comparison or jump to a wrong conclusion. The translating of any OT verses into Greek in the NT was part of the process of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets; therefore, of course, they were inspired. That is not at all the same as post-NT translating by men who were not apostles and prophets and were not given words by a miracle of direct inspiration. Because God the giver and author may have made changes and added in giving the New Testament does not mean that uninspired Church of England critics in 1611 were permitted to do the same thing.
You keep forgetting or avoiding the fact that the Scriptures were translated into English many years before 1611. William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the translators of the Bishops' Bible had available the same guiding of the Holy Spirit that would have been available to the Church of England makers of the KJV if they were true believers. Several of the pre-1611 English Bible translators were more godly men and more sound in doctrine than the later KJV translators who believed some unsound doctrine such as baptismal regeneration, who persecuted professed believers for their beliefs, and who may not have been saved if they were trusting their baptism as their means of salvation. Thus, it would be reasonable to conclude that the pre-1611 English Bible translators were more likely guided by the Holy Spirit than the ungodly KJV translators. Several of the KJV translators were directly involved in ungodly persecution of professed believers even to the point of having two men burned at the stake.
You do not make the same claims for the pre-1611 English Bible that you thus inconsistently and unjustly attempt to make only for the 1611 KJV. The wisdom from God above is without partiality while your human KJV-only "wisdom" is with partiality towards an exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611. 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.