no "unknown" tongues in Bible?

Just a couple of comments.

#1 I'm disturbed by Keith M's personal attack on a person's credibility rather than on the substance of the argument.

#2 The word term "unknown tongue" appears in 1 Cor 14 six times. The context of the passage shows that the word "unknown" is indeed appropriate because of the following phrases in the same passage:

"for no man understandeth him"
"how shall it be known"
"an uncertain sound"
"by the tongue words easy to be understood"
"how shall it be known what is spoken"
"if I know not the meaning of the voice"
"but my understanding is unfruitful"
"seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?"

All these, and others, show that the subject of the passage is an unknown--that is, not understood by the hearer-- tongue as compared to things uttered that can be understood by the hearer. The translators knew this to be the case, and retained the reading as given in the Bishop's Bible to give understanding to those who wish to receive understanding. Additionally, if we were to remove every word in italics, we would loose much of the ability to understand verb tense as well as other words which help give meaning to the passages.

Just one more thing, why isn't there a big fuss over the italicized words in the modern versions? Could it be just because of the anti-AV spirit of contention?

If you don't like the AV, use what you believe God would have you to use, and make it your final authority. Leave us AV -believers with our AV, and let's serve God together for His glory.

 

Disagreeing with the man-made KJV-only view does not make any one "anti-AV." Who objects to your use of the KJV? What is objected to is the inaccurate and inconsistent claims of the KJV-only view and the seeming KJV-only spirit of contention. Where do the Scriptures teach that believers are supposed to make any translation the final authority and a greater authority than its underlying texts--the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? </font>[/QUOTE]Once again...where do the "Scriptures" teach that the "underlying text" has a greater authority than the translation...where do the "Scriptures teach that preservation applies only to the original languages?

Answer: They don't!

 

No, Lacy, I didn't get you "messed up." You did that on your own.

"All scripture" is just what it implies - all scripture. And, yes, the MVs that are true attempts to translate the word of God are inspired - at least, they are just as inspired as the KJV.

The New World Translation and The Clear Word Translation I do not consider as legitimate Bible vesions at all. These versions were translated with the intent of making the Bible say what the JWs and the SDAs wish it said. Were these versions inspired? Only by those who could find no scriptural basis for their beliefs in any legitimate Bible version - so they decided to make up versions that would support their non-scriptural beliefs.

 

Do the Scriptures indicate that words or writings by direct revelation from God and under the miracle of inspiration given to men as moved by the Holy Ghost are greater or that the teaching/interpreting/understanding/translating of
men who are not given direct revelation and
inspiration is greater?

How can a branch [any translation] on the KJV-only view's tree have greater authority than the vine or tree [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] (John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-18)?
A branch [a translation] did not bear or produce the root since the root and tree produced the branch (Rom. 11:18).

The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord (Matt. 10:24). Likewise, a translation is not above what it is translated from. The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him (John 13:16). A translation not given directly by revelation and inspiration is not greater than the source or sources from which it was translated and from which it derives its authority. A translation is not independent and underived since a translation not given under direct inspiration depends on its underlying texts for its authority. The very word "translation" by definition indicates its need of a source or sources from which to be translated.

Which languages are indicated by the words used in Matthew 5:18? </font>[/QUOTE]You have missed the doctrine of preservation once again.

Preservation extends inspiration to translation. Therefore, my translation is just as much "given by inspiration" as your so called "original autographs" or your "original language mss."

You continue to deny this, but have provided no proof for your argument.

 

Concerning the Hebrew and Greek, the King James translators had their own opinion about this matter

HankD

 

If you read the context it is talking about corperate worship. If a person prays in a language that others don't know then his prayer produces no fruit. In coperate worship we are to edify the church or others around us. As it says in the text how will anyone say amen or even know what I am saying. I understand what I am saying but those around me do not. Therefore it edifies noone but maybe the pray'er. However that is not showing charity as descibed in earlier text.

When Paul says talks about tongues of men and angels it is hyperbol to make a pt. Its like saying if I had all the gold in the world but lose my soul......If I said that it would be hyperbol because I do not have all the gold in the world. I might use that to make my pt though.

 

The "scriptures" that Timothy held in his hands and were taught by his mother and grandmother were well over 500 years old and translated to a new language (Greek) yet Paul says that those very "scriptures" were given by inspiration. How much clearer can it be?

The burden of proof is on the other side to prove that an autograph was ever referred to as "scripture" or "given by inspiration".

I have said it over and over, neither side has direct scripture. To force one side to come up with it when neither side has it is not good form in debate.

Nowhere directly. We are promised that God will preserve his word. God preserves things by resurrecting them. We know a prophet by his fruit. The KJV is the most fruitful book in history. Those are my Biblical precedents.

Those are my convictions.

You are absolutely free to believe that God preserves his word 95-97% pure, that no Bible on the face of the Earth is or ever has been 100% pure, that God's Spirit can't get it absolutely right when he crosses over a language or two, that only autographs are "given by inspiration", etc.

But at least admit that your reasons for doing so are not based on scriptures because there are none for any of those beliefs.

Lacy

 

How many attempts are required to get it "absolutely right"? Here are the dates of a few of the revisions to the AV of 1611: 1613, 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, 1769 and 1850.

In 1611 was God responsible for the AV which contained the "resurrected" Apocrypha and the 400+ errors and/or typos?

Men make mistakes, God does not. To the credit of the KJV translators, they were diligent in correcting their errors and those of the typsetters/publishers.

Personally I cannot accept the potential fact that God can make even the smallest error including a typo (if He indeed superintended the translation, typesetting and publication of the AV 1611 which is the only way a 100% pure text could come forth).

Also, I cannot accept the authority of King James as the titular head of the Church of England or his apostolic successors ("bishops") or the Church of England as the Church through whom God granted apostolic inspiration to said "bishops".

I do accept the scholarship and diligence of the AV translation committee given the period English and Traditional Text from which they translated and the corrections thereof which led up to the present KJV.

Personally, I cannot assign direct inspiration from God to the translators to the typesetters and then the two publishers (Cambridge,Oxford) of the present differing texts of the KJV including the 1769 revision because of the above implications.

HankD

 

seven. 1769

Psalms 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times

 

I think it probably existed. But even if Timothy and his (grand)mother were studying Hebrew Scriptures, I guarantee it wasn't autographs.

Lacy

 

Actually there were more than just 7 revisions/editions of the AV but if you want to believe that these are the seven which God took to correct the AV1611 leading to the 1769 KJV then I can accept that.

At least you have an answer. Thank you.

HankD