Featured Please Show Scripture That Says...

The truth is not wrong. You jump to incorrect conclusions. Perhaps you want to believe something that the Scriptures do not state nor teach.

It has already been explained to you that Bible translations have proper secondary or derived authority from the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The accuracy of Bible translations can be tested by comparison to the standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

It is a verifiable fact that the 1611 KJV does not give an English rendering for "all of God's precious words" preserved in the original languages. Sometimes one of the pre-1611 English Bibles (of which the KJV was a revision) gives an English rendering in their text which the KJV omits. Does this fact supposedly make the 1611 KJV untrustworthy as a Bible translation?

According to the KJV translators themselves in their 1611 marginal note, their Hebrew text at 2 Chronicles 29:25 has the Hebrew words for "by the hand of" even though they did not include them in their English text of the verse. The 1560 Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible include an English rendering "hand" for the Hebrew word for "hand."

Does this mean that the KJV does not contain all the precious words of God in English and that the KJV is guilty of what some accuse other English Bibles?

2 Chronicles 29:25

by the hand of his Prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]

through the hand of the Prophets [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

by his prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—"Heb. by the hand of”]

by the hand of His prophets [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Here is a second example.

Nehemiah 9:30

by the hand of thy Prophets [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]

in thy Prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. in the hand of thy Prophets”]

by the hand of Thy prophets [YLT]

 

The original translation more like

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.


What it doesn't say. ----> All scripture is REQUIRED and IS THE ONLY Teaching.


What it doesn't say. ---->SCRIPTURE is the sole source of all things Christian and anything not taught in scripture is a false teaching.


Its a COMMON man-made tradition to say scripture teaches that if something is not taught in scriptures it is a false teaching.

Those who dare to think for themselves will ask "WHERE is that teaching that something not taught in scripture is a false teaching?"

Its like turning on a light and watching roaches scatter. Because it proves that teaching false by its own logic. Self-Refuting.

Its a PROBLEM when someone else can't be an authority over you via a BOOK. They can't stand a person who can think for themselves.

 

...so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

Do we have moderators and/or administrators on the Baptist Board who are telling members that they cannot make arguments in favor of the Bible of their choice? Does this apply equally to all versions, or just to the KJV?

 

This fact was already verified by the KJV translators themselves as they pointed out in their 1611 marginal notes some original-language words for which they put no English rendering in their text.

This fact can also be verified by a comparison of the KJV to its underlying original-language texts.

Do some try to close their eyes in order to avoid this fact or do they try to deny it?

 

Perhaps you demonstrate that you misrepresent the rules for these forums.

Those rules do not state that you cannot make sound, true, or scriptural arguments for your preferred Bible translation.

Perhaps KJV-only advocates are unable to make any consistent, sound, just, true, or scriptural case for their modern KJV-only view.

 

Do you think that the KJV translators were dishonest when they in effect admitted that they did not provide an English rendering for some original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts?

In their 1611 preface, the KJV translators suggested that the renderings in their marginal notes could be correct translations of preserved original-language words of Scripture.

Are you in effect claiming that accurate English translations of original-language words of Scripture are not Scripture because they were put in the 1611 marginal notes?

 

I have cited scripture. Perhaps the scriptural case that I have presented is much stronger than your non-scriptural case for trying to speculate that Bible translations are given by the supernatural process of inspiration.

 

I believe what those verses state, and those verses do not state nor teach that Bible translations after the end of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles are made by inspiration.

You seem to advocate some private interpretation of those verses that reads into them something that they do not state.

 

The actual exact words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God by inspiration are the original-language words of Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles.

Where do the Scriptures state that the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of men proceed out of the mouth of God by inspiration?

 

How do you suggest or assume that is supposedly a reference to the KJV since the 1611 KJV had not been made and did not exist when that statement was given by inspiration to the prophet Isaiah?

The word of God had been given and stood before the 1611 KJV was ever made.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611 so did that pre-1611 English Bible stand for ever?

The Church of England makers of the KJV made hundreds and even thousands of changes to the pre-1611 English Bible.

The 1611 edition of the KJV has not stood for ever as later printers and editors made over 2,000 changes to it in present varying post-1900 editions.

 

Do you believe that accurate copies of and accurate translations of the actual exact words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God by inspiration are still just as much the word of God as when given they were given by inspiration?

 

Thanks. I believe you pointed out where this was before, but I forgot.