Please Show Scripture That Says...

[SGO]

Did you understand that I am NOT talking about any one translation but about all of them?

If only the originals are inspired then no translation is going to be inspired.
If you can't trust your translation then this is wrong wrong wrong

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and the word of our God shall stand for ever.

I do not know how it works.

 

[Logos1560]

If only the originals are inspired then no translation is going to be inspired.
If you can't trust your translation then this is wrong wrong wrong
.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

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]

 

[SGO]

It is a verifiable fact

Who is verifying?
Is it God?

 

[utilyan]

Well it seems you all know the rules of debate much better than I know them.

The only thing I do know is the the bible, commonly known as the word of God, but apparently questioned all the time by people claiming to be believers of it, changed my life.

Yes you are all smarter than me.
Yes I miss the errors in my statements and keep stumbling on happily in the word.

One thing you cannot prove from the bible is that only the originals are inspired and inspiration is only limited to the originals.

Doesn't God work in your lives every day?
Oh, how silly and stupid of me to ask a question like that.

It can't be from a book which is translated from relatively young copies (gone through countless generations).
That notion is absurd.
God by His Spirit of a resurrected Christ touches you through them.

But only the originals are inspired and His touching us with words on paper has little or NOTHING to do with that.

Your arguments show how independent you are.

I consider it a miracle that God has preserved His inspired word through the centuries.

I do not know how He did so.

The machinations of getting the manuscripts together and determining which ones are valid then putting them in other languages trying to decide which words best express what is said in copies is way beyond me.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and the word of our God shall stand for ever.

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.

 

[rlvaughn]

The original translation more like

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

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

 

[rlvaughn]

I was told not to promote that version "or there will be consequences."

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?

 

[Logos1560]

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.

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?

 

[SGO]

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?

Complete posting rules for Bible and Versions and Translations section here Eleven Simple Rules for Posting

7. It is not acceptable to question someone's salvation relative to Bible preference. KJVOs have said, "Get saved and you'll understand 17th century English." MVs have said, "If you were as spiritual as me, you'd leave the KJV behind." Neither will be tolerated.

8. Stop turning every single thread into a KJV vs. all other versions discussion. If it's off topic, it's going in the trash. Continual violations of this will result in discipline.

9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:

1. The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.
2. The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc.

 

[SGO]

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?

Sorry, do you think translator's prefaces are part of scripture?
That is another of my silly questions.
Perhaps that is your fact for the 1611 version only.

 

[Logos1560]

I was told not to promote that version "or there will be consequences."

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.

 

[Logos1560]

do you think translator's prefaces are part of scripture?

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?

 

[SGO]

This thread is about all bibles not just all English bibles, all bibles in all languages.
You keep wanting to argue KJV.
We did that in other threads.
Prove your case by citing verses and not by logical argument please.
Use your logic when in putting the verses down.

Is the bible you use inspired?
All scripture is given by inspiration and the word of our God shall stand for ever.
2 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 40:8

Does your bible have those verses and do they read similarly enough to make that meaning?
Do you believe them then?
Or they mean something else to you.

If the bibles we have today do not have the living breath of God in them same as when His words first came out of His mouth then it's wrong to take them at face value. You mean God did not mean them to be taken at face value.

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:4

 

[Logos1560]

Prove your case by citing verses and not by logical argument please.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

All scripture is given by inspiration and the word of our God shall stand for ever.
2 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 40:8

Do you believe them then?

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.

 

[Logos1560]

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:4

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?

 

[SGO]

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?

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

It is written,
Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:4

 

[Logos1560]

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

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.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

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?

 

[rlvaughn]

Complete posting rules for Bible and Versions and Translations section here Eleven Simple Rules for Posting

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