The Doctrine of Preservation?

[EdSutton]

Are you saying that translations prior to the KJV weren't inspired, and translations after the KJV aren't inspired, but that the KJV is inspired?

This certainly appears to be what several are effectively saying, even if not explicitly, at least from where I sit and read.

What a slap in the face of such as John Wycliffe, John Peavy, William Tyndale, John Rogers, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, and John Darby, among other English speakers, to name but a few.

WORSE YET, AND THESE SLAPS STILL CONTINUE. :tear: :tear: :tear:

Ed

 

[Thinkingstuff]

OK, if they weren't inspired then who told them to do their job????:tongue3: you're forcing inspiration into something it is not.They don't speak English. I dont have to keep wondering

1. King James
2. I'm not trying to I'm showing what I believe to be a falacy in the position
3. I don't see how the King James Bible is any more inspired than any other translation. I brought up other countries because for it to be the only word of God in print excludes necissarily other languages therefore these other Christians can not develop right doctrine and may be in error. Will God require all Christiandom at some future point to speak english? See how this KJO position becomes questionable? The Byzantine text has missing passages that were translated back in from the Vulgate. Stephanus and Erasimus also had some errors. Though I don't lessen the TR over the CT I think they both have value one not being really greater than the other. However, its interesting to note that now we have the Qumran find how relevant the translations are for the period in which they were writen.

 

[Jim1999]

If the KJVersion is inspired, shouldn't we all be Church of England? It was essentially translated by Anglicans and for the Church of England. Some verses even include Anglican thought rather than NT teaching.

It was approved by King James to be the only scripture to be read publicly in the Church of England. The original also included those mythical
books between the Old and New Testaments for public readings. Strange!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Harold Garvey]

What I hear you saying is that the syntax of English do not change.

Only in modern usage. Words still mean what they always have meant.

Actually, it was his responsibility to back up his claim of what constituted an inspired vs uninspired version. He could not even support the notion that inspiration is limited to a single version.

Holy Bible" does it for me when I read it and compare it with other versions that say the same thing, but do not hold up.

I cannot say some one hasn't inspired any version, but I can say whioch version i have found to be inspired of God.

Are you saying that translations prior to the KJV weren't inspired, and translations after the KJV aren't inspired, but that the KJV is inspired?

If you could get beyond this rant of yours you just might hear what I've said.

 

[Harold Garvey]

This certainly appears to be what several are effectively saying, even if not explicitly, at least from where I sit and read.

You only come to this conclusion because of your suspicious mind.

What a slap in the face of such as John Wycliffe, John Peavy, William Tyndale, John Rogers, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, and John Darby, among other English speakers, to name but a few.

WORSE YET, AND THESE SLAPS STILL CONTINUE. :tear: :tear: :tear:

Ed

You're making this up, no one has ever said the Bible wasn't inspired in its transformation stages.

Well, let me rephrase that, anyone who knows the Bible never lost inspiration has said what you are making up.

 

[Harold Garvey]

1. King James
2. I'm not trying to I'm showing what I believe to be a falacy in the position
3. I don't see how the King James Bible is any more inspired than any other translation. I brought up other countries because for it to be the only word of God in print excludes necissarily other languages therefore these other Christians can not develop right doctrine and may be in error. Will God require all Christiandom at some future point to speak english? See how this KJO position becomes questionable? The Byzantine text has missing passages that were translated back in from the Vulgate. Stephanus and Erasimus also had some errors. Though I don't lessen the TR over the CT I think they both have value one not being really greater than the other. However, its interesting to note that now we have the Qumran find how relevant the translations are for the period in which they were writen.

You're making things up too.

For English, the KJV is best. For understanding the Bible the Holy Spirit is Best. For other languages to consider what the English says it is best to refer to that which is Best.:sleep:

 

[Harold Garvey]

If the KJVersion is inspired, shouldn't we all be Church of England? It was essentially translated by Anglicans and for the Church of England. Some verses even include Anglican thought rather than NT teaching.

you're making things up too.

I suppose your suggestion makes for something to prove something, but then your arguement falls apart according to the claim against the CoE when one also considers God can use anyone he so chooses. he did choose Moses? he did choose david? Didn't he also choose Hosea, Jeremiah and Jonah? Didn't these men have much worse cases of failures in their lives than the CoE?

It was approved by King James to be the only scripture to be read publicly in the Church of England.

And you would like to use this to prevent others from having the word of God.:sleep:

The original also included those mythical
books between the Old and New Testaments for public readings. Strange!

Cheers,

Jim

Think it not strange when the truth is considered as to the why of their inclusion.

Just like I've said a few times now, yall are making stuff up. This stuff is against the KJV.

Your problems cannot be solved by attacking what you refer to as a man-made doctrine called "KJVO" so yall revert back to attacking the KJV.

I'll stand on the one version, yall go ahead and stand on how many until a new one comes along.

My two feet fit better on one book than two feet on a stack of how many other versions?:sleep:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You're making things up too.

For English, the KJV is best. For understanding the Bible the Holy Spirit is Best. For other languages to consider what the English says it is best to refer to that which is Best.:sleep:

What have I made up? Would you like to see referrences? The only thing I would have made up is the next logical inference. Ie if such and such is true then such and such should follow.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

you're making things up too.

I suppose your suggestion makes for something to prove something, but then your arguement falls apart according to the claim against the CoE when one also considers God can use anyone he so chooses. he did choose Moses? he did choose david? Didn't he also choose Hosea, Jeremiah and Jonah? Didn't these men have much worse cases of failures in their lives than the CoE?

And you would like to use this to prevent others from having the word of God.:sleep:Think it not strange when the truth is considered as to the why of their inclusion.

Just like I've said a few times now, yall are making stuff up. This stuff is against the KJV.

Your problems cannot be solved by attacking what you refer to as a man-made doctrine called "KJVO" so yall revert back to attacking the KJV.

I'll stand on the one version, yall go ahead and stand on how many until a new one comes along.

My two feet fit better on one book than two feet on a stack of how many other versions?:sleep:

You must have a large bible for both feet. :laugh:

Here are some things to think about.

popular theory (in some circles) to account for the problem of variation in copies of the manuscripts of the Bible texts. This new doctrine claims that God inspires and guides the copying and transmission process. This protective, inspired guidance applies, however, to only one stream of biblical manuscript texts -- only the "Received Text" (Textus Receptus, or TR).

Nope I didn't make that up.

This new theory holds that later inspired copies and edits actually cleaned up the Bible manuscripts, overcoming problems in any changes that had been introduced, so that by the time the Textus Receptus (conveniently failing to specify which edit or correction of the TR), it was then cleaned up and thus the only safe, reliable source

Nope I didn't make that up either.

A variant of this view claims additionally that the KJV is actually inspired by God in the same sense that the original New Testament writings were inspired.

Not me either.

The primary reason the "Received Text" group of Greek texts was used was not their superiority -- it was just the only set of texts available in the West at the time. How does this make them more correct?

You know that is a good question.

The theories favoring TR, especially one that claims the TR improves earlier texts, overlooks the fact that TR itself is an edited version that provides one standard text out of the variations available up to that time in the West. The Stephanus printed version was a further edited version of Erasmus' original edited TR text.

Go figure, I didn't make that up either. Huh...

 

[Pastor Larry]

Words still mean what they always have meant.

Does that include "let"?

 

[Jim1999]

Quote: Does that include "let"?
---------------------------------------------

I suppose it also includes, "hinder"and "prevent".

I am English and grew up in the Church of England. I use the KJVersion all the time, but confess I have trouble with that English.

The English language changes tremendously in England itself from region to region. It changes greatly between the USA and Canada, including grammatical structure. The English language changes from year to year, including the "inspired" English and Canadian Oxford Dictionary.

If I say I am going johnny for Tommy......would you have a clue what I am saying? Your people go to jail whilst our people go to gaol. To be yank in England is to be crackers, whilst in the USA it is a particular group of people in the North-Eastern USA.

What a language, this English! No wonder we need so many versions.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Harold Garvey]

What have I made up? Would you like to see referrences? The only thing I would have made up is the next logical inference. Ie if such and such is true then such and such should follow.

The thinking you expressed is made up. The wordl is presently adopting English as the main language and has been going that way for many years.

I find the KJV to be best. my findings are then brought into question with all sorts of angles to try and destroy what I have found along with others to be the best.

Since we have the KJV why do we need so many others versions that appeal to our thinking?

 

[Harold Garvey]

You must have a large bible for both feet. :laugh:

Here are some things to think about.

Nope I didn't make that up.

Nope I didn't make that up either.
Not me either.
You know that is a good question.Go figure, I didn't make that up either. Huh...

Not a theory, the Received Text is why we have the KJV. You couldn't make up what God has preserved.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Does that include "let"?

yes. The earliest definition hasn't changed, but certainly some new definition has been added.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Quote: Does that include "let"?
---------------------------------------------

I suppose it also includes, "hinder"and "prevent".

I am English and grew up in the Church of England. I use the KJVersion all the time, but confess I have trouble with that English.

The English language changes tremendously in England itself from region to region. It changes greatly between the USA and Canada, including grammatical structure. The English language changes from year to year, including the "inspired" English and Canadian Oxford Dictionary.

If I say I am going johnny for Tommy......would you have a clue what I am saying? Your people go to jail whilst our people go to gaol. To be yank in England is to be crackers, whilst in the USA it is a particular group of people in the North-Eastern USA.

What a language, this English! No wonder we need so many versions.

Cheers,

Jim

Why is it so much trouble to research/study to show onesself approved?

To read any literature the culture and time frame have to be taken into consideration.

What causes so much failure is the absense of the Holy Spirit in the study.:tear:

BTW, your words aren't God's inspired words so that just makes for an anomoly

 

[Jim1999]

That's why many of us spent 15-20 years in school learning the scriptures.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Harold Garvey]

That's why many of us spent 15-20 years in school learning the scriptures.

Cheers,

Jim

from whom? The student is become subject to the teacher.

I have learned that the KJV is good enough for no need of multiple versions to say the same thing in a way that might easily be misunderstood.

The question then becomes "Do they say the same thing?" Not exactly!

 

[Pastor Larry]

yes. The earliest definition hasn't changed, but certainly some new definition has been added.

Yes, with the result that the KJV gives a wrong teaching from this verse based on modern usage. There are some translational/textual issues that are hard. This one is not. The word has changed meaning in predominant usage, and therefore, in this verse, the KJV is not the best translation. There is no debate about it.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... What a language, this English! No wonder we need so many versions.

I agreed with your statement that I quoted in the OP, and I still agree with you.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Yes, with the result that the KJV gives a wrong teaching from this verse based on modern usage. There are some translational/textual issues that are hard. This one is not. The word has changed meaning in predominant usage, and therefore, in this verse, the KJV is not the best translation. There is no debate about it.

Therefore God said it that way then and man has chnged the definition so God must comply with man's changes?

Since man has a way of behaving according to a carnal nature, I'll have to stick with the former translation and definition. I reject modernisms which change or even pervert our langauge.

I can have a gay time and never even have a sodomistic thought, but man's carnal nature demands I did have a sodomistic act. Just who is telling the TRUTH!

I was there, any witness to my being there can vouch for me. Only the carnal mind demands something contrary to the TRUTH.

If you can change the way of thinking your effort to destroy your enemy is a certain victory.

Now we must choose whose side we're on. I'll stick with the TRUTH and turn away from carnal rationality.:godisgood: