The Holy Bible IS The Word of Almighty God

[AVL1984]

Imprisonment could indeed be considered a form of torture, especially if one is innocent. Severe pain can be mental, physical, emotional or spiritual. Duh...but I thought even YOU would realize that. NOPE! I guessed you wouldn't.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
Imprisonment could indeed be considered a form of torture, especially if one is innocent. Severe pain can be mental, physical, emotional or spiritual. Duh...but I thought even YOU would realize that. NOPE! I guessed you wouldn't.

Are you going to allow this complete nonsense that you read about these godly men who worked on the KJV, to distort the truth? Should we also react in such a way to John Calvin, who approved of the murder of a heretic?

My OP deals with the Holy Bible as being the Word of God. This is NOT the place to discuss the good and bad of various Bible translators. Start your own post on your subject attacking the KJV translators.

 

[av1611jim]

Still no evidence of torture.
As expected because it does not exist, except in your mind. DUH.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Still no evidence of torture.
As expected because it does not exist, except in you mind. DUH.

In HIS service;
Jim

Do you mind keeping this to the OP?

 

[AVL1984]

As stated before, Jim, evidence has been posted in this thread by logos, and elsewhere on the BB. As stated before, I'm not doing your homework for you. As stated before, torture doesn't have to be physical....take it or leave it, though I suspect that many of those baby baptizing Anglicans did indeed torture those they imprisoned. That is a given. Of course, you wouldn't admit that, would you? Didn't think so.

 

[av1611jim]

Sorry Icthus.

My bad.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by icthus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AVL1984:
Imprisonment could indeed be considered a form of torture, especially if one is innocent. Severe pain can be mental, physical, emotional or spiritual. Duh...but I thought even YOU would realize that. NOPE! I guessed you wouldn't.

Are you going to allow this complete nonsense that you read about these godly men who worked on the KJV, to distort the truth? Should we also react in such a way to John Calvin, who approved of the murder of a heretic?

My OP deals with the Holy Bible as being the Word of God. This is NOT the place to discuss the good and bad of various Bible translators. Start your own post on your subject attacking the KJV translators. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe you have contributed to this also, icthus, have you not? I believe it IS the place to discuss it when you imply ANY version is 100% error free. I believe we all know that there is evidence quite to the contrary (including scribal errors, errors in translation, etc). Nobody is questioning that the BIBLE is the Word of God.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by icthus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AVL1984:
Imprisonment could indeed be considered a form of torture, especially if one is innocent. Severe pain can be mental, physical, emotional or spiritual. Duh...but I thought even YOU would realize that. NOPE! I guessed you wouldn't.

Are you going to allow this complete nonsense that you read about these godly men who worked on the KJV, to distort the truth? Should we also react in such a way to John Calvin, who approved of the murder of a heretic?

My OP deals with the Holy Bible as being the Word of God. This is NOT the place to discuss the good and bad of various Bible translators. Start your own post on your subject attacking the KJV translators. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe you have contributed to this also, icthus, have you not? I believe it IS the place to discuss it when you imply ANY version is 100% error free. I believe we all know that there is evidence quite to the contrary (including scribal errors, errors in translation, etc). Nobody is questioning that the BIBLE is the Word of God. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you are wrong. I have NEVER saisd that ANY VERSION of the Bible is 100% error free, as I DO NOT believe this. Even the KJV. I am concerned about the "original autographs"

 

[AVL1984]

Nobody has the original autographs....I don't believe that anyone has claimed that they weren't inspired or error free...or have I overlooked where they have?

 

[AVL1984]

icthus, I would like to state that in your OP, it does indeed sound like, from your own wording, that you are indeed a defender of the KJV and that particular line...so, I don't believe I am wrong. You state that the modern translations or methods try to take away from God....again...not so. Can't have it both ways, icthus. Either one translation from one line is 100% word for word, letter for letter, comma for comma, period for period perfect, or it is not.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
icthus, I would like to state that in your OP, it does indeed sound like, from your own wording, that you are indeed a defender of the KJV and that particular line...so, I don't believe I am wrong. You state that the modern translations or methods try to take away from God....again...not so. Can't have it both ways, icthus. Either one translation from one line is 100% word for word, letter for letter, comma for comma, period for period perfect, or it is not.

Do you want me to try another language? How many times have I got to say NO VERSION, EVEN THE KJV IS 100% ERROR FREE. The infallibility, inerrancy of the Holy Bible is always of the originals. 99% of what we have in translations is what I believe accurate, but we know that there are some textual differneces that are there in the versions that we have in any language. This, however does NOT in any way suggest that the Holy Bible as we have it is NOT the Word of God. Even the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, "contains" the Word of God.

 

[AVL1984]

icthus, YOU are the one who has made mention of the alleged errors of modern texts, slamming W/H and stating in the second paragraph of your OP "the English version line, the KJV, etc". It does leave open the question of your position concerning the KJV....is it the WoG? How about the NIV...is it the WoG, or does it merely "contain" the WoG? What about the NASB? RSV? ASV?

As far as trying another language, well, if you want to try...go ahead. You state that you believe what we have today is 99% accurate. In which form/version?

The Bible we have is accurate for all points of doctrine, instruction, etc. Again, I don't believe anyone here doubts that. I see you avoided my question on whom is questioning the accuracy of the original autographs.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
icthus, YOU are the one who has made mention of the alleged errors of modern texts, slamming W/H and stating in the second paragraph of your OP "the English version line, the KJV, etc". It does leave open the question of your position concerning the KJV....is it the WoG? How about the NIV...is it the WoG, or does it merely "contain" the WoG? What about the NASB? RSV? ASV?

As far as trying another language, well, if you want to try...go ahead. You state that you believe what we have today is 99% accurate. In which form/version?

The Bible we have is accurate for all points of doctrine, instruction, etc. Again, I don't believe anyone here doubts that. I see you avoided my question on whom is questioning the accuracy of the original autographs.

Well, if you believe in a 100% version of the Bible in our languages, then they will have to be perfect and without any errors. Since this is not possible, I will opt for 99%, the 1% being for the textual variations that we have between the various versions.. This however does not refer to the original autographs.

What is the question I have avoided?

 

[AVL1984]

Look about five posts up, icthus....but someone answered it on your other thread. Also, I listed an apology to you for overlooking CBTS's posts questioning the inerrancy of the originals. Hope that clears things up.