The Inspiration

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AVL1984:
The Autographs were the only "inspired". All after that are preservation of the inspired. There is no "second inspiration". IMHO

No second inspiration means no continued inspiration, do you agree? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't believe in a "continuation" of inspiration. Inspiration doesn't continue from copy to copy to copy. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Never has, never will...unless of course you are a Ruckmanite and believe all his garbage.

AVL1984

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Arch:There are those who read both Greek and English. What are they to do when the Greek text disagrees with the KJV's translation of it?
--------------------------------------------------

They would have had no need to turn to these foriegn languages if they hadn't had first doubted the scriptures they had already in English. They ought to go with what the English speaking churches have always had, known and believed and continue to believe, rather than relying upon their own vain imaginations and opinions in order try to prove a non existent error that stems from their doubt in the first place.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Michelle, we have not always had the KJV, since it seems like that's how you define the Scriptures. I find in kinda bazaar that you minimize the very languages that the KJV is based upon. The KJV translators were not prophets, but translators. The "foreign languages" you minimize are the very languages God chose to inspire His Word, and anyone can and should learn them, if they're not afraid of a little hard work. If you wanna stick w/ the KJV, go right ahead, but I hope you realize the historic position of the Originals, as the very translators of the AV, and if anything, will enhance your understanding of the Holy Writ.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
I agree that Chinese may be the most common spoken native tongue, however with poor literacy rates, there are still more people capable of reading English.

Once again, you show a clear lack of knowlege on the topic. The literacy rate for China is nearly 90%.

The bottom line is that the KJB reaches more people...

For the last few years, the most commonly distributed and read Bible has been the NIV, not the KJV.

On an American Business Language Bible, Dilbert would probably be happy to help...

Whatever. Clearly, your lack of a serious response on the topic demonstrates that your claim is meritless. The NIV and NASB are two translations that are written in the form of common English that is most prevalent in the world today. The KJV is not.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
I think you would have to agree that the majority of modern Christians have English as one of their primary languages.

Contemporary American English, yes. Elizabethan English of the 1600's, no.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Pastor KevinR: "The KJV translators were not prophets, but translators."

So i really don't think that the KJV translators who wrote the
KJV of 1611 could predict what the English Language would be like in
1769 and/or 2004. That is why i accept the 21st Century (2001-2100)
English version: the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).
All the Baptists have to do is figure out what the current
English is for what the Words of God say, not predict what the
English words will be like should the Lord tary to 2400AD.

Praise Iesus!

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Arch:There are those who read both Greek and English. What are they to do when the Greek text disagrees with the KJV's translation of it?
--------------------------------------------------

They would have had no need to turn to these foriegn languages if they hadn't had first doubted the scriptures they had already in English. They ought to go with what the English speaking churches have always had, known and believed and continue to believe, rather than relying upon their own vain imaginations and opinions in order try to prove a non existent error that stems from their doubt in the first place.

When I read the Greek text and the KJV which was translated from the Greek text, and I see a difference between the two, I go with the original language text God gave us. Let me give you some specific examples.

(1) The Greek participle schizomenous in Mk. 1:10 means "torn open" or "torn in two." The only other place Mark uses that verb is in Mk. 15:38 to describe the temple curtain being "torn in two." The KJV removes the forcefulness of the action (and the cross-reference to Mk. 15:8) by translating it as "opened." Interestingly, the Geneva Bible (1560) correctly translates Mk. 1:10 as "cloven in twaine."

(2) The Greek text of Rom. 11:4 reads simply, "not bowed the knee to Baal." But the KJV adds italicized words not found in the Greek text in its translation, "not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." Interestingly, the Geneva Bible again properly translates the Greek text as "not bowed the knee to Baal."

(3) The Greek text of Lk. 20:26 has the singular noun rhematos, which the KJV incorrectly translates as a plural ("words.") Interestingly, the Geneva Bible once more rightly translates the Greek text as a singular ("saying.")

These examples demonstrate two things: first, that the "final authority" for *all* English language translations is the original language text from which it was translated; and second, that for each of these examples the English speaking people had a better translation of the Greek text in the Geneva Bible which appeared a half-century before the KJV came along.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
I don't believe in a "continuation" of inspiration. Inspiration doesn't continue from copy to copy to copy. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Never has, never will...unless of course you are a Ruckmanite and believe all his garbage.

Interestingly, you differ from Michelle. Michelle believes in "continuation" of inspiration. If so, it is her belief. I have nothing to argue with her, but she and I differ each other. Michelle and I believe the KJV is the inspired Word of God. Michelle is like Ruckman whom I disagree with. I realize Ruckman is wrong about his belief on the inspiration. His influence spreads anywhere to become famous. Michelle is great, but one thing.

You accuse me for being a Ruckmanite. I am not.

 

[AVL1984]

If you read the statement, Askjo, it is given as a possible option, not an accusation. Please, learn the context of the English language. It would have to be an outright accusation for me to ACCUSE you of being anything. "Unless of course you are a Ruckmanite" is far from an accusation.

As far as Michelle goes, she is misled and hasn't got a leg to stand on for the kjVERSION ONLY controversy. God has never promised to keep His Word in one version of the Bible, especially not an Anglican version.

AVL1984

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Is there enough fresh discussion going on here to keep this open?

Anyone oppose closing this in accord with the five page rule?

 

[HankD]

They ought to go with what the English speaking churches have always had, known and believed and continue to believe,

Not all the English speaking people have believed the KJV to be a “perfect” work including the ones who translated it as has been shown and historically documented. In fact many lost their lives in opposition to the Church of England “ecclesiastic” tainted language of the AV including Anabaptists.

rather than relying upon their own vain imaginations and opinions in order try to prove a non existent error that stems from their doubt in the first place.

When all else fails publicly attack the faith of the brethren. This is a recurring theme which is typical of the KJVO.

Isaiah 65:5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou…

HankD

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Not all the English speaking people have believed the KJV to be a “perfect” work including the ones who translated it as has been shown and historically documented. In fact many lost their lives in opposition to the Church of England “ecclesiastic” tainted language of the AV including Anabaptists.
--------------------------------------------------

And I find this to be an attack on the bretheren (KJB translators) of the past who had nothing to do with this.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
Michelle

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
And I find this to be an attack on the bretheren (KJB translators) of the past who had nothing to do with this.

Interesting, since the KJV translators would disagree with your position regarding the KJV.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by C4K:
Is there enough fresh discussion going on here to keep this open?

Anyone oppose closing this in accord with the five page rule?

C4K...I'm not opposed in the least.

AVL1984

 

[Johnv]

I second that.

 

[Pastor KevinR]

3rd

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Closed:

Besides - Inspiration #2 is runnung