The Problem with KJV ONLY Advocates

[Jordan Kurecki]

Actually you and KJV-only advocates are making the very big jump in trying to claim that preservation was supposedly transferred to different words in different languages instead of preservation properly and correctly concerning the exact, specific words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Word preservation suggests preservation of the exact, specific original language words given by God.

Are you possibly suggesting that the scriptural doctrine of preservation only concerning meaning and thoughts instead of words so that non-literal dynamic equivalent renderings and adding words would in effect be advocated by your claims concerning preservation?

My point is actually well-supported by the verses I cited (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) since those who make translations cannot literally, strictly, or faithfully follow those commands since they have to add, omit, and change words in translating. You would have to deny that preservation concerns "words" in order to claim that those verses do not relate to my point.

It is KJV-only advocaes who try to put their own KJV-only assumptions and claims into verses that do not teach them.

No KJV-only advocates have presented any consistent, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory.

Could you please respond to this?

And as for the translation work of having to add and subtract from God's word: If what you're saying is correct, than anyone who does any translation work is going to have the plagues added to them and their part taken out of the book of life. Are you willing to admit that all people who have done translation work have had their name taken out of the book of life? This shows that you're application of that verse does not apply to what we are talking about.

 

[Logos1560]

And as for the translation work of having to add and subtract from God's word: If what you're saying is correct, than anyone who does any translation work is going to have the plagues added to them and their part taken out of the book of life.

If what I am saying is correct, it would confirm my point that the commands (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) were actually given concerning the original language words given to the prophets and apostles and their copying and that these commands were not directly given as commands concerning the process of translating.

You are not very well informed about the translation process if you do not know that some words are added during it. In understandable translations, words do have to be added that are not found in the oriignal language texts in order for the translation to make good sense. For example, the makers of the KJV clearly showed that they added words by putting them in a different type in the 1611 edition [in italics in later KJV editions] although they failed to do so consistently. Thus, later editors changed a number of other added words to italics in later KJV editions.

Also some words in the original language texts are not literally translated in a good translation.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

If what I am saying is correct, it would confirm my point that the commands (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) were actually given concerning the original language words given to the prophets and apostles and their copying and that these commands were not directly given as commands concerning the process of translating.

You are not very well informed about the translation process if you do not know that some words are added during it. In understandable translations, words do have to be added that are not found in the oriignal language texts in order for the translation to make good sense. For example, the makers of the KJV clearly showed that they added words by putting them in a different type in the 1611 edition [in italics in later KJV editions] although they failed to do so consistently. Thus, later editors changed a number of other added words to italics in later KJV editions.

Also some words in the original language texts are not literally translated in a good translation.

You are flat out avoiding answering my question because you know the implications of your answer.

 

[Logos1560]

You are flat out avoiding answering my question because you know the implications of your answer.

That is false. Your question in effect misrepresented and distorted what I stated. You were given a proper response as it related to my actual point.

You have not demonstrated that the commands (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) were directly given concerning the translation process; therefore, you have not shown that your question is valid. An invalid question should not be answered.

You avoid dealing with the fact that translators including the KJV translators have to add words in the translation process. Are you trying to assert that the makers of the KJV violated those commands?

 

[Winman]

You are flat out avoiding answering my question because you know the implications of your answer.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

That is false. Your question in effect misrepresented and distorted what I stated. You were given a proper response as it related to my actual point.

You have not demonstrated that the commands (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) were directly given concerning the translation process; therefore, you have not shown that your question is valid. An invalid question should not be answered.

You avoid dealing with the fact that translators including the KJV translators have to add words in the translation process. Are you trying to assert that the makers of the KJV violated those commands?

Logos. Those verses were given in reference to God's word period, You cannot prove it is only talking about the Hebrew or Greek, you are taking some basic verses that teach not to intentionally distort God's word and trying to use them to say that they teach God will only preserve his word with the original languages.. You are distorting what God's word says.

These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense.

Now answer my question. Are translators who HAVE to sometimes add words to because of translational difficulties going to have the plagues of revelation added to them and their part taken out of the book of life?

That is what you stated. If you want to try and apply those verses to mean that God will only preserve his word in the original languages than I need you to answer my question

Don't accuse those who hold to KJV only of divers measures and then do that same thing.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Don't hold your breath.

Yeah I figure he'll probably just continue to purposely ignore my question.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by Logos1560
These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense.

Now answer my question. Are translators who HAVE to sometimes add words to because of translational difficulties going to have the plagues of revelation added to them and their part taken out of the book of life?

That is what you stated. If you want to try and apply those verses to mean that God will only preserve his word in the original languages than I need you to answer my question

You assume and presume the opposite of what I stated, and then improperly demand that I answer a question based on your own presumptions, not mine. Your presuming and stating the opposite of what I maintained is not what I stated. Your question would be invalid since you presume your premise or assumption that the commands apply directly to translators without demonstrating that they do.

Your response is in effect confirming my point that the commands (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) cannot prefer directly to the process of translation since you realize that translators do add some words.

Question do not determine and establish truth. Questions need to be valid and based on true premises to be helpful and to need answered. Invalid questions should not be answered. In addition, questions can be answered with questions.

You ignored my counter question that points out the problem with your KJV-only reasoning.

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Are you trying to assert that the makers of the KJV violated those commands?

You seem to be the one who is in effect arguing that the makers of the KJV violated those commands. You are creating the serious problem for your own KJV-only view since you know that the makers of the KJV had to add some words not found in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

I clearly maintained that translators are not violating those commands since they were not directly given concerning the translation process.

Those commands or instructions may be secondarily applied to translations as guidelines that encourage accurate translating, but it has not be demonstrated that they were directly given for translators.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

You assume and presume the opposite of what I stated, and then improperly demand that I answer a question based on your own presumptions, not mine. Your presuming and stating the opposite of what I maintained is not what I stated. Your question would be invalid since you presume your premise or assumption that the commands apply directly to translators without demonstrating that they do.

Your response is in effect confirming my point that the commands (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) cannot prefer directly to the process of translation since you realize that translators do add some words.

Question do not determine and establish truth. Questions need to be valid and based on true premises to be helpful and to need answered. Invalid questions should not be answered. In addition, questions can be answered with questions.

You ignored my counter question that points out the problem with your KJV-only reasoning.



You seem to be the one who is in effect arguing that the makers of the KJV violated those commands. You are creating the serious problem for your own KJV-only view since you know that the makers of the KJV had to add some words not found in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

I clearly maintained that translators are not violating those commands since they were not directly given concerning the translation process.

Those commands or instructions may be secondarily applied to translations as guidelines that encourage accurate translating, but it has not be demonstrated that they were directly given for translators.

There's a huge difference between manipulating God's word purposely and having to add words for translation.

You on the other hand imply they are one in the same. God's word is still God's word whether its the 2 words "only begotten" in english or whether it's the single word μονογενής/monogenēs in Greek.

You are implying that God's preservation is only in the original languages because sometimes translation work has to use 2 words to accurately translate 1 Hebrew or Greek word.

Stop playing games. If what you're saying is true than you need to admit that translators are guilty of adding and taking from God's word. And you need to admit that you believe all the translators of whatever bible translation you use are going to burn in hell.

I'm not going to sit here and play this game with you. You and I both know that is exactly what you are saying.

God's word is still his word whether it's in 1 Greek word or 2 Latin words or 3 English words. And God can choose to preserve his word in 1 Greek word or 2 Latin words.

A bunch of commands that warn from taking away from God's word does not at all prove that preservation only applies to the original languages. It's just as much of a sin to purposely remove words from a Latin translations as much as it is to purposely remove words from the Greek. Are you willing to admit that? because if your premise is true than it doesn't matter if we take away from God's word in translations because you think those verses only apply to the original languages... I guess it's ok for the Homosexuals to take out the Anti-Homosexuality verse in their "Queen James Bible" because those verse are only talking about the original languages?

Honestly answer my questions or I am not going to dialogue with you any longer:

1.Do you think the translators who translate 1 Greek word that can only be conveyed with 2 Latin words are going to have their part of the book of life taken away?

2. If those verse only apply to the original languages then is it ok for me to change God's words purposely as long as they are not in the original languages?

3. according to you is God only concerned with preserving the original languages?

 

[Inspector Javert]

This is so insane:

Does Logos actually BELIEVE that a consistent KJVO position demands that perfect preservation can only exist by preserving in the ORIGINAL Languages???? KJVO'S don't believe that.....


Been a KJVO for years....
Never thought for a second that the Original Language Manuscripts must particularly be preserved perfectly for God's exact Words to be ....Only that you can know or derive WHAT the Original Languages said in order to have perfect preservation.

Logos doesn't seem to quite comprehend what KJVO'S mean by "preservation".

He says this stuff:

Word preservation suggests preservation of the exact, specific original language words given by God.

To you maybe...not to a KJVO.

Are you possibly suggesting that the scriptural doctrine of preservation only concerning meaning and thoughts instead of words so that non-literal dynamic equivalent renderings

Uhh....no.
"Dynamic Equivalency" is a METHODOLOGY of how to translate.....(which kjvo's tend to reject, but isn't inherently related to the argument of preservation).

Theoretically, one could believe that "Dynamic Equivalency" as a translational method were sound and still hold the same doctrine of preservation as a KJVO would.
If you are arguing that the specific LANGUAGE into which the words are preserved automatically equates to a thought-for-thought translation methodology, than you are either trying to obfuscate the issues or are ignorant.

You can make a "Dynamic Equivalency" of the right texts or words and still screw up.

Similarly, you can make a perfect translation of the wrong words or texts, and still screw-up the Scriptures.

I think Logos is avoiding you Jordan. I think he's trying to re-direct your arguments to fit his own purposes.

"DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY"?????

Possibly, this is the most irrelevant word used in this thread so far....Irrelevant, ill-advised, pointless, and obfuscating.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nowhere do any of those scriptures indicate that God will only preserve his word in the Greek MSS exclusively.

Just because God warns people from taking away from the scriptures does not mean he intended to preserve them in the Greek MSS exclusively..

You are making a very big jump and you cannot support what you are saying with scripture. You are putting your own presuppositions into those verses.

And as for the translation work of having to add and subtract from God's word: If what you're saying is correct, than anyone who does any translation work is going to have the plagues added to them and their part taken out of the book of life. Are you willing to admit that all people who have done translation work have had their name taken out of the book of life? This shows that you're application of that verse does not apply to what we are talking about.

Clearly God gives a warning to those who willingly change or distort his word. This is not what honest translators do, though I do not doubt that some have done this. The NWT is a good example.

the ONLY inspiration was that performed by God in and theu the original authors of the original books of the OT/NT canon, as the Spirit moved upon those men to record sacred writ...

In hebrew/Aramiac/Greek ONLY, and God did not inspire the copies off them, but preserved them, BIG difference!

 

[Inspector Javert]

There's a huge difference between manipulating God's word purposely and having to add words for translation.

There are two possibilities here, I don't know which is correct.
1.) He fully knows better, and he's simply betting you don't and is playing games with you since he thinks that all KJVO's are insufferable morons (clearly possible).
2.) He actually doesn't understand the notion of preservation adopted by most KJVO'S and he actually THINKS you don't know any better.

You on the other hand imply they are one in the same. God's word is still God's word whether its the 2 words "only begotten" in english or whether it's the single word μονογενής/monogenēs in Greek.

I call it using "divers measures"...but, I don't know what he would call it.

You are implying that God's preservation is only in the original languages because sometimes translation work has to use 2 words to accurately translate 1 Hebrew or Greek word.

It's stupid....there is (for instance) no such thing as the word "of" in either Greek or Hebrew...but they are rather implied by grammatical forms. this gives us two more possibilities:
1.) He doesn't know that sufficiently to know when to ignore italics or not
2.) He knows it full well, and is simply betting that anyone who reads him is too ill-informed to understand the Hebrew Construct-Chain or the Greek's Genitive case to know better...
It doesn't matter which...He's trading on the assumed stupidity of KJVO's.

Stop playing games.

He plays games. He's particularly skilled and ingenious with it...but, he plays games.

God's word is still his word whether it's in 1 Greek word or 2 Latin words or 3 English words. And God can choose to preserve his word in 1 Greek word or 2 Latin words.

Yeah, or 15 English ones........the point is, that KJVO'S believe that we can know perfectly, what the Originals said at any given Scripture now considered "debatable".
He would have you believe that the use of italics is somehow equivalent to throwing away (oh, say, to pick something at random)...the last 11 verses of the book of Mark.

A bunch of commands that warn from taking away from God's word does not at all prove that preservation only applies to the original languages. It's just as much of a sin to purposely remove words from a Latin translations as much as it is to purposely remove words from the Greek. Are you willing to admit that? because if your premise is true than it doesn't matter if we take away from God's word in translations because you think those verses only apply to the original languages... I guess it's ok for the Homosexuals to take out the Anti-Homosexuality verse in their "Queen James Bible" because those verse are only talking about the original languages?

Thus, he is either intentionally obfuscating the point, or possibly:

He simply doesn't understand the KJVO position of "preservation" at all.

2. If those verse only apply to the original languages then is it ok for me to change God's words purposely as long as they are not in the original languages?

If his interpretation is correct, yes.

3. according to you is God only concerned with preserving the original languages?

According to his posts on this thread, yes.

 

[Inspector Javert]

In hebrew/Aramiac/Greek ONLY, and God did not inspire the copies off them, but preserved them, BIG difference!

Then you believe God preserved the Originals, then, because that is what you just said....

Please produce them for us.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

the ONLY inspiration was that performed by God in and theu the original authors of the original books of the OT/NT canon, as the Spirit moved upon those men to record sacred writ...

In hebrew/Aramiac/Greek ONLY, and God did not inspire the copies off them, but preserved them, BIG difference!

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


What were the scriptures that Timothy knew?
Were they the originals?
The answer is no. they were copies of copies of copies more than likely.

Paul calls these copies scripture..

and then he says ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Clearly the copies are still to be considered inspired scripture.

Scripture that is preserved is still considered inspired.

This whole only the originals are to be considered inspired ideology is un scriptural.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

There are two possibilities here, I don't know which is correct.
1.) He fully knows better, and he's simply betting you don't and is playing games with you since he thinks that all KJVO's are insufferable morons (clearly possible).
2.) He actually doesn't understand the notion of preservation adopted by most KJVO'S and he actually THINKS you don't know any better.

I call it using "divers measures"...but, I don't know what he would call it.

It's stupid....there is (for instance) no such thing as the word "of" in either Greek or Hebrew...but they are rather implied by grammatical forms. this gives us two more possibilities:
1.) He doesn't know that sufficiently to know when to ignore italics or not
2.) He knows it full well, and is simply betting that anyone who reads him is too ill-informed to understand the Hebrew Construct-Chain or the Greek's Genitive case to know better...
It doesn't matter which...He's trading on the assumed stupidity of KJVO's.

He plays games. He's particularly skilled and ingenious with it...but, he plays games.

Yeah, or 15 English ones........the point is, that KJVO'S believe that we can know perfectly, what the Originals said at any given Scripture now considered "debatable".
He would have you believe that the use of italics is somehow equivalent to throwing away (oh, say, to pick something at random)...the last 11 verses of the book of Mark.

Thus, he is either intentionally obfuscating the point, or possibly:

He simply doesn't understand the KJVO position of "preservation" at all.

If his interpretation is correct, yes.

According to his posts on this thread, yes.

Thank you for being willing to say what we all know Logos really means but is hiding.

 

[Inspector Javert]

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


What were the scriptures that Timothy knew?
Were they the originals?
The answer is no. they were copies of copies of copies more than likely.

Paul calls these copies scripture..

and then he says ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Clearly the copies are still to be considered inspired scripture.

Scripture that is preserved is still considered inspired.

This whole only the originals are to be considered inspired ideology is un scriptural.

Jesus is said to have read from "The Scriptures" in the synagogue.... No one doubted their veracity. They weren't the originals....(Moses probably literally edited clay tablets)....Clay tablets.... this is not what Jesus used.

But it was always known to be "Scripture". And therefore flawless.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jesus is said to have read from "The Scriptures" in the synagogue.... No one doubted their veracity. They weren't the originals....(Moses probably literally edited clay tablets)....Clay tablets.... this is not what Jesus used.

But it was always known to be "Scripture". And therefore flawless.

That's right!

People who say only the originals were inspired need to read their bibles more often.

 

[Logos1560]

Logos doesn't seem to quite comprehend what KJVO'S mean by "preservation".

Really? I have read over 100 books written by KJV-only advocates along with many, many posts. Perhaps I have more carefully studied the various KJV-only positions than you have. I clearly and properly understand that KJV-only advocates argue for "word" preservation.

One serious problem for their KJV-only theory is the fact that they also try incorrectly and inconsistently to claim that preservation also directly concerns translations [at least one translation--the KJV] without ever showing or demonstrating that the Scriptures teach their claim.

Translations do not actually preserve the exact, specific, same original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The renderings of translations made after the completion of the New Testament [the end of the giving of the Scriptures] are not given by a direct miracle of inspiration. It has not been demonstrated that the Scriptures teach that the imperfect, fallible translation decisions of any group of scholars preserve the exact, specific, same words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

 

[Logos1560]

By definition, a translation cannot be the translation of nothing. There could not be a translation without a source or sources from which it is translated. A translation without any underlying texts or sources from which to be translated would not by definition be a translation. Likewise, a translation cannot be an exact duplicate of the originals; otherwise, by definition it is not a translation.

A translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities. By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages. The source of a translation would be one of its causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation could be made from it. Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes. Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources and causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Can the antecedent be denied and the consequent affirmed? The original language texts cannot be and not be the authority, cause, and foundation for a translation at the same time.

In his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon observed: “There is no possibility of the effect being higher and better than the cause” (p. 44). Francis Turretin asserted: “That which has a fallible foundation cannot be infallible because the effect cannot be greater in every respect than its cause” (Institutes, I, p. 39).

A cause would need to be first in time, order, and authority over its effect. The necessity of a translation being dependent or being an effect or consequence indicates that it derives or acquires its authority from a greater authority. A translation that is not direct revelation from God is not independent and underived since that translation depends on its antecedent underlying texts for its authority.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Really? I have read over 100 books written by KJV-only advocates along with many, many posts. Perhaps I have more carefully studied the various KJV-only positions than you have. I clearly and properly understand that KJV-only advocates argue for "word" preservation.

One serious problem for their KJV-only theory is the fact that they also try incorrectly and inconsistently to claim that preservation also directly concerns translations [at least one translation--the KJV] without ever showing or demonstrating that the Scriptures teach their claim.

Translations do not actually preserve the exact, specific, same original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The renderings of translations made after the completion of the New Testament [the end of the giving of the Scriptures] are not given by a direct miracle of inspiration. It has not been demonstrated that the Scriptures teach that the imperfect, fallible translation decisions of any group of scholars preserve the exact, specific, same words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

Logos I noticed that you refused to answer my questions yet again.