Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
???
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The"Psalm 12:6-7 thingie"
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Do you believe in preservation?
On the back of this question, is can you show me a translation into another language from AD 100 to just before 'MODERN" times that translates 1 Tim 6:10 as you have? Is there any chain of continual translation as you would translate it:
I am looking at the Jeromes latin, and it says:
1Ti 6:10 radix enim omnium malorum est cupiditas quam quidam appetentes erraverunt a fide et inseruerunt se doloribus multis
It doesn't say "all kinds".it simply says "all" (omnium)
The German Luther:
1Ti 6:10 Denn Geiz ist eine Wurzel alles Übels; das hat etliche gelüstet und sind vom Glauben irregegangen und machen sich selbst viel Schmerzen.
It too doesn't say "all kinds", it simply says "all" (alles).
French Ostervald;
1Ti 6:10 Car l'amour de l'argent est la racine de tous les maux; et quelques-uns en étant possédés, se sont détournés de la foi, et se sont jetés eux-mêmes dans les plus grandes douleurs.
It doesn't say "all kinds", it says, "all" (de tous).
The Spanish Reina Valera:
1Ti 6:10 Porque el amor del dinero es la raíz de todos los males: el cual codiciando algunos, se descaminaron de la fe, y fueron traspasados de muchos dolores.
It doesn't say "all kinds", it says "all" (de todos)
etc.
I have already cited the Wycliffe, Tyndale and Matthews in their English.
Even Young's 'literal":
1 Timothy 6:10 for a root of all the evils is the love of money, which certain longing for did go astray from the faith, and themselves did pierce through with many sorrows;
It doesn't say "all kinds", it says "all".
So where is your chain of translation from AD 100 to now? And if you have none, why did you start with "MODERN" times and bypass the last 1800 years?
Your comments are getting sillier as you go. I know EXACTLY what I said. trying to equate it with "evil versions" is absurd.
You're trying to find anything you can to sustain your false KJVO doctrine, but you're doing a poor job. You cannot sustain false with more false.
That's because that rendering is simply INCORRECT. Does ISIS commit evil suicide bombings for love of money? Just ask any Koine greek expert what the Greek word pasmeans - ALL meanings.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Yes. You do not understand what 'money' is according to scripture. The fall of Lucifer was 'the love of money'.
Last edited:
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Thank you, but I will trust the word of God in its own definition, over 'experts' in this "MODERN" age of luciferianism and Greek philosophistry, and I will trust to those godly persons (already mentioned, Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale, Geneva, etc) who all along the way, translated it as the KJB, even in many languages.
Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand what you were getting at. Regardless, any "license" David was given had to be within the confines of inspiration.
Thanks. Now I understand that your original comment was only rhetoric within your standard anti-KJVO rant with no particular interest in the first origins of the idea, so I'll not trouble the thread with any more discussion of it.
You dodge and avoid your own burden of proof to prove what you claim is true. You use a fallacy as you try to reverse or shift your burden of proof. You have not proven that the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God as you assume likely by fallacies. Because you may assume by fallacies something concerning the KJV does not demand that others assume by fallacies the same thing about another English Bible.
You ignored and avoided the clear scriptural truths that conflicts with your unsound and unproven human reasoning concerning the KJV. You do not demonstrate that the Scriptures teach your opinions concerning the KJV.
You do not deal with and discuss the actual facts. The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611. The KJV is both a revision of earlier English Bibles and a translation. The truth is that the KJV was more a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles than it was a new original translation. As a translation, the KJV is based of multiple, imperfect, textually-varying sources.
You do not deal with a consistent application of your inconsistent reasoning and state whether the pre-1611 English Bibles were the perfectly preserved word of God in the same sense as you inconsistently claim for the KJV. You also ignore the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.
The 1611 edition of the KJV has been revised, updated, and corrected many times. The 1611 edition of the KJV had actual errors in it. A greater authority and standard of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages was used by editors/printers to correct several errors in the 1611 and to correct errors in later KJV editions.
Are you advocating Gail Riplinger's erroneous claim that the KJV defines its own words?
If the original-language words of Scripture provide their own definition, why did the KJV translators use Hebrew-Latin lexicons that often gave renderings of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate as its definition of Hebrew words and use Greek-Latin lexicons that often gave renderings of the Latin Vulgate as its definition of Greek words?
If the original-language words of Scriptures provide their own definitions, why did the Church of England makers of the KJV change the renderings of the pre-1611 English Bibles to make some renderings more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views and other renderings to make them more favorable to King James' divine-right-of-kings view?
Your posts suggest that you trust your own human opinions or the opinions of other men concerning the KJV since you have presented no positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for them.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Was the material (substance, ie words) of the OT that Jesus had, that Paul had, the perfectly preserved word of God (pre-1611)?
I say, "Yes". What do you say.
Was the material that Daniel had, the perfectly preserved word of God (pre 1BC)?
I say, "Yes". What do you say?
Was the material that Joshua had, the perfectly preserved word of God (pre Solomon)?
I say, "Yes". What do you say?
Did Adam have the perfectly preserved word of God in the beginning?
I say, "Yes". What do you say?
Last edited:
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
No, I am "amen-ing" that the KJB (the inspired and preserved word of God in English) defines its own words, per itself (Gen 40:8; Isa 8:20, 28:10,13; 2 Pet 1:20, etc), for if it does not define itself, and is not its own contained dictionary, thesaurus, math tables, etc then anyone may make anything therein mean whatever they desire it to mean. Since it is inspired of God, God gets to define God's own words, and even instructs on how to go about understanding Him, even down to the very letters (psalms), the foundation of words.
Last edited:
Are you now trying to dodge your burden of proof by hiding behind questions? You have not answered my questions to you. Your questions do not prove your claims for the KJV to be true.
Accurately copied original-language words would be perfectly preserved words of God. According to scriptural truth, any errors introduced by men in copies would not be the perfectly preserved words of God.
Any words added by men would not be the perfectly preserved words of God.
You dodge or avoid dealing with how clear scriptural truths would affect your unproven claims concerning the KJV. The Church of England makers of the KJV acknowledged that they did not provide an English word for each and every original-language word of Scripture that they found in their underlying texts. In their marginal notes in the 1611, they gave some examples of where they did not provide an English rendering.
They also acknowledged that they added many words for which they had no original-language word of Scripture.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
You seem not to read what I have said, and make broad accusations to positions I do not hold to (straw), neither do any of those who hold to Biblical preservation. I have already spoken on the preserved word of God pre-AV1611, and in other languages other than English, in fact, that is the very definition of preservation. God preserved His word all along the way, not just in Hebrew, Syriac and koine Greek, or even in English. God never said that He only had to preserve it in those languages (sic), and God never said that He had to preserve it in one location, or in one mss, codice, papyrii, etc. You have me mistaken for your own creation.
You do not prove your claims to be true nor scriptural. You have not demonstrated that the 1611 KJV was made by the process of the miracle of inspiration of God. You have not demonstrated that the Scriptures teach what you claim. You keep assuming your own opinions, but you do not back them up and prove them to be true.
The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual-criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of imperfect Church of England critics in 1611.
The KJV does not actually define all its own words. If the KJV defined all its own words, it is amazing that different KJV-only advocates need up giving conflict or differing definitions for some of them.
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
What about accurately translated words?
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Some people blow through STOP signs. Doesn't mean the sign wasn't posted. Some people abuse words. Doesn't mean that there isn't a correct definition of said words. Some people just like to be obstinate and live in their own little godless defined world, inspite of the God created one around them. Some are just willingly blind and deaf, just ask the Pharisees and Sadducees, but they might not see you nor hear you to answer you.
You have not demonstrated that what you say is consistent and sound.
None of the pre-1611 English Bibles agree completely and perfectly with the 1611 KJV. The pre-1611 English Bibles provide sound evidence that contradicts your unproven claims. In some places, one of the pre-1611 English Bibles has more accurate renderings when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages than the KJV has.
The Church of England makers of the KJV kept some errors uncorrected from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible where the 1560 Geneva Bible had the correct rendering. For one example, the 1611 edition has the name of the wrong king "Jehoiachin" at 2 Kings 24:19 while the 1560 Geneva Bible had the correct name "Jehoiakim" and the error in the 1611 edition remained uncorrected a good number of years, indicating that the KJV translators had not noticed the error.
Perhaps you are the one that does not read the actual scriptural truths that conflict with your modern, human, non-scriptural opinions concerning the KJV.
You do not answer and refute my acceptance of what the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. You do not demonstrate any actual problems with my accurate statements. In one post, I presented clear scriptural truths that relate to the preservation of the Scriptures, and you dodged them.
You continue to dodge and avoid your burden of proof to prove what you claim is true and scriptural.
You waste the time of readers by your refusal to prove your unproven claims to be true. You close your eyes and mind to consistent truth and actual facts.
As I said, you're getting SILLIER as you go, in your desperation to try to defend the indefensible. Money is MONEY, an item used to pay for something, having value in itself. The Greek word translated "love of money" in Inglish Bible versions is philargyria, which literally means "love of silver".
Silver was used for money in Paul's time/place. (Remember, Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus) so your point is useless to your cause.