The "scriptures" are said to be "Given by the Inspiration of God", and I, therefore, say "The Bible we hold in our is Inspired."

[Martin Marprelate]

Pneuma can mean either 'Spirit' or 'wind' or 'breath,' so theopneustos can have the meaning of either 'God-breathed' or 'God-spirited,' which isn't a word in English, so 'Given by inspiration of God' is absolutely fine.

We really need to stop beating one another up over these things. 'Let each be fully convinced in his own mind' (Romans 14:5).

 

[Logos1560]

You would have had to be called to smear all King James users and defenders as being KJV-Only Ruckmanite Quacks.

You again in effect bear false witness since I do not smear all King James users and defenders as supposedly being "KJV-only Ruckmanite Quacks." I have clearly defined the term KJV-only, and I have clearly noted that the term does not mean followers of Peter Ruckman.

I am a KJV user, having read and studied in over 60 years, and I am a KJV defender since I defend the stating of the truth concerning the KJV. Your erroneous and false accusation would suggest that I am supposedly smearing myself.

 

[Logos1560]

This guy is hard to pin down, because he's genuinely devious in his approach and his 'thing' about the Post KJV 1611 Translations all being of equal quality univocally, which would include the modern versions, is ludicrous and deserving to be called Quackery more than anything any KJV-Only Quack has dreamed up.

I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text nor English Bible translations made from it as you should already know. Therefore, it is very clear that I have not anywhere claimed that all post-1611 English Bible translations are "of equal quality univocally." You improperly try to put words in my mouth that I have not said in your seeming vain attempt to smear me. You do not state the truth.

English Bible translations such as the 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple original-language texts as the KJV.

I seek to avoid use of the fallacy of composition in statements concerning Bible translations. It is possible to overgeneralize when using adjectives to describe a Bible translation or one edition of it. A translation can still be considered overall accurate even when it has a few individual inaccurate renderings, a few inconsistencies, impurities, or imperfections, or a few printing errors. What may be true of a few individual renderings may not be true of the whole overall translation or edition just as what may be considered generally true or true overall of the whole translation may not be true of each and every individual rendering.

Henry Virkler noted: “The fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the individual members of a class is true of the entire class” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 202). In the glossary, Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks defined the fallacy of composition as “fallacy that assumes that what is true of the parts is true of the whole” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 190). Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “You cannot logically conclude anything about a whole group from something you only know about part of it, even if it looks right” (p. 82). Joshua Rasmussen observed: “It is false that whatever is true of the parts is automatically also true of the whole” (How Reason, p. 38). Joshua Rasmussen added: “Arguments that rely on the Parts to Whole principle are fallacious. They commit the fallacy of composition: they assume that the whole has all the same properties as its parts” (Ibid.). In his glossary, Gordon Clark defined composition as “an informal logical fallacy in which the characteristic of the part is attributed to the whole” (Logic, p. 134). Gordon Clark noted: “This argument is called the fallacy of composition. The logical reason is that the characteristics of components are not necessarily, nor even usually, the characteristics of the compound” (p. 13). Use of an adjective to describe the whole text of a translation can involve use of the fallacy of composition when or if it is assumed that what is true of a few individual renderings, of many individual renderings, or even of a great majority of the individual renderings is true of all the renderings in that translation. There is an important major difference in use of an adjective to describe overall a Bible translation and use of an adjective to describe every rendering of a Bible translation.

 

[Logos1560]

You just have unbelief in Divine Inspiration and Divine Preservation as a given.

You jump to a wrong conclusion, and your claim is not true. I believe in Divine inspiration and Divine preservation. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

Disagreeing with your human or private interpretations and understandings does not at all suggest "unbelief in Divine inspiration and Divine preservation as a given."

 

[Logos1560]

"At this point we have entered the realm of “textual criticism”. A textual critic is one who picks and chooses what part of whose story they will believe to be true. They make themselves the judge.

Erasmus and the other editors of Textus Receptus editions were textual critics. At times the Church of England makers of the KJV acted as textual critics. The KJV translators made some textual criticism decisions.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Your belief in your interpretation does not make it true and scriptural.

"The whole problem with textual criticism is that man becomes the judge of what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t. A textual critic sets himself up as judge over God’s Word, when no man has such a right. The Scriptures are not to be privately interpreted. The Bible teaches “No Scripture is of private interpretation”. No mere mortal dare add to, or subtract from God’s Word (the last chapter in Revelation teaches this). Textual criticism is flawed because man’s judgment is by nature flawed with bias.

God's Words are Always Inspired that make up His Holy Scriptures.

But yours does? Of course, if you have Authority over the Word of God.

"if"

Which, of course, you don't.

You do not have Authority over the Word of God to say that the King James Bible, for one example, was Translated in no way differently univocally than all Post KJV 1611 Translations that cut out 20%, or so, of the Inspired Writings in the New Testament out and throw them away, in violation of Revelation 22:19;

"And if any man shall take away from the Words of the Book of this Prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City,
and from the things which are Written in this Book."

I don't know if you know that or not.

It seems to be a thing you claim and will fight tooth and nail to maintain.

"It seems to be a thing" with you to attempt to force feed your idea that the modern versions that have had your Authority given to them to omit 20% of the New Testament, when you say they are equal univocally to the King James and other versions that Faithfully Translated from a Comparison Process of consulting all reliable Manuscripts extant humanly possible.

You bear false witness as I nowhere claim or suggest that I supposedly have authority over the Word of God.

Can you show me where you have said something positive about the King James Bible, other than it was Translated by men and, therefore, the Words that Go Forth Out of the Mouth of God which "shall not Return unto Me void, but it shall Accomplish that which I Please, and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it" (Isaiah 55:11), therefore, can't be dripping with God-Breathed Inspiration and the Blood of Jesus, the Eternal Logos?

 

[Logos1560]

You do not have Authority over the Word of God to say that the King James Bible, for one example, was Translated in no way differently univocally than all Post KJV 1611 Translations that cut out 20%, or so, of the Inspired Writings in the New Testament out and throw them away, in violation of Revelation 22:19;

"It seems to be a thing" with you to attempt to force feed your idea that the modern versions that have had your Authority given to them to omit 20% of the New Testament, when you say they are equal univocally to the King James and other versions that Faithfully Translated from a Comparison Process of consulting all reliable Manuscripts extant humanly possible.

You improperly seem to try to put words in my mouth that I do not say. I do not claim to have authority over the word of God as you falsely allege. I do not say that the KJV "was translated in no way differently univocally than all post KJV 1611 translation so you bear false witness. You try to twist and distort what I have stated into something that I do not say. Your strawman misrepresentations are wrong.

You know that I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text nor English translations made from it.

 

[kyredneck]

Logos: I was referring to the POWER of the Words of God, regardless of version.

ZACTLY

For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Isa 55:9-10

 

[Armchair Apologist]

When rightly translated, a translation is, in fact, the inspired word of God. I primarily use the ESV and the KJV and am of the conviction that they are, in fact, the Word of God for the English speaking people!

If such is not the case, perhaps we all need to get on the ball and learn how to read Greek and Hebrew to the point where we are able to speak such in a conversational setting!