George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Again, where do scriptures elevate the originals above translated copies? GIVE A VERSE OR DROP THE MANTRA.
-
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!
This is Must Reading On the KJVO Position!
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
Where do the Scriptures elevate an English Bible translation above the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?
The actual Bible doctrine of preservation would elevate copies of the original-language Scriptures over Bible translations. The Bible doctrine of preservation concerns what God directly gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.
Translations are not copies of the preserved original-language Scriptures. You fail to define and use your terms soundly. You incorrectly try to mix together two separate things: copies of the original-language Scriptures and translations made from original language copies.
Translations would be in a different category than manuscript copies of the original-language Scriptures. Translations are dependent on the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
It is only copies of the original-language Scriptures that can possibly preserve the exact same words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. A translation is not a copy of the original-language Scriptures. Translators after the completion of the New Testament are not prophets and apostles who were given the Scriptures by inspiration of God.
Translations can only attempt to preserve the meaning, but they cannot preserve the same exact words that were given by inspiration. Translations add words (in violation of Proverbs 30:6) for which there are no original-language words of Scripture, and translations do not provide any renderings for some original-language words of Scripture.
George, @Baptist4life, @tyndale1946, if you believe I am unbeliever going to hell, come out and say it. Don't hide behind aspersions.
If you'all are actually capable of discussing my "layers of sophistry" as you put it, go ahead. I'm more than willing to discuss it.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Humanism on display: all philosophy and no Bible. All man-centered arguments and no place for God's supernatural work.
Now, you're the one that keeps bringing up the KJB, not me. The following verses say nothing about the KJB, but they teach that a copy, and sometimes a translated copy, can be given by inspiration of God: Luke 4:21, John 5:39, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 2Timothy 3:15, 1Peter 2:6, 2Peter 1:20.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Hunh? Where in the world did that come from? That wasn't even hinted at. I don't know you but I have no reason to doubt that you're a born again Christian, my brother, and that we'll be together with the Lord for ever.
That you've swallowed and regurgitate humanistic philosophy with regards to the workings of Bilical inspiration is an altogether different matter than your salvation.
Moreover, I respect that you're willing to discuss it.
I'm glad to hear that and I apologize for misunderstanding you.
Ball's in your court.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
No worries, I'm glad that's cleared up brother. God bless you.
Well, I'm pretty sure that "because Jesus said so" makes it "so". I'm mean, we're Bible-believers here, are we not?
Now, we can either point out that:
A) Christ, according to his own defined context, was talking about herbs since he says greatest among herbs (Mt.13:32) and not "flowers", so orchids are outside Christ's own established parameters.
B) That the mustard seed would have been the smallest seed that an O.T. Jew would plant in his field and Christ was talking to such Jews.
C) That all doesn't always mean "all without exception". Ex:
Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
Or:
Eph 6:21 But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things:
Therefore only a gnat-straining Pharisee (and I'm not talking about you) who wishes to condemn the word of God would find fault with Christ's qualification of the mustard seed.
Or we could cower in shame, feel like we must appear intellectual in eyes of the world, and just correct the Lord Jesus Christ by rewording the words of the Word of God himself because he is making us look foolish in the eyes of the "educated".
Which one is the slippery slope here?
Why are you convinced, I believe you are going to Hell?... Where did you get THAT assumption?... Brother Glen
Let's lay those cards out on the table right now!
What's a "KJB", a new Russian secret police ?
roby...you need to come up with some new material....you're like a comedian who keeps telling the same joke over and over.....it's just not funny anymore after he's told it a thousand times..... you know, like the "Ford Corvette" line. 
As for the KJVO topic, I use / always have used / will continue to use, and prefer the KJV. However, I also like the NKJV, and freely admit there are other versions out there that are perfectly fine, and people in my church use them (NIV, ESV, NKJV, and many others). I post support for the KJV on here which leads others to jump to the conclusion that I am KJVO. I am not. I have simply used the KJV since I was 5 years old, and at 68 years of age, I have long ago come to understand the passages that everyone says are hard to comprehend. I love it for it's beauty and history. The great hynms that use phrases and language from the KJV. I fully understand that a new, or young Christian child, may struggle with the KJV, and if they want to read another version that they are more comfortable with and that they can understand, that's fine by me.
As for the KJVO topic, I use / always have used / will continue to use, and prefer the KJV. However, I also like the NKJV, and freely admit there are other versions out there that are perfectly fine, and people in my church use them (NIV, ESV, NKJV, and many others). I post support for the KJV on here which leads others to jump to the conclusion that I am KJVO. I am not. I have simply used the KJV since I was 5 years old, and at 68 years of age, I have long ago come to understand the passages that everyone says are hard to comprehend. I love it for it's beauty and history. The great hynms that use phrases and language from the KJV. I fully understand that a new, or young Christian child, may struggle with the KJV, and if they want to read another version that they are more comfortable with and that they can understand, that's fine by me.
Last edited:
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
The Book that, at the cost of martyrs' blood, bought you the freedom to scorn it. That's what.
God inspired the original languages texts, not any translation!
Only Originals were inspired and perfect!
1611 Kjv is not the ONLY word from the Lord to us!
No, it's not the ONLY, but it IS a well loved version of the Word of the Lord, and therefore shouldn't be demeaned like some on here have no problem doing.
I have no problem with any KJV version, just with the logic of those holding to KJVO!
I wasn't insinuating that you were demeaning the KJV. I'm sorry if it seemed like my post was referring to you.
That is true, but KJVO cannot accept that!
- Status