• 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!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
George Antonios said:
Are you kidding? Wait, just tell me this. Have you laid out the verses that differ side by side? Just tell me if you ever did.
Click to expand...
I know of NO Christian doctrines/theology affected at all by modern translations, you should have a bunch if they are as corrupted and bad as KJVO say that they are!
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
George Antonios said:
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.
Click to expand...

Luke 4:21 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures.
John 5:39 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 8:32 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures. When a statement or verse from the Old Testament is presented in Greek by a NT writer, it is a part of the giving of the New Testament by direct inspiration of God. It is not the making of a complete translated copy of the Old Testament or even of a complete translated book of the Old Testament. Thus, it is not comparable to the make of a complete Bible translation into another language.
Acts 8:35 states nothing about a complete translated copy of the Scriptures or a complete translated book of the Old Testament. Perhaps the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from a Hebrew scroll with the book of Isaiah.
Acts 17:2 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 17:11 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 18:24 and Acts 18:28 state nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Romans 15:4 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Romans 16:26 refers to "the scriptures of the prophets" which would be the original-language Scriptures written by the prophets. Roman 16:26 clearly does not refer to a translated copy of the Scriptures.
2 Timothy 3:15 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures. Timothy's mother and grandmother were Jews, and they may have been taught from the Hebrew Old Testament.
1 Peter 2:6 provides a Greek translation of a statement from the Hebrew Old Testament as part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God. That does not require a translated copy of the Scriptures since the words that Peter wrote proceeded from the mouth of God by the miracle of inspiration. You seem to be trying to pull a bait and switch as you take part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God and switch that into something else.
2 Peter 1:20 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.

None of the verses that you cite suggest that an entire translation of the Old Testament was made by inspiration of God. You are trying to read into the verses your own subjective opinions or your own modern KJV-only philosophy. You present no verses that teach what you try to claim.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Logos1560 said:
Luke 4:21 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures.
John 5:39 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 8:32 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures. When a statement or verse from the Old Testament is presented in Greek by a NT writer, it is a part of the giving of the New Testament by direct inspiration of God. It is not the making of a complete translated copy of the Old Testament or even of a complete translated book of the Old Testament. Thus, it is not comparable to the make of a complete Bible translation into another language.
Acts 8:35 states nothing about a complete translated copy of the Scriptures or a complete translated book of the Old Testament. Perhaps the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from a Hebrew scroll with the book of Isaiah.
Acts 17:2 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 17:11 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 18:24 and Acts 18:28 state nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Romans 15:4 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Romans 16:26 refers to "the scriptures of the prophets" which would be the original-language Scriptures written by the prophets. Roman 16:26 clearly does not refer to a translated copy of the Scriptures.
2 Timothy 3:15 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures. Timothy's mother and grandmother were Jews, and they may have been taught from the Hebrew Old Testament.
1 Peter 2:6 provides a Greek translation of a statement from the Hebrew Old Testament as part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God. That does not require a translated copy of the Scriptures since the words that Peter wrote proceeded from the mouth of God by the miracle of inspiration. You seem to be trying to pull a bait and switch as you take part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God and switch that into something else.
2 Peter 1:20 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.

None of the verses that you cite suggest that an entire translation of the Old Testament was made by inspiration of God. You are trying to read into the verses your own subjective opinions or your own modern KJV-only philosophy. You present no verses that teach what you try to claim.
Click to expand...
Is he trying to use these as evidence for "derived inspiration" for the Kjv?
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
George Antonios said:
Mark and Luke weren't there when Christ said that and they weren't apostles, so the words of Mark and Luke were not given by inspiration?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are misinformed or uninformed. The New Testament was given by inspiration of God to apostles and prophets [NT prophets] so that any NT writers who were not apostles can be soundly considered prophets.

NT revelation given to holy apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:5)
 
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
Luke 4:21 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures.
John 5:39 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 8:32 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures. When a statement or verse from the Old Testament is presented in Greek by a NT writer, it is a part of the giving of the New Testament by direct inspiration of God. It is not the making of a complete translated copy of the Old Testament or even of a complete translated book of the Old Testament. Thus, it is not comparable to the make of a complete Bible translation into another language.
Acts 8:35 states nothing about a complete translated copy of the Scriptures or a complete translated book of the Old Testament. Perhaps the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from a Hebrew scroll with the book of Isaiah.
Acts 17:2 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 17:11 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 18:24 and Acts 18:28 state nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Romans 15:4 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Romans 16:26 refers to "the scriptures of the prophets" which would be the original-language Scriptures written by the prophets. Roman 16:26 clearly does not refer to a translated copy of the Scriptures.
2 Timothy 3:15 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures. Timothy's mother and grandmother were Jews, and they may have been taught from the Hebrew Old Testament.
1 Peter 2:6 provides a Greek translation of a statement from the Hebrew Old Testament as part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God. That does not require a translated copy of the Scriptures since the words that Peter wrote proceeded from the mouth of God by the miracle of inspiration. You seem to be trying to pull a bait and switch as you take part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God and switch that into something else.
2 Peter 1:20 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.

None of the verses that you cite suggest that an entire translation of the Old Testament was made by inspiration of God. You are trying to read into the verses your own subjective opinions or your own modern KJV-only philosophy. You present no verses that teach what you try to claim.
Click to expand...
Ok, finally tackling the issue.
So let's start one verse at a time and bear in mind that we let the Bible define the Bible by comparing scripture with scripture.

We both believe Paul's teaching that: 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
In the passage addressed to Timothy, what scripture was Paul referring to? The scriptures just mentioned in the previous verse: 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.
Now let me ask you a simple, non-trick question: do you suppose that Timothy, a first century and originally uncircumcised half-breed Greek/Jew from Asia Minor (Acts 16:1-3) had the original autographs with him of a child, or do you suppose he had copies, and possibly translated ones at that?
 
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
You present your own naturalistic, humanistic KJV-only philosophy that is not stated in the Scriptures.
You are reading into verses your own subjective, human opinions.
Click to expand...
Are you doing this intentionally? Because I've specifically said that these verse aren't about the KJB for like the 4th time now.
I'm not talking about the KJB. Open your ears!
 
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
Perhaps you are misinformed or uninformed. The New Testament was given by inspiration of God to apostles and prophets [NT prophets] so that any NT writers who were not apostles can be soundly considered prophets.

NT revelation given to holy apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:5)
Click to expand...

Please inform me then. Give me a verse that Mark or Luke were prophets.
 
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
what about when the Kjv calls Holy Spirit it 4 times,
Click to expand...

Have you ever noticed that Gabriel calls his Lord Jesus Christ "thing"?Back to that is a second.
Look at Genesis 3:15. This is not the only time the Bible uses the third person singular to refer to the Son of God. The angel Gabriel himself called Christ "that holy THING": "Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Was it therefore Gabriel's intent to lessen the deity of Christ? I trow not.
To go back to: "Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise HIS heel." The "it" is immediately defined by the personal adjective "his" as a person. So the "it" was only a grammatical reference to Christ as being a "seed". I don't quite see what is the problem here.
The Spirit of God is a person and acts as an influence also, and sometimes, just as people, can be referred to as "it".

Let's not tone the words of God down to our level of conceit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top