To KJVOs, Does The Translator notes matter

[Salamander]

About spewed. That IS the issue. Either it is God-breathed and perfect, or man-made and fallible. No middle ground!

Anybody who claims inspiration, perfection, God's errorless choice of a bunch of translators (any translators, any era - not just picking on baby-baptizing Anglicans) and a man-made document are dillusional and should be forced to live in Pensacola . . .

May I suggest, since your arguement is with PCC, to take it to the Panhandle? Maybe then we can have you as an integral part of a discussion!

Your venom towards the Anglican Church should also be carried out there.

We don't agree with pedo-baptisms or 90 ft. tall Jesus or purple aliens (sic), but that is not our stand or allusions, or disallusions.

God's inspired words have been the center of debate ever since Genesis and always will be, but the STAND on the word of God is exemplary! Not secondary.:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

Agreed.No middle ground is possible.



"...and should be forced to live in Pensacola..." What a line. There is already an enclave there.Perhaps it needs more publicity.

Maybe you and the doc could hold hands all the way to the waterpark!:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

It is warmer in Pensacola than Casper I think.

...A.F...

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ( and that ain't 40 chuckles below zero!)

 

[Salamander]

Of course the Lord used fallible men to pen His God-breathed Word.But only the originals were so inspired.The words chosen by the KJV team were not under the inspiration of God any more than Jerome's Vulgate was.Did the latter have any mistakes in the text?Of course.Do the KJVs have mistakes -- of course.The same principle applies.

I'm feeling rather RABID right about now!

You may like to appeal to the scholars of choice in this matter, but when you cross some one with that mantra tells EVERYONE we don't have a God who is Omnipotent enough tongue3: ) to preserve His word as inspired from the original inspiration and is somehow losing the battle!

When you try to insist that the KJV revisers were inspired in their task you are in big error yourself.The autographs alone were under the direct inspiration of God.

Our stand against you is that you are NOT inspired of God to say that, so just who is it "inspiring" you to speak such hogwallow? We don't swallow it!

And I really don't believe in secondary inspiration or derivative inspiration.There are many God-honoring translations but not scripturally inspired ones.

Need I say more?:sleep:

Now the Lord did indeed bless the KJV.It was under His hand that it was brought about.

You have somehow tried to seprate God's breath from His hand as if they are not connected. ERROR!

But the Lord has blessed countless versions in many languages.There is nothing singular about the KJV in that respect.

There is singularity in this respect, God is NOT confused about the words whcih hold inspiration.

This mantra of "derived inspiration" and "double-inspiration" are strawmen, (which truth torches into non-existence), and are attempts to validate man's preferences over established truths.:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

This is an excellent point. Jesus made it clear that not one "iota" would be changed. An "iota", as most here know, is a letter of the Greek alphabet (roughly equivalent to an English "I"). In other words, if there was so much as one spelling error, it could NOT be the "perfect" word of God: just a translation of God's word, which introduced errors in translation.

Only "errors" are in printer's mistakes.

 

[Logos1560]

By giving some alternative translations in their marginal notes, the KJV translators indicated that they did not know for sure the best word to use for translating some words. The KJV translators considered the word or words that they put in the margin to be suitable, acceptable renderings.
Concerning their marginal notes, the KJV translators stated in their preface: "Doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

For example, they listed the alternative translation in the margin for "dragons" at Psalm 74:13 as "Or, whales." At Isaiah 34:14, they listed an alternative translation for "screech owl" as "Or, night monster." Concerning the 1611 marginal note “Hebrew, an arrow-snake” at Genesis 49:17, Wright wrote: “The translators appear by this word to have translated the Latin acontins given by Junius and Tremellius” (Bible Word-Book, p. 47). Several times the KJV translators listed an alternative translation for one Hebrew word they translated "owls" as "Or, ostriches" (Job 30:29, Isa. 13:21, 34:13, 43:20). Are KJV-only advocates absolutely sure that this Hebrew word means "owls" instead of "ostriches?" Why did the Holy Spirit allow the KJV translators to put this possibility in the margin if the word should only be accurately translated "owls?" Did the Holy Spirit guide Coverdale and the Geneva Bible translators to render this inspired Hebrew word as "ostriches" in Job 30:29? Would KJV-only advocates condemn the many translations that render this Hebrew word as "ostriches" when the KJV translators admitted that this could be the proper rendering of this word? For "disobedience" in Ephesians 5:6, the KJV translators listed "Or, unbelief" in the margin. At Hebrews 4:11, the KJV translators had the margin as an acceptable alternative translation "Or, disobedience" for "unbelief" while most KJV-only advocates condemn this rendering in present-day translations. Waite claimed that besides eleven 1611 marginal notes in the N. T. with variants the rest “were merely synonyms of words that could have been used rather than the ones chosen to put into the text itself” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 18). Joe Gresham asserted that “what few [notes] there are in the margin of the Authorized simply say in another way the same thing found in the text” (Dealing, p. 84). Did the KJV translators insert in the margin any notes that question the certainty of their own changes to the text of the good early English Bibles?

 

[HankD]

Moderate or just more sure?

I disagree with "their vulgar and venomous" behaviour. Trying to teach some one so directly opposed to the truth cannot be accomplished with such vitriole, it takes "kid's gloves".

I'll agree that anyone can read any version they wish, but with a comprehensive study it is shown the KJB is without equal. We're trying to lead others into a more pleasant and fruitful venture, NOT being subverted into apostacy and certain ruin.

Sal, don't forget that most of the modern cults started with the KJV (JW's and LDS still use it door-to-door).

Are you willing to say that the KJV caused these cults? I certainly am not.

So it's not actually the version that breeds apostacy, subversion and ruin but misinterpretation of the Word of God.

In fact, those elements existed even while the inspired autographs existed and the human authors the Apostles yet walked the earth.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.​

1 John 2

26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.​

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Only "errors" are in printer's mistakes.

WRONG. We have pointed out clear goofs in the KJV-Acts 12:4, & 1 Tim. 6:10, for example.

And ONCE AGAIN, the KJVO doctrine is NOT found anywhere in the KJV itself. Therefore, it's MAN-MADE.

 

[Keith M]

Only "errors" are in printer's mistakes.

So the discrepancy in Ahaziah's age when he became king, "Easter" and the love of money being the root of ALL evil are printer's mistakes?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

For ssome reason I don't think you know what you're talking about, Sal.

 

[Rippon]

I'm feeling rather RABID right about now!

Well I'll be sure to get my shots in case you decide to bite. But so far you've only been barking.

You may like to appeal to the scholars of choice in this matter, but when you cross some one with that mantra tells EVERYONE we don't have a God who is Omnipotent enough tongue3: ) to preserve His word as inspired from the original inspiration and is somehow losing the battle!

You are mixed up.God is certainly Omnipotent.No one but you is suggesting something otherwise.

Our stand against you is that you are NOT inspired of God to say that, so just who is it "inspiring" you to speak such hogwallow? We don't swallow it!

I didn't know there was such a word as 'hogwallow'.But your meaning came in loud and clear.Your apologies will be accepted.

Need I say more?:sleep:

All you have to say is your apology.

You have somehow tried to seprate {sic}God's breath from His hand as if they are not connected. ERROR!There is singularity in this respect, God is NOT confused about the words whcih hold inspiration.

For me to claim that the KJV revision was under the Hand of God does not mean that every word that entered the KJV text was inspired of God in the 2 Timothy 3:16 sense.

This mantra of "derived inspiration" and "double-inspiration" are strawmen, (which truth torches {sic}into non-existence), and are attempts to validate man's preferences over established truths.:godisgood:

What in the world are you trying to say Sal? "...which truth torches into non-existence..." Come again?

 

[Rippon]

I'll agree that anyone can read any version they wish, but with a comprehensive study it is shown the KJB is without equal.

I didn't get the news brief about the KJV being without equal according to some comprehensive study.Please document your findings. BTW,were you the one who did that 'comprehensive study' Sal?:laugh:

We're trying to lead others into a more pleasant and fruitful venture, NOT being subverted into apostacy and certain ruin.:godisgood:

There you go again.In your view anyone who doesn't hold to the KJV exclusively then apostacy and certain ruin will follow.That's juvenile and shameful on your part to say such drivel.

 

[HankD]

I didn't get the news brief about the KJV being without equal according to some comprehensive study.Please document your findings. BTW,were you the one who did that 'comprehensive study' Sal?:laugh:

There you go again.In your view anyone who doesn't hold to the KJV exclusively then apostacy and certain ruin will follow.That's juvenile and shameful on your part to say such drivel.

What does this mean for those who departed planet earth before 1611?

Well (to answer my own question), they did have the Latin Vulgate translation which the Church of Rome declared the Only Word of God written in the "language of heaven", the then language of the "mass".

Strange that there are many who claim the same for the Church of England 1611 Version (which contained the Apocrypha). Most of whose local churches at the time were still celebrating the English "mass", some to this very day.

I say this to show the error of the KJVO folks.

History repeats itself.

IMO, The AV (1611-1769) is the epitome of English literature created in the Jacobean-Elizabethan period and as such the English speaking world's greatest gift to mankind (apart from being the Word of God by derivation from the inspired text of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts).

This to their credit and in spite of the theological errors of the Church of England

What is the ecclesiastic implication of the radical KJVO "perfect English Translation" position? :

Because the AV it is a translation, it like the Vulgate, is flawed since the translators were neither Prophets or Apostles, (unless of course one accepts the CoE Claim to apostolic succession).

And if one does, it logically follows that one ought immediately to convert to the Anglican Church seeing that one would have to accept it as the "true" Church (being apostolic) and be sprinkled which they erroneously call "baptism" by their sacerdotal-ministerial "priest" and bishops descended from the Apostles in an unbroken line.

BTW, John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress) spent 12 years in prison for preaching without legal ordination as a priest by the "apostolic" Church of England.

Other Baptists and anabaptists were persecuted and spent time in prisons and dungeons as well because they would not bow the knee to the CoE Bishops.
One poor soul was burned at the stake after having been accused of more than a dozen outrageous heresies as well as having been suspected of insanity.

It seems strange to me that some Baptists (or any Christian) would grant (in their minds) the authority of inspiration to the CoE translators of the AV, apostolic or not.


HankD

 

[robycop3]

Originally Posted by Salamander

I'll agree that anyone can read any version they wish, but with a comprehensive study it is shown the KJB is without equal.

EVERY valid version is without equal! No two are exactly alike. Neither are the mss from which they're made. God wants us to have a WIDE VIEW of His word, since we read it in an entirely-different language from which He originally presented it.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

WRONG. We have pointed out clear goofs in the KJV-Acts 12:4, & 1 Tim. 6:10, for example.

And ONCE AGAIN, the KJVO doctrine is NOT found anywhere in the KJV itself. Therefore, it's MAN-MADE.

It is Robycop3 that is wrong here.


You are reading 1 Tim. 6:10 wrong even from the modern versions.

A.F.

 

[sag38]

Careful, the Catholic church is watching.

 

[Salamander]

I didn't get the news brief about the KJV being without equal according to some comprehensive study.Please document your findings. BTW,were you the one who did that 'comprehensive study' Sal?:laugh:

My studies have left me no other conclusion. And your reaction only solidifies my stand.:smilewinkgrin:

There you go again.In your view anyone who doesn't hold to the KJV exclusively then apostacy and certain ruin will follow.That's juvenile and shameful on your part to say such drivel.

I get censored for making comments akin to what you just said:sleep: but have you looked at the churches that use various versions lately as a whole?

Of course I speak as a pastor concerned about the church, not a layman who wants to have a Burger King mantra as his guide.

 

[robycop3]

As I said, EVERY VALID VERSION is without equal. You cannot prove otherwise.

 

[Salamander]

IMO, The AV (1611-1769) is the epitome of English literature created in the Jacobean-Elizabethan period and as such the English speaking world's greatest gift to mankind (apart from being the Word of God by derivation from the inspired text of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts).

This to their credit and in spite of the theological errors of the Church of England

What is the ecclesiastic implication of the radical KJVO "perfect English Translation" position? :

Because the AV it is a translation, it like the Vulgate, is flawed since the translators were neither Prophets or Apostles, (unless of course one accepts the CoE Claim to apostolic succession).

Why should we bow to a doctrine of man while we already have God's preservation as active?

And if one does, it logically follows that one ought immediately to convert to the Anglican Church seeing that one would have to accept it as the "true" Church (being apostolic) and be sprinkled which they erroneously call "baptism" by their sacerdotal-ministerial "priest" and bishops descended from the Apostles in an unbroken line.

Ah, now man's logic supercedes the Bible and its harmony.:laugh:

BTW, John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress) spent 12 years in prison for preaching without legal ordination as a priest by the "apostolic" Church of England.

So? it was his violating the law of the land, not anything else.

Other Baptists and anabaptists were persecuted and spent time in prisons and dungeons as well because they would not bow the knee to the CoE Bishops.
One poor soul was burned at the stake after having been accused of more than a dozen outrageous heresies as well as having been suspected of insanity.

So? They crucified Jesus for breaking laws of the traditional sabbath.

It seems strange to me that some Baptists (or any Christian) would grant (in their minds) the authority of inspiration to the CoE translators of the AV, apostolic or not.


HankD

Does it also seem strange that God would allow a murderer to pen down most of the New Testament?

I mean, why let "pedo-baptizing monks" preserving God's word as non-validity while we have a murderer to make any version invalid!:sleep:

 

[Salamander]

As I said, EVERY VALID VERSION is without equal. You cannot prove otherwise.

Giving the impression that God is wicked or can be deceived is enough to invalidate any version. But of course you deem that garbage as "valid":tongue3:

 

[Salamander]

EVERY valid version is without equal! No two are exactly alike. Neither are the mss from which they're made. God wants us to have a WIDE VIEW of His word, since we read it in an entirely-different language from which He originally presented it.

I'm so glad you can tell us that God wants men to have a "wide view". I suppose so that men can pick and choose!

Does God often ask for your consent on matters like this?