Where is God's preserved word in the Original Langauges?

[Winman]

Your assumption that those examples excuse your KJV-only theory is incorrect.

The giving of the original language words by inspiration to the prophets and apostles even if those given words had originally been said in another language is all part of the original miracle of the giving of direct revelation and Scripture.

You have not actually demonstrated that the Scriptures teach that the very different matter of the translating of the Scriptures after the end of the giving of new revelation with the completion of the New Testament and thus the end of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration is the same thing as the examples to which you appeal.

Your reasoning is also inconsistent and faulty because you likely do not suggest that the translating work of the earlier pre-1611 English translators in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision or even the later translating work of the NKJV translators involved the same processes as those in the making of the KJV and had to result likewise in perfect translations.

Do your KJV-only opinions depend upon the use of unrighteous divers measures that use different measures concerning the making of the KJV than for the making of other translations of the Scriptures?

The KJV is the word of God in English in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense or in the same way that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

The same question can be put to you. Show where scriptures say an accurate translation of the original languages cannot be scripture.

Kind of funny that you use the term "divers measures" and then complain that the King James uses old English that no one uses anymore. Are you talking about divers like Jacques Cousteau, or divers like David Boudia who won a Gold Medal in 10 meter platform? :laugh:

You must think that makes you sound spiritual and intellectual. NOT.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The KJV is the word of God in English in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense or in the same way that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.[/QUOTE]
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

I would say that the KJV is the 7th and most pure translation of the word of God that we have... this would make the prior ones a less pure form of the word of God.

 

[Baptist4life]

Logos should have been a politician. He sidesteps everything by just stating "you are wrong" and then asks accusing questions. That's why I ignore him. I find him arrogant and obsessed with the KJVO issue. He spends HOURS every day on forums all over the internet posting the same diatribe to everyone. There's just something not mentally healthy about that, IMHO. Surely God has better things for him to do than spend all his days arguing this, when I doubt that even 10% of the people on either side have ever changed their minds. As I said before, he reminds me of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton who do their best to keep racism going, because without racism, they've got nothing. Logos is the same way with KJVO, without KJVO he apparently has no life .

 

[Rippon]

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

I would say that the KJV is the 7th and most pure translation of the word of God that we have... this would make the prior ones a less pure form of the word of God.

Your usage of Ps.12:6 to support your superstitions is laughable. You KJVOs' with your mysterious mindsets are as far out as the Jewish Kabbalah.

You are aware that there were various English translations of the Bible,or parts thereof before William Tyndale's work --right? And even he did not get to complete the Old Testament before he was strangled and burnt.

There were two so-called Wycliffe Bibles --the first being a too-literal "translation" of the Latin Vulgate. And the second one --still based on the Vulgate but put into more of the common vernacular of the time.

Then there was the original Tyndale N.T. which was revsised a few times.
Coverdale's Bible
Matthew's Bible
Taverner's Bible
Great Bible
Geneva Bible
Bishop's Bible
Rheim-Douay Bible

So the KJV was the 9th translation. If you resist because you don't regard the R-D Bible --then the KJV was the 8th Bible translation in the Tyndale line. But even if the KJV was the 7th --it has absolutely no relation to Psalm 12:6 whatsoever.

 

[Rippon]

B4L : You specialize in unedifying posts. For you to compare rooting-out KJVOism to race-baiting tactics is shameful.

 

[Baptist4life]

B4L : You specialize in unedifying posts.

Well, you may think I "specialize" in it, but you are the KING of it! :thumbs:


I continue to believe that logos, and others, daily devotion to posting all over the internet about KJVO borders on OBSESSION. My goodness, they aren't "fighting" anything, they're just all over the 'net trying to "out do the other guy" with little snide remarks and comments, and "gotcha" remarks. <----THAT is not honoring God, edifying anyone, nor changing anyone's mind. It's petty bickering just for bickering's sake.

I'm sorry if that upsets some of you, but I see this whole KJVO debate (that's gone on for YEARS with the SAME things posted over and over) as very DISHONORING to God, and those of you who devote your lives to it (logos) need to do some serious soul searching about the true reason you're wasting your time arguing about it.



Judgement Day:

GOD..."My child, what did you do with the time I gave you to serve me?"



Christian...."Well, God, I spent every waking moment on the internet posting nasty, sometimes angry, divisive comments to Your other children about the KJV of your Word. Day after day after day."




Sad.



And since I'm going to now be accused of the same thing, I will take my own advice and make my exit from this forum, and all other KJV forums. Continue on if you must, but I won't anymore.

 

[Logos1560]

I would say that the KJV is the 7th and most pure translation of the word of God that we have... this would make the prior ones a less pure form of the word of God.

You are misinterpreting Psalm 12:7 perhaps in order to try to justify a KJV-only theory.

The KJV is not the seventh English translation.

David Daniell wrote: “There were ten new English versions of the Bible or New Testament between Tyndale’s first New Testament in 1526 and the famous King James or Authorised Version of 1611, and all were influential” (Bible in English, p. 126). David Norris noted: “between 1526 and 1611, nine English translations of Scripture of significance were made” (Big Picture, p. 333). Some examples include the following: Tyndale's New Testament, Joyce's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament (1538), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Great Bible, Coverdale’s revision of Tyndale’s (1549), Bishop Becke's Bible (1551), Richard Jugge's New Testament (1552), Whittingham's New Testament (1557), Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Lawrence Tompson's New Testament (1576), and KJV. In addition, there was more than one edition of many of these Bibles with many changes and revisions in them. The 1539 edition of the Great Bible is different from the 1540 edition of the Great Bible. The 1568 edition of the Bishops' Bible is different from the 1569 edition and the 1572 edition. Furthermore, each Bible was not always an improvement at every verse over the one before it. Even those translations that were overall better than the previous one usually had a few renderings that were poorer than the earlier Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes for the worse by adding words from the Latin Vulgate. For example, the Bishops' Bible was considered by many to be overall a poorer translation than the Geneva Bible.

The KJV was based on more English Bibles than the six listed in the rules for its making. The KJV translators borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, making it a seventh English translation used in the making of the KJV.

It has not been demonstrated that the KJV has more accurate, more pure renderings of every original language word in every verse than the pre-1611 English Bibles have.

In some places one of the pre-1611 English Bibles has a more accurate rendering of a preserved original language word, phrase, or clause than the KJV has when compared to the standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

[Rippon]

I will take my own advice and make my exit from this forum, and all other KJV forums. Continue on if you must, but I won't anymore.

Promise? I'll hold you to that B4L.

 

[Yeshua1]

In accordance with Psalm 12 and Matthew 4:4 where can I find the "every" "preserved" word of God in the original languages?

And can you really stand up and preach from a bible that you're not 100 percent sure every word is God's word, and still have a clean conscience?

I'm really fed up with all this I believe all translations are the word of God nonsense...

No transaltion of the Bible is perfect, ALL ahve some varying mistakes i them, as there are NO totally perfect copies of the Inerrantinspired originals anywhere, but good news is that we still have an infallible greek/hebrew texts available preserved for us by God providence, that regardless whcih grrek/hebrew texts used to translate off from, we still have the word of God preserved for us today!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

No transaltion of the Bible is perfect, ALL ahve some varying mistakes i them, as there are NO totally perfect copies of the Inerrantinspired originals anywhere, but good news is that we still have an infallible greek/hebrew texts available preserved for us by God providence, that regardless whcih grrek/hebrew texts used to translate off from, we still have the word of God preserved for us today!

if there are no perfect copies of text that there exists no infallible greek text... because it doesn't exist then according to your logic..

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

No transaltion of the Bible is perfect, ALL ahve some varying mistakes i them, as there are NO totally perfect copies of the Inerrantinspired originals anywhere, but good news is that we still have an infallible greek/hebrew texts available preserved for us by God providence, that regardless whcih grrek/hebrew texts used to translate off from, we still have the word of God preserved for us today!

“Think about this: If the Bible’s authority depends on its inerrancy but only the original manuscripts were
inerrant, then only the original manuscripts were authoritative. The logic is impeccable and irresistible. And
if “inerrancy” is compatible with flawed approximations, faulty chronologies, and use of incorrect sources by
the biblical authors, it is a meaningless concept.”

 

[InTheLight]

“Think about this: If the Bible’s authority depends on its inerrancy

It doesn't.

but only the original manuscripts were
inerrant, then only the original manuscripts were authoritative. The logic is impeccable and irresistible.

Only if one accepts the original premise.

 

[Deacon]

“Think about this: If the Bible’s authority depends on its inerrancy but only the original manuscripts were
inerrant, then only the original manuscripts were authoritative. The logic is impeccable and irresistible. And
if “inerrancy” is compatible with flawed approximations, faulty chronologies, and use of incorrect sources by
the biblical authors, it is a meaningless concept.”

Ahh, no wonder why you're confused.

The quote is from:
Retaking The Hill of Biblical Inerrancy: The Next Reformation
The Westminster Confession Rejection of the Chicago Statement [LINK]

The 'logic' in this article is prejudicial and flawed.

It puts the cart before the horse.

The scriptures draw their authority from God himself - not from any doctrine of inerrancy.

Know him - know his word

Rob

 

[Amy.G]

“Think about this:

Think about this: is God's word null and void or filled with error if a translator misses a word? Or if a word or phrase is translated wrong? What if some of the copies in the original languages differ from one another? Does God's word still exist?

 

[Yeshua1]

“Think about this: If the Bible’s authority depends on its inerrancy but only the original manuscripts were
inerrant, then only the original manuscripts were authoritative. The logic is impeccable and irresistible. And
if “inerrancy” is compatible with flawed approximations, faulty chronologies, and use of incorrect sources by
the biblical authors, it is a meaningless concept.”

the Originals were Inerrant, without ANY mistake/error in their manuscripts, but God choose NOT have an exact copy of those preserved down to us, but instead preserved them to us in original languages texts now, so accurate that they would be essentially thesame as those originals, justw with known monor errors in numbers/varients/copying etc!

And translations done off them would be still infallible to us, as they convey to us in our languages the word of God for today!

 

[Yeshua1]

It doesn't.



Only if one accepts the original premise.

the authority for the bible came from Jesus Himself, who promised that the Holy Spirit would inspire His Apostles to record down exactly what God intended!