Featured Where is God's preserved word?

I believe the formal equivalent versions are the closest to the originals we have right now. I don't believe these have any errors that do damage to the essential doctrines of Christianity. I can live with that as being considered perseverance of His word.

 

You hold it in your hands when you pick up a principled and informed translation.

 

Mr. Kurecki,

If He didn't, very few of us have any real information about Him.

How can we tell one way or the other? Only by the promptings - advice and instruction - of the Holy Spirit.

Who or what is the 'final authority'? That same Creator, Three in One, Eternal personal Lord of All that has been trying to get us to listen since we (corporate humanity) have been here.

 

Please answer as honestly as you can: When did the first perfect edition in English, to the dotting of the Is and crossing of the Ts (jots and tittles), appear in print? Please just answer the question with the year and publisher, if you agree that such an edition was ever published.

 

Isn't this assuming preservation?

 

Didn't you read where he said not to go there this thread?

 

Go where? He mentioned something about not attacking the KJV. Did I do that? Did I even mention the KJV? He may answer with any date and publisher as he wishes, just as he asks of any BB members who wish to participate in his thread.

 

Fair questions for Jordon and the prophet to answer.

 

I believe the purpose of inspiration was to produce originals that were without error AND to provide a self-defining sentence, paragraph, chapter, book and overall context for the words used.

In the transmission of these originals through copying and translating this self-defining context is transmitted. Minor copying and translator errors do not affect this self-defining contextual format as comparing scripture with scripture provides the proper understanding.

For example, take an afgan and look at it. You can see an overall pattern as well as immediate patterns within the afgan. If another person took it and either through wear or negligence cut minor holes in it, another person could study the overall pattern and determine what should fill the holes. Likewise, with Greek and hebrew copies and the minor differences between them can be studied and determined either what should be the proper translation or at least what should be rejected as the proper fill for such a hole. Likewise, with translations of the Greek and Hebrew copies into other languages. The contextual pattern is transferred into the other langauge and by studying the copies in connection with the translation the proper understanding of minor holes can be determined.

Since even the most radical scholars don't challenge over 98% of the Biblical text as faithful to the originals the only less than 2% is disputed. In that less than 2% most are differences of word orders, or omission of definite articles and other minor points that affect no teaching of scripture when interpreted within the contextual pattern. The very few real problems are not significant to overrule the vast amount of scripture on any given Biblical teaching.

However, in regard to transmission lines there are two major lines (1) Traditional or the Majority line of transmission and (2) The Critical line of transmission. Scholars do not deny that the Majority line of transmission is much more consistent with itself and the critical line is much more inconsistent with itself as there are many more problems and differences in this line of transmission. Moreover, this line of transmission is not found between the 4th and 16th century thus leaving only the Majority line of transmission in that period. I believe the Majority line of transmission is the better line, as it is the line used by the free church movement between the 4th and 16th century and continued to be the line of transmission used by God between the 16th and 18th century by evangelicals. The Critical textual line was found and used by those who routinely denied inspiration of the Scriptures and placed secular uninspired history over the scriptures as final authority in interpretation.

Those translations based upon the Majority line of transmission regardless of what language it is translate into provide the best translations of the scripture and make it far easier to understand when properly translated according to the contextual pattern.

Hence, the Bible provides its own contextual pattern of interpretation established by inspiration in the originals. Faithful and diligent study of the Bible regardless whether it is a copy of the originals or a translation of copies of the originals is profitable so that the man of God can be throughly/thoroughly furnished in all doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness and IS the Word of God.

 

No, hand-written manuscripts each have differences. Translations are not perfect.
God has either preserved his word in the collective assortment of documents or has preserved them in his heavenly providence.

All copies and translations are subject to error.

By using our God-given wisdom with the knowledge that uncertainties may exist.

In areas of doctrine, the bible - recognizing that differences of interpretation still may exist and require wisdom, forbearance and humility.
.

"...the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
KJV translators preface

Rob

 

If you cant control yourself, just avoid the thread.

 

Don't be juvenile proph.

 

The OP asked for a question to be answered, and no attacks on a version. So here comes a post, answering nothing, and starting down the version road.
And I'm being juvenile?
Why can't a thinking, reasoning man answer the OP without this?

One of the reasons that discussions get out of hand, is just this. So I am trying to steer it back.

Some people seemingly can't enter a discussion on final authority.

 

Did you happen to read and ponder the import of post #11 from Deacon?

 

I did. And our conversation began prior to his posting that

 

I believe GOD has preserved His word in all the ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic manuscripts that are definitely Scripture. That includes fragments of such manuscripts, since that's just about what they all are now.

All translations are the product of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men and are therefore subject to human error.

By checking their accuracy against their sources.

Final authority? GOD.
Final WRITTEN authority? God's written word.

Can't get more-honest than the above.

Now, Mr. Kurecki, please answer just one question for me:

Where is the Scriptural authorization for any doctrine saying only one translation of the Scriptures in any given currently-used written language is the ONLY "official" one?

 

Do you consistently using just measures?

What specific one edition of the Hebrew text available before 1611 is 100% perfect and is in perfect agreement with a line of Hebrew manuscripts?

What one specific edition of the Greek NT text available before 1611 is 100% perfect and is based on Greek manuscripts that match it 100%?

If the preserved Scriptures have to be asserted to be in one place today, by what consistent, just measures are they permitted to have been found in many different varying sources from different places in the 1500's or 1600's?

The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unjust or false balances, divers measures, untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing copies of the Scriptures [likewise translations] would be wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Lev. 10:10).

 

A question can be properly answered with a question.

A person who asks a question can be properly encouraged to answer his own question or a variation of that question.

Before a question deserves to be answered, it should be evaluated to see if it is valid or not. Questions that merely assume as true premises that should be first demonstrated to be true would be invalid.

If a question is based on inconsistent or unproven assumptions or on unjust measures that applies a different measure to today than to before 1611, should it be considered valid or invalid?