Why no commitment?

[Winman]

Can you show me where God has limited Himself to one translation for every language?

That is a distraction from the real issue. It is not that the MVs are a modern translation of the RT, they come from a different line of text altogether that is missing thousands of words, dozens of verses, and whole passages shown in the RT.

Look, I cannot prove that the RT is the perfect and inerrant preserved text, I believe that by faith. But both the RT and CT cannot both be the perfect and preserved text, that is impossible and you know it. Why people continue to repeat an obvious fallacy is beyond me if they are seriously looking for the truth.

This was my original question, why is it that millions of Christians will make a bold commitment to the KJB while ZERO MVs will ever commit to a single version?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This was my original question, why is it that millions of Christians will make a bold commitment to the KJB while ZERO MVs will ever commit to a single version?

Because there is no such thing as a perfect human translation to commit to. They all have mistakes. All of them. One group has chosen to commit to a flawed human translation, the other recognises that all human translations have mistakes and therefore won't commit to any one on its own. Pretty simple.

 

[Winman]

Because there is no such thing as a perfect human translation to commit to. They all have mistakes. All of them. One group has chosen to commit to a flawed human translation, the other recognises that all human translations have mistakes and therefore won't commit to any one on its own. Pretty simple.

Then you do not believe that God has preserved his Word? If so, where is it?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Then you do not believe that God has preserved his Word? If so, where is it?

Please don't tell me what I do and do not believe.

That is the ultimate in a personal attack.


You know my answer - God preserves His word in translations that are faithfully translated from the the best manuscripts.

 

[Winman]

Please don't tell me what I do and do not believe.

That is the ultimate in a personal attack.


You know my answer - God preserves His word in translations that are faithfully translated from the the best manuscripts.

That was a question. If you believe that God preserved his perfect and inerrant Word as he promised, then where is it? Is it in the CT text? Is it in the RT text? Where is it?

Which manuscripts are the best?

 

[Luke2427]

You are wrong, there are many thousands of KJB only Baptist churches in the USA alone, and many thousands worldwide. And none of them is afraid to hold up their KJB and boldly proclaim it to the the only perfect and inerrant Word of God in the English language.

But I have never known a single MV ever that will hold up a particular MV like the NIV, or NASB, or ESV that will boldly proclaim it to be the only perfect and inerrant version in English. Not one.

I just want to understand why no MV seems to have much faith in their particular version.

It's because they are smarter than KJVO folks.:thumbs:

I used to be KJVO until I thought it through.

The position is not Scriptural and in fact it teaches an extrabiblical doctrine called "double inspiration" which says that God not only inspired the authors but the translators as well.

This is a dangerous doctrine.

Most of the fundamentalist positions today have the same fatal flaw. They do not find their roots in the Word of God.
From most dress standards, to music standards, to versions.
If you cannot make a clear case via precept or principle from the Word of God- you'd better leave it alone and handle all such matters with fear and trembling.

The height of arrogance and presumption is to speak for God where he has not spoken.


Yet, we can clearly see that God has preserved his word in the superabundance of manuscripts available to us. No other ancient literature can even dream of boasting such preservation.

God DID preserve his word! Bless his name!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Your question was about translations. I have told you why I don't commit to any one translation. Every single translation has mistakes.

I don't know which manuscripts are the best. I have my opinion, I think the Byzantine text body is superior, but I have no proof and won't base my faith on my unproven and generally uneducated opinion.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Yet, we can clearly see that God has preserved his word in the superabundance of manuscripts available to us. No other ancient literature can even dream of boasting such preservation.

God DID preserve his word! Bless his name!

Amen and amen!

 

[Winman]

The position is not Scriptural and in fact it teaches an extrabiblical doctrine called "double inspiration" which says that God not only inspired the authors but the translators as well.

I know some believe this, but I do not, and neither does my church which is KJB only.

And I do not believe that only the KJB is the true word of God. I believe you could translate the RT into any language, and as long as it conveys the true meaning, it is the Word of God.

But I believe the CT translated into any language would be corrupt.

That still leaves the question, why is it that nobody will commit to the CT? Why isn't there folks out there who boldly proclaim the CT to be the inerrant and preserved Word of God and who denounce the RT because it is different?

Why is it that every MV is so open minded and believes many various and different translations can all be accurate? Why aren't there a few fanatics like us KJB onlies who claim only the NIV is the perfect and inerrant Word in English, or the ESV, or the NASB?

If you truly believe the MVs to be superior to the KJB, I would stand up and shout it. How come no MVs do that? I've never met one in my whole life, not a single person. Ever. And I'm not finding that today either.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Look, I cannot prove that the RT is the perfect and inerrant preserved text, I believe that by faith. But both the RT and CT cannot both be the perfect and preserved text, that is impossible and you know it. Why people continue to repeat an obvious fallacy is beyond me if they are seriously looking for the truth. ...

Just for clarification, I'm thinking you actually mean the Textus Receptus (TR) when you write "RT" (an abbreviation for Received Text), although these terms are often used and misused in various ways.

You believe by faith that the RT is perfect. Fine by me. But if the "RT" is the Textus Receptus then that perfection rests in Greek text. Do you read it in the original language? It seems you don't. Your KJV is merely an English translation; and not only has the "RT" been only approximated into English, no English translation that I know of slavishly follows the TR completely.

 

[robycop3]

Winman:That was a question. If you believe that God preserved his perfect and inerrant Word as he promised, then where is it? Is it in the CT text? Is it in the RT text? Where is it?

In every valid version. Betcha can't prove otherwise.
Which of the 30-odd revisions of the Textus Receptus is "The One"?

By your standard, there can only be one.

Which of the many editions of the KJV do you boldly proclaim is perfect? Remember, by your standard, there can only be one.

Which manuscripts are the best?

Every valid one.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Why aren't there a few fanatics like us KJB onlies who claim only the NIV is the perfect and inerrant Word in English, or the ESV, or the NASB?

Because no human translation is perfect. They all have mistakes. The KJT has mistakes. The NIV has mistakes. The ESV has mistakes. The NASB has mistakes.

Yet God overcomes those mistakes to preserve His word for us.

Wow!

 

[robycop3]

Yes, but it is God who promised to preserve his Word. Do you believe God is powerful enough to preserve his Word even though He has chosen fallable men to transmit and keep it?

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Was God foolish in committing the scriptures to the Jews?

I betcha Roger believes same as I...that GOD is powerful enuff to present His own word to man ANY WAY HE JOLLY WELL CHOOSES, and that He is NOT limited to any one method, version, or language.

No, GOD was NOT foolish in committing His Scriptures to the same people He had chosen to be the human people of His own Son. The Jews were foolish in not believing what GOD had given them.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Your KJV is merely an English translation; and not only has the "RT" been only approximated into English, no English translation that I know of slavishly follows the TR completely.

This is key - there is no English translation I know of that is a word for word translation of any copy of the TR, including our beloved KJT of the scriptures.

 

[jbh28]

That was a question. If you believe that God preserved his perfect and inerrant Word as he promised, then where is it? Is it in the CT text? Is it in the RT text? Where is it?

The same place it was before the KJV. The same place it was before the TR.

The position is not Scriptural and in fact it teaches an extrabiblical doctrine called "double inspiration" which says that God not only inspired the authors but the translators as well.

This is a dangerous doctrine.

Yet, we can clearly see that God has preserved his word in the superabundance of manuscripts available to us. No other ancient literature can even dream of boasting such preservation.

God DID preserve his word! Bless his name!

Well said!

 

[Winman]

Just for clarification, I'm thinking you actually mean the Textus Receptus (TR) when you write "RT" (an abbreviation for Received Text), although these terms are often used and misused in various ways.

You believe by faith that the RT is perfect. Fine by me. But if the "RT" is the Textus Receptus then that perfection rests in Greek text. Do you read it in the original language? It seems you don't. Your KJV is merely an English translation; and not only has the "RT" been only approximated into English, no English translation that I know of slavishly follows the TR completely.

Actually, I use RT (Received Text) in a general term, as there have been nearly 40 versions of the Textus Receptus according to the Trinitarian Bible Society. And the KJB did not use the RT only, there is evidence that they used sources outside the RT. We do not know for an absolute fact the exact texts they used, although the RT is certainly the foundation for the bulk of the translation.

All I'm asking is this, why isn't there anyone who makes a strong commitment to the CT? Why aren't there folks posting CT only websites showing all the errors in the RT the way KJB only people do? You can probably find several dozen KJB only sites that will clearly show why they believe the CT corrupt. Why isn't there folks on the CT side doing this? Why the lack of commitment?

You can find plenty of sites that will attack the KJB, but they never make a commitment to the CT or any particular CT version. Like has been said here, they say all versions are full of error. They simply make no commitment at all.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... That still leaves the question, why is it that nobody will commit to the CT? Why isn't there folks out there who boldly proclaim the CT to be the inerrant and preserved Word of God and who denounce the RT because it is different?

Why is it that every MV is so open minded and believes many various and different translations can all be accurate? Why aren't there a few fanatics like us KJB onlies who claim only the NIV is the perfect and inerrant Word in English, or the ESV, or the NASB?

If you truly believe the MVs to be superior to the KJB, I would stand up and shout it. How come no MVs do that? I've never met one in my whole life, not a single person. Ever. And I'm not finding that today either.

I can hardly believe you are serious when you ask these questions. Obviously, you haven't given it much thought. But if you are sincere here is the answer: People who are persuaded that the CT is closer to the original inspired text are also the kind of people that recognize that the same foreign language idea can be stated into English with more than a single set of words (particularly cultural idioms and ambiguous clauses); and often in an attempt to keep peace and fellowship with other Christians they do not disparage the Bibles based upon the RT (which would almost certainly result in hard feelings).

There are many men that emphatically uphold the CT.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Because most of those who prefer the CT or an electric body of texts are gracious enough to admit the wonderful contribution of the Byzantine texts.

This is a Christian graciousness which is rarely returned.

Most people will not pin their faith to an opinion knowing that textual superiority cannot be proven.

I have seen plenty of posted attacking the KJT or the Byzantine text body.

Most believers are humble and gracious enough not to attack something about which there is no real prove.

Do you really want the ardent CP supporters to post their feelings on the Byzantine body?

 

[Winman]

I can hardly believe you are serious when you ask these questions. Obviously, you haven't given it much thought. But if you are sincere here is the answer: People who are persuaded that the CT is closer to the original inspired text are also the kind of people that recognize that the same foreign language idea can be stated into English with more than a single set of words (particularly cultural idioms and ambiguous clauses); and often in an attempt to keep peace and fellowship with other Christians they do not disparage the Bibles based upon the RT (which would almost always cause hard feelings).

There are many men that emphatically uphold the CT.

Give me a break, MVs disparage KJB only folks constantly.

From what I observe, when MVs talk together about various MV versions, they talk about why they like one version over another, why one version is superior to another... But they will never come out and say their favorite version is the perfect and inerrant Word of God. Some flip from one version to another and back again. They just seem to pick which version they like for personal reasons.

And should the goal be to keep peace?

2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Notice in the last verse we are to use God's word to exhort and convince gainsayers. Peace is a wonderful thing, but we are not to compromise God's Word simply to keep peace.

 

[robycop3]

Winman:Freedom Readers? :laugh:

Yerp!

We are free of false, man-made dox about God's word, such as KJVO, sticking STRICTLY TO SCRIPTURE, rejecting man-s interps and additions to it, while at the same time knowing that many Greek or hebrew words/phrases have multiple correct meanings in English & recognizing that different translators will choose differently among them.

The various versions cannot all be valid.

Why not? And by WHAT authority do YOU decide which are valid & which aint? Remember, there are multiple English meanings for many, MANY Greek or Hebrew words/phrases.

God several times warned not to add or diminish from his word.

So, don't tryta add the false, man-made KJVO doctrine to it.

And, how canya call the KJV perfect, knowing it omits the words "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25, & that it reads "God forbid" in several places for the Greek 'me ginomai', which literally means 'may it never be' & doesn't mention God at all? There's an example of a diminishing & one of adding to God's word in the KJV.



The MVs are based on the CT (with the exception of the NKJV) which has 3000 less Greek words than the RT. Either the CT diminished God's Word, or the RT added to God's Word, but they cannot both be valid no matter how many times you say it.

Do ya have a message from GOD telling ya which one to use? Betcha you're GUESSING, based upon the theory that "more is better".

Do you really believe in your heart that repeating something you know not to be true makes it true? You are not that stupid.

I should be asking YOU that. You KNOW there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO, that it's entirely MAN-MADE & therefore CANNOT BE TRUE, as ALL true docs of worship come ONLY FROM GOD. OTOH, I know that the Four Gospels don't match in their narrations of the same events, but as a former cop I know different witnesses see the same event in different perspectives.

This argument that the KJB and MVs are both valid at the same time needs to be abandoned once and for all, it is a false argument obvious to any honest minded and intelligent person.

No, KJVO should be abandoned. It neither originated from GOD, nor is sanctioned whatsoever in His word, not even in the KJV itself.

You CAN use the KJV alone without wearing that dead, stinky bird of the man-made KJVO doctrine around yer neck.

So, far I haven't seen one of you MVs commit to any version, just as I originally wrote.

And, you're NOT GONNA SEE IT, since there's NOTHING FROM GOD directing us to such a committment.
You asked why there's no such committemnt from any Freedom Readers, and I & several others ANSWERED...there's ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for any such committment! We believe that GOD IS NOT LIMITED in HOW He can present His own word to us, and remain open for any new such presentations He may choose to be made.

Now, YOU may commit to one version if ya wish, but we Freedom Readers DO NOT TRYTA LIMIT OR RESTRICT GOD! We do NOT go for man-made dox of worship such as KJVO which are NOT found in God's word, as there's only ONE ultimate source of doctrines of worship that are not from GOD. Hint: He said in his heart that he would be like the Most High.

Far as I'm concerned, your Q has been answered. Now, answer mine: Why do you believe a doctrine of worship that's clearly NOT FROM GOD ???????????