The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[tall73]

Will you say God does not care enough about what He said to be sure you get it straight in your own language?

You seem content to say God didn't care enough about Christians from 200 AD or so until 1611. You cannot point to one other community that had even one book of the Bible that matches the KJV in all its readings.

So how does your argument here make sense? If God only cared about people who spoke English after 1611 then He missed a lot of people.

English obviously has a special standing in the world as the only language anywhere near universal since God confused the singular language of the whole world passed down from the sons of Noah. God preserved His word for the English speaking world under the authority of King James because He wanted it translated into English for this day and age, and He promised He would preserve it and He is keeping His word.

Greek was known throughout the whole then-known-world, and was used by the apostles in the LXX, commanded by a ruler. Do you apply the same standard to that translation?

And why do you leave out 1,400 years of Christians who you seem to indicate God does not care enough about to give them a perfect translation in their own language, because English wasn't around yet?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The proper method of translation is known as Verbal Formal Equivalence. This process still takes place by such organizations as the Trinitarian Bible Society, in the translation of the scriptures into other languages around the world.

The two most common philosophies regarding how the Bible should be translated are known as the “Formal Equivalence” [F-E] method, and the “Dynamic Equivalence” [D-E] (also known as “Functional Equivalence”) method. There is no such thing as the “Verbal Formal Equivalence” method. Up until the 1960’s, all English translations of the Bible were made using the Formal Equivalence method. In the 1960’s, however the Baptist Linguist (Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Michigan) Eugene Nida began strongly advocating for a new method of translating the Bible in which the goal would be equivalence of response on the part of the reader rather than equivalence of form in the donor language.

The Formal Equivalence method, however, has never been rigidly used in any English translation of the Bible, and even paraphrases are found in most of them, including the KJV. In the KJV we find such paraphrases as “God save the king,” “gave up the ghost,” and “cast the same in His teeth.” Moreover, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH) appears in the Masoretic text in 6,828 places, but in 6,824 places in the KJV it is paraphrased, usually using the word “LORD.”

The RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the NASB are all translated using the Formal Equivalence method. Of these, the ASV uses the method by far the most consistently.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

wow...it took all that to try to answer posts 467 and 471? I think there's something missing in your answers....until you admit there is no possible way a fraudulent version like the NIV could possibly be God's word based on the simple truth shown in post 467.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The two most common philosophies regarding how the Bible should be translated are known as the “Formal Equivalence” [F-E] method, and the “Dynamic Equivalence” [D-E] (also known as “Functional Equivalence”) method. There is no such thing as the “Verbal Formal Equivalence” method. Up until the 1960’s, all English translations of the Bible were made using the Formal Equivalence method. In the 1960’s, however the Baptist Linguist (Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Michigan) Eugene Nida began strongly advocating for a new method of translating the Bible in which the goal would be equivalence of response on the part of the reader rather than equivalence of form in the donor language.

The Formal Equivalence method, however, has never been rigidly used in any English translation of the Bible, and even paraphrases are found in most of them, including the KJV. In the KJV we find such paraphrases as “God save the king,” “gave up the ghost,” and “cast the same in His teeth.” Moreover, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH) appears in the Masoretic text in 6,828 places, but in 6,824 places in the KJV it is paraphrased, usually using the word “LORD.”

The RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the NASB are all translated using the Formal Equivalence method. Of these, the ASV uses the method by far the most consistently.

Why are you ignoring post 467 and 471? Don't you know I can do the same thing with any of your fraudulent versions as I have done with the NIV proving they cannot possibly be God's word and are fraudulent imposters because of the changes they make which prove those books cannot possibly be from God based on the simple fact that God does not lie or degrade His Son or His Spirit in any verse, verb, noun, passage, or way in His word?

Which version would you like for me to use to show with only one verse that they cannot possibly be God's word? Don't bother saying the King James Bible, it can't be done with the King James Bible no matter how much you try to imply it can. The choice of the English word "bishop" is a lot different than changing "the Son" to "a son" when it refers to the Son of God like the NKJV does. All fundamental doctrines remain consistently upheld in the word of God by God Himself, and you know which version that is. It is the only version which honors God in every passage.....it is the only translation which qualifies as God's word.

Why is that so difficult to believe?

Why is that so repugnant to accept?

Would you feel better if God chose you alone to translate His word into English so nobody could questions your choice of words? And would you really expect me to believe you are God's chosen translator when I already have His word in English?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The two most common philosophies regarding how the Bible should be translated are known as the “Formal Equivalence” [F-E] method, and the “Dynamic Equivalence” [D-E] (also known as “Functional Equivalence&#8221 method. There is no such thing as the “Verbal Formal Equivalence” method. Up until the 1960’s, all English translations of the Bible were made using the Formal Equivalence method. In the 1960’s, however the Baptist Linguist (Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Michigan) Eugene Nida began strongly advocating for a new method of translating the Bible in which the goal would be equivalence of response on the part of the reader rather than equivalence of form in the donor language.

The Formal Equivalence method, however, has never been rigidly used in any English translation of the Bible, and even paraphrases are found in most of them, including the KJV. In the KJV we find such paraphrases as “God save the king,” “gave up the ghost,” and “cast the same in His teeth.” Moreover, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH) appears in the Masoretic text in 6,828 places, but in 6,824 places in the KJV it is paraphrased, usually using the word “LORD.”

The RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the NASB are all translated using the Formal Equivalence method. Of these, the ASV uses the method by far the most consistently.

You sure seem desperate to trash "formal equivalence". Why is that? Could it be because that's God's way of preserving His word through the translation process? The original writers did not understand much of what they wrote, but they wrote it as commanded by God. What method do you think they used when they were writing things they did not understand? Was it "formal equivalence" or was it obedience to God or neither?

And why do you always ignore the fact that modern versions used historically rejected as corrupt manuscripts to incorporate the number of substantial changes away from the derived source of God's word required to obtain copyright?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The two most common philosophies regarding how the Bible should be translated are known as the “Formal Equivalence” [F-E] method, and the “Dynamic Equivalence” [D-E] (also known as “Functional Equivalence”) method. There is no such thing as the “Verbal Formal Equivalence” method. Up until the 1960’s, all English translations of the Bible were made using the Formal Equivalence method. In the 1960’s, however the Baptist Linguist (Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Michigan) Eugene Nida began strongly advocating for a new method of translating the Bible in which the goal would be equivalence of response on the part of the reader rather than equivalence of form in the donor language.

The Formal Equivalence method, however, has never been rigidly used in any English translation of the Bible, and even paraphrases are found in most of them, including the KJV. In the KJV we find such paraphrases as “God save the king,” “gave up the ghost,” and “cast the same in His teeth.” Moreover, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH) appears in the Masoretic text in 6,828 places, but in 6,824 places in the KJV it is paraphrased, usually using the word “LORD.”

The RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the NASB are all translated using the Formal Equivalence method. Of these, the ASV uses the method by far the most consistently.

Funny how the hippie generation of the sixties brought about "equivalence of response" translation methodology. Sounds to me like they take a vote at the Woodstock concert to decide which translation sounds best....the Bible calls that choosing teachers to tickle the ears, and it's nothing new. All of the modern versions claimed they would give the readers a better experience so the important thing was how they responded...and how many copies they bought.

 

[Jack Koons]

The two most common philosophies regarding how the Bible should be translated are known as the “Formal Equivalence” [F-E] method, and the “Dynamic Equivalence” [D-E] (also known as “Functional Equivalence&#8221 method. There is no such thing as the “Verbal Formal Equivalence” method. Up until the 1960’s, all English translations of the Bible were made using the Formal Equivalence method. In the 1960’s, however the Baptist Linguist (Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Michigan) Eugene Nida began strongly advocating for a new method of translating the Bible in which the goal would be equivalence of response on the part of the reader rather than equivalence of form in the donor language.

The Formal Equivalence method, however, has never been rigidly used in any English translation of the Bible, and even paraphrases are found in most of them, including the KJV. In the KJV we find such paraphrases as “God save the king,” “gave up the ghost,” and “cast the same in His teeth.” Moreover, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH) appears in the Masoretic text in 6,828 places, but in 6,824 places in the KJV it is paraphrased, usually using the word “LORD.”

The RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the NASB are all translated using the Formal Equivalence method. Of these, the ASV uses the method by far the most consistently.

I am going make a statement to which I hope will not offend anyone (well, mostly no one). After PrincetonGuy’s statement concerning the late Dr. Metzger in relation to the Church of Satan, I would no longer respond to PrincetonGuy’s comments. However, since he is somewhat ignorant concerning what I believe to be factual, I offer the following links as evidence to the contrary. Between the two links, I think you will see that I do not stand alone.

Is Inerrancy Enough? (A Defense of the KJV)
Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)

I will now present an excerpt from the latter:

“Verbal Equivalence. The King James Bible Translators used a translation technique that is known as "verbal and formal equivalence." This simply means that when a word was to be translated, the translator would find the "verbal equivalent" in English. This does not imply that the King James Bible is always a "word-for-word" translation, for there are many Greek words that cannot be accurately translated into one English word. Sometimes it takes two, three, four, and even five English words to give us the proper meaning of the single Greek or Hebrew word being translated. A perfect example of this is found in 2 Timothy 3:16, where one Greek word qeopneustos (theopneustos) is translated using five English words, "given by inspiration of God." Many of the so-called "scholars" love to point out that the "correct" translation of this word is "God-breathed." WRONG! The correct translation is "given by inspiration of God!" The term "God-breathed" is not action specific. In other words, when you read "God-breathed" it doesn't tell you anything about the action. "God breathed His Word" gives us very little information. Did God breath out, or in? And how did God breathing affect His Word? But when you read "given by inspiration of God," you realize that God has breathed into His Word the breath of life, making the Word of God a living thing! Everything that God breathes the breath of life into becomes an eternally living entity. When God breathed into Adam (mankind in federal headship) he became an eternally living entity (every person that was ever born is alive today, somewhere!). So also with His Word. You can see then that the term "God-breathed" focuses our attention on God, when He, in this context, wants us to focus our attention on His Word, thus the correct translation "given by inspiration of God!"

Formal Equivalence means that when a word is translated from the Greek into English, the form of the word must be carried into the new language. In other words, if the Greek word is a noun, the English word must take the same form, that is, a noun. If the Greek word is a verb, the English word must be a verb. If the Greek word is a pronoun, the English word must be a pronoun, and so on. Also, implicit in formal equivalence is the number of the word, such as singular or plural. If the Greek is singular, then the English must also be singular, if plural, the translation must also be plural. Past tense must always be translated as past tense, future tense as future, perfect tense as perfect, and so on. There is a fellow in Los Angeles who has circulated a tape in which he claims that the word "is" in 2 Timothy 3:16 is in italics, and therefore has no support in the Greek, and it is perfectly alright to change it to "was." According to this fellow's less then brilliant deduction, the passage should read "All scripture "was" given by inspiration of God." He doesn't believe the Bible which we have today is inspired. He must think it has expired. The problem with this fellow is that he doesn't have a clue about the Greek language. The reason the King James Translators added the word "is" keeping the passage in question in the present tense (as is the Greek), is that they understood that everything that God breathes into is eternal. You will notice that the second "is" before the word "profitable" is also in italics. Does anyone in their right mind suggest we change this word to "was", indicating the Scriptures are no longer profitable? All Scripture is inspired, and all Scripture is profitable.”

Jack

I recommend the reading of Dr. Cassidy's entire four part article.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I am going make a statement to which I hope will not offend anyone (well, mostly no one). After PrincetonGuy’s statement concerning the late Dr. Metzger in relation to the Church of Satan, I would no longer respond to PrincetonGuy’s comments. However, since he is somewhat ignorant concerning what I believe to be factual, I offer the following links as evidence to the contrary. Between the two links, I think you will see that I do not stand alone.

Is Inerrancy Enough? (A Defense of the KJV)
Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)

I will now present an excerpt from the latter:

“Verbal Equivalence. The King James Bible Translators used a translation technique that is known as "verbal and formal equivalence." This simply means that when a word was to be translated, the translator would find the "verbal equivalent" in English. This does not imply that the King James Bible is always a "word-for-word" translation, for there are many Greek words that cannot be accurately translated into one English word. Sometimes it takes two, three, four, and even five English words to give us the proper meaning of the single Greek or Hebrew word being translated. A perfect example of this is found in 2 Timothy 3:16, where one Greek word qeopneustos (theopneustos) is translated using five English words, "given by inspiration of God." Many of the so-called "scholars" love to point out that the "correct" translation of this word is "God-breathed." WRONG! The correct translation is "given by inspiration of God!" The term "God-breathed" is not action specific. In other words, when you read "God-breathed" it doesn't tell you anything about the action. "God breathed His Word" gives us very little information. Did God breath out, or in? And how did God breathing affect His Word? But when you read "given by inspiration of God," you realize that God has breathed into His Word the breath of life, making the Word of God a living thing! Everything that God breathes the breath of life into becomes an eternally living entity. When God breathed into Adam (mankind in federal headship) he became an eternally living entity (every person that was ever born is alive today, somewhere!). So also with His Word. You can see then that the term "God-breathed" focuses our attention on God, when He, in this context, wants us to focus our attention on His Word, thus the correct translation "given by inspiration of God!"

Formal Equivalence means that when a word is translated from the Greek into English, the form of the word must be carried into the new language. In other words, if the Greek word is a noun, the English word must take the same form, that is, a noun. If the Greek word is a verb, the English word must be a verb. If the Greek word is a pronoun, the English word must be a pronoun, and so on. Also, implicit in formal equivalence is the number of the word, such as singular or plural. If the Greek is singular, then the English must also be singular, if plural, the translation must also be plural. Past tense must always be translated as past tense, future tense as future, perfect tense as perfect, and so on. There is a fellow in Los Angeles who has circulated a tape in which he claims that the word "is" in 2 Timothy 3:16 is in italics, and therefore has no support in the Greek, and it is perfectly alright to change it to "was." According to this fellow's less then brilliant deduction, the passage should read "All scripture "was" given by inspiration of God." He doesn't believe the Bible which we have today is inspired. He must think it has expired. The problem with this fellow is that he doesn't have a clue about the Greek language. The reason the King James Translators added the word "is" keeping the passage in question in the present tense (as is the Greek), is that they understood that everything that God breathes into is eternal. You will notice that the second "is" before the word "profitable" is also in italics. Does anyone in their right mind suggest we change this word to "was", indicating the Scriptures are no longer profitable? All Scripture is inspired, and all Scripture is profitable.”

Jack

I recommend the reading of Dr. Cassidy's entire four part article.

If people knew the difference between being in their right mind and being in error, they would repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and get saved....

And from that point on they know the Truth, and that is when God becomes the author and finisher or our faith....and if God makes it clear, we know the difference between His word and fraudulent imposters of His word.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I believe the Bible is VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRED and that demands a VERBAL EQUIVALENCE translation. Are you using the WORD OF GOD or someone's opinion of what God said?

From the link posted by Jack above which talks about how "inerrancy" is used as the modern buzz-word in translation is used to obscure "verbal plenary inspiration" which necessitates Forman or Verbal Formal Equivalence in translation.....as well as necessitating rejection of manuscripts copies with changes away from the verbal plenary inspiration of the originals, corrupt manuscripts which were used as justification for many of the substantial changes required in variance from the derived source (which would be the verbal plenary inspired word of God which was the source of the King James Bible) in order to obtain copyright.


In more simplistic childlike terms which I prefer as my style of saying it...

"God said it, I know He said it because He said He said it, and He said exactly what He meant to say because He loves me and wants me to know exactly what He said and He gave it to me. He gave it to me in my own language through the blood or martyrs who loved Him and His word more than their own lives." (I veered off into an adult argument in that last sentence. If any will live Godly in Christ Jesus they will suffer persecution)

 

[SaintJoeNow]

This from one of Jack's links above is awesome and often neglected (wilfully ignored by those who choose to use historically rejected as corrupt manuscripts in trying to determine what the originals said)



God's appointed guardians of the Old Testament Text were the Jews according to Romans 3:1-2, "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision? Much in every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." The methods used by the Jews in fulfilling their responsibilities as the guardians of these sacred texts is an interesting study. There were eight rules that the Jewish copyists used in the copying of the texts:

1. The parchment must be made from the skin of a clean animal (clean meaning ceremonially clean according to the Old Testament sanitary laws); must be prepared by a Jew only, and the skins must be fastened together by strings taken from clean animals.

2. Each column must have no less than forty-eight, nor more than sixty lines. The entire copy must be first lined.

3. The ink must be of no other color than black, and it must be prepared according to a special recipe.

4. No word nor letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it.

5. He must reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for "God" (Elohim), and he must wash his whole body before writing the name "Jehovah" (LORD in our King James Bibles), lest the Holy Name be contaminated.

6. Strict rules were given concerning forms of the letters, spaces between letters, words and sections, the use of the pen, the color of the parchment, etc.

7. The revision (to correct any errors) of a roll must be made within thirty days after the work was finished; otherwise it was worthless. One mistake on a sheet condemned the entire sheet. If three mistakes were found on any page, the entire manuscript was condemned.

8. Every word and every letter was counted, and if a letter was omitted, or if an extra letter was inserted, or if two letters touched one another, the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

True intellectualism always agrees with simple common sense that a child can grasp, and of such simplicity is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The following excerpt from one of Jack's links above is an excellent example of intellectualism bearing the self-evident proof of childish simplicity

 

[SaintJoeNow]

True intellectualism always agrees with simple common sense that a child can grasp, and of such simplicity is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The following excerpt from one of Jack's links above is an excellent example of intellectualism bearing the self-evident proof of childish simplicity.

The New Testament Manuscripts.

The Traditional Text. The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries. These lectionaries were portions of the Scripture that were read in the churches on certain days. Because modern printing technology had not yet been invented, many of the early Christians did not have personal copies of the Bible. It was a custom of the early church to read a portion of the Gospels, then a portion from the Epistles each day. This practice is similar to our reading a verse of Scripture from our daily devotional booklet, then starting the day in prayer, the only difference being, it was done in the church house rather than in your own house. Nearly every lectionary in existence contains Traditional readings, attesting to the very early existence and use of the Traditional text. The early Baptist church, called "Waldensians" by their enemies, which can be dated to 120 A. D., was known to have quoted from the Traditional text in many of its writings. Also the vast majority of all existing manuscripts, somewhere around ninety percent, follow the Traditional text. The Greek Orthodox Church used, and still uses, the Traditional text, and they are experts in the Greek language, as it is their native tongue! (Allow me to say here that the attempt by some "scholars" to identify the Traditional Text as being merely the "liturgical text of the Greek Orthodox Church" is hypocritical at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst. Such a pathetically weak attempt to attach the word "liturgical" to the Traditional Text is sophomoric and moronic. It would be like saying the King James Bible is merely the liturgical text of the Anglican Church simply because it was used exclusively by them for over three hundred years. If such condemnation by association is valid, then the Revised Version (which they love so much) is the liturgical text of the Presbyterian Church, the New American Standard Version (which they also seem to love), and the New International Version are the liturgical texts of the New Evangelical Church, and the Living Bible is the liturgical text of the Charismatic Church. Such deliberately deceptive statements have no place in an honest inquiry into the true identity of the preserved text of the Holy Scriptures!)

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Again from Jack's textual criticism link above....great stuff, intellectual with childish simplicity of logic showing the corruption of translations which attempt to deny the King James Bible is God's word in English.

The earliest translations of the Greek text into a foreign language produced versions that follow the traditional text. The Syriac Peshitta, which I mentioned earlier, bears such strong witness to the antiquity of the Traditional text of the New Testament, the early proponents of the Critical Text had to get it out of the second and third centuries (100-300 A. D.), where it has been historically agreed to have been produced, and make it appear as if it were of later origin. J. A. Hort theorized a late revision to account for it, and F. C. Burkitt went even farther than Hort and specified Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (411-435 A. D.) as the author of the revision! The complete absence of even one shred of evidence to support any part of this theory has very conveniently been ignored by the proponents of the Critical text. The true evidence of course points in exactly the opposite direction, namely that Rabbula himself used the Old Syriac text in his earliest writings! Additional strong evidence against this poorly constructed fraud of a theory is found in the fact that one of the early sects, called the Nestorians, used the Peshitta extensively and thought of it as the authoritative Word of God. This would be unthinkable if the Peshitta were the work of Rabbula, who was a great adversary of the Nestorians and openly denounced them as heretics! I seriously doubt they would consider any of their greatest enemy's work as being authoritative!

 

[SaintJoeNow]

More great stuff from Jack's textual criticism link which in intellectual fashion shows the childish simplicity of truth's logic in refuting corrupters of God's word as are all of the modern versions....

..
The Italic church in northern Italy in 157 A. D. was known to use a version based on the Traditional text, and the Gallic Church in what is now southern France was known to have used a Gallic version in 177 that followed the Traditional text. The Gothic Version of the fourth century (300-400 A. D.) was also based upon the Traditional text. The Old Latin texts were texts that were translated into the Latin language, not only in North Africa, but also in the East, possibly even in Antioch. These Old Latin translations, going back in their earliest form to about the middle of the second century (150 A. D.), are very early witnesses to the Greek text from which they were translated. They are very literal translations, and the fact that they are often quoted by the church fathers of these areas, enables us to see which Greek text was generally in use in that area at that time. The vast majority of these Old Latin versions follow, in almost word-for-word format, the Traditional text.

Churches all down through the ages have used the Traditional text. The churches of the reformation period all used versions based on the Traditional text. Martin Luther's German Bible was based on the Traditional text. The French version of Oliveton was based on the Traditional text. The Czech Version and the Italian version of Diodati were based on the Traditional text. All of the early English versions including William Tyndale's Bible, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, the Taverners Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible were all based on the Traditional text. When the Roman Catholic cleric Jerome was commissioned by the Bishop of Rome to produce a new Latin version, he wrote a letter in 383 A. D. to the person commissioning the translation stating: "Thou compellest me to make a new work out of an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter, and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are in agreement with the original Greek. If they maintain that confidence is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there are almost as many copies of the translations as manuscripts. But if the truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent translators, made worse rather then better by the presumption of unskillful correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes." It was Jerome's contention that in his day a number of manuscripts existed that had been "altered, " "corrected," and otherwise corrupted by "careless scribes" and "incompetent translators," and the only way to insure the new Latin translation was to be accurate was to allow him to go to the majority of the Greek manuscripts that were in common usage in his time. Unfortunately, has Roman masters did not allow him to do so, and his Vulgate was simply a revision of the already existing corrupt Latin versions.

 

[kiwimac]

The KJV is an ok if dated translation. There are better out there. However let me be clear, KJV onlyism is a heresy and one which attempts to make salvation contingent on a particular translation in English of the small number of Greek, Latin and Hebrew MS available to the KJV translators.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I love this intellectual stuff, but I needed none of it to believe God gave me His word in my own language. Shortly after I was saved, a man of God showed me a few of the many passages in the Bible which teach preservation of God's word in purity such as Psalm 12:6-7 which the NIV meticulously trashes and changes purposely into an entirely different meaning and usage in their desperation to claim to have authority in their own perverted translation which fraudulently claims to "contain or convey" the word of God.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The KJV is an ok if dated translation. There are better out there. However let me be clear, KJV onlyism is a heresy and one which attempts to make salvation contingent on a particular translation in English of the small number of Greek, Latin and Hebrew MS available to the KJV translators.

anti-word of Godism started in the garden of Eden when the serpent said to Eve, "yea, hath God said....?"

You are way off in your "ism" and ignoring the truth of the preservation of God's word. You might want to take the time to read the last several posts from Jack and myself and then put together something that sounds better informed.

We're not all Ruckmanites here who might imply you are not saved if you don't believe the King James Bible is the word of God. You are riding an old dead horse with that accusation.

Your statements show you are terribly uninformed about the history of the Bible and the history of the church as it was founded by Jesus Christ...or at least you are forgetting or ignoring those things...go back and read the last several posts and then make a better informed reply please.

 

[tall73]

wow...it took all that to try to answer posts 467 and 471?

Yeah, I actually tried to take what you said seriously and respond to each point. I now see that would not matter to you at all.

I think there's something missing in your answers....until you admit there is no possible way a fraudulent version like the NIV could possibly be God's word based on the simple truth shown in post 467.

Joe, either you didn't read my answer or have comprehension problems.
I have said numerous times I support the majority text. Why would I defend a text based on a different text, which I disagree with?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I still believe, because the word of God promises He would keep His word pure and preserved, that God gave me His word in English. I don't need to doubt it or try to change it or say it is wrong in any way; I don't approach God that way. Sorry.

 

[FredVB]

Those holding to belief in the King James Bible being the one with the true Word of God and that others are corrupt translations that are come into being for replacing it are holding to that as a doctrine, not from what is conclusive in what is read from it. If they were right, it could not be easy to show any fault in that version, which it in fact is, without suggestion in this that the original autographs were faulty in that.
The supposed inerrancy in the translation would mean that, from the end of chapter 21 in 2 Chronicles into chapter 22, Jehoram was 32 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem 8 years, and died, the inhabitants of Jerusalem then made Ahaziah his son king in his stead, so Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned, and Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. So from that inerrancy of the translation that is supposed, Ahaziah was older than his father, Jehoram.