The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[SaintJoeNow]

Textual Criticism is boring. God's word is pure. I'll read the Bible, those who don't believe it is preserved can criticize it.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Textual Criticism is boring. God's word is pure. I'll read the Bible, those who don't believe it is preserved can criticize it.

I'm really not interested in the "yea, hath God said...." arguments of textual critics and "scholars" who think they are God's instrument of translation, or think they are gifted to translate God's word and correct His chosen translators.. God chose his translators to bring His word into English around 1600 and nobody here is one of God's chosen translators unless you are over 400 years old which I doubt. I do not believe in textual critics of God's word....... sorry if you disagree with me on that.

 

[tall73]

I'm really not interested in the "yea, hath God said...." arguments of textual critics and "scholars" who think they are God's instrument of translation, or think they are gifted to translate God's word and correct His chosen translators.. God chose his translators to bring His word into English around 1600 and nobody here is one of God's chosen translators unless you are over 400 years old which I doubt. I do not believe in textual critics of God's word....... sorry if you disagree with me on that.

Well then you are in luck. The 11 examples I posted are from the 'chosen transators' in their margin note, not from textual critics today, so we will expect your full response as to why they did not literally translate the Greek.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Well then you are in luck. The 11 examples I posted are from the 'chosen transators' in their margin note, not from textual critics today, so we will expect your full response as to why they did not literally translate the Greek.

I believe the word of God. I do not believe your marginal notes or anybody elses. Marginal notes are not the word of God. You are not the translator of God's word. The work is done. Don't you get tired of trying to do what is already done?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

When you can prove to me that you are one of God's translators, then I will accept your endorsement of God's word and you will have proof that you are over 400 years old. I doubt that it is possible that you are one of God's translator's for His holy word.

If God's translators under King Jame's Authority under God's authority put motes in the margin of the authorized Bible, I really don't care and am not interested in margin notes. They are not the word of God.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

When you can prove to me that you are one of God's translators, then I will accept your endorsement of God's word and you will have proof that you are over 400 years old. I doubt that it is possible that you are one of God's translator's for His holy word.

If God's translators under King Jame's Authority under God's authority put motes in the margin of the authorized Bible, I really don't care and am not interested in margin notes. They are not the word of God.

God's word is preserved and cannot be changed. Margin notes can be changed because they are not the word of God. All modern versions in reality are nothing but sloppy compilations of margin notes, always changing according to the whims of the "scholars' and "editors" and "publishers" who act under their own freedom and not under God's authority.

 

[tall73]

When you can prove to me that you are one of God's translators, then I will accept your endorsement of God's word and you will have proof that you are over 400 years old. I doubt that it is possible that you are one of God's translator's for His holy word.

Since I didn't claim I was that is just silly.

If God's translators under King Jame's Authority under God's authority put motes in the margin of the authorized Bible, I really don't care and am not interested in margin notes. They are not the word of God.

The problem for you is that they mention in those margin notes that the text they put in the actual Bible is not always the literal translation of the Greek. Hence, no derivative inspiration as was indicated by Jack's article before, and not a perfect translation of the originals.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

This is what I know for an incontrovertible fact:

1) The original words used to pen the 66 documents that the large majority of Protestant Christians believe to be canonical are unknown.
2) The original documents were copied and subsequently lost or destroyed; and copies were made of these copies, and copies were made of those copies, etc.
3) Errors were made in copying the originals and the copies
4} The evidence currently available supports the belief that the original documents making up the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, with some parts of some of them being written in Aramaic; and the belief that the original documents making up the New Testament were written in Greek.
5) Very numerous scholars have examined the ancient Old and New Testament documents, and in those belonging to the New Testament there are approximately 300,000 variants with over 20,000 of them appearing in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.
6) Numerous scholars, often working in teams, have produced editions of the Greek New Testament based upon their study and analysis of ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament.
7) These numerous scholars have represented a very wide spectrum of theological thought, and there is no evidence that their theology influenced, to even the slightest extent, the Greek texts that they produced.
8) Many hundreds of New Testament scholars publishing today in peer-reviewed academic journals dealing with the Bible agree that the current Greek text of the New Testament is greatly more accurate than the textual basis of the New Testament in the KJV, and very few, if any, disagree.
9) The quality of the translation work on the KJV was poor, and the quality of the English is distinctly substandard.
10) The English in the KJV has become ridiculously archaic, and every year it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand.

We saw in post #662 in this thread that a preacher preached a sermon based upon a severe misunderstanding of Numbers 10:2 and that as he preached, the congregation, also unable to understand the KJV, shouted “Amen” to the preacher’s nonsense.

The concept “of a whole piece” found in the KJV at Numbers 10:2 is not found in the Hebrew text; and the concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁ&#1492” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is not found in the KJV. However, the concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁ&#1492” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is found in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate at Numbers 10:2,

fac tibi duas tubas argenteas ductiles [fac (make) tibi (you) duas (two) tubas (trumpets) argenteas (silver) ductiles (beaten)

Therefore it is found in the Douay Old Testament of 1609,

Numbers 10:2. Make thee two trumpets of beaten silver, wherewith thou mayest call together the multitude when the camp is to be removed.

The concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁ&#1492” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is also found in the Septuagint at Numbers 10:2,

Ποίησον σεαυτῷ δύο σάλπιγγας ἀργυρᾶς, ἐλατὰς ποιήσεις αὐτάς, καὶ ἔσονταί σοι ἀνακαλεῖν τὴν συναγωγὴν καὶ ἐξαίρειν τὰς παρεμβολάς.

There is absolutely no doubt but that the King James Version seriously mistranslated Numbers 10:2, and no amount of faith in or philosophy about God can change that. Neither can any amount of faith in the translators of the KJV change that. Moreover, the mistranslation of Numbers 10:2 in the KJV is not at all an isolated incident. Nor are the mistranslations the only problem with the KJV. Indeed, many more problems with the KJV have already been documented in this thread.


I believe in God and all of His attributes as found in the Bible, but none of His attributes give us any indication of any kind that He preserved the Scriptures any more that he preserved the fossils of dinosaurs, giant ground sloths, and Saber-toothed cats—let alone any indication that God had anything at all to do with the KJV or even that He thinks that it is a reasonably accurate translation.

Much is always said by both modern scholarship, (and by armchair scholars as well), as to the many "improper" translations made by the KJB translators. If these accusations are true, I have often wondered why God bothered using any of the "pre-Westcott and Hort" scholars at all? After all, consider the following: (according to modern scholarship) 1) These scholars has little actual knowledge of the original Biblical Languages; 2) The MSS used were very inferior to those used today; and 3) The underlying text of the KJB (and all other reformation Bibles), were based on only a handful of these inferior MSS.


Why in the world, would an omnipotent and omniscient God do such a thing? Shouldn't He have preserved His word in a monolithic text, (to avoid all this confusion), and then waited until modern textual critics came along with their vast knowledge of the Biblical Languages, along with all the superior MSS, and their superior methodology, to translate His words into the languages of the world, so we wouldn't even have to have this discussion?


As the atheists tell me, "I think there are a lot of things that God could have done to make this a lot better world." In this case, preserve a single perfect Bible, with His Seal of Approval, right on the front cover.


This is what I know:


1) The words of Scripture were given to holy men by the Holy Spirit.

2) God used other holy saints to copy those "words".

3) The method of every man involved in bringing us the Received Text, and the KJB, was working by faith, through submission to the Holy Spirit.

4) The men who developed textual criticism did not believe the Scriptures were Divinely inspired, or Divinely authoritative.

5) Many of those who are students of textual criticism today, deny the Bible as being historically accurate, (at least one of which, has posted in this very thread).


We must ask ourselves, "To which of the above 'camps', do I need to affiliate with?


For me, it is having faith in the power of God!!!


Jack

This is what I know for an incontrovertible fact:


1) The original words used to pen the 66 documents that the large majority of Protestant Christians believe to be canonical are unknown.

2) The original documents were copied and subsequently lost or destroyed; and copies were made of these copies, and copies were made of those copies, etc.

3) Errors were made in copying the originals and the copies

4} The evidence currently available supports the belief that the original documents making up the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, with some parts of some of them being written in Aramaic; and the belief that the original documents making up the New Testament were written in Greek.

5) Very numerous scholars have examined the ancient Old and New Testament documents, and in those belonging to the New Testament there are approximately 300,000 variants with over 20,000 of them appearing in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

6) Numerous scholars, often working in teams, have produced editions of the Greek New Testament based upon their study and analysis of ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament.

7) These numerous scholars have represented a very wide spectrum of theological thought, and there is no evidence that their theology influenced, to even the slightest extent, the Greek texts that they produced.

8) Many hundreds of New Testament scholars publishing today in peer-reviewed academic journals dealing with the Bible agree that the current Greek text of the New Testament is greatly more accurate than the textual basis of the New Testament in the KJV, and very few, if any, disagree.

9) The quality of the translation work on the KJV was poor, and the quality of the English is distinctly substandard.

10) The English in the KJV has become ridiculously archaic, and every year it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand.


We saw in posts #662 in this thread that a preacher preached a sermon based upon a severe misunderstanding of Numbers 10:2 and that as he preached, the congregation, also unable to understand the KJV, shouted “Amen” to the preacher’s nonsense.


The concept “of a whole piece” found in the KJV at Numbers 10:2 is not found in the Hebrew text; and the concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁה)” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is not found in the KJV. However, the concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁה)” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is found in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate at Numbers 10:2,


fac tibi duas tubas argenteas ductiles [fac (make) tibi (you) duas (two) tubas (trumpets) argenteas (silver) ductiles (beaten)


Therefore it is found in the Douay Old Testament of 1609,


Numbers 10:2. Make thee two trumpets of beaten silver, wherewith thou mayest call together the multitude when the camp is to be removed.


The concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁה)” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is also found in the Septuagint at Numbers 10:2,


Ποίησον σεαυτῷ δύο σάλπιγγας ἀργυρᾶς, ἐλατὰς ποιήσεις αὐτάς, καὶ ἔσονταί σοι ἀνακαλεῖν τὴν συναγωγὴν καὶ ἐξαίρειν τὰς παρεμβολάς.


There is absolutely no doubt but that the King James Version seriously mistranslated Numbers 10:2, and no amount of faith in or philosophy about God can change that. Neither can any amount of faith in the translators of the KJV change that. Moreover, the mistranslation of Numbers 10:2 in the KJV is not at all an isolated incident. Nor are the mistranslations the only problem with the KJV. Indeed, many more problems with the KJV have already been documented in this thread.



I believe in God and all of His attributes as found in the Bible, but none of His attributes give us any indication of any kind that He preserved the Scriptures any more that he preserved the fossils of dinosaurs, giant ground sloths, and Saber-toothed cats—let alone any indication that God had anything at all to do with the KJV or even that He thinks that it is a reasonably accurate translation.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

God's word is preserved and cannot be changed. Margin notes can be changed because they are not the word of God. All modern versions in reality are nothing but sloppy compilations of margin notes, always changing according to the whims of the "scholars' and "editors" and "publishers" who act under their own freedom and not under God's authority.

Posts containing statements with no documentation are like a wet paper bag the bottom of which has torn open and left the bag nothing but an empty mess. Posts containing false and malicious statements are like a campaign speech by a crooked politician—especially when the statements have been proven over and over again to be false and malicious.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

So can you name the latest of the 300 or so fraudulent books which call themselves the Bible and are not God's preserved word?

I heard the LGBT community is coming out with one which changes Jesus from the Son of God to a child of God, so they won't feel so bad about their confusions based on gender. God's word is preserved to prevent stuff like that from creeping in, and it is in every single version which followed after the King James Bible claiming to be better that the King James Bible. The question is, what are they better for? Better for making people feel good? They are sold under the pretense of being easier to read or based on better manuscripts, both of these pretenses easily proved to be lies but for some reason people want to thing God's word is subject to their own interpretation/ translation, rather than set in stone and preserved by God Himself.

 

[kiwimac]

So can you name the latest of the 300 or so fraudulent books which call themselves the Bible and are not God's preserved word?

I heard the LGBT community is coming out with one which changes Jesus from the Son of God to a child of God, so they won't feel so bad about their confusions based on gender. God's word is preserved to prevent stuff like that from creeping in, and it is in every single version which followed after the King James Bible claiming to be better that the King James Bible. The question is, what are they better for? Better for making people feel good? They are sold under the pretense of being easier to read or based on better manuscripts, both of these pretenses easily proved to be lies but for some reason people want to thing God's word is subject to their own interpretation/ translation, rather than set in stone and preserved by God Himself.

No pretense involved, they are both better translations and based on better manuscripts. The KJV is not God's preserved version in English, there is no such thing.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

So can you name the latest of the 300 or so fraudulent books which call themselves the Bible and are not God's preserved word?

I heard the LGBT community is coming out with one which changes Jesus from the Son of God to a child of God, so they won't feel so bad about their confusions based on gender. God's word is preserved to prevent stuff like that from creeping in, and it is in every single version which followed after the King James Bible claiming to be better that the King James Bible. The question is, what are they better for? Better for making people feel good? They are sold under the pretense of being easier to read or based on better manuscripts, both of these pretenses easily proved to be lies but for some reason people want to thing God's word is subject to their own interpretation/ translation, rather than set in stone and preserved by God Himself.

In post 668 of this thread, it was proven through the quotation of “God’s word” in Numbers 10:2, and comparing that quote with the KJV, that the KJV changed “God’s Word.” The RSV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, and numerous other accurate translations of the Bible have reversed the change found in the KJV and have restored to the Bible the inspired word of God. Moreover, as has also been proven in this thread though actual and accurate quotations from the notes in the margins of the 1611 edition of the KJV, the translators changed “God’s word” in the text but included it in the notes. Furthermore, it was documented earlier in this thread that the KJV is substantially more difficult to read than any of the widely used English translation of the Bible translated since 1940. Nonetheless, the lie that the KJV is easier to read has been posted over and over again—a willful and deliberate lie! The truth is that the KJV, when compared with the RSV, NASB, ESV, and the NRSV, is an archaic translation with numerous problems making it a distinctly inferior translation.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Can somebody explain the value of believing we do not have God's preserved word?

can anybody make me see what I'm missing by not believing God's word is not preserved?..... Can you show me any value in believing God's word is not preserved? ..... I'm not seeing it...is it just me, and I'm blind?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Can somebody explain the value of believing we do not have God's preserved word?

can anybody make me see what I'm missing by not believing God's word is not preserved?..... Can you show me any value in believing God's word is not preserved? ..... I'm not seeing it...is it just me, and I'm blind?

These are verifiably facts:


In post 668 of this thread, it was proven through the quotation of “God’s word” in Numbers 10:2, and comparing that quote with the KJV, that the KJV changed “God’s Word.” The RSV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, and numerous other accurate translations of the Bible have reversed the change found in the KJV and have restored to the Bible the inspired word of God. Moreover, as has also been proven in this thread though actual and accurate quotations from the notes in the margins of the 1611 edition of the KJV, the translators changed “God’s word” in the text but included it in the notes. Furthermore, it was documented earlier in this thread that the KJV is substantially more difficult to read than any of the widely used English translation of the Bible translated since 1940. Nonetheless, the lie that the KJV is easier to read has been posted over and over again—a willful and deliberate lie! The truth is that the KJV, when compared with the RSV, NASB, ESV, and the NRSV, is an archaic translation with numerous problems making it a distinctly inferior translation.


Very numerous additional facts have been presented is this and several or more other threads at Christian Forums. Facts do not lie—but some people do. Very numerous lies and willful distortions of the truth have also been presented in this and several or more other threads at Christian Forums. These very same numerous lies and willful distortions of the truth are also found on many websites belong to radicalized Christian Fundamentalists who abhor the truth and who are more than willing to lie through their teeth to defend their delusions about the KJV.


Therefore, I ask, “What value is there in believing lies and willful distortions of the truth? God gave us His word in the Bible, but imperfect men have corrupted it. Refusing to believe that man has corrupted what God has given to us makes no sense when the corruptions are so many and so obvious that any man who can see clearly sees them.


Has the Bible been so very corrupted that it has no value? No, and there are thousands of men and women around the world who are devoting their lives to reconstructing as accurately as possible the Bible before it became corrupted my men, and to translating it as accurately as possible in a form that is easily readable and suitable for use in public worship.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

These are verifiably facts:


In post 668 of this thread, it was proven through the quotation of “God’s word” in Numbers 10:2, and comparing that quote with the KJV, that the KJV changed “God’s Word.” The RSV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, and numerous other accurate translations of the Bible have reversed the change found in the KJV and have restored to the Bible the inspired word of God. Moreover, as has also been proven in this thread though actual and accurate quotations from the notes in the margins of the 1611 edition of the KJV, the translators changed “God’s word” in the text but included it in the notes. Furthermore, it was documented earlier in this thread that the KJV is substantially more difficult to read than any of the widely used English translation of the Bible translated since 1940. Nonetheless, the lie that the KJV is easier to read has been posted over and over again—a willful and deliberate lie! The truth is that the KJV, when compared with the RSV, NASB, ESV, and the NRSV, is an archaic translation with numerous problems making it a distinctly inferior translation.


Very numerous additional facts have been presented is this and several or more other threads at Christian Forums. Facts do not lie—but some people do. Very numerous lies and willful distortions of the truth have also been presented in this and several or more other threads at Christian Forums. These very same numerous lies and willful distortions of the truth are also found on many websites belong to radicalized Christian Fundamentalists who abhor the truth and who are more than willing to lie through their teeth to defend their delusions about the KJV.


Therefore, I ask, “What value is there in believing lies and willful distortions of the truth? God gave us His word in the Bible, but imperfect men have corrupted it. Refusing to believe that man has corrupted what God has given to us makes no sense when the corruptions are so many and so obvious that any man who can see clearly sees them.


Has the Bible been so very corrupted that it has no value? No, and there are thousands of men and women around the world who are devoting their lives to reconstructing as accurately as possible the Bible before it became corrupted my men, and to translating it as accurately as possible in a form that is easily readable and suitable for use in public worship.

You still didn't show me any value to believing that God did not care enough to keep His word unchangeable.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

These are verifiably facts:


In post 668 of this thread, it was proven through the quotation of “God’s word” in Numbers 10:2, and comparing that quote with the KJV, that the KJV changed “God’s Word.” The RSV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, and numerous other accurate translations of the Bible have reversed the change found in the KJV and have restored to the Bible the inspired word of God. Moreover, as has also been proven in this thread though actual and accurate quotations from the notes in the margins of the 1611 edition of the KJV, the translators changed “God’s word” in the text but included it in the notes. Furthermore, it was documented earlier in this thread that the KJV is substantially more difficult to read than any of the widely used English translation of the Bible translated since 1940. Nonetheless, the lie that the KJV is easier to read has been posted over and over again—a willful and deliberate lie! The truth is that the KJV, when compared with the RSV, NASB, ESV, and the NRSV, is an archaic translation with numerous problems making it a distinctly inferior translation.


Very numerous additional facts have been presented is this and several or more other threads at Christian Forums. Facts do not lie—but some people do. Very numerous lies and willful distortions of the truth have also been presented in this and several or more other threads at Christian Forums. These very same numerous lies and willful distortions of the truth are also found on many websites belong to radicalized Christian Fundamentalists who abhor the truth and who are more than willing to lie through their teeth to defend their delusions about the KJV.


Therefore, I ask, “What value is there in believing lies and willful distortions of the truth? God gave us His word in the Bible, but imperfect men have corrupted it. Refusing to believe that man has corrupted what God has given to us makes no sense when the corruptions are so many and so obvious that any man who can see clearly sees them.


Has the Bible been so very corrupted that it has no value? No, and there are thousands of men and women around the world who are devoting their lives to reconstructing as accurately as possible the Bible before it became corrupted my men, and to translating it as accurately as possible in a form that is easily readable and suitable for use in public worship.

You are a very intelligent man, but......, you have not shown me any value in believing we don't have God's word preserved in English. I see no value in believing God did not give me His word in English. The fact that He gave me His word gives me an unshakable place to stand on....I stand on God's word and nothing can take it away. I like knowing where I stand and I like knowing the One who gave me His word to make me stand on His word. The value of believing God's word is preserved is great, wonderful, and soothing

 

[SaintJoeNow]

This is what I know for an incontrovertible fact:


1) The original words used to pen the 66 documents that the large majority of Protestant Christians believe to be canonical are unknown.

2) The original documents were copied and subsequently lost or destroyed; and copies were made of these copies, and copies were made of those copies, etc.

3) Errors were made in copying the originals and the copies

4} The evidence currently available supports the belief that the original documents making up the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, with some parts of some of them being written in Aramaic; and the belief that the original documents making up the New Testament were written in Greek.

5) Very numerous scholars have examined the ancient Old and New Testament documents, and in those belonging to the New Testament there are approximately 300,000 variants with over 20,000 of them appearing in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

6) Numerous scholars, often working in teams, have produced editions of the Greek New Testament based upon their study and analysis of ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament.

7) These numerous scholars have represented a very wide spectrum of theological thought, and there is no evidence that their theology influenced, to even the slightest extent, the Greek texts that they produced.

8) Many hundreds of New Testament scholars publishing today in peer-reviewed academic journals dealing with the Bible agree that the current Greek text of the New Testament is greatly more accurate than the textual basis of the New Testament in the KJV, and very few, if any, disagree.

9) The quality of the translation work on the KJV was poor, and the quality of the English is distinctly substandard.

10) The English in the KJV has become ridiculously archaic, and every year it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand.


We saw in posts #662 in this thread that a preacher preached a sermon based upon a severe misunderstanding of Numbers 10:2 and that as he preached, the congregation, also unable to understand the KJV, shouted “Amen” to the preacher’s nonsense.


The concept “of a whole piece” found in the KJV at Numbers 10:2 is not found in the Hebrew text; and the concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁה)” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is not found in the KJV. However, the concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁה)” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is found in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate at Numbers 10:2,


fac tibi duas tubas argenteas ductiles [fac (make) tibi (you) duas (two) tubas (trumpets) argenteas (silver) ductiles (beaten)


Therefore it is found in the Douay Old Testament of 1609,


Numbers 10:2. Make thee two trumpets of beaten silver, wherewith thou mayest call together the multitude when the camp is to be removed.


The concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁה)” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is also found in the Septuagint at Numbers 10:2,


Ποίησον σεαυτῷ δύο σάλπιγγας ἀργυρᾶς, ἐλατὰς ποιήσεις αὐτάς, καὶ ἔσονταί σοι ἀνακαλεῖν τὴν συναγωγὴν καὶ ἐξαίρειν τὰς παρεμβολάς.


There is absolutely no doubt but that the King James Version seriously mistranslated Numbers 10:2, and no amount of faith in or philosophy about God can change that. Neither can any amount of faith in the translators of the KJV change that. Moreover, the mistranslation of Numbers 10:2 in the KJV is not at all an isolated incident. Nor are the mistranslations the only problem with the KJV. Indeed, many more problems with the KJV have already been documented in this thread.



I believe in God and all of His attributes as found in the Bible, but none of His attributes give us any indication of any kind that He preserved the Scriptures any more that he preserved the fossils of dinosaurs, giant ground sloths, and Saber-toothed cats—let alone any indication that God had anything at all to do with the KJV or even that He thinks that it is a reasonably accurate translation.

I simply see no value in believing God's word is lost and we can get pretty close to finding it if we keep trying hard enough. God makes the grass grow by His word, and I find it much more enjoyable to watch the grass grow, and watch how God changes me and how he changes barren land into fields of green by His word and I don't change His word. He makes the grass grow by His word. I'm not going to try to change His word. I'll let His word change me and thank Him for keeping His word.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He gave us His word and keeps it.
God always has, always will keep His word. He never lost it. I have a copy of it here.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I still see no value in believing God's word is not preserved.

Can you say it is soothing to believe God's word is not preserved?
Can you say you feel enriched believing God's word is not preserved?
Can you say it is beautiful to believe God's word is not preserved?
Can you say that it encourages you to love people when you believe God's word is not preserved?
Can you say you will for no sum of money in the whole world allow anybody to tell you God's word is not preserved? (this is a trick question, careful with it)


To all of these questions, I can answer simply and emphatically "yes" if you change the questions to describe the value of believing God's word is preserved and given to me in English.

Can you answer a simple yes to any of these questions? I like the beauty of simplicity, like knowing God makes grass grow by His word. Since I'm not going into biology or agriculture or science, my biology studies were pretty much a waste of time. Knowing God makes the grass grow is enough, I can figure out how to water or fertilize it without criticizing the molecular texture...........

except for the trick question about for any sum of money allowing my mind to be changed about believing God's word. There is no amount of money in the world that I would accept as payment for saying "God's word is not preserved in English" . Nobody could ever pay me enough to say that, because believing God's word is preserved and given to me in my own language and I do not have to know any other language to know God's word is special, precious, much more valuable than money, and nobody has to pay me one penny to believe God's word is preserved. Nobody has ever paid me for saying God's word is preserved, and I probably never will be paid for saying God's word is preserved......, you can't pay me enough to get me to say God's word is not preserved and needs to be criticized.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

edited, repeat removed

 

[FredVB]

I have already mentioned the end of chapter 21 in 2 Chronicles into chapter 22. The logic alone shows the real inspiration is not preserved intact to be transmitted into the King James Bible. Though it was alleged I speak against the Bible, nothing is further from the truth. It isn't appropriate to make personal remarks in response. It is said there is information online explaining this away, but as this example shows logic, that is not possible, and as others can see these posts, it is showing that nothing for saying it can be explained away is shown in responses.

You can be dismissive with bluffing but I have known about such inconsistency long before I was using internet. It is basically errors of numbers from the Hebrew script in copies and this is not saying there were the errors in the original writing. But the fact is the King James Bible has the inconsistency too from that, it can't itself be inerrant with that, and there is avoidance answering to that. And there are other things I could show. Of course I know that the original writing of the Hebrew scriptures were filled with the revealed name of God, that we render Yahweh, the name that is to be remembered. The King James Version, as most other versions, differs from those writings with "the LORD" put in place of that name in most passages where it occurs, and so is not truly faithful to the original writing in that, but going with a convention, not from faultless result of God's Spirit guiding.

This has nothing to do with me claiming to being faultless with God's Spirit leading. This is about the claim of the King James version being the preserved text of the Bible in English with it then inerrant, which would need with that to be the faultless result of God's Spirit leading the translators that worked on the King James Bible.