Is "Bibliolater" a Legitimate Term?

When they believe, contrary to proven fact, that the King James translation of the Bible is the very Word of God accurately and perfectly in their own language!

Of course not! God is not a puny human being whose knowledge is so finite that it can be perfectly expressed in a human language. What a foolish notion! That is like asking if God can fit into a matchbox and close the lid! How small do you believe God is?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Yep, it has been done by MV's, inlcuding the KJV, which is modern enough in language to call it a modern version. Inserting "without a cause" into Matthew 5:22, and changing "May it not be" into "God forbid" in Romans 3:4 and in at least 10 other NT passages are valid examples.
--------------------------------------------------

I wonder, before the advent of the mv's, would you have even questioned these things as being God's words? NO, you and everyone else DID and still DOES believe these to be the very words of God. May it not be, is the same thing as God forbid in that passage, for it is speaking of God saying may it not be, which means God forbid. These comparisons are not the same thing as changing the word Lucifer to morning star, or flattered to decieved, to the omittions of the last 12 verses of Mark, and etc., etc., etc.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

There's no scriptural support for single-translationism. None. Yet, you're "saddenned" that someone doesn't add to scriptural doctrine. How sad is that???

Actually, that's exactly what happenned when the KJV came out. Many chose to keep their existing Genevas and Tyndales. Good ole James decided to outlaw the Geneva and Tyndale bibles.

There's no scriptural support for the idea that there's only one English translation being God's words for us. None.

There's no evidence whatsoever for that. Only your unscripturally supportable two cents.

Versionolatry is wrong, heretical, unscriptural, and sinful. You're simply encouraging others to engage in sin by accepting sole-translationism as a matter of doctrine.

You're claiming that ONLY your translation is to be the sole translation for all English speaking people as a matter of doctrine. That's idolatrous, because it elevates a single translation to the status of veneration and authority over all other translation. There's no scriptural support for this view at all.

 

What an outrageously sinful, blasphemous statement!

Some stupid fool told you that you do, and you believed him/her even though there is NO evidence to support that belief, and there is an ever-growing mountain of evidence to refute that belief.

 

You mean, the slang term "God forbid", and "God save the King" are literally God's words? They're "contemporary (to 1611) figures of speech and don't textually resemble the context of the original texts.

What is more accurate to the source texts? "God save the King", or "Long live the King"? "Long live the King" more accurately reflects the original text, so I see no scriptural reason why we can't issue a translation with the words "Long live the King" in these verses. You, otoh, would say this is wrong, which is a reflection of your unscriptural version-onlyist view.

Not the same, huh? Translation: Okay, you got me, it's not a perfect translation after all, but I'm going to bait and switch.

BTW, as discussed already, the word in the original language is not "lucifer", it's "morning star". It's not a proper name. The KJV translators carried over the word "lucifer" from the latin vulgate, which means "day star" in latin. The verse was never meant to refer to Satan.

Again, however, this does not support translation-onlyism.

Still, this does not support translation-onlyism. That's an arguement for source text authority. You're switching grears, either because you don't know the difference between the two topic, or your version-only topic is running out of steam.

[ June 07, 2004, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Michelle,

What you have is a 400 year-old translation of the Old and New Testaments prepared by men who were severely handicapped by very few and poor manuscripts, a corrupted Greek text, and the lack of a single Greek Grammar, lexicon or concordance, or a Bible dictionary. And they did not have a word processor, so even when they realized that they made a mistake, unless they deemed it to be very serious, it was not worth their trouble to correct it.

I have two questions for you:

(1) If the original manuscripts of the KJV from which it was type-set were absolutely perfect and free from error, why did God allow the type-setters to make hundreds of errors, the vast majority of which have been corrected in the copy that you are quoting from?

(2) If the original manuscripts of the KJV from which it was type-set were absolutely perfect and free from error, why did God allow them to be lost?

 

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when is it heresy to believe one has the very words of God accurately and perfectly in their own language?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When they believe, contrary to proven fact, that the King James translation of the Bible is the very Word of God accurately and perfectly in their own language!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, do you believe one can have the very words of God accurately and perfectly in their own language?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course not! God is not a puny human being whose knowledge is so finite that it can be perfectly expressed in a human language. What a foolish notion! That is like asking if God can fit into a matchbox and close the lid! How small do you believe God is?
--------------------------------------------------

First of all, it is not a proven fact to the contrary. The KJV is the very words of God and has been for generations of believers. This is a proven fact. The text that underlines the KJV translation is the very words of God within the churches for centuries. This is a proven fact. You have not one fact on your side to prove this contrary. NOT ONE!

Secondly, God has stated himself in his word that he would preserve his words, and every single one of them. This is the TRUTH and this is the FACT from God's very own words of truth! I am sorry that you think that what God has said and done is making God "small" and as a "puny human being". Your words are towards what God has said concerning his very own words, and to which I believe and also share with you. You in effect, are claiming God is thinking like a puny human being and is being small. Was God so puny and small that he managed to preserve the Hebrew scriptures through the Jews for centuries? And then the Greek scriptures? You are thinking like a gnostic, who claims, do not put God in a box. I do not put God in a box. I believe what he has said and done, then share it with others. By your statement, God has put himself in the box and is like a puny human being whose knowledge is so finite it can be perfectly expressed in human language. In case you forgot, God is the creator of all, and this includes ALL LANGUAGES that humans use.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have the very words of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What an outrageously sinful, blasphemous statement!
--------------------------------------------------

How is this blasphemy? How is this sinful? Do you understand what blasphemy is? Do you understand what sin is?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
BTW, as discussed already, the word in the original language is not "lucifer", it's "morning star". It's not a proper name. The KJV translators carried over the word "lucifer" from the latin vulgate, which means "day star" in latin. The verse was never meant to refer to Satan.

--------------------------------------------------

BTW, if you paid any attention at all to that discussion, you would know that the Hebrew word Helel means bright one, to which Lucifer means Light bearer. No hint whatsoever of the morning star in that passage. Do not tell me it was never meant to refer to Satan, for every generation of believers knew and knows this to be Satan, and even my Webster's dictionary defines Lucifer as Satan, and to which there is no other definition given. Also, if you had any understanding of that passage of scripture, you would also know that it is referring to Satan who indwells ultimately the anti-christ.

--------------------------------------------------
Not the same, huh? Translation: Okay, you got me, it's not a perfect translation after all, but I'm going to bait and switch.
--------------------------------------------------

I meant what I said, that they are NOT THE SAME COMPARISONS and it is quite evident that they are not.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle