Non-KJBO lies

Agreed natters - NO translation will agree 100% with any English translation.

So if Bro Lacy's contention is correct, only the English speaking people have a Bible, and that is the reasoning behind my quote about only English speakers beaing ableto be saved.

 

The word of God is NOT only in Greek. Fixed.

 

C4K said "So if Bro Lacy's contention is correct, only the English speaking people have a Bible, and that is the reasoning behind my quote about only English speakers beaing ableto be saved."

That's the only logical conclusion of KJV-onlyism, yes. Why can't they see it? Why can't they explain otherwise?

 

I didn't realize that any MVer held to a perfect inspired Bible. I thought you all believed only the Autographs (Greek) were inspired and perfect. Please forgive my ignorance. BTW, which Bible do you believe is absolutely perfect, without a single mistake,inspired scripture?

Lacy

 

Lacy says "So if the MV contention is correct, only the Ancient Greek speaking people have a Bible," and that is the reasoning behind my quote about only Greek speakers beaing able to be saved."

That's the only logical conclusion of Autograph-onlyism, yes. Why can't they see it? Why can't they explain otherwise?

 

RaptureReady said "Are you talking about the italicized words?"

No, I am not. I am talking about where the KJV uses dynamic equivalence, using words different from the original languages. I am talking about where the KJV drops or adds in/definite articles ("the", "a"). I am talking about where the KJV translates the same word in two different ways where original language doesn't and there is no difference in context. I am talking about no edition of the TR in existence in 1611 having the 100% exact same readings as the KJV (the "TR under the KJV" you can by from United Bible Societies was made in REVERSE after the KJV, making a TR to match the already existing KJV but even it has minor differences).

So again, So how can they (any TR, or any other Bible translated from any TR) be God's word, and how can God's word be in anything except English?

 

Lacy said "I didn't realize that any MVer held to a perfect inspired Bible. I thought you all believed only the Autographs (Greek) were inspired and perfect."

Do you still not understand? A Bible need not be "absolutely perfect, without a single mistake" from a textual point of view to be called "the word of God". I can believe the Geneva Bible is "the word of God" even though it has textual imperfections. I can beileve any edition of the Textus Receptus is "the word of God" even though it is only the New Testament and has undergone minor revisions and does not agree 100% with the KJV.

 

Does a Bible need to be "absolutely perfect, without a single mistake" from a textual point of view to be called "inspired scripture"?

Lacy

 

I don't know for certain, but I would think not. I believe the Geneva is inspired scripture in the sense that it is the word of God, regardless of textual imperfections and textual differences from all other Bibles in any language.

 

Do you have a Biblical precedent for inspired scripture with textual imperfections?

Lacy

 

Is what you're really getting at even needed? Isn't it self-evident that God's Word existed prior to 1611, and just didn't pop into existance in the form of the KJV?

 

sorry! I read the post assuming it was by Lacy instead of you making your point. My bad.

 

No problem, and after Lacy asked for his post to be corrected it didn't fit any more. I knew where you were coming from.

No problemo!

 

Here it is.

We all know that God inspired the original writers of the scriptures. He then preserved His Word by giving men the intellegence to translate His Word accurately into a multitude of languages. These are the Word of God and therefore one can be saved by hearing the Word of God thus preserved.

Another side portrayed here today claims that the only inspired Bible is in English. Any translations must come from that. These translations are not the Word of God, however. They cannot be because no translation is perfect.
Therefore, since non-English speakers do not have the Word of God, and faith only comes by hearing the Word of God, they have no hope of salvation unless they learn English.

Thoughts?

 

No we have a Bible just not 'inspired' only the mss are 'inspired'. Our Bible can be 'perfect' because they are translated from 'inspired' mss. I think we have answered this many times before.

 

Lacy said "Do you have a Biblical precedent for inspired scripture with textual imperfections?"

I'm not sure what you mean, and your question feels like you are trying to sidetrack and avoid answering the questions directed at you. But to answer your question, as I understand it, I think it likely that the men who originally penned scripture (Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc.) under the Holy Spirit were not automatons but wrote in their own style and by their own level of education. Thus there are occasional grammatical "oddities" that would technically be considered imperfections from a purely grammatical point of view (many of the writers did not have advanced literary educations), but are not "errors in the word of God".

Similary, when Paul wrote to Timothy and told him that Timothy knew the "scriptures" from childhood, and that all "scripture" is given by inspiration of God, I certainly don't believe Timothy had the originals to learn from, but was taught orally in the synagogue from scrolls that were copies, and these copies likely had minor textual imperfections just like copies do today.

Similarly again, even the translators of the KJV held to a similar view of "inspiration" as what I am getting at: they held that the Septuagint was the word of God even though it "dissenteth from the Original in many places", yet they also say that the Lord himself stirred up Ptolemy to have it produced and that the Holy Spirit directed it into use by the early church. They also said that "the King's speech" is still the king's speech when translated, even though not all translators will translate it with equal accuracy. They also said that although God makes men, warts, freckles and scars on a man (who was made by God) does not mean that since God does not make mistakes that therefore that man is no longer rightly called a man nor does blemishes mean he was not produced by God.

To bring this full circle, a Bible need not be 100% textually representative of the originals, nor 100% word-perfect according to the strictest of grammatical rules, to be called "the word of God". Yet KJV-onlyism requires this sort of perfection, and in doing so is its own undoing, because nothing prior or since is 100% identical to the KJV grammatically or textually, in ANY language (English or otherwise) - which brings us back to the question posed to you by C4K which you have yet to answer.

 

I am not really expecting an answer - and I am off to bed now.

Be good boys and girls or I will sic Dr Bob on you .

 

Yessa Massa, we be good.

Rapture Ready: "Either way, if they are translated from the TR,
and agree 100% with the KJB, which is from the TR,
then it is the word of God."

The KJV1611 edition does not agree 100% with the
KJB, therefore is not the word of God.
The KJV1769 was translated from the KJV1611 (NOT
from the TR) so the KJV1769 is not the word of God.
The KJV1769 edition is what most folks who use
"KJB" use as their KJB. Therefore the KJB is NOT
the word of God. Ain't
circular reasoning wonnerful???

But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, the Christ

 

No, as long as it's faithfully translated and derived from the original language manuscripts.

HankD