Why I am "anti-intellectual"

You presumed my point, I played along, AFWHBA. :laugh:

 

Sorry, I don't speak in tongues. :laugh:

 

And Fun Was Had By All- quotation from a favorite son.

 

And I had pointed out that a number of versions do not have obscure words such as the NIrV,NCV,CEV,TEV -- do you acknowledge that?

Also,modern English versions other than the ones above have far fewer obscure words than does the KJV.

 

Get real Mexdeaf.

 

I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing Mexdef.

Let it go. K?

 

Well then drop the KJV because the Vulgate has been around a lot longer than junior.

With that mindset, that's all the more reason to avail yourself of the necessity of reading and studying other versions.

If you sincerely want to learn more as your handle suggests -- then become familiar with other translations. God will bless you for it.

Pray tell who revealed that nugget to you? That elitist piece of data certainly isn't in any of the KJV's.

There you go intellectualizing.

 

Yes, it is true that a person has to use their intellect to make a decision concerning which line of scripture (RT or CT) is the preserved word of God. But I disagree that both are scriptural. Those who support the RT and the KJB will argue that God has promised to preserve his pure word to all generations. This is scriptural. However, most MVs will argue that all versions of scripture contain error. I have seen this said by dozens of posters on this forum, always from those in favor of multiple versions of scripture. This is not scriptural if a person believes God's promise to preserve his pure word to be true.

As to how God preserves his scripture, the best argument is the scripture that was used and accepted by those true followers of Christ throughout the centuries, and the fruit of those scriptures. This clearly supports the RT. in my opinion.

As for condemnation, I don't personally condemn anyone who uses a MV version. At the same time, I will tell them I think their version is based on a corrupt line of text. [snipped - you are not going to compare those who disagree with you to homosexuals] So, I don't condemn those who use MVs, but I firmly believe these versions are based on a corrupt line of text.

 

This is false. The TR can be traced back to the earliest centuries before the Vulgate. We have the writings of early church fathers and scriptures in other languages that support the TR well before either the Vulgate or the CT.

Not if the other versions are based on a corrupt text. What could be the advantage of that?

If you believe that God has preserved his pure word, then any additions or subtractions would corrupt it. All MVs except the NKJV are based on the CT which has nearly 3000 less words in the original Greek than the TR. Either the TR added to God's word, or the CT diminished God's word, but to say they are the same is impossible.

The whole idea that God would preserve his word in multiple versions that are very different is ludicrious. This has to be one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. You folks portray those who believe in the KJB as being unlearned, but you make fantastically illogical arguments to support your belief. And you think we are unlearned?

 

All translations have mistakes in them -- most valid versions hopefully have very minor errors. You keep confusing translations with the original autographs.

Here you are comparing apples and acoustical instruments -- simply shameful Winman.

Your analogies are disgraceful.Perhaps you should read the KJV more -- prove that you know it by obeying it.

 

You have just proved that my earlier statement was correct, that the vast majority of those who support the MVs say all versions contain error. How you can argue God preserved his pure word and say all versions contain error is beyond me, that is impossible. Perhaps you have a different definition for the words preserved and pure.

And we do not have any of the original autographs. All texts we have are copies. We do not have the original autographs written by the apostles, not one.

No, it is the same. You can believe someone is in error and yet not condemn them. I don't hate those who trust in the MVs, but I believe they are in error. That fellow I spoke to later came and told me he had great respect for me, because even though I believed his lifestyle was sinful, I treated him with respect and love. We were actually great friends who got along wonderfully.

There are lots of folks I disagee with, but I don't hate or condemn any of them. I believe evolution absolutely false, a lie from the devil himself, but I don't believe everyone who believes in evolution evil, just deceived and misinformed.

 

Think about this a bit Winman,
No known written manuscripts agree 100% with another, every manuscript is different, some have a lot of differences, some with just a few differences, but there are differences none the less.

How can you argue that God preserved his pure word when every manuscript is different?
How can you argue that the KJV is preserved when each of the documents used in it's formation differed?

Each of us can confidently say it is preserved because God said it was.
How he did it is a bit of a mystery.

********************

It's curious but those of you that are using logic to prove their point in this thread are using the same form of argument an intellectual would use.

Rob

 

He preserved the message and not the verbiage........we can formulate sound doctrine from just about any translation.

The only preserved version are the originals and we know they have been lost for centuries.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Kind of like how the bumblebee flies, as Amy pointed out!:smilewinkgrin:

 

Everybody says it, but I have yet to see it proven that God promised to preserve a book, a version of any sort.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I am getting tired of the bumblebee notion that they can't fly, so I checked again about the myth:

Quote: It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle enquote

Cheers,

Jim

 

The answer is simple. I approach from the presupposition that God is truthful and cannot lie. If God promised to preserve his pure word (which he did), then it must be in the world somewhere today. That is what I believed as a young man. For me it was simply to look for and identify that preserved and pure word.

You on the other hand approach from the perspective of academic or scholarly proof. You will not believe God's promise until you are shown absolute proof. This is not faith at all.

The trouble is, you will NEVER be able to prove preservation of the scriptures through academic or scholarly proof. If anything, as time goes by and more ancient documents are discovered there has been more confusion introduced. No two scholars can agree and never will. Still, folks want proof and continue to spin their wheels trying to prove something that is impossible to prove.

You ask me how I can explain all these texts with differences? I can't. And I don't try. I simply believe by faith that God has preserved his pure word as he promised. How he did it, I cannot explain.

But just because I can't explain it doesn't mean it isn't true. It is either true or false whether I or anyone else can explain it or not. There are lots of things about the scriptures I can't explain, yet I firmly believe them. I believe God spoke all creation into existence. I believe God parted the Red Sea so Moses and the Hebrews could safely cross. I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I can't explain how God did this, but I believe it.

The intellectuals are never satisfied with faith, they have to have proof. Oh, I read once where a "scholar" claimed the Red Sea was really the "Reed Sea" and only ankle deep, and this is how Moses and the Jews crossed. A preacher said, "Praise God! God drowned Pharaoh and all his army in ankle deep water!" :tongue3:

And that is how it is, the word of God will always make foolishness of man's wisdom. You can keep studying this issue till the day you die, and you will never find the proof you are looking for.

2 Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

Amen! Preach it!

I recall Dr. Danny Akin in a seminary chapel address. He dealt with this issue. He said that "scholars" sometimes looked down on him for his simple trust in God's Word (complete -- not the "some of God's words" view) but he noted that Jesus trusted the Word implicitly and lived every line of the text. If it was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for him, even if scholars found a few subjects here and there to dispute. In the mean time, it is not a bad thing to do the scholarship required to be a great theologian and student. But, there is a difference in "learning" something and "believing" something. We can learn all about the critical scholarship that tears up the Bible, but not believe it. How better to refute than to learn?