About Modern Versions compared to the KJV

[Rippon]

How so?

By claiming to read my posts while ignoring the content. You do this habitually.

So it is utterly ironic that you would exclaim "The silence is deafening." to another poster when you do it all the time.

 

[Yeshua1]

By claiming to read my posts while ignoring the content. You do this habitually.

So it is utterly ironic that you would exclaim "The silence is deafening." to another poster when you do it all the time.

I do answer your postings, its just that you refuse to accept mu responses regarding the 2011 Niv!

 

[Rippon]

I do answer your postings, its just that you refuse to accept mu responses regarding the 2011 Niv!

You are not telling the truth Y1. You know it. I have asked you the same questions numerous times and you studiously avoid answering like the it's the plague.

You made the claim that the ESV and HCSB went too far in using inclusive renderings. I asked for examples. I asked you many times to give examples. Your response? No response.

You have made outrageous assertions. I asked for proof over and over --silence was your reply.

You do this over and over with other posters as well. It is grating. And it demonstrates your lack of integrity.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are not telling the truth Y1. You know it. I have asked you the same questions numerous times and you studiously avoid answering like the it's the plague.

You made the claim that the ESV and HCSB went too far in using inclusive renderings. I asked for examples. I asked you many times to give examples. Your response? No response.

You have made outrageous assertions. I asked for proof over and over --silence was your reply.

You do this over and over with other posters as well. It is grating. And it demonstrates your lack of integrity.

I just answer according to how you keep asking me....

 

[Rippon]

I just answer according to how you keep asking me....

What in the world does that mean? You make no sense. That's a typical non-answer --your trademark.

You make an charge, a claim. I ask you to give some examples --specifics. I ask you several times. You avoid giving direct answers over and over. That's how you have operated for years on the BB. You deflect, avoid --run away. That's not a good testimony Y1.

 

[Yeshua1]

What in the world does that mean? You make no sense. That's a typical non-answer --your trademark.

You make an charge, a claim. I ask you to give some examples --specifics. I ask you several times. You avoid giving direct answers over and over. That's how you have operated for years on the BB. You deflect, avoid --run away. That's not a good testimony Y1.

What in the world does that mean? You make no sense. That's a typical non-answer --your trademark.

You make an charge, a claim. I ask you to give some examples --specifics. I ask you several times. You avoid giving direct answers over and over. That's how you have operated for years on the BB. You deflect, avoid --run away. That's not a good testimony Y1.

You usually just seem to not ever accept any of my answers though!

 

[Rippon]

You usually just seem to not ever accept any of my answers though!

That's the trouble with you Y1. You do not answer questions directly.
I have asked you repeatedly to give examples in which the ESV and HCSB go too far in their use of inclusive language. I have asked you repeatedly. You had made the accusation. But you never answer my plain questions.

You simply, in good faith, cannot keep up your stale routine of not providing proof when you throw dirt. You need to demonstrate why you believe what you assert --not merely assert. That's not proof.

You do this constantly with others also. But you don't show any sense of decency about your habitual practice. You have to change.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's the trouble with you Y1. You do not answer questions directly.
I have asked you repeatedly to give examples in which the ESV and HCSB go too far in their use of inclusive language. I have asked you repeatedly. You had made the accusation. But you never answer my plain questions.

You simply, in good faith, cannot keep up your stale routine of not providing proof when you throw dirt. You need to demonstrate why you believe what you assert --not merely assert. That's not proof.

You do this constantly with others also. But you don't show any sense of decency about your habitual practice. You have to change.

That's the trouble with you Y1. You do not answer questions directly.
I have asked you repeatedly to give examples in which the ESV and HCSB go too far in their use of inclusive language. I have asked you repeatedly. You had made the accusation. But you never answer my plain questions.

You simply, in good faith, cannot keep up your stale routine of not providing proof when you throw dirt. You need to demonstrate why you believe what you assert --not merely assert. That's not proof.

You do this constantly with others also. But you don't show any sense of decency about your habitual practice. You have to change.

I am still being conformed into image of Christ, and just pray for me, as still long way to go!

 

[Rippon]

I am still being conformed into image of Christ, and just pray for me, as still long way to go!

Why did you repeat my post twice?

You need to change into an honorable person Y1. Don't lob accusations and then run for the hills when asked to specify,
back-up, prove your allegations. Your practice, from which you have not deviated from in all these years on the BB has got to stop. It's been brought to your attention over and over again by others --not just me.

It's the decent thing to do.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why did you repeat my post twice?

You need to change into an honorable person Y1. Dn'to lob accusations and then run for the hills when asked to specify,
back-up, prove your allegations. Your practice, from which you have not deviated from in all these years on the BB has got to stop. It's been brought to your attention over and over again by others --not just me.

It's the decent thing to do.

Why did you repeat my post twice?

You need to change into an honorable person Y1. Dn'to lob accusations and then run for the hills when asked to specify,
back-up, prove your allegations. Your practice, from which you have not deviated from in all these years on the BB has got to stop. It's been brought to your attention over and over again by others --not just me.

It's the decent thing to do.

I think that I have been doing that!

 

[Rippon]

I think that I have been doing that!

You KNOW you have not. Be honest.

 

[Logos1560]

I don't believe I have misrepresented your position- I believe you would agree with J.W. Montgomery explaining (lower) textual criticism in a minute and half here. Agreed?
.

No, I do not agree with Montgomery and with your claims concerning my scripturally-based position. You show that you have jumped to a wrong conclusion. I have not recommended the Critical Text so any attempts to associate me with it would misrepresent my position. You seem to assume that if anyone disagrees with your KJV-only reasoning that they would have to be following the philosophy of empiricism and that they would accept the Critical Text, and considering those as the only two choices could involve use of the fallacy of false dilemma.
You fail to prove that your subjective KJV-only view is the only acceptable option.

 

[Logos1560]

Logos1560,
I apologize, we really are not communicating well. The link I sent to the blog here is what I wrote and suggested you read to know where I am coming from.

I read your blog, and I do not think it demonstrates what you claim. There are a number of logical problems with KJV-only reasoning, including your own version of it. Perhaps your claim to use presuppositional argumentation could be an attempt to rationalize use of mere assumptions based on fallacies including the fallacy of begging the question. KJV-only reasoning is circular and involves special pleading. KJV-only reasoning is dependent on use of fallacies and on use of unscriptural, unjust measures [double standards]. Since you do not prove your KJV-only premises to be true, your KJV-only conclusions are also not proven to be true. Perhaps it is your KJV-only reasoning that commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent instead of the reasoning of those whom you accuse.

You make no consistent, sound, logical, scriptural case for your assertion that "the preservation of Scripture allows for translations to be final authority." [a quote from one of your posts from a link at your blog]

Do you make an invalid comparison or jump to an unsound conclusion when you attempt to suggest that any translating in the giving of the words of Scripture by the process of inspiration to the prophets and apostles would be the same thing as translating in 1611 by men who were not prophets and apostles and who did not receive their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions by the process of inspiration of God?

 

[AV]

Logos1560,
The Mongomery quote I was referring to was basically this:
'lower criticism or textual criticism is indeed a scientific activity, because what it does is to take the manuscripts which have survived of any ancient work it doesn't have to be the New Testament. And these manuscripts are arranged in order of time. And one uses scientific techniques, the ink, the paleography, the handwriting and in some cases radiocarbon, that sort of thing and one dates the manuscripts and establishes families of the manuscripts so as to see which ones were copied from which ones. In the course of doing this you can eliminate copyist errors. and the lower critic works his way back and finally he is able to provide the best resultant text. That is the text that is closest to the original writing. There will be some variant reading but in general it will arrive at the text which is as close to the original writing as is possible.'
So you do not agree with this summary of textual criticism? Could you clarify what you disagree with?

Usually in a rational discussion the opposing side tries to understand the argument their opponent has made and give reasons why they reject it. You did not do this at all. You basically said how it was all wrong, unproven, unsupported, special pleading, etc. but did not actually accurately articulate what I argued and then refute it. The closest you came to this was quoting "from one of your posts from a link at your blog"- you said. The next step would be cite the location of the quote, explain the reason and context in which the statement was made and then refute it with sound logic. Do you want to try again?

 

[Logos1560]

Usually in a rational discussion the opposing side tries to understand the argument their opponent has made and give reasons why they reject it. You did not do this at all.

Your own posts show that you do not practice what you preach. You did not do that in the previous threads to which you had links at the end of your blog. Your posts do no demonstrate that you try to understand the scripturally-based points and arguments that I have presented, and you have given no sound reasons for rejecting them and have not refuted them.

Pointing out fallacies in your KJV-only reasoning would be giving reasons why it is properly rejected.

You also do not answer the question that was raised concerning your own claim in your blog.

Do you make an invalid comparison or jump to an unsound conclusion when you attempt to suggest that any translating in the giving of the words of Scripture by the process of inspiration to the prophets and apostles would be the same thing as translating in 1611 by men who were not prophets and apostles and who did not receive their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions by the process of inspiration of God?

 

[Yeshua1]

No, I do not agree with Montgomery and with your claims concerning my scripturally-based position. You show that you have jumped to a wrong conclusion. I have not recommended the Critical Text so any attempts to associate me with it would misrepresent my position. You seem to assume that if anyone disagrees with your KJV-only reasoning that they would have to be following the philosophy of empiricism and that they would accept the Critical Text, and considering those as the only two choices could involve use of the fallacy of false dilemma.
You fail to prove that your subjective KJV-only view is the only acceptable option.

So you would not accept any modern version based upon the CT as being valid, just those based upon MT?

 

[AV]

Logos1560,
I'm beginning to think you are not interested in a discussion, but rather throwing accusations hoping one will divert attention. Can you be specific? Let's start with one thing first-
sp07-lcrad

You also do not answer the question that was raised concerning your own claim in your blog.

Give me the exact reference and location please.

Also- I'm not sure where this fits in but you said:
"Do you make an invalid comparison or jump to an unsound conclusion when you attempt to suggest that any translating in the giving of the words of Scripture by the process of inspiration to the prophets and apostles would be the same thing as translating in 1611 by men who were not prophets and apostles and who did not receive their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions by the process of inspiration of God?"

If I understand your question, No- it is not the exact same thing.

 

[Logos1560]

Logos1560,
I'm beginning to think you are not interested in a discussion, but rather throwing accusations hoping one will divert attention. Can you be specific?

I think that your comment describes your own posting in this thread. I have been specific.

 

[Logos1560]

Give me the exact reference and location please.

Also- I'm not sure where this fits in but you said:
"Do you make an invalid comparison or jump to an unsound conclusion when you attempt to suggest that any translating in the giving of the words of Scripture by the process of inspiration to the prophets and apostles would be the same thing as translating in 1611 by men who were not prophets and apostles and who did not receive their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions by the process of inspiration of God?"

If I understand your question, No- it is not the exact same thing.

Here is what you stated in your blog: "Some man will say ‘There can be no inspired translations’; and yet we find this very thing all through the bible. Josephs correspondence in the Egyptian tongue (Gen.42:23) was recorded in inspired Hebrew. Likewise was Moses’ speech with Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) in Egyptian. Daniels words were spoken many of them in the tongue of the Chaldeans (Dan.1:4) and yet translated into Hebrew as was the unknown tongue in Daniel 5:24-28 after it was translated into Chaldean. How many dozens of verses in the New Testament are quoting the Old Testament and are inspired translations; and so inspired translations are scriptural and reasonable and historical."

In my opinion, you try to suggest or imply that claiming that a translation such the KJV is inspired would be scriptural, making an invalid comparison to examples of translating that were part of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Your implied conclusion does not actually follow from the examples to which you appeal.

Perhaps you do not understand the point that some believers may be making. They may be making the same point that the KJV translators themselves made in their preface when they suggested that translations would have some imperfections and could not be perfect. If those believers [whom you do not name and do not directly quote] state their point accurately, they may not actually say that God could not directly give translations by inspiration. Their actual point may be based on the close of the canon, the completion of the Scriptures, or the understanding that the giving of the Scriptures by the miracle of inspiration ended with the completion of the New Testament. Thus, they may only be suggesting that after God chose to end the process of the giving of Scripture by the miracle of inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles with the completion of the New Testament that later translations not given by inspiration of God cannot scripturally be said to be inspired. Thus, you may be skipping over or avoiding the actual reasons why they may say that later Bible translations cannot be inspired or perfect. Are you possibly creating a straw man that misrepresents what they actually mean?

In their 1611 preface "The Translators to the Reader", the KJV translators stated: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men endured with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?"

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is what you stated in your blog: "Some man will say ‘There can be no inspired translations’; and yet we find this very thing all through the bible. Josephs correspondence in the Egyptian tongue (Gen.42:23) was recorded in inspired Hebrew. Likewise was Moses’ speech with Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) in Egyptian. Daniels words were spoken many of them in the tongue of the Chaldeans (Dan.1:4) and yet translated into Hebrew as was the unknown tongue in Daniel 5:24-28 after it was translated into Chaldean. How many dozens of verses in the New Testament are quoting the Old Testament and are inspired translations; and so inspired translations are scriptural and reasonable and historical."

In my opinion, you try to suggest or imply that claiming that a translation such the KJV is inspired would be scriptural, making an invalid comparison to examples of translating that were part of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Your implied conclusion does not actually follow from the examples to which you appeal.

Perhaps you do not understand the point that some believers may be making. They may be making the same point that the KJV translators themselves made in their preface when they suggested that translations would have some imperfections and could not be perfect. If those believers [whom you do not name and do not directly quote] state their point accurately, they may not actually say that God could not directly give translations by inspiration. Their actual point may be based on the close of the canon, the completion of the Scriptures, or the understanding that the giving of the Scriptures by the miracle of inspiration ended with the completion of the New Testament. Thus, they may only be suggesting that after God chose to end the process of the giving of Scripture by the miracle of inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles with the completion of the New Testament that later translations not given by inspiration of God cannot scripturally be said to be inspired. Thus, you may be skipping over or avoiding the actual reasons why they may say that later Bible translations cannot be inspired or perfect. Are you possibly creating a straw man that misrepresents what they actually mean?

In their 1611 preface "The Translators to the Reader", the KJV translators stated: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men endured with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?"

In order to have a perfect English translation to be made, either we would needs to base the translation off the originals, or else the translators themselves would have same inspiration as the Apostles did!