Featured The Actual KJV 1611

Yeah a regular hero, teaching people to disbelieve their Bible and showing them mistakes in their Bible.
Some ministry that.

 

Erroneous to naturalistic humanists.

 

Perhaps your seeming disobedience to the Bible by bearing false witness may be teaching people to disbelieve their English Bible. You have failed to show clearly that the Bible actually states and teaches your subjective, non-scriptural opinions and human reasoning. You do not soundly back up your empty vain assertions.

Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not teaching people to disbelieve their Bible. Accepting non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning which claims mistakes in present English Bible translations may teach English-speaking believers to disbelieve their present English Bible. Perhaps KJV-only advocates are in effect guilty of what you inconsistently accuse others. Is this inconsistent, unjust application of standards unrighteous judgment?

You ignore or avoid the fact that your unproven assertions would condemn the Church of England makers of the KJV and their underlying original-language texts.

 

It is your human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning that is more naturalistic than my scripturally-based position that is in agreement with the views of Bible translations held by the early English Bible translators and even the KJV translators.

Are you accusing the KJV translators of being naturalistic humanists or do you reveal your use of unscriptural double standards [unjust measures]?

 

Not KJVO, that's not the issue, the issue is a perfect Bible, any Bible.
But you always avoid that because you have no ground to stand on unless you focus on the KJV.
You're talking alone to the wind, my issue is not KJVO.

 

If the translators rejected the notion of a perfect copy/translation, then they too were poisoned by a naturalistic mindset.

 

No if about it. They clearly acknowledged that no Bible translation would be perfect. Read the preface to the 1611.

 

I have, I just can't recall a specific passage at the moment.
I'm willing to take your word for it for now. So yeah, they had a naturalistic mindset if their conviction was so broad as to reject the notion of any perfect Bible. Those guys were still coming out of the dark ages.

 

Incorrect. You appeal to a bogus straw man or red herring that is not the issue.

You fail to show that Bible believers who disagree with your erroneous reasoning deny that God gave 100% absolutely perfect Scriptures to the prophets and apostles.

What English Bible translation do you claim was perfect before 1611 or that is perfect today? If the Scriptures demand a perfect English Bible translation, that demand would apply to before 1611. Do you deny a perfect Bible in English before 1611?

The word of God was translated into English many years before 1611, and God clearly blessed the many years of use of the 1560 Geneva Bible, the common English translation accepted, believed, trusted, and loved by believers of that day.

 

Uh, sorry but I had a whole thread about that. You don't believe in any perfect Bible. Point one out and prove me wrong.
You don't believe that God perfectly preserved his words in any Bible ever.

 

Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted in the 1611 preface The Translators to the Readers: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or no so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.”

Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that 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 indured with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”

 

It was already pointed out.
The Scriptures God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles were and are 100% absolutely perfect.

In agreement with clear scriptural truth, I agree that errors introduced by men whether in copying, in printing, or in translating are not inspired words of God. In agreement with clear scriptural truth, I agree that words added by men are not inspired words of God.
On the other hand, it seems that you want me to deny scriptural truth and accept errors introduced by men and accept words added by men as being given by inspiration of God. Do you try to demand that I deny scriptural truth in order to accept blindly your non-scriptural opinions?

 

The context of that passage is "this Translation", not the concept of any translation.
But even if it were that, like I said, then they too were infected with naturalism.

 

Point out a perfect Bible version. Are you reading?

 

Your need to say "In agreement with clear scriptural truth" bewrays a lack of verses, for had you had them, you would have quoted them. Flowery yet empty speech.

 

Anyway @Logos1560 , you're happy with your humanistic naturalistic intellectual position of no perfect Bible, great, enjoy your error-ridden Bible. What do you want me to tell you?
You keep teaching people that all copies and translations of the Bible have mistakes, and I'll keep teaching people that copies and translations of the Bible can be perfect.
I'm perfectly at peace going to judgment with that position. All the best to you.

 

Are you suggesting that you do not know the verses to which my clear statements refer? I have referred to the verses many times at this forum.

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished.

The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28, Isa. 8:20, 1 John 4:1). Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? According to the Scriptures, there is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations just as there is the possible omitting of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to clear scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. According to scriptural truths, it can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2).

Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption.

 

Are you admitting that you are teaching mere human, uncertain, subjective, hypothetical speculation ["can be" or "could be"] instead of any clear scriptural truth?

 

Since my position is clearly scripturally-based, your bogus allegation would bear false witness. You have given no quotation where I supposedly assert the words that you improperly attempt to put in my mouth.

You fail to prove that I supposedly advocate any "humanistic naturalistic" position.

I accept and advocate clear, certain scriptural truth that errors introduced by men and words added by men are not given by inspiration of God.

Do you in effect attempt to smear and discredit the clear scriptural truths that I have presented as being "humanistic" and "naturalistic"?

 

Again, you're arguing alone. That is not the issue. The issue is: has God preserved a perfect Bible?