Splitting Hairs?

One more time, stilllearning...

I am convicted that all legitimate Bible trsnalations are completely errorless in that they all teach us the message God intended us to have - not a single legitimate English Bible translation I know of teaches "another gospel." God didn't allow His word to be lost - His message is the same in the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the KJVs, the NKJV, tha NASBs. I firmly believe God didn't mean for the printed words to remain static while their meanings changed in growing and evolving languages - that's why He supplied us with many English Bible translations. If God meant a word-for-word adherence to particular words, then we'd have to scrap all English Bible translations and return to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek of the Bible.

Stilllearning, if you don't believe God has the ability to preserve His word to us without being liited to a particular set of printed words, and if you don't believe God can preserve His word in more than one English Bible translation, then your unbelief is between you and God.

 

Well lads, I have had enough with this discussion. Sometimes, in some conditions, there is no way to win in argument.

Ciao

 

Do you have all the words spoken by Jesus in your Bible? (all verses from KJV) --

And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. (Mark 1:21)

And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils. (Mark 1:39)

And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing [him] were astonished, saying, From whence hath this [man] these things? and what wisdom [is] this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? (Mark 6:2)

And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before [them]; and they did set [them] before the people.
And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before [them].
And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away.(Mark 8:6,7&9).​

Or, are we to believe that all His preaching, teaching, blessing, commanding was done non-verbally in these passages? Where are the words that He obviously spoke?

And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? (Luke 2:49)​

Did Jesus never speak before he was twelve years old? Are there other words of young Jesus in your Bible? Or, have those words passed away?

You didn't answer these questions the last time I posed them; I'm not expecting that you'll have an answer this time either. You are dangerously misapplying the Scriptures.

 

Hello again Keith M

Good morning.

You said........

I appreciate and respect your conviction.
Although I do have one point to make.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......

The printed words in the Bible, are important. God persevered His Word for us, in “printed words”.
Matthew 4:4
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

God did not inspire “His message”, He inspired “His Words”.
--------------------------------------------------
When we get away from “God’s inspired Words”, this allows man, to “tweak” God’s message, to please people, or to make a point, etc.

If I want a “paraphrased Bible”, I will read a Bible commentary. (And some of them are very good.)

But when I want to study God’s Word, I need a Bible, where “the printed words”, are an accurate translation of God’s preserved copies of the original manuscripts.

And the only English Bible available today(that I know of), that is translated from the Masoretic Text and the majority Byzantine manuscripts, is the KJV.

 

Hello franklinmonroe

Sorry for not answering this question earlier: I must have missed it.

You asked........

Well no I don’t.......
John 21:25
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

--------------------------------------------------
My argument being based upon........
Matthew 24:35
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Is that God will not let His Preserved Word, be lost.

But because not every one of Jesus’ words were recorded, you are telling me......

--------------------------------------------------
No, I am not “misapplying Scripture”.
And what I am doing, is only dangerous, for those who imply that God’s preserved Words have somehow been lost.

 

Is it really a "denigration" when we point out that God can neither be deceived, nor is God a wicked man who lies in wait to ensnare men and leave no man sure of life!

I believest thou hast established a gnat-picking as the means by which thou dost straineth thyself all too readily and I wot not how thou canst not see beyond a level greater than 20X(2x4) vision.:sleep:

 

Then you admit that God can be deceived? and He knew it all along?:sleep:

 

Man, and IF somebody else can just see this as clearly as you have.

 

We'll just accept you from now on as "Mr. Frank Sincerely Colorless":laugh:

 

We do just that as fallible men do, but we are stil wrong when we interpret things wrong/ right when we are right. All the while God's word is still right and God right, but many ideals are transmitted into words which mislead the hearer into believing something amiss when the words do not completely convey the whole meaning.

Many modern versions do a sloppy job of being what you would call "paraphrasing". And just which paraphrase is the standard? It has always been the KJB as the final reference to date, and will be for quite some time.:godisgood:

 

Why, most certainly not! The laborers mixing for the brick masons might step on a chesnut hull and mistake it for a porcupine and wonder where its eyes and tail are.:laugh:

 

Could it possibly be that they are all in English?:sleep:

 

Isn't your description "Preserved Word" the same as 'Bible'?

Jesus said "my words shall not pass away", yet you admit you don't have all of Jesus' words in your Bible (some of His words being "lost"); then Jesus must have meant something other than the "Preserved Word" in Matthew 24:35 (because no preserved words are lost), agreed?

Yet you were applying this verse to Bible translations. So, do you see the misapplication now?

 

Basically, this is correct, as far as I know, anyway. I guess it is possible that the reading omitting "of God" is found in the TR1598 of Beza, although I have not been able to find this particular text on-line. It does appear that this reading has been directly 'lifted' from the wording of the Rheims NT.[/quote]He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life. (I Jn. 5:12 - RHE)[/quote]Let me add that I do find it quite amazing the hoops some are willing to "jump through" (plus brilliant eisegesis, as well as the ignoring of multiple historical facts about the actual Majority text, as well as the view of the KJV translators, themselves) , simply in order to promote a particular view of this, such as this one I have just found while actuallly searching for the wording of the TR1598. (My emphases in the quoted text)

The above is quoted verbatim - the actual church citing is incidental to my point, although FTR, both the Pastor and Assistant Pastor are graduates of Pensacola Bible Institute.

Why am I not surprised by this??

I'm not exactly sure I have ever seen any make that particular claim, although I have seen several who proclaimed this to be from the '1611' and actually quoted from an (I assume) 1769 version (although if 'American' could have been from about any edition, as the KJV is "Public Domain," in the USA), for it certainly wasn't any '1611' spelling or wording. I only now wish I had had an actual 1611 spelling version to have used in Bible College, merely to show up the hypocrisy.

"Hey! You said use the KJV, for memory verses! How much more KJV can one get than a 1611 KJV??

N'yuck! N'yuck!!"

Ed.

 

Nothing like a little opinion and judgmental attitude for lunch, I guess. However, I see so much bull here, that it has made me have a sudden craving for a hamburger for lunch, instead.

FTR, the major revisions of the KJV occurred with Dr. Paris in 1762, Dr. Blayney in1769, and Dr. Scrivener in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1883, which are a long time after any of the 1600sthe 1600s.

Amazing that Dr. Scrivener seems to be considered competent to analyze the KJV to recreate the TR1894, from the actual textual basis of the NT, but not competent enough to 'edit' it, as did Drs. Paris and Blaney, because Dr. Scrivener also actually was a part of the English Revision Committee, for the RV.

Ed

 

Actually, I think I shall make that a steak.

Ed

 

Completely Unwarranted (and Undeserved) Attack!!!!!!!!!

If this is not an attack on every Christian today (including yourself, FTR), then I don't know what one is.

You have just attacked every 'godly' Bible College Professor, Seminary Teacher, Pastor, Deacon, Bible Translator (including several BB members), and every Baptist Board member, with this outrageous statement classifying all as "ungodly and wicked," and I, for one, now call on Dr. Bob, C4K, Phillip, or any Administrator to remove this "ungracious" and hate filled sentence in your post #74, and in my quoted response.

It takes quite a bit for me to use the "angry" icon on (and in) a post, but this one deserves it fully!

Ed

 

I recently listed more than 10 additional available "modern" versions that are translated from this textual basis, in another post, where FTR, you were in the thread.

In addition, one can get reprinted copies of at least the WYC, TNT, GEN, and MCB, which are 'older' than any KJV.

Why should I waste the time and energy to do list them again, only to be again ignored??

Ed

 

Hmmm...God certainly places more importance on the message than you do, stilllearning. I think I'll stick with what God said:

Did God tell Jonah to preach certain words, stilllearning? Not at all!

Preach what? Certain words? Not at all - "the message that I will tell you."

What did Haggai speak to the people? Particular words? Nope - the message.

So that what might be preached fully? A prescribed set of words? No - the message.

Is the truth beginning to sink in, stilllearning? Or are you still confused? Let's look at a couple more verses to help you understand.

What was heard and declared? That's right - the message.

What was heard, stilllearning? Yes, that's right - the message.

Do you understand now? God isn't very concerned that a particular set of words are followed - He's much more concerned that the message comes through just as it was written. Language changes, and sometimes the words used to convey God's message to us must be changed in order to keep from changing the message.

Yes, but more importantly, when we get away from God's message it allows people to "tweak" God's message. Just look at errant groups like the Branch Davidians, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh-Day Adventists and the KJVOs. All these groups got away from God's message and - well, you see where it got them.

Except for its inaccuarcies, the 1611 KJV was an accurate translation of God's word - for its time. However, the English language has had nearly 400 years worth of growth and evolution. The 1611 KJV and its later editions, even with their many changes, are no longer as accurate as they once were. And the discoveries of older and more reliable manuscripts show us the texts underlying the Textus Receptus are not as perfect as we thought they were. Did you know that in the New Testament alone there are at least 17 places where the KJVs add words that weren't in the older and more reliable texts? Added words are found at:

Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14
Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28
Luke 17:36; 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29
Romqnw 16:24
1 John 5:7b-8a

No, the KJVs certainly aren't perfect.

If you had done your homework, stilllearning, you would have discovered the NKJV is based on the Masoretic Text (OT) and the Textus Receptus (NT) (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html).

The New Testament of Young's Literal Translation is TR-based:

The RYLT (Revised Young's Literal Translation web page cites the TR as the textual basis for Young's Literal Translation:

The RYLT web page also calls the RYLT a "work in progress and a Modern English update of Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible published in 1898" without giving any other textual information on the NT.

I suspect the OT of Young's Literal Translation is based on the Masoretic Text, but I found no substantiating information to confirm my suspicion.

 

No, Salamander, I never said God can be deceived - it was YOU who made that false, heretical claim. As I said before, God knows everything and He can't be deceived.

Have you been into the peyote or the loco weed patch today, Sal? I figure it must have been one of those that made you think God can be deceived.

IMO, Sal, anyone who actually thinks God can be deceived is either...

...two aces shy of a full deck
...a few fries short of a Happy Meal

...or has an elevator that doesn't go all the way to the top floor.

If you really think God can be deceived, Sal, then maybe you'd be interested in a bridge I can sell you or else some ocean-front property in Arizona!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: