Conservative Bible Project

Well if we had everyone in our churches learn Greek and Hebrew than we could argue that the originals are the way to go. Frankly, this is why pastors need to be well educated in the languages...so they adequately handle the responsibility of informing their flocks.

That said, I don't particularly believe the TR is an example of the textual basis we should use. I'm more for a textual basis informed by modern scholarship than one man's input from several hundred years ago. While I appreciate the intent of the TR, it simply isn't adequate for true engagement with the textual basis of the testaments.

 

The verse in question isn't referring to the issue of translations. It's addressing the importance of preaching what Christ has instructed (In the original Greek, "kerusso logos"), in part to combat false teachings that were permeating the church in which Timothy was working.

 

A Rolls Royce is better than a Chevy? To be a non-Christian is better than being a Christian? Getting a B or C in a class is better than an A? More means better?

 

The whole Schlafly family seems like a bunch of nuts !!!!

 

No, a "heap" carries with it the idea of placing this accumulation into order, which accumulating is synonomous but doesn't carry the same implication by action.

Dust accumulates, people heap up.

There again the KJV is worthy of note, or should we say "noteworthy"?:thumbsup:

 

Are you saying the passage doesn't teach us anything?

Do we all need to know Greek now?

Didn't you first understand English before you knew Greek?

Don't you try to tell us in English what the Greek means?:sleep:

I understood what you said before any knowledge of Greek, but I also understood the warning to us in present day apostacies that people heap to themsleves teahcers having itching ears because they have decided to bring the word of God down to an intellectual understanding rather than being led by the Spirit.:type::type:

 

The textual basis for translations is why we stay with the family of texts which make up the KJV like we do.

 

I'm saying the passage in question isn't referring to the issue of translations.

Given your frequent misapplication of the English, yes, would probably help you to have an understanding of Koine Greek.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the passage in question isn't referring to the issue of translations.

Yet another example of the single-translation-onlyist double-standard mentality.

But that's a false statement on your part. You don't stick with the TR family of texts. You acknlowlege that you stick with the KJV and condemn any other translation, even if it's based on the same source texts. You further claim that, if the KJV makes a modification from the TR, it's permissible, but if any other translation makes a modification from its source texts, even if the source texts are the TR, then it's not permissible. I'd like to see you deny that.

 

(double post)

 

yet it is in the translation:smilewinkgrin:

Don't need to understand your version of W/H's Greek, it's as corrupt as they were.

Then you're not able to translate with any accuracy is what you meant to say.

Oh? So I hold to a version that upholds God's word above the words of men and you complain that it's a double-standard!:tonofbricks:

there are many things "based" upon the same thing with different results, time you learned that and maybe, just maybe you'll have learned the KJV is above man's words.

You must be a TR onlyist

 

Do you honestly think you're not sounding like a fool when you say stuff like that?

Which doesn't change the fact that your frequent misapplication of the English is well documented in your posts.

What evidentiary support do you have for that claim?

Sure. Please provide scriptural support. In all your posts on this baord, you've never once been able to provide scriptural support for KJVOism. I do love they way you turn every topic into a KJVO topic. Yet you can never support your KJVO claim. Gotta love it.

 

I do not know of anyone who uses the Westcott Hort Greek text exclusively today. What is the source of your information for such a statement about Westcott and Hort?

Prove your statement as fact by showing how you have the original text.

Could you explain?

 

Did that man have integrity?

 

If you people want a version that is dragged down to man's common language, whichever is "common" as the English is everchanging and adversely effected by perverted individuals, then go right ahead.

The KJV was written in a "high" form of English to uphold its integrity and give due reverence to the Lord in so doing.

You expect lost men to be able to intellectually grasp the spiritual things found within the word of God. It's really no wonder you demean the Bible by attempting to "prove" no translation is inpsired.

Let the truth expose what the underlayment is of your methodology: you don't want men to have an inspired Bible!:tear:

 

The NT was written in common Greek, because that's what the common people spoke. That in and of itself is adequate support for contemporary English speakers to have a bible written in Contemporary English.

You obviously have no knowlege of the language of the KJV. First, the KJV was written in a combination of Early Modern English (spoken and Middle English. Second, there is nothing about this ME/EME combination that can be said to uphold the integrity of words any more or less than Modern English or Contemporary Business English (the two forms which followed).

Still waiting for you to provide scriptural support for the idea that only the KJV is inspired. But you actually expect lost men to read a bible in a language other than the one they speak.

Actually, it is you who doesn't want an inspired bible other than the KJV, but you can't find any proof to support your claim.

 

Greek is not English, it is a primodial tongue. English is the compilation of many tongues. they are not comparable as you'd like to make them.

Contemporary English is less than the high English in which the KJV is written, therefore you expect less and you get less.

Demanding literary excellence to fit anything less as contemporary English is embarking upon the voyage of failure.

I expected as much from a self-appointed scholar and i got it.

No, I expect men to rely upon the Holy Spirit to lead them to a place of repentence and convert them so they can understand the Bible. YOU expect the Bible to be understood on the level of intellect and therefore DENY the prompting of the Spirit.

God over-rules your idyllic, ecumenical and humanistic reasonings.

The KJV is just better than the rest.

I'll stick with the KJV.:godisgood:

 

That's the only scriptural support for KJVOism?


BTW, you might want to check your spelling of "primordial" before espousing superiority of the English language.