Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation?

Yes, He did. Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures. In the Old Testament we see "Yahshua" "Meshiac." This is explained in Matthew 1:21 where the bible says "thou shalt call his name Jesus (Yahshua)." Matthew 1:1 makes it very clear who was being discussed when it says "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ (Yahshua Meshiac)." Acts 10:43 tells us, referring to Christ, "To him (Jesus Christ) give all the prophets witness," - the Old Testament Prophets ALL preached Jesus Christ according to the bible.

I just showed you. They read their Old Testaments.

Yes.

They knew the scriptures, and he said in John 5:39, referring to the Old Testament, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I have always had the answer. It is you who lacks the answer. You are the one who errs not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God in your life.

 

No problemo, There are already several being discussed over there. I just thought you might like to join the fun. I know you answered a LOT of my earlier questions and a lot of people have not seen those answers. They can find them in strings entitled something like "Answers to Phillip's questions". In these, Michelle presents her answers in a lot more detail.

I think a lot of us, including myself, missed your answers and I also think it might behoove us to go back and read them because in reality, we are asking Michelle many of the same questions she has already answered. If, after reading those answers, there are further responses, then so be it.

Thanks Michelle,

 

You keep saying this but so far you have failed to produce even ONE!

 

How do you know He didn't? Can you post a verse which says He didn't?

What's good for the (silly) goose, is good for the gander!

 

You keep saying this but so far you have failed to produce even ONE! </font>[/QUOTE]You ignore the fact what I learned a long time.

 

Your mouth speaks out, "I am conservative," but you with your feet stand on the liberal side. Look like a Hypocrite? </font>[/QUOTE]My point is just that- call me what ever you like but my beliefs define me, not your false accusations.

Technically, I am a fundamentalist, not a conservative, although I share alot in common with conservatives.

The truth is that my beliefs on Bible versions are conservative, fundamental, and biblical while yours are not. The real fundamentalists at the beginning of the last century used multiple versions to refute real liberals. Beliefs similar to mine concerning the Bible and versions go back to at least the early church fathers.

KJVOnlyism as a defined movement goes back to a 1930's SDA. Unless of course you count the RCC that was Latin Vulgate Only for centuries and thus denied people the ability to understand God's Word for themselves... much like KJVOnlyism.

Your implication that I am either liberal or a hypocrite says far more about you than me.

 

You haven't posted any facts. You cut and pasted someone else's work and when I pointed out the errors you didn't respond.

You have yet to post ONE verse which proves the NKJV has even ONE word not derived from the TR, let along 2000. You have proven yourself a liar.

 

How do you know He didn't? Can you post a verse which says He didn't?

What's good for the (silly) goose, is good for the gander! </font>[/QUOTE]I think it is you that so often corrects the rest of us for using invalid means to prove a valid conclusion.

Michelle is wrong and lacks discernment on this issue. But to say what you said and attribute it to God? That isn't good for the goose or the gander. I have more faith in your spiritual maturity than that.

 

If she considers such illogical, subjective arguments effective, it makes perfect sense to use such arguments on her. If she does not consider such illogical, subjective arguments effective, then perhaps she will stop using them. QED

My goal is to get her to actually discuss the empirical evidence for her wild claims. So far she has not provided one coherent sentence in evidentiary support of her wild thesis. Maybe a little such gentle chiding will reminde her that evidence is required, not uninformed illogical opinions.

 

Hopefully. But maybe be a little more gentle, OK?

 

I am not very good at hypocrisy.

 

Michelle, Are your church and pastor(s) KJVO?

I didn't find a statement of such on their web site.

 

I guess that's my forte according to Askjo.

 

LOL! Well, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but if Askjo said it, you can just about count on it being wrong!

 

Thanks, I will be able to sleep now...

 

Michelle:But isn't this in effect what you are saying you are doing? You don't need to rely upon only one Bible, as I can and do, but you must rely upon a different variety of translations

It's not a matter of relyng, but a matter of using more than one of the tools God has provided. A mechanic doesn't rely on just one tool, but uses every tool in his toolbox as needed, and if he needs a tool he doesn't have, he goes out & buys it, rather than try to do a job with a tool not made for that job.

God has provided us with quite a few tools, and He will add to our "toolbox" as necessary.

and to take the time and effort to look them up,

What's wrong with using time & effore to learn what God makes available for us to learn?


when your time would have already been well spent focusing your attention, time, energy, with no added costs, to reading God's words to you in one Bible, with understanding from the Holy Spirit of truth and a dictionary.

So it's alright to take the time & effort to interrupt your Bible reading to use a dictionary??? Kowabunga!


Reading a variety of Bibles to get the full understanding of what God is saying to you, is making more work for yourself, when God has already provided it for you and many others for hundreds of years.

And in many versions. And every version has some rather klunky renderings here & there which are often much better in another version.


Do you not see the cirlce you put yourself in, in trying to understand God's word? All you need is the Holy Bible that he provided for you, study it, and rely upon the understanding He gives to you.

I have the Holy Bible, eleven English versions of it. God isn't limited to any one version & neither am I.


Do you need others to interpret it for you?

I certainly listen to what other Christians have to say. God gives EACH INDIVIDUAL BELIEVER a unique "download" of his wisdom, for his/her own edification, and to share with others for mutual edification. God may have given one believer a better understanding of a certain Scripture(s) than He's given me or my neighbor.


Why not let God do the interpreting for you?

I do. That's why I read His word in several valid versions. God is NOT LIMITED in His methods of interpretation. he may directly tell someone, or He may lead them to a certain passage in a certain version in a such a manner that the person may not know right away that he/she is being led. With God, all things are possible.


And why does God need you to use a variety of translations, when he has already preserved one?

God has provided several English versions for our use. Proof? He didn't preserve the earthly originals, did He, or at least he didn't leave them on earth.(The ark, containing the 10 Commandments written by God on stone, is in the Temple in heaven, Rev. 11:19)

Do you expect God to simply fill you with knowledge without any effort on your part? Even though He could jolly well evangelize without any help from us whatsoever, He's training us for higher office and He expects us to make the effort to learn, and to work for Him at whatever work He presents us. Every job is different & every one is important to God or He wouldn't have us do it. God has no "make-work" jobs! The custodian who dusts the pews & runs the carpet cleaner is just as important to God as the pastor is. He/she who witnesses to one neighbor is just as important to God as is the world-renowned televangelist.

But to know exactly how to do whatever work God has for you, you must read His word, with prayer & supplication-and use the tools He has for you.

 

The fallacy of CIRCULAR JUSTIFICATION:
Deductive circularities offer as
justification precisely what we are
trying to justify.

Consider the three legs of the KJV-only stool:

1. God preserved His word for the English
people because God preserved His word for
the English people.

2. God preserved His word for the English
people so God preserved His word for
the English people.

3. God preserved His word for the English
people when God preserved His word for
the English people.

Very tight logic!
a tad circular, but i commend it's tightness.
And it is simple,
And it is easy to rembmer

 

The problem with too-subtle humor is that the thicker of the brethren tend to miss it.

 

The KJV translators themselves said that a variety of translations was a good thing to get the "sense" of the Scriptures. They understood that translation is a difficult process.

NO translation can be a word-for-word cross-over, most words in one language intersect into the semantic domains of another word in that same language and may inherit a nuance from that domain. That may not be the case in the receptor language for that particular word.

The scope of one word in a given language may be wide but the word in the receptor language much more narrow.

There are many other dynamics at work in the art of language translation.

The KJV is/was the culmination of centuries of refinement and modernization. Several revisions refined it even more. But even the KJV translators said that the "meanest" (worst) of the translations were the Word of God.

Have the KJV, love it, use it, but please don't call what many of us consider a further refinement and modernization a "corruption" or a "counterfeit".

HankD