Dynamic equivalence in KJV

Thank God the Anglican Translators were wise enough NOT to do this! But wait! These very words were spoken of by the Catholics! "It would do you well to take your focus off the Hebrew and Greek languages, and focus upon the Latin God has provided for you." Without the Hebrew and Greek, there'd be no KJV.

 

What words were not preserved in the KJV? Show me. </font>[/QUOTE]Look in Strongs.
The list called "Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary-index
to the Old Testament". Here are the first
few (transliterated):
2.ab
3.eb
4.bagta
and the last few
8672.tesa
8673.tisim
8674.tittnay

Need we go to the Greek part?

Thou knowest I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, the Christ

 

--------------------------------------------------
How do you have proof that God inspired a version of His Word in English?
--------------------------------------------------


Read Psalm 12 and look at history.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Where did Psalm 12 say that God would inspire His Word in English?

Your twisted opinion about what this verse says is NOT the Word of God.

 

Speak for yourself michelle. Many of us are pastors, teachers, Bible translators, missionaries, Sunday School teachers, etc, and take the study of God's Word in the original languages of the Greek and Hebrew very seriously in the very same spirit as the KJV translators:

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Rather than continuing to be a busy-body and spout forth the same old platitudes and KJVO shibboleths day after day you would do well to obey the Scriptures instead of making war with and causing strife among the brethren.

HankD

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again: KJVOnlyists are the modern equivalents of the Apostle Thomas- their faith is such that they need to see & touch something to believe it's real. Thomas had to see & touch his risen Master to believe it was true, and KJVOnlyists need to have God's Word in their hands, and in words they can understand, to believe in God's Word. It's simply not good enough for them that God has promised to preserve his Word; or that He has said it is forever settled in Heaven, or clearly specified to whom original inspiration was given. KJVOnlyists have to objectify those ageless truths into their chosen man-made translation of that Word which they can hold in their hands; and in the process they make that man-made object an idol. Bibliolatry is an unfortunate reality; and it seems that nothing- not even the complete lack of support in the Bible itself for their self-created house-of-cards- is going to dissuade them. Many simply continue to cover their eyes; or shout "La-la-la, I can't hear you", when presented with any factual truths contrary to what they have chosen to believe.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Where did Psalm 12 say that God would inspire His Word in English?

Your twisted opinion about what this verse says is NOT the Word of God.
--------------------------------------------------

Where does it say he wouldn't? I am a faithful believer and I speak english, and he has promised he would preserve his pure words for EVERY GENERATION FOR the FAITHFUL. This includes me, a faithful believer, to have his pure words, to keep me in his safety FROM THE WICKED. God has also told me that I am to live by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD. This He has provided for me, and so I live and believe accordingly. NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE can you show me HE HASN'T, NOR WOULD NOT.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

So you see yourself as in the same generation as the 1611 Christians? THAT is a LONG generation!!!

 

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches empty themselves into the gold... If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER
Preface to the King James Version 1611
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is fine and dandy. But when you and others try to tell me and others that what God has ALREADY PROVIDED ME and others for GENERATIONS is in ERROR, this is when it becomes a problem. When you all who supposedly study and know Greek and Hebrew, start condoning things that are missing, or changed from what FAITHFUL believers have always known, and to this day know, it shows you are WRONG. God's preserved word is MY FINAL AUTHORITY, not your OPINION of what YOU THINK the Greek and Hebrew says. God has given us (english speaking believers) his words of truth, to PROTECT US, those who are ignorant and naive, FROM THE LIKES OF THOSE LIKE YOU who try to instill doubt and trust in God's word, and desire the common english speaking people to rely and trust upon what YOU SAY it is to which is different and contrary to the standard and long understood, lived, believed words of God. (3:1)

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Hence, advanced revelation...if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck....
Pickled in English...for all eternity; the KJV1769.... yikes!

 

Michelle wrote:

Michelle, surely you don't wish to claim that "arguing from silence" is a good foundation for establishing Biblical doctrine?

If it is, then who's to say that the Mormons aren't doctrinally sound. After all, the Bible nowhere says that God wouldn't reveal the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith through an angel named Moroni in the mid-19th century.

Do you get my point? Doctrinal truths can't be based upon what the Bible doesn't say.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, surely you don't wish to claim that "arguing from silence" is a good foundation for establishing Biblical doctrine?
--------------------------------------------------

You should take a good look at your own self, and argument and belief, because it is you and others who are "arguing from silence" and to which always must hide behind the Hebrew and Greek languages to which common English people DO NOT SPEAK, NOR UNDERSTAND. God's word of truth is known in English and is proof and evidence of itself for my belief and speaks for itself, as I also pointed out to you.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

Ae foreign langauge translations from the original languages the Word of God. Or must they use the KJV?

 

Of course English language version(s) should be used, but it would enhance our understanding to study and learn the languages God chose to inspire His Word in, understand?

 

So you think that God erred in choosing to give his word in Hebrew and Greek (and yes I know, some Aramaic) speaking cultures? Where do you think the KJV translators derived the English of the KJV from? It came from the Hebrew and Greek.

Yes, God's Word is known today in English- but the only reason we have it in English is because of translation from the original languages that God provided it in. Moses, Paul, et al- weren't writing in English regardless of what your ehtnocentism blinds you from acknowledging.

 

LarryN said:

I've said this before and I'll say it again: KJVOnlyists are the modern equivalents of the Apostle Thomas- their faith is such that they need to see & touch something to believe it's real.

Except that Thomas saw the evidence, believed it and became an unstoppable force for the Gospel.

The KJV-onlyists see the evidence, and . . .

 

ROFL! Good point!

 

When and where have I done this michelle? I have stated publicly and gave the reasons why I accept 1 John 5:7 (for instance) as part of the Word of God and have always made it know that I support the Traditional Texts.

Secondly, you are wrong about what "FATHFUL believers have always known". The martyred Church of Rome (persecuted under the 10 Caesars, before the apostasy of Rome) had no standard Bible. The old Itala Scriptures were in a worst state of disagreement than the Alexandrian texts Aleph/B thus the need for the Latin Vulgate of which the KJV translators were quite fond in spite of its additions/deletions when compared to the Textus Receptus. They also included some unique readings from the Vulgate as well as the heretical APOCRYPHA (see, I can shout too) and labeled their work “The Holy Bible”.

The first English translations of the Scriptures were from the Vulgate for which William Tyndale paid with his life at the hand of Henry the eighth, founder of the Church of England. James the first (commissioner of the KJV) and the High Court, following in his footsteps of blood. These are your “FAITHFUL” believers?

Third, a certain 4th century Alexandrian named Athanasius (who used the dreaded Alexandrian manuscripts) was the first to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity from the Scriptures (strange isn’t it that he was an Alexandrian?).

Like a spoiled three year old, you keep having the same old tantrums and shouting fits about what God has “ALREADY PROVIDED ME” but keep forgetting as you have been shown over and over again that He provided it through flawed and sinful men who spent hundreds of years correcting the “perfect” Word of God (from the original language manuscripts).

James 3:16-18
For where envying and strife [is], there [is] confusion and every evil work.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

HankD