Is "Bibliolater" a Legitimate Term?

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Then we should be reading Greek and Hebrew.

--------------------------------------------------

Why? When God has provided us His words of truth in English already, to which says the same exact thing as the Greek and Hebrew. We don't need to learn those languages. God has given us his words of truth in our English language and there is no need for us to learn a new language in order to understand what we already have been given in our own language. What a wonderful and faithful Lord we have, and I praise His Holy name!


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
What about places where scripture is "missing" from the KJV, or where the KJV has "added" verses? Since the source texts of some "modern versions" predate the KJV's source texts by hundreds of years, logic would assert that those older texts carry greater weight than the source texts of the KJV. BTW, the Dead Sea Scrolls tend to support "MV" source texts.
--------------------------------------------------

This is the root of your misunderstanding this issue. You have put your own "logic" and human reasoning and wisdom, above that of faith in God's promises, and what God has provided. God promised to preserve his words for every generation and to which keeps the faithful in safety. Just take a look at the warnings God has made concerning his words, and adding to, or taking away from them, and tell me you really believe what you say about the KJV? If you believe this, you should not regard the KJV as God's words, but as corrupt, because you believe it has added to God's words. Are you being disobediant to the Lord and being a hypocrite? You can't have it both ways.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Craigbythesea]

I trust God and his promises and works, not man. It might do you and others well to come off of the label "King James" of the Bible, and just call it the Bible, or the word of God, for this is what it is. This label of "King James" is what many have attached to it, which seems to be clouding the minds and thoughts of many on these threads regarding the very words of God.

How could anyone be so deceived!!! You have not trusted God and His promises; you have trusted the lies of the fools who taught you that the King James translation of the Bible is the very word of God when IN FACT IT IS NOT! IT IS A TRANSLATION, AND A VERY IMPERFECT TRANSLATION AT THAT!!! This is not just our opinion, it is DOCCUMENTED FACT!!!

God NEVER, NEVER, NEVER promised to preserve His Word in English beginning in 1611!!! What belief could possibly be more stupid!!! God is not a God that fell off the earth till 1611!!! He did not allow his Word to perish until 1611!!! God does not love the Englishman more than He loves the Frenchman!!! The entire doctrine of KJOism is a lie from hell and no one having the Spirit of our Lord could fall for such a horrendous lie!

 

[Craigbythesea]

I will always defend the KJV of the Bible. It is the true word of God. Yes it was written by man, King James, written on paper, but was copied from the sea scrolls. So even though a man copied it, it still was written by the Finger of God.

More, absolute proof of the idiocy of KJOism!

 

[HankD]

If you believe this, you should not regard the KJV as God's words, but as corrupt, because you believe it has added to God's words. Are you being disobediant to the Lord and being a hypocrite? You can't have it both ways.

The King James Bible is actually a translation of the Bible and an ecclesiastic translation at that. Translations are not "corrupt" just because you prefer the English receptor words chosen by the translators of the KJB as opposed to a more modern version of the Bible (NASB).

There is a spiritual truth in the Bible which you seem not to have discovered michelle, that the terms which we use on our brothers and sisters are most likely descriptions of ourselves.

HankD

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
If you consider the NT... to not be held to the same standard as the Old Testament, then your faith is in vain.

I never said that, nor did I remotely imply that.

And you are WRONG that this verse is speaking ONLY of the Old Testament scriptures.

You really should consider taking a bible class. It may help relieve some of your ignorance.

That verse states ALL SCRIPTURE...

Context, Context Context. If I said "all cars are gas guzzlers", does that mean all cars at the time, or all cars in the future? Again, for us to apply the purpose to all scripture is right and just. However, the author was referring to what he knew as scripture, which was the OT. THe NT was not yet in existence.

...to which includes the New Testament text, to which is the life, death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the witnesses to Him. It is the New Covenant and is also just as authoritative and just as inspired and to also what this verse is referring to and to which is also the very words of God!

Interesting that translations are not listed anywhere in there, thus refuting the heretical KJVOist view that you adhere to.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
It was not written in English, nor was it given by inspiration of God in English. Those verses do not in any way support the false doctrine of single-translationism.
--------------------------------------------------

THis is no excuse. God's word is God's word in ANY LANGUAGE and means the same thing in ALL LANGUAGES. Just as the Indonesian word "murrah" means "red" in English when translated, it still has the same meaning of the color red in both. If languages could not be accurately translated from one language to another, we would not be able to ever communicate properly with anyone speaking in another language. The problems with the mv's are that they have, taken away verses and words of God, and changed God's words to change the context of the passage and/or verse. This is quite a different matter altogether than changing the word when only translating from the text to a different English word that has the same meaning. With that, there is not a problem. It is only when the choice word rendering changes the meaning of the verse and/or the context of the passage that is the problem, or has deleted scripture altogether. This has been done with the mv's.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[HankD]

The problems with the mv's are that they have, taken away verses and words of God, and changed God's words to change the context of the passage and/or verse.

and for the n+1th time michelle, since we don't have the originals there is no way on earth you can prove whether said words in question have been added or deleted since we don't have the originals.

Repeat after me...
We don't have the originals.

HankD

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
How do you know? You've never even cracked open an NIV. Places where there are source text differences are all included. The footnotes will say something like "text A reads, xxxx", "text B reads". The NIV is the most inclusive translation out there, since it contains material from multiple sources.

As far as "footnotes not being scripture", neither are chapter numbers and verse divisions. They're devised by man, not divinely inspired.

--------------------------------------------------


All I can say, is God is not the author of confusion, and it is the serpent who said to Eve in the Garden of Eden, yeah, hath God said? You can go ahead and lead others to doubt what God has said, and make them become thier own judge as to what the Lord has said, and what the word of God is, but you are doing this at your own, and others detriment. Footnotes are NOT the inspired words of God, but they are the translators notes. They are historical references, and the opinions of men. They are notes, outside of what the manuscripts reveal.

I never said the chapter numbers, or verse numbers were inspired. I never claimed, nor do I claim they are inspired, but they are also not words.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
God's word is God's word in ANY LANGUAGE and means the same thing in ALL LANGUAGES.

That thought doesn't support single-translationism. It does, however support the idea that everyone is entitled to translations in their language. Since the KJV is not written in contemporary English, I see no reason why I'm not entitled to a translation in the contemporary English that I speak today.

The problems with the mv's are that they have, taken away verses and words of God, and changed God's words to change the context of the passage and/or verse.

Whether that's true or not (which it isn't), I'm still entitled to a translation in my own language, which is contemporary American English.

...or has deleted scripture altogether. This has been done with the mv's.

You have yet to assert that scriptural sources which predate the KJV sources have "deleted" scripture. The more likly scenario is that the KJV sources have "added" acripture. How can you "delete" something which wasn't there to begin with.

BTW, the Dead Sea Scrolls tend to support the older Greek manuscripts. Are you going to claim that someone "deleted" those verses from the Dead Sea Scrolls as well?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I need to remember this the next time you while and moan that the KJV is "attacked". Looking at this post, it's clear that the only attacking that's done is by your own unscriptural views.
--------------------------------------------------

But you will not find me a hypocrite concerning this issue. I do not believe that we should approve of, nor condone, nor use anything that has altered God's words of truth and call it the very words of God, or the Bible, for it is not. God has given clear warnings against doing such. You however, believe also that the KJV is the word of God, yet you attack it, while condoning those things that have altered it. This expresses hypocracy and disobediance. My veiws are not unscriptural, but only scriptural. WE are commanded to not touch the unclean thing.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
How long, then, must the pole be?
--------------------------------------------------

I think you are smart enouph to understand what it is I meant here. Okay, I will spell it out for you:

I would not ever touch the NIV nor would I ever recommend it to anyone. I would also strongly urge those who use it, to give it up and turn to the true words of God for the English speaking people. Do you understand now?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
I do not believe that we should approve of, nor condone, nor use anything that has altered God's words of truth and call it the very words of God, or the Bible, for it is not.

Then, you shouldn't be using the KJV, if you hold the same litmus test to all translations.

You however, believe also that the KJV is the word of God, yet you attack it...

I have never one attacked the KJV. Never. Not here in this thread, and ot in any other thread.

... while condoning those things that have altered it.

I've haven't discussed alterations of the KJV at all.

This expresses hypocracy and disobediance.

Disobedience? You're accusing me of something I haven't done, and then call me disobedient? That's a laugh. I'll stick to what the Bible says, rather than what you think the Bible says. The Bible says nothing about there being only one sole translation.

My veiws are not unscriptural, but only scriptural. WE are commanded to not touch the unclean thing.

We're also called not to add to scripture, but versionolaters like yourself do just that. I, otoh, have not in this thread touched any unclean thing.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
I would not ever touch the NIV nor would I ever recommend it to anyone. I would also strongly urge those who use it, to give it up and turn to the true words of God for the English speaking people.

There is no single "true word of God for the English speaking people". That's blatant heresy.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
God NEVER, NEVER, NEVER promised to preserve His Word in English beginning in 1611!!! What belief could possibly be more stupid!!! God is not a God that fell off the earth till 1611!!! He did not allow his Word to perish until 1611!!! God does not love the Englishman more than He loves the Frenchman!!! The entire doctrine of KJOism is a lie from hell and no one having the Spirit of our Lord could fall for such a horrendous lie!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, do you believe God when he said he would preserve his words for every generation? So are you telling me, we cannot have in our English language the very words of God 100% perfectly and accurately? Please tell me, do you believe that God has the power and ability to do this? Do you believe that God created, and has knowledge and authority of ALL LANGUAGES? Do you believe that when God said "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life" could and has been translated accurately from the one language to many others? Why then is it so hard for you to see what God has provided for you and excuse away those things that have altered his word? By the way, God did promise to preserve his words of truth for EVERY GENERATION, and for all eternity. What was translated in 1611 existed centuries prior to that, and even unto this day, and yes, even forever. I am sorry you cannot or will not understand this.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
So, do you believe God when he said he would preserve his words for every generation?

This does not support sole-translationism.

So are you telling me, we cannot have in our English language the very words of God 100%

There's no such thing as a perfect translation. The KJV is not a perfect translation of its source texts. It's a good translation using the language of the day (the 1600's), but it's not a perfect translation. That's a moot point, however, since Scripture does not promise preservation via translations.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
and for the n+1th time michelle, since we don't have the originals there is no way on earth you can prove whether said words in question have been added or deleted since we don't have the originals.

Repeat after me...
We don't have the originals.

HankD
--------------------------------------------------

Repeat after me....

We do have the origionals, for if we didn't, there would be no reason to have them in the first place and no reason for God to give us warning of adding to/taking away from his words. What is your understanding of eternal, and preserved? Do you believe that the Bible/scriptures that you read, understand, apply to your life, preach and teach are what God origionally said? If not, what then, is your faith based upon? If so, would this then not be the origionals? The origional word of God does not pass away, for his words are eternal! They existed then, now and forever more.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
You have yet to assert that scriptural sources which predate the KJV sources have "deleted" scripture. The more likly scenario is that the KJV sources have "added" acripture. How can you "delete" something which wasn't there to begin with.

--------------------------------------------------

The scriptural sources that predate the KJV, to which evidence omittions are corruptions plain and simple. The preserved words of God have been kept in the churches for centuries, and continue even to this day. This is the text that underlines the KJV. God promises to preserve his words for every generation, and it is this underlying text that has been the text of the churches, not that of the text that underlines the mv's. This is the proof, that those things that you claim are added, are not added at all, but part of the cannon of scripture, NOT THE OMITTIONS. Those older manuscripts are far from being more accurate and reliable, for they have corrupted God's pure words of truth, and weakened the strong testimony of the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
BTW, the Dead Sea Scrolls tend to support the older Greek manuscripts. Are you going to claim that someone "deleted" those verses from the Dead Sea Scrolls as well?
--------------------------------------------------

I don't have to, nor do I give any credence to the dead sea scrolls, because I do not doubt God's words. I believe and attest to the fact that I have them already, and that they are perfect and accurate and 100% correct, and that the churches have had them throughout the centuries, and will continue to have them forever. God's words were never lost, but kept and preserved within the churches by God Almighty himself.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
I don't have to, nor do I give any credence to the dead sea scrolls, because I do not doubt God's words. I believe and attest to the fact that I have them already, and that they are perfect and accurate and 100% correct, and that the churches have had them throughout the centuries

The Dead Sea Scrolls predate any texts that the churches would have had through the centuries, as you claim.

The scriptural sources that predate the KJV... are corruptions plain and simple.

Based on what? The Dead Sea Scrolls support the earlier manuscripts. Are the Dead Sea Scrolls corruptions as well?

The preserved words of God have been kept in the churches for centuries, and continue even to this day. This is the text that underlines the KJV.

Presuming that you're correct, and the source texts for the KJV are authoritative over other source texts, that still doesn't support single-translationism.