Question about Bible translations

It is a demonstrable fact that all extant manuscripts have variants. However, we do not need to discard the entire MS simply because it doesn't agree with another MS at a particular point. If we continually did that we would eventually be left with just two MSS remaining (with no real basis to determine which was the 'correct' one).

Actually, in my response I was merely paralleling Baptist4lifes' terminology ("manuscripts") which he seemed to have been improperly using to describe printed translations. I determined that the logical truth of "another possibility" would not be diminished despite the use of his inaccurate term. But again, we do not need to reject an entire version because it doesn't agree with another version at a particular point. Why is there such a demand for an 'all-or-nothing' proposition?

 

I'm not really sure how I managed to upset you, however, you are attempting to put words in my mouth that I have never said.

First, I haven't claimed to be any authority, on Bible translations, that I can recall. (FTR, neither have I ever claimed to be any scholar, either.)

Second, I have not said that ANY translation, let alone "that EVERY translation is the inspired word of God" anyplace (or any time) that I'm aware of.

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying here. The key words in this are "translations" and "inspired". I do not ascribe "inspiration" to any "translation", per se, and I reserve that designation for only the original autographs of Scripture and the process of how God communicated his revealed word to be recorded, to the human authors, although I do fully believe that "all Scripture is 'God-breathed-out' " (II Tim. 3:16), that it was spoken by holy men as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (II Pet. 1:16-25), that Scripture cannot be broken, that the Bible is the living, written Word of God, etc., et al.. I further suggest that I am basically in "lock-step" agreement with the BF&M, New Hampshire Confession, The Fundamentals, the Council on Biblical Inerrancy, as expressed in the "Chicago Statements" as well as effectively being fully consistent with the (apparent) position(s) of translators of the of the Bible into the English language, in the "standard editions" for 6 1/4 centuries, and especially as expressed by the translators of the KJV, RV, ASV, MLB, KJII, and NKJV versions, which happen to be the ones where I have read some to all of the translator prefaces and introductory materials.

Incidentally, while I may question the accuracy of ANY specific translation, at any point; I do not ever question the authority of Scripture, nor have I ever, on this Board.

But why are you even engaging in this "idle chit-chat", to begin with? Why not "just cut to the chase" and say what you really mean:

I already have on this subject, here -

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1382710&postcount=22

and here -

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1382729&postcount=25

where both posts were in direct response to something you brought up. In addition, I would note that I have made several other posts, at other times, on other threads, that say even more than these.

I note you offered this, on that thread.

What is the point?? If there is a translation difference, and you use the text of the KJV as "the final authority" what is the possible reason for another translation?? You simply can't have it both ways, my friend, by your own statement above, which is entirely inconsistent, on the face.

Finally, as another noted, you are indeed conflating and confuting me with another (most likely Ed Edwards, as another suggested) if for no other reason, in that I don't have (nor have I ever had) ANY "tag line" as I refer to what you are calling a "signature line", other than my own alter ego of "Language Cop" except for my own signature of -

Ed