slandering the Word of God

Puritan William Fulke (1538-1589) cited where
Gregory Martin (a Roman Catholic who wrote a
book in 1582 entitled A DISCOVERY OF THE MANIFOLD CORRUPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES BY THE HERETICS OF OUR DAYS) claimed that "books which were so translated by Tyndale and the like, as being not indeed God's book, word, or scripture, but the devil's word" (A DEFENCE OF THE SINCERE AND TRUE TRANSLATIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURES INTO THE ENGLISH TONGUE, p. 228).

Fulke responded by noting that Martin's "blasphemy in calling it the devil's word [cannot] be excused for any fault in translation which you have discovered as yet or ever shall be able to decry" (p. 229).

 

Sounds EXACTLY like what KJVO's say about any translation that is not KJV.

Yes, when a KJVO says it, he/she is doing several things:

1 - Slandering scripture
2 - Adding to scripture
3 - Promoting false doctrine

 

I wonder if many KJVOs or other one-versionists are actually intending to slander God's word when they point out what they feel are mistakes in other versions. I think we all know of one member here, who doesn't post much any more, who likes to sit down with a box full of different BVs and compare them while using the KJV as a "standard"...and that we've often found that some other version has a better translation at some given passages.

And when we see a BV that's CLEARLY full of error, I.E.the NWT, I don't believe it's slander to heap aspersions upon it.

While a cop, I sat in on many trials, both criminal and civil, hoping to learn things, as for a little while I toyed with the idea of becoming an attorney. I learned that the perfect, non-appealable defense for a slander charge is THE ALLEGATIONS' BEING TRUE. However, this is NOT often the case in the BVs discussions.

 

roby, I can't say that they are intentionally libeling God's word by saying MV's are something other than they are. I believe they have been so brainwashed and battered into believing KJV Onlyism is correct, and even scriptural by the misinterpetation by their pastors or themselves of Scriptures. NOWHERE does the Bible promote one version onlyism. Some, indeed may be doing it with the purpose of being divisive, but I don't believe a majority do.

 

Without stepping off into the KJVo pool of water; It is my opinion that a translation can be discussed without slandering the Word of God at all.

I don't have a problem with someone saying:

"I'm not as happy with the NIV as the ESV (for example) because the style of translation is less literal."

or

"I think the HCSB is a little weak in its rendering of Daniel 3:17 and that could be improved somewhat."

In the reality of today's world of many translations, if we discuss them in this fashion, I do not believe that we are slandering God's Word at all; simply making a personal observation on the "style" and "accuracy" of the translation.

For example, if we have a problem with the New NIV gender issue. That can be discussed. Is it right to change gender and/or was it changed for political correctness, or was it changed because English has changed so much that it is actually closer to what the original Greek or Hebrew says.

These type of statements are referring to methods and practices of the TRANSLATORS and do not slander God's Word in any shape, form or fashion.

This is real world, not KJVonlyism arguments.

 

Let me test my theory:

Tinytim, would you have a problem if I were to say that I prefer my ESV to the NIV because the translation is less dynamic?

Am I slandering your Bible by making this statement?

 

Would it be wrong for a Jew to have said in the 1st century, "I believe in the Messiah, but this man Jesus is not the Messiah"? Would that be an attack on the Messiah?

 

Yes

Regardless of our legal definitions, and it is true that it requires a "falsehood" and "intentional malice" for a Tort to occur, slander in this aspect is not based on the US legal systems definition, IMHO.

 

I really hate to see/hear anyone slandering the Word of the Most High.

Problem for KJVOism is that it relies upon slander and conspiracy theories to stay above the water. Without distortions and double standards KJVOism can not exist. KJVOism so called "proof" can be turned on the KJV family thus making the KJV guilty of the same things that they:the KJVOist claim that other translations do. This is a dangerious tactic that profits no one.

I prefer the NASB 1995 but I will never say that it is the only English bible.

It really bothers me how some people can call the Word of God perverted and/or satanic. I just wish they would say we prefer or we like such and such. There is no need to slander and lie.

Just my thoughts...

David J.

 

What is the difference between saying "such and such" manuscripts are "perverted" and saying "corrupted"?

Pervert; to overturn, corrupt, to twist the meaning or sense of, misinterpret
Corrupt; to alter from the original or correct form or version

Why is it ok to use "corrupted" and not "perverted"?


In His service;
Jim

 

In this context, 'corrupt' would not imply purposeful alteration nor sinful intent while 'pervert' would.

 

-------------------------------------------------
Why not? Are you so naive to believe that there were never any "scribes" in the Catholic church, beginning in Alexandria to the present, who would fit your description? That my friend is laughable.

And of course you are aware fo the fact that the two words are interchangable?
In His service;
Jim

 

-------------------------------------------------
Why not? Are you so naive to believe that there were never any "scribes" in the Catholic church, beginning in Alexandria to the present, who would fit your description? That my friend is laughable.

And of course you are aware fo the fact that the two words are interchangable?
In His service;
Jim </font>[/QUOTE]Are you so naive to believe that the Anglican church was not truly Catholic and hunted down Puritans and that the translators were not Catholic indoctrinated? Why else would the apocrypha appear in your letter-perfect KJV?

 

What on earth have your comments got to do with what I said?
Puhleeze!

My My but you do have an axe to grind don't you?

HA HA HA HA HA HA lolroflmho.

In His service;
Jim

 

You have quote a talent for deflecting, don't you.

 

Deflection is something that many KJV onlyists (the extremists of the sect, usually) are good at. They've been taught well by their mentors.