This is Must Reading On the KJVO Position!

And that is beyond a disagreement, that's a dishonest charge.

 

While you may not be mentioning the KJV, your incorrect reasoning about "translated copies" is the way that you try to excuse or rationalize your claims for the KJV. Your opinions concerning the KJV are based on these claims that your statements would still be connected with your KJV-only view.

You try to get me to close my ears, eyes, and mind so that I ignore the obvious connection between your posted claims in this thread and your opinions of the KJV.

 

He meant "straining at nats" .

 

And note that you still won't address scriptures. I cease here.

 

Are you unaware that a different Greek word was given by God in 2 Timothy 3:15 than the Greek word in 2 Timothy 3:16? Perhaps you assume incorrectly based on the English rendering.

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:15, KJV defender Thomas Strouse observed: “The words ’holy scriptures’ translate hiera grammata, literally ’sacred’ or ’temple writings’” (The Lord God, p. 42).

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, Strouse noted: “But the word ’scripture’ translates graphe, which means ’scripture’ and refers to the autographa.” Strouse added: “Paul obviously used a different word to differentiate between the apographa [copies] and the autographa [original autographs], especially with regard to the scope of inspiration” (Ibid.).

 

The sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” but the verse does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration. There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse. Do some try to assume by the fallacy of begging the question that somehow the process of translating is found in the verse? Do some try to use a weak argument from silence and try to find something in the verse that is not directly stated? Would the Holy Spirit of truth guide believers to assume opinions by fallacies? Would trying to suggest that 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches something it does not state be evidence of sound spiritual discernment?

According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5). Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). David Cloud maintained that 2 Timothy 3:16 “describes the original process of the giving of Scripture,” and he noted that “the same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 213). David Cloud observed: “Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 4). D. A. Waite asserted: “The process of inspiration does apply to the original manuscripts (known as the autographs). This process was never repeated” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 106). Charles Kriessman wrote: “Inspiration is a process by which God breathed out His Words from Genesis to Revelation” (Modern Version Failures, p. 46). Kriessman quoted Thomas Strouse as stating: “Inspiration is a process whereby the Holy Spirit led the writers of Scripture to record accurately His very Words; the product of this process was the inspired originals” (p. 47). Irving Jensen noted: “We cannot explain the supernatural process of inspiration, which brought about the original writings of the Bible. Paul refers to the process as God-breathing” (Jensen’s Survey of the OT, p. 19). Gregory Tyree asserted: “This process of inspiration will never again be repeated because the canon has been closed” (Does It Really Matter, p. 32).

This verse in the third chapter of 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language. This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of Bible translations is by inspiration. It has not been soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that inspiration would be a correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original-language Scriptures are copied or are translated into other languages including into English.

 

You do not present any scriptures that state what you try to assume or claim. You failed to prove your own assertions to be true and scriptural. You do not practice what you preach. Is that why you dodge serious discussion of your unproven opinions?

You don't address the scriptural truths that are problems for your unproven premises.

 

You disobey the Scriptures by bearing false witness with your bogus, false "humanistic, naturalistic mantra" allegation.

You ignore what the Scriptures state as you cling to your own human assumptions.

 

Oh, so you're talking about the Tyndale Bible?

The KJV (NOT "KJB"- Its makers called it the 'Authorized VERSION') was made under the protection of the king of England, under the auspices of his toadie. No one died to make it.

 

I don't care whatcha you say. "KJB" is NOT the correct acronym for "King James Version". Why change the truth because it must be repeated ? IOt's still the truth.

 

Perhaps the unbiblical mantra about a claimed present "translated copy" that is given by inspiration of God is what should be dropped.

What translated copy of Scripture today do you claim is given by inspiration of God?

 

I think my point was....you're not funny.

 

Thanks. I thought maybe we were staring at bats.

 

There is a history of English Bibles leading up to the AV. The Tyndale's translations and the Geneva Bible are to be noted.

 

Straining at gnats.
The hard part is the swallowing of camels.

 

No. And the church prophets too. Ephesians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 12:27-28.

 

So you think 1 John 2:27 applies only to the Apostles.

 

Someone's pulling a John Calvin. "All" doesn't mean "all", it means "all of the elect". Also "greatest among herbs" doesn't mean what you think it means. In 16th century English, it means "greater than the herbs". Beware your false friends in KJV.

This is actually your best answer and the belief that I have. Jesus wasn't trying to discuss botany, he was using metaphorical language to communicate how the kingdom of heaven would grow. Whether the seed was the smallest or not is not the message.

I don't believe Jesus came to the Earth to teach botany and so he would use the knowledge the people of that time and place already had.

Once again, that's pulling a John Calvin. In the context, Jesus did express that the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds. He did this because he wanted to use what people knew - not what he knew. If he started qualifying, he might have to explain where smaller seeds are found and that would bring about the story of Columbus a lot sooner. So, no, Jesus did not qualify because that would be confusing to his audience and be counter to his purpose of being there.

People who see my posts know that I never cower in shame.