Translator Question

Hey, no one has yet responded about knowledge "winding down" in the fields I listed.

 

You are not responding to my question. Is it your ascertion that the body of known mathematics was greater in 1611 then in 2001?

A slightly different question, do you believe a greater precentage of people knew their multliplication table then now?

[ December 11, 2002, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Pete Richert ]

 

Pastor Bob, over the last 30 years, there are probably many areas where average ability has dropped. But do you have any statistics about how teenagers from 1600 fared on the same exam? No? Oh.

Yes, they were. No one says they weren't, we're saying so much more knowledge has become available in the past 400 years. You provided a list of inventions from the 1600s. Should we respond by providing a list of inventions and accomplishments *since* the 1600s? I fear such a list would use up all the BaptistBoard's disk space.

 

Yes, I agree they are intelligent. I am not arguing that. Let me quote myself from my eariler post

I AM argueing that we know more today then they did. Do you disagree with this? That is my question. Do you believe that had a better grasp on quatuam mechancics and electricity then we do today? Newton didn't think he was smarter then his previous generations of mathematicians. He said, "If I have seen farther then ever before, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." The same is true today. Surely we are indepted to Newton for his contributions to the field of physics and mathematics and yet we now see further (Einstein proved that Newtonian mechanics, while accurate to within measurable digits in large bodies of mass, are nevertheless inarrcurate equations of motion. He replaced them with his equations which now incorporate speed in reference to light. An intersting study).

[ December 11, 2002, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Pete Richert ]

 

Translators Revived McClure pp. 238-39[/QUOTE]So where is Paganinus today?? Nowhere ... No one uses Robertson anymore except for reference. Why?? Because there are more advanced works at all levels. Your quote illustrates my point by showing that as good as those men were, there are many who have surpassed them because modern scholars have progressed from the earlier scholars.

Citing math scores from 1973 to the present is the kind of fallacious argumentation I have encouraged us not to use because it doesn't prove anything with respect to the 1600s nor with respect to the upper echelon of translators. If MVs are being translated by a random sample of the first year Greek and Hebrew classes at various seminaries, then you might have a point. However, they are not. They are being translated by the most advanced scholars available. In essence, you are appealing to the basest level for your argument; we are asserting that the basest level was not used as translators. It is the upper level that was used.

It is interesting that you cite all those inventions from teh 1600s. Yet not one of them are being used today. Every invention has been improved on exponentially, thus once again, lending support to our position that translators of today who have stood on the shoulders of those before are more advanced than those on whose shoulders they stand. You have aptly demonstrated this on our behalf.

 

Pastor Bob, Refreshed, thanks for standing for the King James Bible and anyone else that stands for that great book.

I have noticed one thing missing from the comments about the translators of today vs yesterday. If it were not for one person back in 1611, the translators then would be as they are today. That person is the Holy Spirit.

 

By what Scriptural means will you demonstrate that the translators of 1611 had the Spirit and the ones of today do not. If you could provide biblical support for such a notion, we would appreciate it. If you cannot, it would be appropriate to post an apology for your illadvised and unscriptural remarks concerning the spiritual status of men who you do not even know. I, for one, believe that the Holy Spirit is still working today. I do not believe he stopped in 1611. I think we ought to give him the leeway to work through men who were born later than those fine translators of 1611.

 

Homebound, are you claiming divine inspiration for the KJV?

 

Refreshed said:

It does make you wonder.

Only about the lengths the KJV crowd will go to maintain their pet myths.

 

By what Scriptural means will you demonstrate that the translators of 1611 had the Spirit and the ones of today do not. If you could provide biblical support for such a notion, we would appreciate it. If you cannot, it would be appropriate to post an apology for your illadvised and unscriptural remarks concerning the spiritual status of men who you do not even know. I, for one, believe that the Holy Spirit is still working today. I do not believe he stopped in 1611. I think we ought to give him the leeway to work through men who were born later than those fine translators of 1611.</font>[/QUOTE]I am not saying that the Holy Spirit is not working today. He 110%+ is. My point was that, I believe the Bible was completed in 1611 with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to guide the translators in translating ust the why God meant for it to be.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the translation of the Modern Versions. Truthfully, I believe the spirit of the devil had something to do with them. Sure, they contain God's word, you can even get saved from reading the Gospel from one, but as I said earlier, the wrong spirit is there.

 

HomeBound said:

I have noticed one thing missing from the comments about the translators of today vs yesterday. If it were not for one person back in 1611, the translators then would be as they are today. That person is the Holy Spirit.

Why don't KJV-onlyists ever make theological assertions they can demonstrate biblically?

And then he said:

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the translation of the Modern Versions. Truthfully, I believe the spirit of the devil had something to do with them.

And why can't they make their case without blaspheming?

It's bad enough that the whole KJV-only mess is based on nothing but circular reasoning and double standards, without making themselves seem all the more ridiculous with reckless and intemperate claims such as Homebound has made.

[ December 11, 2002, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Are you going to make me find an article on the merits of ancient dentistry now?!?

 

Hey, I'm not talking to you, remember!

Okay, I'm better. Welcome to the discussion, Ransom, please keep it civil.

 

I asked you for some biblical support of which you offered none. Why not? Do you have no biblical support?? I believe Scripture was completed in ad95 with the writing of revelation instead of 1611. I can affirm without mental reservation that the Spirit is most certainly active in faithful modern versions today. To attribute them to Satan is a most unwise thing to do. It cannot be supported by Scripture and amounts to an emotional argument designed to prey on those without biblical training to know the difference. Again, I would suggest that you offer some biblical support or offer an apology and retraction. I see no other options.

 

The virgin birth occurred.

Isa:7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

M't:1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

There, you can't say that anymore.

I believe that the KJV is the Bible God gave to the english-speaking peoples. I believe it is perfect in plenary and verbal expression and inerrant in doctrine.

Where's the blaspheming? You can't say that anymore.

Homebound has expressed her opinion, and did it without being demeaning or showing hatred, which is a lot better than I can say of yourself. In fact, between you and BrianT, I believe you guys are the only ones on your side on the issue that haven't been at least moderately courteous.

We were having quite the civil conversation here until you starting using inflammatory words.

Pastor Larry,

We can provide you with verses that prove that God will keep his word pure forever, that not a jot or tittle should pass away from the law, that those who add or take away from the bible are antichrist, where Satan changed the word, that Jesus says we live on "every word of God," (not JUST the idea that it contains), that it is trustworthy, and that we have hope in the word.

Pardon us for being a bit skeptical when someone comes along in 1881 after hundreds of years of agreeing that the KJV was the "Word of God," and tells everyone that "the bible didn't say" this or "the bible actually said," that or that "the bible really meant," the other thing.

Did He or didn't He preserve his word down to the jot or tittle and verbally. Did he or didn't he warn about adding to his words or taking away from his words? There are those of us who believe he did. For some reason this makes us out to be "ignorant," "decisive," "moronic," "a cult," among other and much worse things.

Pardon us for believing we have the Truth. Pardon us for wanting to stick to the "old paths," and carry the gauntlet that has been laid down for us.

We just are not willing to accept that God said something or didn't say something because a "scholar" said so. We'll take God's word for it. That word is the old Book.

[ December 11, 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

Dear Paster Larry,
Do you believe that the Jehovah Witness Bible and
the Catholic Douay are the word of GOD? Please state why or why not. Thankyou.

Sister in Christ,
Heidi

 

Why did Erasmus do it?

Why did he do it five times?

Why did Beza do it?

Why did all of these people do textual critisim?

By the way, which TR (edition please) are you refering to?

Why not at least be consistant and just count the number of manuscripts for each reading. I would disagree with you but at least it would be consistant. (by the way, see you later 1 John 5:7)

Are you aware of how many times the "majority text" (that is, simply counted the number of manuscirpts that support a reading) is different from the TR (I believe the third edition of stephanus since we do need to pick an edition, since they are all different, and I believe I heard once that things different are not the same!) in 1800 places. I know you are aware because it has been posted here about fifty times. Why are they different? Because Erasmus did textual critisim.

By the way, I do believe God perserved his Bible. In the Geneva Bible. Your scriptures prove their is one book and the Geneva is it. Prove me wrong. Which came first?