ECT WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT KJV-ONLY THINKING ??

[john w]

Hi and the ICE TEA got to you !!~

I have never to my knowledge said that the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS are in error !!

I said the TRANSLATIONS are in error , get it straight !!

dan p

Evasion.
-Prove that "the originals" had no errors. "how will you prove IT"=your words.

-Name your infallible source authority, fraud, for proving that translations, have errors.="Here is a bunch of error filled "versions," and I will compare them, with each other, employ them, to correct other error filled versions/translations, to arrive at "perfection?" Is that it? Cannot be done.

-Prove "Errors-Only-ism"


-Prove,that the scriptures, by its own testimony, can have errors, and still be considered, "is given by inspiration" scripture


Define bible believer.Where can we get a copy of the scriptures? Does it have a name?

Not a peep.


You're a fraud.


Your "no translation can be is given by inspiration" scam, which you made up, that has no scriptural backing. Of course, you do not have scripture. Poor you, you "the Greek" fraud:

Nowhere is this stated in the Holy Bible, i.e., that only the "original autographs" were "is given by inspiration," and everything else now is "un inspired."

Chapter, verse, where a translation cannot be "is given by inspiration."



Who taught you that a translation cannot be inspired? Where in the word of God(please cite/quote a specific passage from either a version,or from the 5000+ manuscripts)does being a translation invalidate a work from being the word of God?If this is true, then even the "originals" would be condemned(see Acts 8:32-33/Isaiah 53:7-8 KJV/Heb. 3:7-11 KJV, 10:15 KJV/Psalms 95:7-11 KJV.....) Even the "originals" contained translations.

If no translation can be inspired, then approximately 40 verses in the NT are not inspired, since they, even in the "original autographs", were Greek translations of the Hebrew OT. How do you reconcile the "verbal inspiration" of the NT, and yet allow for 40 uninspired verses?

Consider Hebrews 10:15-16 KJV, which is from Jeremiah 31:33-34 KJV, when the writer writes in Greek from the Hebrew-it is obvious the Holy Spirit is also a witness, when the Hebrew was translated into Greek. If from Hebrew to Greek, could not God have His word translated from Greek to English, Spanish.......?

No translation can be inspired? This would be news to Moses! Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharaoh were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-they were "translations". How about Joseph in Genesis? He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers(Gen 42:23 KJV). Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation.

What about the sign that was nailed to the cross? That consisted of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew-at least 2 had to be translations. Were these not inspired?

Matthew 27:46 KJV? The Lord Jesus Christ cried out in Aramaic, and yet in the very same verse there was given a translation.


Preservation provides us a biblical basis for our faith to "rest on". God has pledged to preserve His word throughout history in a multiplicity of without error COPIES-the COPIES are the issue in preservation, NOT the "original" autographs or manuscripts.

Again...

"...he shall write him a COPY(emphasis mine) of this law IN A BOOK(emphasis mine) out of that which is before the priests the Levites...." Deut. 17:18 KJV

If you, or anyone, call a book "the Bible", scripture, you are calling it the word of God. And if it is the "word of God"/scripture, , it then must be inerrant; if so, and if no translation is inerrant, which you stated, or infallible, then properly you cannot call it the word of God, or properly, scripture, , "the Bible". Therefore, I believe from now on you, or anyone else, should revise your vocabulary and refrain from calling any translation "the word of God", if you are going to be logically consistent with the meaning of language.

 

[DAN P]

Evasion.
-Prove that "the originals" had no errors. "how will you prove IT"=your words.

-Name your infallible source authority, fraud, for proving that translations, have errors.="Here is a bunch of error filled "versions," and I will compare them, with each other, employ them, to correct other error filled versions/translations, to arrive at "perfection?" Is that it? Cannot be done.

-Prove "Errors-Only-ism"


-Prove,that the scriptures, by its own testimony, can have errors, and still be considered, "is given by inspiration" scripture


Define bible believer.Where can we get a copy of the scriptures? Does it have a name?

Not a peep.


You're a fraud.


Your "no translation can be is given by inspiration" scam, which you made up, that has no scriptural backing. Of course, you do not have scripture. Poor you, you "the Greek" fraud:

Nowhere is this stated in the Holy Bible, i.e., that only the "original autographs" were "is given by inspiration," and everything else now is "un inspired."

Chapter, verse, where a translation cannot be "is given by inspiration."



Who taught you that a translation cannot be inspired? Where in the word of God(please cite/quote a specific passage from either a version,or from the 5000+ manuscripts)does being a translation invalidate a work from being the word of God?If this is true, then even the "originals" would be condemned(see Acts 8:32-33/Isaiah 53:7-8 KJV/Heb. 3:7-11 KJV, 10:15 KJV/Psalms 95:7-11 KJV.....) Even the "originals" contained translations.

If no translation can be inspired, then approximately 40 verses in the NT are not inspired, since they, even in the "original autographs", were Greek translations of the Hebrew OT. How do you reconcile the "verbal inspiration" of the NT, and yet allow for 40 uninspired verses?

Consider Hebrews 10:15-16 KJV, which is from Jeremiah 31:33-34 KJV, when the writer writes in Greek from the Hebrew-it is obvious the Holy Spirit is also a witness, when the Hebrew was translated into Greek. If from Hebrew to Greek, could not God have His word translated from Greek to English, Spanish.......?

No translation can be inspired? This would be news to Moses! Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharaoh were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-they were "translations". How about Joseph in Genesis? He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers(Gen 42:23 KJV). Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation.

What about the sign that was nailed to the cross? That consisted of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew-at least 2 had to be translations. Were these not inspired?

Matthew 27:46 KJV? The Lord Jesus Christ cried out in Aramaic, and yet in the very same verse there was given a translation.


Preservation provides us a biblical basis for our faith to "rest on". God has pledged to preserve His word throughout history in a multiplicity of without error COPIES-the COPIES are the issue in preservation, NOT the "original" autographs or manuscripts.

Again...

"...he shall write him a COPY(emphasis mine) of this law IN A BOOK(emphasis mine) out of that which is before the priests the Levites...." Deut. 17:18 KJV

If you, or anyone, call a book "the Bible", scripture, you are calling it the word of God. And if it is the "word of God"/scripture, , it then must be inerrant; if so, and if no translation is inerrant, which you stated, or infallible, then properly you cannot call it the word of God, or properly, scripture, , "the Bible". Therefore, I believe from now on you, or anyone else, should revise your vocabulary and refrain from calling any translation "the word of God", if you are going to be logically consistent with the meaning of language.

Hi and you refuse to believe that I use an KJV BIBLE , so what !!

The Greek word for bible is said to come from the Greek word BIBLOS !!

Also when reading the OT was written in Hebrew and than translated in to Greek , called the Septuagint !!

I relaize that you are in a TANGENT and I can forgive as you were OVER DUE for more BRAGGADOCIO and boy did you see me put dan p down !! I just did not realize what A PUZZZLEWIT you have become !!

You still AVOIDED 1 Tim 1:4 and eph 4:5 and its 22 times that BAPTIZO is translated BAPTISMA and know who the TEMULENT ONE is writing is around here on TOL !!

dan p

 

[john w]

Hi and you refuse to believe that I use an KJV BIBLE , so what !!

The Greek word for bible is said to come from the Greek word BIBLOS !!

Also when reading the OT was written in Hebrew and than translated in to Greek , called the Septuagint !!

I relaize that you are in a TANGENT and I can forgive as you were OVER DUE for more BRAGGADOCIO and boy did you see me put dan p down !! I just did not realize what A PUZZZLEWIT you have become !!

You still AVOIDED 1 Tim 1:4 and eph 4:5 and its 22 times that BAPTIZO is translated BAPTISMA and know who the TEMULENT ONE is writing is around here on TOL !!

dan p

Evasion. Deception. Move on, you fraud, as I picked your humanism apart, and you've "punted," "avoided," will not defend your own made up "argument," being so stupid, you don't realize, that you cannot even know that the scribes that made copies, of these mystical "originals," did not make mistakes,if you do not have the infallible standard to which to compare these alleged mistakes to? If you contend that "the originals" are w/o error, how do you know that the copies/translations also are in error, if you do not have the originals to which to compare them?

Well?

-Prove that "the originals" had no errors. "how will you prove IT"=your words.

-Name your infallible source authority, fraud, for proving that translations, have errors.="Here is a bunch of error filled "versions," and I will compare them, with each other, employ them, to correct other error filled versions/translations, to arrive at "perfection?" Is that it? Cannot be done.

-Prove "Errors-Only-ism"


-Prove,that the scriptures, by its own testimony, can have errors, and still be considered, "is given by inspiration" scripture


Define bible believer.Where can we get a copy of the scriptures? Does it have a name?

Not a peep.


You're a fraud.


Your "no translation can be is given by inspiration" scam, which you made up, that has no scriptural backing. Of course, you do not have scripture. Poor you, you "the Greek" fraud:

Nowhere is this stated in the Holy Bible, i.e., that only the "original autographs" were "is given by inspiration," and everything else now is "un inspired."

Chapter, verse, where a translation cannot be "is given by inspiration."



Who taught you that a translation cannot be inspired? Where in the word of God(please cite/quote a specific passage from either a version,or from the 5000+ manuscripts)does being a translation invalidate a work from being the word of God?If this is true, then even the "originals" would be condemned(see Acts 8:32-33/Isaiah 53:7-8 KJV/Heb. 3:7-11 KJV, 10:15 KJV/Psalms 95:7-11 KJV.....) Even the "originals" contained translations.

If no translation can be inspired, then approximately 40 verses in the NT are not inspired, since they, even in the "original autographs", were Greek translations of the Hebrew OT. How do you reconcile the "verbal inspiration" of the NT, and yet allow for 40 uninspired verses?

Consider Hebrews 10:15-16 KJV, which is from Jeremiah 31:33-34 KJV, when the writer writes in Greek from the Hebrew-it is obvious the Holy Spirit is also a witness, when the Hebrew was translated into Greek. If from Hebrew to Greek, could not God have His word translated from Greek to English, Spanish.......?

No translation can be inspired? This would be news to Moses! Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharaoh were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-they were "translations". How about Joseph in Genesis? He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers(Gen 42:23 KJV). Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation.

What about the sign that was nailed to the cross? That consisted of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew-at least 2 had to be translations. Were these not inspired?

Matthew 27:46 KJV? The Lord Jesus Christ cried out in Aramaic, and yet in the very same verse there was given a translation.


Preservation provides us a biblical basis for our faith to "rest on". God has pledged to preserve His word throughout history in a multiplicity of without error COPIES-the COPIES are the issue in preservation, NOT the "original" autographs or manuscripts.

Again...

"...he shall write him a COPY(emphasis mine) of this law IN A BOOK(emphasis mine) out of that which is before the priests the Levites...." Deut. 17:18 KJV

If you, or anyone, call a book "the Bible", scripture, you are calling it the word of God. And if it is the "word of God"/scripture, , it then must be inerrant; if so, and if no translation is inerrant, which you stated, or infallible, then properly you cannot call it the word of God, or properly, scripture, , "the Bible". Therefore, I believe from now on you, or anyone else, should revise your vocabulary and refrain from calling any translation "the word of God", if you are going to be logically consistent with the meaning of language.


You:"Here are the scriptures, that say we no longer have the scriptures."


You're just another moron, braying like a ja, trying to be an alleged "the Greek" scholar, to feed your addiction, and talk others out of their faith in the book, like you lost yours.


Idiot. Move on.

 

[john w]

Hi and you refuse to believe that I use an KJV BIBLE , so what !!

Yes, you fraud, you "use" the KJB, but do not believe it, or any version/translation, correcting them all with this "the Greek" scam/fraud, as you're a bible corrector/agnostic/mystic, not a bible believer. We know.


And I "use" a dictionary, a car manual. So what, idiot?

 

[DAN P]

Yes, you fraud, you "use" the KJB, but do not believe it, or any version/translation, correcting them all with this "the Greek" scam/fraud, as you're a bible corrector/agnostic/mystic, not a bible believer. We know.


And I "use" a dictionary, a car manual. So what, idiot?

Hi and you remind me of 2 Thess 2:2 and as Paul was being mis-represented by word and letter and a PUZZLEWIT you are !!

I know you are the protector and tough guy at TOL , you are scary and a BATTOLOGY one you are !!

And you do not have it to be a real DISPENSATIONLIST

Show me a verse where translations are inspired

dan p

 

[john w]

Show me a verse where translations are inspired

dan p

1. Already did, you fraud:

Your "no translation can be is given by inspiration" is a scam, which you made up, that has no scriptural backing. Of course, you do not have scripture. Poor you, you "the Greek" fraud:

Nowhere is this stated in the Holy Bible, i.e., that only the "original autographs" were "is given by inspiration," and everything else now is "un inspired."

Chapter, verse, where a translation cannot be "is given by inspiration."



Who taught you that a translation cannot be inspired? Where in the word of God(please cite/quote a specific passage from either a version,or from the 5000+ manuscripts)does being a translation invalidate a work from being the word of God?If this is true, then even the "originals" would be condemned(see Acts 8:32-33/Isaiah 53:7-8 KJV/Heb. 3:7-11 KJV, 10:15 KJV/Psalms 95:7-11 KJV.....) Even the "originals" contained translations.

If no translation can be inspired, then approximately 40 verses in the NT are not inspired, since they, even in the "original autographs", were Greek translations of the Hebrew OT. How do you reconcile the "verbal inspiration" of the NT, and yet allow for 40 uninspired verses?

Consider Hebrews 10:15-16 KJV, which is from Jeremiah 31:33-34 KJV, when the writer writes in Greek from the Hebrew-it is obvious the Holy Spirit is also a witness, when the Hebrew was translated into Greek. If from Hebrew to Greek, could not God have His word translated from Greek to English, Spanish.......?

No translation can be inspired? This would be news to Moses! Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharaoh were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-they were "translations". How about Joseph in Genesis? He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers(Gen 42:23 KJV). Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation.

What about the sign that was nailed to the cross? That consisted of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew-at least 2 had to be translations. Were these not inspired?

Matthew 27:46 KJV? The Lord Jesus Christ cried out in Aramaic, and yet in the very same verse there was given a translation.


Preservation provides us a biblical basis for our faith to "rest on". God has pledged to preserve His word throughout history in a multiplicity of without error COPIES-the COPIES are the issue in preservation, NOT the "original" autographs or manuscripts.

Again...

"...he shall write him a COPY(emphasis mine) of this law IN A BOOK(emphasis mine) out of that which is before the priests the Levites...." Deut. 17:18 KJV

If you, or anyone, call a book "the Bible", scripture, you are calling it the word of God. And if it is the "word of God"/scripture, , it then must be inerrant; if so, and if no translation is inerrant, which you stated, or infallible, then properly you cannot call it the word of God, or properly, scripture, , "the Bible". Therefore, I believe from now on you, or anyone else, should revise your vocabulary and refrain from calling any translation "the word of God", if you are going to be logically consistent with the meaning of language.

2. You are om record: Since we no longer have the originals, and you satanically assert that no translation can be, or is inspired, you assert that we no longer have the preserved scripture


You fraud, posing as a member of the boc, posing as a bible believer.


3. Show me a verse where "the originals" are "is given by inspiration," deceiver.



Move on, you fraud, as I picked your humanism apart, and you've "punted," "avoided," will not defend your own made up "argument," being so stupid, you don't realize, that you cannot even know that the scribes that made copies, of these mystical "originals," did not make mistakes,if you do not have the infallible standard to which to compare these alleged mistakes to? If you contend that "the originals" are w/o error, how do you know that the copies/translations also are in error, if you do not have the originals to which to compare them?

Well?

-Prove that "the originals" had no errors. "how will you prove IT"=your words.

-Name your infallible source authority, fraud, for proving that translations, have errors.="Here is a bunch of error filled "versions," and I will compare them, with each other, employ them, to correct other error filled versions/translations, to arrive at "perfection?" Is that it? Cannot be done.

-Prove "Errors-Only-ism"


-Prove,that the scriptures, by its own testimony, can have errors, and still be considered, "is given by inspiration" scripture


Define bible believer.Where can we get a copy of the scriptures? Does it have a name?

Not a peep.


You're a fraud.

 

[john w]

I know you are the protector and tough guy at TOL , you are scary and a BATTOLOGY one you are !!

dan p

Keep that in mind; and you are the largely ignored one on TOL, because not many know what the h you are talking about, and your failure to quote properly. Learn English.

 

[Danoh]

Hi and no one examined 1 Tim 1:4 where the words used here is " godly edifying " and the Greek word here for " edifying " in the Greek is OIKODOME But that is not the Greek word in verse 4 , it is the Greek word OIKONOMIA or Dispensation !!

Here is another one in Eph 4:5 and it says " ONE BAPTISM " and when checked , it is the Greek word " BAPTISMA " some 22 times more and I believe in 2 Tim 2:15 , study to be APPROVED and as I have said I only use the KJV and I am not says to DISCARD the KJV !!

dan p

Not many a KJV Onlyist will address those kinds of issues, not because they are not answerable, but because said Onlyists are more about their insistence that they are right, and that's that, than they are about what those answers might actually be.

Which only leaves their assertions in doubt.

There are MADs who have solved for such things.

But not many.

Not one of them is an Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid MAD either - they often prove they can't even handle the simplest of parsings, let alone, these more difficult, but solvable, issues.

Even very few Acts 9 MADs have been able to solve for these kinds of things.

I do know of one 13er who has, but the guy is Pre-Wrath, so there goes that, lol.

But your point, DP, is baseless.

I'll address your first point, because the answer to both is actually a similar one.

True, the Greek reads "the dispensation of God."

But the KJV at times translates the Dynamic Equivalence of a word or phrase.

And its translation of that as "godly edifying" is an example of that.

Meaning that its translation is not wrong.

For example, saying to someone "tell him that today is Tuesday, I'll see him again in two days" can just as easily be translated via a Dynamic Equivalent of that, to - "he says 'today is Tuesday,' that he'll 'see you Thursday.'"

What matters is that the intended sense or meaning be communicated.

Here is a case where the KJV translation the Onlyist rightly swears translation issues should be about the Words, not about The Word, fails to see, that just as in Scripture itself, sometimes the issue is about the Words, other times it is about The Word.

While, on your side of this equation, DP, your accusation is the same as that of those who attack Matthew thru John for its seeming differences in accounts - just because each writer at times words a same description differently.

As another example, both the words "unsaved" and "lost" are the Dynamic Equivalent of one another.

In such cases, what matters is intended meaning.

In fact, at times when the Bible is translated into a language wherein an Equivalent word does not even exist in that language, the way that is solved for is to make up a word for it based on that culture's language.

What is Preservation then - of the actual Words or of The Word?

Of the latter of those two.

At the same time, Dynamic Equivalnce raises its own concerns. I'll leave you to sorting those out, lol

But anyway, given the result of the attempted overthrowing of Paul's gospel that Paul is talking about there - said result being one that ministers more questions than it does the godly edifying that the dispensation of God (God's dispensation - verse 11's "the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust") is meant to minister, I am fine with the Dynamic Equivalence the translators chose to go with there - they did not harm Paul's intended sense in any way, shape, or form, other than in the mind of the ever wooden literalist- regardless of which side of the fence such an individual might be representing.

And you, DP - are ever that wooden; that insistent.

But that is you - in your every post.

You even have problems with the phrase Mid-Acts.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[john w]

Not many a KJV Onlyist will address those kinds of issues, not because they are not answerable, but because said Onlyists are more about their insistence that they are right, and that's that, than they are about what those answers might actually be.

Which only leaves their assertions in doubt.
.

Stumped all of us bible believing wacko's there. Yes, siree....Of course, tha above cliche/sound byte can be employed on any doctrinal point-just substitute "Not many a KJV Onlyist" with "Not many a (fill in the blank of any doctrine/doctrinal characterization...........................................................................)"Which only leaves their assertions in doubt.


Try this: Not many a Mid Acts proponent will address those kinds of issues, not because they are not answerable, but because said Mid Act-sters are more about their insistence that they are right, and that's that, than they are about what those answers might actually be.

Which only leaves their assertions in doubt..

How did I do?


You taught me that-I learned that from you. This should be a "shut down" debate ender on other threads. Should I quote you as the source?

 

[Danoh]

Stumped all of us bible believing wacko's there. Yes, siree....Of course, tha above cliche/sound byte can be employed on any doctrinal point-just substitute "Not many a KJV Onlyist" with "Not many a (fill in the blank of any doctrine/doctrinal characterization...........................................................................)"Which only leaves their assertions in doubt.


Try this: Not many a Mid Acts proponent will address those kinds of issues, not because they are not answerable, but because said Mid Act-sters are more about their insistence that they are right, and that's that, than they are about what those answers might actually be.

Which only leaves their assertions in doubt..

How did I do?


You taught me that-I learned that from you. This should be a "shut down" debate ender on other threads. Should I quote you as the source?

That was not about anyone in particular.

Rather, about what I have repeatedly found to be the case among many, many KJVOs, MADs or not.

I made it clear I had not found that to be the case with all sorts of KJVOs.

Obviously, you took it to be about you.

Then again, that is exactly how you handled DP's repeated question - with insults - in the name of God, of course.

But that is your pattern - go all cyber bully.

Much less when you have an answer, then when you obviously do not.

You remain your own best parody.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[john w]

Then again, that is exactly how you handled DP's repeated question - with insults - in the name of God, of course.

But that is your pattern - go all cyber bully.

Not many a "emotionally distraught you are a bully charge " proponents, like yourself, will address those kinds of issues, not because they are not answerable, but because said "emotionally distraught you are a bully charge " proponents,are more about their insistence that they are right, and that's that, than they are about what those answers might actually be.

Which only leaves their assertions in doubt..



How did I do?

Much less when you have an answer, then when you obviously do not.

You remain your own best parody.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8.

No, son, I answered the "argument"-do not confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills, with any possible alleged failure on my part to not, as you muse.

And you can't touch me, on the "Which Bible" issue, so save your speculations. You're not in my ballpark, minor league hack.


Can you dig it?

"Parody," you chuckle. Shall we compare my fame, with yours, on TOL? I didn't think so.

You remain an ignorant blowhard, as puffed up, as a bullfrog, in heat, and are evolving/morphing again, into a Shugart clone, and sow almost as much discord, as your buddy Acts 2 Nicky Shugart.And you talk like him, with your "Much less when you have an answer,...you mean cyber bully...obviously." Are you an evolutionist?

with insults - in the name of God, of course.]

More emotional cryings, sound bytes, stock cliches.


Yes, I insult bible correctors, wolves, devil children. That is biblical. Too bad, rummy-accept it.


Let us know, when you have something to say, instead of just spamming droid cliches, to pass time, before you tune into your soaps, "Oprah," "Family Feud," and all that jazz.

How come most members of the boc do not like you, in contrast to me? Rhetorical q.

 

[john w]

I "like" smoking, and I "prefer" "Now"; I "like" not having to go to work, and "prefer" sleeping in.; and I like eating bowls and bowls of ice creme, and I "prefer" vanilla. And I "like" cookie bars, preferring "Mr. Cookie."The question is : What do you believe?

Why is that we tend to "choose" a "bible version" based on "what we like", what we "prefer", instead of...."Is it true?" This is not a "Bible Buffet" ,now is it? We don't choose medicines, affecting life and death issues many times, an issue of physical health, because we "like" it, or because we "prefer" it? Why does the "which 'the' bible issue", a matter of "spiritual life and death", relegated to "preference"? "Try it - You'll like it"! For example, did anyone consider: Do we "prefer" Christianity, because we "like" it, or because it is true?


"the KVJ, NKJV, NIV......................(fill in the blank) is still my favorite... I like....."

So, we choose what we are to believe based on "preference", "likeability", and not on truth? I think that I will choose "a little of Muslim", and "a little of Judaism", "a little of Christianity". Although Christianity is my "favorite", I still "use" Muslim. Judiasm, Hinduism.......="one big, pious religious smorgusborg/buffet." And this is how we discuss the "which bible version" issue-based on preference and "usability", not truth.

Not me-I believe in Christianity because I found it to be true, not because I "like it" or "prefer it". As a matter of fact, there are many things I just don't like about Christianity, and would "prefer" to "use" another "religion", which is less demanding. And there are many demands placed upon me by this great Saviour of ours, the Lord Jesus Christ, which I just don't like, or "prefer." Shocking? Really? Fess up....Releae yourself....Come clean....Have not we all thought that, in some manner? In many instances, the Lord Jesus Christ is not my "favorite." But I believe on Him, because I am convinced that He is the truth, and the book He is revealed in is the truth. "Preference" is quite irrelevant. I employ the same conviction(not preference) to the "which bible" issue, for I, nor anyone else, believes/is convinced of a bible they "prefer", for that presupposes an authority over it, and the bible is submitted to their approval/"preference. The infallible Holy Bible corrects me; I do not submit it to my fallible correction.. The Holy Bible establishes doctrine; my doctrine does not establish "what the Holy Bible is." If I do not "like", "prefer" a particular doctrine, I do not search for another "version" that fits my doctrine. It is me that needs correction, not the Holy Bible, and I need to "revise"(play on words)/submit my doctrine to the correction of the Holy Bible. I, the great, humble, saint John W., The Rifleman of TOL, is the one that needs a "revision", and not the objective words of scripture. It is my "understanding" of these objective words that need a "revision", not the objective words themselves. I am to leave the words alone, and believe them. Of course, that is what faith is -"taking God at His word."

 

[john w]

I know, I know....Boo, you mean spirited, intolerant, "not open," bible believing wacko.......


I understand the doctrine of exclusiveness- "ONLY-ISM", as in:

"One God ONLY-ISM", "One Lamb ONLY-ISM", "One Way ONLY-ISM", "One Saviour ONLY-ISM", "Jesus Christ ONLY-ISM", "Chritianity-ONLY-ISM", "ONE BOOK ONLY-ISM", "The Perfect Word of God ONLY-ISM", "One Faith ONLY-ISM", One Lord ONLY-ISM", "One Baptism ONLY-ISM,".............

 

[DAN P]

Stumped all of us bible believing wacko's there. Yes, siree....Of course, tha above cliche/sound byte can be employed on any doctrinal point-just substitute "Not many a KJV Onlyist" with "Not many a (fill in the blank of any doctrine/doctrinal characterization...........................................................................)"Which only leaves their assertions in doubt.


Try this: Not many a Mid Acts proponent will address those kinds of issues, not because they are not answerable, but because said Mid Act-sters are more about their insistence that they are right, and that's that, than they are about what those answers might actually be.

Which only leaves their assertions in doubt..

How did I do?


You taught me that-I learned that from you. This should be a "shut down" debate ender on other threads. Should I quote you as the source?

Hi and I take it as and HONOR from you and I want no one to defense me as they will receive the same from a PLONKER like you !!

Since I know that we are WATCHED by Angels and watched by those all around us and to those who will read what I write , they will be the JUDGE !!

And to set the record straight the Original letters are INSPIRED but when men do the translations , they have made mistakes in not translating every word and check the Greek text and see !!

Like the Greek word " THE and BAPTIZED " are not translated correct , just check the Greek text , for those that want to know and IF you read do not reply as the DOCTRINE POLICE will get you !!

dan p

 

[john w]

And to set the record straight the Original letters are INSPIRED but when men do the translations , they have made mistakes in not translating every word and check the Greek text and see !!

You lied-no scripture says that only "the Original letters are INSPIRED"-I showed you chapter, verse, that says the opposite, but you keep lying, spamming that satanic assertion.

There is only one "original" of anything.

Look at the book of Jeremiah, for example. His "originals letters" were burned(Jer. 36:23 KJV). He had to rewrite them, and when he did, he added to them(Jeremiah 36:28 KJV, Jeremiah 36:32 KJV)!

The "original letter" stone tablets(10 commandments) were broken and had to be "rewritten"-Exodus 34 KJV.

"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19 KJV( the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error-see also Deut.-notice he had them "all the days of his life"=preservation)



"And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel." Joshua 8:32 KJV

"These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out." Proverbs 25:1 KJV

So much for the "scholarly" premise that "only the originals" 'were'(past tense) inspired"-copies, which he "read....all the days of his life". This tells us how God "did do things"-COPIES.

The doctrine of the divine preservation of the scriptures applies to more than the "original" manuscripts/autographs. Inspiration applies to the copies of the scriptures.

As another example(among many), in Daniel 10:20-21 KJV, Gabriel is giving information to Daniel that will prepare him for the upcoming events of chapters 11 and 12, respectively. Verse 21 says "the scripture of truth"-these are copies of the Law and Prophets. Hence, Gabriel calls copies of the Bible "the scripture of truth", and Daniel is to understand them as such.

And no "scholar" could ever make this statement, for they believe that only the "original letters" is "the scripture of truth." This contradicts testimony after testimony of the Bible itself.

Shall we go on? Copies.....Hence, the biblical promise of preservation.


And just how did you come to the conclusion that mistakes were made in the translations? You have "the originals" by which to make this assessment? You are a deceiver. Unless you have an infallible standard, by which to compare the translations, YOU CAN MAKE NO JUDGEMENT AS TO MISTAKES IN ANY TRANSLATION(S)-None, despite you lying that you can.


You are a con man, trying to talk others out of their faith in the book, like you lost yours.

Like the Greek word " THE and BAPTIZED " are not translated correct , just check the Greek text , for those that want to know and IF you read do not reply as the DOCTRINE POLICE will get you !!

1.No such thing as "the Greek text"-you lied, again. Identify this "the Greek text." You have it?.

2. So, this alleged "the Greek text" is infallible?

but when men do the translations , they have made mistakes

3. Was this "the Greek text" written directly by God? Aliens? Men?

Oh, I see. Of course, it does not dawn on this bible corrector/agnostic/mystic, that even the "originals" were a work of men, as are the 5000+ manuscripts we have, and the 50 or so "the Greek" texts(sarcasm). So much for your "men make mistakes" "argument," sophistry.

Again-tell us, bible corrector-who wrote this "the Greek text," you cite.


Let me guess: men.Men make mistakes-your "argument." Throw out this "the Greek text"-it is mistranslated.


Fraud.

Tell us, Dan-were the scribes, "men." Was Moses a "man"-he "penned" the second set of the 10 commandments, having trashed "the originals." Why don't you know that? I will tell you why:because you do not study the book, survey its details, like I do. That's because you do not have the LORD God's pure, sure, true, sound, perfect Scriptures, like bible believers do.

Poor you.


What was God thinking? God didn't really use "men" who made "mistakes," like Abraham, a liar, Noah, a drunkard (Genesis 9:21 KJV), Moses, a murderer( Exodus 2:12 KJV), and who did not believe God( Numbers 20:12 KJV), David , a murderer, adulterer, and liar, Solomon, a murderer in heart ( 1 Kings 11:40 KJV), an idolator and apostate (1 Kings 11:4 KJV), Peter, who denied the Lord Jesus Christ( Mark 14:71 KJV), and was an hypocrite( Galatians 2:11-13 KJV), Paul , a murderer(Acts), blasphemer(1 Tim. 1:13 KJV ), and later one who was to offer a blood sacrifice after the Lord Jesus Christ had died and risen( Acts 21:26 KJV), and John ,who twice worshiped an angel and was told not to( Revelation 19:10 KJV; Revelation 22:8 KJV), did he?. No, God didn't really use these are the type of people o give us His words "in the originals", did He? Nah, He used "scholars", "experts"right? He wouldn't use "unlearned and ignorant men"(Acts 4:13 KJV), would he?



You're a moron.


You either believe the LORD God made good on His promise to preserve His "is(not "was") by inspiration scripture, inspired Book, or you do not-it is that simple. I do, because I "take God at His word", by faith. I did "seek", and found it . And what do others have, and have given us, "Books", 250+ "versions" at last count, all of them, by their own admission, riddled with "weaknesses and errors", "mistranslations," "mistakes,"put out by "bible agnostics", all allegedly trying to "help God out", since He was so incompetent that He just couldn't "get it right" over the years. That is a "god" of mysticism, a "god" of one's own mind(Judges 21:25 KJV), but it is certainly not the LORD God as testified to/described in "the Book."


The word of God has no errors, if it is to be considered the word of God. I showed you/others, scripture, chapter and verse. What have you given us? The word of God has "mistakes,""errors", "weaknesses", "mistranslations," .... but has yet to identify this "word of God" that is inerrant. Tell all of us, how you can make the assessment that any "version", any "translation", has "misstranslations," KJB or otherwise, if you do not have the inerrant standard to which to compare it? Name that inerrant standard, Rufus. TILT. we will all wait(or at least me) for the answer to this.



I have His inspired, preserved, infallible BOOK in English as He promised. If I do not, then my faith is in vain-AND IT IS NOT. When I meet the Lord at the judgment seat of Christ, I "may" be criticized for believing His word that He preserved his word without error. I accept that. If you are wrong, consider the consequences of what you are saying, and what you are telling other believers.

I am done with you, since you have admitted that you are a bible corrector/agnostic/mystic, not a bible believer.

 

[Danoh]

Hi and I take it as and HONOR from you and I want no one to defense me as they will receive the same from a PLONKER like you !!

Since I know that we are WATCHED by Angels and watched by those all around us and to those who will read what I write , they will be the JUDGE !!

And to set the record straight the Original letters are INSPIRED but when men do the translations , they have made mistakes in not translating every word and check the Greek text and see !!

Like the Greek word " THE and BAPTIZED " are not translated correct , just check the Greek text , for those that want to know and IF you read do not reply as the DOCTRINE POLICE will get you !!

dan p

The doctrine police, lol

I suggest you ignore such. For I doubt wasting time going back and forth with them is why you began this thread.

:chuckle:

As for the rest of your post...

Sorry, DP, but you have failed to make your case.

One supposed error or two is not going to prove anything.

The article "the" is not always needed in a translation - because different languages often say with either more or less words, what another language might take either more or less words to communicate a same thing in.

Case in point, is this very difference between English and Arabic. In English, the Koran is about half the number of pages it is Arabic.

While Spanish, just like Greek, often takes more words to say what English says in less.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romanos 5:1 Justificados, pues, por LA fe, tenemos paz PARA con Dios por medio de nuestro Señor Jesucristo; 5: 2 por quien también tenemos entrada por LA fe a esta gracia en LA cual estamos FIRMES, y NOS gloriamos en LA esperanza de la gloria de Dios.

Note not only the additional articles and words, but that parsing nuances (mood, tense, genitive, etc.) are sometimes a bit more evident in one language than they are in another.

Note also, how that sometimes two words in one language "Jesus Christ" are one "Jesucristo" in another.

Are such languages adding or leaving out various words, articles and so on?

Neither.

Your problem is you are too wooden in your literalness.

How about this one...

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

4 El respondió y dijo: Escrito está: No sólo de pan vivirá el hombre, sino de toda palabra que sale de la boca de Dios.

27 words in English, vs 24 in Spanish.

And only 19 words in the Greek.

The three word phrase "it is written" is only one word in Greek, the word "Gegraptai."

In Spanish, it is only two words "Escrito esta."

Was Christ (or is that THE Christ) confused when He said "EVERY Word."

Obviously not.

You myopia is due to your obvious unawareness of these kinds of subtleties between languages.

Still, thanks for the thread - these are issues one should both think on and allow oneself to be challenged by - Acts 17:11,12.

:thumb:

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[Wick Stick]

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT KJV-ONLY THINKING ??

I think it takes an exceptionally ego-centric person to believe that ONLY their translation of the Scriptures in their language is accurate, whilst pointing out errors in other languages that they do not even know how to read.

 

[DAN P]

You lied-no scripture says that only "the Original letters are INSPIRED"-I showed you chapter, verse, that says the opposite, but you keep lying, spamming that satanic assertion.

There is only one "original" of anything.

Look at the book of Jeremiah, for example. His "originals letters" were burned(Jer. 36:23 KJV). He had to rewrite them, and when he did, he added to them(Jeremiah 36:28 KJV, Jeremiah 36:32 KJV)!

The "original letter" stone tablets(10 commandments) were broken and had to be "rewritten"-Exodus 34 KJV.

"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19 KJV( the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error-see also Deut.-notice he had them "all the days of his life"=preservation)



"And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel." Joshua 8:32 KJV

"These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out." Proverbs 25:1 KJV

So much for the "scholarly" premise that "only the originals" 'were'(past tense) inspired"-copies, which he "read....all the days of his life". This tells us how God "did do things"-COPIES.

The doctrine of the divine preservation of the scriptures applies to more than the "original" manuscripts/autographs. Inspiration applies to the copies of the scriptures.

As another example(among many), in Daniel 10:20-21 KJV, Gabriel is giving information to Daniel that will prepare him for the upcoming events of chapters 11 and 12, respectively. Verse 21 says "the scripture of truth"-these are copies of the Law and Prophets. Hence, Gabriel calls copies of the Bible "the scripture of truth", and Daniel is to understand them as such.

And no "scholar" could ever make this statement, for they believe that only the "original letters" is "the scripture of truth." This contradicts testimony after testimony of the Bible itself.

Shall we go on? Copies.....Hence, the biblical promise of preservation.


And just how did you come to the conclusion that mistakes were made in the translations? You have "the originals" by which to make this assessment? You are a deceiver. Unless you have an infallible standard, by which to compare the translations, YOU CAN MAKE NO JUDGEMENT AS TO MISTAKES IN ANY TRANSLATION(S)-None, despite you lying that you can.


You are a con man, trying to talk others out of their faith in the book, like you lost yours.



1.No such thing as "the Greek text"-you lied, again. Identify this "the Greek text." You have it?.

2. So, this alleged "the Greek text" is infallible?


3. Was this "the Greek text" written directly by God? Aliens? Men?

Oh, I see. Of course, it does not dawn on this bible corrector/agnostic/mystic, that even the "originals" were a work of men, as are the 5000+ manuscripts we have, and the 50 or so "the Greek" texts(sarcasm). So much for your "men make mistakes" "argument," sophistry.

Again-tell us, bible corrector-who wrote this "the Greek text," you cite.


Let me guess: men.Men make mistakes-your "argument." Throw out this "the Greek text"-it is mistranslated.


Fraud.

Tell us, Dan-were the scribes, "men." Was Moses a "man"-he "penned" the second set of the 10 commandments, having trashed "the originals." Why don't you know that? I will tel you why:because you doi not study the book, survey its details, like I do. That's because you do not have the LORD God's pure, sure, true, sound, perfect Scriptures, like bible believers do.

Poor you.


What was God thinking? God didn't really use "men" who made "mistakes," like Abraham, a liar, Noah, a drunkard (Genesis 9:21 KJV), Moses, a murderer( Exodus 2:12 KJV), and who did not believe God( Numbers 20:12 KJV), David , a murderer, adulterer, and liar, Solomon, a murderer in heart ( 1 Kings 11:40 KJV), an idolator and apostate (1 Kings 11:4 KJV), Peter, who denied the Lord Jesus Christ( Mark 14:71 KJV), and was an hypocrite( Galatians 2:11-13 KJV), Paul , a murderer(Acts), blasphemer(1 Tim. 1:13 KJV ), and later one who was to offer a blood sacrifice after the Lord Jesus Christ had died and risen( Acts 21:26 KJV), and John ,who twice worshiped an angel and was told not to( Revelation 19:10 KJV; Revelation 22:8 KJV), did he?. No, God didn't really use these are the type of people o give us His words "in the originals", did He? Nah, He used "scholars", "experts"right? He wouldn't use "unlearned and ignorant men"(Acts 4:13 KJV), would he?



You're a moron.


You either believe the LORD God made good on His promise to preserve His "is(not "was") by inspiration scripture, inspired Book, or you do not-it is that simple. I do, because I "take God at His word", by faith. I did "seek", and found it . And what do others have, and have given us, "Books", 250+ "versions" at last count, all of them, by their own admission, riddled with "weaknesses and errors", "mistranslations," "mistakes,"put out by "bible agnostics", all allegedly trying to "help God out", since He was so incompetent that He just couldn't "get it right" over the years. That is a "god" of mysticism, a "god" of one's own mind(Judges 21:25 KJV), but it is certainly not the LORD God as testified to/described in "the Book."


The word of God has no errors, if it is to be considered the word of God. I showed you/others, scripture, chapter and verse. What have you given us? The word of God has "mistakes,""errors", "weaknesses", "mistranslations," .... but has yet to identify this "word of God" that is inerrant. Tell all of us, how you can make the assessment that any "version", any "translation", has "misstranslations," KJB or otherwise, if you do not have the inerrant standard to which to compare it? Name that inerrant standard, Rufus. TILT. we will all wait(or at least me) for the answer to this.



I have His inspired, preserved, infallible BOOK in English as He promised. If I do not, then my faith is in vain-AND IT IS NOT. When I meet the Lord at the judgment seat of Christ, I "may" be criticized for believing His word that He preserved his word without error. I accept that. If you are wrong, consider the consequences of what you are saying, and what you are telling other believers.

I am done with you, since you have admitted that you are a bible corrector/agnostic/mystic, not a bible believer.

Hi and why not write to those that really did CORRECTION in the 160 plus translations of the BOOK ??

And when I wrote my OP , I thought that it would be Danoh that I would be debating , and I see from your not wanting to DENY any one their FREE SPEECH , I see why many have left this forum , I wonder why ??

dan

 

[john w]

Hi and I take it as and HONOR from you and I want no one to defense me as they will receive the same from a PLONKER like you !!

Since I know that we are WATCHED by Angels and watched by those all around us and to those who will read what I write , they will be the JUDGE !!

And to set the record straight the Original letters are INSPIRED but when men do the translations , they have made mistakes in not translating every word and check the Greek text and see !!

You are a man. Thus, you made a mistake, when you characterized me as a "PLONKER." "The English" has "BRILLIANT EXPOUNDER." I revised your post:


"Hi and I take it as and HONOR from you and I want no one to defense me as they will receive the same from a BRILLIANT EXPOUNDER like you."-you

And does anyone know what the h he is saying, half the time on TOL, such as...

I want no one to defense me as they will receive the same ...

Huh? And he is going is "gonna learn us" some "the Greek?"


Sure.


Does anyone really care?(The great "Chicago" band).


Dig, bloke?

 

[glorydaz]

Hi and why not write to those that really did CORRECTION in the 160 plus translations of the BOOK ??

And when I wrote my OP , I thought that it would be Danoh that I would be debating , and I see from your not wanting to DENY any one their FREE SPEECH , I see why many have left this forum , I wonder why ??

dan

Don't get discouraged, Dan. I appreciate your knowledge of Greek, and your willingness to share.

Perhaps Saint John has been given permission to run everyone off. :idunno: