Bible Translation Discussion Place

[fredoheaven]

On what do you base your assertion, "God is preserver and he keeps his words"?

Let me quote 2 Timothy 3:15-16 as the doctrine of preservation in the New Testament.

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

These verses not only teaches inspiration but also preservation.

1. Timothy had the scriptures.
2. Timothy did not have the "original autographs"
3. The copies Timothy had access to are called "scriptures and are said to be inspired.

So Timothy is dealing with the prerserved copies of the originals. Certainly, it is God's care and keeping if not then it is not Holy Scriptures, not pure or not set apart.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Even KJVers like the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists are ashamed of him.

Correct. Ruckman and his followers belong to a lunatic fringe and should be ignored. Ripplinger is another one who should be ignored.

 

[fredoheaven]

The phrase, "KJV only" does not mean "only authority". It means the belief that the KJV is the only sound/valid translation of the Bible in English. Whether strictly accurate or not, it is an appropriate designation. Get over it.

You haven't answered the question at the end of my post. Please do so.

I really don't figure your assertion. I know some Ruckmanites so-called yet they use other bible or quoted other translations so they are not KJV only. They just accepted the "nickname" because they believe they have pure words of God in English.

 

[fredoheaven]

The phrase, "KJV only" does not mean "only authority". It means the belief that the KJV is the only sound/valid translation of the Bible in English. Whether strictly accurate or not, it is an appropriate designation. Get over it.

You haven't answered the question at the end of my post. Please do so.

Many of the KJVO so-called that I know believe in the Preface of the KJV written by Miles Smith.

 

[fredoheaven]

2 Corinthians 2:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
King James Version (KJV)

 

[Kavik]

I wasn't aware of the "unknown tongues" thing but that's definitely forcing an interpretation on the verse.

It is in a manner of speaking, but I don't believe that was ever the original intent - unfortunately, it's been reinterpreted and misunderstood by some Christian sects.

 

[Dino246]

Let me quote 2 Timothy 3:15-16 as the doctrine of preservation in the New Testament.

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

These verses not only teaches inspiration but also preservation.

1. Timothy had the scriptures.
2. Timothy did not have the "original autographs"
3. The copies Timothy had access to are called "scriptures and are said to be inspired.

So Timothy is dealing with the prerserved copies of the originals. Certainly, it is God's care and keeping if not then it is not Holy Scriptures, not pure or not set apart.

This verse does not teach preservation at all. You're imposing the doctrine of preservation upon the text. If you didn't already hold it, you wouldn't extract it from 1 Timothy 3:15-16. Try again.

 

[Dino246]

Many of the KJVO so-called that I know believe in the Preface of the KJV written by Miles Smith.

Your point?

 

[Dino246]

2 Corinthians 2:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
King James Version (KJV)

Not sure what your point is here either. The acceptance of a 400-year-old version as authoritative against other 400-year-old versions and against newer versions which are based on far more extensive manuscript evidence has nothing to do with "not being of those who corrupt the word of God". The charge of corruption can be levelled against the KJV translators on exactly the same basis you use to accuse the modern translators.

However, you likely won't do that, because consistency of standards is unknown among KJV-only advocates.

 

[fredoheaven]

This verse does not teach preservation at all. You're imposing the doctrine of preservation upon the text. If you didn't already hold it, you wouldn't extract it from 1 Timothy 3:15-16. Try again.

Umm, If you can't see that, I just don't know. Explain to you in detail what that the passage tells us also of preservation and as expected you won't see it. My other try :

In the previous verse (v. 15) Paul told Timothy that he HAD the SCRIPTURE in his possession. Not only this but in Acts 8:32 the Ethiopian Eunuch had “the scripture” in his hands. Now, did Timothy and the Eunuch have the “original manuscripts” in their possession? NO, THEY DIDN’T! They had copies of copies of copies of the originals. Yet they were “scripture” according to the “scripture” itself. So in the direct context of 2 Timothy 3:15-16 “the scripture” is not in reference to the originals but preserve copies called scripture. Now we know that the “originals” were “given by inspiration, but the direct context of the passage is not referring to them.

So I guessed, it's your turn to try explaining these verses why preservation is not in here. Give a try...or simply be classified as circular reasoning, the thing I learned from you...

 

[fredoheaven]

Your point?

My point is, it's KJV Finally not KJV only.

 

[fredoheaven]

Not sure what your point is here either. The acceptance of a 400-year-old version as authoritative against other 400-year-old versions and against newer versions which are based on far more extensive manuscript evidence has nothing to do with "not being of those who corrupt the word of God". The charge of corruption can be levelled against the KJV translators on exactly the same basis you use to accuse the modern translators.

However, you likely won't do that, because consistency of standards is unknown among KJV-only advocates.

BTW, as observed, you haven't given even one verse from the Bible in all your posts in this thread so far, but I stand to be corrected if you have done that in this thread. I have to supposed. Is this a circular activity?

 

[Dino246]

Umm, If you can't see that, I just don't know. Explain to you in detail what that the passage tells us also of preservation and as expected you won't see it. My other try :

In the previous verse (v. 15) Paul told Timothy that he HAD the SCRIPTURE in his possession. Not only this but in Acts 8:32 the Ethiopian Eunuch had “the scripture” in his hands. Now, did Timothy and the Eunuch have the “original manuscripts” in their possession? NO, THEY DIDN’T! They had copies of copies of copies of the originals. Yet they were “scripture” according to the “scripture” itself. So in the direct context of 2 Timothy 3:15-16 “the scripture” is not in reference to the originals but preserve copies called scripture. Now we know that the “originals” were “given by inspiration, but the direct context of the passage is not referring to them.

So I guessed, it's your turn to try explaining these verses why preservation is not in here. Give a try...or simply be classified as circular reasoning, the thing I learned from you...

You're arguing in circles (which is not surprising).

How about you find a couple of verses that clearly state that God has preserved His word, instead of building an argument from oblique implications.

 

[Dino246]

My point is, it's KJV Finally not KJV only.

There is no functional or practical distinction.

 

[Dino246]

BTW, as observed, you haven't given even one verse from the Bible in all your posts in this thread so far, but I stand to be corrected if you have done that in this thread. I have to supposed. Is this a circular activity?

If all I am doing is challenging you to support your assertions, I need not quote Scripture. I only need to do so when making my own assertions, or refuting yours or those of others.

 

[fredoheaven]

If all I am doing is challenging you to support your assertions, I need not quote Scripture. I only need to do so when making my own assertions, or refuting yours or those of others.

Umm, so I see, you run out of your gas. You cannot discuss the scriptures of truth. The Logos of God still have no much of your fleshy logic. Paul in his day withstands Epicurean and Stoic. Paul, who tells us to beware of philosophy, understood philosophy well enough to refute bad philosophy with the truth of scripture. Paul’s message was surgically accurate, based on a knowledge of the truth and knowledge of the false philosophy.

 

[fredoheaven]

Acts 17: 16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.

21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

O what a babbler am I when I speak the scripture of truth. It may be strange to some, new to some but it is ultimately absolute truth about God's word! Amen...

 

[fredoheaven]

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Well, that is preservation is all about...the word of the Lord, the word of God liveth and abideth or endureth forever.

 

[Dino246]

Umm, so I see, you run out of your gas. You cannot discuss the scriptures of truth. The Logos of God still have no much of your fleshy logic. Paul in his day withstands Epicurean and Stoic. Paul, who tells us to beware of philosophy, understood philosophy well enough to refute bad philosophy with the truth of scripture. Paul’s message was surgically accurate, based on a knowledge of the truth and knowledge of the false philosophy.

What a ridiculous accusation. You want Scripture but can't defend your own assertions. Get some integrity and stop siding with Satan.

 

[Melach]

Let me quote 2 Timothy 3:15-16 as the doctrine of preservation in the New Testament.

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

These verses not only teaches inspiration but also preservation.

1. Timothy had the scriptures.
2. Timothy did not have the "original autographs"
3. The copies Timothy had access to are called "scriptures and are said to be inspired.

So Timothy is dealing with the prerserved copies of the originals. Certainly, it is God's care and keeping if not then it is not Holy Scriptures, not pure or not set apart.

true this proves it. they didnt believe only originals were word of God rest just copies like today modern critics. i hate modern criticism and i dont like westcott and hort.