An Open Letter to Mitex

[biscuit1953]

Brent, I don't wish to run you down in the ground.  I believe you are very sincere in your beliefs and apologize if I may have said something in the wrong spirit on the other thread.  I held to the same beliefs that you do for many years.  I thought the world was going to hell in a hand basket, not just because of the way things were going in general but because so many Christians were abandoning the King James Bible.  I feel sorry for you because I understand where you are coming from and can only pray that some day you will realize the foolishness of exalting a 400 year old English translation while telling other Christians they don't have the word of God unless they rid themselves of their modern “perversion” and follow what you recommend.  The scriptures are unbound and aren't confined to an archaic English version that is foreign in so many ways to the current generation and scripture also promises the gospel will still be preached until the Lord returns.  Every time I see a missionary that is willing to go to a foreign land it puts me under conviction as to what little I have done for the Lord.  I do hope you see many come to salvation in Poland and sincerely wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

 

[Mitex]

Brent, I don't wish to run you down in the ground.  I believe you are very sincere in your beliefs and apologize1 if I may have said something in the wrong spirit on the other thread.  I held to the same beliefs that you do for many years.  I thought the world was going to hell in a hand basket, not just because of the way things were going in general but because so many Christians were abandoning the King James Bible2.  I feel sorry for you because I understand where you are coming from and can only pray that some day you will realize the foolishness of exalting3 a 400 year old English translation while telling other Christians they don't have the word of God4 unless they rid themselves of their modern “perversion”5 and follow what you recommend6.  The scriptures are unbound7 and aren't confined to an archaic English version that is foreign in so many ways to the current generation and scripture also promises the gospel will still be preached until the Lord returns.  Every time I see a missionary that is willing to go to a foreign land it puts me under conviction as to what little I have done for the Lord.  I do hope you see many come to salvation in Poland and sincerely wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

1. Your apology is hardily accepted.

2. Not sure why the need to "abandon" (your term) the English Scriptures. Did those in Moses's day "abandon" the finger-of-God-written autographs when they crumbled into worm food and began using handwritten copies etched into Hebrew by the fingers of fallible men? Personally I didn't "abandon" the English Scriptures when I sold all that I head and moved to Mexico in 1985 in order to preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor did I "abandon" the Spanish Scriptures when I once again sold all that I had in 1995 and moved to Poland in order to preach the Gospel.

3. I personally believe the word of God (that's what they call the AV) should be "exalted". The Psalmist tells us that the word of God is magnified and he that loved the testimonies of God exceedingly. The word of God, the Scriptures in any language, most certainly should be exalted above the opinions and doctrines of men.

4. I'm not sure where you get your information from, but I can assure you that I never tell people that "they don't have the word of God." I make it habit of telling people on daily basis that we (they and I) have the very words of God in OUR language - whether that be English, Spanish, Polish, German, Czech, Romanian, etc. God in his wonderful grace has given the major language groups of the world the Scriptures in their language. This has been and will continue to be what I tell anyone that will listen. I never tell anyone that the Scriptures (the very word of God in written form given by the inspiration of God) are limited to "original autographs" or "original languages".

5. I have never made such a statement. Perhaps that's what you do or did in the past. I never have and by the grace of God never will. I know for a fact that the very "meanest" of versions may be the only means of salvation for some. Perhaps some more repenting and apologies on your part are in order?

6. I recommend the Scriptures, the Bible in my hand when I'm dealing with people. I recommend that they believe every word of it. If they have an objection to it because of their preference, then I recommend they follow every word of the Bible thy profess to believe.

7. That's right, the Scriptures are unbound. They weren't bound to the autographs, they aren't bound to only "the original languages", they aren't bound to "the English language". The Scriptures, the word of God in written form given by the inspiration of God, are clearly found in Standard editions of every major language group that I can think of. The Scriptures in any language or generation is by definition perfect, pure, infallible, and the very word of God.

 

[biscuit1953]

They weren't bound to the autographs, they aren't bound to only "the original languages", they aren't bound to "the English language".

I agree with that statement.  The idea that the word of God is bound in English in a 400 year old version written by a Catholic priest is the problem I have with King James Onlyism.  I don't expect to convince you otherwise.  Only God can show some people certain things and I'll leave it at that.
Edit:  I realize that Erasmus didn't actually write the King James Version.

 

[Mitex]

I stated, "I never tell anyone that the Scriptures (the very word of God in written form given by the inspiration of God) are limited to original autographs or original languages." To which our hero replied:

No one is "Original Only." That is just a strawman because he has no better way to defeat the fact that our standard begins with the extant original language mss.

No better way to prove that "No one is 'Original Only'" than by producing a Bible other than the "original" that is "given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

 

[Mitex]

You also said the Scriptures are not "only bound to the autographs / original languages." No one ever makes that claim. You make a big deal out of this "original onlyism" that does not exist.

Why do you constantly use this strawman?

Still waiting. Please produce a Bible that is "given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice" in any language other than the original languages as proof that you are not "Original Only" - "Only the autographs" or "Only the original languages."

 

[Mitex]

Still waiting. Please produce a Bible that is "given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice" in any language other than the original languages as proof that you are not "Original Only" - "Only the autographs" or "Only the original languages."

You have implied and defended two different meanings for the word "perfect," so I am not inclined to answer until you figure out what the word means.

ROFLOL!!!
Typical Original Language Onlyist reply. Can't figure out the meaning of English words in their context, but insists that they are experts in the meanings of Hebrew and Greek words.

 

[prophet]

What is so difficult about this question, Mitex?

When Psalm 19:7 says, "The law of the LORD is perfect..." What does it mean?

Here are some of the various meanings, for perfect, you brought forward. Your definitions are vague and moving wherever you want them to go. So, please clarify what you mean.

1) Without error.
2) Trustworthy
3) The standard text is perfect, not individual printings or copies

So... what is it? What was this Psalmist talking about?

Not "What", but "Who" is this Psalmist talking about?

Anishinaabe

 

[Mitex]

What is so difficult about this question, Mitex?

When Psalm 19:7 says, "The law of the LORD is perfect..." What does it mean?

Here are some of the various meanings, for perfect, you brought forward. Your definitions are vague and moving wherever you want them to go. So, please clarify what you mean.

1) Without error.
2) Trustworthy
3) The standard text is perfect, not individual printings or copies

So... what is it? What was this Psalmist talking about?

I already gave you the definition! Please take note of the pretty red letters:

2) The Scriptures are perfect by definition - its an axiom that I believe all parties in this debate agree to.  The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul... Ps 19:7.  By perfect I mean complete, excellent, sound, true in all its parts, accurate, fitting the need of every soul of man and Church of God, etc. So, yes, I object when skeptics, critics and wanna-be-scholars claim that our English Scriptures are meaningless, deficient, replete with errors, boo-boos and mistakes. As you well know, or should know, archaic words, grammar structures or spelling, along with penmanship, typos, ink smudges, and other such imperfections and blemishes in the setting forth of the Scriptures in any language, including the original, has nothing to do with the perfection and infallibility of the Scriptures. Accusing our English Scriptures of imperfection because of an archaic word is proof of skepticism and unbelief of the Scriptures. The original autograph contained archaic words (1Sm 9:9, etc.). As far as I understand all extant mss in the original languages are replete with archaic Greek. Do you and should you not take offense at those who would state, "The original is meaningless, deficient, full of errors and boo-boos, etc. because of archaisms? Why do you so strenuously object to my objections along these lines? The Divine example as found in the Scriptures demonstrates that rigid jot and tittle word counts, exact matches and order are not required in translation:

- note the variants the wicked one (Mt 13:19), the devil (Lk 8:12), and Satan (Mk 4:15) for one spoken word of Jesus;
- note the multiple words in translation of one or more words in Mk 5:41 (two original words into 6 words in translation), Mk 15:22 (one original word turns in to 6 words in translation) and Mk 15:34 (four original words are translated into 9 words in translation), etc.;
- note the variant accounts of the 10 Commandments, Gospels and translations found in the New Testament of Old Testament sources.

Care to take a crack at the original question? What's so difficult about this question?

• No better way to prove that "No one is 'Original Only'" than by producing a Bible other than the "original" that is "given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

- You believe that only the originals were given by inspiration of God.
- You don't believe any translation is valid or worthy to be used by you or in the churches unless it is a direct translation of the originals. You don't mean the original autographs in that last statement, but original languages.
- You believe that the preservation of the Scriptures only applies to the originals. Again, not the autographs, but non-original extant manuscripts with jot and tittles formed into words in the original languages.
- You don't believe any particular non-original extant manuscript is actually the preserved Scriptures (66 book Canon containing the words of God in written form), but believe rather that a recent compilation made by fallible men using the latest axioms of the textual critical art-form is almost, but not quite the preserved Scriptures.
- You believe that the Scriptures are only preserved somewhere in 5500+ extant original language manuscripts.

 

[rsc2a]

Yet again...

[Mitex] completely ignores that one translation uses "copper" and the other "brass". He completely ignores that one translation says "thou shall not kill" and the others say "thou shall not murder". He completely ignores that one translation says "the love of money is the root of all evil" and other say "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil".

 

[Darkwing Duck]

This is a valid question.
Any answers or did Mitex win this round

You also said the Scriptures are not "only bound to the autographs / original languages." No one ever makes that claim. You make a big deal out of this "original onlyism" that does not exist.

Why do you constantly use this strawman?

Still waiting. Please produce a Bible that is "given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice" in any language other than the original languages as proof that you are not "Original Only" - "Only the autographs" or "Only the original languages."

 

[Mitex]

Yet again...

[Mitex] completely ignores that one translation uses "copper" and the other "brass". He completely ignores that one translation says "thou shall not kill" and the others say "thou shall not murder". He completely ignores that one translation says "the love of money is the root of all evil" and other say "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil".

Hey, Rocking Robin (Michael Jackson), Mocking Bird (James Taylor), Blackbird (Beatles),  DoDo (Genesis), Little White Dove (Johny Preston), or any other birds you have up in your tree-house, WAKE-UP! You are so behind in answering questions you might never catch up.

Mitex wrote so long ago he can't remember when:
I wonder what you mean by "legitimately different"? The wild-eyed Any Version Will Do Club (AVWDC), which doesn't believe every word of any translation since they all have errors in them, has insisted for years that, "there are no legitimate differences in translations". They have insisted that any differences (apparently not of the legitimate variety) have no affect on doctrine, and all versions, despite their differences, are sufficient for the man of God when dealing with issues of faith and doctrine. Check with your club members and when you get things hashed out please get back with me.

Some things to consider at your next club meeting:

1. The original language manuscripts are all different (legitimate?).

2. The non-original compilations are different - multiple versions each with multiple editions with differences (legitimate?).

3. There are some major differences (legitimate differences?) in the Gospel accounts of the same events.

4. There are differences (legitimate?) in the 10 Commandments.

5. There are notable differences (legitimate?) in the Scriptures that Jesus read from in the synagogue located in Nazareth (LK 4) and every extant Isaiah in any language including the original language (I added the word "language" here so that FSSL wouldn't get confused).

6. The New Testament authors and Jesus Himself are quoted as saying, "It is written..." and have you noticed the huge differences (legitimate?) in what they said, "Is written..." and what is actually written in every extant copy in any language of their alleged source text?

I understand club meetings have a one hour limit due to concerns about family matters, so, I'll cut the list short for now. Be sure to get back with me when you get it all hashed out.

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/120/
and
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/140/

I ignored nothing. I'm well aware of differences. I don't subscribe to the Wild-Eyed-One Language Onlyist's theories about differences, i.e. "Things different are not the same and therefore an error", "Jot and tittle difference constitute error", "Words translated differently are proof of error", etc.

You really do need your "Kiddy Bible", I suggest that you stick with it, because apparently you have a problem handling grownup words like Easter, Brass, Copper, Kill, etc.

Easter -
1. a. One of the great festivals of the Christian Church, commemorating the resurrection of Christ, and corresponding to the Jewish passover, the name of which it bears in most of the European langs. (Gr. parv0, ad. Heb. pésa0, L. pascha, Fr. Pâques, It. Pasqua, Sp. Pascua, Du. pask).
†2. The Jewish passover. Obs.

Brass -
1. Historically: The general name for all alloys of copper with tin or zinc...
...
1d. transf. Copper. Obs.

Kill -
2. a. To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc.
2. d.  d. absol. To perform the act of killing; to commit murder or slaughter.

Hey, Tweety Bird, what pray tell do you think the difference in meaning is between: "the love of money is the root of all evil" and "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" besides jot and tittle word count?
What version were you quoting by the way? The NLT? Quick go get some help and come back with "a root of all sorts of evil"," "a root of all kinds of evil", "a root of all kinds of evils", etc.

When you and Alice catch up to Don Quixote tell Sancho, "Howdy!", for me.

 

[Mitex]

Since Mitex clearly does not know the terms in his own question, what good is an answer?

In other words there aren't just Robins, Black birds, DoDo birds, Little White Doves, Flying Eagles, but CHICKENS in the tree-house as well.

 

[Mitex]

I already gave you the definition!

Right.... and you also gave us plenty of statements that state that "perfect" has to do with textual accuracy, and error-free. You are in a "fog" regarding the idea of "perfect." You start to go in the right direction but you cannot shake off the pernicious KJVO virus.

Your response is misleading, false and irrelevant to the question asked:

What's so difficult about this question?

No better way to prove that "No one is 'Original Only'" than by producing a Bible other than the "original" that is "given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

You asked for my definition of "perfect" I gave it to you. I previously stated:

"I already gave the definition of perfection. Do you have a different one?" http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/msg56514/?topicseen#msg56514

I stated: "By perfect I mean complete, excellent, sound, true in all its parts, accurate, fitting the need of every soul of man and Church of God, etc." and I further stated so that you wouldn't miss it: "...archaic words, grammar structures or spelling, along with penmanship, typos, ink smudges, and other such imperfections and blemishes in the setting forth of the Scriptures in any language, including the original, have nothing to do with the perfection and infallibility of the Scriptures." I also stated elsewhere, which Barry ignored:
"But since you brought it up, archaic words in the autographs is no proof of imperfection. The human penmanship of Peter, Paul, Jeremiah, etc. has no bearing on the perfection of the autographs no matter how sloppy they may or may not have written. Spelling and grammar structure (ALLCAPSWITHNOSPACEANDPUNCTUATIONETC) has no bearing on the perfection of the autograph. Such "imperfections and blemishes" has nothing to do with the perfection of Scripture."

If you don't like my definition, give us yours. If you want to clarify your position, then fine, do so, but quit with the "chicken dance". By the way, clean your glasses off and others won't look like they are in the fog.

The "standard" text is perfect. The KJV is “perfect” in its textual accuracy, “faithfully reproducing the original”... And “reproducing faithfully” includes the concept of “translating” also, perfection in expression endorsed by the original author.

Gentle Reader, not you Daffy Duck, please by all means go the link and read it carefully! Take careful note, because Barry rarely does, at the top of the page: "The perfection of perfection, by Bill Kincaid." Be mindful to take note, because Admin won't, that Bill states my (Mitex's) definition in 3b.

"Without error" Pretending that there are errors in the Scriptures belies your profession.

Here's the quote in the post that you should take note of: "That is correct. I never heard you (Barry, FSSL, Admin) say that KJV was a perversion. You have stated, implied or directly, that our English Scriptures (that's what you call the AV when the wind is blowing in the right direction) tainted, replete with errors, must be replaced, contains words and verses that don't belong, and worse. Pretending that there are errors in the Scriptures belies your profession. Insisting that archaic words such as Easter are proof of error is willful ignorance at best and most likely manifest arrogance in attempt to cause people to not trust our English Bible completely."

"Without error" the New Testament in any language is by definition without error - it's an axiom. Therefore "my" (as if it were mine) New Testament is without error. I'm pretty sure there aren't any obsolete words in it and we did our best to eliminate all the archaic words, but who knows there might still be a few.

May the Gentle Reader, not you Daffy, please read the entire paragraph. Barry accuses the Scriptures (any edition) of error for having archaic and obsolete words in the text. Barry accuses the English, Spanish, and Polish, etc. Scriptures of error for having the verses with the wording that I listed. Let the Gentle Reader beware of the Houdini act put on by Barry.

Since you must have reason to believe the following... rather than putting words in my mouth, source me!

"You believe that only the originals were given by inspiration of God." Where have I said this?

Source you? Too funny! You never commit to anything, it makes me wonder if you are really a "Baptist". I've never seen a Baptist shift, dance, avoid, dodge, etc. as much as you. When I stated that "Some of you accuse my NT of NOT being given by inspiration of God" You mocked with, "What was it like to be moved along by the Spirit? 'given by' is wrong. The word "theopneustos" is an adjective, not a verb."
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/msg56743/#msg56743 Taking note of posts 132-135.

But why dilly-dally? Please give the Gentle Reader one version in any time period or language other than the autographs that you believe "were given by inspiration of God"? "Gird up thy loins like a man for I demand of thee, answer me now!"

"You don't believe any translation is valid or worthy to be used by you or in the churches unless it is a direct translation of the originals. You don't mean the original autographs in that last statement, but original languages." Where have I said this?

I deducted this point from your responses: "You bypass the ultimate source languages of Greek and Hebrew." and "To you, all other versions are so inferior, that a new translation (not from the Greek & Hebrew) will be superior to all the other Bibles." But tell us plainly, kind sir, is a translation valid or worthy to be used in the Churches of God if it was NOT translated from "the original source languages" - you mean Hebrew and Greek.

Now, since you are worried about exact wording, you old fox you, where did I ever say,"All other versions are so inferior, that a new translation will be superior to all the other Bibles"?  Cat got your tongue? I thought I saw the cat running toward the hen-house...o no....!!!

"You believe that the preservation of the Scriptures only applies to the originals. Again, not the autographs, but non-original extant manuscripts with jot and tittles formed into words in the original languages." Where have I said this?

Repeatedly. "Preservation only applies to the originals and NOT to translations." Would you care to state your position clearly?

"You don't believe any particular non-original extant manuscript is actually the preserved Scriptures (66 book Canon containing the words of God in written form), but believe rather that a recent compilation made by fallible men using the latest axioms of the textual critical art-form is almost, but not quite the preserved Scriptures." Where have I said this?

Well, Sherlock, I deduced this from your varied responses over time. Do you indeed believe otherwise? Can you point to an extant manuscript, in the original languages of course, that contains all the books of our Canon? Can you produce any particular compilation made by fallible men that you believe is indeed the preserved Scriptures? That's what I thought.

"You believe that the Scriptures are only preserved somewhere in 5500+ extant original language manuscripts." Okay. Yes, I do believe this.

Excuse me while I return to my chair. I fell off my chair from the shock of Barry's sudden commitment to a position! Like wow! Progress! So, you are an "onlyist" as I stated. "Only in the original languages".

ALOT of half-truth statements up there!

Would you be so kind as to give the Gentle Reader the other half? Or please explain which half is true and which half isn't true?

Silent Night...Holy Night...All is calm...

 

[Mitex]

I stated: "By perfect I mean complete, excellent, sound, true in all its parts, accurate, fitting the need of every soul of man and Church of God, etc." and I further stated so that you wouldn't miss it: "...archaic words, grammar structures or spelling, along with penmanship, typos, ink smudges, and other such imperfections and blemishes in the setting forth of the Scriptures in any language, including the original, have nothing to do with the perfection and infallibility of the Scriptures.

If you would have ended there... we would be in 100% agreement. However, you continue to add to that definition as I quoted above.

Even Kincaid mixes the definition.

Dah, what's up Doc? Let me see, how many definitions (nuances) of the word "perfect" are there? Hmm. Bill Kincaid took every definition from the dictionary and showed the Gentle Reader how it applied. Which is irrelevant to the question you so diligently avoid:

What's so difficult about this question?
No better way to prove that "No one is 'Original Only'" than by producing a Bible other than the "original" that is "given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

You can use any valid definition you want for "given by inspiration of God", "perfect", "pure", "infallible", "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice".

Give us any version other than the autographs or an original language compilation that you believe is "given by inspiration of God". You can use your understanding and interpretation of 2Tm 3:16.

Give us any version other than the autographs or an original language compilation that you believe is "perfect". You can use your understanding and interpretation of the word "perfect" as found in Ps 19:7

Give us any version other than the autographs or an original language compilation that you believe is "pure". You can use your understanding and interpretation of the word "pure" as found in Ps 12:6; 119:140; and/or Pr 30:5.

Give us any version other than the autographs or an original language compilation that you believe is "infallible". You can use your understanding and interpretation of the word "infallible" as used by McCune, Warfield, White, Carson, Young, Packer, Ames, Wuest, Thayer, Gaebelein, Comfort, Smith, Jones, or any other preferred scholar past or present that you take a liking to.

Please give us any version other than the autographs or an original language compilation that you believe is "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice". Final as in "the buck stops here!", "Is that your final answer?", "ultimate", "decisive" or any other nuance you want to put to the phrase.

I've done my best not to leave you any worm holes to crawl into, but I'm sure you'll find a way. We can always count on you for that!

 

[rsc2a]

Yet again...

[Mitex] completely ignores that one translation uses "copper" and the other "brass". He completely ignores that one translation says "thou shall not kill" and the others say "thou shall not murder". He completely ignores that one translation says "the love of money is the root of all evil" and other say "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil".

Hey, Rocking Robin (Michael Jackson), Mocking Bird (James Taylor), Blackbird (Beatles),  DoDo (Genesis), Little White Dove (Johny Preston), or any other birds you have up in your tree-house, WAKE-UP! You are so behind in answering questions you might never catch up...

I haven't made any claims regarding whether any Scripture, or which Scriptures, are the "inerrant, infallible word of God" that need defending. Meanwhile, you have. You stated that all translations are equally valid and without error, a claim that is patently false since the various translations are clearly different in certain places.

And so far your only defense is to redefine words so that they correspond to the Mitex Dictionary of the English Language or just deny what is clear to anyone with even a remote amount of intellectual integrity, instead of saying "the root of all evil" is the same thing as "the root of all kinds of evil" 'just with less words' or other such garbage.

[quote author=Mitex]Hey, Tweety Bird...When you and Alice catch up to Don Quixote tell Sancho, "Howdy!", for me.[/quote]

Of course, there is always Ruckmanite debate tactic 1001, name-calling....

 

[prophet]

"Perfect" is a who?

The Word is a who, and He is perfect.

Anishinaabe

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Since Mitex clearly does not know the terms in his own question, what good is an answer?

Define the terms however you want just answer the question - "Does there currently exist a perfect Bible?"
" If yes, then what version?"

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Since Mitex clearly does not know the terms in his own question, what good is an answer?

Define the terms however you want just answer the question - "Does there currently exist a perfect Bible?"
" If yes, then what version?"

If it doesn't matter to you what the Psalmist meant by "perfect," why would it matter to you what I believe?

Since definitions do not matter to you, I believe...

Every Bible is perfect.
Every extant Bible is imperfect.

I'm just curious about your position since I can't figure it out.

As far as I can tell either someone believes that there currently exists a perfect Bible (generally exclusively KJVonlyists) OR someone believes that only the Originals were perfect. You keep denying that you believe either position yet won't actually tell us what you believe. What other option is there?

 

[Mitex]

I'm just curious about your position since I can't figure it out.

As far as I can tell either someone believes that there currently exists a perfect Bible (generally exclusively KJVonlyists) OR someone believes that only the Originals were perfect. You keep denying that you believe either position yet won't actually tell us what you believe. What other option is there?

Good luck on getting a straightforward answer. Poor Barry is so worried that his position might fall on the wrong side of the fence of his "Fundamentalists buddies" he'll continue to spin around in the mud slinging miry zingers, gotcha dirt balls and slushy innuendo until Hell freezes over.

 

[Mitex]

Yet again...

[Mitex] completely ignores that one translation uses "copper" and the other "brass". He completely ignores that one translation says "thou shall not kill" and the others say "thou shall not murder". He completely ignores that one translation says "the love of money is the root of all evil" and other say "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil".

Hey, Rocking Robin (Michael Jackson), Mocking Bird (James Taylor), Blackbird (Beatles),  DoDo (Genesis), Little White Dove (Johny Preston), or any other birds you have up in your tree-house, WAKE-UP! You are so behind in answering questions you might never catch up...

I haven't made any claims regarding whether any Scripture, or which Scriptures, are the "inerrant, infallible word of God" that need defending. Meanwhile, you have. You stated that all translations are equally valid and without error, a claim that is patently false since the various translations are clearly different in certain places.

When you say, "I haven't made any claims regarding whether any Scripture, or which Scriptures, are the "inerrant, infallible word of God" that need defending." you make an understatement if there ever was one. Your only claim to fame is finding fault with the English Scriptures. Not just the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures, but other versions as well.

I have never said, "all translations are equally valid and without error" that's a pipe dream you got from smocking your socks. I stated for the record that the Scriptures in any language are by definition given by inspiration of of God and therefore perfect, pure, true, infallible, the final authority in all matter of faith and practice - it's an axiom. I also am on record as stating that the Standard version in any language recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers is clearly the word of God in those languages. That the Scriptures are NOT limited to the autographs, original languages or English. The Standard version in any language is just as much the word of God, Scripture, as the scholar's original. Remember John Bunyan?

Your conclusion that since various translations are "clearly different" in certain places those differences are proof of error is patently false. A few things for the Gentle Reader to ponder at this point:

1) The wild-eyed-ones on both sides of the debate do error in assuming that "differences" are proof of error. Their war-cry, "Things different are not the same!" is deceiving. Things different can indeed be the same (Barry, FSSL, Admin are one and the same person, etc.). This should not be mistakenly construed to mean all things different are the same.

2) Note the dodge, shift, and ducking going on by the anti-KJVO rsc2a, FSSL and others like them. They constantly demand answers by stalking every thread with repeated questions, but steadfastly (constantly in their kiddy dictionary) refuse to answer questions themselves. Rsc2a has shifted from differences to legitimate difference and now to "clear differences" without ever telling us what he means by such clear differences in wording. Ha! There are indeed differences, but after years of listening to the blather of anti-KJVO telling us that there aren't any "real differences" that alter doctrine in any valid version, it makes me wonder about the sudden about face concerning differences! These Yahoo's get all bent out of shape over wild-eyed English Onlyists complaining about "minute differences" and now out of the tree-house they come swooping in with shouts of "differences"! Makes one wonder.

3) I'll ask once again:

I wonder what you mean by "legitimately different"? The wild-eyed Any Version Will Do Club (AVWDC), which doesn't believe every word of any translation since they all have errors in them, has insisted for years that, "there are no legitimate differences in translations". They have insisted that any differences (apparently not of the legitimate variety) have no affect on doctrine, and all versions, despite their differences, are sufficient for the man of God when dealing with issues of faith and doctrine. Check with your club members and when you get things hashed out please get back with me.

Some things to consider at your next club meeting:

1. The original language manuscripts are all different (Legitimately? Clearly?).

2. The non-original compilations are different - multiple versions each with multiple editions with differences (Legitimate? Clear?).

3. There are some major differences (Legitimate differences? Clearly different?) in the Gospel accounts of the same events.

4. There are differences (Legitimate? Clearly?) in the 10 Commandments.

5. There are notable differences (Legitimate? Clear?) in the Scriptures that Jesus read from in the synagogue located in Nazareth (LK 4) and every extant Isaiah in any language including the original language (I added the word "language" here so that FSSL wouldn't get confused).

6. The New Testament authors and Jesus Himself are quoted as saying, "It is written..." and have you noticed the huge differences (Legitimate? Clear?) in what they said, "Is written..." and what is actually written in every extant copy in any language of their alleged source text?

I understand club meetings have a one hour limit due to concerns about family matters, so, I'll cut the list short for now. Be sure to get back with me when you get it all hashed out.

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/120/
and
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/the-imperfect-king-james-bible/140/

rsc2a wrote:
And so far your only defense is to redefine words so that they correspond to the Mitex Dictionary of the English Language or just deny what is clear to anyone with even a remote amount of intellectual integrity, instead of saying "the root of all evil" is the same thing as "the root of all kinds of evil" 'just with less words' or other such garbage.

I cited the premier English dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary. You cited nothing, but your opinion and then have the gall to accuse me of making up definitions. I asked, "What pray tell is the difference in meaning between the phrases 'the root of all evil' and 'the root of all kinds of evil' because I don't see any difference in meaning. I even gave you a few phrases to help point you to the real debate over that particular verse. Intellectual integrity apparently is indeed remote in your world.

[quote author=Mitex]Hey, Tweety Bird...When you and Alice catch up to Don Quixote tell Sancho, "Howdy!", for me.

Of course, there is always Ruckmanite debate tactic 1001, name-calling....
[/quote]

You've been "chirping" so long I thought you were a bird. When you don't have an argument there's always the Dodge out in the driveway.