Inspired Translations

[bgwilkinson]

I am so honored.

 

[FSSL]

He is peeking

 

[Mitex]

Mitex, Where in ancient Greek of the first century did you get this word? It wouldn't be something other than Koine  Greek, would it? Remember my third stipulation?

I looked for this word in the following Greek lexicons and dictionaries that I have on my desk.

Friberg Greek Lexicon,

Louw-Nida Lexicon,
....

We sure do have lively discussions.

It would be nice to have a real discussion instead having you ignore all the salient points and responding to yourself with long tirades about nothing.

Now some thoughts.
I talked to you about meds, if you don't take them maybe you should go to a Doctor and get some help.

I'm sure you wrote this being filled with the spirit of charity in mind without a hint of sarcasms or vitriol. 

I have been praying for you and your translation work that the LORD would use you and the WORD in Polish to see the body of Christ edified and multiplied.

I appreciate all the prayers that I can get. So, thank you. It does make me wonder though: Are you praying against Barry, whose prayers seem to be that I'd quit, leave the mission field and head back to the U.S.A. and invest $50,000 in a MDiv degree so that I could learn archaic and obsolete Greek and Hebrew grammar structures and become a qualified thumb twiddler.

Mitex the following is why I am very worried for you and your family.

Fret not thyself, but keep us in your prayers.

Mitex said,

"I always wonder about people telling me how to do things when they refuse to do it themselves. I'm sure there are thousands of people much more capable than I am. Here we have Barry telling people that only those with MDiv degrees should be missionaries. We have Barry with his "expert seminary training" with abilities to handle the original languages sitting Stateside twiddling his thumbs where they have 200+ English versions telling me why I shouldn't be on a translating committee in Poland. I'll tell you what Barry, sell all that you have except the clothes on your back and come to Poland and take my place. I'll go back to the U.S.A. and twiddle my thumbs like you. Until you are willing to take my place and show the world how it should really be done, excuse my French: Shut your trap!"

To me this indicates a spirit of bitterness that has been allowed to grow over the years. People that respond like this are hurting people. Something is really eating at them. You have been in my prayers a lot lately. I think you resent being away from home serving in Poland, self pity and bitterness is eating away at you as evidenced by the intemperate and vitriolic words you use and statements you make.

Earth to bgwilkinson come in please. Houston we have a problem, bgwilkinson has drifted out into space without a compass. Resent being away from home? LOL! Home is where you hang your hat Sonny. My home is a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Self pity? ROFLOL? Why would you think such a thing? I'm saved and I know it, eternally secure in the hands of the Father, blessed beyond measure. Perhaps, because I have a lovely wife of 36 years, four grown children all serving the Lord Jesus Christ, one of which is a preacher of the Gospel here in Poland, 10 healthy grandchildren, one of which was recently saved and baptized, clothes on my back, a place to sleep at night with warm water and food on the table, not to mention three active churches in Poland, 25+ active churches in Mexico, one active local church in Texas, etc. Sonny, I've got the world by the tail with a downhill pull! Bitterness easting away at me? Too funny, Sonny!

Now, for all the goldbricks in the world, who don't do anything themselves but stand around criticizing others for the work they do. If you don't like the tune, play your own music. You don't like the way I preach? Preach yourself. When you start 25+ churches in three different countries, I might be impressed and actually tune into your constructive criticism, until then the beam in your walk is casting such a dark shadow over my speck of errors I can't see them to make corrections. Don't like what I'm doing on the Polish Bible Project? Get off your duff and come over here and show us how it should be done. Don't like the results of our street preaching? Learn Polish and come over and show us how it should be done. Until then, to all the little kiddies - excuse my French: Shut your trap!

As we have been going around and around over the use of Easter in English Bibles, I began to wonder if the venom vitriol and acidic language you direct at those of us who disagree with you might represent your true feelings for your fellow translators who rejected your preferred Polish word for Easter (is it wielkanocy,  Great Night) and instead used a transliteration of pascha, (Paschy). Is that it? Maybe there is much more you haven't shared.

Did you eat too much pizza before you wrote this nonsense? I save my caustic remarks for those who make it a habit of casting doubt on the Holy Scriptures as found in any language. My sarcasm, without bitterness, is reserved for wing-nuts who make up things as they go, deliberately twist and misquote me, and waste my time and theirs with stupid nonsense such as your most recent post.

I never gave my opinion on it before but I will now. I believe it is always better to translate then to transliterate. When words are transliterated the user has a tendency to redefine them according to their own religious bias.

That's because you are a yellow-bellied weak livered coward who fears the mocking of men more than God and His word. But don't fret thyself even you apparently can stumble across truth every once in awhile. You are correct, it is BETTER (chocolate ice cream is BETTER than vanilla) to translate than to transliterate. You know like those dudes who apparently, might possibly have (thought I'd throw some of the weasel words of our brother Rick into the mix) chickened out with the word H-E-L-L and transliterated instead of translating. Or those dudes who missed the Apostle's translating abilities when they transliterated Jehovah instead of translating it as LORD like the Apostles and holy men in the New Testament did. Now, don't worry your dizzy little head now, because I'm not saying they were WRONG for transliterating, I'm saying as you said: They could have done BETTER by translating! Now, go off to your study room and ponder this salient point for the next three weeks. Pray long and hard over it and after three days of fasting and praying that Barry and Rick might come to their senses, come back and write like you know what you are talking about.

Thus the Church of England can say baptism is sprinkling. They could not have done that if it had been translated, immersion. As Baptists using a State Government Bible we always have to explain that the Greek means immersion and then use other scripture to prove it, all that is unnecessary if James' translators would have translated instead of transliterating.

Too funny! Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot. How'd them Funnymentalists on the NASB translate the Greek word  βάπτισμα (baptisma)? Did those Baptists on the NKJV escape the long arm of the Church of England? Nope. How about those on the ASV, ESV, NIV, NET, Geneva, Tyndale, Wesley, etc.? Nope, nope, nope and nope. Why if I recall correctly it was old John Wesley himself who sidestepped the English and went to the original Greek to prove that βαπτισμός (baptismos) was washing (pouring, sprinkling) (Mk 7:4).

Now my call on the translation. Wielkanocy would be better than pascha as it refers to the passover night.
You see I do agree with you.

A little late to step up to the plate don't you think? While Barry was pouring out his vitriol you were cowering in the corner. Maybe we could have made up a word like Tyndale did when he first gave the English people, p-a-s-s-o-v-e-r! Now that's a possibility, how about "Passover-ski" or "passowerować"?
I'm yanking your chain. You'll catch on about midnight. Wielkanoc, like Easter,  no longer means, Passover, as they once did. They now mean Easter as in resurrection Sunday, sometimes used as an adjective with eggs, chocolate and dresses. Now, "Great-night" (Wielka-noc) was a possibility, but it didn't pass the muster as I had hoped.

I wonder how all the modern day Greeks who use pascha as an adjective with eggs, chocolate and dresses, etc. handle the archaic meaning when they come to it in their NT?

Here is an additional possibility from Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A.
"51.6 πάσχαa n: the Jewish festival commemorating the deliverance of Jews from Egypt—‘Passover festival, Passover.’ ἔστιν δὲ συνήθεια ὑμῖν ἵνα ἕνα ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ πάσχα ‘according to your custom, I always set free a prisoner for you during the Passover’ Jn 18:39. In some languages the term πάσχα has been borrowed in one form or another, but frequently it is necessary to have some qualifying statement to identify this festival, for example, ‘a festival to celebrate the passing over of the angel’ or ‘a festival to celebrate deliverance from Egypt.’"

Of course you would need Polish words indicating passing over.

We tried that idea as well, it went down the tubes as well. In the end we were stuck with Pascha. Probably not the BEST, but it is correct and presents the LEAST amount of difficulties.

Ok, I'm ignoring the rest of your post. My time is up for now.

 

[Mitex]

When you do please get off the rabbit trail and deal with the following issues

You are on the rabbit trails, demanding that your non-scriptural opinions and fallacies be blindly accepted.

Dealing with foxes like yourself has indeed sent me down a few rabbit trails of which I regret for the waste of time. I don't demand of anyone to blindly accept my opinions. I expect them to search the Scriptures (J 5:39; Acts 17:11) to see whether my arguments are in agreement with the Scriptures. By a consistent application of your blurred definition of the word Scripture, how would searching the Scriptures even be possible? Scripture, according to you, is a one time miraculous revelation given only to the Apostles and prophets to be written only in the original tongues. All other etchings, markings, copies, translations and such are corrupted by human depravity and cannot rightly be called the Scriptures, which are given by inspiration of God. So, as I've asked you repeatedly and you ignored, have I ever read the Scriptures not knowing the original languages? Has any American who doesn't know archaic Hebrew  and Greek ever searched the Scriptures? Scriptures being ambiguously defined by you as the written words of God given by a one time miraculous event to only the Apostles and prophets who somehow wrote them without any errors of any kind (spelling, grammatical, smudges, penmanship, etc.) in the original languages and only in the original languages. 

The Scriptures are properly defined as a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts – it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. 

Your definition is not proper and sound since you insert non-scriptural claims into it.  The Scriptures do not teach that the opinions of "a consensus of Spirit-filled believers" determines what is the Scriptures.

Your moniker, Slick Rick, fits you well. Is it too much to expect of you to at least deal with my argument? If not, how about writing plainly your definition? Case in point, I never said that a consensus of Spirit filled believers DETERMINES what is Scripture. I said, "The Scriptures are properly defined as a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts - it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.." Born again believers recognize what God determines. I also gave you an alternative definition from which to work with: "The Scriptures are a reference to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as divinely inspired, holy and authoritative." Please state clearly without your normal ambiguity where you agree or disagree and why.

The term Scripture as found in our English Bible is:
1. A reference to the anthology of Canonical books. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
2. A reference to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
3. The Scriptures are the very words of God, each and every book, chapter, verse and word. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
4. The Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I'm not asking you to agree with my understanding of "given by inspiration of God".
5. The Scriptures are divinely inspired. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I'm not asking you to agree with my understanding of "divinely inspired".
6. The Scriptures are perfect. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
7. The Scriptures are pure. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
8. The Scriptures are infallible. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
9. The Scriptures are the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
10. The Scriptures are holy and authoritative. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

While the Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles were and are 100% perfect, pure, and infallible, the Scriptures do not actually support your use of fallacies concerning translations as supposedly being sound or scriptural.

Interesting confession on your part, Rick. The Scriptures "were and are 100% perfect, pure, and infallible". I could understand your position if you had just said, "The Scriptures were 100% perfect, pure, and infallible.", but you added "and are" as in "The Scriptures are 100% perfect, pure, and infallible." which is exactly my position.  You strenuously and repeatedly object to my position because I insist that the Scriptures in English (but not limited to English) are 100% perfect, pure, and infallible. You insist that all translators are human (duh), sinners (duh) corrupted by human depravity (duh) and are therefore incapable of translating correctly (huh?). Therefore, according to you, no translation of the Bible can be rightfully defined as the Scriptures which are 100% perfect, pure and infallible. However, in your wholesome logic, you insist that copyists (who are also, by the way, human, sinners and corrupted by human depravity) have somehow preserved for us today the Scriptures that are 100% perfect, pure, and infallible, but only in the original languages! You never get around to telling us poor ignorant street urchins where these pristine copies are located and how they answer the questions so beguiling all those in this current debate. To name a few John 1:18; 1:13, John 8, Mark 16, 1Timothy 3:16; 1John 5:7, etc. Amazingly, when I point out that you are an Original Language Onlyist, you object and insist that I am twisting your position. If you are not an OLO (Original Language Onlyist), please define your understanding of the term and why you are not.

You have failed to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach that ALL copies of the original language Scriptures were given by inspiration of God and that all those copies are 100% perfect, pure, and infallible without any errors introduced by men.

I cannot and will not demonstrate that which I do not espouse. Your moniker is showing again, Rick, you sly fox you! I do not teach that "ALL copies of the original language Scriptures were given by inspiration of God".

1. Not all copies, writings, translations, etchings, printings, or anything else written is Scripture, that's why my definition (and other's as well) includes "Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers" or "properly regarded by believers". When Paul wrote the word Scripture in 2Timothy he did NOT mean everything ever written, i.e. Mad Magazine, Time, Newsweek, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, dead sea scrolls, etc., he did mean "the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts" and that those Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. Or, if you will, he meant "the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as holy and authoritative" and that those Scriptures are given by inspiration of God.

2. Not "were given" miraculously at one time by a revelation to the Apostles and prophets in the distant past, but rather the character of the Scriptures in all of history are given by inspiration of God. Or, to use the scholar's terms, the Scriptures are God-breathed. Not were God-breathed sometime in the past, but God ran out of breath and they are no longer breathed by God as a consistent application of your argument would suggest.

3. Not "100% perfect, pure, and infallible without any errors introduced by men" as you misunderstand the Fundamentalist definition of inerrant (wholly true, J.I. Packer). All documents, copies, translations, etc. have "some kind of error", i.e. ink smudges, bad hand writing, printing errors, misprints, grammatical, etc. Any particular edition of the Scriptures will have these kinds of errors. Inerrancy and infallibility are not limited by these types of errors. Paul probably didn't have the same perfect handwriting as God Almighty did. WRITING SENTENCES WITH ALL CAPS AND NO SPACES would be considered a grammatical error today (included in your "any error") which by your logic puts the autographs themselves in jeopardy of "error". 
 

You have failed to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach that ALL translations of the original language Scriptures were or are given by inspiration of God and that all those translations are 100% perfect, pure, and infallible without any errors introduced by men whether translators, editors, or printers.

You do like them scarecrows don't you! Did your momma leave you out in the corn field too long? Did you watch too much Wizard of Oz as a kid and got strawman on the brain? I'll repeat my position, try not to get it twisted this time! The SCRIPTURES are given by inspiration of God. Therefore in whatever language the Scriptures are found they are 100% perfect, pure, and infallible, etc.

The Scriptures that Timothy had from a child (2Tim 3:15-17) were NOT the autographs, but they were given by inspiration of God. This in direct contradiction to the false statement that "only the autographs are given by inspiration of God". 

Mitex, you use the false arguments [fallacies such as begging the question] and made false accusations.

The Scriptures do not state that ALL copies of the original language Scriptures were made by a process of inspiration or were given by inspiration of God.  You are improperly reading your incorrect, subjective opinion into verses that do not actually state what you claim.  2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the matter of how the Scriptures were and are given, but it does not assert that copies were made by inspiration as you try to assume or speculate.  Your speculation that copies are made by inspiration of God is in contradiction to other scriptural truths or instructions such as those that would directly relate to copying.  Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures.

How do you understand 2Timothy 3:16 grammatically? As passive voice (Young) or a present tense copula (linking verb, Wallace, Robertson, etc.)?

A few things to consider:
1. The Scriptures are the object of "the inspiration of God". That's something written, not someone writing.

2. What ever "the process" is in your mind, that "process" was applied in 2Timothy 3:16 not directly to the autographs as you read into the passage, but rather to the Holy Scriptures which Timothy possessed from his youth. The ones that are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. And that's the kicker isn't it, Rick? The context applies to Timothy's Scriptures and only DERIVATIVELY to the autographs and the New Testament. So say all them non-KJVO scholar's that I quoted repeatedly and you conveniently ignored.

3. I never speculated about "copies being made by inspiration of God". Since you repeatedly make this mistake, you are getting dangerously close to becoming a bald faced liar.

4. Applying Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19 to unintentional copyist errors, printer errors, ink smudges, and such like demonstrates your inability to properly use exegesis when explaining your understanding of these verses. This is your particular heresy where you condemn ALL innocent copyists throughout history who inadvertently misspelled words, left off words, added words, etc. I've been told that all manuscripts have some type of copyist error. If that is true, then your heresy has condemned all those copyists as liars, worthy of plagues and such like.

Quote from: Mitex on June 14, 2014, 02:22:51 AM
    The Scriptures that Jesus read from (Luke 4) do not match jot and tittle with any extant manuscript, yet those Scriptures were given by inspiration of God.

You have not proven what you [sic] claim.  You may be merely assuming that the Scriptures that Jesus read as translated in the KJV do not match "jot and tittle with any extant manuscript" since you do not read Hebrew and have not examined all Hebrew manuscripts.  With the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, more Hebrew OT manuscripts were found that give evidence of a Hebrew Old Testament text that differs in some places from the later Masoretic manuscripts and that may be in agreement with what Jesus read.

No, Rick. I checked with every Bible available to me. In fact, this particular argument I learned from a rabidly anti-KJVO much like yourself, who stated that there is no extant manuscript in the original languages that agree with the Scriptures that Jesus read from in Luke 4. Your response is revealing, for you do not, nor can you, produce an extant manuscript that matches Jesus' Scriptures in Luke 4. And your reference to the Dead Sea scrolls in hopes that something might be there is also telling. For you are in effect saying that the Church of God did NOT have preserved for it's use in matters of faith and practice the original text in the original languages UNTIL the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls circa 1948. You remind me of the over zealous Roman Catholic who upon hearing me say that purgatory is not in the Bible, asked, "Where in the Bible is purgatory not found?" 

Quote from: Mitex on June 14, 2014, 02:22:51 AM
    God's intent was to have His word translated - the translated word has the same authority and power as the original. 

You have not made a sound, scriptural case for your opinion concerning translations.

2 Timothy 3:16 does not say that all Scripture is translated by inspiration of God, which is in effect what you are trying to suggest.

You are one twisted cookie. First, my point was that God intended to have His word translated. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? You ignored my point and then jumped from my salient point to those kiddy nightmares of the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz apparently implying that my position is that "Scripture is translated by inspiration of God". But I must say, you are correct in a twisted sort of way, 2Timothy 3:16 does not say that all Scripture is translated by inspiration of God. In fact it doesn't say, all Scripture is copied by inspiration of God either. And yet, if I understood your ambiguous definition and doctrine, you believe that copies, only in the original languages of course(!), are given by inspiration of God, albeit derivatively. It does say what I have maintained all along, that being this: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, therefore, Timothy's, Jesus', the Eunuch's, and the Berean's Scriptures, as well as the Scriptures in English, Spanish, Polish, Greek, Hebrew and whatever other language they are found in are given by inspiration of God.

Quote from: Mitex on June 14, 2014, 02:22:51 AM
    The phrase “given by inspiration of God” defines the character of all Scripture and is not limited to the autograph, or the originals, but to all extant Scripture in any generation or language. You can read the extant Scriptures with the confidence that you are reading the very words of God in the form that God wants you to have today!

You have failed to make any sound case for trying to suggest that "given by inspiration of God" is supposedly the definition and process by which ALL copies of the original language Scriptures were made and by which ALL translations were made.

Hey Slick Rick, pay attention. I don't try to suggest your twisting of my position. My definition isn't supposedly "a process" which "was made". All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. There is no other kind of Scripture except in your thick skull crusted over with mud from the corn field in which your scarecrow stands. "Given by inspiration" describes the CHARACTER of all Scripture and that character of all Scripture applies to Scripture before Moses' was born (you paying attention?), the Scripture in David's day, the Scripture in Jesus' day, the Scripture in Timothy's youth, the Scripture that Eunuch read from and the Berean's searched, and bless God the Scriptures that I read in English, Polish and Spanish.

When readers read a translation with errors in it [even if the words were supposedly introduced by the printers instead of the translators], how is that "reading the very words of God"?

Mitex, according to your use of fallacies, readers are merely to assume blindly that their copy of a translation is 100% perfect, pure, and infallible regardless of the fact that their copy may have errors introduced by men whether printers or translators.  It is a good thing that those readers of the 1631 edition of the KJV printed by the king's printer in London did not hold your modern-day opinion.

Exodus 20:14
Thou shalt commit adultery {1631 London}

Ok, Rick. I can see now that you have your horse blinders on and can't see the track in front of you. I'll type this real slow for you. Are you ready? Are you sure?
Moses crushed the finger of God written original autographs on the mount 4000-4500 years ago. Did the Scriptures become corrupted, imperfect, anything less than "given by inspiration of God" as the worms began crawling over and through the crumbling stones?  When Jehudi took his penknife out and cut up the scroll with words written on it by Baruch who wrote as Jeremiah spoke while being moved along by the Spirit of God and then pitched them in the fire; tell us Rick, did the Scriptures suddenly start diminishing as the fire crackled? When Baruch ADDED to the original, were the Scripture added unto? Was he a liar? When my grandkids grab my King James Version and rip out 10 pages to color on did the King James Bible suddenly become corrupted, imperfect, impure, or any less the word of God?

Do you really think that one edition laying on my desk is "the King James Bible"? And that pen marks and notes added by me are an addition to "the King James Bible" -the word of God? Are you so deluded as to think one particular printing and only that particular printing of the KJV (pick a year) is "the word of God"? If so, you've been reading too much KJV-Only literature from Down Under. 

I'll let you stew on this last paragraph for awhile. I'm curious what kind of twisted reaction I'm going to get from the king of the 1960's game, Twister. Spin the wheel boys...it's a red dot!

 

[christundivided]

Anyone else believe Mitex is just being a whinny little baby???

Its pitiful. This usually happens when a moron tries to defend the indefensible.

 

[FSSL]

1. Not all copies, writings, translations, etchings, printings, or anything else written is Scripture, that's why my definition (and other's as well) includes "Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers" or "properly regarded by believers". When Paul wrote the word Scripture in 2Timothy he did NOT mean everything ever written, i.e. Mad Magazine, Time, Newsweek, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, dead sea scrolls, etc., he did mean "the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts" and that those Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. Or, if you will, he meant "the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as holy and authoritative" and that those Scriptures are given by inspiration of God.

Sadly, Mitex's own definition prevents his Polish update from being recognized as the word of God. There is no consensus in Poland regarding his update.

 

[logos1560]

Quote from: Mitex on June 14, 2014, 02:22:51 AM

The Scriptures are properly defined as a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts – it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Scriptures given by inspiration of God are extant today and readily available in every major language of the world.

God's intent was to have His word translated - the translated word has the same authority and power as the original.

The phrase “given by inspiration of God” defines the character of all Scripture and is not limited to the autograph, or the originals, but to all extant Scripture in any generation or language. You can read the extant Scriptures with the confidence that you are reading the very words of God in the form that God wants you to have today!

The Scriptures had been translated into English many years before 1611.  There was a "consensus" English translation before 1611 or were "consensus" English translations before 1611 with a different English Bible being the "consensus" English translation at different periods of time.

  According to a consistent application of Mitex's own arguments or claims, a consensus pre-1611 English Bible would have to have been given by inspiration of God and would have to have been perfect, pure, and infallible.
There is no other option if Mitex's claims are supposedly correct and consistently applied.  That pre-1611 consensus English Bible would have "same authority and power as the original" according to Mitex.

According to a consistent application of Mitex's own claims and reasoning, on what basis could a group of Church of England critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles make many revisions, changes, supposed improvements, or supposed corrections to the pre-1611 consensus English Bible that had to have been "given by inspiration of God", that had to have been "perfect, pure, and infallible",  that had to have the "same authority and power as the original," and that had to have been "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice" for English-speaking believers before 1611?

Mitex, were English-speaking believers before 1611 reading "the very words of God" in their consensus pre-1611 English Bible?

The actual fact that the pre-1611 consensus English Bible was changed and revised in many places is a serious problem for Mitex's arbitrary,  inconsistent claims and faulty reasoning.  Will Mitex deal with a consistent application of his very own reasoning as applied to before 1611?

The arguments being used that are "slick," wrong, deceiptive, and flawed are the fallacies used by Mitex.  Mitex's claims involving special pleading, begging the question, the fallalcy of false dilemma, and the fallacy of composition are not correct. 

Evidently, "all" at 2 Timothy 3:16 does not mean "all" according to Mitex's arbitrary, inconsistent claim that suggests or implies that it only includes some [not all] copies of Scripture and some [not all] translations of Scripture that he and his unproven or imaginary so-called "consensus" supposedly select.

 

[Mitex]

Beep, beep, beep. Yellow card for Rick. You missed the pertinent points. Go back and try again A 2nd yellow card will be a red card and automatic disqualification. Don't let your team down, they're counting on you!

The term Scripture as found in our English Bible is:
1. A reference to the anthology of Canonical books. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
2. A reference to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
3. The Scriptures are the very words of God, each and every book, chapter, verse and word. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
4. The Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I'm not asking you to agree with my understanding of "given by inspiration of God".
5. The Scriptures are divinely inspired. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I'm not asking you to agree with my understanding of "divinely inspired".
6. The Scriptures are perfect. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
7. The Scriptures are pure. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
8. The Scriptures are infallible. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
9. The Scriptures are the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
10. The Scriptures are holy and authoritative. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

• By a consistent application of your blurred definition of the word Scripture, how would searching the Scriptures even be possible?
  
• Scripture, according to you, is a one time miraculous revelation given only to the Apostles and prophets to be written only in the original tongues. All other etchings, markings, copies, translations and such are corrupted by human depravity and cannot rightly be called the Scriptures, which are given by inspiration of God. So, as I've asked you repeatedly and you ignored, have I ever read the Scriptures not knowing the original languages?
  
• Has any American who doesn't know archaic Hebrew  and Greek ever searched the Scriptures?
  
• How about writing plainly your definition of the term Scripture as found in the Scriptures?
  
• How do you understand 2Timothy 3:16 grammatically? As passive voice (Young) or a present tense copula (linking verb, Wallace, Robertson, etc.)?
  
• What ever "the process" is in your mind, that "process" was applied in 2Timothy 3:16 not directly to the autographs as you read into the passage, but rather to the Holy Scriptures which Timothy possessed from his youth. The ones that are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. And that's the kicker isn't it, Rick? The context applies to Timothy's Scriptures and only DERIVATIVELY to the autographs and the New Testament. So say all them non-KJVO scholar's that I quoted repeatedly and you conveniently ignored.
  
• I checked with every Bible available to me. In fact, this particular argument I learned from a rabidly anti-KJVO much like yourself, who stated that there is no extant manuscript in the original languages that agree with the Scriptures that Jesus read from in Luke 4. Your response is revealing, for you do not, nor can you, produce an extant manuscript that matches Jesus' Scriptures in Luke 4. And your reference to the Dead Sea scrolls in hopes that something might be there is also telling. For you are in effect saying that the Church of God did NOT have preserved for it's use in matters of faith and practice the original text in the original languages UNTIL the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls circa 1948. You remind me of the over zealous Roman Catholic who upon hearing me say that purgatory is not in the Bible, asked, "Where in the Bible is purgatory not found?" Can you produce an original language manuscript that matches the Scriptures that Jesus read from in Luke 4? If so, please show us.
  
• My point was that God intended to have His word translated. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
  
• Given by inspiration" describes the CHARACTER of all Scripture and that character of all Scripture applies to Scripture before Moses' was born (you paying attention?), the Scripture in David's day, the Scripture in Jesus' day, the Scripture in Timothy's youth, the Scripture that Eunuch read from and the Berean's searched, and bless God the Scriptures that I read in English, Polish and Spanish. Did you get the drift, Swift?
  
• Moses crushed the finger of God written original autographs on the mount 4000-4500 years ago. Did the Scriptures become corrupted, imperfect, anything less than "given by inspiration of God" as the worms began crawling over and through the crumbling stones?  When Jehudi took his penknife out and cut up the scroll with words written on it by Baruch who wrote as Jeremiah spoke while being moved along by the Spirit of God and then pitched them in the fire; tell us Rick, did the Scriptures suddenly start diminishing as the fire crackled? When Baruch ADDED to the original, were the Scripture added unto? Was he a liar? When my grandkids grab my King James Version and rip out 10 pages to color on did the King James Bible suddenly become corrupted, imperfect, impure, or any less the word of God?
  
• Do you really think that one edition laying on my desk is "the King James Bible"? And that pen marks and notes added by me are an addition to "the King James Bible" -the word of God? Are you so deluded as to think one particular printing and only that particular printing of the KJV (pick a year) is "the word of God"? If so, you've been reading too much KJV-Only literature from Down Under.

The ball is in your corner, you get a free kick even with the yellow card. Let her rip!

 

[bgwilkinson]

Another army of straw men and aunt Sally.

More false presuppositions.

 

[Mitex]

Another army of straw men and aunt Sally.

More false presuppositions.

Whistle! RED CARD!
Flagrant foul - lack of charity.
Flagrant foul - too much Wizard of Oz
Flagrant foul - failure to interact in a meaningful way

 

[FSSL]

Beep, beep, beep. Yellow card for Rick. You missed the pertinent points. Go back and try again A 2nd yellow card will be a red card and automatic disqualification. Don't let you team down, they're counting on you!

Throwing 100 balls into a stadium does not mean that you are actively engaged in the game.

It means you are DISTRACTING and not answering...

 

[Mitex]

Beep, beep, beep. Yellow card for Rick. You missed the pertinent points. Go back and try again A 2nd yellow card will be a red card and automatic disqualification. Don't let you team down, they're counting on you!

Throwing 100 balls into a stadium does not mean that you are actively engaged in the game.

It means you are DISTRACTING and not answering...

Security, please report to Section A4, isle 0. Unruly fan throwing bear cans.

 

[FSSL]

Who let this referee on the board?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVkFVgqhYlk

 

[Mitex]

Quote from: Mitex on June 14, 2014, 02:22:51 AM

The Scriptures are properly defined as a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts – it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Scriptures given by inspiration of God are extant today and readily available in every major language of the world.

God's intent was to have His word translated - the translated word has the same authority and power as the original.

The phrase “given by inspiration of God” defines the character of all Scripture and is not limited to the autograph, or the originals, but to all extant Scripture in any generation or language. You can read the extant Scriptures with the confidence that you are reading the very words of God in the form that God wants you to have today!

The Scriptures had been translated into English many years before 1611.

Is that an affirmative statement there, Rick? Are you making a positive declaration of what you really believe? When you used the term Scriptures in the above statement were you equivocating, being deliberately ambiguous or were you genuinely referring to the Scriptural definition of the word Scripture? Did you mean Scriptures as in "given to the prophets and apostles and are 100% perfect, pure, and infallible"? Please tell us Rick, did you mean the Scriptures as in, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"? Or did you have in mind anything and everything ever written, copied or translated?

In your mind what is the difference between these two sentences?
1. Inspired translations before 1611.
2. The Scriptures translated before 1611.

And these two?
1. The Scriptures in English.
2. The Scriptures in the original languages.

There was a "consensus" English translation before 1611 or were "consensus" English translations before 1611 with a different English Bible being the "consensus" English translation at different periods of time.

There was?

According to a consistent application of Mitex's own arguments or claims, a consensus pre-1611 English Bible would have to have been given by inspiration of God and would have to have been perfect, pure, and infallible.
There is no other option if Mitex's claims are supposedly correct and consistently applied.  That pre-1611 consensus English Bible would have "same authority and power as the original" according to Mitex.

Are you making a positive unequivocal statement that the Scriptures (see above) existed in English prior to 1611 and that those Scriptures were recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians as the very word of God? Is that your final answer? You get one phone call, one check with the family, and one request from the audience. Take your time, you have 60 seconds. 

According to a consistent application of Mitex's own claims and reasoning, on what basis could a group of Church of England critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles make many revisions, changes, supposed improvements, or supposed corrections to the pre-1611 consensus English Bible that had to have been "given by inspiration of God", that had to have been "perfect, pure, and infallible",  that had to have the "same authority and power as the original," and that had to have been "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice" for English-speaking believers before 1611?

"That is, Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavours of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God...And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land, or beyond sea, either in King Henry’s time, or King Edward’s, (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation, in his time) or Queen Elizabeth’s of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance...Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where." AV Translators.

You'll have to be more specific, Rick. What Critics were you referring to? The AV translators avowed that they DID NOT CONDEMN the ancient, or any labours of those who went before them.

Mitex, were English-speaking believers before 1611 reading "the very words of God" in their consensus pre-1611 English Bible?

Well, Rick, come out of your closet and tell the world plainly: Did the English speaking believers prior to 1611 have the Scriptures (see above) in English? Are the Scriptures ever NOT the very words of God? Please explain.

The actual fact that the pre-1611 consensus English Bible was changed and revised in many places is a serious problem for Mitex's arbitrary,  inconsistent claims and faulty reasoning.  Will Mitex deal with a consistent application of his very own reasoning as applied to before 1611?

Rick, are you aware that the original has been changed and revised in many places? Does that pose a serious problem for you? You appear to be hung up on jots and tittles and hold the erroneous belief that the preservation of the Scriptures refers to jot and tittle exactness much like grandpa's stamp collection "preserved" in the vaults down at 1st Jerusalem First Bank & Trust for every generation to come and take a peek at. The autographs perished and became the habitat of worms. Scriptural preservation of God's word is more like grandma's pickles, the form has changed over time but the nutritional value is preserved.

The arguments being used that are "slick," wrong, deceiptive [sic], and flawed are the fallacies used by Mitex.  Mitex's claims involving special pleading, begging the question, the fallalcy [sic] of false dilemma, and the fallacy of composition are not correct.

I'm sure you wrote such things out of the Spirit of charity so as to not offend bgwilkinson and gang. Why you would label truth, veracity and sound arguments as such is beyond me, but you go right ahead. 

Evidently, "all" at 2 Timothy 3:16 does not mean "all" according to Mitex's arbitrary, inconsistent claim that suggests or implies that it only includes some [not all] copies of Scripture and some [not all] translations of Scripture that he and his unproven or imaginary so-called "consensus" supposedly select.

More quoting out of context from slick Rick. "All Scripture" tricky Rick, NOT all things ever copied, translated or written as you want to twist. Spin again.

You have questions waiting to be answered both in this post and others. Gird up your loins like a man and deal with the issue instead of chasing windmills around with Sancho Panza.

 

[Ransom]

Who let this referee on the board?!

Good thing Mitex is a fan of boring soccer instead of hockey, or you'd be dodging octopus instead of red cards.