KJVO Presupposition "The Word of God Alone Equals the KJV Alone" True or False

[bgwilkinson]

I believe all KJVOs would say that the statement "The Word of God Alone Equals the KJV Alone" is true.

I have heard them say this over and over for many years.

What say ye?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I consider myself KJVO.  However, such a statement must be false.  John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.  We are also told that forever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven.  Hence, the Word of God existed long before the English translation.  Also, other languages do not use English.  Just as I should not have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the Word of God, neither do other languages need to learn English.  The Bible may be translated into other languages just as it was into English.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I rely upon another?

 

[christundivided]

I consider myself KJVO.  However, such a statement must be false.  John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.  We are also told that forever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven.  Hence, the Word of God existed long before the English translation.  Also, other languages do not use English.  Just as I should not have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the Word of God, neither do other languages need to learn English.  The Bible may be translated into other languages just as it was into English.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I rely upon another?

I have a few questions...

1. Does the Ethiopian church have to rely upon a translation made from the KJV? If not, then would you say their translation is equal to the KJV? If not, then why not?
2. Why shouldn't you have to learn another language to read the Word of God? Did the apostles need to learn Greek to present the Gospel to the Gentile nations? How about Aramaic? Why have you been removed from that requirement?
3. There are several English translation that preceded the KJV. Those translations are still available today. Why the KJV?
4. What translation into another language of the Word of God......is equal to the KJV?

I know some KJVOist take your position but they never come out and say which translation is equal. Why is that? Isn't it due to the fact.... regardless of language, you don't believe any translation is equal to the KJV? They general try to call themselves KJVPreferred.... yet I can't honestly say I have meet someone that really lived up to that claim. When you peel away "the onion" that is their belief, you find they really believe the KJVO has no equal.  Hence, the topic of the OP.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I consider myself KJVO.  However, such a statement must be false.  John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.  We are also told that forever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven.  Hence, the Word of God existed long before the English translation.  Also, other languages do not use English.  Just as I should not have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the Word of God, neither do other languages need to learn English.  The Bible may be translated into other languages just as it was into English.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I rely upon another?

I have a few questions...

2. Why shouldn't you have to learn another language to read the Word of God? Did the apostles need to learn Greek to present the Gospel to the Gentile nations? How about Aramaic? Why have you been removed from that requirement?

I'm not KJVO anymore, but this seems a silly question. That's like saying "Did the Apostles walk to church? Why have you been removed from that requirement?"

The reason KJVO English-speaking people don't have to learn another language to study the Bible is because there is already a Bible in English. (This would apply to English-speaking non-KJVO people as well, like myself.)

 

[christundivided]

I consider myself KJVO.  However, such a statement must be false.  John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.  We are also told that forever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven.  Hence, the Word of God existed long before the English translation.  Also, other languages do not use English.  Just as I should not have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the Word of God, neither do other languages need to learn English.  The Bible may be translated into other languages just as it was into English.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I rely upon another?

I have a few questions...

2. Why shouldn't you have to learn another language to read the Word of God? Did the apostles need to learn Greek to present the Gospel to the Gentile nations? How about Aramaic? Why have you been removed from that requirement?

I'm not KJVO anymore, but this seems a silly question. That's like saying "Did the Apostles walk to church? Why have you been removed from that requirement?"

The reason KJVO English-speaking people don't have to learn another language to study the Bible is because there is already a Bible in English. (This would apply to English-speaking non-KJVO people as well, like myself.)

Humm....What a comparison. I didn't take the idea of walking to church and compare it to understanding language like you did. The question I asked was a direct comparison. Not some fabrication of commonality existing between understanding language and "transportation". You're the one being silly.

The facts are.... those that minister to anyone have to know their language. The Scriptures ministers to us. Paul talked of this in

1Co 14:11  Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

If you solely rely on someone else to make a choice in translation, which the KJVOist does, then you're doing nothing more than BLINDLY following them.

I personally believe that everyone should get to know the various biblical languages. They should embrace the underlying texts themselves. Its not difficult and they owe it to themselves to do so. Thus, they will have an INFORMED beliefs..... not some BLIND faith in something that's not greater than those who translated it. Every heard of those at Berea? Did you notice why they were "NOBLE"?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I consider myself KJVO.  However, such a statement must be false.  John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.  We are also told that forever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven.  Hence, the Word of God existed long before the English translation.  Also, other languages do not use English.  Just as I should not have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the Word of God, neither do other languages need to learn English.  The Bible may be translated into other languages just as it was into English.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I rely upon another?

I have a few questions...

1. Does the Ethiopian church have to rely upon a translation made from the KJV? If not, then would you say their translation is equal to the KJV? If not, then why not?
2. Why shouldn't you have to learn another language to read the Word of God? Did the apostles need to learn Greek to present the Gospel to the Gentile nations? How about Aramaic? Why have you been removed from that requirement?
3. There are several English translation that preceded the KJV. Those translations are still available today. Why the KJV?
4. What translation into another language of the Word of God......is equal to the KJV?

I know some KJVOist take your position but they never come out and say which translation is equal. Why is that? Isn't it due to the fact.... regardless of language, you don't believe any translation is equal to the KJV? They general try to call themselves KJVPreferred.... yet I can't honestly say I have meet someone that really lived up to that claim. When you peel away "the onion" that is their belief, you find they really believe the KJVO has no equal.  Hence, the topic of the OP.

While I am a fundy, I am not your average HACker.  I have walked out of KJV conferences mid-sermon when speakers swing the pendulum to far and create their own heresy in defense of the KJV.

Ethiopian or Chinese - whatever.  I would prefer that each language develop a correct translation from the correct texts with the best minds and the best resources, like unto the story of the KJV.

I believe the apostles already knew the languages in which they were writing to the churches and general dispersion of Christians.  I am thankful that God has providentially preserved His word in the English language that I speak.  I also am thankful for missionaries who are working to develop languages on the foreign field so that the Bible may be translated into those languages.  Sorry, I am not Catholic - I would like to see the Bible in the hands of the common people, no matter what language they speak.

There were other translations in English before the KJV and there have been after.  While some of these translations are better than others, the KJV is a correct translation (best minds, best resources, correct texts, etc...).  If it is a correct translation, why should I bother with another?

Sorry.  I do not speak other languages very well.  Hence, I am not an authority on other translations in other languages.  I have not studied the progression of the Bible into other languages.  I am not quite so familiar with those histories.  Hence, I have no answer for question 4.  However, I think you can tell from previous statements here the qualifications I would look for in a translation if I spoke another language.

 

[christundivided]

I consider myself KJVO.  However, such a statement must be false.  John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.  We are also told that forever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven.  Hence, the Word of God existed long before the English translation.  Also, other languages do not use English.  Just as I should not have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the Word of God, neither do other languages need to learn English.  The Bible may be translated into other languages just as it was into English.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I rely upon another?

I have a few questions...

1. Does the Ethiopian church have to rely upon a translation made from the KJV? If not, then would you say their translation is equal to the KJV? If not, then why not?
2. Why shouldn't you have to learn another language to read the Word of God? Did the apostles need to learn Greek to present the Gospel to the Gentile nations? How about Aramaic? Why have you been removed from that requirement?
3. There are several English translation that preceded the KJV. Those translations are still available today. Why the KJV?
4. What translation into another language of the Word of God......is equal to the KJV?

I know some KJVOist take your position but they never come out and say which translation is equal. Why is that? Isn't it due to the fact.... regardless of language, you don't believe any translation is equal to the KJV? They general try to call themselves KJVPreferred.... yet I can't honestly say I have meet someone that really lived up to that claim. When you peel away "the onion" that is their belief, you find they really believe the KJVO has no equal.  Hence, the topic of the OP.

While I am a fundy, I am not your average HACker.  I have walked out of KJV conferences mid-sermon when speakers swing the pendulum to far and create their own heresy in defense of the KJV.

Ethiopian or Chinese - whatever.  I would prefer that each language develop a correct translation from the correct texts with the best minds and the best resources, like unto the story of the KJV.

I believe the apostles already knew the languages in which they were writing to the churches and general dispersion of Christians.  I am thankful that God has providentially preserved His word in the English language that I speak.  I also am thankful for missionaries who are working to develop languages on the foreign field so that the Bible may be translated into those languages.  Sorry, I am not Catholic - I would like to see the Bible in the hands of the common people, no matter what language they speak.

There were other translations in English before the KJV and there have been after.  While some of these translations are better than others, the KJV is a correct translation (best minds, best resources, correct texts, etc...).  If it is a correct translation, why should I bother with another?

Sorry.  I do not speak other languages very well.  Hence, I am not an authority on other translations in other languages.  I have not studied the progression of the Bible into other languages.  I am not quite so familiar with those histories.  Hence, I have no answer for question 4.  However, I think you can tell from previous statements here the qualifications I would look for in a translation if I spoke another language.

Thanks for your answers. I don't particular have a "beef" with most of what you wrote. I think its clear and to the point. I do believe, if you studied a little more, you wouldn't make the following statement.

I believe the apostles already knew the languages in which they were writing to the churches and general dispersion of Christians.  I am thankful that God has providentially preserved His word in the English language that I speak.

I don't particularly agree that the apostles knew all the various languages they needed to know nor do I believe they were necessarily properly skilled in everything "Greek". Hence the gift of "tongues" given to the early church. Its also a little ironic that most KJVOist don't believe that gift extended past the times of the apostles. Yet, they believe in a perfect translation of the Scriptures into english. Can you explain this seaming contradiction? Do you believe in the cessation of those gifts in the early church? Did God remove that restriction once it came time for the KJV?

I asked about The Ethiopian church translation for a reason. I'm glad you're theoretically allow for translation of God's Word into other languages. Yet, The Ethiopian church has a vastly different canon than any other sect of Christianity on the planet. Depending on who you ask, they may have up to 81 canonical books included in their translation. So its not just a issue of translation, its also an issue of inclusion.

All in all, why do you see the providential hand of God in translating the KJV? Do you see that in any other translation?



the KJV is a correct translation (best minds, best resources, correct texts, etc...).  If it is a correct translation, why should I bother with another?

I could say a lot here but lets just look at one facet of what you wrote....

Are there various, sequential editions of the TR used to translate the KJV? Do you believe "the best" texts had to come from providential purification?

If the TR changed, and it did, how does that effect your idea of the "best texts".

 

[prophet]

I consider myself KJVO.  However, such a statement must be false.  John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.  We are also told that forever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven.  Hence, the Word of God existed long before the English translation.  Also, other languages do not use English.  Just as I should not have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the Word of God, neither do other languages need to learn English.  The Bible may be translated into other languages just as it was into English.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I rely upon another?

I have a few questions...

1. Does the Ethiopian church have to rely upon a translation made from the KJV? If not, then would you say their translation is equal to the KJV? If not, then why not?
2. Why shouldn't you have to learn another language to read the Word of God? Did the apostles need to learn Greek to present the Gospel to the Gentile nations? How about Aramaic? Why have you been removed from that requirement?
3. There are several English translation that preceded the KJV. Those translations are still available today. Why the KJV?
4. What translation into another language of the Word of God......is equal to the KJV?

I know some KJVOist take your position but they never come out and say which translation is equal. Why is that? Isn't it due to the fact.... regardless of language, you don't believe any translation is equal to the KJV? They general try to call themselves KJVPreferred.... yet I can't honestly say I have meet someone that really lived up to that claim. When you peel away "the onion" that is their belief, you find they really believe the KJVO has no equal.  Hence, the topic of the OP.

While I am a fundy, I am not your average HACker.  I have walked out of KJV conferences mid-sermon when speakers swing the pendulum to far and create their own heresy in defense of the KJV.

Ethiopian or Chinese - whatever.  I would prefer that each language develop a correct translation from the correct texts with the best minds and the best resources, like unto the story of the KJV.

I believe the apostles already knew the languages in which they were writing to the churches and general dispersion of Christians.  I am thankful that God has providentially preserved His word in the English language that I speak.  I also am thankful for missionaries who are working to develop languages on the foreign field so that the Bible may be translated into those languages.  Sorry, I am not Catholic - I would like to see the Bible in the hands of the common people, no matter what language they speak.

There were other translations in English before the KJV and there have been after.  While some of these translations are better than others, the KJV is a correct translation (best minds, best resources, correct texts, etc...).  If it is a correct translation, why should I bother with another?

Sorry.  I do not speak other languages very well.  Hence, I am not an authority on other translations in other languages.  I have not studied the progression of the Bible into other languages.  I am not quite so familiar with those histories.  Hence, I have no answer for question 4.  However, I think you can tell from previous statements here the qualifications I would look for in a translation if I spoke another language.

Thanks for your answers. I don't particular have a "beef" with most of what you wrote. I think its clear and to the point. I do believe, if you studied a little more, you wouldn't make the following statement.

I believe the apostles already knew the languages in which they were writing to the churches and general dispersion of Christians.  I am thankful that God has providentially preserved His word in the English language that I speak.

I don't particularly agree that the apostles knew all the various languages they needed to know nor do I believe they were necessarily properly skilled in everything "Greek". Hence the gift of "tongues" given to the early church. Its also a little ironic that most KJVOist don't believe that gift extended past the times of the apostles. Yet, they believe in a perfect translation of the Scriptures into english. Can you explain this seaming contradiction? Do you believe in the cessation of those gifts in the early church? Did God remove that restriction once it came time for the KJV?

I asked about The Ethiopian church translation for a reason. I'm glad you're theoretically allow for translation of God's Word into other languages. Yet, The Ethiopian church has a vastly different canon than any other sect of Christianity on the planet. Depending on who you ask, they may have up to 81 canonical books included in their translation. So its not just a issue of translation, its also an issue of inclusion.

All in all, why do you see the providential hand of God in translating the KJV? Do you see that in any other translation?



the KJV is a correct translation (best minds, best resources, correct texts, etc...).  If it is a correct translation, why should I bother with another?

I could say a lot here but lets just look at one facet of what you wrote....

Are there various, sequential editions of the TR used to translate the KJV? Do you believe "the best" texts had to come from providential purification?

If the TR changed, and it did, how does that effect your idea of the "best texts".

Show me 'the TR' lol.  The one Scrv. made up after the fact?  One of Erasmus's 5 or so?  Laughable.  There is no existent copy of the 'TR' in any language except English.



Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

The Word of God exists , has existed, and will exist (on earth) in many languages.  For instance, The Reina Valera (1909 update, not the 1960 revision) 1601 is the Word of God in Espanol.  The Iu Itoshki Kikindiuin au Kitogima is the Word of God.  The Gospel of John in Anishinaabemowin that I use, is the Word of God. 
For English, The AV is it, although an honest update (not a revision incorporating Nestle-Aland descendent bias) would be great.  Unfortunately, it would be rejected by the same knuckleheads, devoid of logic, who make fools out of their 'position' now.

Anishinabe

 

[christundivided]

The Word of God exists , has existed, and will exist (on earth) in many languages.  For instance, The Reina Valera (1909 update, not the 1960 revision) 1601 is the Word of God in Espanol.  The Iu Itoshki Kikindiuin au Kitogima is the Word of God.  The Gospel of John in Anishinaabemowin that I use, is the Word of God. 
For English, The AV is it, although an honest update (not a revision incorporating Nestle-Aland descendent bias) would be great.  Unfortunately, it would be rejected by the same knuckleheads, devoid of logic, who make fools out of their 'position' now.

Anishinabe

Okay... I'll bite....

Why the 1909 Reina Valera and not the 1960?

 

[christundivided]

Show me 'the TR' lol.  The one Scrv. made up after the fact?  One of Erasmus's 5 or so?  Laughable.  There is no existent copy of the 'TR' in any language except English.

Anishinabe

What you mean by "made up after the fact"?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Show me 'the TR' lol.  The one Scrv. made up after the fact?  One of Erasmus's 5 or so?  Laughable.  There is no existent copy of the 'TR' in any language except English.

Anishinabe

What you mean by "made up after the fact"?

There is somewhere around 170 TR type texts with Erasums 1516 starting it all off.

 

[Ransom]

What you mean by "made up after the fact"?

I assumed "made up after the fact" referred to his assertion that there is no extant TR other than in English.

I'm sure many libraries and museums may have a differing opinion on the subject.

 

[christundivided]

What you mean by "made up after the fact"?

I assumed "made up after the fact" referred to his assertion that there is no extant TR other than in English.

I'm sure many libraries and museums may have a differing opinion on the subject.

I'd say so..... its amazing to see what they will come up with next.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I consider myself KJVO.  However, such a statement must be false.  John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.  We are also told that forever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven.  Hence, the Word of God existed long before the English translation.  Also, other languages do not use English.  Just as I should not have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the Word of God, neither do other languages need to learn English.  The Bible may be translated into other languages just as it was into English.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I rely upon another?

I have a few questions...

1. Does the Ethiopian church have to rely upon a translation made from the KJV? If not, then would you say their translation is equal to the KJV? If not, then why not?
2. Why shouldn't you have to learn another language to read the Word of God? Did the apostles need to learn Greek to present the Gospel to the Gentile nations? How about Aramaic? Why have you been removed from that requirement?
3. There are several English translation that preceded the KJV. Those translations are still available today. Why the KJV?
4. What translation into another language of the Word of God......is equal to the KJV?

I know some KJVOist take your position but they never come out and say which translation is equal. Why is that? Isn't it due to the fact.... regardless of language, you don't believe any translation is equal to the KJV? They general try to call themselves KJVPreferred.... yet I can't honestly say I have meet someone that really lived up to that claim. When you peel away "the onion" that is their belief, you find they really believe the KJVO has no equal.  Hence, the topic of the OP.

While I am a fundy, I am not your average HACker.  I have walked out of KJV conferences mid-sermon when speakers swing the pendulum to far and create their own heresy in defense of the KJV.

Ethiopian or Chinese - whatever.  I would prefer that each language develop a correct translation from the correct texts with the best minds and the best resources, like unto the story of the KJV.

I believe the apostles already knew the languages in which they were writing to the churches and general dispersion of Christians.  I am thankful that God has providentially preserved His word in the English language that I speak.  I also am thankful for missionaries who are working to develop languages on the foreign field so that the Bible may be translated into those languages.  Sorry, I am not Catholic - I would like to see the Bible in the hands of the common people, no matter what language they speak.

There were other translations in English before the KJV and there have been after.  While some of these translations are better than others, the KJV is a correct translation (best minds, best resources, correct texts, etc...).  If it is a correct translation, why should I bother with another?

Sorry.  I do not speak other languages very well.  Hence, I am not an authority on other translations in other languages.  I have not studied the progression of the Bible into other languages.  I am not quite so familiar with those histories.  Hence, I have no answer for question 4.  However, I think you can tell from previous statements here the qualifications I would look for in a translation if I spoke another language.

Thanks for your answers. I don't particular have a "beef" with most of what you wrote. I think its clear and to the point. I do believe, if you studied a little more, you wouldn't make the following statement.

I believe the apostles already knew the languages in which they were writing to the churches and general dispersion of Christians.  I am thankful that God has providentially preserved His word in the English language that I speak.

I don't particularly agree that the apostles knew all the various languages they needed to know nor do I believe they were necessarily properly skilled in everything "Greek". Hence the gift of "tongues" given to the early church. Its also a little ironic that most KJVOist don't believe that gift extended past the times of the apostles. Yet, they believe in a perfect translation of the Scriptures into english. Can you explain this seaming contradiction? Do you believe in the cessation of those gifts in the early church? Did God remove that restriction once it came time for the KJV?

I asked about The Ethiopian church translation for a reason. I'm glad you're theoretically allow for translation of God's Word into other languages. Yet, The Ethiopian church has a vastly different canon than any other sect of Christianity on the planet. Depending on who you ask, they may have up to 81 canonical books included in their translation. So its not just a issue of translation, its also an issue of inclusion.

All in all, why do you see the providential hand of God in translating the KJV? Do you see that in any other translation?



the KJV is a correct translation (best minds, best resources, correct texts, etc...).  If it is a correct translation, why should I bother with another?

I could say a lot here but lets just look at one facet of what you wrote....

Are there various, sequential editions of the TR used to translate the KJV? Do you believe "the best" texts had to come from providential purification?

If the TR changed, and it did, how does that effect your idea of the "best texts".

Ho Boy!  What a can of worms!  Look, I take a very simplistic approach to this, but do believe my position to be correct.  But, I will take a stab at your questions:

I do believe they could read the words they were writing under inspiration.  I do not believe the gift of tongues has ceased.  I do not agree with the Pentecostal movement's definition of tongues.  One spoke in his language while many heard in their own language.  I have seen this happen in my lifetime.  It is not normal or routine, but I have been witness of such events.

I do not believe in double inspiration.  The KJV is a work of translation, yet, a correct work.

Regarding the Ethiopian church - I saw that hook and avoided it for that reason.  Ethiopia has a very unique history and as such has a very unique perspective on what should be canon.  They believe themselves to be Jewish and part of the inheritance.  Unless my memory fails me, the Donatists and the great growth of controversy in the church circa 300 would play a role in this issue also.  With a unique history, they have a unique paradigm that gives them a conflicted opinion among themselves.

Let me simply address "Providence" since that seemed to repeat itself:
I do not believe in double inspiration.  I do believe in the sovereignty of an almighty God and His providence in every occurrence - even today's weather.  Hence, it is easy for me to see a path through history that led up to this work of translation.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Show me 'the TR' lol.  The one Scrv. made up after the fact?  One of Erasmus's 5 or so?  Laughable.  There is no existent copy of the 'TR' in any language except English.

Anishinabe

What you mean by "made up after the fact"?

The TR was originally written in Greek and Latin. Erasmus wanted to improve the main Bible of the Church which was the Latin Vulgate.  It had been the KJV of the Church since Jerome wrote it.
Erasmus wanted to correct the errors that had gotten in the text over several hundred years.
Latin was the universal language of the Church and continued to be until at least the 1800s.

Here is a link to Erasmus 1519 and Erasmus 1521.

http://www.bibles-online.net/

These are Erasmus' second and third editions of his Greek Latin New Testament.


I just love original sources.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I consider myself KJVO.  However, such a statement must be false.  John 1 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.  We are also told that forever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven.  Hence, the Word of God existed long before the English translation.  Also, other languages do not use English.  Just as I should not have to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to read the Word of God, neither do other languages need to learn English.  The Bible may be translated into other languages just as it was into English.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I rely upon another?

I have a few questions...

2. Why shouldn't you have to learn another language to read the Word of God? Did the apostles need to learn Greek to present the Gospel to the Gentile nations? How about Aramaic? Why have you been removed from that requirement?

I'm not KJVO anymore, but this seems a silly question. That's like saying "Did the Apostles walk to church? Why have you been removed from that requirement?"

The reason KJVO English-speaking people don't have to learn another language to study the Bible is because there is already a Bible in English. (This would apply to English-speaking non-KJVO people as well, like myself.)

Humm....What a comparison. I didn't take the idea of walking to church and compare it to understanding language like you did. The question I asked was a direct comparison. Not some fabrication of commonality existing between understanding language and "transportation". You're the one being silly.

The facts are.... those that minister to anyone have to know their language. The Scriptures ministers to us. Paul talked of this in

1Co 14:11  Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

If you solely rely on someone else to make a choice in translation, which the KJVOist does, then you're doing nothing more than BLINDLY following them.

I personally believe that everyone should get to know the various biblical languages. They should embrace the underlying texts themselves. Its not difficult and they owe it to themselves to do so. Thus, they will have an INFORMED beliefs..... not some BLIND faith in something that's not greater than those who translated it. Every heard of those at Berea? Did you notice why they were "NOBLE"?

My point was that your question seems to be ignoring modern conveniences.
Just like we don't have to walk to church, we also don't have to learn Greek or Hebrew - how can you use this website and not be familiar with Google Translate or other internet help tools?

As I said, I am not KJVO or KJVP or KJV anything. But I disagree with your assertion that we have to learn another language to be a good Christian (or whatever you seem to be suggesting.)

If you solely rely on someone else to make a choice in translation, which the KJVOist does, then you're doing nothing more than BLINDLY following them.

Why single out the KJVOist? Someone who uses the NIV or RSV or any other version but hasn't learned Greek and Hebrew would be in this same situation.

 

[christundivided]

My point was that your question seems to be ignoring modern conveniences.
Just like we don't have to walk to church, we also don't have to learn Greek or Hebrew - how can you use this website and not be familiar with Google Translate or other internet help tools?

As I said, I am not KJVO or KJVP or KJV anything. But I disagree with your assertion that we have to learn another language to be a good Christian (or whatever you seem to be suggesting.)

First, you're being dishonest in trying to represent my position. I never said anything along those lines. I do believe every Christian should study the various languages of the underlying texts. I don't expect them to become scholars. At the very least, they should be aware and know why different english are used for a single word in the source texts. I never said being a "good Christian" was dependent on doing this. DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. So stop being dishonest. I even used the word "personally".

Why single out the KJVOist? Someone who uses the NIV or RSV or any other version but hasn't learned Greek and Hebrew would be in this same situation.

We are talking about KJVOist aren't we???? That is the subject matter.

I never denied that this extend beyond them. Again.... .stop misrepresent what I wrote. This is just one more reason why "I" believe every Christian should get acquainted with the various languages of the texts. Trust me when I say, I never accept anything translated at face value. There are KJV rendering that I prefer. Many many KJV renderings that prefer. I think the book of Hebrews in the KJV is stellar. The language of the KJV really does justice to the eloquence of the underlying Greek source..... this in a way that most modern version can't beginning to reproduce because most focus too much on ease of reading.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I wasn't trying to misrepresent or be dishonest. I was telling you how your words came across to me.
I think I understand you better now.

 

[christundivided]

Ho Boy!  What a can of worms!  Look, I take a very simplistic approach to this, but do believe my position to be correct.  But, I will take a stab at your questions:

I do believe they could read the words they were writing under inspiration.  I do not believe the gift of tongues has ceased.  I do not agree with the Pentecostal movement's definition of tongues.  One spoke in his language while many heard in their own language.  I have seen this happen in my lifetime.  It is not normal or routine, but I have been witness of such events

Humm.... this certainly isn't your typical fundamentalist position. I have never personally witnessed such an event.... but I am glad that you're not a hard cessationist.

At the same time, I think you see the hypocrisy in those that claim cessationist ideals and yet believe in the super natural translation of the KJV.

I do not believe in double inspiration.  The KJV is a work of translation, yet, a correct work.

A perfect translation? Let me give you one example of difficulty in the KJV.

Act 8:32  The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Isa 53:7  He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Acts 8:32 is a direct quote of Isa 53:7. You will notice the reversal of "lamb" and "sheep". You should also notice a change in pronoun from "his" to "her".

Can you explain this in light of a "perfect translation"?

Regarding the Ethiopian church - I saw that hook and avoided it for that reason.  Ethiopia has a very unique history and as such has a very unique perspective on what should be canon.  They believe themselves to be Jewish and part of the inheritance.  Unless my memory fails me, the Donatists and the great growth of controversy in the church circa 300 would play a role in this issue also.  With a unique history, they have a unique paradigm that gives them a conflicted opinion among themselves.

You shouldn't avoid it. It does affect your view of God's perfect word in other translations. I don't see where you named one that you consider to be a perfect translation in another language. Could you provide a short list??.... or is it simply a ideal you hold without any substance to back it up?

Let me simply address "Providence" since that seemed to repeat itself:
I do not believe in double inspiration.  I do believe in the sovereignty of an almighty God and His providence in every occurrence - even today's weather.  Hence, it is easy for me to see a path through history that led up to this work of translation.

Yet, I can't help but recognize that you only see this in the KJV alone. Can you give me an example of God's providence in play apart from its culmination in the KJV?

Thanks