Who said, "...their work was not perfect..."?

[bgwilkinson]

For although whatever was perfect under the sun, by the hand of Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, yet their translators DID NOT have their privilege and their work was not perfect.

 

[biscuit1953]

For although whatever was perfect under the sun, by the hand of Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, yet their translators DID NOT have their privilege and their work was not perfect.

Was it Peter Ruckman and Mitex?

 

[bgwilkinson]

For although whatever was perfect under the sun, by the hand of Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, yet their translators DID NOT have their privilege and their work was not perfect.

Was it Peter Ruckman and Mitex?

This is regarding Bible translations not being perfect. This is the opposite  view of those two IMHO.
Good try.

 

[prophet]

For although whatever was perfect under the sun, by the hand of Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, yet their translators DID NOT have their privilege and their work was not perfect.

This is an opinion.

Anishinaabe

 

[Ransom]

This is an opinion.

It is the opinion of the translators who, in the opinion of KJV-onlyists, did perfect work.

But hey, what did they know? Morons.

 

[prophet]

This is an opinion.

It is the opinion of the translators who, in the opinion of KJV-onlyists, did perfect work.

But hey, what did they know? Morons.

It is still an opinion.

Anishinaabe

 

[bgwilkinson]

For although whatever was perfect under the sun, by the hand of Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, yet their translators DID NOT have their privilege and their work was not perfect.

This is an opinion.

Anishinaabe

Yes it is an opinion, but the opinion of whom?

 

[prophet]

I'm not trying to be unreasonable, or vindictive.  I dont agree with the Translators on a lot of things, like the guy who was baptized in sand, for instance, or much of the Anglican doctrine.
My European roots came from Separatists who were persecuted by King James himself, and run out of England.  I certainly don't agree with him all the time.
We have had God's Word in English for nearly 7 centuries.

None of this excuses the inclusion of the opinions and work of 2 men who preferred Maryolatry, or doubted the legitimacy of the Biblical miracles, in any translation.
To me, it challenges me to do more homework, not to trust men more.

Anishinaabe

 

[bgwilkinson]

This is an opinion.

It is the opinion of the translators who, in the opinion of KJV-onlyists, did perfect work.

But hey, what did they know? Morons.

Yes, it is the written opinion of the Government directed and controlled translators of the new Bible translation.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I'm not trying to be unreasonable, or vindictive.  I dont agree with the Translators on a lot of things, like the guy who was baptized in sand, for instance, or much of the Anglican doctrine.
My European roots came from Separatists who were persecuted by King James himself, and run out of England.  I certainly don't agree with him all the time.
We have had God's Word in English for nearly 7 centuries.

None of this excuses the inclusion of the opinions and work of 2 men who preferred Maryolatry, or doubted the legitimacy of the Biblical miracles, in any translation.
To me, it challenges me to do more homework, not to trust men more.

Anishinaabe

I do not think you are being vindictive in the least. I believe as you state we should not trust men as much as we do.

What I find ironic is that people who would reject the quote completely accept the words these same men used in their translation as if they were God Breathed and superintended by the Holy Spirit. Double inspiration.

 

[prophet]

I'm not trying to be unreasonable, or vindictive.  I dont agree with the Translators on a lot of things, like the guy who was baptized in sand, for instance, or much of the Anglican doctrine.
My European roots came from Separatists who were persecuted by King James himself, and run out of England.  I certainly don't agree with him all the time.
We have had God's Word in English for nearly 7 centuries.

None of this excuses the inclusion of the opinions and work of 2 men who preferred Maryolatry, or doubted the legitimacy of the Biblical miracles, in any translation.
To me, it challenges me to do more homework, not to trust men more.

Anishinaabe

I do not think you are being vindictive in the least. I believe as you state we should not trust men as much as we do.

What I find ironic is that people who would reject the quote completely accept the words of these same men as if they were God Breathed and superintended by the Holy Spirit. Double inspiration.

Ruckmanism is the albatross around the neck of actual bible believers, who believe that the KJB is the Bible in English, and the best of all the previous translations, and different from most subsequent ones in the body of documents from which it hails.

Anishinaabe

 

[prophet]

If Ruckman really believed the scriptures that he touts, he wouldn't carry the doctrinal water for Origen, Darby, Schofield, Etc.
And he could probably keep a spouse.

Anishinaabe

 

[Mitex]

Who said:
"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. Ps 19:7?"

Who said:
"But what mention we three or four uses of the Scripture, whereas whatsoever is to be believed, or practiced, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three or four sentences of the Fathers, since whosoever is worthy the name of a Father, from Christ’s time downward, hath likewise written not only of the riches, but also of the perfection
of the Scripture?"

Who said:
"The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them?"

Who said:
"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."

Our extant Scriptures are indeed perfect (trustworthy, complete, nothing lacking, etc.) yet the setting forth of it there may be some imperfections and blemishes - ink spots, spelling, archaic words, words not set forth with so fitly for phrase or so expressly for sense, every where, etc.

As way of example -  We have had many brothers and sisters translate for visiting pastors and speakers. Every translator has translated the words and messages correctly – but not every translation was done “with like grace”. Obviously, some translators had a better command of the Polish and English languages than their counterparts. All the translations were genuine, valid and correct, in a word, trustworthy – not to be disputed against. Yes, I'm sure each translator upon listening to his translation thought he could do better, i.e. perfect his trustworthy translation.

 

[Ransom]

Ruckmanism is the albatross around the neck of actual bible believers, who believe that the KJB is the Bible in English

Who decided that "actual bible believers" are the ones who "believe that the KJB is the Bible in English," and why should I give a crap?

 

[prophet]

Ruckmanism is the albatross around the neck of actual bible believers, who believe that the KJB is the Bible in English

Who decided that "actual bible believers" are the ones who "believe that the KJB is the Bible in English," and why should I give a crap?

Are you saying that the KJB is not the Bible in English?

Anishinaabe

 

[Ransom]

Are you saying that the KJB is not the Bible in English?

For the record, the KJV is every bit as much the Bible in English as the NIV is.

 

[prophet]

Are you saying that the KJB is not the Bible in English?

For the record, the KJV is every bit as much the Bible in English as the NIV is.

Is the Darby?

Anishinaabe

 

[Ransom]

Is the Darby?

I've only delved very briefly into reading the Darby, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say yes.

 

[prophet]

Is the Darby?

I've only delved very briefly into reading the Darby, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say yes.

I just started into it recently, and so far it has the appearance of being far ahead of its time.  It agrees with the NIV more than not.
The spirit of Origen lives on.

Anishinaabe

 

[bgwilkinson]

Who said:
"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. Ps 19:7?"

BG says
This verse has nothing to do with the accuracy of a translation but rather the intrinsic value of God's law.


Who said:
"But what mention we three or four uses of the Scripture, whereas whatsoever is to be believed, or practiced, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three or four sentences of the Fathers, since whosoever is worthy the name of a Father, from Christ’s time downward, hath likewise written not only of the riches, but also of the perfection
of the Scripture?"

BG says
Here again this is speaking about the intrinsic character of God's Word and not the quality of some translation.

Who said:
"The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them?"

BG says
Well there you go again trying to prove a point from something that does not speak to the OP. This quote has nothing to do with the quality of the translation work done on any translation. It is speaking to the intrinsic character of the sum total of all that which is called God's Word or Scripture.

Who said:
"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."

BG says
This quote argues directly against you. "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." This quote does speak to the work of translation and to the quality of the translation. It indicates that there is no complete perfection in the work of translators. There is always something that could be rendered with better grace or fitness.



Our extant Scriptures are indeed perfect (trustworthy, complete, nothing lacking, etc.) yet the setting forth of it there may be some imperfections and blemishes - ink spots, spelling, archaic words, words not set forth with so fitly for phrase or so expressly for sense, every where, etc.

BG says
Well you did it again. This quote speaks directly against what you are trying to say. It is so obvious you must not have read it. This part, "Our extant Scriptures are indeed perfect (trustworthy, complete, nothing lacking, etc.)" speaks to the intrinsic perfection that is characteristic of all that God says.

[size=14pt]BG says
This section of the quote, "yet the setting forth of it there may be some imperfections and blemishes - ink spots, spelling, archaic words, words not set forth with so fitly for phrase or so expressly for sense, every where, etc.", speaks to the quality of the translation work. It indicates no translation work can be done without making mistakes or omissions. You are a hoot.
[/size]


As way of example -  We have had many brothers and sisters translate for visiting pastors and speakers. Every translator has translated the words and messages correctly – but not every translation was done “with like grace”. Obviously, some translators had a better command of the Polish and English languages than their counterparts. All the translations were genuine, valid and correct, in a word, trustworthy – not to be disputed against. accuracy

BG says
This one is the best, as you were a part of it. The same two parts of translations are addressed in this one. You say, "All the translations were genuine, valid and correct, in a word, trustworthy – not to be disputed against.".. This speaks to the character of the words of the speakers, not the accuracy of the translation.

[size=14pt]BG says
This quote speaks to the quality of the translation not the character of the words of the speakers. "Obviously, some translators had a better command of the Polish and English languages than their counterparts." Yes some of your translators could have done a better job. They could have been more perfect. The translation quality could have been better.

God's Word can not be perfected as it was and is always perfect. That which is perfect can not be made more perfect. That which can be perfected never was perfect. We are speaking of the intrinsic character of God's Word. It is dishonest to conflate the two aspects as if they were one and the same.

BG says
You have confused and conflated the character of Scripture with the quality of the translations of those same Scriptures.

I know you are confused and do not read well when you copy and paste so I have made my reply larger so as to help you read it better.

[/size]