He listened for 18 hours!

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,491
Reaction score
78
Points
48
Keep your KJV flashlight going there, brother, and give them light!
Too bad he thinks his flashlight is a lightsaber.

First the KJVers blow a lot of smoke, then they wave their flashlight in it while making "whoom whoom" noises.
 

ALAYMAN

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
5,432
Reaction score
32
Points
48
While I don't want to wade into the choppy waters of the KJV versus other translations debate, I will say that Starlifter is on to something here, whether indirectly or explicitly. The authority of God's word has always been a battle within the confines of a congregation. I don't think that today that it could be said that the average pewsitter regards the word with the appropriate authority, whatever version is being preached. Consequently it is like amusing goats rather than feeding sheep all too often in many churches. That isn't to say that the article that sparked this conversation doesn't have tremendous relevance. Both sides, whether poor sermon prep and exposition or consumerist cultural Christianity, ought to have blame laid to their feet.
 

the duck

New member
Registered
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
Points
3
Me thinks that if I read Dr. Seuss to my congregation as long as I did a little shouting, I would still have members that would greet me after the service and say, "Good Message Pastor".
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,530
Reaction score
71
Points
48
Me thinks that if I read Dr. Seuss to my congregation as long as I did a little shouting, I would still have members that would greet me after the service and say, "Good Message Pastor".
Post of the day!
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
512
Reaction score
19
Points
18
The watering down of the truth from multiple versions is reaching its inevitable conclusion: "Yea, hath God said?"
Does a consistent, just application of your own assertion maintain that the fact that the Church of England critics/revisers in 1611 made use of multiple, textually-varying sources lead to the same inevitable conclusion?

Perhaps you demonstrate that you jump to a wrong conclusion since you fail to apply your own stated reasoning consistently and justly.

According to the Scriptures, the use of unjust divers measures [standards] would be an abomination to the LORD.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
512
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Can you blame the people for not hungering and wanting to hear sound doctrine?
KJV-only advocates do not present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural doctrine for their human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
512
Reaction score
19
Points
18
How about the NKJV?
The NKJV is the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense as the 1611 KJV is the word of God translated into English and as the 1560 Geneva Bible is the word of God translated into English.

KJV-only advocates play games and try to avoid accepting the KJV as what it actually is and instead they try to claim by use of the fallacy of begging the question that it is something that it is not. Since the final authority existed before 1611, how can it supposedly be the 1611 edition of the KJV with its proven errors?
 

illinoisguy

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
236
Reaction score
21
Points
18
If it is true that having multiple translations of the Bible undermines the authority of God's Word, then the 1611 King James translators would have to take part of the blame for that. In the preface to the AV1611, they stated, "we affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English . . . containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. . . . Therefore, as St. Augustine sayeth, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures, so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the sense is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. . . . They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

So does this means that the King James translators were guilty of undermining the authority of the Word of God, starting from the year 1611 forward? With regard to the many English translations produced during the 16th Century, the KJV translators said "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." Shouldn't they have said, "our AV1611 is now the final authority so you need to gather up all those previous translations and burn them all up and make a Bible barbecue out of them, so that the common people will not be confused by all those alternate renderings?"

The KJV translators clearly did not hold to any form of "KJV Only" dogma. So why should we? Not only were the KJV translators not "KJV Only" but they clearly and specifically repudiated such a notion.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
512
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Keep your KJV flashlight going there, brother, and give them light!
Proclaiming unproven and wrong conclusions and making unproven allegations and personal attacks against believers is not giving light. It is spreading darkness.

It is clear that KJV-only posters fail to obey clear commands in the KJV such as the command to prove all things. They refuse even to try to prove what they claim to be true, much less actually prove it.
 

illinoisguy

Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
236
Reaction score
21
Points
18
Since Philippians 2:6 was cited as an example of alternate readings in different versions, it is interesting to note that the AV1611 (original KJV) has an alternative reading in the very next verse, 2:7. The KJV reads "and was made in the likeness of men." Alternate proposed reading in the margin is "and was made in the habite of men."

If it is wrong to propose alternate readings, and if this causes people to lose respect for the authority of the Word of God, why did the AV1611 have 6,637 alternate marginal readings in the Old Testament and765 such alternate marginal readings in the New Testament?
 

FSSL

Active member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
14
Points
38
How can they when they don't even know if they have the verbal word of God?

I tried indoctrinating my parishioners and they only wanted milk and could barely handle that.
Maybe not all, but 30 years in the church babes in Christ who could barely be cumbered about to LEARN.
They still can't even find certain books in the Bible.
It gets frustrating.
Sadly, the KJVO community puts doubt in believers (and unbelievers') minds regarding the word of God.

I was a youth pastor for a decade. During Wednesday night Bible Study, I shot above their heads... Guess what? I found that I really wasn't. Even the pastor's own son came up to me and asked if an evangelist had a wrong view of sanctification... I asked him to explain... Bingo! He explained progressive sanctification to me (as he recently learned) and did not go down the aisle during one of Tom Farrel's "get lost" preaching altar calls.

If 7th graders can understand progressive sanctification and apply it, why are you struggling?

Don't blame the church people... blame the failure to communicate.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
512
Reaction score
19
Points
18
If it is true that having multiple translations of the Bible undermines the authority of God's Word, then the 1611 King James translators would have to take part of the blame for that.

So does this means that the King James translators were guilty of undermining the authority of the Word of God, starting from the year 1611 forward?
This is another example of how KJV-only advocates reveal that they do not apply the exact same measures/standards justly.
 

treasure_unseen

New member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
3
Points
3
While I don't want to wade into the choppy waters of the KJV versus other translations debate, I will say that Starlifter is on to something here, whether indirectly or explicitly. The authority of God's word has always been a battle within the confines of a congregation. I don't think that today that it could be said that the average pewsitter regards the word with the appropriate authority, whatever version is being preached. Consequently it is like amusing goats rather than feeding sheep all too often in many churches. That isn't to say that the article that sparked this conversation doesn't have tremendous relevance. Both sides, whether poor sermon prep and exposition or consumerist cultural Christianity, ought to have blame laid to their feet.
You'll never find authority in the Scriptures as long as you keep looking for it in ANY English translation. It is sad that most people will not put forth the effort to get to know the REAL authority placed in the extant texts of the Bible.

People are too lazy. Babies enjoy eating. In fact, they LOVE eating. They'll often eat too much if you let them. The issue is not hunger. The issue isn't supply. The issue is the very nature of the food necessary to grow.

It just takes too much effort to really learn to know God. Most are not going to put forth the effort. Pastors included.....

What Jesus said is true. Those that seek..... FIND.
 

FSSL

Active member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
14
Points
38
You'll never find authority in the Scriptures as long as you keep looking for it in ANY English translation.
Really? So... through what language is this authority exclusively found?
 

treasure_unseen

New member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
3
Points
3
Really? So... through what language is this authority exclusively found?
So you're skeptical of what I said concerning the language? How about the remainder of what I wrote?

The languages of the authors.

Is it true or not true, that no translation work was undertaken by any of the authors?

Authority is derived from the Inspiration of God through the author. Everyone needs to know what they specifically said. To do this, you must learn what they they said. Not what someone translated. Not what someone said, they said.
 

FSSL

Active member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
14
Points
38
So you're skeptical of what I said concerning the language? How about the remainder of what I wrote? The languages of the authors. Is it true or not true, that no translation work was undertaken by any of the authors? Authority is derived from the Inspiration of God through the author. Everyone needs to know what they specifically said. To do this, you must learn what they they said. Not what someone translated. Not what someone said, they said.
I question this because it appears that you demand everyone know Koine Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic in order for Scripture to speak authoritatively.
As far as me not discussing the rest of what you said, if I misunderstand the foundation of your argument, the rest will work itself out.
 

treasure_unseen

New member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
3
Points
3
I question this because it appears that you demand everyone know Koine Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic in order for Scripture to speak authoritatively.
As far as me not discussing the rest of what you said, if I misunderstand the foundation of your argument, the rest will work itself out.
Your objection is to the resulting requirement?

We base our beliefs on truth, not on resulting requirements.

The NT authors used Greek. The NT authors referenced Greek Old Testaments in reference. How about we just stick with Greek?

Why would you accept another person's translation of what the authors said without studying the translation process yourself?
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
512
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Not true.
How do you know that your assertion is correct? Are you assuming instead of proving your assertion to be true?

Does the New Testament directly say whether any of the apostles or NT prophets directly did any translating themselves in the NT words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to them?

It could be that the Holy Spirit of God actually did any translating of Old Testament passages in Hebrew or of any statements first stated in another language as He gave them the NT words to speak or write by the miracle of inspiration of God. When a verse gives both an original language word and the translation of it, the Holy Spirit of God could be the one giving both to the human author so that he received the words to write without having to do any translating. If the words of the New Testament proceeded directly from the mouth of God to the apostles and NT prophets, why would they need to do any translating in writing the words given to them by inspiration of God?
 
Top