- Jan 25, 2012
- Reaction score
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?The watering down of the truth from multiple versions is reaching its inevitable conclusion: "Yea, hath God said?"
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.How about the NKJV?
Proclaiming unproven and wrong conclusions and making unproven allegations and personal attacks against believers is not giving light. It is spreading darkness.Keep your KJV flashlight going there, brother, and give them light!
Sadly, the KJVO community puts doubt in believers (and unbelievers') minds regarding the word of God.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.
This is another example of how KJV-only advocates reveal that they do not apply the exact same measures/standards justly.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?
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.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.
So you're skeptical of what I said concerning the language? How about the remainder of what I wrote?Really? So... through what language is this authority exclusively found?
I question this because it appears that you demand everyone know Koine Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic in order for Scripture to speak authoritatively.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.
Your objection is to the resulting requirement?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.
How do you know that your assertion is correct? Are you assuming instead of proving your assertion to be true?Not true.