Scriptures

[Bruh]

Are there any translations that can not be trusted?

 

[christundivided]

Are there any translations that can not be trusted?

Yes. Do you really want to know?

 

[Bruh]

Are there any translations that can not be trusted?

Yes. Do you really want to know?

Sure.  Name.......two, that can not be trusted and why. 

 

[Mitex]

Charging God with sloppiness in the autographa puts you soundly in the realm of liberalism.

Please do not misrepresent my unequivocal beliefs as stated concisely and clearly above.

Your attitude towards and attacks upon the extant Scriptures identify you as a skeptic, critic and purveyor of doubt of the word of God. When you insist that archaic or obsolete words are "proof of error" it calls into question the very words of God as found in the Scriptures in any generation or language, including the original. When you call for people "to abandon the English Scriptures" it places you in the realm of skeptics. When you make up silly and self-contradicting phrases like, "Scripture is Scripture, even with errors" it places you in the realm of the silly, weak-minded and ridiculous. When you continue to insist that your self-contradicting phrase applies to all extant Scripture, but never ever to your unidentifiable non-extant autograph it places you in the realm of inconsistent superstitious zealots overcome by their brand of "Onlyism". When you insist that the extant Scriptures are in error, because they don't follow the original, knowing full well "the original" is no longer extant, it places you in the realm of deceptive equivocators hell-bent on causing the plow-boys of our day to doubt and disbelieve all the words of their God given Bibles. Your contempt for the liberal, who, like you doubts some of the words of the extant Scriptures, but not all of them, puts you in the realm of hypocrites. The difference between you and the liberal is word count. Be of good cheer, you stand in the grand company of Thomas Jefferson.

Let the reader be clear in our positions:
My position states unequivocally that the extant Scriptures, by virtue of being the Scriptures are indeed given by inspiration of God and thus perfect, pure, infallible, without error - true in all parts - and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The extant Scriptures in any language or generation is completely trustworthy and to be received without doubting. The Scriptures - given by inspiration of God - are available, can and should be believed, read, searched, preached and trusted.

Your position is diametrically opposed to mine. You don't believe any extant Scripture "is given by inspiration of God", that all extant Scriptures are replete with errors, that no extant Scripture is completely trustworthy. You obviously don't stand with Bunyan, but rather clearly with the scholar calling for the cessation of the preaching of Bunyan's English Bible having divorced yourself from it long ago. It is your stated mission to take over churches founded and built by belief in Bunyan's Bible and replace Bunyan's Bible with your modern preference.  Of course, your modern preference is also, according to you, "replete with errors" and not to be trusted completely either, but in your scholar's world anything is better than Bunyan's Bible. You will continue to find fault with all the extant Scriptures with your non-extant unidentifiable original based upon your private interpretation.

When your britches cool off we'll continue.

 

[bgwilkinson]

"Brevity is the soul of wit"

 

[rsc2a]

Your attitude towards and attacks upon the extant Scriptures identify you as a skeptic, critic and purveyor of doubt of the word of God. When you insist that archaic or obsolete words are "proof of error" it calls into question the very words of God as found in the Scriptures in any generation or language, including the original. When you call for people "to abandon the English Scriptures" it places you in the realm of skeptics. When you make up silly and self-contradicting phrases like, "Scripture is Scripture, even with errors" it places you in the realm of the silly, weak-minded and ridiculous. When you continue to insist that your self-contradicting phrase applies to all extant Scripture, but never ever to your unidentifiable non-extant autograph it places you in the realm of inconsistent superstitious zealots overcome by their brand of "Onlyism". When you insist that the extant Scriptures are in error, because they don't follow the original, knowing full well "the original" is no longer extant, it places you in the realm of deceptive equivocators hell-bent on causing the plow-boys of our day to doubt and disbelieve all the words of their God given Bibles. Your contempt for the liberal, who, like you doubts some of the words of the extant Scriptures, but not all of them, puts you in the realm of hypocrites. The difference between you and the liberal is word count. Be of good cheer, you stand in the grand company of Thomas Jefferson.

Ad hom and hasty generalization. Slippery slope plus straw man. False dilemma. Hasty generalization with an ad hom from a guilt by association. Circumstantial ad hom with begging the question followed by ad hom. Guilt by association then ad hom. Follwed by ad hom then more guilt by association.

Of course, the whole thing is a case of begging the question, composition fallacy, poisoning the well, and ad hom attacks with an implied (fallacious) appeal to authority...

...and I've only described your first paragraph of any substance in the post.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I think we have now seen every KJVO trick in the book.

 

[biscuit1953]

In his book, The King James Version Debate: A Plea For Realism, D.A. Carson states on pages 101-102: "The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians. The words of Edwin H. Palmer (one of the chief NIV translators) are not too strong: 'Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible... For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable'."

This is the crux of the whole matter.  It is amazing how God can preserve His word in the 15th century but is powerless according to Mitex and others to do the same in the current generation.  All they can do is dispense doubt on any translation in modern English.  Pitiful.

 

[christundivided]

Are there any translations that can not be trusted?

Yes. Do you really want to know?

Sure.  Name.......two, that can not be trusted and why.

The CEV..... overly simplistic. Thus lacking accuracy.

The Message..... though some will say its a paraphrase... there really isn't any difference. If you use it as a Bible. Its a Bible. Overly simplistic and deceptive.

The KJV..... While I believe it is largely trustworthy. It has many errors. Additions and mistranslations have confused many people.

 

[Mitex]

Another addition....

The Old Gdansk Polish Bible... the 400 year old language no longer communicates to the modern Pole. They do not understand it and it must be updated.

"The old original...the 2000+ year old language no longer communicates to the modern American, Brit, Pole, Frenchman, Canadian, Spaniard, Mexican, etc.", don't kid yourself, the Scriptures in any language or generation is trustworthy - it's an axiom - whether you understand it or not.

 

[Bruh]

Are there any translations that can not be trusted?

Yes. Do you really want to know?

Sure.  Name.......two, that can not be trusted and why.

The CEV..... overly simplistic. Thus lacking accuracy.

The Message..... though some will say its a paraphrase... there really isn't any difference. If you use it as a Bible. Its a Bible. Overly simplistic and deceptive.

The KJV..... While I believe it is largely trustworthy. It has many errors. Additions and mistranslations have confused many people.

Thanks, but of course I have more questions.  How do you know these are simplistic and lack accuracy?  Who determines this? 
I'm sure my questions you have heard many times but I have never asked someone myself. 

If every translation that you trust has error, how do we know what part is error?  For instance, if I say I trust my wife BUT there is some doubt about weather or not I can fully trust her, that would make any man very miserable.   

Also, if I am witnessing to someone I would feel obligated to inform them that there is error in the book from which I get the message I am telling you. 

This is also directed at, Admin. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

If every translation that you trust has error, how do we know what part is error?  For instance, if I say I trust my wife BUT there is some doubt about weather or not I can fully trust her, that would make any man very miserable.   

Nobody can fully trust his wife, friend, or family member.  All people make errors and errors in judgement, even if their intentions are good. 

If you're talking about your wife being "faithful" she might be completely trustworthy now.  Ignore and mistreat your wife for a year or two and then see how much you can trust her.  Maybe some women would still be faithful, but many women who are faithful today would be surrounded by temptation, and may not be able to resist.  Same goes for men. 

 

[Bruh]

If every translation that you trust has error, how do we know what part is error?  For instance, if I say I trust my wife BUT there is some doubt about weather or not I can fully trust her, that would make any man very miserable.   

Nobody can fully trust his wife, friend, or family member.  All people make errors and errors in judgement, even if their intentions are good. 

If you're talking about your wife being "faithful" she might be completely trustworthy now.  Ignore and mistreat your wife for a year or two and then see how much you can trust her.  Maybe some women would still be faithful, but many women who are faithful today would be surrounded by temptation, and may not be able to resist.  Same goes for men.

Well, I know I am very fortunate because I fully trust my wife in all matters, practices and judgment.  Yes, treat anyone that way and there would be error that could very well take place. 

 

[Ransom]

Thanks, but of course I have more questions.  How do you know these are simplistic and lack accuracy?  Who determines this?

We compare them to the writings of KJV-onlyists. If they seem eerily similar, then the Bible version is simplistic and lacks accuracy.

 

[Bruh]

Bruh... it is not difficult to understand. Translators are human. They make mistakes. EVEN the most dedicated, godly person is prone to errors.

Inerrancy refers to the autographs where we are told in 2 Peter that the Holy Spirit miraculously oversaw the initial writing of Scripture. That miracle does not happen everytime a copy or translation is made. For that reason, no one uses a KJV1611. It has been edited over and over to remove errors.

Preserve = to guard, watch, watch over, keep
to watch, guard, keep, to preserve, guard from danger, to keep, observe, guard with fidelity, to be kept close, be blockaded. 

Preserve = To keep or save from injury or destruction; to guard or defend from evil, harm, danger, etc.; to protect.

The first definition is from the Strong's, you may not trust that either, I don't know?
The second is from Webster's 1913, you may not trust that either? 

Preserve I am referring to here is from Psalms 12:6-7.  Now you may think that the verses listed have error, I don't know?  But if they do not then, is God not doing as He has stated in the bible?  Whether it be the KJV or the translations you deem acceptable. 
           

 

[christundivided]

Thanks, but of course I have more questions.  How do you know these are simplistic and lack accuracy?  Who determines this? 
I'm sure my questions you have heard many times but I have never asked someone myself. 

I do. For myself. If you don't want to accept it. Then don't. I will answer to God for what I believe. I will not answer to you. You will answer to God what you believe. I will not answer for you.

Get it?

By the way. I have studied the Scriptures for many many years. I am qualified to make a judgement for my own use. EVERY PERSON should know enough to be comfortable with what they believe. Its my responsibility. Its your responsibility to determine such for yourself. Don't be lazy and accept what some else says as being the Truth. I even question the Apostles. It really doesn't matter to me if you believe this is good or bad. Its my choice. Just like its your choice. Ultimately I believe everyone should be informed so they can make an accurate choice.

If every translation that you trust has error, how do we know what part is error?  For instance, if I say I trust my wife BUT there is some doubt about weather or not I can fully trust her, that would make any man very miserable.   

I do not take the production of the "Bible" as a whole in such a manner. I look at each individual book. I even break it down it down precept by precept. Comment by comment. You go ahead and compare it trusting your wife. I wouldn't make the same comparison. I would probably compare it to blindly and without question following the words of someone you don't know. Which in many sense is the actual truth.

Also, if I am witnessing to someone I would feel obligated to inform them that there is error in the book from which I get the message I am telling you. 

Why? I can witness to someone tell them exactly what I believe to be the truth. I'm not going to tell them something I do not trust. For example, I wouldn't use Acts 8:37 to tell someone about the Ethiopian eunuch. There is nothing meaning full to disclose about it. I can get the same things from a different area.

Now you can take such an issue and discard the entirety of the Bible if you want. I don't. I think its silly to do such. In fact, if your wife every lies to you one time about having passed gas or picking her nose.... are you going to divorce her?

 

[Bruh]

Thanks, but of course I have more questions.  How do you know these are simplistic and lack accuracy?  Who determines this?

We compare them to the writings of KJV-onlyists. If they seem eerily similar, then the Bible version is simplistic and lacks accuracy.

If I am witnessing to someone I would feel obligated to inform them that there is error in the book from which I get the message I am telling them. 

Wouldn't you feel the same obligation? 

 

[christundivided]

Preserve I am referring to here is from Psalms 12:6-7.  Now you may think that the verses listed have error, I don't know?  But if they do not then, is God not doing as He has stated in the bible?  Whether it be the KJV or the translations you deem acceptable. 

Psalm 12:6-7 has nothing to do with God's Word.

God has never promised to endlessly preserve His word on this earth for endless generations of mankind. Vast swaths of humankind have reject what God gave for thousands of years. Yet, man demands God keep on giving and giving and giving and keeping and keeping and keeping. God hasn't promised such and he's not obligated to do such. He has always done more than we ever desire and not near as much as we demand.

God's Word is eternal and never changing. That has nothing to do with the language of men and its transition throughout time. God knows what He said. God isn't going to crack open a KJV or any collection of man's writings at the Judgement and quote to you what it says.

 

[christundivided]

Thanks, but of course I have more questions.  How do you know these are simplistic and lack accuracy?  Who determines this?

We compare them to the writings of KJV-onlyists. If they seem eerily similar, then the Bible version is simplistic and lacks accuracy.

If I am witnessing to someone I would feel obligated to inform them that there is error in the book from which I get the message I am telling them. 

Wouldn't you feel the same obligation?

What's wrong? Is there something wrong with Romans 8:9-10? Have you found an alternative rendering that destroys its meaning?

 

[rsc2a]

Thanks, but of course I have more questions.  How do you know these are simplistic and lack accuracy?  Who determines this?

We compare them to the writings of KJV-onlyists. If they seem eerily similar, then the Bible version is simplistic and lacks accuracy.

If I am witnessing to someone I would feel obligated to inform them that there is error in the book from which I get the message I am telling them. 

Wouldn't you feel the same obligation?

These questions would be impossible to answer adequately without first discussing the purpose of Scripture, how it is authoritative in regards to these purposes, proper hermeneutical methodologies given the authoritative nature of Scripture, and what criteria would make Scripture "perfect" or less than so in light of these considerations. - rsc2a