Scriptures

[prophet]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Heb 4:8
8 For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.
(WYC)

8 For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke of another daye.
(TyndaleBible)

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
(KJV)
Darby has Jesus here, as well.

8 Porque si Josué les hubiera dado el reposo, no hablaría después de otro día.
(RV09)
And the RVA has Joshua.
Sounds like the two words are interchangeable to many scholars.


Anishinaabe

I take you for an honest man. An honest man would never say Joshua and Jesus are the same person. If they are not the same person, then you can not use the words interchangeably. Why are you being dishonest . The next time you preach about Joshua, by all means if you believe what you actually wrote....change it to Jesus

Now there is a easy explanation for the mistake but don't tell me it's not a mistake in English. The mistake has people believing the Jesus doesn't give rest to those who come to him. I can tell you Jesus does. Joshua doesn't.

How about teaching that 'Jesus' is a translation of 'Joshua'?
That doesnt take long.
You do the same in Acts:
Act 7:45
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Whatever happened to "study to shew..."?


Anishinaabe

Jesus is not a translation of Joshua. First, both are English words. There is no need for a "translation". Second. There is no exacting translation of the Hebrew root for Joshua into Jesus. Now its close but not exact. The issue is with the Old Greek translation of Joshua and it subsequent translation into to English. Now, I don't every expect to see this. Its rather complicated. I would however, remind you that even the resulting English names for the books of the OT came from an Old Greek translation of the various books of the OT. A Old Greek translation that you KJV reject as being a lie. At every turn most of you are entirely dishonest and deceptive.

Either way, You know as well as I do that no one calls our Master..... Joshua. No one. I will ask you.... if there is no issue with seeing Joshua in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4.... then why not change the translation to say "Joshua"?

Now be honest. You know it would be better if the translation was "Joshua". There would be no confusion and no one would have to come to YOU.... to try and understand what is written.

Why do you insist on calling me KJV? 
Why, after you paint me with this brush, do you insist on projecting onto my testimony, the perceived wrong that you see in others?
Isnt this something Christians grow out of?


No one has to "come to me", to understand anything.  They have the same Teacher that I have, living within. 

Now, some ACTUAL scholars disagree with you, and I'm sure you can find some who make the case which you are sharing.  But dont blame the KJVO for Wycliffe's translation.  That is just prejudice talking.

Anishinaabe

Because you are KJV. You're just hiding behind the cloak of earlier English translations. You very clearly said that people needed to study the issue so they could understand that Jesus and Joshua are one in the same name and can be used interchangeably. That is what you said. No one using any common sense would make such an argument. You are making this argument based on the fact you support the translation at the expense of common sense. Every later translation of the Scriptures into English uses the name Joshua in Acts 7 and Hebrew 4. Appeal to other scholars if you want. They are wrong. It just common sense to point people to the correct person being referenced. Acts 7 and Hebrew 4 are not referencing JESUS.

Wycliffe made the same mistake and I never said Wycliffe was right.

Good thing you know everything, in case God dies or something.

Anishinaabe

Same to you buddy. You do know that works both ways don't you?

Did I categorize you?

Anishinaabe

 

[Mitex]

Col 4:11  And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.

Jose Jesus Hernandez, Guadalupe Jesus Gonzalez, Jesus Antonio Guadalupe Castillo, etc.
No one but a rabid over zealous anti-KJVO zealot would confuse these men with Jesus, the Christ.

Ἰησοῦς (Iesous) is translated as Jesus 900+ times in the New Testament those reading Greek were no doubt confused when they got to Act 7 and Hebrew 4. It's a joke son, you'll get over it. What ever happened to the old seminarian song and dance about "consistency in translating"? It goes out the door when an opportunity to find fault with the extant Scriptures presents itself.

FSSL is Admin who is Barry...
Michael, Mike, Miguel, Michał, etc.

Hey. Don't run away. You've been ignoring me Mitex. I'm glad you've finally shown me some attention.

You know what's really funny. Col 4:11 shows that Jesus is referenced with the surname Justus. You might be interested to know that the Old Syriac translation of Hebrews 4:8  references "Jesus" as "the son of Nun".

Its very evident that the authors of the Scriptures didn't want people confusing Jesus Christ with Joshua the son of Hun..... or anyone else for that matter. However, your holier than everything else.... KJV..... doesn't do such in Hebrews 4:8 does it? Nor does it do such in Acts 7:45?

Why are you being so dishonest?

Dear Gentle Reader,

Plowboys, hicks and children of the asphalt jungles of every generation have always had the common horse sense not to seek the opinion of those they deem to be "dishonest". It doesn't take a MDiv degree from a Baptist Seminary to figure out that such an action would be just loco (crazy). Yet, those who want you to distrust words, verses, phrases, chapters and books of your God given Bibles will hound, badger and chirp at those they deem to be dishonest, hacks and worse. It tells you something doesn't it?

Here we have this crowd calling into question our extant English Scriptures in Hebrews and Acts. Not just the extant English Scriptures, but the extant Scriptures in other languages as well.

They rarely, if ever respond to valid points made, such as the "Greek word in Acts and Hebrews" is translated as J-E-S-U-S over 900+ times in the New Testament. That goes over their head like a 747 on take off from Athens. They ignore the fact that when a genuine Greek from Athens picks up his Bible he reads:

"εν εκεινη τη ημερα ηυξησεν κυριος τον ιησουν εναντιον παντος του γενους ισραηλ και εφοβουντο αυτον ωσπερ μωυσην οσον χρονον εζη" Or "ην και εισηγαγον διαδεξαμενοι οι πατερες ημων μετα ιησου εν τη κατασχεσει των εθνων ων εξωσεν ο θεος απο προσωπου των πατερων ημων εως των ημερων δαβιδ"

I apologize for the jaunt into tongues, but a point must be made to these wanna-be-Greek experts. We'll see what sort of venom they'll be spitting out after this. They stumble over that which the common man picks up after the first reading. No one, but a critic hell-bent on causing doubt in your Bible would assume that Jesus, the Christ was being referenced in either verse.

Now notice:
τοῦτο δὲ ἐγένετο γνωστὸν πᾶσιν ᾿Ιουδαίοις τε καὶ ῞Ελλησι τοῖς κατοικοῦσι τὴν ῎Εφεσον, καὶ ἐπέπεσε φόβος ἐπὶ πάντας αὐτούς, καὶ ἐμεγαλύνετο τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ·

Compare it with the first verse mentioned above.

 

[christundivided]

I apologize for the jaunt into tongues, but a point must be made to these wanna-be-Greek experts.

Wanna be Greek expert? Yeah right...

We'll see what sort of venom they'll be spitting out after this. They stumble over that which the common man picks up after the first reading. No one, but a critic hell-bent on causing doubt in your Bible would assume that Jesus, the Christ was being referenced in either verse.

Typical. You catch a nut placing his head in a "nut cracker".... and the "nut" wants to talking about the "hell-bent critic" pointing out the problem....

You're wrong and you know you are wrong. There are many people reading their KJV Bible and insisting that Jesus Christ is referenced in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4. In fact, the vast majority of KJVOist that have ever attempted to defended the use of "Jesus" take the stand that it is Jesus Christ being referenced. Now, I know you're a novice when comes to such thing. Get in the game little man.

When I get the time.... I'll give you an example of how your logic fails when it comes to translating a Greek word the same way "900" times in NT

 

[rsc2a]

Is it just me or are Mitex's more recent posts disturbingly similar to a Ruckman commentary?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Is it just me or are Mitex's more recent posts disturbingly similar to a Ruckman commentary?

If if looks like and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[Ransom]

Is it just me or are Mitex's more recent posts disturbingly similar to a Ruckman commentary?

He took my remark about "Petey Pimps" kinda personal.

 

[logos1560]

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Have you proven that all the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV were the fault of the printers?  If not, do you merely assume your claim? 

Since some of the bishops involved in the making of the KJV had control or power over the printing of books in their day, they could have had any supposed errors made by printers corrected in the very next edition that was printed.

The makers of the KJV could properly be considered responsible for some of the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV.  For example, errors found in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible [that was given to the makers of the KJV as their starting text] that were not corrected by the KJV translators could be considered their responsibility.

Is keeping the name of the wrong king in a verse a minor error?

2 Kings 24:19 [Jehoiakim--1560 Geneva; Joachin--1602 Bishops]
Jehoiackin (1813, 1815 Carey)
Jehoiachin [1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650 London} (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1835 Towar) (1843 AFBS) (1854 Harding)

Jehoiakim (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 11:5 [Ammonites--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Amorites--1602 Bishops]
Amorites {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1644 London}
Ammonites (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

2 Kings 11:10 [house of the Lord--1560 Geneva; the temple--1602 Bishops]
the Temple {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1631, 1634 London} (1843 AFBS)
the temple (1675 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1648, 1677, 1817, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1640, 1644, 1650, 1672 London} (1638 Edinburgh) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding) (2006 PENG)
the temple of the Lord {1795 London} (1897 Mackail)
the temple of the LORD (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1638, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] 

1 Kings 4:10 [Hesed--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Heseb--1602 Bishops]
Heseb {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650 London}
Hesod [1773 Cambridge]
Hesed (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 8:61 [Lord our God--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Lord your God--1602 Bishops] [see 1 Kings 8:59]
LORD you God {1631 London}
LORD your God {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650 London} (1843 AFBS)
LORD our God (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 47:6 [men--1560 Geneva; man--1602 Bishops] [see “make them” (plural)]
any man (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1677, 1683 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1706, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1776 Pasham) (1782 Aitken) (1843 AFBS)
any man [1873 Cambridge] (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
any men (1768, 1968 Oxford) [1762, 1763B, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1795 London} (1769 Edinburgh) (1790, 1804 MH) (1810, 1832, 1835 Scott) (EB) (2006 PENG) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (NCE)
any men (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1747, 1768, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Mitex]

So who creates disillusionment and skepticism regarding God's word?

Birds - the devil, the wicked one, Satan! Skeptics, critics, purveyors of doubt, liberals, and such like.

1) Those who understand the meaning and seek to compare various word usages in the various modern Bibles so a better understanding can be had? or

No, seeking to understand the extant Scriptures by using every available means is NOT a cause of disillusionment and skepticism regarding God's word. It's the questioning of words, phrases, verses, chapters and books in the extant Scriptures that is the cause of disillusionment and skepticism regarding God's word.​

2) Those who see an error but pretend that it is not an error and continue to defend a 400 year old Anglican translation even if it leads to absurdities and a reliance on anachronistic fallacies?

Let's try the correct wording: Those who pretend that archaic words in the extant Scriptures are proof of error, those that accuse every extant Scripture of error, and those that resort to anachronistic fallacies as defense of their criticism and skepticism.

I will tell you who is the skeptic... the one who worships tradition and sacrifices the meaning of God's word.

That would be Barry, FSSL, Admin and such like who sacrifice the meaning of the word Scripture (given by inspiration of God) on the alter of seminarian traditionalism.

The word Scripture is a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts - it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

Or as one kibitzer stated:

"The term γραφή (graphe) - Scripture - as used in the Scriptures 51 times in the NT refers to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as divinely inspired, holy and authoritative."

 

[logos1560]

The Scriptures are the specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44) and not by means of human wisdom or scholarship including that of the KJV translators.  The words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56).  God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70).  All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3).  While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses.  Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56).  The words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7).  What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Exod. 9:16, Rom. 9:17).  God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7). 

 

[logos1560]

Any errors introduced by men into handwritten copies or printed copies of the Scriptures are not perfect, pure, or infallible. 

A logical deduction from some verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, and that no words were changed.  These verses could be understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. 

Has it actually been demonstrated that the Scriptures teach that any errors that men make in copying the Scriptures or any errors that men make in translating or printing the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God?

An error is still an error regardless of whether it was supposedly made by a printer, copier, editor, or translator.

The authority of the Scriptures is not dependent upon recognition by any so-called consensus of the opinions of men even if those men are believers.

 

[Mitex]

The Scriptures arethe specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44) and not by means of human wisdom or scholarship including that of the KJV translators.  The words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56).  God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70).  All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3).  While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses.  Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56).  The words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7).  What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Exod. 9:16, Rom. 9:17).  God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

Dear Gentle Reader,

We have a live one on the line or least one that is able to cut and paste. I'm not sure that I'll have the time to run down all the verses with you at this time, but you should Search the Scriptures to see if these things our pal Rick implied are really true. That is, do the cited verses say what Rick wants them to say - you be the judge. I will note a few things here:

1) Take careful note of Rick's constant mixing of tenses - "are given", "were given", "said", etc.
A. All Scripture IS GIVEN by inspiration of God verses Rick's
B. All Scripture WAS GIVEN by inspiration of God.
* Let's take both of the passive sentences above and make them active according to the rules of English grammar:
A. The inspiration of God gives all Scripture.
B. The inspiration of God gave all Scripture.

Rick and others like him don't believe the context of 2Timothy 3:15-17 - that is Timothy knew and possessed the Scripture given by the inspiration of God 500-3000 years after God first spoke. Rick and those like him have a mental block brought on by seminarian tradition that makes them read "was" where the verb is actually "is". Rick believes the Scriptures are defined as the written words of God which were given by a miracle of inspiration once upon a time long, long ago. That is his stated definition above. Now, Gentle Reader take careful note of what the Scriptures actually have to say. Yes, the available extant Scriptures, you know the meaning of the word - the very written words of God which are given by inspiration of God:

J 5:39 Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2,000 years ago our Lord Jesus commanded men to "Search the Scriptures"! That is the available Scriptures - "given by a miracle of inspiration" according to Rick. Wow! What a confession! The Scriptures available when Jesus spoke these words were NOT the autographs - that one time (not really, but we have to humor them) miraculous event that happened long, long ago - but rather the AVAILABLE Scriptures which those men HAD at that time! Note: "they are" not they "were".

Heb 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice.

I know the seminarians stumble over the archaic English "saith", it means "says", NOT "said" once upon a time long, long ago. The Holy Spirit SPEAKS today!

Note:
"It is written..." NOt, "it was written..."
J 20:31  But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1Cor 10:11  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Rev 1:3  Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Have you ever read the Scriptures? The specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration? Apparently Rick and Barry haven't (according to the logical conclusion of their arguments), but I have. Have you? I'm sure you have. They have too, but they pretend they haven't!

In other words, the Scriptures in every generation and language have the quality of being "given by inspiration of God", not just the autographs. Jesus read the Scriptures in His day, as did the Eunuch, Timothy and the Pharisees. We read THE SCRIPTURES today! That is, the very words of God in written form which are not any less than the very words of God than when God originally spoke them.

Every instance of the word Scripture(s) in the Scriptures (yes, that's what I said, the Scriptures!) is a reference to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as divinely inspired, holy and authoritative.

The Scriptures 500 - 3500 years after the autographs crumbled into worm food were read, searched, believed, preached and obeyed! The Scriptures (you know what the word means - the specific written words of God which are given by the miracle of inspiration) are available today in our language! We can read them, search them, believe them (every word), preach them and obey them TODAY! Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the WORD OF GOD! Preach the word! Don't let these rascals steal your faith in the EXTANT SCRIPTURES!

P.S. The words of God are RECEIVED, not by unbelievers perhaps, but most certainly by born again Spirit filled believers!

Ac 17:11  These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
1Th 2:13  For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[Mitex]

Any errors introduced by men into handwritten copies or printed copies of the Scriptures are not perfect, pure, or infallible. 

A logical deduction from some verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, and that no words were changed.  These verses could be understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God.
... 

Surely, Gentle Reader, you are in the spiritual habit of proving all things (1Thes 5:21)  and searching (Acts 17:11) the Scriptures (you do have the Scriptures given by inspiration of God, don't you?) to see whether these things that Rick write are so.

The logical deduction of Rick's assertion is that no one in their right mind would ever dare to even think of making a copy, let alone actually making a copy or translation of the Scriptures!

Dt 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Dt 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Pr 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Rev 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

If you my Copyist or Translator friend make so much as slip of the pen you will suffer the wrath of God Almighty! Why, if you glance up and unintentionally skip over a word or phrase your eternal soul will be in danger according to Rick's deduction. Why my Printer friend, beware, if your press gets snarled and you mangle the word of God, though no deliberate fault of your own, Rick implies that God Almighty is going to reprove you and find you a liar! You know where liars go don't you?

Let the Gentle Reader beware where these birds are leading you! Believe every word of the extant Scriptures that God gave you. Fear not to make copies or translate them so that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[logos1560]

    The verse in 2 Timothy stated all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, but it does not actually say or suggest that it would be later translated by inspiration.  There is no mention of translation in the verse.  This verse does not assert nor infer that there is a regiving of the Scripture by inspiration of God each time it is translated. 

Some KJV-only advocates attempt to stress the point of the added verb “is given” supposedly being in the present tense.  There is no actual verb in the Greek for the "is" or "is given".  Gail Riplinger claimed:  “In English, ‘is given’ is a present tense verb; it is not time sensitive” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1146).  William Grady contended that 2 Timothy 3:16 uses “the word ‘give’ in the present tense” (Given, p. 98).  Yet even KJV-only author William Grady admitted that “past action may sometimes be described with present tense usage” (p. 68), but he ignored how that would be a problem for the new KJV-only private interpretation.  Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary identified given as the “past participle of give.“  KJV defender Kirk DiVietro asserted:  “The English verb of the sentence ‘is given’ is composed of the auxiliary verb is and the past participle of give which forms the English perfect tense.  This tense indicates a past punctiliar event with continuing effect.  The words exist today because they were given in the past.  It does not mean they are constantly being given” (Cleaning-Up, pp. 272-273).  DiVietro is correct in asserting that “given“ is the past participle of “give,“ but he is incorrect in saying that “is given“ forms the perfect tense since the perfect tense uses forms of the helping verb “have.” 

Along with misunderstanding or misinterpreting what the added verb in the present tense means in a proper understanding of the entire verse, KJV-only advocates also skip over the fact that when Paul wrote this verse, the New Testament was not completed and additional Scripture was still being given to the apostles. 

In addition, they ignore the fact that the verse [2 Peter 1:21] that KJV-only advocates and other Bible scholars have cited as parallel to this one [2 Tim. 3:16] used the past tense [“were moved”] and referred to “in old time.“  God gave His Word “in time past” to the prophets (Heb. 1:1).  The Word of God was given and written aforetime (Rom. 15:4), which was long before 1611. 

The Scripture mentioned at 2 Timothy 3:16 could be considered the same thing as “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3) since the faith in this verse is used in a broad sense to refer to the deposit of truth given in the Word of God.  In his commentary on Jude, S. Maxwell Coder observed:  “The faith is that extensive body of Bible doctrine which makes up the perfect whole of the truth revealed by God concerning our common salvation” (p. 17).  Coder added:  “The faith set before us in the Word of God was once for all delivered to the saints” (p. 18).  Concerning Jude 1:3, fundamentalist H. T. Spence wrote:  “The Faith is the embodiment of Truth, the Word of God, the Bible!  It was ‘once delivered.‘  After two thousand years, it is important for us to understand this Faith was once given” (Straightway, July-Oct., 2010, p. 4).  Gary La More maintained that “Jude speaks of these Words as ‘the faith once (‘once and for all’) delivered unto the saints’ (v. 3)“ (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 93).  Gary La More added:  “The whole purpose of Jude’s letter is to remind them that the Word of God was given once and for all by the apostles” (p. 93).  In his commentary on 2 & 3 John & Jude, J. Vernon McGee wrote:  “’The faith’ was the body of truth given once for all.  In the book of Acts it is called the apostles‘ doctrine” (p. 79).  Instead of “once delivered,“ the 1537 Matthew’s Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the 1568 Bishops’ Bible have “once given“ (Jude 1:3). 

 

[Mitex]

... "inspired" is an adjective. Adjectives do not have tense.

Gentle Reader,

We are pounding on the shaky sand of seminarian traditionalism and it's house is about to crumble. The owners are going to pull out all stops in order to plug the leaks, so hang on to your hat and enjoy the ride! Get set for all sorts of diversion into cloud land. We'll do our best to keep our feet anchored on the solid rock of Scriptures and let the water of God's word do its work on their house built on the sands of seminarian traditionalism.

Adjectives don't stand alone in sentences - you learn that in 3rd or 4th grade.

Your NIV - All Scripture is God-breathed
ESV - All Scripture is breathed out by God
NASB - All Scripture is inspired by God
Geneva - For the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God
NKJV - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God
NRSV - All scripture is inspired by God

That is present tense with your adjective. Shall we try Professor Young? 

“The word which for our purpose is of supreme importance is the word theopneustos, translated in the English Bible, ‘inspired of God.’ It is a compound, consisting of the elements theo (God) and pneustos (breathed). Now, it is well to note that the word ends in the three letter -tos. In the Greek language, words which 1) end in -tos and 2) are compound with theo (God) are generally passive in meaning…The true meaning is passive, ‘that which is breathed out by God’ and it is this strange designation that the Apostle here applies to the Old Testament.” Thy Word is Truth, Professor J. Young of Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, pg. 20-21.

Passive voice using the present tense "be". You wish it would read Passive voice with the past tense "be", but it doesn't, shooting a hole in your seminarian traditionalism.

Not happy with Professor Young? How about Dr. Warfield?
"In the primary passage, in which we are told that "every" or "all Scripture" is "God-breathed," the direct reference is to the "sacred writings" which Timothy had had in knowledge since his infancy, and these were, of course, just the sacred books of the Jews (2 Tim. iii. 16)." What is explicit here is implicit in all the allusions to inspired Scriptures in the New Testament." The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, pg. 163



Now ain't that a mouthful? Take your medicine like a good little boy!

 

[Bruh]

Matthew 20:20 KJV
Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

Matthew 20:20 NKJV
Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him

In this connection, the translators of the NKJV commit the same strange error as the translators of the NIV.  The Greek word translated worship in this verse is "proskuneo" which is the same word translated "worship" in other passages referring to the worship of Jesus Christ.  In the KJV, it is never translated anything other than worship.  Eleven times in the KJV, the Gospels tell us that Christ was worshiped.  This, of course, is indisputable evidence that Jesus Christ is God, because only God can be worshiped.  There are two verses in the KJV that say that someone "knelt begfore" Christ but in those verses a different Greek word is used, the word " gonupeteo"

The modern versions weaken this testimony to Christ deity by translating only some of the "proskuneo" passages with the term "worship."  The NIV, for example, removes almost half of this witness to Christ deity, changing "worship" to "kneel before" in Mt. 8:2 and others.  The NKJV does not go as far, only removing one of these witnesses to Christ deity.  PLEASE TELL ME WHY!!  remove any of them? It is the same Greek word.  It means to worship! This change in the NKJV is unnecessary and wrong and is a move toward the undependable and weaker direction of the modern versions.     

There are many others including other translations I could reference but I surely do not feel like spending that much time defending myself to people that I do not know.      This forum is somewhat of an outlet for me and nothing more.  8)
With that being said, I will discuss the above. 

 

[logos1560]

We are pounding on the shaky sand of seminarian traditionalism and it's house is about to crumble.

Believers in God and in the Scriptures, who disagree with the shaky sand of KJV-only traditionalism or with its slightly varied form advocated by Mitex, are not advocating any so-called "traditionalism." 

Your accusation is false.

 

[biscuit1953]

Matthew 20:20 KJV
Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

Matthew 20:20 NKJV
Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him

In this connection, the translators of the NKJV commit the same strange error as the translators of the NIV.  The Greek word translated worship in this verse is "proskuneo" which is the same word translated "worship" in other passages referring to the worship of Jesus Christ.  In the KJV, it is never translated anything other than worship.  Eleven times in the KJV, the Gospels tell us that Christ was worshiped.  This, of course, is indisputable evidence that Jesus Christ is God, because only God can be worshiped.  There are two verses in the KJV that say that someone "knelt begfore" Christ but in those verses a different Greek word is used, the word " gonupeteo"

The modern versions weaken this testimony to Christ deity by translating only some of the "proskuneo" passages with the term "worship."  The NIV, for example, removes almost half of this witness to Christ deity, changing "worship" to "kneel before" in Mt. 8:2 and others.  The NKJV does not go as far, only removing one of these witnesses to Christ deity.  PLEASE TELL ME WHY!!  remove any of them? It is the same Greek word.  It means to worship! This change in the NKJV is unnecessary and wrong and is a move toward the undependable and weaker direction of the modern versions.     

There are many others including other translations I could reference but I surely do not feel like spending that much time defending myself to people that I do not know.      This forum is somewhat of an outlet for me and nothing more.  8)
With that being said, I will discuss the above.

Luke 14:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

New World Translation
Luke 14:10

But when you are invited, go and recline in the lowest place, so that when the man who invited you comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, go on up higher.’ Then you will have honor in front of all your fellow guests.

Notice the King James Version teaches that men should be worshiped.  However, the Jehovah Witness Bible teaches correct doctrine. 

Jude 1:25

New International Version (NIV)

25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

Jude 1:25

King James Version (KJV)

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Notice the King James Version attacks the deity of Christ while the NIV correctly translates it.

There are many others including other translations I could reference but I surely do not feel like spending that much time defending myself to people that I do not know.      This forum is somewhat of an outlet for me and nothing more.  8)
With that being said, I will discuss the above. 

 

[logos1560]

    “The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7).  One way or sense that a translation could properly be considered a servant is in how it borrows, derives, or acquires its own text and its authority from its master or source original language text or texts from which it is made (Prov. 22:7).  A translation is a borrower from its original language texts. As a borrower, a translation is servant to the lender or lenders [its original language texts] according to what is stated at Proverbs 22:17.  The words of the master original language texts determine which words should be in a translation.  The original meaning of the words as used in context in the master original language texts determine which words should be used in a translation of those texts.  The words of a translation are under the authority of the original language words from which they are translated. 

The original language words that proceeded directly from God set the standard and are the proper authority for what the words of a translation should say (John 12:49, Matt. 4:4).  Therefore, it is sound and scriptural to assert that the original language words have greater authority than the derived translated words that borrow authority from their source or sources.

    Principles or truths from other scriptures would affirm this truth that a translation acts as a servant.  "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt. 10:24).  In like manner, it can be inferred or deduced that a translation is not above the underlying texts from which it is translated.  "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16).  Likewise, a translation is not greater than the original language source or sources [the master text] from which it was made and translated and that gave it its proper derived authority.  The lord or master gives authority to his servants (Mark 13:34).  The servants do not give authority to the master nor do they have greater authority than the one who delegates authority to them.  The person or servant who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16b).  Likewise, a translation is not greater than the underlying texts from which it was made.  A translation acts as a servant ambassador or messenger that attempts to present faithfully or accurately the meaning of the original language words of its underlying texts in the words of the receptor language.  By its definition and in its role as a borrower, a translation can be properly considered servant to the master original language texts from which it was made and translated. 

    Translators/interpreters do not give authority to the prophets and apostles who were given the Scriptures by the miracle of direct inspiration.  Translators do not give authority to the original language words given by inspiration of God.  Translators are men under the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, Matt. 10:24, Mark 13:34, John 13:16).  Translators are accountable to something prior to themselves [the texts which they translate].  The work of translators is clearly derivative.  The words of men’s wisdom and scholarship in translating do not give authority to the actual words in the original languages given directly by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles.  The body of Christ or believers do not give authority to the Scriptures by accepting or approving them.  A translation does not give or lend authority to the Scriptures in the original languages that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The original language words from above given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles are above or greater in authority than the translation decisions of men (John 3:31, John 3:34, Isa. 45:9, Matt. 10:24, John 13:16).   Which is greater:  a translation or the underlying source of the translation?  Which is greater: the actual original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles or the different words chosen by translators to try to present the meaning in a different language?  Can a translation be more pure and have more authority than that from which it was made or translated (Job 4:17, Rom. 11:18)?  Are not the words given directly by God greater in authority than the choices of men in translating (Job 33:12, Job 4:17)? Shall a translation say to the ones that fashion it and to the sources from which it was made that it is superior (Isa. 45:9)?  How can a supposed "lesser" authority [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] according to the KJV-only view make a translation of itself into a supposed "greater" authority than itself?  How can a branch [any translation] of the KJV-only view’s tree have "greater" authority than the vine, tree, or root [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] (John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-18)?  The branch did not bear or produce the root since the root and tree produced the branch (Rom. 11:18).  It would seem to be unscriptural to boast for one branch in claiming that it is the final authority and to boast in effect against the root since the root bears the branch (Rom. 11:18). 

    God is the God of order, and He established the order or primacy [the state of being first or foremost] with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages serving as the foundation and authority on which translations would need to be based or built.  The Scriptures in the original languages obviously preceded any translations.  No other foundation for translations can be laid than the one God laid when He gave the Scriptures in the original languages by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, 1 Cor. 2:13, Ps. 11:3).

 

[Ransom]

Adjectives don't stand alone in sentences - you learn that in 3rd or 4th grade.

Your NIV - All Scripture is God-breathed
ESV - All Scripture is breathed out by God
NASB - All Scripture is inspired by God
Geneva - For the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God
NKJV - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God
NRSV - All scripture is inspired by God

That is present tense with your adjective.

You also learn in 3rd or 4th grade that adjectives modify nouns, not verbs. "Is" is a verb. Nouns don't have tense.

Nice try. Back to remedial English for you.

 

[Mitex]

Adjectives don't stand alone in sentences - you learn that in 3rd or 4th grade.

Your NIV - All Scripture is God-breathed
ESV - All Scripture is breathed out by God
NASB - All Scripture is inspired by God
Geneva - For the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God
NKJV - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God
NRSV - All scripture is inspired by God

That is present tense with your adjective.

You also learn in 3rd or 4th grade that adjectives modify nouns, not verbs. "Is" is a verb. Nouns don't have tense.

Nice try. Back to remedial English for you.

Gentle Reader,

The diversion has begun in earnest! Do you still have your hat? Poor Scott, so bitter he can't think straight. I said, adjectives don't stand alone in sentences. I gave 6 versions using the present tense of the verb "be" (I even underlined it for you so you wouldn't miss it). Professor young tells us the sentence is passive hence the active would be, as I stated previously, "The inspiration of God gives all Scripture."  A sentence in the present tense, not the past tense as your cohorts want it to be. If the verb "be" is a copular - linking the adjective to the subject then it does so in the present tense. I quote my previous post:

"One of the scholars [Professor Young] insisted the the text is passive, hence, the form 'is given by' would most certainly show the passive. 'Given' can just as easily be taken as a participle used as an adjective (since Barry is so busy with the Greek that he missed the English) with the verb be as the copular. I'm hard pressed to detail any real difference of meaning in either form."

Present tense sentence:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Past tense sentence:
All Scripture was given by inspiration of God.

You can go back to your hole you crawled out of, we enjoyed your company while you were here.