Change font size


Post a new topicWrite comments Page 2 of 3   [ 26 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: English, or Vulgar Tongue.
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 10:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:56 am
Posts: 3255
Biblebeliever wrote:
If these preachers can't convey what Gods says in english,then they don't have a chance of conveying it in greek.

Good point.

_________________
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalms 12:6-7


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: English, or Vulgar Tongue.
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 5:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Ia
Joshuajlawn wrote:
The scholars (Scholars know the alexandrian cult, as well as TR scholars) all say no way, they say that only the original autographs were inspired.
Then they say that if you believe that the King James Bible is inspired, then you believe in double inspiration, and are a Ruckmanite.


The KJ Bible is inspired, by preservation, through the inspired original writings,not double inspired.
That's like saying,If i was saved a 2nd time,i would be even more saved then i was the first time. :)

To be double inspired,inspiration would have had to cease with the original autographs,then be re inspired in our KJ Bible.

The words are inspired,not the translators.

Preservation psalms 12:6,7

Inspiration

Job 3:28 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

_________________
1 Peter 1:25
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: English, or Vulgar Tongue.
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:19 pm 

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:15 am
Posts: 27
But the King James translators didn't translation from the original writings. The translated it primarily from Bezras TR which was a competed text from TR manuscripts, which ate copies of the original autographs.

And no, that's not at all like saying someone is double saved.
That would imply that inspiration only occurred when the original author pinned what God told him to write.

My question would be, where do you get your scriptural support for holding to the idea, that a translation can not be inspired.

I obviously don't discount preservation. Inspiration without preservation is a divine waste of time. But a part preservation would be to inspire the copies, then as time progressed translation.
That is if we have the very inspired word/words of God.

_________________
Back to the Bible, or back to the jungle.


Last edited by Joshuajlawn on Tue Jun 16, 2015 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: English, or Vulgar Tongue.
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 6:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:42 pm
Posts: 912
Joshuajlawn wrote:
... But a part preservation would be to inspire the copies, then as time progressed translation.

God preserved his inspired words all the way through the originals, copies, translations, ending with the 1611 KJB; even the original 1611 no longer exists, yet God continues to preserve his inspired words in the KJB we hold in our hands.

_________________
1Peter 1:18,19
redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: English, or Vulgar Tongue.
PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Ia
Joshuajlawn wrote:
But the King James translators didn't translation from the original writings. The translated it primarily from Bezras TR which was a competed text from TR manuscripts, which ate copies of the original autographs.

And no, that's not at all like saying someone is double saved.
That would imply that inspiration only occurred when the original author pinned what God told him to write.

My question would be, where do you get your scriptural support for holding to the idea, that a translation can not be inspired.

I obviously don't discount preservation. Inspiration without preservation is a divine waste of time. But a part preservation would be to inspire the copies, then as time progressed translation.
That is if we have the very inspired word/words of God.


All i am saying is,you cannot make our KJ Bible anymore inspired than it already is.
The term Double inpiration only adds confusion where it need not be. You cannot stack inspiration.
The KJ Bible is inspired,through preservation,and is the very words of God,i don't see where i indicate that a translation cannot be inspired,our KJ Bible is a translation.

If you don't discount preservation,and quote Sam Gipp as saying "Inspiration without preservation is a divine waste of time" than why are you questioning whether we have the very inspired words of God ?

My apologies for any misunderstanding.

_________________
1 Peter 1:25
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: English, or Vulgar Tongue.
PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:29 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Ia
PeanutGallery wrote:
Joshuajlawn wrote:
... But a part preservation would be to inspire the copies, then as time progressed translation.

God preserved his inspired words all the way through the originals, copies, translations, ending with the 1611 KJB; even the original 1611 no longer exists, yet God continues to preserve his inspired words in the KJB we hold in our hands.

Amen brother
Thank you! :)

_________________
1 Peter 1:25
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: English, or Vulgar Tongue.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:46 am 

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:47 pm
Posts: 8
Just to pick up on the thrust of what has been said above and in that light I would like your views on the use of Bible commentaries for greater understanding. Is there one generally used with the KJV and which is in contemporary English? From place to place in scripture there are passages that are either not understandable e.g. 2 Corinthians 6:12, Galatians 5:20; have a different meaning now 1 Peter 2:9; or mean the opposite Psalm 1:1, Psalm 34:10, Philippians 4:6. It would be unfortunate especially if new Christians get the wrong ideas in their private devotions.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: English, or Vulgar Tongue.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:18 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:42 pm
Posts: 912
VernE wrote:
... Is there one generally used with the KJV and which is in contemporary English? ...

You may find a commentary that does explain difficult passages, then turns around to correct the KJB with a 'more correct rendering'.
Then again, you may find two commentaries that provide different explanations of the same passages due to their presuppositions.
I find myself using less and less commentaries, and more interactive feed back in a KJB forum; you may find that answers are either simple or either everyone has the same difficulty.

_________________
1Peter 1:18,19
redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: English, or Vulgar Tongue.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:56 pm
Posts: 3303
VernE wrote:
Just to pick up on the thrust of what has been said above and in that light I would like your views on the use of Bible commentaries for greater understanding. Is there one generally used with the KJV and which is in contemporary English? From place to place in scripture there are passages that are either not understandable e.g. 2 Corinthians 6:12, Galatians 5:20; have a different meaning now 1 Peter 2:9; or mean the opposite Psalm 1:1, Psalm 34:10, Philippians 4:6.

You could try Dr. Ruckman's Commentaries -- they don't correct the Bible. And don't underestimate the power of the dictionary to strengthen your vocabulary!

Also, I would have to reject the idea that those verses are "not understandable." They are completely understandable with a dictionary and a few minutes of study. And the rest of the ones on your list may be unique in style but there are thousands of phrases like that in today's modern English as well, and unfortunately there are issues with various Greek renderings too. Some commentaries are okay but even the "contemporary" commentaries you are seeking often disagree with each other, so it's best to always trust your KJB as your final authority!

VernE wrote:
It would be unfortunate especially if new Christians get the wrong ideas in their private devotions.

Sir, you seem worried about new Christians getting "wrong ideas" from the KJB. I suspect this is because you don't fully understand the superiority and importance of the KJB in its preserved form of perfection. If new Christians get any "wrong ideas" about the deity of Christ they will get it from the NIV or the NASV naming Joseph as the "father" of Jesus. Talk about wrong ideas! Those new Christians have been commanded to study their Bible over in 2 Timothy 2:15, but the NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV and NRSV all decided to remove that little "obsolete" word - "study." So now they are no longer instructed to study! :roll:

You're not alone -- many people on this forum started off reading some form of "contemporary" wording from a publishing house and found themselves totally confused and disgusted, probably because the Bible-correcting fools who sell that stuff don't even believe God is preserving the Bible any way, and God doesn't honor men's trash next to His perfectly pure, preserved and inspired scripture.

Eventually those people began to humbly ask God to show them the truth and God did just that with the KJB. This is probably why over 80 percent of regular Bible readers choose to ignore all the "contemporary" versions and trust the King James Bible --->

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/rel ... -bible.htm

By the way did you read my last reply to your doubts about the power of our English Bible where I showed you that the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator shows "The KJV ranks easier in 23 out of 26 comparisons"? I noticed you didn't respond there --->

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1791&start=10

_________________
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." -- George Washington (Ref: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. 543)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: English, or Vulgar Tongue.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:00 am 

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:47 pm
Posts: 8
Thanks for all your responses. They have made me think but I am satisfied that overall when I am reading long passages of my Bible I am confident that I have a good grasp of what it is saying and don't have to interrupt the flow by having to look up any meanings. But I'd better stop there before I get banned or something. At least no doctrine as such has been compromised by another version surely?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicWrite comments Page 2 of 3   [ 26 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

9,382,230 Views


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net