introducing Bible Protector

[SteveF]

Yes, in other words, the importance is not on the Greek (the top comment), but that it was translated into English, so then, having it in English is important (the bottom comment)

Are you not saying it was important that they knew Greek in order to properly get it into English? I'm not following you.

You replied: "It was important that they knew Greek, but Greek is not important today."

So just to be clear, are you now saying that in the earlier statement (below) I actually did represent what you said correctly?

You said, "Yet earlier you said it was important for them to know Greek in order to faithfully translate it". My comment that the KJB men knew Greek is simply a statement of fact, yet you are reading in that somehow I have used the word "important"

[bibleprotector]

Yes, in other words, the importance is not on the Greek (the top comment), but that it was translated into English, so then, having it in English is important (the bottom comment)

Are you not saying it was important that they knew Greek in order to properly get it into English? I'm not following you.

You replied: "It was important that they knew Greek, but Greek is not important today."

So just to be clear, are you now saying that in the earlier statement (below) I actually did represent what you said correctly?

You said, "Yet earlier you said it was important for them to know Greek in order to faithfully translate it". My comment that the KJB men knew Greek is simply a statement of fact, yet you are reading in that somehow I have used the word "important"

It seems you playing about with words. I was not emphasising that it was important that the KJB men knew Greek in that earlier discussion, I was simply stating that they knew Greek.

As a separate statement, I said that it was important for them to know Greek (i.e. in order to make a good English translation).

Thus, the issue is not whether or not Greek was important (and it was), but it is important that we have the Scripture properly in English today (and it is).

[bibleprotector]

Actually, Wikipedia will tell you what the various opinions are. It is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Therefore, the content therein would contain both worldly and Christian viewpoints. From my brief study, that observation appears to be accurate. There does seem to be a general consensus that the language spoken by Jesus, specifically here, but generally as well, was Aramaic.

Since when is the world's consensus more true that what the Bible says? The Bible explicitly states in the New Testament that Hebrew is being used, and never once mentions Aramaic.

Again, if a commentator does not agree with the specific words that the KJV translators did, you would likely summarily dismiss their point of view.

If a commentary does not agree with the Scripture, we may say that a commentary is wrong on that point. Plenty of commentaries say "Aramaic", that does not make it fact.

And to say "Cephas" is Aramaic is mere speculation.

[bibleprotector]

The question was not did God preserve His word. The question was how did He preserve His word?

Though the Church, by His Divine Providence, and on the basis of spiritual laws.

1. 2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

2. God's singular care and divine providence of the Scripture has been recognised or implied in the Westminster Confession, the Anglican 39 Articles, etc.

3. The spiritual laws, such as scattering and gathering, indicate that through time the Scripture cannot be lost, but be gathered together properly.

[SteveF]

1. 2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

How do you think this instruction was carried out?

[bibleprotector]

1. 2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

How do you think this instruction was carried out?

There is obviously a link between the Early Church and the Reformation, therefore, the Church has not failed in history. They were also able to gather to form good Bibles.

[backwoodsman]

There is obviously a link between the Early Church and the Reformation

You keep saying things are obvious, that aren't obvious to anyone but you. For just one example, I would say that if you believe the above quoted statement is true, then you may be a little weak on your knowledge of the reformation. Of course there are some similarities, as there are between any two groups of Christians, but no one else has any idea to what similarity you're referring. It would go a long way in communicating your ideas if, instead of simply stating something is obvious, you'd explain why you believe it's so.

[bibleprotector]

There is obviously a link between the Early Church and the Reformation

You keep saying things are obvious, that aren't obvious to anyone but you. For just one example, I would say that if you believe the above quoted statement is true, then you may be a little weak on your knowledge of the reformation. Of course there are some similarities, as there are between any two groups of Christians, but no one else has any idea to what similarity you're referring. It would go a long way in communicating your ideas if, instead of simply stating something is obvious, you'd explain why you believe it's so.

It is obvious to any Protestant that the same Church of Peter is the same Church of the Reformers.

[Paidion]

It is obvious to the Catholics that the Church of Peter is the same Church as the Church of Rome.

It's obvious to me that P66 is closer to the John's original autograph than the King James Version.

But as Backwoodsman says, we've got to explain why we think it so, rather than just saying it's obvious.

[bibleprotector]

It is obvious to the Catholics that the Church of Peter is the same Church as the Church of Rome.

It's obvious to me that P66 is closer to the John's original autograph than the King James Version.

But as Backwoodsman says, we've got to explain why we think it so, rather than just saying it's obvious.

The bounds of the discussion would assume that it is obvious that the Reformation Church is the same as that of the Apostles, or else I would suggest that one were not of the class to have this discussion.

As for P66, your assumptions are time, location and language. These are merely natural human assumptions. All you have is a story which would be appealing to someone who does not actually need to believe the Bible. Whereas, God would actually have been communicating His truth to Christians in the parenthesis between 150 and the present times. The idea that the Reformation was made out of a corrupt, suspect Bible (knowledge) is inconsistent with the nature of the work of the Spirit of God through time.