introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

So i'm guessing this "spiritual understanding" helped the writers of the KJB 1611 discern what was really meant by the bible authors. Even though the KJB 1611 translates Matt 18.18 the opposite from the "original" greek. Or the KJB 1611 translates "sheol" over and over as "grave" but later changes it's translation to "hell" seemingly arbitrarily. Thank goodness there was no agenda and it was spiritual understanding that guided these KJB 1611 translators.

You seem to be asserting that every Greek word must and only be translated to one single English word, which is not a way that proper translation is done. The nuances must be regarded, and the exact sense, so that in English we have the right words: whether it means two different original words being rendered as the same English word, or that the same original word is rendered to multiple different English ones.

Your perception of seeming arbitrariness is in fact just your lack of knowledge at how proper translation was done.

[Homer]

Bibleprotector,

You wrote:

You seem to be asserting that every Greek word must and only be translated to one single English word, which is not a way that proper translation is done. The nuances must be regarded, and the exact sense, so that in English we have the right words: whether it means two different original words being rendered as the same English word, or that the same original word is rendered to multiple different English ones.

By what inspiration did the KJV translators determine that they should insert "a" before "sin" in the following? Is there only one sin unto death? There is no "a" in the Greek.

1 John 5:16, King James Version (KJV)

16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

[bibleprotector]

By what inspiration did the KJV translators determine that they should insert "a" before "sin" in the following? Is there only one sin unto death? There is no "a" in the Greek.

By what authority do you remove the proper sense of having the word "a" in our correct and accurate English translation?

In reality, you are not arguing for what the "Greek" really says, but what you and certain others impose in English words to be your variant translation of the Greek.

Ultimately, you are arguing for a strange doctrine, that is, to have sin and get away with it. That is the real reason why you attack the jots and tittles of the word "a".

[jriccitelli]

BP, it seems you are the one assuming Homer or someone has an agenda. I think ‘the point’ is that two different variants are evident when comparing the two translations. You are asserting that ‘one’ of the translations holds precedence over the other, we are just saying that neither has a Divine authority ‘over the other’ translation. Only our own personal grammatical, and hermeneutical deductions can suffice to make such a personal interpretation in areas of uncertainty in written literature. I do not think there is anything wrong or ungodly in establishing 'for ourselves', using all the materials available to us, what is true. In fact it is a good and profitable exercise, as it says 'study' to show yourself approved. Assuming one version has a divine stamp of approval over the other can be very dangerous to truth, and dangerous to the freedom in the pursuit thereof.

I am still not sure what you 'call' the Divine stamp of approval on the King James. I used the word ‘inspired’ as in divine ‘translation’. You wrote; “Having a perfect text and translation is achieved in line with Divine Providence” (pg.1) which to me means that God inspired the translators to achieve a perfect text. I don’t see the difference (Just as Joseph Smith ‘supposedly’ received a Divine translation).

[bibleprotector]

BP, it seems you are the one assuming Homer or someone has an agenda, I think ‘the point’ is that two different variants are evident when comparing the two translations.

There is an agenda, e.g. to reject the perfection of the KJB.

You are asserting that ‘one’ of the translations holds precedence over the other, we are just saying that neither has a Divine authority ‘over the other’ translation.

Truth is singular and absolute. Inspiration did not happen in two different readings, but there was only one word given by God in every place, meaning that there cannot be two valid renderings.

And that only our own personal grammatical, and hermeneutical deductions can suffice to make such a personal interpretation in areas of uncertainty in written literature.

This sounds like the book of Judges, where every one did according to his own will, whatever is right in his own eyes. This is an argument for relativism.

I do not think there is anything wrong or ungodly in establishing 'for ourselves' using all the materials available to us, what is true.

There is nothing wrong with examining the world around us, but there is something wrong with going against what is supplied by the Spirit, etc.

In fact it is a good and profitable exercise, as it says 'study' to show yourself approved (where as assuming one version has a divine stamp of approval over the other can be very dangerous to truth, and dangerous to the freedom in the pursuit thereof).

An intellectual exercise which does not conform to the Word is really just vanity. The study that we are told to do in the Bible is the study of the Scripture itself. Not studying just anything, not studying about the Scripture, but studying the Scripture itself.

I am still not sure what you 'call' the Divine stamp of approval on the King James, I used the word ‘inspired’ as in divine ‘translation’. You wrote; “Having a perfect text and translation is achieved in line with Divine Providence” (pg.1), to me that means God inspired the translators to achieve a perfect text, I don’t see the difference (Just as Joseph Smith ‘supposedly’ received a Divine translation).

I am talking about beginning from the Scripture within the Protestant context and recognising what has been delivered to the saints. In this, divine providence is recognised. This is nothing to do with inspired translation, and certainly nothing like errors such as Joseph Smith. My point is if you start from the Scripture itself, not from some sort of hermeneutic hypothesis, it honestly points to the KJB.

[jriccitelli]

(I was still editing my grammar, and eating breakfast at the same time, but I will move on since you are here…)

There is an agenda, e.g. to reject the perfection of the KJB.

No, we are trying to determine ‘how’ you can reach such a dogmatic opinion (?)

Truth is singular and absolute. Inspiration did not happen in two different readings, but there was only one word given by God in every place, meaning that there cannot be two valid renderings.

Certainly there was only one word from the original speakers mouth, (or in original autograghs, if applicable), but what we are talking about are ‘translations’, and all translations are subject to difficulties, anyone who knows anything of two languages would have to agree (i.e Spanish and English)

This sounds like the book of Judges, where every one did according to his own will, whatever is right in his own eyes. This is an argument for relativism.

You are doing what seems right to ‘you’, yet you have not shown me any reason to believe the KJV has any divine stamp of approval. I am far from relativism as one can be, in fact I am trusting in the most empirical evidence I can for the texts I can find, as scripture says ‘seek out wisdom, search and mine His word as looking for gold’, and not taking a position relative to the English.

[jriccitelli]

There is nothing wrong with examining the world around us, but there is something wrong with going against what is supplied by the Spirit, etc

But you have not provided us with any evidence for Gods stamp of approval and favor on the KJV over and above other translations and texts. You are demanding that the Spirit has approved the KJV over the others. Where is this stamp of approval?

An intellectual exercise which does not conform to the Word is really just vanity. The study that we are told to do in the Bible is the study of the Scripture itself. Not studying just anything, not studying about the Scripture, but studying the Scripture itself.

You cannot say something I attest to, as if I do not. This is not the disagreement, I neither think you are not studying anything but scripture itself.

I am talking about beginning from the Scripture within the Protestant context and recognizing what has been delivered to the saints. In this, divine providence is recognized. This is nothing to do with inspired translation, and certainly nothing like errors such as Joseph Smith. My point is if you start from the Scripture itself, not from some sort of hermeneutic hypothesis, it honestly points to the KJB.

What scripture are you saying we start with, the KJV? The Catholics had the Scriptures, they just did not hold to them. Just as the Pharisees misused them, and others, that is not the point. The Protestants did not invent the Bible, nor did King James. What ‘scripture’ points to the KJV? If you say the KJV does, isn’t this circular reasoning? If you mean all the available resources of text, then I agree that 'all' available resources will define the final opinion. We hold that God has kept His Word available to us through divine providence in a number of reliable texts. The composition of the whole with discernment and care reveals a body of texts with ample evidence to make informed agreements and solutions to most every passage of scripture. ‘Some’ passages are just going to be difficult as time and culture will forever make it so, but I have not found any that would hinder our faith or salvation in respect to all the scriptures vital and basic truths.

[bibleprotector]

Certainly there was only one word from the original speakers mouth, (or in original autograghs, if applicable), but what we are talking about are ‘translations’, and all translations are subject to difficulties, anyone who knows anything of two languages would have to agree (i.e Spanish and English)

It is your assumption that all translations are subject to difficulties. Of course some are, but this does not mean that all are, and the points of reference (Spanish & English), are faulty. In a secular sense, translations have issues, but we are dealing with God's Word and Divine Providence.

I am far from relativism as one can be, in fact I am trusting in the most empirical evidence I can for the texts I can find, as scripture says ‘seek out wisdom, search and mine His word as looking for gold’, and not taking a position relative to the English.

Relying on an empirical method is not exactly a Biblical method. In fact, it is rife with relativism. What you see and perceive and interpret can be very different from what others find. So, you might be looking for wisdom, but it could be that of this world, not of Heaven. Especially since your method itself may already be flawed by assumptions like "this Greek is the 'real' Scripture where I will seek 'wisdom'".

[bibleprotector]

But you have not provided us with any evidence for Gods stamp of approval and favor on the KJV over and above other translations and texts. You are demanding that the Spirit has approved the KJV over the others. Where is this stamp of approval?

I hope this is not like you saying that you don't accept anything is evidence, because you don't accept the evidence.

I have not given any extensive amount of information here. It appears as if you are attempting to imply that because I have not much talked about it here, that you can say that I have not supplied information. I have indeed supplied much on the subject, but it is on my website.

What scripture are you saying we start with, the KJV? The Catholics had the Scriptures, they just did not hold to them. Just as the Pharisees misused them, and others, that is not the point. The Protestants did not invent the Bible, nor did King James. What ‘scripture’ points to the KJV? If you say the KJV does, isn’t this circular reasoning?

Are you denying that the Word of God is self authenticating? What you accuse of circular reasoning is in fact a reality: God said something therefore it is what He said.

If you mean all the available resources of text, then I agree that 'all' available resources will define the final opinion.

By Scripture I mean all Scripture, as well as the fact that Scripture to us is in the KJB. And it points to the KJB.

We hold that God has kept His Word available to us through divine providence in a number of reliable texts.

That is a weak argument because God is not self-contradictory. Why would he supply a number of reliable texts which, upon examination, some are found to be unreliable, and that there is disparity and disagreement among them? Surely, He would in time resolve this issue.

The composition of the whole with discernment and care reveals a body of texts with ample evidence to make informed agreements and solutions to most every passage of scripture. ‘Some’ passages are just going to be difficult as time and culture will forever make it so, but I have not found any that would hinder our faith or salvation in respect to all the scriptures vital and basic truths.

This is saying that while we have certainty that the Bible is about 98% accurate, the 2% of no major consequence is basically God's plan too. That makes God weak and puts so much a level of uncertainty as to be the leaven which leaveneth the whole lump. If there is this unknown quantity of unimportant unresolved variations that is a problem. What is the real problem is that you enshrine error and unbelief into eternity by saying that "time and culture will forever make it so". This is really a blasphemy! (Note, I know you and plenty of others think this way with sincerity, but the honest undeceived assessment of your view is that this goes against the nature of God.) Time is not God. Culture is not God. And you boldly deny God's possibility to work, override or in any way resolve this. Your view, sad to say, would be the very steps a person would take in the journey toward atheism.

The one doctrine which is hindered is faith in the manifest perfection of the Word of God.

[steve7150]

Your perception of seeming arbitrariness is in fact just your lack of knowledge at how proper translation was done.










Why don't you enlighten me about how proper translation was done? You have not answered one single inquiry except by generally insulting people either directly or indirectly or claiming "spiritual understanding" that only a very few have. Why not just direct people to your website instead wasting our time friend?