introducing Bible Protector

[jriccitelli]

Without going into the rest, there can only be two options: Either the KJV is the worlds most accurate Bible, or it is not.
If it is not (and there is not ‘one’ other perfect or most accurate translation), then all the other translations are not as you say ‘unreliable’, rather they are indeed useful and dependable in discerning the original intent.

All your proofs seem to be the biblical verses concerning God preserving His Word, yet no such verse alludes to any one translation.
Again, You have not given one proof text, or reason other than what could be applied to ‘any’ bible translation, yet you wrote:

Really? So all or any translation matches up with particular statement made in Isaiah 34:16? In reality, I doubt that you apply these verses to "any" translation (BP)

True, if you want to take the verses at face value, it would have to apply to every single solitary translation, but we know God couldn’t have meant that, He must have meant that He would keep his Word intact and accessible, even though men ‘attempt’ to mess with it (You must have read where I already said ‘good’ translations, you can’t possibly think I ‘really’ meant every single translation is perfect or correct, since I have already argued ‘against’ that idea. And I stated that is ‘why’ we do have and use the multiple accessible texts available as a whole. The more manuscripts you have, the more sure you can be about the original) So again;

Still, you have not given one proof text, or reason other than what could be applied to any “good” bible translation.

You do realize that all your arguments stand on this one necessity, and that the promise in scripture does not refer to any one specific translation.

[Singalphile]

jriccitelliwrote:
All your proofs seem to be the biblical verses concerning God preserving His Word, yet no such verse alludes to any one translation.
Again, You have not given one proof text, or reason other than what could be applied to ‘any’ bible translation .... [emphasis added]

From http://www.theopedia.com/Proof_texting:
"Proof texting is the method by which a person appeals to a biblical text to prove or justify a theological position without regard for the context of the passage they are citing."

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_text:
"Prooftexting (sometimes "proof-texting" or "proof texting") is the practice of using isolated quotations from a document to establish a proposition. Using discrete quotations is generally seen as decontextualised. Critics note that such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author, and that a document quoted in such a manner may not in fact support the proposition for which it was cited when read as a whole."

With those definitions in mind, I think that proof-texting is perhaps all that we have seen thus far from bibleprotector, I'm sorry to say. bp, I appreciate your manner for the most part and and I admire your interest in God's word (i.e., His message for us), but I've read through your website a bit, and I think that you need to consider your exegetical method. Generally speaking, the verses you cite (Zeph 3:9, for example) simply don't teach what you say they teach.

... and you're making me late for work!

[bibleprotector]

The words were preserved by God. Preservation is the doctrine regarding words.

Okay, but I ask again. How did he preserve them?

We have the words today. Obviously he preserved them. Q E D.

[bibleprotector]

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

It was important that they knew Greek, but Greek is not important today.

[bibleprotector]

Found the following on Wikipedia:

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were primarily Aramaic-speaking communities.

So, run to the world. Wikipedia, doubtlessly, will tell you God did not create the world in 6 days either.

Of course, it is a circular argument since the KJV is perfect. The other manuscripts that do not agree, must be ignored.

All copies of the Bible do not agree with the KJB, because no two MSs, versions or translations are identical.

[bibleprotector]

Modern English is not the same as medieval English (King James English), either.

Come on. The King James Bible was made in the modern English period, so to call it "Medieval" is a deliberate slight against it.

[bibleprotector]

True, if you want to take the verses at face value, it would have to apply to every single solitary translation,

That is like saying that each separate copy of the Bible has a different fulfilment of its prophetic statements.

In reality, the Scripture (in whatever version) still points to the KJB as a manifestation of a world-reaching Bible.

And I stated that is ‘why’ we do have and use the multiple accessible texts available as a whole. The more manuscripts you have, the more sure you can be about the original)

This is modernistic philosophy. There is not one passage in the Bible that says having more copies will make it more accurate. There is nothing at all, because the assumption is that single copies are erroneous. This philosophy flies in the face of a person owning their own copy of the Scripture (a Reformation idea) because it says that all copies must be taken in concert for truth be better discerned ... and never fully recovered.

Now what kind of blessing is it if we have errors in our Bibles, and that we have to look at a whole lot to learn more about the original. Not one Bible verse says anything about going to the original copy or that it is somehow "it". Nor does it say that Greek is somehow more special, nor does it ban the truth from being in English. Romans 16:26 makes that clear.

You do realize that all your arguments stand on this one necessity, and that the promise in scripture does not refer to any one specific translation.

The promise of the Scripture is that one day there is a perfect manifesting of what the exact words are. And that event has already happened. I invite you to understand the full Historicist view of Revelation 10 as a particular example of this.

[bibleprotector]

"Proof texting is the method by which a person appeals to a biblical text to prove or justify a theological position without regard for the context of the passage they are citing."

Let us take Zephaniah 3:9 as an example to show that this is not the ignorant "proof texting" method you accuse:
1. It is a prophecy (i.e. future to Zephaniah's recording of it).
2. The entire chapter is talking about the latter days.
3. It says that there is a vengeance coming on various nations.
4. It says that people are turned to a pure language.
5. It says that people are coming to the Lord with a gift.
6. It speaks of change with the Jewish people.

The claim that the King James Bible be re-established (point 4) is therefore linked in its narrative context, and part of this line of events.

and I think that you need to consider your exegetical method. Generally speaking, the verses you cite ... simply don't teach what you say they teach.

Really? The learned commentators say things in line with the conversion of the Jews. That has not happened yet.

Therefore, directly building on that, the King James Bible is the way by which the Jews shall be saved.

So, not only is it no "proof texting", but an a priori commitment (and slavery) to the grammatical-historical context approach (let alone a critical-historical context approach) doubtlessly would serve to keep people from accepting the Scripture pointing to the perfect KJB (besides the fact that the idea of a perfect translation or a providentially supplied fully correct version is unpalatable and banned by the same folks).

[john6809]

So, run to the world. Wikipedia, doubtlessly, will tell you God did not create the world in 6 days either.

From Wikipedia,

Today, the American Scientific Affiliation recognizes that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Abrahamic belief that God "created the universe."

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.

I found the following two quotes from bible-based sites. There are many, many more.

41. And he took the damsel by the hand—as He did Peter's mother-in-law (Mr 1:31). and said unto her, Talitha cumi—The words are Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the then language of Palestine. Mark loves to give such wonderful words just as they were spoken. See Mr 7:34; 14:36. (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary)

Mark here recorded the actual syllables that Jesus used in this calling of the little girl back to life. The words are Aramaic, supposed to have been the language Jesus used; and from Peter who was present in that inner room, Mark remembered the very words that Christ used. James Burton Coffman Commentary

Interestingly, in John 1:42, Jesus called Peter by his Aramaic name when He called him Cephas.

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.

[SteveF]

The words were preserved by God. Preservation is the doctrine regarding words.

Okay, but I ask again. How did he preserve them?

We have the words today. Obviously he preserved them. Q E D.

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