Starting off on the wrong foot

[Guest Guest]

I has occurred to me, that having the right premise, when you come to the Bible, is very important.

The right premise is, that God is perfect and is all knowing, and has earth?s history all planed out in advance and is perfectly Holy, and never makes mistakes. etc. etc.

Our attitude about the Bible, must reflect it?s author.
--------------------------------------------------
I have said all of this, because my conviction is, that THE BIBLE HAS NO MISTAKES, and this forces me down a particular path.
When I come to a verse or passage, that seems to be a contradiction or a mistake, I automatically know, that I am the one making the mistake, in my interpretation.

But those who start off on the wrong foot, who don?t have this presupposition about the Bible?s perfection, will be led astray.

When they come to an apparent contradiction or a mistake in the Bible, there instinct is to look into the original language etc, not to find ?there mistake?, but to find the ?Bible?s mistake?.
--------------------------------------------------
I joking say, that these people think that they are smarter than God. But this is no joke.

If during your educational process, you start to find mistakes in the Bible, and go about to correct ?it?, instead of yourself, than you need to go back, and start off on the other foot.

[Guest Guest]

...The original text is without mistake. I have personally never seen any contradictions/mistakes in an English Bible translated from the old texts (which were off of the originals), but I am not going to deny there are any.

Man translated it from English, but God guided the men who wrote the original texts.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[HappyChristian]

Man translated it from English, but God guided the men who wrote the original texts.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Um, actually, God inspired the men who wrote the originals...not the same as guided. He guided the men who translated it into english.

[1Timothy115]

Um, actually, God inspired the men who wrote the originals...not the same as guided. He guided the men who translated it into english.

Yep. :thumb

[Marcus2Israel]

I has occurred to me, that having the right premise, when you come to the Bible, is very important.

The right premise is, that God is perfect and is all knowing, and has earth?s history all planed out in advance and is perfectly Holy, and never makes mistakes. etc. etc.

Our attitude about the Bible, must reflect it?s author.
--------------------------------------------------
I have said all of this, because my conviction is, that THE BIBLE HAS NO MISTAKES, and this forces me down a particular path.
When I come to a verse or passage, that seems to be a contradiction or a mistake, I automatically know, that I am the one making the mistake, in my interpretation.

But those who start off on the wrong foot, who don?t have this presupposition about the Bible?s perfection, will be led astray.

When they come to an apparent contradiction or a mistake in the Bible, there instinct is to look into the original language etc, not to find ?there mistake?, but to find the ?Bible?s mistake?.
--------------------------------------------------
I joking say, that these people think that they are smarter than God. But this is no joke.

If during your educational process, you start to find mistakes in the Bible, and go about to correct ?it?, instead of yourself, than you need to go back, and start off on the other foot.

, , , , and a thousand times
:goodpost:

[Guest Guest]

Um, actually, God inspired the men who wrote the originals...not the same as guided. He guided the men who translated it into english.

Well, ma'am, to a point, it is:
Inspire: To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.
I do not deny God had a part when the men first translated the Bible into English (I believe Tyndale's or the Geneva Bible was the first), but humans are fallible. There is no evidence those men were, in fact, directly guided by God.
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

Hi Crushmaster

You said......

?I do not deny God had a part when the men first translated the Bible into English (I believe Tyndale's or the Geneva Bible was the first), but humans are fallible. There is no evidence those men were, in fact, directly guided by God.?

The evidence that these men were directly guided by God, is in that fact that God promised, to preserve His Word for us.

Therefore, God obligated Himself, to providentially protect His Word, through the copying process and the translation process.

[futurehope]

And here we go again....

Fact is: God did guide the translators and the KJV is God's preserved word for the English speaking people and there are no errors in it.

Problem is: Some people think themselves to be wiser than the translators because of modern translating tools like Strong's and so believe that they can show where the translators could have done a "better job" or made "better choices of words".

For those of you who take this approach: Realize that these tools are just that and that they were created by men and are fallible. You try to judge God's word by men's words and err in it. God's word is perfect and is perfectly preserved in the KJV for the English speaking people - and that's what those of us who truly agree with and support the rules of this site believe...it's part of why we are here. We enjoy fellowship and discussion with those who have found the truth of God's preservation of His holy word.

[Guest Guest]

The evidence that these men were directly guided by God, is in that fact that God promised, to preserve His Word for us.

Therefore, God obligated Himself, to providentially protect His Word, through the copying process and the translation process.

Sir, that does not mean He literally guided/inspired them. After all, nothing can happen without God allowing it (them making mistakes; etc.), as He is in control.
If He literally did guide it, sir, I think words such as "Bishop" and "Baptize" would have been different (if I recall correctly, they were only translated that way to line up with the Anglican Church).
Protecting His Word and guiding the literal translation of it are two different things.

Before we continue, sir, I have a question: Do you believe in Double-Inspiration?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[JerryNumbers]

And here we go again....

Fact is: God did guide the translators and the KJV is God's preserved word for the English speaking people and there are no errors in it.

Problem is: Some people think themselves to be wiser than the translators because of modern translating tools like Strong's and so believe that they can show where the translators could have done a "better job" or made "better choices of words".

For those of you who take this approach: Realize that these tools are just that and that they were created by men and are fallible. You try to judge God's word by men's words and err in it. God's word is perfect and is perfectly preserved in the KJV for the English speaking people - and that's what those of us who truly agree with and support the rules of this site believe...it's part of why we are here. We enjoy fellowship and discussion with those who have found the truth of God's preservation of His holy word.

Right on brother.

We either have a correct copy of God's Word or we have only blemished copies of God's Word.

IF!

If we only have blemished copies of God's Word we cannot be assured that we are following Him correctly.

The truth is we have a correct copy of His Word, and only if we follow it can we be assured we are properly following God.

Why is this, none of us have the ability to go thru blemished copies of God's Word and declare what part is right, what part is wrong, but sad to said, there be many that are trying to do this, they will fail.

[futurehope]

Sir, that does not mean He literally guided/inspired them. After all, nothing can happen without God allowing it (them making mistakes; etc.), as He is in control.
If He literally did guide it, sir, I think words such as "Bishop" and "Baptize" would have been different (if I recall correctly, they were only translated that way to line up with the Anglican Church).

Need I say more? This is exactly what I was talking about when I made my previous post. Either we do or we don't have an accurate copy of the word of God.

God bless,

Futurehope

[Guest Guest]

Need I say more? This is exactly what I was talking about when I made my previous post. Either we do or we don't have an accurate copy of the word of God.

God bless,

Futurehope

Sir, we do have an accurate copy of the Word of God. But that does not mean that God literally guided them, nor does it give any reason to be KJVO.
Furthermore, sir, I put "I think" and "If I recall correctly" because I am, like yourself, a fallible human. I am, however, sir, quite sure of it.
You may look it up if you wish.

Lastly, sir, I have a question: Do you believe in Double Inspiration?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

And here we go again....

Fact is: God did guide the translators and the KJV is God's preserved word for the English speaking people and there are no errors in it.

Problem is: Some people think themselves to be wiser than the translators because of modern translating tools like Strong's and so believe that they can show where the translators could have done a "better job" or made "better choices of words".

For those of you who take this approach: Realize that these tools are just that and that they were created by men and are fallible. You try to judge God's word by men's words and err in it. God's word is perfect and is perfectly preserved in the KJV for the English speaking people - and that's what those of us who truly agree with and support the rules of this site believe...it's part of why we are here. We enjoy fellowship and discussion with those who have found the truth of God's preservation of His holy word.

Sir, it is not particularly preposterous for me to say I have a better ability to translate from the old texts than the KJV translators did. Why? Because I have the complete text on the computer, I have dictionaries (Strong's, Thayer's, etc.), and I am able to find out the meaning of the Greek or Hebrew word in a matter of seconds. All of these tools are at my fingertips, sir, but they were not available to the KJV translators.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[futurehope]

Sir, it is not particularly preposterous for me to say I have a better ability to translate from the old texts than the KJV translators did. Why? Because I have the complete text on the computer, I have dictionaries (Strong's, Thayer's, etc.), and I am able to find out the meaning of the Greek or Hebrew word in a matter of seconds. All of these tools are at my fingertips, sir, but they were not available to the KJV translators.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

For those of you who take this approach: Realize that these tools are just that and that they were created by men and are fallible. You try to judge God's word by men's words and err in it. God's word is perfect and is perfectly preserved in the KJV for the English speaking people - and that's what those of us who truly agree with and support the rules of this site believe...it's part of why we are here. We enjoy fellowship and discussion with those who have found the truth of God's preservation of His holy word.

My original post covered this Crush. As for "Double inspiration", what exactly do you mean? Are you asking if I believe that God "inspired" the translators of any translation of the bible in the way that he inspired the original authors? No. I do believe that translators of the KJV were "guided" by God to use the only accurate copies of texts available then or now (TR) and that they were far more knowledgeable and equipped than you or anyone else before or since and they didn't need the fallible tools (Strong's, Thayer's, etc.) that are used today.

My questions: Why do you put your faith more in the Strong's, Thayer's, and yourself over the preservation of God's word for the English speaking people through the KJV? What makes you and these tools more qualified that the original translators?

God Bless,

Futurehope