The Wet Paint Principle (Freedom from sin)
- Thread starter justbyfaith
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I believe that God the Holy Ghost was intimately involved in the translation of every word that was translated in the kjv.
It is not necessary to know the Greek and Hebrew in order to have the unadulterated message of the gospel.
It is adequately given to us in the kjv.
This is not to say that some of what we find in the Greek renderings are not helpful in adding insight.
It is not necessary to know the Greek and Hebrew in order to have the unadulterated message of the gospel.
It is adequately given to us in the kjv.
This is not to say that some of what we find in the Greek renderings are not helpful in adding insight.
Sure it is.
That the Holy Spirit was involved in the translation process is a given because God is both Omnipotent, and sovereign, and loving.
Because He is Omnipotent and sovereign, He is able to preserve His unadulterated message when it was translated.
Because He is loving, He was motivated to do so.
Now give me one good reason therefore, why God didn't preserve His unadulterated message when the kjv was translated.
It is the point of this discussion.
The point, is that knowing the Hebrew and Greek isn't necessary for us to be able to receive the fulness of God's unadulterated message, of the gospel of Jesus Christ (the whole counsel of God).
Having a kjv is sufficient.
God didn't limit His message to "educated" amateur Greek and Hebrew scholars (who might be inclined to reject Jesus).
He gave it to the common people in their own language.
Because the "educated" scribes and Pharisees rejected Jesus; while the common people heard Him gladly.
That the Holy Spirit was involved in the translation process is a given because God is both Omnipotent, and sovereign, and loving.
Because He is Omnipotent and sovereign, He is able to preserve His unadulterated message when it was translated.
Because He is loving, He was motivated to do so.
Now give me one good reason therefore, why God didn't preserve His unadulterated message when the kjv was translated.
It is the point of this discussion.
The point, is that knowing the Hebrew and Greek isn't necessary for us to be able to receive the fulness of God's unadulterated message, of the gospel of Jesus Christ (the whole counsel of God).
Having a kjv is sufficient.
God didn't limit His message to "educated" amateur Greek and Hebrew scholars (who might be inclined to reject Jesus).
He gave it to the common people in their own language.
Because the "educated" scribes and Pharisees rejected Jesus; while the common people heard Him gladly.
That's a fallacy called a non sequitur.
What God is capable of doing is not the question; what He has done is.
Further, if you stand on this (flawed) reason, then you must concede that God also preserved His word through the development of other translations. You can't have one without the other.
Irrelevant.
The translators did not start with the entire Scriptures.
No, it isn't. The point of the discussion is the original post. This is a side issue.
What God is capable of doing is not the question; what He has done is.
Further, if you stand on this (flawed) reason, then you must concede that God also preserved His word through the development of other translations. You can't have one without the other.
Irrelevant.
The translators did not start with the entire Scriptures.
No, it isn't. The point of the discussion is the original post. This is a side issue.
-
1
- Show all
Actually, because there is a kjv-only controversy, I contend that God is behind that controversy and that therefore He is contending specifically for the kjv as a translation that it is inerrant and inspired.
That He is capable of doing it is only one part of the equation. The other part is that He loves us.
Both things together indicate that He would not fail to preserve the unadulterated message of the gospel (the whole counsel of God) for the common people (see 1 Corinthians 13:8 (kjv)).
Nope.
Where do you get that idea?
Okay, be a bear about it. I will say that it is the point of the side issue that is being discussed.
The OP is only chapter one of my document.
That He is capable of doing it is only one part of the equation. The other part is that He loves us.
Both things together indicate that He would not fail to preserve the unadulterated message of the gospel (the whole counsel of God) for the common people (see 1 Corinthians 13:8 (kjv)).
Nope.
Where do you get that idea?
Okay, be a bear about it. I will say that it is the point of the side issue that is being discussed.
The OP is only chapter one of my document.
More folly.
Since there is a controversy about which trans-Atlantic steamer sank in April of 1912, God is contending for the Titanic rather than the Olympic (or vice-versa)? What utter rot!
Two more non sequitur fallacies.
Sadly, your grasp of logic is lacking. Though it might be simple ignorance on your part, the lack inhibits your ability to reason correctly.
Again, if you honestly believe what you claim, you would apply it to all translations, not just the KJV. It is not sound reasoning anyway, but you are even inconsistent in applying it.
Erasmus did not have the complete text of Revelation. The subsequent texts, referenced by the KJV translators, suffered the same problem.
You mean there's more of this codswollop?
Since there is a controversy about which trans-Atlantic steamer sank in April of 1912, God is contending for the Titanic rather than the Olympic (or vice-versa)? What utter rot!
Two more non sequitur fallacies.
Sadly, your grasp of logic is lacking. Though it might be simple ignorance on your part, the lack inhibits your ability to reason correctly.
Again, if you honestly believe what you claim, you would apply it to all translations, not just the KJV. It is not sound reasoning anyway, but you are even inconsistent in applying it.
Erasmus did not have the complete text of Revelation. The subsequent texts, referenced by the KJV translators, suffered the same problem.
You mean there's more of this codswollop?
-
1
- Show all
You can take it or leave it.
I am saying that it is a possibility that the Lord is contending for the kjv. And I would say that for you, it bears looking into the controversy to see whether the kjv-only side has merit.
Because if it does, then God is indeed contending for it, by His Holy Spirit.
There is a strong possibility that believing in the kjv's inerrancy and inspiration as concerning doctrine is a part of the narrow way that is spoken of in Matthew 7:13-14; and that I am relating this to you by the Holy Spirit.
Also, as concerning your statement that I am preaching "more folly"...
I would encourage you to read and understand 1 Corinthians 1:18-29.
Nope.
The fact that there is a controversy over kjv-only means that I don't have to. Because if it is part of God's plan to contend for the kjv as being the only translation that is inerrant and inspired, then He brought the controversy into being so that people would have that truth.
If the controversy did not exist, then your logic would indeed have merit.
But the fact that God contends for the kjv means that the same logic does not have to be applied to other translations.
Because the issue is people knowing where to go for the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God.
The logic can be applied to the kjv and not the modern translations because, since there is a controversy over the kjv, people are faced with a decision as to whether they will adhere to the kjv or else believe that modern translations are also valid.
That is news to me.
Why don't you educate me...
When did the complete text of the book of Revelation come into play, that we have in our Protestant Bibles?
It is not codswollop but edifying doctrine. But, because you are one who does not endure sound doctrine, I know that you will heap to yourself teachers to teach you what is contrary to what is taught in the document; or may even become one of those teachers.
I am saying that it is a possibility that the Lord is contending for the kjv. And I would say that for you, it bears looking into the controversy to see whether the kjv-only side has merit.
Because if it does, then God is indeed contending for it, by His Holy Spirit.
There is a strong possibility that believing in the kjv's inerrancy and inspiration as concerning doctrine is a part of the narrow way that is spoken of in Matthew 7:13-14; and that I am relating this to you by the Holy Spirit.
Also, as concerning your statement that I am preaching "more folly"...
I would encourage you to read and understand 1 Corinthians 1:18-29.
Nope.
The fact that there is a controversy over kjv-only means that I don't have to. Because if it is part of God's plan to contend for the kjv as being the only translation that is inerrant and inspired, then He brought the controversy into being so that people would have that truth.
If the controversy did not exist, then your logic would indeed have merit.
But the fact that God contends for the kjv means that the same logic does not have to be applied to other translations.
Because the issue is people knowing where to go for the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God.
The logic can be applied to the kjv and not the modern translations because, since there is a controversy over the kjv, people are faced with a decision as to whether they will adhere to the kjv or else believe that modern translations are also valid.
That is news to me.
Why don't you educate me...
When did the complete text of the book of Revelation come into play, that we have in our Protestant Bibles?
It is not codswollop but edifying doctrine. But, because you are one who does not endure sound doctrine, I know that you will heap to yourself teachers to teach you what is contrary to what is taught in the document; or may even become one of those teachers.
That you wrote this yourself, and continue to bump it, is clear evidence of your overinflated view of your own spiritual insight. I read through the first post; it is very poorly written, scripturally unsound, replete with logical fallacies, and not edifying in the least. I couldn't tolerate reading the next three posts. Please, show some humility. If people choose to read this, and for some reason happen to approve, they will tell you.
Let another praise you, and not your own mouth (Proverbs 27:2).
Let another praise you, and not your own mouth (Proverbs 27:2).
-
1
-
1
- Show all