Double Standards of KJV Onlyists - Erasmus' gay - sounding letters, King James' homosexuality

[Whispered]

KJV Bible Verses About Homosexuality

2012 Christian Post Article
Latest NIV Bible Translation Clearer on Homosexual Sins, Says Theologian

 

[KJV1611]

Do you make reasonable conclusions about Scripture as a whole based on what is written in Scripture, even though the conclusions are not explicitly stated? I know that you do; we discussed one earlier this week.

My conclusion follows logically from what is stated. "All Scripture is God-breathed (inspired)." The Scriptures were "inspired" in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek... that's it, that's all. His inspired word is translated by humans into other languages, and the inspiration of Scripture is maintained, but as I explained in response to Fredo, that is a completely different thing than God inspiring every word of the translation. It's a simple but very important distinction.

If you're going to argue that God did inspire the words of the destination language in the case of the KJV, then you must accept that the KJV is not the only "inspired" version in English, because it uses around 70-80% of material that Tyndale wrote... therefore Tyndale must have been inspired. Because there is more than one "inspired" version, there is no reason why there cannot be additional "inspired" versions. You're stuck in a logical box of your own making.

Humans wrote the original writings, God inspired them to write exactly what he wanted written, inspired and inerrant. You have no problem accepting that, why is it that you wont accept that God inspired translators to write down exactly what he wanted written, inspired and inerrant?

Also what ever caused you to believe that God's word would see corruption? Where does this doctrine come from?

 

[Dino246]

Humans wrote the original writings, God inspired them to write exactly what he wanted written, inspired and inerrant. You have no problem accepting that, why is it that you wont accept that God inspired translators to write down exactly what he wanted written, inspired and inerrant?

My statements regarding Tyndale should be sufficient to answer this question, however...

I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, not the re-inspiration of Scripture.

Also what ever caused you to believe that God's word would see corruption? Where does this doctrine come from?

Where did I say anything of the sort?

 

[KJV1611]

My statements regarding Tyndale should be sufficient to answer this question, however...

I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, not the re-inspiration of Scripture.


Where did I say anything of the sort?

You believe every bible version contains errors, that's what I mean by corruption, it's degraded, it's corrupted, it's lost information, faded from it's former glory. Is this not what you believe?

 

[Dino246]

You believe every bible version contains errors, that's what I mean by corruption, it's degraded, it's corrupted, it's lost information, faded from it's former glory. Is this not what you believe?

I haven't found one that doesn't contain errors. However, I don't consider "corrupted" the correct adjective, as you use it.

 

[KJV1611]

I haven't found one that doesn't contain errors. However, I don't consider "corrupted" the correct adjective, as you use it.

Ah I see, if you don't understand a passage or if it doesn't make sense to you at your present knowledge level then it's an error.

 

[Dino246]

Ah I see, if you don't understand a passage or if it doesn't make sense to you at your present knowledge level then it's an error.

And thus we come to the end of reason, logic, and respectful dialogue: the fallacious ad hominem attack.

 

[KJV1611]

And thus we come to the end of reason, logic, and respectful dialogue: the fallacious ad hominem attack.

I'm not attacking you nor being disrespectful. You said that you know there are errors in the bible. This is based on your current level of understanding, you and I both will grow and learn more through the years. We will understand things then that we don't understand now.

If you didn't mean what I said above, I retract it. But if that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

 

[fredoheaven]

Nobody is arguing that the translations included within the text of Scripture are not inspired (though there are some interesting issues there too). You're playing with semantics.

In one sense, inspiration does extend to translations, in that the translations are still the inspired word of God. The 1611 Preface to the Reader addresses this issue. However, there is a significant categorical difference between claiming that the translation is the inspired word of God and claiming that God inspired every word of the translation. The latter, which some KJV-only advocates claim (and which you seem to claim here), is a fallacy of equivocation and is simply not true.

Exactly I like your "In one sense, inspiration does extend to translations,..." because the other sense has no sense. I just gave you the basic biblical approach or the right foundation about translation but you charged me with playing semantics or it isn't you that is playing with semantics?

Every word of God translated right is pure and surely I m not claiming every word of the translation is inspired especially if it altered, debased, or to vitiate the text and its meaning. Ths mishandling occurs when one corrupts the words of God or to make impure the truth of God. A fair warning by Apostle Paul is seen in

2 Corinthians 4:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

 

[fredoheaven]

I haven't found one that doesn't contain errors. However, I don't consider "corrupted" the correct adjective, as you use it.

Speaking of "corrupt" words of God, I think of a few if not the KJV alone renders in the English translation for 2 Cor. 2:17 translating the Greek καπηλεύοντες (kapēleuontes) as corrupt, all others say "peddle, market, merchandise, sell, commercialize". I have no problem when KJV is sold in the market because it is not corrupt, the problem though is that those being sold in the market are corrupt.


New International Version
Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.

New Living Translation
You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ’s authority, knowing that God is watching us.

English Standard Version
For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Berean Study Bible
For we are not like so many others, who peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as men sent from God.

Berean Literal Bible
For we are not like the many, peddling the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, we speak before God in Christ.

New American Standard Bible
For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.

New King James Version
For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

Christian Standard Bible
For we do not market the word of God for profit like so many. On the contrary, we speak with sincerity in Christ, as from God and before God.

Contemporary English Version
A lot of people try to get rich from preaching God's message. But we are God's sincere messengers, and by the power of Christ we speak our message with God as our witness.

Good News Translation
We are not like so many others, who handle God's message as if it were cheap merchandise; but because God has sent us, we speak with sincerity in his presence, as servants of Christ.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For we are not like the many who market God's message for profit. On the contrary, we speak with sincerity in Christ, as from God and before God.

International Standard Version
At least we are not commercializing God's word like so many others. Instead, we speak with sincerity in the Messiah's name, like people who are sent from God and are accountable to God.

NET Bible
For we are not like so many others, hucksters who peddle the word of God for profit, but we are speaking in Christ before God as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God.

New Heart English Bible
For we are not, like so many, peddling the word of God. But as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, we speak in Christ.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For we are not like others who blend the words of God, but according to that which is in the truth and according to that which is from God, before God in The Messiah we speak.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
At least we don't go around selling an impure word of God like many others. The opposite is true. As Christ's spokesmen and in God's presence, we speak the pure message that comes from God.

New American Standard 1977
For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.

Jubilee Bible 2000
For we are not as many, false merchandisers of the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

 

[KJV1611]

Speaking of "corrupt" words of God, I think of a few if not the KJV alone renders in the English translation for 2 Cor. 2:17 translating the Greek καπηλεύοντες (kapēleuontes) as corrupt, all others say "peddle, market, merchandise, sell, commercialize". I have no problem when KJV is sold in the market because it is not corrupt, the problem though is that those being sold in the market are corrupt.


New International Version
Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.

New Living Translation
You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ’s authority, knowing that God is watching us.

English Standard Version
For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Berean Study Bible
For we are not like so many others, who peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as men sent from God.

Berean Literal Bible
For we are not like the many, peddling the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, we speak before God in Christ.

New American Standard Bible
For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.

New King James Version
For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

Christian Standard Bible
For we do not market the word of God for profit like so many. On the contrary, we speak with sincerity in Christ, as from God and before God.

Contemporary English Version
A lot of people try to get rich from preaching God's message. But we are God's sincere messengers, and by the power of Christ we speak our message with God as our witness.

Good News Translation
We are not like so many others, who handle God's message as if it were cheap merchandise; but because God has sent us, we speak with sincerity in his presence, as servants of Christ.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For we are not like the many who market God's message for profit. On the contrary, we speak with sincerity in Christ, as from God and before God.

International Standard Version
At least we are not commercializing God's word like so many others. Instead, we speak with sincerity in the Messiah's name, like people who are sent from God and are accountable to God.

NET Bible
For we are not like so many others, hucksters who peddle the word of God for profit, but we are speaking in Christ before God as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God.

New Heart English Bible
For we are not, like so many, peddling the word of God. But as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, we speak in Christ.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For we are not like others who blend the words of God, but according to that which is in the truth and according to that which is from God, before God in The Messiah we speak.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
At least we don't go around selling an impure word of God like many others. The opposite is true. As Christ's spokesmen and in God's presence, we speak the pure message that comes from God.

New American Standard 1977
For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.

Jubilee Bible 2000
For we are not as many, false merchandisers of the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

The Vatican doesn’t want people to think the word of God can be corrupted.

 

[maxwel]

My statements regarding Tyndale should be sufficient to answer this question, however...

I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, not the re-inspiration of Scripture.


Where did I say anything of the sort?

Hey Dino,

I think I would just go about this line of reasoning in a slightly different way.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying there might be some less confusing ways to approach this whole concept, a concept which is intrinsically difficult to discuss.




I think it might be easier to simply say we use the word "scripture" to refer to different kinds of things.

And I think this is true.

When we refer to the original autographs as scripture, and we refer to modern translations as "scripture", we are not talking about EXACTLY the same things.
And therefore, I don't think we mean to assert they have EXACTLY the same properties in ALL SENSES.
We often use a single word, like "scripture", to refer to different things.
When we use a single word to mean different things, this doesn't mean we intend to imbue the two different things with ALL of the EXACT same properties.
It is common, in all languages, to simply use a word in different ways, to refer to different things.

It might be a real theological black hole to assign a certain ontological status to the word "scripture", and then maintain that same ontological status follows the word wherever it goes, across all semantic boundaries, regardless of WHAT we're actually referring to with the word "scripture." I think we're just getting into a metaphysical black hole with this.

It might be simpler, and more accurate, to simply say we use the word "scripture" in different ways, to refer to different kinds of things.
Now, those different things might well be related, and they might well share certain properties.
That's fine.
It's fine if different things share certain properties.
But I think it's simpler, and more accurate, to simply say that the word "scripture" can refer to different categories of things.

And this is easy to prove.
We simply DO use the word scripture to refer to different categories of things.
I mentioned two of those categories above.



I hope this made sense.
I was trying to make things simpler, not more complicated.
I'm not sure I succeeded.

God Bless.

.

 

[Dino246]

I'm not attacking you nor being disrespectful. You said that you know there are errors in the bible. This is based on your current level of understanding, you and I both will grow and learn more through the years. We will understand things then that we don't understand now.

If you didn't mean what I said above, I retract it. But if that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

I certainly didn't mean anything of the sort. I don't call erroneous what I merely don't yet understand.

 

[Dino246]

Hey Dino,

I think I would just go about this line of reasoning in a slightly different way.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying there might be some less confusing ways to approach this whole concept, a concept which is intrinsically difficult to discuss.




I think it might be easier to simply say we use the word "scripture" to refer to different kinds of things.

And I think this is true.

When we refer to the original autographs as scripture, and we refer to modern translations as "scripture", we are not talking about EXACTLY the same things.
And therefore, I don't think we mean to assert they have EXACTLY the same properties in ALL SENSES.
We often use a single word, like "scripture", to refer to different things.
When we use a single word to mean different things, this doesn't mean we intend to imbue the two different things with ALL of the EXACT same properties.
It is common, in all languages, to simply use a word in different ways, to refer to different things.

It might be a real theological black hole to assign a certain ontological status to the word "scripture", and then maintain that same ontological status follows the word wherever it goes, across all semantic boundaries, regardless of WHAT we're actually referring to with the word "scripture." I think we're just getting into a metaphysical black hole with this.

It might be simpler, and more accurate, to simply say we use the word "scripture" in different ways, to refer to different kinds of things.
Now, those different things might well be related, and they might well share certain properties.
That's fine.
It's fine if different things share certain properties.
But I think it's simpler, and more accurate, to simply say that the word "scripture" can refer to different categories of things.

And this is easy to prove.
We simply DO use the word scripture to refer to different categories of things.
I mentioned two of those categories above.



I hope this made sense.
I was trying to make things simpler, not more complicated.
I'm not sure I succeeded.

God Bless.

.

Thanks. I recognized this distinction earlier, though not with such clarity.

 

[maxwel]

Thanks. I recognized this distinction earlier, though not with such clarity.

We're dealing some really messy issues.

Not everything we need to talk about is easy to talk about.
Such is life.

.

 

[Dino246]

Exactly I like your "In one sense, inspiration does extend to translations,..." because the other sense has no sense. I just gave you the basic biblical approach or the right foundation about translation but you charged me with playing semantics or it isn't you that is playing with semantics?

Have a look at Maxwel's post #172.

 

[Dino246]

Speaking of "corrupt" words of God, I think of a few if not the KJV alone renders in the English translation for 2 Cor. 2:17 translating the Greek καπηλεύοντες (kapēleuontes) as corrupt, all others say "peddle, market, merchandise, sell, commercialize". I have no problem when KJV is sold in the market because it is not corrupt, the problem though is that those being sold in the market are corrupt.

This is yet another circular argument.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The Vatican doesn’t want people to think the word of God can be corrupted.

And the unbelieving and naturalistic *scholars* and critics falsely claimed that the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts were corrupted, while the corrupt handful of manuscripts which they promoted were *pure*! Thus they turned Scripture on its head.

Speaking of the Vatican, the most corrupt Bible codex is the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B)-- found in the pope's library, but a direct result of Gnostic corruptions. Yet this became of the foundation of all modern Bibles since 1881.

Erasmus was directed to this manuscript while preparing His Greek Text. But he rejected its readings. The few manuscripts which he used were quite representative of the traditional or Byzantine text of the New Testament. And the Textus Receptus (with appropriate corrections) was produced in the same lineage as that of Erasmus (while many editors were involved over a period of 100 years).

 

[Dino246]

And the unbelieving and naturalistic *scholars* and critics falsely claimed that the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts were corrupted, while the corrupt handful of manuscripts which they promoted were *pure*! Thus they turned Scripture on its head.

Speaking of the Vatican, the most corrupt Bible codex is the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B)-- found in the pope's library, but a direct result of Gnostic corruptions. Yet this became of the foundation of all modern Bibles since 1881.

Erasmus was directed to this manuscript while preparing His Greek Text. But he rejected its readings. The few manuscripts which he used were quite representative of the traditional or Byzantine text of the New Testament. And the Textus Receptus (with appropriate corrections) was produced in the same lineage as that of Erasmus (while many editors were involved over a period of 100 years).

The history that I have read is that Erasmus did not have access to the Vatican library and was therefore unable to view the codex, so he could not have "rejected its readings".

 

[KJV1611]

And the unbelieving and naturalistic *scholars* and critics falsely claimed that the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts were corrupted, while the corrupt handful of manuscripts which they promoted were *pure*! Thus they turned Scripture on its head.

Speaking of the Vatican, the most corrupt Bible codex is the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B)-- found in the pope's library, but a direct result of Gnostic corruptions. Yet this became of the foundation of all modern Bibles since 1881.

Erasmus was directed to this manuscript while preparing His Greek Text. But he rejected its readings. The few manuscripts which he used were quite representative of the traditional or Byzantine text of the New Testament. And the Textus Receptus (with appropriate corrections) was produced in the same lineage as that of Erasmus (while many editors were involved over a period of 100 years).

The Catholic Church has been waging war against the word of God and true believers for centuries and no one on these KJV threads seem to know that.