The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.

[posthuman]

If you like to be liberal with God’s Word, then this is how you approach the Bible. You approach it as a Science and not as a Holy text preserved throughout time. If you simply believe the Bible in what it says about itself, then you will believe God’s Word is perfect and that it will be preserved forever.

occurs to me that if the kjv translating committee thought as you did they would not have made the kjv.

so who is right, you or kjv?



you say they sinned by making a new translation.
they say you sin by considering theirs perfect.

weird conundrum

 

[Eli1]

I was sorry to see that. Jon was harassed and harangued endlessly.

He seemed like someone who genuinely loved God and has left all the comforts of his home and travel around the country without knowing what would happen to him.
So i find that very admirable despite his faults. Nobody is perfect.

 

[Magenta]

He seemed like someone who genuinely loved God and has left all the comforts of his home and travel around the country without knowing what would happen to him.
So i find that very admirable despite his faults. Nobody is perfect.

John 15:9-14

 

[Genez]

what do you have against being rational?

Being rational, based upon objective reality, limit's one's ability to recreate his own reality more to his own bias and liking.
Those who wish to establish their own authority become irked by the Highest authority standing in their way.

And, we all must pass divine authority testing before God will grant us promotion into maturity in Christ.
Those who fail will to mature will end up seeing their wood, hay, and stubble burned up in huge barn fire.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15​

​

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. ​

If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or stubble, ​

their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be ​

revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been ​

built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer ​

loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.​

grace and peace ............

 

[Genez]

He seemed like someone who genuinely loved God and has left all the comforts of his home and travel around the country without knowing what would happen to him.
So i find that very admirable despite his faults. Nobody is perfect.

God is the Word.

John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."​

Those who 'genuinely' love God?

They will, over time, go through bumps and grinds of mistakes. Only to eventually find themselves being given access to excellent teachings.

Teachings that will not only show them what they had been failing to see. But, will also be teach what corrects them, and will find themselves LOVING being corrected. Proverbs 9:8


Grace and peace ............

 

[Eli1]

God is the Word.

John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."​

Those who 'genuinely' love God?

They will, over time, go through bumps and grinds of mistakes. Only to eventually find themselves being given access to excellent teachings.

Teachings that will not only show them what they had been failing to see. But, will also be teach what corrects them, and will find themselves LOVING being corrected. Proverbs 9:8


Grace and peace ............

I think that i may have misread about you having health issues and i think that you were studying clinical psychology if i remember correctly.

 

[Genez]

I think that i may have misread about you having health issues and i think that you were studying clinical psychology if i remember correctly.

In college I excelled (i.e., did very well) in Psychology classes.
God gifted me, and was simply like being a duck placed on water...

But, I also was sad and frustrated to discover that secular psychology was too busy finding excuses for the human condition.
Having too many theories, but without objective answers.

.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

occurs to me that if the kjv translating committee thought as you did they would not have made the kjv.

so who is right, you or kjv?



you say they sinned by making a new translation.
they say you sin by considering theirs perfect.

weird conundrum

I am not opposed to the approach taken by the KJV translators. However, their method was distinct from Modern Textual Criticism, which is rooted in German Rationalism. I would even be open to a KJV update, but only if it adhered to a strict, conservative approach in updating words—one that could convince even my fellow KJV supporters, including those who argue that Hebrew and Greek are no longer necessary. Ideally, such an update would reference Greek and Hebrew definitions where beneficial.

It's also essential to recognize that the personal views of the KJV translators on Bibliology do not limit God’s ability to use them in preserving His Word. The KJV stands apart from any other book in existence. With even a basic level of investigation, one can see that the KJV is, at the very least, the most reliable translation, while Modern Bibles show significant corruption.


….

 

[Dino246]

I am not opposed to the approach taken by the KJV translators. However, their method was distinct from Modern Textual Criticism, which is rooted in German Rationalism.

How are the methods different? Please don't respond with any slander of the modern version; just tell us the differences as you understand them.

With even a basic level of investigation, one can see that the KJV is, at the very least, the most reliable translation, while Modern Bibles show significant corruption.

Given that with even a basic level of investigation, one can find that the KJV has several errors, how can it possibly be the most reliable translation?

 

[Genez]

This is insane..... Period.

Who gave anyone the right to say the KJV is a perfect translation of God's Word must be God Himself!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I am not opposed to the approach taken by the KJV translators. However, their method was distinct from Modern Textual Criticism, which is rooted in German Rationalism.

How are the methods different? Please don't respond with any slander of the modern version; just tell us the differences as you understand them.

Here is a short comparison:

1. Faith-Based vs. Rationalist Approach: The KJV translators approached the Bible with reverence and did not treat it as if was no different than any other secular document. The KJV translator's goal was "to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one". Meaning, they set out to achieve God's Word to be a standard. Contrarily, Modern Textual Criticism, however, emerged from German Rationalism, a movement that treats the Bible as any other ancient text, detached from claims of divine inspiration. This rationalist foundation allows for a level of skepticism not typically seen in the KJV translation process.
2. Manuscript Selection: The KJV translators primarily relied on the Textus Receptus (TR), a compilation of Byzantine manuscripts which were widely accepted and used by the Christian church for centuries. Modern Textual Criticism, by contrast, favors the Alexandrian text-type, such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are considered "older" manuscripts. However, this focus on age over doctrinal reliability or historical use has led Modern Textual Criticism to disregard the manuscript traditions that underlie the KJV. In short, there is no text held by the church through history that we can see involving the Alexandrian manuscripts.
3. Methodological Assumptions: Critical Text methodology operates on assumptions like "Lectio Brevior Potior" (the shorter reading is preferred) and "Lectio Difficilior Potior" (the more difficult reading is preferred), based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add to, rather than omit from, the text. The KJV translators did not operate on these assumptions but rather sought readings that were doctrinally sound and widely supported by the Christian community.
4. Stability vs. Constant Revision: The KJV has remained remarkably stable since its initial publication, with only minimal changes for spelling and clarity. In contrast, Modern Textual Criticism embraces a constantly evolving approach, leading to multiple revised versions over the years, based on new theories and discoveries, which some argue creates instability in the textual base of Modern Bible translations.

With even a basic level of investigation, one can see that the KJV is, at the very least, the most reliable translation, while Modern Bibles show significant corruption.

Given that with even a basic level of investigation, one can find that the KJV has several errors, how can it possibly be the most reliable translation?

Again, I would call these "gnats" or minor, supposed errors that can, in most cases, be explained soundly. The changes in modern Bibles, however, are glaring—like giant camels of doctrinal corruption. So, respectfully, I disagree. I believe we must be objective and not desire the Bible to be something it is not. What the Bible says about itself is that it is perfect and would be preserved forever. There are many verses pointing us in this direction, showing that we would be held accountable to a Word in which we can have certainty in the knowledge of the words of truth. What God requires from us is faith to believe what His good books says plainly.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

occurs to me that if the kjv translating committee thought as you did they would not have made the kjv.

so who is right, you or kjv?



you say they sinned by making a new translation.
they say you sin by considering theirs perfect.

weird conundrum

God can use men despite themselves. The KJV translator's goal was not "to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one". Why can we say that God did move beyond what they thought? The KJV was a part of causing three of the great revivals in human history. The KJV is the. most printed book in the world and has helped form most of Protestant Christianity in English-speaking countries. Hundreds of idioms used today were popularized by the existence of the KJV, and much, much more.


....

 

[GWH]

The Bible is not a secret code that needs to be unlocked, but it was written in languages that need to be translated and interpreted.

Thus we readers of translations need to employ a good hermeneutic for arriving at the best belief. The method I recommend is below:

My method begins with the instruction of Paul (1THS 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker wants to know the truth, and is guided by the question: What is most true or closest to the truth? The basis for determining truth is subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from other truthseekers, preferably via dialogue when possible.

As a result of seeking ultimate truth, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide my interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements. First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ). Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16). I find this hermeneutic affirmed in the OT (PS 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Triangulate from God’s love & justness.

This principle leads me to conclude that even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice. The writer of Hebrews (12:4-11) indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline or for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.

The justice of God is a source of comfort and joy to those who have decided to accept His loving Lordship, but it is experienced as judgment or wrath by those who rebel against Him (IS 13:13, RM 1:18, RV 19:11). The fire that warms (purifies) also burns (punishes). Stating God’s requirement for salvation negatively: a person would do well (be wise) not to reject Him in order not to experience the miserable but just consequence (JN 3:17-18). Just consequences teach good behavior.

Other important elements in my hermeneutic include the following. Everyone lives by fallible faith/belief/opinion and sufficient knowledge of evidence rather than by absolute certainty or proof or coercion (2CR 5:7). Second, a logical train of thought leads an unbiased truthseeker to have a propensity to believe in an all-loving God, who is not tricky and does not hide the way to heaven (HB 11:6, ACTS 13:10). Third, humanity’s understanding of God evolved or progressed through the millenniums, so that the OT was superseded by the NT, which is the apex of divine revelation (HB 7:18, 8:13, 9:15).

The method employed in this hermeneutic is additive or eclectic as taught by Paul (in 1THS 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in MT 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. I want to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. The whole truth combines parts without sawing!

The Bible says God’s Spirit is love and truth (1JN 4:8 & 5:6), which means all love (agape, RM 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation. Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture. As the philosopher Hegel taught: when considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. (Both A and B = synthesis C.)

The Bible teaches (GN 1:3, JN 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, knowledge also is gleaned from the natural sciences and common sense. While my interpretation of reality is influenced by the Bible, I utilize logical thinking, especially where the Bible seems silent, hoping that I am guided by the Spirit of Truth (JN 14:17).

LIC

 

[Genez]

Here is a short comparison:

1. Faith-Based vs. Rationalist Approach: The KJV translators approached the Bible with reverence and did not treat it as if was no different than any other secular document. The KJV translator's goal was "to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one". Meaning, they set out to achieve God's Word to be a standard. Contrarily, Modern Textual Criticism, however, emerged from German Rationalism, a movement that treats the Bible as any other ancient text, detached from claims of divine inspiration. This rationalist foundation allows for a level of skepticism not typically seen in the KJV translation process.

Brilliant!

Which is it, then?

Holy Ghost?
Or?
Holy Spirit?

The same Greek words?
God is double minded?

Please... Take a break, sir...

The KJV is a decent translation.
One that causes non-Shakespearean actors and students a problem with it's archaic English.

A form of English that at times even needs to be exegeted for us today.
It obscures the true meaning too often and in too many ways....
It leaves too much to the imagination.

Give us an accurate translation in plain English? Even better.. One that reveals sense of the Greek tenses?
Then, you might have something to praise like you are attempting to do with your King James with it's antiquated word-usage.


What you do seems like gaslighting.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The Bible is not a secret code that needs to be unlocked, but it was written in languages that need to be translated and interpreted.

Thus we readers of translations need to employ a good hermeneutic for arriving at the best belief. The method I recommend is below:

My method begins with the instruction of Paul (1THS 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker wants to know the truth, and is guided by the question: What is most true or closest to the truth? The basis for determining truth is subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from other truthseekers, preferably via dialogue when possible.

As a result of seeking ultimate truth, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide my interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements. First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ). Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16). I find this hermeneutic affirmed in the OT (PS 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Triangulate from God’s love & justness.

This principle leads me to conclude that even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice. The writer of Hebrews (12:4-11) indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline or for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.

The justice of God is a source of comfort and joy to those who have decided to accept His loving Lordship, but it is experienced as judgment or wrath by those who rebel against Him (IS 13:13, RM 1:18, RV 19:11). The fire that warms (purifies) also burns (punishes). Stating God’s requirement for salvation negatively: a person would do well (be wise) not to reject Him in order not to experience the miserable but just consequence (JN 3:17-18). Just consequences teach good behavior.

Other important elements in my hermeneutic include the following. Everyone lives by fallible faith/belief/opinion and sufficient knowledge of evidence rather than by absolute certainty or proof or coercion (2CR 5:7). Second, a logical train of thought leads an unbiased truthseeker to have a propensity to believe in an all-loving God, who is not tricky and does not hide the way to heaven (HB 11:6, ACTS 13:10). Third, humanity’s understanding of God evolved or progressed through the millenniums, so that the OT was superseded by the NT, which is the apex of divine revelation (HB 7:18, 8:13, 9:15).

The method employed in this hermeneutic is additive or eclectic as taught by Paul (in 1THS 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in MT 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. I want to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. The whole truth combines parts without sawing!

The Bible says God’s Spirit is love and truth (1JN 4:8 & 5:6), which means all love (agape, RM 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation. Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture. As the philosopher Hegel taught: when considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. (Both A and B = synthesis C.)

The Bible teaches (GN 1:3, JN 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, knowledge also is gleaned from the natural sciences and common sense. While my interpretation of reality is influenced by the Bible, I utilize logical thinking, especially where the Bible seems silent, hoping that I am guided by the Spirit of Truth (JN 14:17).

LIC

I don't believe the Bible is silent on this topic. If you ever watched any of Brandon Peterson's videos, particularly his micro-pattern video series, it shows that either the Bible is the most luckiest book mathematically, or it is indeed the Word of God in every fine detail.

Proverbs 25:2 (KJV)
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."


....

 

[posthuman]

God can use men despite themselves. The KJV translator's goal was not "to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one". Why can we say that God did move beyond what they thought? The KJV was a part of causing three of the great revivals in human history. The KJV is the. most printed book in the world and has helped form most of Protestant Christianity in English-speaking countries. Hundreds of idioms used today were popularized by the existence of the KJV, and much, much more.


....

Jesus is pretty cool, too

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Brilliant!

Which is it, then?

Holy Ghost?
Or?
Holy Spirit?

The same Greek words?
God is double minded?

Apparently you never heard of synonyms before.
But if God wanted to communicate to us today by using language that is speaking to a 17th century English audience, then He could very well do that. God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (See: 1 Corinthians 1:27).

Please... Take a break, sir...

Well, I see the KJV as the Bible or the very words of God, and so for you to tell me to take a break from His words is an attack on my faith in God and my trust in Him. If there is no perfect words of God to trust, then man becomes the authority and not God because it is up to man to decide which words should be in and out of the Bible within a sea of conflicting Modern Translations or original language manuscripts. So no. I will not take a break from God's Word. It's how I have faith. You may try to destroy my faith, but I will not bend the knee to the Modern-day scribes and the worship of their own brains.

The KJV is a decent translation.
One that causes non-Shakespearean actors and students a problem with it's archaic English.

Again, this is a dumb argument because your side looks to the Hebrew and Greek, which is far more difficult to understand than learning archaic words amongst many words that are not archaic.

Give us an accurate translation in plain English? Even better.. One that reveals sense of the Greek tenses?
Then, you might have something to praise like you are attempting to do with your King James with it's antiquated word-usage.


What you do seems like gaslighting.

Again, it does not come down to readability. Even if the KJV had no archaisms, the Modern Bible Movement would still reject it based on the fact they falsely claim the KJV is based on late manuscripts instead of doing a doctrines test. In other words, we are not concerned about any false friends (Because we can study the Bible), we are concerned about our missing friends (Those many verses or words that have been omitted, or changed to teach false doctrines). It is only your side the truly gaslights ignoring the heretics in your own movement and makes up stuff about Erasmus, etcetera.


....


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Jesus is pretty cool, too

The problem is that the Modern Bibles teach that Jesus sins. The Modern Bibles teach a subtly different version of God that is heretical or deeply troubling, which is not the case with the KJV. That is what is what you do not understand. You either have not done your homework to discover such truths, or you are unwilling to see such truths because of your bias or preference for the Modern Bible Movement that allows you to have some wiggle room with God's Word. Many Modern Bible advocates like the idea of a shape shifter text.


...

 

[Genez]

I don't believe the Bible is silent on this topic. If you ever watched any of Brandon Peterson's videos, particularly his micro-pattern video series, it shows that either the Bible is the most luckiest book mathematically, or it is indeed the Word of God in every fine detail.

Proverbs 25:2 (KJV)
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."


....

But, do you understand it?
Or, only seeking things to understand about it?

One could theoretically prove it's God's Word mathematically.
And, yet, not understand enough of it to come out of spiritual childhood.

Too much talk about what may be.
And, not enough expounding on what it actually says and reveals.
It's a diversion…

 

[Genez]

Apparently you never heard of synonyms before.
But if God wanted to communicate to us today by using language that is speaking to a 17th century English audience, then He could very well do that. God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (See: 1 Corinthians 1:27).
....

At least you admit you see the need for defending being foolish.

Fools for Christ are NOT FOOLISH thinking people!
They were the ones who gave up everything in this life that the world sees as priorities to get to know Christ!

Example:

"What a fool he is! He could have been a rich banker, instead he quit his job, and chose to be a pastor."

That kind of fool for Christ. Not a foolish thinking person.

......