Post 4
Post 4
You said,
1It's not arrogancy that is making me make such a claim. It's called obedience. Inspired means literally God breathed. This does not mean in any sense. He had a purpose in mind. That purpose was His Word. And not just any bible either. If you compare the versions written today you'll see what I mean. We will compare verses later.
How do you know “not just any Bible?”
Where in scripture is the King James Version mentioned as the Only Inspired Translation? Is there only 1 translation viable per language?
You said,
2Why alter the meaning? That means to change the meaning. Changing the meaning is a no-no in God's book. That's exactly what these new versions do, is change the meaning.`Here are just a few words the new versions "alter." This comes from the book New Age Bible Versions: Lucifer is called Morning Star, Jehovah is Lord (In the Old Testament KJV Jehovah is called Lord, but with all caps, there is a difference between all cap and just the L being capitalized.) Holy One of Israel is called One, Holy Ghost is called Spirit, (just plain Spirit, nothing else), Lord Jesus Christ is called Lord (You have Jesus and God being called Lord and they are, but the KJV makes a difference between the two, in other words, it's more to the point.) Godhead is Divine Being.
Not in any version I read are these changes made, except for two. Lucifer
means Morning Star, it is a Hebrew word. The only difference is translating the name. Next, I refuse to use the tetragrammaton, especially spelled wrong (there is no J in Hebrew, nor is there a V, they are Y and W respectively). Otherwise, none of those changes occur that I know of, at least not wholesale as you seem to be claiming. Sure, there are a few small changes in terms of here it is JC, there it is LJC, and there it is just J. However, it is only a minor difference in wording, but no difference in meaning. (is Jesus somehow different from the Lord Jesus Christ in terms of who it refers to?)
3You told me I was wrong in my translation meaning. You chose a single phrase. You said it had different meanings. True, words do have more than one meaning. Explain this if you will. Again I'm using New Age Bible Versions book. I'm using one example. When the KJV used the phrase: I abhor myself, the other versions say My conscience is clear. These other versions also omit a lot of things, but I'll leave that for my closing arguement.
That is just wrong, assuming you are referring to Job 42:6. Some translations say “I retract myself” since the Hebrew wording can mean either, but most go with “I despise myself.”
This is false. The Catholic Church started around 325 A.D. God has always had a remnant.
LOL. Not even touching this, it is so fallacious.
4When I was talking about the people tranlating the bible being spiritualists, you said it was a lie. Prove it. It's not. It's documented. The footnote says: Arthur Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Wescott, Vol.II (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited 1903 p. 252.
Again, that only works for the RSV, maybe. Wescott and Hort were only involved in the RSV, but they were not in fact translators, they collated Greek manuscripts. Therefore, your contention is at the least misguided. For other versions of the Bible, it is flat out wrong.
5And another thing, you haven't shown me any scripture.
Pot, meet kettle.
Anyway, let me put forth a few more arguments:
Notice that I put numbers next to each of the quotations. I’ll make arguments sustaining my points according to the numbering, though not necessarily in that order.
I would like to point out that in number 3 you completely dodged my question and my point. Specifically,
how can there only be a single inspired translation when Greek words can possibly mean so many things? What I mean is, how could ANY English translation fully contain the pregnant meaning of the sparse Greek words
agape theou? Unless you plan on foot-noting the entire translation, some meaning content will be lost. That is why it is helpful to have multiple versions and to refer back to the original languages.
Next, according to number 4 it seems that the character of the people doing the translating work is important. Why? God can use anybody. He used a mass murder, one who tried to destroy the church to become its leading proponent throughout a large portion of the world. God used a man who disobeyed Him directly about how to handle a situation, yet Moses is still considered one of the great leaders of the Bible. David was an adulterer and a murderer. For that matter, Balaam was an unrepentant pagan, but God used him. Argument from character or even religious background means nothing, for God can use anybody to do anything.
Again, how can someone trust the KJV Bible when they know that it is based on Erasmus’ work, not on the actual original manuscripts? Erasmus, as I have previously laid out, made up his own translation of the Greek text from the Latin for Revelation 22:16-21. He
made up the word of God, adding to the book of Revelation words that do not appear in any manuscript of Greek ever found! Why are you basing your faith on that?
In response to 5, how about this:
Assuming you believe, as most KJVOs do, that God only uses one translation per language, let me ask you this about some verses. In Mark 1:2-3 we see the following:
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Verse 2 is based on Mark’s own translation of the Hebrew text, whereas verse 3 is based on the LXX version of the Greek. According to your theory, only one of them is inspired, since they are
two different translations, one being Mark’s the other being from the LXX..
Which one is correct?
