tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post7915357092129711527..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: What Do the Multiple Version Men Leave Us With?Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-28637529730029737442019-12-08T17:59:56.637-08:002019-12-08T17:59:56.637-08:00 God has not stopped being over us. Our God is a... God has not stopped being over us. Our God is active. Our sovereign God oversees everything. He uses imperfections and chaos in perfect order. <br /> So do the other translations of the Bible other than the king James have a viable argument that God can save through them and use them for his purpose, as imperfect translations all of them be.<br />Can they be used of God also? It seems so <br /><br />God has used imperfect men to deal with translation, this doesn’t mean that the translation is bad as God is still over Things like translations of the Bible. <br /><br />God is still God over all, this includes all. Everything is under his sovereign hand and he has no problem getting across to us what he wants to get across to us, when and how he wants to get it across to us. God has brought his revelation into translations. <br /><br /> So the king James Bible is a good place to get God’s word from, it is in there! <br /><br />Also it is promised that the Holy Spirit will be with all believers to guide them in all truth. This is an ongoing work of God. <br />That way the common believer can read his Bible with knowing that the Holy Spirit will guide him in all truth as God has said in his word<br /><br /><br /><br />So with the Holy Spirit being over all truth the KJV bible should be a sufficient place to find truth as God is still with us and ever will be over everything.<br /><br />Oh and about the word “Easter” That bothered me too until I found that it is in italics in the king James version and everything in italics does not belong in the translation but was a side note from one of the translators. This is indicated in the preface of the King James Bible. <br /><br />God has helped us with translations in english for the common man to actually read the word of God for ourselves<br /> I happen to read the king James Bible and got saved go figure I didn’t have a college degree .<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />soundmimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12488553572955590265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-40024445878662268312014-01-17T05:49:40.001-08:002014-01-17T05:49:40.001-08:00Anonymous said:
"The King James Translators ...Anonymous said:<br /><br />"The King James Translators translated (emphasis on "translated" not inspired) the KJV according to context"<br /><br />[gcalvas] Where did you get the idea that a translation cannot be inspired? Can you base that conclusion from the bible or do you take it solely based on history? For example, can you PROVE the original manuscript to the Romans could not have been written in Latin? Can you PROVE that the original manuscript of the book to the Hebrews was not written in Hebrew?<br /><br />We know Moses wrote the Pentateuch ("And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exodus 24:4))" "And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds" (Acts 7:22). Therefore, how can you PROVE biblically that it was not written in Egyptian?<br /><br />It is not important what language scripture is written in, but rather is it scripture. For example, Faithful translators, followed by faithful preachers, evangelists, teachers, and pastors ministered the words of God to the world, and began great revival of men coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ through great sacrifice, even unto death. That Holy King James Bible was the words that they used to bring many to Christ, and therefore are INSPIRED SCRIPTURE, just as other language bibles that men have received in the same way, are therefore the very words of God.<br /><br />You can read more about it here, from Brent Riggs, a missionary to Poland, if interested:<br /><br />http://www.preachinginpoland.com/defense.htm <br />The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-52421683121666224252014-01-14T15:54:18.966-08:002014-01-14T15:54:18.966-08:00George,
The King James Translators translated (e...George, <br /><br />The King James Translators translated (emphasis on "translated" not inspired) the KJV according to context. A greek word doesn't have just one meaning, very much like the English word "coversation". It could mean two or more people talking about something or it could mean your life such as in 1Peter 1:15.<br /><br /> The King James Translators are not the "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" That would go to the Hebrew speaking prophets who were used by God to write scripture in Hebrew, which is the same language God used to promise to preserve His Word. <br /><br /> The same goes for the Greek. God used the Greek language of the time to have the NT written. <br /><br /> What makes the english KJV or the Spanish or the French or any other language the Bible has been written in to differ? It would differ in what "Hebrew and Greek" manuscript it was based on. God's churches uses the KJV because of its accurate "translation" based off the correct Hebrew and Greek. I'm not sure what exactly you believe about the KJV. I know some people who hold that the KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek. It is not superior. That is a false idea and I challenge you to read some good books about this subject. A really good one is "Thou Shalt Keep Them" by Pastor Brandenburg. Let scripture define our beliefs, not the other way around. <br /><br />Paul BrownfieldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-68063827053188494912014-01-13T12:15:47.536-08:002014-01-13T12:15:47.536-08:00Kent,
Let us assume that your understanding of in...Kent,<br /><br />Let us assume that your understanding of inspiration is correct and that the TR text (Stephanos 1550?) is the inspired Greek text.<br /><br />On example will suffice:<br /><br />In Acts 12:4, it says "πασχα" in the Stephanos 1550 which is translated "Easter" here, yet every other instance (28 others) it is translated "passover".<br /><br />Can you explain that?The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-75434530633986224582014-01-09T20:09:47.637-08:002014-01-09T20:09:47.637-08:00I'm not going to keep talking about it Within ...I'm not going to keep talking about it Within His Word, but a biblical position can be defended with scripture. I couldn't defend yours if I took it, and I would be under conviction for taking it. The position that honors God, the one of faith, is the one that you get from the Bible. You are left with conceptual inspiration and preservation. It's neo-orthodox.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1522308926628134822014-01-09T19:59:39.895-08:002014-01-09T19:59:39.895-08:00The actual words do matter, and we have the actual...The actual words do matter, and we have the actual words in Hebrew, Greek, English, and tons of other languages. <br /><br />I'm not going to fall into the trap of a spelling difference being somehow a "false" Word of God.<br /><br />The actual words matter, but the changing spelling of a language, isn't going to delete His promise of preservation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-70486160099444690542014-01-09T19:16:03.380-08:002014-01-09T19:16:03.380-08:00OK, again, within His Word,
Let me get this right...OK, again, within His Word,<br /><br />Let me get this right. The actual words don't matter, just the ideas or concepts? When God inspired His Words, moved on human authors by the Holy Spirit, the actual Words didn't and don't matter? Do you believe in verbal plenary inspiration? <br /><br />Do you recognize that an inspired message idea, conceptual inspiration, is new-orthodox?<br /><br />This is what happens when we're loosey-goosey with what the Bible actually says.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-54175558657640490142014-01-09T17:49:53.324-08:002014-01-09T17:49:53.324-08:00The Word of the Lord is eternal. In every languag...The Word of the Lord is eternal. In every language that it is translated into, it is the Word of the Lord. <br /><br />Does God speak Hebrew and Greek, in eternity before He created anything? It seems like that's where you're going. I can't verify His using those two languages in that way before He created all things. <br /><br />His perfect message is the point, which message was first given to us in Hebrew and Greek and later translated into the languages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-56095904086961504482014-01-09T17:28:02.589-08:002014-01-09T17:28:02.589-08:00Within His Word,
So you are saying that a jot and...Within His Word,<br /><br />So you are saying that a jot and tittle will pass from the law before it was fulfilled?<br /><br />And you are saying that when Paul said "is" that English was a language, or even that the English people existed?<br /><br />Help me out here.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-329031291186562112014-01-09T16:29:35.575-08:002014-01-09T16:29:35.575-08:00Kent wrote: "The "is" in 2 Tim 3:1...Kent wrote: "The "is" in 2 Tim 3:16 talks about the Words written. Those were Hebrew and Greek."<br /><br />I don't believe that is the point of that Scripture. The "is", is referring to the message that was originally given in Hebrew and Greek and is now in English and other languages. The message is the issue.<br /><br />Kent wrote: "Matthew 5:17-18 is not referring to the preservation of English, but Hebrew letters."<br /><br />But really in the context of the passage, it is a figure of speech being used by Jesus to make a point. He brought up the jots and tittles to a Pharisaical Jewish audience that thought it was righteous by works of the law. Jesus wasn't trying to make the point you are, I don't believe. I believe Jesus was using a figure of speech to drive home to them, that they are not righteous by the law. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-53938397269324992632014-01-09T13:55:39.070-08:002014-01-09T13:55:39.070-08:00I will give it one more shot...
No, the IS in ENG...I will give it one more shot...<br /><br />No, the IS in ENGLISH scripture means IS in English and not Greek! It does not say...<br />1> All scripture is given by inspiration "in Greek and Hebrew" and is profitable...<br /><br />OR<br /><br />2> All scripture is given by inspiration "in the original languages" and is profitable...<br /><br />That, Kent, is what you imply so that you can have "your history" match your understanding of a PAST preservation.<br /><br />I have the Holy Ghost and it is the God of the "I AM", the present, for the Pharisees had the same issue you are having, they keep thinking about the dead past (Mark 12:13-27)! I have the Holy King James Bible, inspired living words of the present, not some Greek and Hebrew texts that are from the past.<br /><br />This position is clearly defensible from the present English scriptures, since they are alive, sealed by the Holy Ghost through the common faith of born-again, sons of God that "received the word of God which ye heard of us [those who preached truth], ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe". <br /><br />Mark 12:[27] He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.<br /><br />Consider that carefully.The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-68940319932341601752014-01-09T12:27:50.930-08:002014-01-09T12:27:50.930-08:00Alright,
I'll give it one more shot. The &quo...Alright,<br /><br />I'll give it one more shot. The "is" in 2 Tim 3:16 talks about the Words written. Those were Hebrew and Greek. Within His Word, did you know that George doesn't believe the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, or else doesn't know? You are joining him in that position? If 2 Tim 3:15-16 implies preservation, it implies the Words that God gave, which were Hebrew and Greek.<br /><br />And then Matthew 5:17-18, jots and tittles, are Hebrew vowels and consonants. The "jot" is the smallest vowel, the yodh. This is not a historic argument. I believe a historic argument is important, but it starts with scripture. Matthew 5:17-18 is not referring to the preservation of English, but Hebrew letters. You are denying that position to take an English position, hence, it is scripturally indefensible. Letters and words are preserved. If you don't use the 1611, and the very first 1611 edition, then you are not following a view of preservation of letters and words. And even with that, you can't be right, because Christ promised the preservation of jots and tittles, not English words and letters.<br /><br />By the way, no one argues that the English hasn't been preserved. It's pretty easy to get your hands on copies of all the old English Bibles, even the originals. But that is not a biblical argument for perfection. Your argument is a pragmatic one, not a scriptural one.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-47546635728466156642014-01-09T12:04:58.770-08:002014-01-09T12:04:58.770-08:00George wrote: "I do not need history to tell...George wrote: "I do not need history to tell me that, since it was the very words of God"<br /><br />That's where I'm at. I don't make any appeal to so-called "history" in anything, because there's always someone that has a different "history", and so what's the point? If you talk to the vatican, their "history" is all lies, but, their people stand on it. <br /><br />Sort of like my Russian friend that grew up right around the fall of the Soviet Union. In school, they had "history" textbooks used in classes under the Soviet regime, that in school a year later after the Soviet Union fell, those "history" books were all burned and replaced with the new version of history that was taught from that point on. Nothing matched up from the old books to the new books.<br /><br />So much for "history".<br /><br />The only Book I can trust, is the Bible. :)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-82152992338484371962014-01-09T06:10:57.747-08:002014-01-09T06:10:57.747-08:00Within His Word:
You are absolutely correct, and ...Within His Word:<br /><br />You are absolutely correct, and just as I, have the perfect, inerrant, infallible, Holy King James Bible without error.<br /><br />I do not need history to tell me that, since it was the very words of God, "ALL scripture IS given by inspiration..." that convinced me IN ENGLISH, since that is what was preached and believed by faith that salvation came according to "repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ". Therefore, if I am reading scripture, it IS inspired, and the Holy King James Bible IS inspired including every "jot and tittle".<br /><br /><br />Kent, on the other hand, hangs his hat on Matthew 5:18 which we have jot and tittles in English, and though spelling did change, that verse is still fulfilled, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled". How do you know that? Because those that believed the scriptures in 1611 believe them today, just as they are written, every jot and tittle. The Lord God has no problem with languages as well as "jot or tittles" of those languages. He can "change their appearance" (Thou shalt haue no other Gods before me. VS Thou shalt have no other Gods before me) and at the end, the words with its jot and tittles written, in the inspired English text, "shall in no wise pass from the law". The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-57926760886051940142014-01-07T13:16:34.381-08:002014-01-07T13:16:34.381-08:00You say you have a Bible that is as perfect as the...You say you have a Bible that is as perfect as the original parchments of Old and New Testaments. I'm satisfied with that. That is all I wanted to hear. I tire of Christians that make statements like, "The Bible is only perfect in the originals, but what we have is very good". That's garbage, in my opinion.<br /><br />I am very thick at times, and so I didn't ever catch that you were claiming that a perfect Bible was in existence. So I was not trying to misrepresent you. I have learned through personal experience, and through teaching others, that saying things plainly is great gain, and I will sometimes miss a person's point if they don't just say it plainly enough.<br /><br />If your issue is spelling differences from 1611 to 1769, that might be a dealbreaker concerning perfection for you, but it isn't for me. I consider it a fulfillment of God's promise even if the spelling is different. Just like from language to language, the Name of Jesus is spelled different ways. That's not an error. That's a language nuance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83611660408024789382014-01-07T12:16:41.518-08:002014-01-07T12:16:41.518-08:00Within His Word,
Let's get this completely st...Within His Word,<br /><br />Let's get this completely straight. We do have the originals, not the parchment, but the Words -- which you don't believe in. And we possess those. That is preservation. The KJV you use is different than 1611. The original language text I use is no different than the originals. They are not the same physical materials, but the Words and letters are the same. I wrote this before. That is perfection. You chose above simply to misrepresent that, and I would appreciate an admission of that.<br /><br />When you say perfect, you don't mean "the same Words that God gave." You don't. So it's correct we have a different understanding of perfection, which is why I asked.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-51262201590327530942014-01-07T11:51:25.184-08:002014-01-07T11:51:25.184-08:00I don't have any idea who Dan Wallace is. And...I don't have any idea who Dan Wallace is. And just because you call a position "indefensible", doesn't mean anything. That is just your belief.<br /><br />I started this by telling you that I don't need to prove anything to anyone. The Word of God brings faith (Romans 10:17), not these roundabout debates. No unbeliever will read all of this and be convinced of anything.<br /><br />And you answered my question, which is what I was seeking in the first place. You don't have a perfect Bible. You have said it, since you, personally in what is just your opinion, can't equate any translation with the originals (and since the originals are gone), then you don't have a 100% perfect Bible at all.<br /><br />But I do :)<br /><br />And since you don't have a perfect Bible, then there's no point in debating anything about it. It might be wrong, after all, since it is not perfect. <br /><br />But as I said, I have a perfect Bible, so I don't have this problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-73245543625209188232014-01-07T11:26:30.693-08:002014-01-07T11:26:30.693-08:00Within His Word,
I don't understand you John ...Within His Word,<br /><br />I don't understand you John 18 argument. Caiaphas and Annas did a secret trial of Jesus, while everything that He taught his disciples was 100% public. He had not secret agenda or secret message. He taught it openly because He wasn't ashamed of it, like they were of what they were doing with Jesus.<br /><br />The reason Jesus said jots and tittles in Mt 5 is because He was referring to the law, which was Hebrew. There was no Greek NT. He didn't say that God would preserve a translation of the OT. He said God would preserve the OT, down to the very letter. Do you believe that? It doesn't sound like it. You redefine perfection like Dan Wallace redefines perfection. It isn't a defensible position and I would encourage everyone to reject it. It isn't scriptural. And this can't be personal, because I don't know who you are. I don't know where this English preservation view comes from, but I haven't heard anyone give me a biblical basis for it. I believe in translations. Jesus translated the Hebrew into Greek. But that doesn't mean that I equate a translation with what God gave us.<br /><br />As you said, you aren't going to agree, which is too bad, because your position isn't tenable, defensible. It isn't a faith position. It's a faithless position, because it rejects the preservation of the Words God gave.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-25398504847027317622014-01-07T10:22:57.726-08:002014-01-07T10:22:57.726-08:00Your definition of perfection is different than my...Your definition of perfection is different than my definition. <br /><br />The Lord has preserved His Word, it is a promise. Because He added different languages to the world back in babel days, then His Word needs to be translated into the languages. He knows this. If we needed to get His Word only in Hebrew/Greek to have it perfect, well, He would have told us that. But He didn't tell us that. <br /><br />Sort of like how islam requires "true" reading of the Quran to only be in Arabic, and if you don't read it in Arabic, then it's not actually "perfect", according to islamic doctrine. No offense, but you seem to be falling into that odd position.<br /><br />Perfection to me is, that the Lord preserved His Word through the nuances of the different languages (most of which don't have "jots and tittles" in the Hebrew sense, which even Greek doesn't have in that sense). Even individual languages change over time and from country to country that even use the same language. Australian English is a bit different than American English.<br /><br />But perfection to you seems to be coming to the conclusion, bottom line, that the KJV can't offer us a perfect Bible in the way that I'm defining perfect.<br /><br />Please pardon me for saying this, and I don't mean it as a personal attack, but you have kind of an obsessive-compulsive definition of perfection. I understand because I used to think that way. <br /><br />John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.<br /><br />When I first became a believer, that verse almost killed my faith. I thought, but Jesus did in secret say tons of stuff, that they never could have heard.<br /><br />So Jesus lied. <br /><br />But of course the Holy Spirit pointed out to me, what Jesus meant, was that pertaining to the conversation they were having about His being the Christ, in secret He said nothing, but openly said it in the earshot of all.<br /><br />My point is, I'm not sure what conclusion you're trying to draw me to. Do you want to convince me that the KJV is "perfect" but not perfect, depending on how we define the word?<br /><br />You'll never convince me of that. The KJV is the perfect Word of God every bit as much as the Hebrew/Greek original parchment. I'm not saying the KJV was handed down separate. I'm saying it is a perfect translation, thus, it is the perfect Word of God.<br /><br />The changes in spelling of words has no effect on its perfection. <br /><br />For me and my belief in God's promise on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90664665526253282212014-01-07T09:49:36.606-08:002014-01-07T09:49:36.606-08:00Within His Word,
But you don't believe in per...Within His Word,<br /><br />But you don't believe in perfection like the Bible, the KJV, describes it. In a perfect Bible, the letters don't change. Is it possible you are just stubbornly resisting that? I don't get your position. It doesn't have a theological or historical basis.<br /><br />How could you believe that what the KJV teaches is written by a man and yet you believe the KJV is the Bible? I really don't get what you are talking about.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-16664650392797501532014-01-07T08:38:09.660-08:002014-01-07T08:38:09.660-08:00Again, what the KJV teaches about preservation, is...Again, what the KJV teaches about preservation, is written by a man. I don't care what the man said, even in the KJV notes. I only care what the Lord said. And I don't care about the claim of which came from 1611 and which came from 1769. If it is undeniable proof that each is exactly as the date claims state, then that still doesn't give me any problem at all. God's promise cannot be broken.<br /><br />A change in spelling and meaning of words, doesn't change perfect preservation. If the ye old English society wants to spell a word differently over time, I'm fine with that. It's still the same word. Different spelling doesn't change perfect preservation. Spelling it "honor" or "honour" is still honor and it is still a perfect preservation. This isn't a problem for me or for God's unbreakable promises.<br /><br />The word "gay" appears in James, that the rich man comes in the church with "gay" clothing. I have the God-given common sense, as you of course do too, to know that he's not talking about a flamboyant guy from the Castro district. The word "gay" means something different to our ear, than it meant to theirs. But I know what it meant to their ear, so I know what God said. Perfect preservation stands. The dictionary still defines "gay" as enriched and jolly well-off, which is what James meant. James there didn't mean "homosexual" as one of the definition options.<br /><br />So all of this is not a problem for me. Even the 1611 vs. 1769 thing just sounds like a road to nowhere that wants to try and convince me that I don't have a perfect Bible. But I do have a perfect Bible. It's in my living room. That perfect Bible won't ever mesh with the criticism of the world. It's not designed to. The world is terrified of a perfect Bible, which is why they want to try to convince you that you don't have one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21942459993929984282014-01-07T08:28:33.935-08:002014-01-07T08:28:33.935-08:00Within His Word,
I'm not stating a position o...Within His Word,<br /><br />I'm not stating a position of "scholarship." This is the position proven by the KJV. Read the KJV and see what it teaches about preservation. You are denying it. I don't know who you are, so this can't be personal (I have no clue).<br /><br />We can look at the 1611 -- it's in print, as is the 1769. They are different. The 1611 has been reprinted. You don't have to do scholarship. For instance, "spirit" isn't capitalize in 1611, "speak" is "speake" and "charity" is "charitie."<br /><br />http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/originalscans.php?book=1+Corinthians&chapter=12&verse=<br /><br />You can look at it yourself online. That isn't scholarship.<br /><br />Does perfect preservation include letters? Please answer.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-33209351826092976612014-01-07T08:17:49.040-08:002014-01-07T08:17:49.040-08:00Kent, here is your problem: Where are you getting...Kent, here is your problem: Where are you getting your proof for this "1611 vs. 1769" thing? Were you alive during these dates to verify the things that are asserted about them? No. So then, did you get that information/conflict from a book/historian somewhere? Yes, you did. If you got it from a book/historian, then that book/historian is the possessor of your faith, rather than the Word of God where is the promise of perfect preservation.<br /><br />And that is the issue. I can't alleviate your fears of the supposed so-called "contradictions" in my position. To me, there is no contradiction. The Lord wrote the Bible in Hebrew/Greek, then gave perfect translation to my KJV here in front of me. <br /><br />I don't have to answer the cries of those that say, "How dare you? Prove what you are saying, why you believe that!"<br /><br />I don't owe them anything. I stand alone, me and Jesus, and He has made it clear to me that He promised a perfect Book, and I have it. I don't have to answer the claims of supposed so-called "history".<br /><br />If that makes me "unscholarly", "ignorant", or "boring", so be it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-27467255751327159562014-01-07T07:55:12.868-08:002014-01-07T07:55:12.868-08:00Within His Word,
Your answer seems to contradict ...Within His Word,<br /><br />Your answer seems to contradict itself. You say that the originals were not English, but God didn't preserve them in the language they were written. How do you know that? How do you know that God didn't preserve the originals in the language they were written? Why do you believe that way? That doesn't fit a scriptural presupposition or the historic position on the doctrine of preservation.<br /><br />To answer your question. It really depends on what you mean by perfect. When I say "perfect preservation" I mean the exact words and letters. I know that we can't believe that is the definition of "perfect" with the KJV because the words changed between 1611 and 1769. The most dedicated KJV person, and I am KJV, knows that spellings and words changed between 1611 and 1769, but that doesn't bother him. I can't view that as "perfect" like I do inspiration, which goes to the jot and the tittle. Do you understand? That's why your view doesn't work either. If the KJV was perfect in 1611, in the sense of inspired originals, then it couldn't be changed. Do you use the 1769 edition of the KJV that doesn't have "s" that look like "f"? So I think we have to explain what we mean by perfect.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-23218761508423859752014-01-07T06:55:15.448-08:002014-01-07T06:55:15.448-08:00The original manuscripts were not English of cours...The original manuscripts were not English of course. They were Hebrew, Greek, and a little Aramaic. And yes, the Lord preserved what He gave, through the translation process. And I know that the translation process into the KJV was/is perfect. Perfectly translated, without even one error.<br /><br />So, now might you answer my question? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com