Maybe for the same reason that you disagree with our beliefs, yet you continue to post?

The redundancy I refer to ihas nothing whatsoever to any specific thing you have pointed out. You have misunderstood me. The redundancy I refer to is the digging up of something that has been chewed over thousands of times and has become a non-issue to most fundamental bible-believing christians. They don't need to reinvent the wheel such as if the KJV is a preserved Word of God. It simply is, and does not need us to prove it. God has already done so.

Precisely, I have already pointed this out to you....so why do you continue to post here? You do have your own website you know. There you can post all of your prolific studies to your hearts content without anyone arguing with you.

Pontifically......interesting word. If i see a duck, am I not allowed to call it a duck? You have "check out my blog" in your signature, you have encouraged people to read your theses, and other "writings" you have done. You make sure everyone is aware that you have a "masters degree". How else am I supposed to conclude anything other than you love to purport your own intellect? I have not seen much in the way of what glorifies God, only what glorifies Tim.

Even look at the incompletion of John 3:30 in your signature, you didn't finish it with an equally important part:

"...but I must decrease."

That's an easy answer, when I entered it in the post above your last one here.

And your point is?

Two problems with your claim.

1) Grace can be subject to just about any discussion of our Lord God
2) Who says we do not deserve to have God's Word now?

yes, it does, I was just wondering if you knew the answer.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 08:33 PM by Jim.

Jim, honestly if you want me to go away and stop posting; then let me know. All I have gotten from you was disagreement and animocity (sp?). So if you prefer me to leave, then say the word. I won't bother you anymore.

Do you believe we have the Word of God in the english bible?

Answer that, yes or no, and I will give you the word.....

What you said here was a sidestep:

We either have it or we don't. If you don't believe there is an english version which coincides completely with the greek, then your answer is no, so is it yes or no?

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 08:29 PM by Jim.

By the way, my intention has never been animosity, I am just zealous for my Christ. And when someone comes along telling me that my bible may be flawed, I get defensive, or I laugh and kick them off the site. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I know you remember what my telling you the purpose for this site was, and it was not to just let anyone in here and start discussing things contrary to our beliefs.

Yes, all you have gotten from me is disagreement, yet what gives you any more of a right to claim that against me, when the same could be more appropriately used against you. You are the one coming here, you knew our stances, you knew our beliefs, so is it not more approprately your disagreeing with us?

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 08:52 PM by Jim.

Jim, just to remind you, I did not engage in this area of theology initially. I was asked my view. Then I was asked to defend my view. I came into this forum not seeking to get into the KJV debate right away. I wanted to discuss other areas of theology (like the Church discussion that we are in). If you read my blog, you will notice that I have intentionally stayed away from writing articles on translations. I don't wanna get bogged down with that.

I appreciate your zeal for Christ. But even good intentions do not make some things right. You can be sincere and be sincerely wrong at the same time (like Peter in Matt. 16:21-23). Like I said before, I totally can see how things have heated up in the past. The way things have been said by you and others, it comes off as full of animosity.

I agree, but I believe I am right of course.

I think we just present things differently. I feel that you present a strictly logical theological point of view that does not incorporate faith. Forgive me, but that is kind of how you come across. I feel I also present a sound, doctrinal stance, yet I have to force myself how Chrost approahced things, and that it is not all about translatio nand text.

You see brother, God's Word is not limited to ink and paper(I know you already said that you agree with this), it is a growing thing, active and living. It is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. If we do not believe that we have what God has given us, then how can we believe that he can reveal it through his word? He MUST have had his word preserved in the English language. If He did not, then what has everyone had for hundreds, even thousands of years?

I mean, what would be the point of using scripture for a basis for our lives, if we think that scripture could be wrong?

The very thing that makes us what we are in identification in fundamentals is God's Word. No wonder so many people see us(christians) as hypocrites, we can't even agree with each other in doctrine.

I have to simply say, that is the one thing that is going to be an open sore between you and me. If it is not preserved, then who is to say what part is not? That alone will cause rifts between scholars until kingdom come =P...yes, pun intended. WHy not just accept the bible as preserved and follow what it teaches?

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:03 PM by Jim.

Below is a post from our friend Matthew Vershuur (aka BibleProtector - see http://www.bibleprotector.com)

Reprinted with his permission. Food for thought.

The blue sections are questions posed to him by another poster.

That really stinks for those who don't speak English. Since we don't need to learn Greek or Hebrew, the rest of the world needs to learn English. I am sorry, but I do not accept a view that places stock in a translation over the original autographs. Those are what is inspired. English does not have jots (yod) to pass away (Matt. 5:18; just so you know, I like the KJV translation of "jot" better than that NASB which just gives the meaning not the translation). ONly the Hebrew does. That will not pass away. I feel like I just cocked a shotgun and pointed it between my eyes. I am about to be attacked. AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Oh, I have to share this too. The flesh in me started to leak out. I was so close to writing on here that I was converted to the KJBO camp. After some responses I was going to say April fools! But I repressed the desire/temptation.

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 09:50 AM by Greektim.

This was sent to me yesterday by a non-KJB with whom I correspond.

I swallowed it whole. Last night I was preparing to do a search to get more details when he sent me the "ha, ha, I got you" message.

I am reminded of the saying, "If you want to tell a believable lie, be sure to add enough facts in it to cover the deceit." Examples: Genesis 3 and the NIV.

GreekTim, seriously, which would be easier to do, to teach a non-English person how to read and understand the KJB, or to teach him how to read and understand Biblical Hebrew and Greek? Also, what other languages have a "sufficiently" accurate translation to give the readers a reasonably-rounded understanding of the Scriptures? I think that it is fair to rule out any paraphrases.

That was funny. That even got my hopes up for a second.

Honestly, (I can't vouch for this b/c I am an American) I have heard that learning English is one of the hardest languages to learn in all the world. That is modern English. Then we would have to teach them old English (otherwise they won't understand what a unicorn is ). There are so many rule variations in English. There is no consistency compared to Greek or Hebrew. So I might lean towards the teaching Greek & Hebrew.

I like that you put sufficiently in quotations since that is all a translation can communicate - not perfect but sufficiently (man, again w/ the cocking of a gun). As to which language, I don't know. I don't know any other modern languages to compare it to the Gr/Hb texts.

If we rule out paraphrases, does that mean any time a translation switches from literal to a paraphrase?

A Paraphrase as generally recognized, or self-identified:
Living "Bible", The Message, Good News for Modern Man, TEV, etc (abominations all!) and any foreign books produced from them.

Amen to the abominations part. I can't stand them either. What another agreement. Wow, this is getting weird .

But what about a translation that switches from literal to paraphrase? Is that ok? Should paraphrase (i.e. functional equivalence) ever be used even partially?

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:42 AM by Greektim.

So are you saying that you are qualified to teach both Hebrew and Greek to, say, a Mongolian? Hey, I know someone who lives there!

James, which would be easier to teach a Mongolian? Hebrew AND Greek, or Biblical English?

I think that God made a perfect choice (as always) how to carry His Word around the globe. But then, that's just me (and a million or so more).

Well if I am in the minority (and I am not sure that I am), then the Biblical truth throughout is that the remnant is usually right! Woo Hoo! I will ask a missionary to Venezuela if it is easier to teach them English or the Biblical languages.

I am not qualified to teach anyone but an English speaking person those languages. I said before, I don't know any other modern languages. Kinda sad. I want to learn Spanish.

Then all those Mongolians have to learn English then? That seems like more work than just making them a translation from the preserved mss. But since the KJV is the final authority as that post you quoted said, then everyone ought to learn English. Case dismissed. Wham!! (gavel slam from the judge)

This post was last modified: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:03 AM by Greektim.

Much easier to teach English to the Mongols. They want to learn it! As I said earlier, Bro Tim, contrary to the prevailing sentiment in this thread - the English is not limited, the Greek is! No scholar anywhere has the proper definition of a KOINE Greek word in its correct CONTEXT! Classical Greek cannot properly define Koine Greek words. James Strong is WRONG on his definitions (being another despiser of the KJB - he was on the NASV committee!) Now, one more time:
The Hebrew has about 460,000 word variations
The Greek has about 480,000
My English has over a MILLION! Now class, which one do you think is more descriptive? Ding, ding, ding.........

The Greek/Hebrew worshippers are Nehushtan. Could The Lord have known that the end-time language would universally be English? Yes, The Lord promised to preserve His word, but not in every language everywhere. Why would you disdain a God who would preserve His word in English, and belittle someone for wanting to teach people English? Yet, you turn right around and say it's OK to do it in Greek and Hebrew, so lets teach people Greek and Hebrew????? Am i missing something here? In the Old Testament period, if you wanted to learn the word of God, you had to learn Hebrew/Aramaic. During the formation of the New Testament church (Apostles, etc), if you wanted to learn the word of God, you needed to learn Koine Greek. Since The Lord knew the correct time for finishing inspiration/preservation(1604-1611), if you want to learn the word of God, you must learn English. That, or depend on the fallible, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (John 17:17) "scholars" opinions. Did you know that when Adoniram Judson sent his Burmese translation to the Bible Society to have it printed, that they sent it back to him and told him NOT to come from the Mas Hebrew/Greek, but to use the King James? You know what their correct reasoning was? They told him that you can't get the proper translation from the Greek since you don't have the correct definitions in the correct context. They said use the King James, because you KNOW what it means and how it is used in proper context.
Get over this fixation with Hebrew/Geek. I've been all over Israel (Mar - Aug '82) and the majority of the Israelies speak ENGLISH. Very few know or speak Hebrew. Wake up and smell the coffee!