It's probably best to drop this line of argument and just say I feel the KJV is right, and you and other scholars are wrong about that particular issue, ok?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe (here is my faith) that God has preserved His word for all peoples not just the English speaking world in the extant mss. Thus my pursuit of study in God's Word does not stop at the translation level but continues into the relm of the languages of the inspired autographs. I do not study it to disprove a translation. I do not study it to discredit the KJV (or any other translation). I study to show myself approved. I study to be ready to give an answer. I study to proclaim truth as accurately as possible. I study to glorify God.

I find that very interesting as you have given no conclusive answer as what exactly you feel is "God's Word". It has only been mss's this, and Greek that, and all languages, etc. As if the Word of God will somehow by osmosis, come right out of the air, only to people who are scholarly theologians.

I also believe that God preserved His Word for all people on earth, in the English language.

And yes, we have been trying to tell you since day one that we would have to agree to disagree.

Greektim, I have one question for you. Do you not believe that God has preserved His Holy Word for us in the English language? If not then how are we to focus our faith? And if you believe He has then which "version" is it?

Gosh, I guess that is more than one question. I apologize.

In Christ,
George

George, this question and my view has already been asked and answered in post #36 & #38. I will say what I said back there:

I like what was said in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy: "Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach."
So we do have the Word of God. But I do not believe preservation has carried over to a translation. (I am not confessional/creedal either, I just use this as an example b/c these guys can say it better than I can)

To your next question, George, I am not sure what you mean by "focus our faith." Could you elaborate?

To your 3rd question, it is my opinion that this is the primary misconception of the KJVo position. Why does God have to be confined to a translation? Why does God have to be confined to only one translation? I don't advocate any English translation as God's preserved Word b/c no English translation could ever communicate ALL of the content of the originally inspired Word. Again this limitation was laid down by the providence of God; so then it is not that God is limited, it is that He has sovereignly saw fit to make it limited.

To all those that have been discussing this with me, I know I am repeating myself. I am only mentioning this again to answer my brother, George.

This post was last modified: Mon Apr 07, 2008 03:47 PM by Greektim.

Again, in your opinion.

My opinion, along with many others, is that God in His Sovereignty and through His Providence has preserved His Word completely and without error in the Scriptures commonly known as the King James Version. I believe that the English language was providentially prepared to be the receptor language that He would use to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth in the last days, and that it is completely sufficient to express God's Words with the exact degree of meaning as He intends and has determined to be necessary to enable His servants to fully accomplish His perfect will.

Just to clarify, I did qualify my statement that you quoted at the beginning of the paragraph with "it is my opinion." I was just repeating my view to George so he could catch up.

Okay, I'm in a picky mood today, Brother.

Maybe in Greek the structure of your sentence would carry the initial phrase all the way to the last sentence of the paragraph, but not in English. The word "that" following the phrase "it is my opinion" connects that phrase only to the words in that sentence following the word "that".

I will now stop chewing on your leg.

No, its not a Greek rule but a hermeneutical one - Context!

Actually, the whole paragraph was answering his question. That is the point of putting that content in a paragraph. Otherwise it would have been seperated in its own paragraph or just a 1 sentence answer. So actually it was an English rule as well. Info in a paragraph is related to each other. Most paragraphs have an introductory sentence. Thus the syntactical relationship in the paragraph connects all of the content together. (That was me shaking my leg trying to get you to stop chewing on it )

This post was last modified: Mon Apr 07, 2008 06:13 PM by Greektim.

I will appeal to our resident English expert, MS. I've only been teaching for 31 years. ehh!

OH, that English stuff was just for fun, but the context was the point. It was all apart of the same context. It was a contextual rule. Thus a hermeneutical theoritician is needed as well.

I'll leave it up to the audience for their interpretation. As far as finding a "hermeneutical theoritician(sic)", the closest I can come is a dog with "neuticles". Will that do?

It might if all you need is the preserved KJV.

JUST KIDDING!!!

Careful, bro. Let's joke about our words, not God's Word.

Well I figured if you can do it w/ the UBS than I could do it w/ the KJV. Apologies if any are offended.

This post was last modified: Mon Apr 07, 2008 07:15 PM by Greektim.