The decline of American Christianity

logos1560 said:
I have carefully considered the claims made by KJV-only authors, and I have not found that they prove this claim or allegation to be true. They do not make a sound, compelling case for what they allege.

There are many other more likely causes such as secular public education, TV, computers, etc.
Click to expand...
I suspect all of the potential causes you mention are contributing factors ... I never implied that the proliferation of critical text translations was the primary cause, exacerbated by new "versions" ie; the "Message", the New Living Translation, and others of the worst ilk, but I do believe it to be a contributing factor. It encouraged "new and improved" translations put together by men far less scholarly than the team behind the KJV. The inerrancy/infallibility of God's Word is a necessary tenet of the the faith, yet how can we possibly claim it with two textual bases that vary so much? Both cannot possibly be perfectly preserved. It must be one or the other.

And yes, I know that you don't subscribe to the providential preservation of a pure text. But without it, inerrancy and infallibility are impossible.
 
T-bird1971 said:
I suspect all of the potential causes you mention are contributing factors ... I never implied that the proliferation of critical text translations was the primary cause, exacerbated by new "versions" ie; the "Message", the New Living Translation, and others of the worst ilk, but I do believe it to be a contributing factor. It encouraged "new and improved" translations put together by men far less scholarly than the team behind the KJV. The inerrancy/infallibility of God's Word is a necessary tenet of the the faith, yet how can we possibly claim it with two textual bases that vary so much? Both cannot possibly be perfectly preserved. It must be one or the other.

And yes, I know that you don't subscribe to the providential preservation of a pure text. But without it, inerrancy and infallibility are impossible.
Click to expand...
So now you propose a theory without any scriptural support. You have to add to scripture to form your doctrine
 
Truther said:
Like I said, God used the king James translators to get an English Bible into our hands that represent his word solidly. No other version can compare to the king James version.
Click to expand...
Truther said:
Like I said, God used the NASB translators to get an English Bible into our hands that represent his word solidly. No other version can compare to the NASB. This is easy.
Click to expand...
 
Truther said:
The king James translators referred to everything they could get their hands on to make sure that when they elected the words in the verses, they were correct. Why the arduous process they had. They did an excellent job.
Click to expand...
Like commentaries?
 
Truther said:
It’s a fact. There’s some great documentaries about it if you’d like to learn. I watched one documentary that proved Wescott and Hort “loathed the “ despicable king James version in their words. Letters to their children. Lots of other docs implicating them too
Click to expand...
I thought you said you didn't use anything but the kjv to determine the kjv is the perfect, infallible copied Word of God.
 
Truther said:
The Tyndale translation was good but not great.

He worked without help from other master translators of the ancient Greek.

My hat's off to him for all he did but it was a stepping stone unto a perfect KJV translation.
Click to expand...

The Tyndale translation was good but not great.

He worked without help from other master translators of the ancient Greek.

My hat's off to him for all he did but it was a stepping stone unto a perfect NASB.
 
glenlogie said:
Absolutely non of those verses proclaim the KJV to be the perfect translation. You have to interpret them thru KJVO colored glasses.
Click to expand...
Of course not ... but they do speak to the preservation of God's Word, a lack of willingness to hear/understand/obey what He says, the condemnation for those who alter His Word, and the falling away mentioned in previous posts. You asked, you received, you ignored the context.
 
T-bird1971 said:
I suspect all of the potential causes you mention are contributing factors ... I never implied that the proliferation of critical text translations was the primary cause, exacerbated by new "versions" ie; the "Message", the New Living Translation, and others of the worst ilk, but I do believe it to be a contributing factor. It encouraged "new and improved" translations put together by men far less scholarly than the team behind the KJV. The inerrancy/infallibility of God's Word is a necessary tenet of the the faith, yet how can we possibly claim it with two textual bases that vary so much? Both cannot possibly be perfectly preserved. It must be one or the other.

And yes, I know that you don't subscribe to the providential preservation of a pure text. But without it, inerrancy and infallibility are impossible.
Click to expand...

The Message is not a Bible. It never claimed to be a Bible, but a paraphrase. I have one and I would NEVER use it as inspired scripture. Clean up your research habits.

The NLT was yet another translation whose aim it was to "clean up" TLB (The Living Bible) which is another paraphrase. Again, clean up your research habits and don't say things that are not true. I don't think you do this intentionally, but you don't seem to care if what you say is true or not. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Living_Translation

Every time we catch you with this, your credibility suffers.

Try again.
 
Beloved Daughter said:
The Message is not a Bible. It never claimed to be a Bible, but a paraphrase. I have one and I would NEVER use it as inspired scripture. Clean up your research habits.

The NLT was yet another translation whose aim it was to "clean up" TLB (The Living Bible) which is another paraphrase. Again, clean up your research habits and don't say things that are not true. I don't think you do this intentionally, but you don't seem to care if what you say is true or not. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Living_Translation

Every time we catch you with this, your credibility suffers.

Try again.
Click to expand...
Well actually, one of the marketing labels/covers for the "Message" literally says "The Bible in Contemporary Language" so there's that .... and the distinction between what a paraphrase is and what claims to be a "Bible" is I believe, intentionally blurred especially for the less educated. Go to the "Bible" section of your local bookstore and tell me if they're accurately labelled as paraphrases/commentaries or just lumped together. Don't bother, you and I both know the answer. You and I may know the difference between an actual translation and a paraphrase, but the average pew-sitter couldn't tell you the difference nor could they differentiate between a "dynamic equivalence" and a "formal equivalence".

Your concern for my credibility is admirable as well. The point of the OP was to ascertain opinions re: critical translation usage vs. the decay of Christianity in America. I suspected the Critical Text crowd would see no correlation (or per Logos "cause and effect") at all, and you've all proved my suspicions to be true.
 
T-bird1971 said:
The point of the OP was to ascertain opinions re: critical translation usage vs. the decay of Christianity in America. I suspected the Critical Text crowd would see no correlation (or per Logos "cause and effect") at all, and you've all proved my suspicions to be true.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that people disagreeing with you proved your suspicions true. Does that mean if people agreed with you it would have proven your suspicions false?? If not, then you are saying that no matter what the responses were, it would have confirmed your prejudice.
 
T-bird1971 said:
Well actually, one of the marketing labels/covers for the "Message" literally says "The Bible in Contemporary Language" so there's that .... and the distinction between what a paraphrase is and what claims to be a "Bible" is I believe, intentionally blurred especially for the less educated. Go to the "Bible" section of your local bookstore and tell me if they're accurately labelled as paraphrases/commentaries or just lumped together. Don't bother, you and I both know the answer. You and I may know the difference between an actual translation and a paraphrase, but the average pew-sitter couldn't tell you the difference nor could they differentiate between a "dynamic equivalence" and a "formal equivalence".

Your concern for my credibility is admirable as well. The point of the OP was to ascertain opinions re: critical translation usage vs. the decay of Christianity in America. I suspected the Critical Text crowd would see no correlation (or per Logos "cause and effect") at all, and you've all proved my suspicions to be true.
Click to expand...

You do realize you're grasping at straws, right?
 
T-bird1971 said:
Of course not ... but they do speak to the preservation of God's Word, a lack of willingness to hear/understand/obey what He says, the condemnation for those who alter His Word, and the falling away mentioned in previous posts. You asked, you received, you ignored the context.
Click to expand...
But absolutely nothing in those verses specifically point towards the KJV only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top