Korean KJV Onlyists

[TimV]

Josh, I don't want to come on as slamming you (although I do expect a clear, yes or no answer to my question as I would like to assume you have integrity) so I'll mention that I am on record here saying that I firmly believe anyone involved in translating the Bible should be an ordained Elder.

I have to believe this, since I, for the life of me, can't see how the gift and qualification of teaching God's people can NOT be a part of the translation process. So, I'd rather that people like Erasmus and W&H would have stayed out of the process.

This is just to let you know that I do think you have a point worth serious consideration.

Best
Tim

 

[christianhope]

If what you say concerning the 200 byzantine readings we have today on Rev 16:5 contradict the TR- I would still say the TR is much better compared to all the other textual changes brought in by the eclectic method, which I see as destructive on a strategic scale to the church over a long period of time

Are you willing to answer? Would you be willing to change the TR if that were the case?

I'm still studying to answer Tim, I'm not sure what view I take regarding the TR as yet, whether is be wholly without error as Edward Hill apparently held, or what John Burgon held that it could use a few corrections.

-----Added 8/10/2009 at 09:32:41 EST-----

Josh, I don't want to come on as slamming you (although I do expect a clear, yes or no answer to my question as I would like to assume you have integrity) so I'll mention that I am on record here saying that I firmly believe anyone involved in translating the Bible should be an ordained Elder.

I have to believe this, since I, for the life of me, can't see how the gift and qualification of teaching God's people can NOT be a part of the translation process. So, I'd rather that people like Erasmus and W&H would have stayed out of the process.

This is just to let you know that I do think you have a point worth serious consideration.

Best
Tim

That's great Tim, of course I would agree with you on these points.

 

[Pergamum]

I do not believe that one must be ordained to be a translator.

There are thousnads of languages out there that need translating.

Non-ordained folks work in literacy, helping local peoples to read the Bible, I see no problem with allowing non-ordained to translate the Bible.

The missions community as a whole would also disagree with you, you are in the vast minority on this position, Tim (but that is another thread..and already has been another thread).

 

[ThomasCartwright]

Josh, I don't want to come on as slamming you (although I do expect a clear, yes or no answer to my question as I would like to assume you have integrity) so I'll mention that I am on record here saying that I firmly believe anyone involved in translating the Bible should be an ordained Elder.

I have to believe this, since I, for the life of me, can't see how the gift and qualification of teaching God's people can NOT be a part of the translation process. So, I'd rather that people like Erasmus and W&H would have stayed out of the process.

This is just to let you know that I do think you have a point worth serious consideration.

Best
Tim

Tim

It is easy to posit questions that no one can answer about manuscripts that have not been examined. The vast majority of the extant Byzantine Manuscripts have not even been read through once let alone transcribed. You perennially try to build arguments from silence without a Scriptural presupposition.

I have asked you numerous questions on this board and you have ducked answering a single one! It does not give you much credibility in haranging new members on their failure to answer your supposed killer question of Rev 16:5.

Try starting from a Scriptural presuppositional position and you may find some degree of certainty. I will pose you two questions and then allow you all the time in the world (which you clearly have in your copious unrelated postings). So, here goes:

(1) What Scriptural and historical presuppositional view do you have that guides a believer to all the perfect Words of God today?

(2) What Scriptural and historical presuppositional view do you have that guides a believer to be certain today that there are 66 books in the New Testament Canon?

Josh - I suggest you avoid answering his red herrings until he answers these foundational questions. It is a bit like arguing with an atheist who refuses to deal with the answering the objective source of his worldview but keeps talking about the supposed light years distance of the stars hoping that you will simply give in if repeated ad nauseum.

 

[Ron Henzel]

When I was in my second year of Bible college one of my floormates was a Korean named James Kang. He had a t-shirt that read, "Kang, James Version."

 

[TimV]

It is easy to posit questions that no one can answer about manuscripts that have not been examined. The vast majority of the extant Byzantine Manuscripts have not even been read through once let alone transcribed. You perennially try to build arguments from silence without a Scriptural presupposition.

"It must be out there, since my theory demands it". It's just another demand that one prove a negative, which is typical of conspiracy theories. We went through this with Tree vs. Book in Rev 22:19, with Rob getting a hold of a copy of Hoskier. So I'll call you on this. How many copies are there of Rev. chapter 16? Give me at least some idea. And where are those that have not been read through kept? You and I can personally contact those who have them and ask about the reading of that passage.

I have asked you numerous questions on this board and you have ducked answering a single one! It does not give you much credibility in haranging new members on their failure to answer your supposed killer question of Rev 16:5.

The fact that you haven't been able to comprehend my answers, or disagree with them doesn't mean I've ducked.

Try starting from a Scriptural presuppositional position and you may find some degree of certainty. I will pose you two questions and then allow you all the time in the world (which you clearly have in your copious unrelated postings). So, here goes:

7 kids and two businesses don't leave anyone with too much time. I may even get a PhD from an unaccredited online source some day ;-)

(1) What Scriptural and historical presuppositional view do you have that guides a believer to all the perfect Words of God today?

As I've tried to explain to you, Christ is our example in all things. 99% of scholars trained in accredited institutes of higher learning throughout the ages say that He quoted from two distinct and at times contradictory textual families. And the way that you and Steve counter that is to say the Septuagint is a titanic conspiracy theory. Actually you have to, otherwise your theory sinks like the HMS Hood, and with the same speed.

(2) What Scriptural and historical presuppositional view do you have that guides a believer to be certain today that there are 66 books in the New Testament Canon?

Universal agreement from orthodox scholars. In other words, the exact opposite of what you do with the Septuagint. I don't have the arrogance to question that sort of witness.

Josh - I suggest you avoid answering his red herrings until he answers these foundational questions. It is a bit like arguing with an atheist who refuses to deal with the answering the objective source of his worldview but keeps talking about the supposed light years distance of the stars hoping that you will simply give in if repeated ad nauseum.

Ranks gettin' a bit thin, Mr. F?

 

[py3ak]

[Moderator]
Gentlemen, if you cannot be courteous in replying to one another and overlook offences from the other side, then if you wish to continue the discussion you will have to do so in another venue.
[/Moderator]